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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:23:11 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I protest the fact that the IOM committee included no pro-life representation in July when it issued its

recommendation that mandatory contraceptive and sterilization procedures be included in health

insurance plans. This is coercion without full representation. As a taxpayer and someone who values

life, I oppose this unjust and dictatorial maneuver.

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,

Janet Knudson

Marco Island, FL 34145
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4697-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-4697-DR), dated March 26, 2023, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This change occurred on July 14, 2023.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Darryl L. Dragoo, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

This action terminates the appointment of John F. Boyle as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2023-21002 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
From: reeree.jones@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:27:33 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 Jones

Yacolt, WA 98675
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 Annual Report of
Universal Acquisitions Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anna Lo, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/
      Anna LoAnna
      LoPrincipal
      Executive OfficerApril
      16,
2009
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rosalva Torres RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-50449. D.C. No. CR-99-2962-JNK.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 8, 2001 *.

Decided June 28, 2001.

Before KOZINSKI and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and WHYTE,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

A rational trier of fact could have found based on the evidence at trial that Rodriguez committed mail fraud and conspired to commit mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 371. Takeuchi’s testimony was sufficient to establish that it was Sanyo’s ordinary custom to send checks to its vendors through the U.S. mail. Further, the evidence was sufficient to allow a rational jury to conclude that use of the mails was reasonably foreseeable, where Rodriguez submitted invoices to, and received checks from, a company located hours away from her business. *See Pereira v. United States,*347 U.S. 1, 8-9, 74 S.Ct. 358, 362-63, 98 L.Ed. 435 (1954).

*591The court’s restitution order does not constitute plain error. The Presentence Report indicates that the probation officer did in fact contact a Sanyo representative and also contains information about Rodriguez’s family situation, education, business concerns and financial condition, indicating that the court “had at [its] disposal information bearing on the considerations enumerated in section 3664.” *United States v. Mills,*991 F.2d 609, 611 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting *United States v. Cannizzaro,*871 F.2d 809, 811 (9th Cir.1989)).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
No. 63787.

protests 8961-K, etc. (New York).

#### Julius Wile Sons & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: auroradmp@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:53:20 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. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Dawn Parvu

South Bend, IN 46613
From: klase2@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:42:11 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,

Linda Harmon

Scobey, MT 59263
10/18/201 1 14:0 9 FA X202493514 2 FA A 

### * DM S 1001/00 3

U.S . DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . I n th e Matte ro fCliffor d Pres s FA ACas e No . 2011EA15004 5 Hearin g Docke t No . no tye tassigne d Administrativ e La wJudg e no t ye tassigne d 

# DECEIVE D OCT1 7 2 M 

# 'lAR/N n DOCKE T 

# ^al h\0oy

MR . PRESS ' ANSWE R T O FA ACOMPLAIN T Come s now , Mr . Cliffor d Press , an d hereb yanswer s th e FAA' s Complain t a s follows ; Paragrap h 1 . Admit . Paragrap h 2 . Deny . Paragrap h 3 . Objec t a s irrelevan tt o th e charge s mad e b yth e FA Aa s th e event s charge d i n th e Complain tdi d no toccu rdurin g th e clim b ou tphas e o fflight , therefor e deny . Paragrap h 4 . Deny . Paragrap h S , Deny . Paragrap h 6 . Admi t t o th e exten ttha ti n th e galle yo fth e aircraft , a fligh t attendan t verball y instructe d Mr . Pres s t o retur n t o hi s seat , bu tden yt o th e exten t tha t thi s allegatio n ma yb e construe d a s chargin g tha t Mr . Pres s faile d t o follo wtha tinstruction . Paragrap h 7 . Deny . Paragrap h 8 . Deny . Paragrap h 9 . Den yt o th e exten tth e allegatio n characterize s Mr . Press ' conduc t a s bein g "disruptive " an d as t o th e remainde ro fth e allegation , Mr . Pres s i s withou t sufficien t persona l knowledg e o fthes e action s o fother s t o admi t o rden yth e allegation , therefor e deny . Paragrap h 10 . Mr . Pres s i s withou tsufficien tpersona l knowledg e t o kno wo faction s take n b y anothe rperso n t o admi t o rden ythi s allegation , therefor e deny . 

### Paragrap h11 . Deny .10/18/201 1 14:0 9 FA X202493514 2 FA A• > DM S (2002/00 3

Furthermore , Mr . Pres s denie s an yviolatio n o fth e Federa l Aviatio n Regulations , includin g a specifi cdenia l o fan yviolatio n o fSection s 121.317(f) , 121.317(k) , an d 121.580 , as allege d i n th e FAA' s Complaint . I n addition , Mr . Pres s denie s tha ta civi l penalt yo f$1,10 0 i s appropriate . Wherefore , Mr . Pre.s.< : request s tha t thi s matte rprocee d t o hearin g i n Washington , D.C , an d pray s tha t th e FAA' s Complain tb e dismisse d i n it s entirety . Respectfull ysubmitted , LA WOFFICE S O F YODIC E ASSOCIATE S Serve d [ 0 j^LJ^)! ! KathiedoA^oditd , Esq . 41 1 Aviatio n Wa^/Suit e 24 5 Frederick , M D 2170 1 Phon e 301-695-230 0 Fa x301-695-215 1

### 10/18/201 1 14:0 9 FA X 202493514 2 FA A •> •DM S lgj003/00 3

CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E I hereb ycertif ytha t th e foregoin g documen t(Answe rt o FA AComplaint ) i n th e Matte ro f Cliffor d Pres s ha s bee n sen t b yFirs tClas s Mai l as follows : Origina l an d on e cop yto : Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Ave, , S.W . WB.«.hington , DC 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke tClerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu rWrigh tBuildin g - Suit e 2W100 0 Onc e cop yto : Judit h L . Vaugha n Attorney , Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , NY1143 4
No. 67105.

protests 59/13627, etc. (New York).

