alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: crwoodruff5@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:09:11 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,

Cathy Woodruff

Mineral Wells, WV 26150
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 369 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 21, 2008.
Whereas osteoporosis, a disease characterized by low bone mass, structural 
        deterioration of bone, and increased susceptibility to fractures, is a 
        public health threat for an estimated 44 million Americans;
Whereas in the United States, 10 million individuals already have the disease 
        and almost 34 million more are estimated to have low bone mass, placing 
        them at increased risk for osteoporosis;
Whereas one in two women and one in four men over age 50 will have an 
        osteoporosis-related fracture in her or his remaining lifetime;
Whereas building strong bones during childhood and adolescence can be the best 
        defense against developing osteoporosis later;
Whereas osteoporosis is often thought of as an older person's disease, but bone 
        health is a concern for any age;
Whereas substantial risk has been reported in people of all ethnic backgrounds;
Whereas although osteoporosis often has no symptoms in its early stages, a bone 
        mineral density test can be used to assess fracture risk and to 
        establish the diagnosis and severity of the disease in people at risk 
        before they start fracturing their bones;
Whereas in 2005 osteoporosis was responsible for an estimated 2 million 
        fractures and $19 billion in costs;
Whereas the Surgeon General believes that bone health is critically important to 
        the overall health and quality of the life of Americans; that it is in 
        jeopardy and will only get worse if left unchecked; and that great 
        improvements in the bone health status of Americans can be made by 
        applying what is already known about early prevention, assessment, 
        diagnosis, and treatment;
Whereas optimum bone health and prevention of osteoporosis can be maximized by a 
        balanced diet rich in calcium and vitamin D; weight-bearing exercise; 
        and a healthy lifestyle with no smoking or excessive alcohol intake; and
Whereas May 2008 would be an appropriate month to observe National Osteoporosis 
        Awareness and Prevention Month: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports the goals and ideals of 
National Osteoporosis Awareness and Prevention Month and urges the people of the 
United States to observe appropriate programs and activities with respect to 
osteoporosis, including talking with their health care professionals about their 
bone health.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
From: tharveyesq@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:50:52 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,

Thomas Harvey

Belmont, MA 02478
From: gldngrl52@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:56:37 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,

Sheryl Georgi

, 96080-1783
From: cymrych@charter.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:07:47 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,

John Schommer

Watertown, WI 53094
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 190 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on the Budget in 

the One Hundred Tenth Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2007 

Mr. SPRATT submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on 

the Budget in the One Hundred Tenth Congress. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES. 

3 For the expenses of the Committee on the Budget 

4 (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Com5 mittee’’), including the expenses of all staff salaries, there 

6 shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts of the House 

7 of Representatives for committee salaries and expenses, 

8 not more than $12,026,478 for the One Hundred Tenth 

9 Congress. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 190 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS. 

2 Of the amount specified in section 1— 

3 (1) not more than $6,013,239 shall be available 

4 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

5 noon on January 3, 2007, and ending immediately 

6 before noon on January 3, 2008; and 

7 (2) not more than $6,013,239 shall be available 

8 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

9 noon on January 3, 2008, and ending immediately 

10 before noon on January 3, 2009. 

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS. 

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on 

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the 

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner 

15 directed by the Committee on House Administration. 

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS. 

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall 

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by 

19 the Committee on House Administration. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
#### Hector Santiago SALGADO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Rosie B. GARCIA, Warden; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 99-55918.

D.C. No. CV-98-09700-DT-SH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 6, 2001.*

Decided June 13, 2001.

Before D.W. NELSON, FERNANDEZ, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2)

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner, Hector Santiago Salgado, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus as untimely. We reverse.

