alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: gvanderbilt@neo.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:47:14 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,

gary vanderbilt

Mansfield, OH 44907
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Regina Bradley, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 584]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), rendered December 13, 1993, convicting her of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, the resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s challenges to the court’s charge are unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Miller, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.
From: goodmorals@justice.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:57:34 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,

Martin Wishnatsky

Lynchburg, VA 24502
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


            We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in Amendment No. 1 to
the  Registration  Statement (Form S-3 No.  333-6131) and related  Prospectus of
Cover-All  Technologies  Inc. for the  registration  of 6,591,528  shares of its
common  stock of our  report  dated  March 31,  1998,  with  respect to the 1997
consolidated  financial  statements and schedule of Cover-All  Technologies Inc.
included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1997.

            We  also   consent  to  the   incorporation   by  reference  in  the
Registration  Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-18243) pertaining to the 1982 Incentive
Stock  Option Plan and in the  Registration  Statement  (Form S-8 No.  33-44270)
pertaining  to the 1991 Key Employee  Stock Option Plan,  the 1988  Non-Employee
Director Stock Option Plan and certain Non-Qualified Stock Option Contracts, and
in the related  Prospectuses of Cover-All  Technologies Inc. of our report dated
March 31, 1998, with respect to the 1997 consolidated  financial  statements and
schedule of  Cover-All  Technologies  Inc.  included in its Annual  Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1997.





                                    MOORE STEPHENS, P. C.
                                    Certified Public Accountants.




Cranford, New Jersey
March 31, 1998
585/0)

Forest Excluded from
Harvest Land Base

| Forest Included in

Harvest Land Base

10 15 20 25 Miles

Legend

Land Use Allocations
National Land Conservation System

Administratively Withdrawn

Late-Successional Management Area

Riparian Management Area
Timber Management Area
BLM Office
BLM Administrative Boundary
Wild and Scenic River
Eligible Wild and Scenic River

Me

EUGENE DISTRICT

Source: Bureau of Land Management Corporate
Data revised for WOPR Analysis. No warranty is
made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the
accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data
for individual or aggregate use with other data.

5 10 15 20 25 Kilometers

Albers Equal Area Projection

North American Datum of 1983

MAP 6
Western Oregon Plan Revisions
Eugene and Medford Districts
Alternative 1

Land Use Allocations
ee LINN CO pp
— LANE CO

Planning

EUGENE DISTRICT
MAP AREA

MEDFORD)DISTRICT
MAP AREA

OREGON

c

Forest Excluded from
Harvest Land Base

| Forest Included in

Harvest Land Base

Vv
Impact Statement

‘
CURRY CO *

mee

» JOSEPHINE CO

—-—

fany :
_y>—> JACKSON cp

QO
Oo
Zz
ie)
Q
x
1S)
<
s

JOSEPHINE CO

CALIFORNIA

OD _NOSMOVe
O95 HLVNVT

MO06-12-02
EX-10.12



 Exhibit 10.12 

EIGHTH ADDENDUM 
 TO THE
RESEARCH AND LICENSE AGREEMENT 
 This Eighth Addendum to Research and License Agreement (the “Eighth Addendum”) is made by and between
The Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd. (“TRDF”) and Eloxx Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (“Licensee” or “Eloxx”). 

Whereas, TRDF and Eloxx are parties to a Research and License Agreement with an effective date of August 29, 2013 (the “License
Agreement”), as amended on November 26, 2013, January 14, 2014, June 9, 2014, August 3, 2014, January 21, 2015, February 9, 2015, April 29”, 2015, June 2, 2015, January 1, 2016 and March 6,
2016 (collectively, the “Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the parties desire to continue the relationship
contemplated by the Agreement and to further amend the Agreement as set forth herein; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby
agree as follows: 
  

	1.	Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms used in this Eighth Addendum shall have the meanings assigned thereto in the Agreement. 


 

	2.	Exhibit A to the Agreement shall be updated to include those patents and patent applications described in Exhibit A attached hereto. 


 

	3.	Except as added herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, as relevant to this Eighth Addendum. 


 

	4.	This Eighth Addendum may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Any signature page delivered by facsimile or
electronic image transmission shall be binding to the same extent as an original signature page. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby
accept and agree to the terms and conditions of this First Addendum. 
  

							
	ELOXX PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.	    	THE TECHNION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION LTD.
				
	By:	 	 /s/ Silvia Norman
	    	By:	 	 /s/ Rita Bruckstein

	Name:	 	Silvia Norman	    	Name:	 	Rita Bruckstein
	Title:	 	CEO	    	Title:	 	Research Authority Director
	Date:	 	7/16/2017	    	Date:	 	7/12/2017








 Exhibit A 

Additional Patents and Patent Applications 
  

																	
	 AMINOGLYCOSIDE DERIVATIVES AND USES THEREOF
IN TREATING GENETIC DISORDERS

	 Our Ref
Client Ref
	  	Country	  	Earliest
Priority	  	Entry Date	  	Filing Date
Application No.	  	 Publication Date + No.