#### F. L. Kraemer *&*Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of sodium phosphate (brifisol 410) similar in all material respects to that the subject of *George A. Abood Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 1, C.D. 2270), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL -SURVEY

GEORGE OTJS SMITH, DIRECTOR

TIN 345

MINERAL RESOURCES OF ALASKA

REPORT ON PROGRESS OF 

INVESTIGATIONS IN

1907

BY ALFRED H. BROOKS AND OTHERS

' WASHINGTON

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

190$

CONTENTS.

Page.

Administrative report, by A. H. Brooks _________________ 5 

The distribution of mineral resources in Alaska, by A. H. Brooks_____ 18 

The mining industry in 1907, by A. H. Brooks_________________ 30 

Prospecting and mining gold placers in Alaska, by J. P. Hutchins___ 54 

Lode mining in southeastern Alaska, 1907, by C. W. Wright________ 78 

Copper deposits oiv Kasaau Peninsula, Prince of Wales Island, by C.. W.

Wright and Sidney Paige_____ ____ __________ 98 

The building stones and materials of southeastern Alaska, by C. W.

Wright________________________ -__________________ 116

Mineral resources of the Kotsina and Chitiua valleys, Copper River region,

by I1 . H. Moffit and A. G. Maddren________________J_____ 127 

Notes on copper prospects of Prince William Sound, by F. H. Moffit___ 176 

Occurrence of gold in the Yukon-Tanana region, by L. M. Prindle_____ 179 

The Fortymile gold-placer district, by L. M. Prindle__'_.._______JT 187 

Water supply of the Fairbanks district, 1907, by C. C. Covert______ 198 

Investigations of the mineral deposits of Seward Peninsula, by P. S. Smith. 206 

The Seward Peninsula tin deposits, by Adolph Knopf__1 _____ ____ 251 

The mineral deposits of the Lost River and Brooks Mountain region,

Seward Peninsula, by Adolph Knopf______________________ 268 

Water supply of the Nome and Kougarok regions, Seward Peninsula,

1906-7, by F. F. Heushaw_______-______- _____-__..___ 272 

Index __________________________________________ 287

ILLUSTRATIONS.

Page. 

PLATE I. Map of Alaska, showing distribution of mineral resources_ In pocket.

II. Geologic reconnaissance map of southeastern Alaska ______ 78

III. Map of Kotsiua-Chitina copper belt _____ _ ___ 128

IV. Geologic sketch map of Yukon-Tanana region___ _ ___ ISO

V. Map of Seward Peninsula, showing distribution of mineral resources, so far as known __ 230 

FIG. 1. Map of Kasaau Peninsula, Prince of Wales Island, showing distribution of intrusives and location of mines and prospects..___ 99

2. Sketch map of Prince William Sound_________ _ ___ 177

3. Gold production of Seward Peninsula, 1897-1907_________ 207

4. Diagrammatic cross section at the Daisy mine, near Nome____ 210

5. Section across Ear Mountain, Seward Peninsula__________ 254

6. Sketch section at Eunson's shaft, Ear Mountain___________ 254

7. Section across Lagoon Creek, Cape Mountain___________ 259

3
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-40531

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JONATHAN RAY DEAN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CR-63-1

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jonathan Ray Dean pleaded guilty of possession with intent to distribute

cocaine. He was sentenced as a career offender to a 188-month term of

imprisonment and to a four-year period of supervised release. Dean contends

that the Government breached its plea agreement with him because the

probation officer determined his base offense level on the basis of the career

offender provision, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, and not under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, as the

parties had stipulated.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 20, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-40531 Document: 00511731366 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/20/2012
No. 11-40531

We review a claim of breach of a plea agreement de novo. United States

v. Pizzolato, 655 F.3d 403, 409 (5th Cir. 2011). Applying general principles of

contract law, we must determine whether the Government’s conduct is

consistent with the defendant’s reasonable understanding of the agreement. Id.

By its terms, the plea agreement did not bind the probation officer or the

district court, and Dean was admonished at the rearraignment that the

stipulation was not binding on the district court. Dean’s contrary understanding

was not reasonable. See id.; see also United States v. Talbert, 501 F.3d 449, 453

(5th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he United States Probation Office is a branch of the federal

judiciary and ‘an investigatory and supervisory arm’ of the sentencing court.”

(citation omitted)); United States v. Woods, 907 F.2d 1540, 1543-44 (5th Cir.

1990). The judgment is AFFIRMED.

The Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal, based on Dean’s appeal

waiver, or for summary affirmance or an extension of time to file its brief is

DENIED. See United States v. Roberts, 624 F.3d 241, 244 (5th Cir. 2010).

2

Case: 11-40531 Document: 00511731366 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/20/2012