alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: pritcbob@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:11:59 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,

Bob Pritchard

Jackson, MN 56143
No. 68378.

protest 62/17683.

#### Organon, Inc. *v.*United States,

Protest abandoned February 10, 1964.

(Not published.) (Initial No. 62/10731.) Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 10-Q FOR
THE SIX MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           7,062
<SECURITIES>                                   160,178
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               173,895
<PP&E>                                          50,618
<DEPRECIATION>                                (17,738)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 223,305
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,337
<BONDS>                                         25,567
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         23
<COMMON>                                           253
<OTHER-SE>                                     171,604
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   223,305
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,065
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,839
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,463
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (22,717)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (22,717)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (22,717)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.08)


</TABLE>
From: ednchick@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:11:57 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 J. Deppert

Gilbert, AZ 85296
#### John Patrick MCSHEFFREY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Kathleen HAWK-SAWYER, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; Margaret C. Hambrick, Regional Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Annapolis, Maryland; Gregory Bogdan, in his individual and official capacity as Associate Warden, Cumberland Federal Correctional Institution; William Henderson, in his individual and official capacity as Associate Warden, Cumberland Federal Correctional Institution; Jeffrey Bolyard, in his individual and official capacity as Superintendent of Industries, Cumberland Federal Correctional Institution; Jerry Lewis, in his individual and official capacity as Lieutenant, Cumberland Federal Correctional Institution; Shirley Crump, in his individual and official capacity, Cumberland Federal Correctional Institution; R. Dulla, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 05-6453.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 18, 2005.

Decided Aug. 24, 2005.

John Patrick McSheffrey, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Jennifer A. Wright, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Beverly M. Russell, Office of the United States Attorney, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

John Patrick McSheffrey appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See McSheffrey v. Hawk-Sawyer,*No. CA-04-1195-AMD (D.Md. filed Jan. 28, 2005 & entered Jan. 31, 2005). 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*
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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

ELAINE K. ZITTY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C05-5585JKA

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Plaintiff does not appear to have

funds available to afford the $250.00 filing fee.

The clerk is directed to issue summonses submitted by plaintiff to enable plaintiff to properly serve

copies of the complaint on the appropriate parties. Plaintiff shall note that it is her responsibility to

properly serve copies of the complaint along with appropriate summons as required by Rule 4 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 26TH day of September, 2005.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05585-RBL Document 3 Filed 09/26/05 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of BJs Wholesale Club, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended
May 1, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Laura J. Sen, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that to the undersigneds 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 Company.



|                   |  |  |  |                                                                    
|------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 28, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ LAURA J. SEN                                                   
|                   |  |  |  | Laura J. Sen                                                       
|                   |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
Economic Studies

# Small Business Lending in the United States, 2020

By **Office of Advocacy**On **Jul 12, 2022**

Advocacy’s small business lending report examines FDIC data to determine the state of bank lending to small businesses. This report, which analyzes loan data from June 2019 to June 2020, examines the small business lending market at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Small business loans (loans below $1 million) increased by nearly 40% from 2019 to 2020, largely due to the newly enacted Paycheck Protection Program. 

Alongside the report, the appendix tables provide bank level detail of small business lending activity and breakdowns at the state level.  

2020 Small Business Lending Report

Small Business Lending Research Summary

Banking Study Appendix Table Description 

Appendix Tables Excel 

**Banking & FinanceSmall Business Lending
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

J. J. M., :

Petitioner :

: CASE SEALED

v. : No. 386 M.D. 2017

:

Pennsylvania State Police, :

Respondent :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, April 27, 2018, it is ordered that the above-captioned Memorandum 

Opinion, filed March 20, 2018, shall be designated OPINION and shall be 

REPORTED.
Exhibit 32.1

# Certification Pursuant
to18 U.S.C. §1350, As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of InfoTech USA, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sebastian Perez, Chief
Operating Officer and acting President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | The information contained in the Report
          fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
          of operations of the Company.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | /s/ Sebastian F. Perez                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Sebastian F. Perez
                                                     Chief Operating Officer and acting President and Chief Executive Officer
                                                     InfoTech USA, Inc.
                                                     August 12, 2004
From: ldhturner@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:04:20 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Loura Turner

Fredericksburg, VA 22407
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

DONNA JOHNSTONE,

Petitioner

v.

ROBERT JOHNSTONE,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 73 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 16th day of July, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
From: rdeal@deal-ritefeeds.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:46:48 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,

Ronald Deal

Statesville, NC 28625
From: morriscat@morfinserv.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:04:32 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Michael Morrison

Glendale, AZ 85302
No. P67/243.

#### Lafayette Radio Electronics Corp. et al. *v.*United States, protests 61/15833, etc. (New York). Azrak-Hamway, Inc. *v.*United States, protests 62/13330, etc. (New York).

No. P67/244.

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of earphones similar in all material respects to those the subject of Motorola, *Inc., and International Expediters, Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 303, Abstract 69019), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Ave S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Response to letter received 11/9/2015 Dear Madam/Sir, We received a letter for additional information pertaining to Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 2080 request for more information via email on 11/06/2015 . I am representing Osprey Imaging, LLC’s request for exemption from §§ 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b), 91.103(b), 91.105, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), 91.417(a) and (b), and part 21, Subpart H, of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). **Reasons W hy Granting Exemption Would Be i**  **n Public Interest:** Public Interest Granting this exemption would benefit the public as a w hole. SUASs offer a strong equivalent level of safet y, a reduction in environmental impacts, and are free from the harmful emissions associated with the manned aircraft that are currently used for aerial photograph y and videography. Due to the size of the SUAS and the tightl y controlled and limited airspace in which the SUAS will operate, approval of this application presents no risk to the public. Furthermore, the public will be able to legally acquire aerial photography and videograph y to help in, but not limited to, advertising homes for sale, advertising uninhabited home lots, use of photos and video as an aid when researching homes for sale on the market, o r safel y accessing high and/or dangerous areas of a home’s exterior to assess damage that needs to be repaired. Additionall y, utilizing our SUAS aircraft will assist in congestion relief of the NAS.
Respectfully

Submitted

. William Granruth President, Osprey

I maging LLC william@osprey imaging.com 99 H amilton Ave Greenwich, CT 06831 203 249 2342
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1252 Prepped byCandice Davis



### Document

Number: 

# 34 ) IV-l- 1 Docket Number: 

# A-90-2 2

Printed 5/21/200811:46:01 AM

Sheet 34of 184P. 2 

# A-90-2 2 IV-l- 1

Federa l Reaister . Nationa l Emissio n Standard s fo r Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s fo r Sourc e Categories : Organi c Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s fromth e Syntheti c Organi c Chemica l Manufacturing Industryan d Seve n Othe r Processes . Notic e o f publi c hearing an d extensio n o f publi c commen t period . 5 8 F R 11201-11202 . February 24 , 1993 . Thi s ite m i s identica l t o Docke t No . A-90-19 , Ite

m No . IV-I-1 .



# I fM.* > f
February 14, 1957

No. 60498.

Suit 4858.

#### H. J. Heinz Company *v.*United States.

A. R. D. 61 reversed and remanded to trial court June 20, 1956. C. A. D. 619.