alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: albert.tartaglino@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:31:52 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Albert Tartaglino

Riverton, CT 06065
No. 65167.

#### Consolidated Enterprises, Inc., and Arthur J. Humphreys et al. *v.*United States,

protests 214657-K, etc. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that .the merchandise consists of nylon gill nets similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 63947, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2011-0454 Directorate ID: 2009-SW-54-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France (ECF) Model SA-365C, SA-365C1, SA-365C2, SA-365N, 

SA-365N1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, and SA-366G1Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 37 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to modify the main rotor frequency adapters to 

reduce the temperature in the area, to prevent failure of the star arm end, severe vibration, and 

subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $960

Labor per Helicopter

(12 x $85/work-hour)

$1,020

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $1,980

Total US Fleet Cost $73,260

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Gary Roach
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD ANN ARBOR, MI 48105 - 2498 OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION July 22, 2011 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Meeting with Hino FROM: Angela Cullen , Mechanical Engineer TO: Docket EPA - HQ - OAR- 2010 - 0162 This m emorandum documents a meeting held on January 14 , 201 1 between Hino, DOT, and EPA. The attendees of the meeting were: Hino: Seiichi Yamaguchi, Dr. Yoshiinhide Takenaka, Sato Chikako , Richard Gezelle DOT: Angel Jackso n EPA: Cle Jacks on, James, Sanchez, By ron Bunker, Houshun Zhang The meeting also discussed the evaluation of HILS test procedures .
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

__________________________

WALTER WOJTCZAK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee.

__________________________

2013-5025

__________________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in case no. 12-CV-0449, Judge Margaret M. 

Sweeney.

__________________________

ON MOTION

__________________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of Walter Wojtczak’s motion to 

withdraw his appeal,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed. 

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

Case: 13-5025 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 02/28/2013
WALTER WOJTCZAK V. US 2

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

s26 

Issued As A Mandate: February 28, 2013

Case: 13-5025 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 02/28/2013
From: jbctwo@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:04:28 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Jack Cummins

Omaha, NE 68157
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

December 9, 2005

Ms. Catherine Luft

Denton County District Attorney’s Office

1450 East McKinney

Denton, TX 76201

Mr. Robert H. Wiley

P. O.  Box 172

Denton, TX 76202

Mr. Lanham Odom

101 S. Woodrow Lane, Ste. B

Denton, TX 76205

Ms. Tiffany L. Haertling

Holmes Woods Diggs & Eames 

1517 Centre Place Drive, Suite 300

Denton, TX 76205

Mr. L. James Ashmore

1660 South Stemmons, Suite 300

Lewisville, TX 75067

RE:Case Number:  05-0241

Court of Appeals Number:  02-04-00026-CV

Trial Court Number:  2002-10604-16

Style:IN THE INTEREST OF J.P.B., A CHILD

Dear Counsel:

Today, the Supreme Court of Texas granted the petition for review and delivered the enclosed per curiam opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  This is the judgment that will issue in mandate form to the lower court if no motion for rehearing is filed or if a filed motion for rehearing is denied.PRIVATE  

Sincerely,

Andrew Weber, Clerk

by Gena Pelham, Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 05-0241Page 1**
From: dbaril@nhvt.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:51:02 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Richard A. Baril

Meriden, NH 03770
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board

# AGENCY:

Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the appointment of the members of the Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board for the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. The purpose of the Performance Review Board is to make written recommendations on each executive's annual summary ratings, performance-based pay adjustment, and performance awards to the appointing authority.

# DATES:

This notice is applicable on September 27, 2023.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kelly Powell, HR Specialist, at 202-942-1681.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Title 5, U.S. Code, 4314(c)(4), requires that the appointment of Performance Review Board members be published in the                     **Federal Register**                     before Board service commences. The following persons will serve on the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board's Performance Review Board which will review initial summary ratings to ensure the ratings are consistent with established performance requirements, reflect meaningful distinctions among senior executives based on their relative performance and organizational results and provide recommendations for ratings, awards, and pay adjustments in a fair and equitable manner: Vijay Desai, Gisile Goethe, Sean McCaffrey, and Dharmesh Vashee.                

