alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: maidenfan63@charter.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:47:03 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,

Tommy Lowman

Newton, NC 28658
No. 69806.

protests 59/31101, etc. (New York).

#### The Graber Co. and Rohner, Gehrig & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Bao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of pole ends similar in all material respects to those the subject of *J. C. DeJong & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(52 CCPA 26, C.A.D. 852), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
JIMMY OLDHAM,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-1486

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 11, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Dawn Caloca-Johnson, Judge.

Jeffrey E. Lewis, Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, and Melissa Joy 

Ford, Assistant Conflict Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel Steinberg, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MARSTILLER and RAY, JJ., and TERRELL, TERRY D., ASSOCIATE JUDGE,

CONCUR.
Case No. 8,176.

#### Ex parte LEE.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 394.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

July Term, 1806.

Executors — Will Requesting no Security — When Allowed in Virginia.

The orphans’ court of Alexandria county cannot, in any case, grant letters testamentary without security, unless the testator’s visible personal estate is sufficient to pay all the debts.

PEE CURIAM.

Mr. [E. J.] Lee was appointed one of the executors of W. Craik, deceased, who by his will declares, that “it is his wish and desire that his executors, or either of them, should not be required to give security as executors of his will.” Mr. Lee applied to the orphans’ court of Alexandria county for letters testamentary, which were refused, because it did not appear, to the satisfaction of that court, that there was visible estate enough to pay the testator’s debts, and the court having reason to doubt, from its own knowledge, whether the testator’s personal estate was sufficient for that purpose. Prom the judgment of that court Mr. Lee has appealed to this. The right to letters testamentary without giving security is claimed under the will and the act of assembly (page 163) which allows it only in cases where the testator shall have visible estate more than sufficient to pay all his debts, nor even in that case if the court shall see cause, from its own knowledge, to suspect that the testator’s personal estate will not be sufficient to discharge all the debts. A second application was made to the court grounded on a statement of debts due from the .testator in the .county of Alexandria, and a schedule of personal estate in that county, without any estimate of the value thereof. But the court again refused, and from that judgment there is also an appeal to this court.

This court can see no error in either of those decisions, and is of opinion, that that court was bound by law to decide as it has decided. The appeal must therefore be dismissed.
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 of Continuance – 1

Cervantes-Bravo, et al/CR05-331JLR

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

Judge Robart

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) NO. CR05-331JLR

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

JESUS CERVANTES-BRAVO, ) ORDER CONTINUING

GONZALO RODRIGUEZ, and ) TRIAL DATE AND PRETRIAL JOSÉ FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ, ) MOTIONS DATE

)

Defendants. ) 

 _________________________________)

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a motion by defendants Gonzalo

Rodriguez and José Francisco Rodriguez, joined in by the United States, to continue the

trial date and the pretrial motions cut-off date. Having considered the entirety of the

record and files herein, the Court finds that failure to grant a continuance would likely

result in a miscarriage of justice. The case is unusual and complex. The defendants were

originally charged with 14 other defendants in CR05-281JLR, but a separate Indictment

was returned on September 8, 2005. All of the defendants are in custody and Spanishspeaking. The evidence in this case is derived from a larger investigation, and includes a

large number of intercepted telephone conversations in Spanish, and over 300 pages of

reports from federal agents and state officers. Several pretrial motions have been filed

and are pending.

Case 2:05-cr-00331-JLR Document 18 Filed 10/03/05 Page 1 of 2
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 of Continuance – 2

Cervantes-Bravo, et al/CR05-331JLR

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

It is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for trial before the current trial

date, scheduled in CR05-281JLR, of September 17, 2005. The Court further finds that

the interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial in this case are outweighed

by the ends of justice. 

IT IS NOW, THEREFORE, ORDERED that trial in this matter be continued to 

October 24, 2005, and that the time between the date of this Order and the new trial date

be excludable time under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to Title 18, United States Code,

Sections 3161(h)(8)(A), 3161(h)(8)(B)(i), and 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pre-trial motions shall be filed on or before 

September 28, 2005.

 Dated this 3rd day of October, 2005.

A JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Presented by:

s/Douglas B. Whalley 

DOUGLAS B. WHALLEY

Assistant United States Attorney

United States Attorney's Office 

601 Union Street, Suite 5100 

Seattle, WA 98101-3903

(206) 553-4882, Fax: (206) 553-4440

E-mail: douglas.whalley@usdoj.gov

Washington State Bar #4625

s/ Susan M. Roe 

SUSAN M. ROE

Assistant United States Attorney

(206) 553-1077, Fax: (206) 553-4440

E-mail: susan.roe@usdoj.gov

Washington State Bar #1300

Case 2:05-cr-00331-JLR Document 18 Filed 10/03/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 66027.

