alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: p25508@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:20:27 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,

Pamela Tetreau

, 48309-1649
(R.D. 11428)

#### Parsons & Whittemore, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided December 18, 1967)

*Sharp, Solter & Hutchison*for the plaintiff.

*Edwin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.).

2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

5. _ That at the time relevant herein the purchase price and -the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in seotion 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated- in said schedule. As to *810all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
From: wrobelkat@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:42:15 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,

Kathryn Wrobel

Fall River, MA 02720
No. 69674.

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

protests 63/12238-13589, etc. (Chicago).

*504Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise 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: pehoop@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:56:25 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,

Phyllis Hooper

Emory, TX 75440
EX-4.5



 Exhibit 4.5 
  





 
  

	To	: Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV as the Company 

  

	From	: BNP Paribas Fortis SA/NV as Agent 

  

	Date	: 26 October 2017 

 Ladies and Gentlemen, 

EXTENSION CONFIRMATION 
  

	1.	We refer to: 

  

	 	(a)	the US$9,000,000,000 Revolving Credit and Swingline Facilities Agreement elated 26 February 2010, as amended on 25 July 2011, as extended on 20 August 2013, as amended and restated by an amendment and
restatement agreement dated 28 August 2015 and as further amended from time to time (the “Facilities Agreement”); and 

  

	 	(b)	the Extension Request dated 13 September 2017 (the “Extension Request”). 

  

	2.	Terms defined in the Facilities Agreement shall have the same meaning in this letter unless given a different meaning in this letter. 


 

	3.	We write as Agent under the Facilities Agreement. 

  

	4.	This letter is a Finance Document. 

  

	5.	We confirm that the Final Termination Date has been extended for all Lenders to the Second Extended Final Termination Date with effect from 3 October 2017. 


 

	6.	We confirm that the Second Extended Final Termination Date is 30 August 2022. 

 Yours faithfully 

 

 /s/ Benjamin NIHON 

Agency Relationship Manager 
 Corporate & Institutional
Banking 


 /s/ Bernard DE COSTER 

Agency Relationship Manager 
 Corporate & Institutional
Banking 

 

 BNP PARIBAS FORTIS SA/NV 

in its capacity as Agent
From: tbone2222@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:22:39 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,

Tony Gentry

Springfield, MO 65804
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000874971
<NAME>                        BERTUCCI'S, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-27-1997                                 
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-19-1997
<CASH>                                         3,705
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    257
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    1,055
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               7,256
<PP&E>                                       123,780
<DEPRECIATION>                                32,265
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               101,899
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         10,552
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                          44
<OTHER-SE>                                    68,566
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 101,899
<SALES>                                       40,337
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              40,337
<CGS>                                         10,118
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 10,118
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              25,844
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               363
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,579
<INCOME-TAX>                                     576
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,003
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,003
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.11
        


</TABLE>
From: dstandfill@bellsouth.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:07:29 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,

Deborah Ross

Denham Springs, LA 70706
#### Steven A. NORI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 00-6230.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 20, 2001.

Steven A Nori, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.

Varuni Nelson, David L. Goldberg, Assistant United States Attorneys, Brooklyn, NY, for appellee.

*33Present WALKER, Chief Judge, JACOBS, Circuit Judge and LARIMER, Chief District Judge.1

1

. The Honorable David G. Larimer, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this appeal from the order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Trager, J.), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-Appellant Steven A. Nori, *pro se,*appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (David G. Trager, *District Judge)*granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissing Nori’s employment discrimination case. *See Nori v. Henderson,*No. 98-CV-5786 (E.D.N.Y. June 27, 2000). Nori commenced this employment discrimination action against William J. Henderson, Postmaster General (the “defendant”), under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-17,2 for unlawfully terminating his employment as a Postal Police Officer (“PPO”) because: (1) he was perceived as being mentally unfit to be a PPO; and (2) he had given the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) false information regarding his mental health history.

The district court granted summary judgment on the basis that Nori had failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination. On appeal, Nori argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendant because: (1) the defendant, despite Nori’s “excellent” work evaluations, found Nori to be “a threat to himself and to those around him, not to be Accommodated, Unemployable [sic]”; (2) the medical personnel that deemed Nori unfit for the position of PPO were “questionable”; (3) it was unlawful to find Nori unfit for the position of PPO without affording him his own “qualified expert medical evaluations which contradict the employer [sic]”; and (4) he was not obliged to disclose his previous treatment for mental illness because his 1969 army records were “sealed.”

For substantially the reasons set forth by the district court, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

2

. Both counsel for the defendant and the district court recognized that the Americans with Disabilities Act is inapplicable to suits against the United States government or any of its agencies or officials. The defendant concedes that he is subject to suit under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(d), and the district court construed Nori’s complaint accordingly. A violation of the Rehabilitation Act is established in the same manner as a violation under Title I of the ADA. *Id.*
From: pobrienred123@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:05:38 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,

Patricia O'Brien

Scottsdale, AZ 85251
**Docket Number FAA -**  **2013 -**  **0705**
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 20

- 00349

- CR

CALLIE RENEE INMAN

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 56th District Court of Galveston County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 14

- CR

- 0611

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. March 10, 2022
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

ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

PAUL E. POLLARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C05-1481 RSM

ORDER

The Court, having reviewed the entire record, including the administrative record, the

memoranda of the parties, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

Judge Monica J. Benton, finds and orders as follows. It is therefore ORDERED: 

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) The Court REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security and

REMANDS for award of benefits.

DATED this 21st day of July, 2006.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-01481-RSM Document 14 Filed 07/21/06 Page 1 of 1