alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: fisher714@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:29:55 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 Fisher

Delphos, OH 45833
No. 60517.

#### Austin Nichols & Co., Inc.,et al. *v.*United States,

protests 232883-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, 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 plaintiffs was sustained.
From: mark.embry@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:25:09 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,

Christina Embry

Philpot, KY 42366
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Wesley Don Davis, Appellant

No. 06-19-00075-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 369th District Court of 

Cherokee County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

19903). Memorandum Opinion delivered by 

Justice Stevens, Chief Justice Morriss and 

Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Wesley Don Davis, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED OCTOBER 8, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
No. 325, Misc.

#### Bales *v.*Western Barium Corp. et al.

Supreme Court of California. Certiorari denied.
From: MGN19@NYCAP.RR.COM

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:56:11 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,

Martha Neville

Ballston Lake, NY 12019
From: laurie-ray@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:16:39 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,

Laurie Ray

Bakersfield, CA 93311
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: September 16, 2014 TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR

–2013
- 0602 FROM: Ray

Saracino , EPA Region 9 SUBJECT: September 11, 2014 M eeting with Nevada Stakeholders Regarding Proposed

Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
**SUMMARY** A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on September 11, 2014 to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2 , 2014 and published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2014. **ATTENDEES** External Stakeholders Dave Emme, Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP) Jasmine Mehta, NDEP John Candelaria , Nevada Public Utilities Commission (NPUC) John Davis, NPUC Starla Lacey , NV Energy Dennis Lay

born Newmont Energy John Felliger, Newmont Energy
EPA Brian Fisher, EPA OAP Jeremy Mark, EPA OAP Gabrielle Stevens, EPA OAP Amy Z impfer, EPA R9 Ben Machol, EPA R9 Ray Saracino, EPA R9
**Attachment**
From: mstevens@gtomaha.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:59:06 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.

The last time I looked, we were still living under the original Declaration of Independence, Constitution

and Bill of Rights!

Sincerely,

Mark Stevens

Omaha, NE 68122
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         354,813
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               42,655,768
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,420,426
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,817,182
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,010,071
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              67,455,040
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        1,000,000
<PREFERRED>                                     32,296
<COMMON>                                       150,611
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,539,417
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                67,455,040
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,695,140
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,906,961
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               432,993
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,304,133
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (5,436,770)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (5,436,770)
<DISCONTINUED>                              (5,499,141)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (11,634,600)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.87)


</TABLE>
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-4702-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 Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-                              ( print page 66467)                            4702-DR), dated April 10, 2023, and related determinations.                    

# DATES:

This change occurred on July 31, 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, John E. Brogan, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

This action terminates the appointment of Myra M. Shird 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. 2023-21006 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### Thomas Lee MORRIS, a minor child; Elizabeth S. Morris; Roland J. Morris, Sr., his guardians and natural parents, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TANNER, Judge, Judge of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Indian Tribal Court for the Flathead Reservation, Defendant-Appellee, United States of America, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee.

No. 03-35922.

D.C. No. CV-99-0082-DWM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 11, 2005.

Submission Vacated March 30, 2005.

Resubmitted Aug. 23, 2005.

Decided Aug. 25, 2005.

Jon Metropoulos, Gough, Shanahan, Johnson & Waterman, Helena, MT, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Joseph P. Hovenkotter, Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, Legal Department, Pablo, MT, for Defendant-Appellee.

Lorraine D. Gallinger, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, R. Justin Smith, Judith Rabinowitz, U.S. Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM*

Thomas Lee Morris appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, Judge Winona Tanner, and defendant-intervenor, United States. For the past six years, Morris has had criminal speeding charges pending against him in the tribal court of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (“CSKT”) in Montana. Morris is an enrolled member of the Mmnesota Chippewa Tribe, Leech Lake Reservation, but is not a member of the CSKT. He challenges the jurisdiction of the tribal court. The district court granted summary judgement against Morris. *Morris v. Tanner,*288 F.Supp.2d 1133, 1144 (D.Mont.2003). Morris appealed.

Morris challenges the jurisdiction of the CSKT tribal court, which was confirmed by the 1990 amendments to the Indian Civil Rights Act (“ICRA”) to extend to “all Indians” in criminal cases. *See*Pub.L. No. 101-511, Title VIII, § 8077(b)-(e), 104 Stat. 1856, 1892 (1990) (amending 25 U.S.C. *697§ 1301). He contends that the 1990 amendments violate principles of equal protection and due process. In our recent opinion in *Means v. Navajo Nation,*— F.3d -, No. 01-17489, slip op. 11191, 2005 WL 2008433 (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2005), however, we squarely addressed and rejected both of these challenges to the 1990 amendments to the ICRA.1 We are therefore bound by *Means*to reject Morris’ challenges as well. The judgment of the district court is therefore

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. In *Means,*we also held that, as used in the 1990 amendments to ICRA, " '[a]ll Indians’ plainly includes Indians who are not members of the tribe,” but excludes "anyone who might ethnically be an Indian but who is not an enrolled member of a federally recognized tribe.” *Means,*— F.3d at -, slip op. at 11199.
From: denise.b.ganucheau@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:53:14 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,

Denise Ganucheau

Red Oak, TX 75154