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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 is not fair to me

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:37:28 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,

Dan Ladd

Guthrie, OK 73044
From: dean@green-construction.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:28:36 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,

Dean Johnson

Lakeland, FL 33813
1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, UnitedStates District Judge for the District

of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-3870

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. German Escorcia, also known as * Herman, also known as German * [UNPUBLISHED] Perez Escorcia, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: July 5, 2000 Filed: July 21, 2000

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BEAM, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. German Escorcia

was found guilty of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and the district court 1 sentenced him to 121 months imprisonment and five years supervised release. Onappeal, Escorcia’s counsel has filed a brief and moved to withdraw pursuant to-2-

Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Although Escorcia was granted permission to file a pro se supplemental brief, he has not done so. After review of counsel’s Anders brief, along with our independent review of the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
From: hughesranch@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:52:17 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,

Carole L Hughes

Terrell, TX 75161
Before the Second Division,

March 29, 1966

No. P66/3.

protest 65/8661-14920 (Chicago).

#### Gallagher & Ascher Company *v.*United States,

Bao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of lock cylinders with keys similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Gallagher & Ascher Company*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 141, C.D. 2522), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: gaguthmiller@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:26:56 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,

Gordon Guthmiller

Morgan Hill, CA 95037
From: iam4ukay@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:29:34 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,

Kay Frost

Lexington, KY 40514
No. P69/42.

protest 66/4998 (New York).

#### Kurt S. Adler, Inc. *v.*United States,

Maletz, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of plastic water balls similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Ace Importing Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 226, Abstract 67488), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 2372** 

MAJOR FORTSON, a/k/a Major Lee Fortson , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

BENICO H. GONZALES; FANNY A. GONZALES , Defendants

– Appellees,

and

RANDY A. SKINNER ,
Trustee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson

. Timothy M. Cain , District Judge. ( 8:12

- cv
- 00404

- TMC )

Submitted : March 28, 2013 Decided: April 1, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Major Fortson , Appellant Pro Se. Benico H. Gonzales , Fanny A. Gonzales , Appellees Pro Se

.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Major Fortson appeals the district court ’ s order adopting the magistrate judge ’ s recommendation to deny Fortson ’ s motion for judgment and to dismiss his appeal from the
bankruptcy court ’ s order denying his motion to reopen. We have
reviewed the record and find no reve rsible error. Accordingly,
although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. Fortson v.

Gonzales , No. 8:12

- cv
- 00404

- TMC (D.S.C. Oct. 23, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
FILED

Feb. 21, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

WESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON 

 

BRIAN WOLNEY and WIFE, )

MELISSA WOLNEY )

)

Plaintiffs/Appellants, ) Shelby Circuit No. 56764 

)

vs. )

) Appeal No. 02A01-9508-CV-00169

LISA M. EMMONS and WELLS )

FARGO ARMORED SERVICE )

CORPORATION, )

)

Defendants/ Appellees. )

 

ORDER

 

The petition for rehearing filed in behalf of the Appellants is denied.

Entered this day of , 1997.

 

HOLLY KIRBY LILLARD, J.

 

ALAN E. HIGHERS, J.

 

DAVID R. FARMER, J.
No. 67119.

protests 179990-K, etc. (New York).

#### Oriental Textiles et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of woven silk fabrics similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 64266, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 68395.

protest 59/34109 (New York).

#### Gimbel Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

*301Opinion by

Foiíd, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of nylon traveling bags similar in use to leather traveling bags and following the principles set forth in *United, States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 COPA 47, C.A.D. 727), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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

H. STANLEY GASS and

UTE LINDSAY GASS,

husband and wife,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALBERT F. SCHLOTFELDT;

CHRISTOPHER E. ROY; and

DUGGAN, SCHLOTFELDT & WELCH

PLLC

Defendants.

.

Case No. C05-5602JKA

ORDER DIRECTING

PLAINTIFFS TO SUBMIT

FURTHER INFORMATION 

On review of the court records, the court finds and orders as follows:

1. Plaintiffs, Stanley and Ute Gass, have submitted a complaint making allegations against

defendants. The filing fee ($250.00) was not paid. Instead of paying the filing fee, Plaintiff Stanley Gass,

submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Mrs. Ute Gass did not submit an application or

financial affidavit to support the application. 

2. The court needs financial information regarding both plaintiffs, which is a marital community,

and the information provided by Mr. Gass is insufficient (for example, he states he is self-employed, but has

received no money in the last 12 months for his work). Accordingly, plaintiffs must submit further

information regarding Mr. Guss’s self-employment and information must be provided regarding Mrs.

Case 3:05-cv-05602-RBL Document 4 Filed 09/26/05 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

Page - 2

Guss’s income, if any. In addition, the court directs plaintiffs to submit a copy of plaintiffs bank records

and statements for the past six-month period.

3. The court directs plaintiffs to provide the above noted financial information to assist the court

properly consider the request. Plaintiffs shall provide this documentation by not later than October 20,

2005, otherwise the court will recommend dismissal of this matter. 

DATED this 26th day of September, 2005.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05602-RBL Document 4 Filed 09/26/05 Page 2 of 2
ALFRED J. BRYANT

,

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. 1D 16

- 5176

_______ ______________________/

Opinion filed June 6, 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Robert Wheeler , Judge

.

Alfred J. Bryant, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CU RIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., LEWIS and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549



FORM 8-K



CURRENT REPORT



Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934



Date of report (Date of earliest event reported): April 22, 2009





THE FIRST BANCORP, INC.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in charter)



MAINE

(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)



0-26589 01-0404322

(Commission file number) (IRS employer identification no.)



Main Street, Damariscotta, Maine 04853

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)



(207) 563-3195

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)



Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is

intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligations

of the registrant under any of the following provisions:



[_] Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)



[_] Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)



[_] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))



[_] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4 (c))










TABLE OF CONTENTS



Item 2.02 Results of Operations and Financial Condition

        Page 1




Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits

        Page 1




Signatures

        Page 2




Exhibit Index

        Page 3









Section 2 - Financial Information



Item 2.02 Results of Operations and Financial Condition.



On April 22, 2009, the Registrant issued the press release filed herewith as Exhibit 99.1 with information regarding the results of operations and financial condition of The First Bancorp, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.





Section 9 - Financial Statements and Exhibits



Item 9.01 Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information and Exhibits.



(c) Exhibits.

--------



The following Exhibits are being furnished herewith:



99.1 Registrant's Press Release dated April 22, 2009.








SIGNATURE



Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.





THE FIRST BANCORP, INC.



By: /s/ F. STEPHEN WARD

F. Stephen Ward

Executive Vice President &

Chief Financial Officer



Dated: April 22, 2009








Exhibit Index





Exhibit Number

        Description of Exhibit




99.1

        Registrant's Press Release dated April 22, 2009.
|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Coupon | Interest | Maturity | Callable | Survivor's Option | Price | CUSIP |
| 2.3%   | Semi-Annual(†††) | 8/15/2022 | No | Yes § | 100.00 |  | 14912HPZ7 |

|                         |
|-------------------------|
|                         |  |
| (†††) | First Payment date 2/15/2013 |
|                    |
From: smeverhart@embarqmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:35:46 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,

Millard Everhart

Winter Park, FL 32789