alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: sbv.jlm.kzoo@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:25:03 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,

Julie Moffitt

Kalamazoo, MI 49006
From: marci.starr@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:42:53 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,

Marci Starr

Robertsdale, PA 16674
From: Carol Weilandics

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:22:10 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,

Carol Weilandics
Coram, New York
From: cjsteng@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:27:51 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,

Carolyn Stenger

Schwenksville, PA 19473
**FjLD**

# NO.**04-14-00742-CR if^ANi** **:M 2015** **HAR 16** **AM If:** **U2 In** **The Court** **Of Appeals** **For The** 

### Fourth**Supreme Judicial** **District Of** **Texas**

# San**Antonio, Texas** **t) •"** **'*::.'■****ANDRES SOLIS** **VIELMA, Defendant-Appellant,** **vs. THE** **STATE OF** **TEXAS,**

### Pla**intiff-Appellee, In** **The County** **Court Of** **Uvalde County,** **Texas Cause** **No. 2013-09-** **12304-CR**

### APPELLANT'S**MOTION FOR PRO** **SE ACCESS** **TO THE** **APPELLATE RECORD** **TO THE HONORABLE** **JUDGES OF** **THE FOURTH** **COURT OF** **APPEALS: NOW** **COMES ANDRES** **SOLIS VIELMA,** **Appellant in** **the above-styled** **and numbered** **cause, and** **respectfully files** **this Motion** **For Pro** **Se Access** **To The** **Appellate Record.** **In support** **of this** **motion, Appellant** **shows this** **Court as** **follows. I.** **Appellant's appointed** **counsel have** **filed motion** **to withdraw,** **along with** **and brief** **in support** **of the** **motion, pursuant** **to Anders** **v. California,** **386 U.S.** **738 (1967).** **II. The** **undersigned Appellant** **wishes to** **exercise his** **right to** **review the** **appellate record** **in preparing** **his pro** **se response** **to the** **Anders brief** **that court-appointed** **counsel have** **filed. The** **undersigned Appellant** **now moves** **this Court** **to provide** **him with** **free,pro se access** **to the** **appellate record,** **including the** **Clerk's Record** **and the** 

### Reporter's**Record. See** **Kelly v.** **State, 436** **S.W.3d 313,** **318-19 (Tex.Crim.App.** **2014). III.** **The undersigned** **Appellant is** **presently incarcerated** **and lacks** **access to** 

### computer.**For that** **reason, Appellant** **respectfully requests** **that paper** **copy of** **the appellate** **record be** **provided to** **him. Appellant** **also requests** **30-day extension** **of time** **from his** **receipt of** **the record** **to file** **his pro** **se brief.** **IV. This** **motion is** **addressed to** **the Fourth** **Court of** **Appeals, Cadena-Reeves** 

### Justice**Center, 300** **Dolorosa Street,** **Suite 3200,** **San Antonio,** **Texas 78205.** **This motion** **is delivered** **to the** **Fourth Court** **of Appeals** **by United** **States mail, on** **this the** 

### It**day of** **[M^hcW 2015.** **PRAYER FOR** **ALL OF** **THESE REASONS,** **Appellant Andres** **Solis Vielma** **respectfully prays** **that this** **Court will** **GRANT his** **Motion For** **Pro Se** **Access To** **The Appellate** **Record. Respectfully submitted,** **ANDRES SOLIS** **VIELMA Appellant** **Pro Se** **ynw'**

# First**Class Mail** **From: Mr.** **Andre.. Vielma** **TDCJ No.** **1964402 Garza** **VVcM Unit** **4250 Highvay** **202 Becvillc,** **T.xas 78102** **TO: Fourth** **Court of** **Appeals Office** **of tie** **Clerk Cadena-Rrevcs** **Justice Center** **300 Dolorcsa,** **Suite 3200** **San Anton** **o, Texas** **78205-3037**
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Luis Arturo VALENCIA-AMAYA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-10527.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 17, 2005.

Decided July 26, 2005.

*561Bruce M. Ferg, Esq., Cynthia R. Wood, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Ralph E. Ellinwood, Esq., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: TALLMAN, BYBEE, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Defendant Luis Arturo Valencia-Amaya appeals his conviction for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. On appeal, he challenges the district court’s order granting the government’s motion for reconsideration and denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it granted the motion for reconsideration. *See Smith v. Pac. Props. & Dev. Corp.,*358 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir.2004) (stating standard). Reconsideration was appropriate because, contrary to the district court’s reasoning in the initial order granting the motion to dismiss, the underlying deportation proceedings comported with due process. *See M.L.B. v. S.L.J.,*519 U.S. 102, 113-15, 117 S.Ct. 555, 136 L.Ed.2d 473 (1996) (noting that waiver of court fees in civil cases is generally not constitutionally required); *see also United States v. Corrales-Beltran,*192 F.3d 1311, 1316-18 (9th Cir.1999).