It is now clear that AEDPA’s one-year state of limitations runs from the day *after*a conviction becomes final. *See Patterson v. Stewart,*251 F.3d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a) applies to calculation of AEDPA’s one-year grace period). It is also established that “the statute of limitations is tolled from the time the first state habeas petition is filed until the California Supreme Court rejects the petitioner’s final collateral challenge.” *Nino v. Galaza,*183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir.1999). Since Salgado’s conviction became' final on October 14, 1997, his state habeas petition, filed on October 14, 1998, was timely. His federal habeas petition, filed on December 3, 1998, was also timely because the California Supreme Court did not reject his final collateral challenge until January 13, 1999.

We decline to address the respondents’ additional arguments, which were not included in the Certificate of Appealability (“COA”). *See Hiivala v. Wood,*195 F.3d 1098, 1103 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (holding that AEDPA limits the scope of appellate review to issues specified in the COA and that the proper procedure for *505broadening the scope of the appeal is to file a motion).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts in this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Jose U. ALTERADO, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 01-3166.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 6, 2001.

ORDER

Jose U. Alterado has failed to respond to the court order of April 23, 2001, to show cause why his petition for review should not be dismissed as frivolous. He had also failed to prosecute this appeal prior to the issuance of the show cause order.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The petition for review is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
Before the First Division,

April 8, 1964

No. 68419.

protests 325678-K, etc. (New York).

#### Flare Import Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

*309Opinion by

Oliver, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass or plastic articles similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstracts 64186 and 67488, respectively, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 67490.

#### Selectile Co., Inc. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/12847 (A), etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of polished marble slabs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Selectile Co., Inc., Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., of L.A., et al.*(49 CCPA 116, C.A.D. 805), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 425 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Luis Posada 

Carriles, mastermind of the vicious attack on Cubana Airlines Flight 

455 and perpetrator of numerous other acts of terrorism, should be 

certified as a terrorist and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2007 

Mr. SERRANO (for himself, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. 

BERMAN, and Ms. LEE) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

Luis Posada Carriles, mastermind of the vicious attack 

on Cubana Airlines Flight 455 and perpetrator of numerous other acts of terrorism, should be certified as a 

terrorist and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. 

Whereas the attack of Cubana Airlines Flight 455 in October 

of 1976 took the lives of 73 innocent people, making it 

one of the worst terrorist attacks on a plane in the Americas; 

Whereas declassified FBI and CIA documents report Posada’s participation in planning the attack on Flight 455; 

Whereas, in 1985, Posada escaped from a Venezuelan prison 

after being charged with the bombing of Flight 455, only 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HRES 425 IH 

to continue his campaign of violent attacks on innocent 

civilians; 

Whereas the Department of Justice has failed to present an 

extradition case to a Federal court at the request of the 

Venezuelan Government, despite treaty obligations which 

call for such actions; 

Whereas a United States District Court threw out all charges 

against Posada on May 8, 2007, allowing Posada to go 

free days before he was set to be tried for immigration 

fraud; 

Whereas the Department of Justice has described Posada as 

‘‘an unrepentant criminal and admitted mastermind of 

terrorist plots’’; and 

Whereas section 236A(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act (8 U.S.C. 1226a(a)) provides authority to certify Posada as an alien terrorist and thus detain him: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That Expressing the sense of the House of 

2 Representatives that Luis Posada Carriles, mastermind of 

3 the vicious attack on Cubana Airlines Flight 455 and per4 petrator of numerous other acts of terrorism, should be 

5 certified as a terrorist and prosecuted to the fullest extent 

6 of the law. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of SINOCOM PHARMACUETICAL, INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 (the "Report"), I, Tuck Wing PANG, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1) The Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the Company's financial position and results of operations.    By: /s/ Tuck Wing PANG, Chief Financial Officer  Date: March 31, 2010
From: renee@firstchoiceclinic.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:55:14 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,

Renee Johnson

Fargo, ND 58104
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

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Varsity Brands, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey G. Webb, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|Dated: August 14, 2003 | /s/JEFFREY G. WEBBJeffrey G. Webb
President and Chief Executive Officer
|---------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Varsity Brands, Inc. and will be retained by Varsity Brands, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---

QuickLinks