alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Basimma

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Keep religion out of civil concerns

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:05:58 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the

new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive

services are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better access

to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to

contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are

pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for

the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious

affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of

all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to thousands of

women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.
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 DISMISSING ACTION

PAGE - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

CHRISTOPHER S. JOHNSON, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. C05-1874RSL

)

v. )

)

) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

GQ MAGAZINE, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

This is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff originally filed this

action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. However, that court

concluded that venue was not proper in the Southern District of Iowa and therefore ordered the

action transferred to this district. The original file containing plaintiff’s complaint and his

application to proceed in forma pauperis was received in this district on November 10, 2005. 

On November 16, 2005, this court issued an Order denying petitioner’s application to

proceed in forma pauperis on the grounds that plaintiff’s application was barred by 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g). The court granted plaintiff thirty days to pay the filing fee and advised him that his

failure 

Case 2:05-cv-01874-RSL Document 8 Filed 04/25/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

PAGE - 2

to timely pay the fee would result in dismissal of this action. To date, plaintiff has not paid the

filing fee for this action. Accordingly, the instant action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner and to the Hon. Monica J.

Benton.

DATED this 24th day of April, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Recommended for entry this

20th day of April, 2006.

 /s/Monica J. Benton 

MONICA J. BENTON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01874-RSL Document 8 Filed 04/25/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the Third Division,

December 17, 1968

No. P68/510.

protests 66/468, 66/2460, and 66/4058 (New York).

#### J. M. Sutton Sons & Co. *v.*United States,

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “T” covered by the foregoing protests consist of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *W. Kay Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 130, *672C.D. 2484) and that the items of merchandise marked “D” covered by the foregoing protests consist of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. a/c United China & Glass Company*(47 CCPA 1, C.A.D. 719), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 11

                       SUN TELEVISION AND APPLIANCES, INC.
                   COMPUTATION OF NET (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
               FOR THE PERIODS ENDED MAY 31, 1997 AND JUNE 1, 1996
                (AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                           For the
                                                                       Quarters Ended
                                                                    ---------------------
                                                                     May 31,      June 1,
                                                                      1997         1996
                                                                    ---------    --------
<S>                                                                 <C>          <C>
Net (loss)....................................................      $(10,154)    $(4,588)
                                                                    ========     =======
Common shares outstanding:
       Weighted average.......................................        17,439      17,364

       Dilutive effect of stock option........................          --            70
                                                                    --------     -------

       Weighted average shares used to calculate
          net (loss) per share................................        17,439      17,434

       Add net additional dilutive effect of stock
          options using period-end market price...............          --            95
                                                                    --------     -------

       Weighted average shares used to calculate
          fully diluted (loss) per share......................        17,439      17,529
                                                                    ========     =======

Net (loss) per share:
       Assuming primary diluted..............................       $  (0.58)    $ (0.26)
                                                                    ========     =======

       Assuming full dilution................................       $  (0.58)    $ (0.26)
                                                                    ========     =======
</TABLE>
From:

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:28:44 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,

d knoner
Case 2:05-cv-01900-MJP Document 10 Filed 04/18/06 Page 1 of 1
From: lvb_classical@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:07:41 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,

Kevin Frecker

Marion, IN 46952
H. Res. 179

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

April 23, 2007.

Whereas the family, serving as the primary source of love, 

identity, self-esteem, and support, is the very foundation 

of our communities, and our United States; 

Whereas foster families, who open their homes and hearts to 

children whose families are in crisis, play a vital role in 

helping children heal and reconnect and in launching 

those children into successful adulthood; 

Whereas over 500,000 youth are in foster care with at least 

380,000 in a family-home setting; 

Whereas numerous individuals and public and private organizations work to increase public awareness of the needs of 

children in foster care and leaving foster care as well as 

of the enduring and valuable contributions of foster parents; and 

Whereas those families who are able to serve a role as foster 

parents should be wholeheartedly encouraged to do so: 

Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—
2

•HRES 179 EH 

(1) a National Foster Parents Day should be established to recognize the contributions of foster parents 

across the Nation; and 

(2) the President should issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States and interested 

groups to conduct appropriate ceremonies, activities, and 

programs to demonstrate support for foster parents 

across the Nation. 

Attest:

Clerk.
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

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO EXTEND INDICTMENT DEADLINE – 1

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ANTHONY ADAMS,

Defendant.

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. 05-5182M

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

MOTION TO EXTEND INDICTMENT

DEADLINE

Upon stipulation of the parties to continue the speedy indictment time to allow counsel

to continue to investigate and negotiate this case, and upon the defendant’s Waiver of Right to

Speedy Indictment, the Court finds that such a continuance would serve the ends of justice,

and that the failure to grant such continuance in this case would deny counsel for the

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the

exercise of due diligence, therefore, 

//

//

//

//

Case 3:05-mj-05182-KLS Document 12 Filed 11/21/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO EXTEND INDICTMENT DEADLINE – 2

//

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the time to file an indictment be continued to

December 31, 2005. The period of delay resulting from this continuance from November 30,

2005, to December 31, 2005, is hereby excluded for speedy trial purposes under 18 U.S.C.

§3161(h)(8)(A) and (B).

DONE this 21st day of November, 2005.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Presented By:

/s/ 

Russell V. Leonard

Attorney for Defendant

/s/ 

Michael Dion

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:05-mj-05182-KLS Document 12 Filed 11/21/05 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Town of Southampton, Respondent; Cecil Bill et al., Appellants.

[633 NYS2d 179]

—In an eminent domain proceeding, the claimants appeal, (1) on the ground of inadequacy, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), dated March 30, 1993, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of them and against the Town of Southampton in the principal sum of only $28,000, and (2) from an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court entered January 5, 1994, which, upon granting the Town of Southampton’s motion pursuant to EDPL 304 (H), is in favor of the Town of Southampton and against them in the principal sum of $194,335.

Ordered that the order and judgment dated March 30, 1993, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered, that the order and judgment entered January 5, 1994, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

In affidavits and in testimony, the appellant Richard Pellicane adopted the position prior to trial that he was the owner of an interest in the subject property so as to induce the Town of Southampton (hereinafter the Town) to make an advance payment to him as though he were in fact a condemnee. He is now equitably estopped from adopting an inconsistent position, and from denying his status of a condemnee to the detriment of the Town *(see generally, Rosenthal v Reliance Ins. Co.,*25 AD2d 860, *affd*19 NY2d 712; *Chatauqua County Fedn. of Sportsmens Club v Caflisch,*15 AD2d 260; 57 NY Jur 2d, Estoppel, § 48; *see also, Lanzano v City of New York,*202 AD2d 378, 380; *Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine v Zion,*168 AD2d 373; *Neumann v Metropolitan Med. Group,*153 AD2d 888, 889; *Borillo v Beekman Downtown Hosp.,*146 AD2d 734, 736; *Karasik v Bird,*104 AD2d 758).

We have examined the appellants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Balletta and Hart, JJ., concur.
|               | (1)                                  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                                |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|          |        |                                                                              |
|          | (2)                                  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the dates and periods covered by the Report. |

|  Date: May 14, 2010                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |                      |                     | /s/ Elizabeth A. Smith                |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                                                              |                      |      | Elizabeth A. Smith                    |
|                                                         |                      |      | President and Chief Executive Officer |
From: edenfield0304@bellsouth.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:52:11 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,

N Edenfield

Covington, GA 30014
From: mlefholz@embarqmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:07:34 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,

Marilyn Lefholz

Lexington, MO 64067