alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: winkers@usfamily.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:39:37 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,

Marie Winker

Burnsville, MN 55337
NO. 07-02-0266-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

AUGUST 8, 2002

______________________________

MICHAEL MOOMAW, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 32349-D; HONORABLE DON EMERSON, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

Appellant Michael Moomaw filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal on August 2, 2002,

averring that he no longer wishes to prosecute his appeal. The Motion to Dismiss is

signed by both appellant and his attorney. 

Without passing on the merits of the case, appellant’s motion for voluntary dismissal

is granted and the appeal is hereby dismissed. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Having dismissed
2

the appeal at appellant’s personal request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and

our mandate will issue forthwith. 

Phil Johnson

 Justice

Do not publish.
From: BSTROM1953@YAHOO.COM

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:49:00 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,

William Stromberger

Edwall, WA 99008
From: gywhit@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Conscience: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:41:20 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,

Gerald whitmarsh

Edmonds, WA 98020
From: aprenevost@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:34:35 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,

Aimee Prenevost

Geneseo, IL 61254
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Bank of America, N.A.

, * From the 259 th District Court

of Jones County,

Trial Court No. 024557

.

Vs. No. 11

- 21

- 00 137

- CV * October 21

, 2021

Rolan F. Floyd

, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(P anel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and Williams, J.)

This court has considered Bank of America N.A. ’s motion to dismiss this

appeal and concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance

with this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of

this appeal are taxed against Bank of America, N.A

.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA CRISTINA ALDACO-DE

CARRANZA, a.k.a. Maria Cristina

Aldaco, a.k.a. Maria Cristina Aldaco-Elias,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-73145

Agency No. A043-951-692

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 8, 2011** 

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Maria Cristina Aldaco-De Carranza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing

FILED

MAR 23 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-73145

her appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional

violations in immigration proceedings. Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.

2001). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. 

Contrary to Alcado-De Carranza’s contention, Congress comported with

equal protection when it repealed suspension of deportation and replaced it with

cancellation of removal as the available form of relief for aliens who were placed

in removal proceedings on or after April 1, 1997. See Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft,

324 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir. 2003); Hernandez-Mezquita v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d

1161, 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2002).

We do not consider Alcado-De Carranza’s contentions regarding hardship

and her convictions, because her failure to establish continuous physical presence

is dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A).

 We lack jurisdiction to consider Aldaco-De Carranza’s challenge to the

BIA’s October 8, 2008, order denying her motion to reopen because she did not

timely petition for review of that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS,

315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
3 08-73145

Joubin Nasseri’s motion to withdraw as counsel for petitioner is granted. 

The Clerk shall change the docket to reflect that petitioner is proceeding pro se. 

Petitioner’s address is: 1501 W. West Ave., Fullerton, CA 92883.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6261
RONNIE L. SIMMONS, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus H. R. POWELL, Warden; W. COPELAND, Assistant Warden; JAMES POPE, DCE Principal; J. DAVID, DCE Regional Director, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-1143) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 3, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie L. Simmons, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order overruling his objections to the assessed partial filing fee and granting him an additional thirty days to pay the fee. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 60991.

protest 293152-K (New York).

#### Louis Greenberg & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bamboo poles similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 59620, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Statement





Pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officer of Luxemburg Bancshares, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that:



(1)

the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

(2)

the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:  August 9, 2002





/s/ John A. Slatky

John A. Slatky

President and Chief Executive Officer
From: jreajudi@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:07:32 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,

James Thompson

Donna, TX 78537
No. 98-10876

-1-

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-10876

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TONY PEÑA MENDOZA,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:97-CR-81-2

--------------------

February 16, 2000

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Tony Peña Mendoza moves to

withdraw as appellate counsel and has filed a brief as required

by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Although Mendoza

was informed by the Clerk’s Office that he was entitled to file a

response to counsel’s Anders brief, he has not filed a response. 

Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses

no nonfrivolous issues in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 
No. 98-10876

-2-

5th Cir. R. 42.2.
From: juge.roland@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:41:47 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,

Roland Juge

Gretna, LA 70056
From: saundrat03@npgcable.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Teacher:comment on (Comment: RIN 1210-AB44)

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:45:16 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,

Sandra Tanner

Sedona, AZ 86336
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of CurrencySharesSMRussian Ruble Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K for the
fiscal period ended October 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joe Arruda, Chief Financial Officer of Rydex Specialized Products LLC, the Sponsor of the Trust, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.

Date: January 14, 2010



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ JOE ARRUDA                                       
|Joe Arruda*                                          
|Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer)



|* | The Registrant is a trust and Joe Arruda is signing in his capacity as the principal financial officer of Rydex Specialized Products LLC, the Sponsor
of the Registrant.
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------