alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: spudwot7@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:23:11 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,

Wendy Trahan

New Iberia, LA 70560
From: jaycortese@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:59:58 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,

Jay Cortese

Sacramento, CA 95826
No. 61012.

protest 290115-K (New York).

#### Mack Motor Truck Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this, court, as amended, the protest was dismissed, fop lack of prosecution.
### SERVE D APRI L 12 , 201 0 v:P l C FiR,\'JS?OR M

U.S
. DEPARTMEN

T O F TRANSPORTATIO

N OFFICE O

F HEARINGS WASHINGTON , D C
I N TH E MATTE RO F HALLOCHE

M PHARM

A CO. , LT D FA A DOCKE

T NO
. CPlONEOOO

l (Civil Penalt

y Action ) DM S NO
. FAA-2010-019 7
NOTIC E OF ASSIGNMENT O FPROCEEDIN G Thi s proceedin g (heretofor

e designate da s Cas e No
. 2009NE700225 ) ha s been assigned t o Administrativ e La

w Judg e Isaa

c D
. Benkin
. Al

l futur e pleading s an

dothe r communication s regarding thi s proceedin g shall b e servedon th e Judge , th e FA A Hearin g Docket , an

dth e othe r person s name

di n the attache dServic e List
.

Attachmen t - Servic e Lis t Rjpmi e A
. Yode r Chief Administrativ e Law ,FA A Docke t No
. CPlONEOOO

l (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L & ON E COP Y Hearin g Docke t Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Attentio n Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Roo m2014 ^

ON E COP Y H e Xu , Respondent' s Counse l Dehen g La w FirmShenzhe n Offic e 11/F , Towe r

B , Anlia n Plaza , 401 8 Jintian Road , Futia n District , Shenzhe n Guangdon g Province , Chin a TEL : 86-755-8828648 8 FAX : 86-755-8828649 9 e-mai l address : Shenzhen(2)4ehenglaw.co m Palloche mPharm aCo. , Ltd. , Presiden t 17F , Venu s Scienc e Incubat e Cente r No
. 6 0 Xingguan g Road , Ne w Nort h Zon e Chongqing , Chin a40112 1 TEL : 236-703-080 8 R
. Bennet t Sargent , Complainant' s Counse l Federal Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counse l 1 2 New Englan dExecutiv e Park , ANE- 7 Burlington , M A 0180 3 TEL : 781-238-705 8 FAX : 781-238-705 5 Th e Honorabl e Isaa c D
. Benki n Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E
. Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D.C
. 2059 0 TEL : Attorne y 202-366-2139 ; Lega l Assistant : 202-366-512 1 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Service wa

s b y U.S
. Mail
. Fo

r servic e i n person o r b y expeditedcourier , us e the followin g address : Hearin g Docket, Federa

l Aviation Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S
. W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building - Roo m2014 , Washington , D

C 20591 , Attn : Hearing Docke t Clerk, AGC-430
.
From: cgustke@suddenlink.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:25:00 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,

Carl Gustke

Cabot, AR 72023
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 66474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20993]



[[Page 66474]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4528-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]


Mississippi; Amendment No. 9 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-4528-DR), dated April 5, 2020, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on June 29, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Robert D. 
Samaan, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer 
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Gracia B. Szczech as 
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-20993 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
J. 

court did not err in denying his petition as procedurally time barred. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Hardesty 

Douglas 

cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge 

Johnnie Lee Parham 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A e 

J. 

J.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 282 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States 

Postal Service should discontinue the practice of contracting out mail 

delivery services. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 28, 2007 

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

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the United States Postal Service should discontinue the 

practice of contracting out mail delivery services. 

Whereas letter carriers of the United States Postal Service 

provide mail delivery service to over 144,000,000 homes 

and businesses across the Nation; 

Whereas the contracting out of mail delivery services is being 

increasingly promoted by the Postal Service as a key 

business strategy for its core function; 

Whereas by contracting out letter carrier positions, the Postal 

Service is bypassing the hiring process that ensures that 

only qualified people handle America’s mail; 

Whereas the contracting out of mail delivery services limits 

the ability of the Postal Service to prevent, investigate, 


CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 282 IH 

and prosecute mail theft, mail fraud, and other illegal 

uses of the mail; and 

Whereas the protection of our mail delivery services is a vital 

component of our national security: Now, therefore be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that the United States Postal Service should 

3 discontinue the practice of contracting out mail delivery 

4 services. 

