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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:12:18 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,

Ruth Churchill

Bethany, OK 73008
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 394 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 394

   Recognizing the city of Port Jervis, New York, on its centennial.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2007

  Mr. Hall of New York submitted the following resolution; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Recognizing the city of Port Jervis, New York, on its centennial.

Whereas the city of Port Jervis is known as the Queen of the Shawangunks, the 
        River City and the Gateway to the Upper Delaware River;
Whereas the land of Port Jervis was first founded by colonists in 1683, 
        incorporated as a village in 1853, and as a city in 1907;
Whereas Port Jervis was a port on the Delaware and Hudson Canal and bears the 
        name of the canal's chief engineer John B. Jervis;
Whereas Port Jervis has long been a transportation hub, at the mouth of the 
        Delaware River, as a center for the Erie Railroad;
Whereas Port Jervis is home of the Tri-States Rock, where the states of New 
        York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania meet;
Whereas the Port Jervis steam engine turntable is the largest in the United 
        States, with a diameter of 115 feet, turned by two 40 horsepower, 440 
        volt, 3 phase electric motors;
Whereas Port Jervis is home to Fort Decker, attacked during the Revolutionary 
        War on July 20, 1779;
Whereas the city of Port Jervis was home to three Members of the U.S. House of 
        Representatives, Marvin Francis, Charles St. John, and native William 
        Stiles Bennet;
Whereas author Stephen Crane lived and wrote in Port Jervis, sitting at the base 
        of the town's Soldiers and Sailors Monument, listening to the soldiers 
        from the 124th NY ``Orange Blossoms'' Regiment; and
Whereas former Port Jervis High School wrestlers, Ed and Lou Banach, won Gold 
        Medals in the 1984 Olympics: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives recognizes the City of 
Port Jervis, New York, on its centennial and the contributions of that 
city to America's historical, political, cultural, and environmental 
heritage.
                                 <all>
```
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A0028. MITCHELL SMITH v. THE STATE.

Following his criminal conviction, Mitchell Smith filed a pro se “Motion to

Cure a Substantive-Void Merger Violation.” The trial court denied the motion on

April 17, 2015, and Mitchell filed both an application for discretionary appeal and a

direct appeal.

1 The application was denied on the merits. See Case Number

A15D0410, decided June 3, 2015. We have before us the direct appeal.

“It is axiomatic that the same issue cannot be relitigated ad infinitum. The

same is true of appeals of the same issue on the same grounds.” Echols v. State, 243

Ga. App. 775, 776 (534 SE2d 464) (2000); see also Jordan v. State, 253 Ga. App.

510, 511 (2) (559 SE2d 528) (2002). Our rulings in the prior application acts as res

judicata. See Hook v. Bergen, 286 Ga. App. 258, 261 (1) (649 SE2d 313) (2007). 

Thus, Smith is estopped from seeking further judicial review on these issues. See id;

see also Ross v. State, 310 Ga. App. 326, 328 (713 SE2d 438) (2011) (law of the case

rule bars successive void sentence appeals). Accordingly, this appeal is hereby

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

1 Mitchell filed his direct appeal with the Supreme Court, which transferred the

matter to this Court.

09/04/2015

September 04, 2015
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6623
“REVEREND DR.” ROBERT T. WEIDOW, #92391941, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHLAND COUNTY; RICHLAND COUNTY SOLICITOR’S OFFICE; RICHLAND COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE; SUSAN S. QUINN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-00-1072-19BD) Submitted: July 10, 2000 Decided: September 15, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert T. Weidow, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is dated April 25, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on April 27, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was physically entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray , 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Robert T. Weidow appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Weidow v. Richland County, No. CA-00-1072-19BD (D.S.C. Apr. 27, 2000). * We deny Weidow’s motions for bail and appointment of counsel. 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.

AFFIRMED
TS- AMID10/20/40

Attachment # 9

Pt. 2, Sec. B

Additional Information on the Absence of Tank Truck Cleaning Opera tions
From: bevan@hardingfele.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:02:02 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,

Bevan Wulfenstein

Provo, UT 84604
From: rjsjyoung@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:06:33 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,

Joyce Young

Chesterfield, VA 23832
No. 59698.

