alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: esaw2@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:19:14 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,

Don McDaniel

Fort Walton Beach, FL 32548
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000874534
<NAME> OUTDOOR SYSTEMS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          12,707
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  163,912
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               278,503
<PP&E>                                       1,894,768
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,826,519
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          258,429
<BONDS>                                      1,645,343
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,847
<OTHER-SE>                                     808,931
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,826,519
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               374,285
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  263,493
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              74,090
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 38,534
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,643
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,891
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12


</TABLE>
Case No. 14,757.

#### UNITED STATES v. The CATHERINE.

[See Case No. 14,755.]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                            5272
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      51842
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           28143
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             27191
<LOANS>                                         178553
<ALLOWANCE>                                       1798
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  271666
<DEPOSITS>                                      214322
<SHORT-TERM>                                      5826
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               1618
<LONG-TERM>                                      27035
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           689
<OTHER-SE>                                       22176
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  271666
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   3708
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 1219
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     4
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  4931
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                1880
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2355
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             2576
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       51
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (5)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   2094
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    814
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         814
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       675
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.28
<LOANS-NON>                                       1527
<LOANS-PAST>                                       379
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   2189
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  1783
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       40
<RECOVERIES>                                         4
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 1798
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              1798
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            547


</TABLE>
No. 66025.

#### Filletta Fish and W. J. Byrnes & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/13372, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fish similar in all material respects to the fish blocks the subject of *The Lee Herrmann Co., a/c The Coldwater Seafood Corp.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 49, C.D. 2101), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
## Draft Proposal CB-28

This concept has been developed by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) as a possible code

change proposal to the Commercial provisions of the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code

(IECC). Interested parties are asked to submit any and all comments on DOE's initial concepts and draft

code change proposals. For instructions on submitting comments, visit:

www.energycodes.gov/development/ commercial/codes/iecc/concepts/



## Chiller “Listed/Labeled” Compar ed to “Certified” (CB-28)

Objective: Clarify the code provisions covering positive displacement chilling packages on the issue of

“listed” and “labeled” equipment compared to “certified.”

Suggested Code Change Proposal

Revise Section C403.2.3.2 as follows:

C403.2.3.2. Positive displacement (air- and water cooled) chilling packages. Equipment with a

leaving fluid temperature of higher than 32 0 F, shall meet the requirements of Table C403.2.3(7) when

listed and labeled as being tested or certified with water at standard rating conditions, in accordance with

the referenced test procedure.

Reason: The requirement for equipment with a leaving fluid temperature of 32 0 F was an error and the

requirement should apply to equipment with leaving fluid temperature greater than 32 0 F

. The term

“certified” is not defined but generally refers to some level of approval by a recognized and approved

third party. The inclusion of the defined terms listed and labeled provide what is intended and some

basis for compliance verification by the code community and direction for designers and specifiers in

documenting compliance.

Cost Impact: There is no cost impact associated with this proposed change.
From: edwalsh33@live.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:43:15 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,

Edward D Walsh

Sarasota, FL 34232
No. 69625.

#### Weather-Rite Sportswear Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 63/5557-16659, etc. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Nichols, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of articles of synthetic rubber similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Weather-Rite Sportswear Co., Inc.*(52 CCPA —, C.A.D. 848), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**Exhibit 99.11**

 

**CONSENT OF LARRY PILGRIM**

 

I, Larry Pilgrim, hereby consent to the references to, and the use of any information derived from, the technical report titled “Ming Copper-Gold Mine Project, NI 43-101 Technical Report Prepared for Rambler Metals and Mining Canada Ltd.” dated October 13, 2010 (the “Report”) in the annual report on Form 40-F of Sandstorm Gold, Ltd. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 and any amendments thereto (the “Annual Report”) being filed with United States Securities and Exchange Commission, which Annual Report incorporates by reference and attaches as an exhibit the Sandstorm Gold Ltd. Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2012 which refers to information contained in the Report.

 

I also consent to the use of my name, including as an expert or “qualified person,” in connection with the Annual Report.

