alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: dmjewell08@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:08:40 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,

Dawn Marie Jewell

Aurora, CO 80014
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 439 

Supporting the goals and ideals of the National Kidney Foundation Kidney 

Walk. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 24, 2007 

Mr. KUHL of New York (for himself and Mr. KIRK) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of the National Kidney 

Foundation Kidney Walk. 

Whereas 20,000,000 Americans suffer from chronic kidney 

disease; 

Whereas over 80,000 people die each year from chronic kidney disease; 

Whereas over 335,000 people diagnosed with end-stage renal 

disease receive dialysis at least three times a week; 

Whereas over 17,000 kidney transplants were performed in 

2006; 

Whereas over 70,000 people are on the national waiting list 

for a kidney transplant; and 

Whereas the purpose of the National Kidney Foundation Kidney Walk is to encourage Americans nationwide to bemstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HRES 439 IH 

come educated about early detection and prevention of 

kidney disease and to promote awareness of organ donation: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the goals and ideals of the Na3 tional Kidney Foundation Kidney Walk; and 

4 (2) recognizes all Americans suffering from 

5 chronic kidney disease, and salutes health care pro6 fessionals, volunteers, donor families, and living do7 nors. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
From: mnrobpuls84@mediacombb.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:29:47 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,

Robert Puls

Hutchinson, MN 55350
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 21, 2016

No. 04-15-00405-CV

David GILLESPIE and Michael O'Brien,

Appellants

v.

A.L. HERNDEN and Frederick R. Zlotucha,

Appellees

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-10278

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellants’ reply brief was due on April 20, 2016. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(c). Before 

the due date, Appellants filed an unopposed motion for extension of time to file the reply brief 

until May 20, 2016, for an extension of thirty days. 

Appellants’ motion is GRANTED. Appellants’ reply brief must be filed by May 20, 

2016. See id. R. 38.6(d). NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO FILE 

APPELLANTS’ REPLY BRIEF WILL BE GRANTED.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of April, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Before the Third Division,

July 22, 1958

No. 62202.

#### The Landsdowne Distillery *v.*United States,

protest 167682-K (Philadelphia).

*331Opinion by

Richabdson, J.

At the trial, it was stipulated that certain of the brandy, which was assessed with duties and taxes, was missing and at no time was withdrawn for consumption, and that the facts and issues are the same as those involved in Abstract 61245. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following Abstract 61245, it was held that taxes and duties upon the missing merchandise were not lawfully assessed. The collector was directed to reliqui-date the entry accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
COMPANY'S AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DATED AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS 
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,452
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,376
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,723
<PP&E>                                          11,166
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,214
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,850
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,699
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        328
<COMMON>                                            97
<OTHER-SE>                                     (6,422)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,850
<SALES>                                         13,754
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,754
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,214
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,327
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 220
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    993
<INCOME-TAX>                                        38
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                955
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       955
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05
        

</TABLE>
From: meanymom54@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:14:54 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,

Anne Reiser

Williston Park, NY 11596
From: joesthilaire@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:06:25 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,

Joseph St.Hilaire

Bellingham, WA 98225
No. 63784.

protests 182797-K, etc. (New York).

#### W. R. Keating & Co., Inc., and The Antique Market, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of candlesticks similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 62036, except that they are not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, nor colored with gold lacquer, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
| **Derivative Financial Instruments and Risk Management (Details) (USD $)In Millions, unless otherwise specified**       | Sep. 30, 2013 |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|
| **Derivative**                                                                                                          |          |
| Deferred net losses, interest rate risk, to be reclassified from equity to current earnings over the next twelve months | $ 3           |

| X                                                                                                                                                       |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**us-gaap_DerivativeLineItems**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
The estimated net amount of unrealized gains or losses on interest rate cash flow hedges as of the balance sheet date expected to be reclassified to earnings within the next twelve months.
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 815 -SubTopic 30 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=7668309&loc=d3e80748-113994
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_InterestRateCashFlowHedgeGainLossToBeReclassifiedDuringNext12MonthsNet**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**credit**Period Type:**instant |
---

Exhibit99.1

July 1 to June 30
      Twelve
        Month PeriodNo. of 
        Corporate 
        Stores
      Corporate Store 
        Sales
      Sales per Store
      Change
      No. of Non- 
        Corporate 
        Stores
      Non-Corporate 
        Store Sales
      Sales per 
        Store
      Change(US$)
      (US$)
      
      
      (US$)
      (US$)FY2010
      89
      17,708,764
      198,975
      8.9%
      30
      2,643,941
      88,131
      23.4%FY2009
      77
      14,074,481
      182,785
      
      30
      2,142,734
      71,424


---

July
        1, 2009 to June 30, 2010         FY2010Corporate 
        Store No.
      Non- 
        corporate 
        Stores 
        No.
      Combined 
        Store No.
      Store 
        Size
      Store Size
      Average 
        Store Size
      Corporate 
        Stores 
        Sales
      Non- 
        corporate 
        Stores 
        Sales
      Combined 
        Sales
      Sales per 
        Square 
        Footage(M2)
      (ft2)
      (ft2)
      (US$)
      (US$)
      (US$)
      US$/ ft2)Stores Exist throughout the Period
      89
      30
      119
      12,685
      136,540
      1,147
      17,708,764
      2,643,941
      20,352,705
      149Newly Opened Stores
      45
      12
      57
      5,031
      54,152
      950
      2,556,936
      120,078
      2,677,014
      49Newly Closed Stores
      41
      31
      72
      6,664
      71,731
      996
      426,875
      59,125
      486,001
      7Average for the Period
      132
      52
      184
      18,532
      199,482
      1,087
      20,692,575
      2,823,145
      23,515,720
      118


Note: threecorporatestores and eight
non-corporatestores were opened and closed in the same period

July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009      FY2009Corporate 
        Store No.
      Non- 
        corporate 
        Stores 
        No.
      Combined 
        Store No.
      Store 
        Size
      Store Size
      Average 
        Store Size
      Corporate 
        Stores 
        Sales
      Non- 
        corporate 
        Stores 
        Sales
      Combined 
        Sales
      Sales per 
        Square 
        Footage(M2)
      (ft2)
      (ft2)
      (US$)
      (US$)
      (US$)
      US$/ ft2)Stores Exist throughout the Period
      77
      30
      107
      11,059
      119,041
      1,113
      14,267,932
      2,608,995
      16,876,927
      142Newly Opened Stores
      56
      24
      80
      8,313
      89,480
      1,119
      5,368,106
      562,787
      5,930,893
      66Newly Closed Stores
      35
      18
      53
      4,262
      45,873
      866
      340,205
      124,171
      464,376
      10Average for the Period
      123
      51
      174
      17,347
      186,718
      1,076
      19,976,242
      3,295,954
      23,272,196
      125


Note: sixcorporatestores and one
non-corporatestore were opened and closed in the same period

---
No. 59710.

#### L. Barbier *v.*United States,

protest 255988-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following *Sucrest Corporation*v. *United States*(31 C. C. P. A. 220, C. A. D. 275), it was held that payment of duties is a condition precedent to file a protest. An examination of the record showed that the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation. For the reasons stated, the motion to dismiss was granted.
From: sassycyndi20@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:20:18 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,

Cyndi Dean

Panama City Beach, FL 32407