Dharmesh Vashee,

General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.

[FR Doc. 2023-21055 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
From: psychothep@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:37:04 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Mary Russell

Perris, CA 92570
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (i)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.
 Dated: September 10, 2007
    
    /s/ SALLY FRAME KASAKSSally Frame KasaksChief Executive OfficerPacific Sunwear of California, Inc.
(Principal Executive Officer)Dated: September 10, 2007
    
    /s/ GERALD M. CHANEY

Gerald M. Chaney
Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc.
(Principal Financial Officer)
#### Shirley Morgan, Plaintiff-Respondent, v New York Telephone, Defendant-Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, and AT&T, Defendant-Appellant and Second Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. City of New York, First and Second Third-Party Defendant-Respondent; Nepon Electric Corporation of America et al., Second Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 999]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant AT&T appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), dated July 1,1994, which denied its motion, in effect, to reargue its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

*730Ordered the appeal is dismissed, with costs payable by the appellant to the plaintiff-respondent.

Although the appellant denominated its motion as one to renew, because it offered additional evidence which was in its possession at the time of the previous motion, we deem it to be a motion to reargue *(see, First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v Ruby Land Dev.,*215 AD2d 721; *Price v Patagonia,*212 AD2d 765; *Matter of Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Pellegrino,*203 AD2d 457).

The denial of a motion to reargue is not appealable *(see, Michaelson v Scaduto,*205 AD2d 507). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
No. 60174.

protest 219783-K (San Francisco).

#### W. A. Ballinger & Co. *v.*United States,

*313Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that 20 percent of the merchandise consists of rags used chiefly for papermaking, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained with respect to said 20 percent of the merchandise.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1495 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1495

   Supporting the goals and ideals of National Assisted Living Week.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 24, 2008

 Mr. English of Pennsylvania submitted the following resolution; which 
          was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Supporting the goals and ideals of National Assisted Living Week.

Whereas approximately one million people live in assisted living across the 
        United States;
Whereas the first of seventy-seven million Baby Boomers will begin to reach 
        retirement age in 2011;
Whereas an estimated 36,000 facilities provide the assisted living services used 
        by the elderly and those with disabilities in the United States;
Whereas assisted living is a long-term care service that fosters choice, 
        dignity, independence, and autonomy for the elderly and people with 
        disabilities across the United States; and
Whereas National Assisted Living Week highlights the privilege, value, and 
        responsibility of passing the legacies of the lives of the elderly and 
        those with disabilities down through the generations that care for and 
        love them: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of National Assisted 
        Living Week; and
            (2) urges all people of the United States--
                    (A) to visit friends and loved ones who reside at 
                assisted living facilities; and
                    (B) to learn more about assisted living services, 
                including how assisted living services benefit 
                communities in the United States.
                                 <all>
```
Before the Third Division,

February 1, 1960

No. 63764.

protest 181749-K/14060 (New Orleans).

#### W. A. Taylor & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: mspjohn@charter.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:18:47 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Mildred baker

Chino, CA 91710
Aug. 13, 2015 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Amendment to Exemption 11842 ProFly Drones SenseFly eBee 

This is a request for an amendment to Exemption No. 11842 Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–

1148, granted to ProFly Drones. This amendment will provide for the addition of the SenseFly 

eBee sUAS to the inventory of approved aircraft for use during VLOS operations currently 

covered under Exemption 11842. 

These airframes are commercially available to the general public, as are all components used to 

complete them. In addition, all configurations of these components follow standard, wellestablished practices. No aspect of these aircraft is proprietary to ProFly Drones in design or 

manufacture. 

SenseFly eBee 

Extended_User_Manual_eBee_and_eBee_Ag_v16.pdf (Uploaded to Docket)