Issue Date + Patent No.
	  	 Next Action
	  	Status	  	 Assignee

Inventor

	Ref 70047	  	USA
PRO	  		  		  	05-June-2017
62/515,021	  		  	Foreign Filing Due 05-June-2018	  	Filed	  	Eloxx Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Timor BAASOV, Vera FIRZON, Valery BELAKHOV and Bat-Hen ZALMAN
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEIMY CAROLINA PINEDA

- DE RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Petitioners,

v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent. No. 16

- 73389

Agency Nos. A202

- 126

- 826

A202

- 126

- 827

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 11, 2022 * *

Before: M c KEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Jeimy Carolina Pineda

- De Rodriguez and her minor son , natives and citizens

of El Salvador , petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
application for asylum, and denying Pineda

- De Rodrigue z’s application for

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

APR 15 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 16

- 73389

withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings, including determinations regarding social di stinction.

Conde Quevedo v. Barr , 947 F.3d 1238, 1241

- 42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de
novo the legal question of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except
to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing

st atutes and regulations. Id

. We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the petitioners
failed to establish their proposed social group is socially distinct. See id. at 1243
(substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that petitioner’s
proposed social group was not cognizable because of the absence of society

specific evidence of social distinction). Thus, the BIA did not err in concluding

that the pet itioners did not establish membership in a cognizable particular social

group. See Reyes v. Lynch , 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to
demonstrate membership in a particular social group, “[t]he applicant must
‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common
immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct
within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M

- E

- V

- G

- , 26 I. & N. Dec. 227,
237 (BIA 2014))). Thus, the asylum and withholdi ng of removal claim s fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because3 16

- 73389

Pineda

- De Rodriguez failed to show that it is more likely than not that she will be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El

Salvador

. See Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009)

.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
From: emcgill@southernco.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:29:55 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,

Elizabeth McGill

Locust Fork, AL 35097
Case No. 6,488.

#### HILL v. BONAFFON et al.

[2 Wkly. Notes Cas. 356.]

Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. 2, 1876.

Equity Pleading — Multifariousness.

On demurrer, multifariousness of bill can only be taken advantage of by the party suffering therefrom.

Sur demurrer to bill. The bill set forth the following facts: In 1870, Hill mortgaged certain real estate to Bishop and Bonaffon, his joint creditors, as security for their debt. In 1874, Hill mortgaged a portion of the same property, by a deed on its face absolute, to Bishop, as security for another debt due by him to Hill alone. Bishop then took and still held possession. Both debts had been paid. Hill having subsequently been adjudicated a bankrupt, his assignee filed this bill- against Bishop and Bonaffon, praying for satisfaction of the first mortgage, for an account, for a reconveyance by Bishop, and for a decree that the tenants of the property should attorn. To this bill, Bishop demurred on the ground of multifariousness.

G. T. Bispham, for demurrer:

Bonaffon, the joint mortgagee of the first mortgage, has nothing to do with the dispute between the parties to the alleged second mortgage. Tasker v. Small, 3 Mylne & C. 63.

Cadwalader, District Judge: Has not complainant the right to have removed from his title the possible cloud resting upon it from *151Bonaffon’s connection with the first mortgage?

N. Sharpless, contra.

THE COURT

(CADWALADER, District Judge)

overruled the demurrer on the ground that multifariousness could only be taken advantage of on demurrer by the person suffering, — in this case, Bonaffon, not Bishop.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 10-Q FOR
THE NINE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           4,779
<SECURITIES>                                   147,771
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               163,870
<PP&E>                                          52,502
<DEPRECIATION>                                (19,260)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 213,045
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,436
<BONDS>                                         24,142
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         23
<COMMON>                                           255
<OTHER-SE>                                     162,545
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   213,045
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,561
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,323
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,188
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (39,920)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (39,920)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (39,920)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.85)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.85)


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Ray SANDLIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-41064.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 19, 2005.

Terri Lynn Hagan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Amy R. Blalock, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Denise S. Benson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Joe J. Monsivais, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Robert Ray Sandlin appeals following his guilty plea to possession of sexually explicit visual depictions of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), and *393importation or transportation of obscene matters, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1462. Sandlin argues that his sentence violates *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004).

Sandlin pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement that contained a waiver of the right to appeal. We may examine Sandlin’s plea agreement sua sponte to determine whether we may hear his claims. *United States v. Martinez,*263 F.3d 436, 438 (5th Cir.2001). We conclude that the appeal is barred by the plain language of Sandlin’s knowing and voluntary appeal waiver in the plea agreement. *See United States v. Bond,*414 F.3d 542, 545-46 (5th Cir.2005); *United States v. McKinney,*406 F.3d 744, 746-47 (5th Cir. 2005).

Sandlin has also filed various motions to relieve the Federal Public Defender, for the appointment of new counsel on appeal, for expedited ruling on his motions and to proceed pro se. These motions are DENIED.

APPEAL DISMISSED. ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *393the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
From: pamanzo@embarqmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:57:01 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,

Paul Manzo

, 07848-2214