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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:48:58 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,

Christie Paxton

Kent, WA 98042
No. 63777.

protests 321296-K, etc. (Laredo).

#### Rio Grande Importing Co. *v.*United States,

*335Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of carrizo baskets the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Chester K. Stoner*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 178, C.D. 2083), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### William Thomas POPE, III, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Sam PRUETT, Warden; Gene Johnson, Director of Department of Corrections, Respondents—Appellees.

No. 05-6678.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 18, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 25, 2005.

William Thomas Pope, III, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

William Thomas Pope, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pope has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Pope’s motions for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal *225contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
From: skshinn@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:35:36 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,

Karen Shinn

Cary, NC 27513
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 56, if the adverse party does not respond as provided in the rule, by affidavits or otherwise

setting forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial, summary judgment, if

appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party. See Rule 56(e).

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

RICHARD A. MONTGOMERY, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, ) CASE NO. C05-1578-MJB

)

v. ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

) MOTION FOR SUMMARY

M/V PACIFIC PRODUCER, et al., ) JUDGMENT

)

Defendants. )

_________________________________ )

Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment against

Defendants for crewmembers’ wage claims. The Court having reviewed the motion and

finding that Plaintiffs have met their burden of demonstrating the absence of genuine

issues of material fact, Defendants having failed to file any opposition to the motion,1

and being fully advised on the premises, hereby ORDERS:

(1) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #20) is GRANTED.

Case 2:05-cv-01578-MJB Document 24 Filed 10/27/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Page - 2

(2) The following crewmembers are entitled to judgment against Defendants

as follows:

Richard A. Montgomery $35.400.00

Reginald Karl Chase $21,306.00

Martha Varner $16,487.00

Matagimalie Fotu $13,280.00

Satini Samifua $16,280.00

Jonathon Stoner $33,120.00

Verneal M. Williams $16,282.00

Total $152,155.00

DATED this 26th day of October, 2006.

AMONICA J. BENTON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01578-MJB Document 24 Filed 10/27/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Page - 3

Case 2:05-cv-01578-MJB Document 24 Filed 10/27/06 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Real Value Estates, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, as the
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies 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 result of operations of
          the Company.

Dated: July 28, 2009
                                          /s/ Marina Karpilovski
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Marina Karpilovski
                                          Principal Financial Officer
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

J. D. CHARLES McMANUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

HENRY RICHARDS,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5564FDB

ORDER DENYING

RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Court’s Order adopting the Report and

Recommendation for failure to file a complaint that demonstrates how the defendant has personally

denied plaintiff a right secured by the Constitution. Reconsideration is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 18th day of July, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05564-FDB Document 22 Filed 07/18/06 Page 1 of 1
From: Jim Flaherty

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:26:22 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,

Jim Flaherty
Monroeville, Pennsylvania
Exhibit
31.1





Section
302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer





I, Dale
Byers, certify that:





1.   I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of MediStaff
Corporation





2.   Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances   under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;





3.   Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations  and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4.   The
registrant's other certifying officers and I; are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:





a)   designed
such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure


that
material information relating to the registrant, including its


consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within


those
entities, particularly during the period in which this


report
is being prepared;





b)   evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure


controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to


the
filing date of this report (the  "Evaluation


Date");
and





c)   presented
in this report our conclusions about the


effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures based on


our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;





5.   The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):





a)   all
significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of


internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's


ability
to record, process, summarize and report financial data


and
have identified for the registrant's auditors any material


weaknesses
in internal controls; and


1


b)   any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management


or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's


internal
controls.





6.   The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this report
whether or not there were significant changes in  internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant efficiencies and material weaknesses.








Date:
June 29, 2009








/s/ Dale
Byers


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


Dale
Byers


Chief
Executive Officer and


Chief
Financial Officer








2
3. PUBLIC INTEREST 

 Authorizing Skanska USA Civil to conduct commercial operations using sUAS under the conditions specified 

herein would bring immediate and significant safety improvement to the mining, construction, energy and other 

industries. 

 Conventional construction and mining inspections require human beings to visually observe and analyze the 

physical status of various equipment and surrounding conditions. The eBee sUAS can inspect, photograph, and 

collect data on hard to get to areas that otherwise would require a worker inspection or are inaccessible. Falls are 

the leading source of workplace fatality and injury on sites and reducing falls through sUAS use for site imaging 

could save workers lives. Additionally, sUAS could replace the use of manned aircraft to monitor sites. The sUAS 

we propose to fly in this application are less than five pounds, and carry no combustible material on board, as 

opposed to the much larger conventionally powered small aircraft. Shifting to sUAS from manned aircraft is a 

marked safety increase for our workers and the public. Lastly, sUAS reduce the environmental impact by

dramatically decreasing the energy used for aerial imaging and data collection over a project. The sUAS use 

rechargeable lithium ion batteries, as opposed to fossil fuels burned in operation of small aircraft that are many 

hundreds of times heavier. 

4. CONCLUSION 

 

This request is designed to follow up on previous efforts by the Federal Aviation Administration 

to determine equivalent levels of safety for sUAS operations. By requesting a summary grant of 

exemption we hope to achieve expedited approval for sUAS operations to the public’s benefit. 

 

Yours sincerely, 

 

Andrew Deveney 

GPS systems Manager 

1995 Agua Mansa Road 

Riverside, Ca 92509 

Skanska USA Civil
From: shalomfromme2u@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:10:02 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,

Bobby Isaacs

Cleveland, OH 44134
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 331 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        April 26, 2007.
    Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the 
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved 
into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 249) to restore the prohibition on the 
commercial sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros. The first 
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 
of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 
one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Natural Resources. After general debate the bill 
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be 
considered as read. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the 
bill shall be in order except those printed in the portion of the Congressional 
Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII and except pro 
forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so printed may be 
offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee and shall 
be considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered 
as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 249 pursuant to this 
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair 
may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
by the Speaker.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002,
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

            In connection with the Quarterly Report of Alkermes, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
James M. Frates, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 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 result of operations of the
Company.


                                                /s/ James M. Frates
                                                James M. Frates
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                February 14, 2003