Æ 


CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
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

HONG LING,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-70657

Agency No. A096-349-752

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 10, 2012** 

Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Hong Ling, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen proceedings

based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion a motion to reopen, and de novo

FILED

SEP 17 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-70657

questions of law and claims of due process violations. Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d

592, 595 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for

review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ling’s motion to reopen for

failure to show a due process violation where Ling did not establish that her former

attorney’s alleged actions regarding her birth certificate rendered her proceedings

unfair. See Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 373 (9th Cir. 2010).

We lack jurisdiction to review Ling’s contention that the attorney who

represented her before the BIA provided ineffective assistance because she failed

to raise the issue before the BIA, and thereby failed to exhaust her administrative

remedies. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (no

jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented before the BIA).

Ling’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
Filed 3/16/10 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2010 ND 36

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Cody John Henrickson, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20090229

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, the Honorable Sonja Clapp, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Nancy D. Yon, Assistant State's Attorney, and Sean B. Kasson, third-year law student, P.O. Box 5607, Grand Forks, N.D. 58206-5607, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Mark T. Blumer, P.O. Box 475, Valley City, N.D. 58072, for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.

State v. Henrickson

No. 20090229

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Cody John Henrickson appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of escape.  On appeal, Henrickson argues there was not sufficient evidence to convict him of escape.  He also argues the trial court failed to consider all sentencing factors and imposed an excessive sentence.  The record contains sufficient evidence to support the conviction.  The trial court is afforded wide discretion in sentencing, and “[t]his Court will vacate a district court’s sentencing decision only if the court acted outside the limits prescribed by statute or substantially relied on an impermissible factor in determining the severity of the sentence.”  State v. Henes, 2009 ND 42, ¶ 6, 763 N.W.2d 502.  We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Mary Muehlen Maring

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom

Carol Ronning Kapsner
From: cliff18hc@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:00:51 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,

Carolyn Chandler

Winchester, VA 22602
CERTIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350) 

In connection with the Annual Report of Santos Resource Corp., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the year ended February 28, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Richard Pierce, President and Treasurer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his 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 result of operations of the Company. 

| Date: May 31, 2011
 
/s/ Richard Pierce
 
 
Richard		Pierce		President and Treasurer 		(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
 

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Santos Resource Corp. and will be retained by Santos Resource Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.] |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Case No. 10,201.

#### NEW YORK BALANCE DRY DOCK CO. v. HOWES et al.

[Affirming Case No. 10.202. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
P.1 

OAR Box 1802 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

26) IV-E-21 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/4/200811:57:59 AM Sheet 26 of 117 
P.2 

jV-g'l. 

August 5,1998 

Note to: WEPCO/PAL Notice of Availability, NSR Reform Docket # A-90-37 

Subject: Report of Meeting Held August 4,1998 Concerning the WEPCO/PAL Notice 

of Availability 

From: Mike Sewell, EPA, OAQPS 

The majority staff of the House Commerce Committee requested a meeting with EPA to 

discuss the Notice of Availability (NO A) pubhshed in the July 24,1998 Federal Register that 

seeks comment on alternatives for revising the NSR regulations that apply to modifications at 

electric utilities commonly referred to as the WEPCO rules. The notice also seeks comment on 

legal and environmental concerns about the proposed plantwide applicability limitation (PAL) 

rules for modifications at existing major stationary source. The meeting was held on August 4, 

1998 from 2:30 to 3:30 PM in the Raybum building in Washington, D. C. Attending for the 

House committee were Joe Stanko and Bob Meyers. Attending for EPA were Lydia Wegman 

and Mike Sewell of OAQPS, Paul Stolpman and Elizabeth Cummings of OAR, and Jon Devine 

ofOGC. 

At the meeting EPA presented a brief history of WEPCO, an overview of the proposed NO A, 

and an update on the status of WEPCO litigation. As discussed in the notice, EPA explained that 

the WEPCO alternative and review of WEPCO in general are related to the litigation and to the 

deregulation of the utility industry. In response to questions from the staffers EPA 

acknowledged that the WEPCO alternative was more enforceable than the current rule. The 

staffers also expressed interest concerning other regulatory efforts that affect electric utilities 

including an upcoming NSPS, the ozone SIP call, and the acid rain provisions of title IV. EPA 

also briefly explained EPA's other proposed NSR Reform efforts that may provide more 

flexibility to all sources, including utilities. Reform items discussed were PALs, an expanded 

baseline for determining actual emissions, and pollution control projects.