 

Date: February 18, 2013

 
|   | /s/ Larry Pilgrim                    |
|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   | Name:** **Larry Pilgrim, P. Geo |
|   | Title: Consulting Geologist          |

 

1

----
From: thomasa.schultz@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:28:16 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,

Thomas Schultz

Birmingham, MI 48009
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 19

- 00289

- CR

Frank Anthony CASTILLO

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR0005W

Honorable Steve Hilbig, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

SIGNED September 4, 2019.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez , Justice
June 23, 1975

The Honorable Wilson E. Speir Opinion No. H- 631 Director Texas Department of Public Safety Re: Whether aperson applying 330~ 4087 for an occupational drivers license Austin, Texas 78773 must give proof of an automobile liability insurance policy to the court or to the Department oftPublic Safety. Dear Colonel Speir:

You have requested our opinion concerning a recently enacted amendment to article 668713, section 25a, V. T. C.S. See, 64th Leg. , Senate Bill 58 (1975). The Act applies to convictions ofany offense for which driver’s licenses are automatically suspended, providing in part:

If, by order of the court, the person convicted is not confined or imprisoned, the court may enter an order restricting the operation ofa motor vehicle to the person’s occupation
. . . provided the person gives proof of avalid policy ofautomobile liability

‘ms’urance in accordance with the provisions of the Texas Motor Vehicle Safety-Responsibility Act, as amende~d. (Emphasis added). The Act further provides that the judge shall ‘beable to grant the occupational license for aperiod longer than twelve (12) months provided the person “give[ s] proof to the Department of Public Safety of avalid policy of automobile liabilrt,y insurance in accordance with the Texas Motor Vehicle Safety-Responsibility Act.
. ” Additionally, the Act requires the surrender ofall driver’s licenses and the’forwarding of such license to the Department of Public Safety along with t,herecord of conviction and the court order. The Department is thereupon to issue the restricted Hcense.

Your question is whether the original proof of insurance must be submitted to the Depart,ment, or only to the court issuing the order. The Act expressly requires such proof to be submitted to the Department when “the order is granted for longer than atwelve (12) month period. ” You note that unless proof of insurance is submitted to the Department in al.1instances,

p. 2790The Honorable Wilson E. Speir - Page 2 (H-631)
[t] he person granted the occupa,tional license could cancel the policy immediately after he receives his license, and the Department would have noway of knowing of the cancellation. Prior to the issuance of an occupational license aperson must ‘I[give] proof ofavalid policy of automobile liability i,nsurance in accordance with the provisions of the Texas Motor Vehicle Safety-Responsibility Act.
. ., “which is article 67Olh, V. T. C.S. That Act requires proof of insurance to be submitted to the Department. Sets. 13(c), 19(a), 20(a). In our opinion aperson
“gives proof of avalid policy.
. . in accordance with [article 6701hl” only when he submits such proof to the Department. Accordingly, such proof must be submitted to the Department prior to the issuance of an occupational. driver’s license. SUMMARY

Proof of avalid pol,icy of automobile liability insurance must be submitted to the Department of Public Safety prior to the issuance of an occupational driver’s license. Xery truly yours, 

# !&a%\(77 Lm JOHN L. HILL Attorn,ey General of Texas

tant
Opinion Commit.tee jad

p. 2791
No. 99-40877

-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. 99-40877

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHRIS LESLIE BOLIVAR,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC Nos. 1:96-CV-530

1:93-CR-41-ALL

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

February 16, 2000

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

PER CURIAM:*

 Chris Leslie Bolivar moves this court for a certificate of

appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion wherein he challenged his guilty-plea

conviction for using a telephone to facilitate the distribution

of cocaine base. He argues that his counsel rendered ineffective

assistance by failing to review undercover tapes made by

government agents prior to advising him to plead guilty and by 

failing to advise him of the sentencing disparity between 
No. 99-40877

-2-

powdered cocaine and cocaine base prior to advising him to plead

guilty.

 Bolivar’s request for a COA will be granted only upon a

“substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

§ 2253(c)(2). Because he has made no such showing, Bolivar’s

motion is denied.

 COA DENIED.
#### Allan PARMELEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William PERRILL, Warden, FDC Seatac; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-35388.

D.C. No. CV-98-00727-RSL.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.*

Decided June 25, 2001.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and RONALD M. GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Washington state prisoner, Allan Par-melee appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in his action alleging that prison officials violated his constitutional rights and denied him meaningful access to the courts. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the grant of summary judgment, *Barnett v. Centoni,*31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and affirm the grant of summary judgment for the reasons stated by the district court’s October 29, 1999, and November 24, 1999 orders. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), *see Ferdik v. Bonzelet,*963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992), and affirm the district court’s dismissal of count I.

Because Parmelee failed to comply with an order of the court, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Count I of his complaint. *See id.*at 1260-62 (listing the five relevant dismissal factors).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
From: Kathleen Andrewski

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:25:35 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Andrewski
Bolingbrook, Illinois