#### Asheville Textiles Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 60/28211 (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
##### 



Exhibit 3.1 THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
OF
PACIFIC SUNWEAR OF CALIFORNIA, INC. FIRST: The name of the corporation is Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. SECOND: The purpose of the corporation is to engage in any lawful act or
activity for which a corporation may be organized under the general corporation
law of California other than the banking business, the trust company business
or the practice of a profession permitted to be incorporated by the California
Corporations code. THIRD: The total number of shares of all classes of stock which the
corporation shall have authority to issue is 175,859,375 shares, consisting of
5,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock, $.01 par value (the Preferred Stock),
and 170,859,375 shares of Common Stock, $.01 par value (the Common Stock).
The Board of Directors of the corporation shall have the full authority
permitted by law to fix by resolution full, limited, multiple, fractional, or
no voting rights, and such designation, preferences and relative,
participating, optional or other special rights, qualifications, limitations or
restrictions thereof, of any series that may be desired in respect of the
Preferred Stock. FOURTH: The liability of the directors of the corporation for monetary damages
shall be eliminated to the fullest extent permissible under California law.
The corporation is authorized to provide indemnification of agents (as defined
in Section 317 of the California Corporations Code) through bylaw provisions,
agreements with agents, vote of shareholders or disinterested directors or
otherwise, in excess of the indemnification otherwise permitted by Section 317
of the California Corporations Code, subject only to the applicable limits set
forth in Section 204 of the California Corporations Code with respect to
actions for breach of duty to the corporation and its shareholders. FIFTH: No holder of any class of stock of the corporation shall be entitled to
cumulate votes at any election of directors of the corporation. This provision
shall become effective only when the corporation becomes a listed corporation
within the meaning of Section 301.5 of the California Corporations Code. SIXTH: No action required to be taken or which may be taken by shareholders at
any annual or special meeting of shareholders of the corporation may be taken
without a meeting, and the power of shareholders to consent in writing, without
a meeting, to the taking of any action is specifically denied.
From: marsha@mazamaservices.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:42:41 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,

Marsha Anderson

Guntersville, AL 35976
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000874690
<NAME> SUN TELEVISION AND APPLIANCES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,186<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     92,053
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               123,444
<PP&E>                                          74,136
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 222,355<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           58,364
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           174
<OTHER-SE>                                      74,967
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   222,355
<SALES>                                        508,065
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               508,065
<CGS>                                          390,140
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  390,140
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               144,221
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,598
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (31,894)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,657)<F3>
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (33,551)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.92)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.92)
<FN>
<F1>Trade accounts receivable net allowance for doubtful accounts of $475.
<F2>Includes assets held for sale of $4,646 and other noncurrent assets of 
$6,069.
<F3>Net of income tax benefit.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Before the Second Division,

August 27, 1959

No. 63318.

protests 300267-K/8642, etc. (Chicago).

#### J. E. Bernard & Company, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of copper rods similar in all material respects to those the subject of *H. J. Van Der Ryn, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(40 Cust. Ct. 90, C.D. 1964), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: cemillysmith@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:12:29 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,

Christina Smith

Dallas, TX 75219
No. 68903.

#### Bernard Weiss & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 60/16164 and 63/18078 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of stethoscopes similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 68126, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: cwatkins@golfintl.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:48:37 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,

Christine Watkins

Aurora, CO 80014
EXHIBIT
35











Servicer
Compliance Statement





The undersigned, the duly appointed
Controller of Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation, as servicer, are
delivering this Servicer Compliance Statement pursuant to Section 4.10(a)
of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2008, (the “Sale and
Servicing Agreement”) among Caterpillar Financial Asset Trust 2008-A,
Caterpillar Financial Funding Corporation and Caterpillar Financial Services
Corporation (the “Servicer”), and hereby certify that:  (i) a
review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from the Closing Date
to December 31, 2008, and of the Servicer’s performance under the Sale and
Servicing Agreement has been made under our supervision; and (ii) to the
best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of
its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects
throughout such period.














Dated:
      March 27, 2009
            /s/
      Steven R. ElsesserSteven
      R. ElsesserController
From: sheaf33@restel.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:53:10 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,

Richard Sheaffer

Watford City, ND 58854