#### Bien Trading Co., Inc., and D. C. Andrews & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 265076-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the

issues are similar to those involved in Abstract 57104, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 67096.

protests 61/13759, 61/13762, and 62/10676 (Wilmington).

#### Biddle Purchasing Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 113.

No. 124.

No. 383.

No. 538.

No. 389.

No. 416.

No. 418.

#### Campbell et al. *v.*Pennsylvania, Atlas Scraper & Engineering Co. *v.*Pursche, Coppolla et al. *v.*United States, Campisi *v.*United States, Dillard *v.*Jackson’s Atlanta Ready Mix Concrete Co., Inc., In re Alford, Nichols & Company *v.*United States,

*ante,*p. 901;

*ante,*p. 911;

*ante,*p. 920;

*ante,*p. 925;

*ante,*p. 902;

*ante,*p. 910; and

*ante,*p. 911. Petitions for rehearing denied.
No. 64496.

#### John V. Carr & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 321863-K, etc. (Detroit).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of prepared or preserved pork similar in all material *254respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 2100), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-14-0012

SAT Date: 11/1/2013

Print Date: 12/3/2013

Related cases:

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: .

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 1-2 2

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

1 11

Exposure Based Review:

Health: No

Ecotox: Yes

Routes of exposure: Health: Dermal Inhalation 

Ecotox: All releases to water

Fate: ;

Keywords:

 Keywords: LUNG; IRR-E,S,MM,L; AQUATOX

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-14-0012-3/5-6

FATE: Estimations for typical 

Liquid with MP < 25 C (E)

log Kow = 4.21 (E) 

S = Dispersible / 6.57 mg/L at 25 C (ICB / E)

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E)

BP > 400 C (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)

log Koc = 5.66 (E)

log Fish BCF = 0.50 (E)

log Fish BAF = 2.55 (E) 
POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption and biodeg

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk

Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong

PBT Potential: P1B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption is poor from the skin, moderate from the GI 

tract, and good from the lung (analog). Concern for surfactant effects on the lung; irritation to 

eye, skin (chronic), mucous membranes and lung based on surfactant properties of the 

compound.

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 *

daphnid 48-h LC50 11.3

green algal 96-h EC50 6.3

fish _ chronic value 2.5

daphnid _ chronic 

value

1.1

algal _ chronic 

value

2.4

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for Aliphatic Amines-Acids; SAR 

chemical class = Aliphatic Amines; MW 527; S = dispersible (P); liquid with unknown mp (P); 

pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured 

concentrations; DW hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and DW TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

110

SARs Aliphatic Amines

SAR Class Aliphatic Amines

Ecotox Category Aliphatic Amines

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99-1

                    CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 PanAmSat Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph R. Wright,
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 my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements 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 financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.


August 13, 2002                         /s/ Joseph R. Wright
                                        _____________________________________
                                        Joseph R. Wright
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer


                                       39
EPA Meeting with Tank Tech

February 9, 2012

Attendees:

EPA OUST: Liz McDermott, Linda Gerber, Tim Smith, Paul Miller, Tim Roberts, Cho Yi 

Kwan, Dave Hamnett

Tank Tech: David Russell

TR Consulting: Tony Rieck

At this meeting Tank Tech explained a tank they manufacture that has recently received a UL 

listing. They are interested in how this new tank will fit into the UST regulations and plan to 

comment on some ways they believe it should be incorporated into the regulations.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Genomics Centers for Infectious Diseases (U19 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).                    

*Date:*                         October 24-25, 2023.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3F21B, Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Maryam Feili-Hariri, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3F21B, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-669-5026,                         *haririmf@niaid.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 20, 2023.

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-20867 Filed 9-25-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
From: broek5@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:25:51 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,

Brian Broekhuizen

Grand Rapids, MI 49548