alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: daveraking316@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:28:32 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,

David Evra

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33317
#### Laurensyah HO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-2161.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 15, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 16, 2005.

*166Stanley J. Ellenberg, Law Offices of Stanley Ellenberg & Associates, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Laurensyah Ho, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

In her petition for review, Ho contends that the immigration judge erred in denying her requests for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture.1 “To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that [s]he faces a clear probability of persecution because of h[er] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” *Rusu v. INS,*296 F.3d 316, 324 n. 13 (4th Cir.2002) (citing *INS v. Stevic,*467 U.S. 407, 430, 104 S.Ct. 2489, 81 L.Ed.2d 321 (1984)). To qualify for protection under the Convention Against Torture, a petitioner bears the burden of proof of demonstrating that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2005). We find that Ho failed to make the requisite showing before the immigration court to demonstrate her eligibility for either form of relief.

Accordingly, we deny the' petition for review.2 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*

1

. Ho correctly notes that we lack jurisdiction to review the immigration judge’s finding that her asylum application was untimely filed pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000). *See Zaidi v. Ashcroft, 377*F.3d 678, 680-81 (7th Cir.2004) (collecting cases).

2

. To the extent that Ho argues that the immigration judge failed to properly develop the record to allow for meaningful appellate review, we find that this argument lacks merit. Our review of the record reveals that the immigration judge’s opinion is thorough, well-reasoned, and adequately explains the basis for the decision.
From: sunsetsacumen@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:40:58 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,

Rachel Brazzell

Charlotte, NC 28226
No. 67530.

#### Souvenirs, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/33904 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of decorated chinaware cup and saucer sets, mounted on a metal stand, used for decorative purposes, and not for tableware, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Order entered April 25, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00324-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.H. AND J.H., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. JC-16-00779-X

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this child protection case is overdue. By postcard dated April 1, 

2019, we notified Court Reporter Pamela Sumler that the reporter’s record was overdue. We 

directed Ms. Sumler to file the record within ten days and cautioned her that any request for an 

extension must be submitted in writing explaining the extraordinary reasons for the delay. On 

April 12, 2019, Ms. Sumler filed a letter stating she filed the reporter’s record in June 2018. On 

April 22, 2019, appellant filed his request for preparation or the reporter’s record and designation 

of matters to be included.

The order being appealed is the February 28, 2019 order terminating Father’s parental 

rights to his children. We ORDER Pamela Sumler, Official Court Reporter for the 305th 

Judicial District Court, to file, within TEN DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, the 

reporter’s record in this appeal. We caution Ms. Sumler that the failure to do so will result in the 

Court taking whatever remedies it has available to it to ensure this accelerated appeal proceeds in 
a timely fashion, which may include ordering that Ms. Sumler not sit as a court reporter until the 

complete reporter’s record is filed.

We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send copies of this order, by electronic 

transmission, to the following persons:

Honorable Cheryl Lee-Shannon 

Presiding Judge of the 305th Judicial District Court

Ms. Pamela Sumler

Official Court Reporter, 305th Judicial District Court

All parties 

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
|   | 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of1934. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | To      my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in      all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of      Union National as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the      Report. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By     | /s/ Mark D. Gainer                                        |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Chairman,      CEO, and President                         |
|   |                                                      |
|   | Date:      November 16, 2009                              |
|   |                                                      |
| By     | /s/ Michael D. Peduzzi                                    |
|   | Executive      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |                                                      |
|   | Date:      November 16, 2009                              |

----
H. Res. 319 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

April 19, 2007. 

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 1495) to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the 

Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and 

for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the 

bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of 

rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 

shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 

the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate 

the bill shall be considered for amendment under the fiveminute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original 

bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
2 

•HRES 319 EH 

the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure now 

printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature 

of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 

against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 

of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no 

amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 

substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report 

of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. 

Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 

printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided 

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not 

be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 

Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 

amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 

or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the 

bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 

bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 

adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the 

House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 

Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the na-
3 

•HRES 319 EH 

ture of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 

passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 1495 

pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 

the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the 

Speaker. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
No. P67/234.

No. P67/235.

No. P67/236.

#### F. B. Vandegrift & Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protests 62/4323, etc. (Philadelphia). F. B. Vandegrift & Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protests 63/3418, etc. (Philadelphia). F. B. Vandegrift & Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protests 64/12305, etc. (Philadelphia).

Beckworth, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “A” covered by the foregoing protests consist of curling irons or hair straightening combs in chief value of iron or steel similar in all material respects to those the subject of *F. B. Vandegrift &*Co., *Inc.*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 103, C.D. 2617), and that the items marked “B” consist of hair straightening combs in chief value of brass similar in all material respects to those the subject of C.D. 2617, supra, the claims of the plaintiffs were sustained.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of Iron Head Mining Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ken Waters, Principal Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sect. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sect. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (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 result of operations of the Company. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 19th day of March, 2009.  /s/ Ken Waters Ken Waters Principal Executive Officer and Accounting Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 413 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 22, 2007.
Whereas the United States Merchant Marine served as the Nation's first Navy and 
        helped George Washington's Continental Army defeat the British Navy;
Whereas since 1775, United States Merchant Mariners have served valiantly in 
        times of peace and in every war;
Whereas after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, 29 United States 
        Merchant Marine Academy cadets operated a fleet of boats in New York 
        Harbor, transporting firefighters and other emergency equipment workers, 
        medical supplies, and food;
Whereas today, more than 8,000 Merchant Mariners serve in the Military Sealift 
        Command, most of them working in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and 
        Operation Enduring Freedom;
Whereas the United States Merchant Marine Academy is the only one of the five 
        service academies that sends its cadets into war, and 142 undergraduates 
        of the Academy were lost during World War II;
Whereas during World War II, Merchant Mariners served honorably in combat but 
        were denied veterans benefits and recognition at the end of the war 
        despite sustaining the highest rate of casualties of any of the armed 
        services;
Whereas more than 95 percent of the Allied Forces and materiel that was 
        transported during World War II was transported by Merchant Marine 
        ships;
Whereas the Merchant Mariners of World War II were denied the unprecedented 
        benefits of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 (known as the ``GI 
        Bill of 1944'');
Whereas the story of the United States Merchant Mariners of World War II is one 
        of patriotism, of youthful exuberance, of dedication to duty, of bravery 
        in the midst of battle, and of a Nation that forgot these heroes after 
        the end of the war for more than 40 years until 1988, when they were 
        given veteran status;
Whereas by that time, over 125,000 of those Merchant Mariners had died and many 
        had lost out on opportunities and benefits they greatly deserved; and
Whereas, on National Maritime Day, Congress recognizes the tremendous sacrifices 
        and contributions of the Merchant Marine and its veterans and the entire 
        maritime industry to the Nation: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That on National Maritime Day, the House of Representatives 
recognizes the heroic and invaluable sacrifices that the United States Merchant 
Marine veterans have made to help ensure our Nation's prosperity and safety.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
From: Thomas Hubbell

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:45:12 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Thomas Hubbell
Gramercy, Louisiana
From: msaplicki@randomhouse.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:50:55 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,

Mark Saplicki

, 10469-5508