alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-21-00013-CR

JOSEPH EUGENE HUNT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from

County Criminal Court No. 4

of Tarrant County (1527354)

May 13, 2021

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the 

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
From: Kenneth Cornelius

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:17:52 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,

Kenneth Cornelius
Woodbridge, Virginia
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 184 (Monday, September 25, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 65694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20650]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIHAI75N93023R00003: Pre-clinical 
Models of Infectious Diseases--Task Area B.
    Date: October 20-23, 2023.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E70A, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Annie Walker-Abbey, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E70A, 
Rockville, MD 20852, 240-627-3390, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8cededeeeee9f5cce2e5ede5e8a2e2e5e4a2ebe3fa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5839393a3a3d2118363139313c76363130763f372e">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 18, 2023.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-20650 Filed 9-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
DISMISS; Opinion filed August 31, 2012 

In The 

(Court of Apprats 

giftIiElistrirt of üJrxai at Dallas 

No. 05-10-01260-CV 

DANIEL GOMEZ, Appellant 

V. 

THUNDERBIRD APARTMENTS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-10-03922-C 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Francis and Lang-Miers 

Opinion By Chief Justice Wright 

By letter dated March 26, 2012, the Court informed appellant that his brief was past due. We 

directed appellant to file a brief with an extension motion within ten days and cautioned him that 

failure to do so would result in dismissal of his appeal. 

As of today's date, appellant has not filed a brief. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1) & 42.3(b). 

101260F.P05 
Tourt uiAppeats 

iriftll District of 0 7 . .exas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

DANIEL GOMEZ, Appellant Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 

of Dallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. CC-10- 

No. 05-10-01260-CV V. 03922-C). 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright, 

THUNDERBIRD APARTMENTS, Appellee Justices Francis and Lang-Miers, 

participating. 

Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

It is ORDERED that appellee, Thunderbird Apartments, recover its costs of the appeal from 

appellant, Daniel Gomez. 

Judgment entered August 31, 2012.
From: Kisch@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:15:28 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I can't keep paying more money in taxes and increased medical premiums. I need to take care of my

children so...

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,

Shelley Kisch

Auburn, WA 98001
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

36 38 40 42


### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 07/15 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 15 Jul 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.56 N 76.20 WMeters AGL
From: cooneypete@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:09:11 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Peter Cooney

Redford, MI 48239
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 April 29, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, Michael T. Wedge, 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.



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: June 8, 2006 |  | /S/ MICHAEL T. WEDGE   
|                    |  | Michael T. Wedge       
|                    |  | Chief Executive Officer
Before the Second Division,

March 11, 1969

No. P69/64.

protest 67/76776 (New York).

#### R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Newman, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of bicycles, with or without tires having wheels in diameter (measured to the outer circumference of the tire) over 25 inches, weighing less than 36 pounds complete without accessories, and not designed for use with tires having a cross-sectional diameter exceeding 1% inches and that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard &*Co., *Mangano Cycles Co.*(47 CCPA 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: kestes60@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:27:56 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to urge you to 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 are

bent on ignoring the will of millions of Americans, I urge 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 urge 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.

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,

Robert Estes

Sterling, VA 20164
From: benedict1500@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:21:36 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,

Mark Cannaday

, 78006-3558
Case No. 14,802.

#### UNITED STATES v. CLARK.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 620.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1825.

Hom i c i de—Slave—Manslaughte k—Pus ishment.

In Alexandria county, a slave guilty of manslaughter was punished by burning in the hand and whipping with ten stripes.

[Cited in U. S. v. Frye, Case No. 15,173.]

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Crunch. Chief .J udge.]

The defendant [John Clark], who was a slave about thirteen years old. was indicted for the murder of another slave, named Bur-det, about fifteen years old. The deceased was larger and stronger than the defendant, •and struck him several times, till the latter drew a knife and told the deceased that if he did not leave striking him, he would stab him; the deceased continued to strike him, and he stabbed the deceased in the left breast, of which wound he died instantly.

The jury found him guilty of manslaughter, •and THE COURT sentenced him to be burnt in the hand, and whipped with ten stripes.
From: momgg@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:25:52 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. As it stands, this mandate violates the religious beliefs of many Americans,

and as such is clearly unconstitutional. 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). This truly is an outrage!

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,

Gloria Gardner

Poteau, OK 74953
From: hardwrkr@bellsouth.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:50:09 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,

James Sims

Birmingham, AL 35216