The district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment withstands *de novo*review. *See United States v. Pallares-Galan,*359 F.3d 1088, 1095 (9th Cir.2004) (stating standard). Because there was no due process violation in the underlying deportation proceedings, the defendant was not excused from his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. *See id.*His collateral attack on the prior deportation order was barred under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(1).

Finally, the *Crawford v. Washington,*541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), error, if any, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. *See United States v. Nielsen,*371 F.3d 574, 581 (9th Cir.2004) (stating standards).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
From: yolanda@elslights.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:19:17 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,

Yolanda Aguas

Pacoima, CA 91331
#### Gurjit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-74256.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 24, 2005.*

July 28, 2005.

Judith Lott, Newark, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Hillel Smith, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: SKOPIL, BOOCHEVER, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Gurjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the summary affirmance by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of the denial of his asylum application by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). There was substantial evidence to support the IJ’s conclusion that Singh was not credible, and we deny the petition for review.1

Because the BIA affirmed without opinion, we review the opinion of the IJ. *See Khup v. Ashcroft,*376 F.3d 898, 902 (9th Cir.2004). We give great deference to an IJ’s credibility finding, affirming if there is a legitimate reason to question the applicant’s credibility and if the IJ gives a specific and cogent reason for disbelieving *509his or her testimony. *See Malhi v. INS,*386 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir.2003).

The IJ gave a number of specific and cogent reasons for concluding that Singh was not credible. He found Singh’s various explanations for his family’s decision to harbor his cousin inconsistent. The IJ also found it implausible that Singh’s parents would take his cousin in without understanding the risk; that his cousin would continue his activities at the gurdwara (temple); that the police were not interested in Singh’s parents; and that the authorities in 1995 would trouble themselves with a general member of a legal political party. He further found it implausible that Singh would have received his passport without a problem if he had had an arrest record. These were not minor inconsistencies. Further, the IJ considered the documentary evidence and found it not strong enough to overcome the weaknesses in Singh’s testimony. *See Wang v. INS,*352 F.3d 1250, 1258-59 (9th Cir.2003) (inconsistencies undermining allegations of persecution are sufficient for adverse credibility finding, and documentary evidence must be strong to overcome doubts about testimony). There was substantial evidence to support the IJ’s credibility determination and his denial of Singh’s request for asylum and for withholding of removal.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. We do not consider the BIA’s denial of Singh’s applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture, because Singh did not raise these issues in his brief to this court.
|               | (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. |

|  Date:      August 14, 2008                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |                      |                     | /s/ A. William Allen,III     |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|------------------------------|
|                                                              |                      |      | A.      William Allen, III   |
|                                                         |                      |      | Chief      Executive Officer |
No. 61006.

protest 183430-K (B) (New York).

#### Eastern Air Lines, Inc. *v.*United States,

*350Opinion by

Johnson, J.

This protest involved seven entries on seven aircraft: Entry No. 2682 on aircraft No. 19134, entry No. 3587 on aircraft No. 18196, entry No. 5009 on aircraft No. 44792, entry No. 4785 on aircraft No. 12978, entry No. 2927 on aircraft No. 15567, entry No. 3926 on aircraft No. 12945, and entry No. 397 on aircraft No. 45332. At the trial, plaintiff abandoned the protest, insofar as it covered entry No. 397 on aircraft No. 45332, because it was untimely as to that entry. From the testimony and the official papers, which were received in evidence, the aircraft were flown to Canada together with parts for assembly therein. When they were returned, entries were made covering the airplanes and parts. The airplanes and such parts as were identified by the collector as American products were allowed free entry and the balance was assessed with duty. Counsel for the plaintiff abandoned the claim for free entry as to all the items described on entries 2682, 3587, 5009, 4785, 2927, and 3926, as set forth in schedules “A,” “B,” “C,” “D,” “E,” and “F,” respectively, attached to and made a part of the decision. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the remaining items were manufactures or products of the United States, having been returned to the United States after having been exported, without having been advanced in value or improved in condition, and that all of the applicable customs regulations had been complied with, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained as to said items. As to the items described in said schedules *“A”*to “F,” inclusive, and as to the items in entry 397, the protest, having been abandoned, was overruled.
No. 65166.

#### Beer Stern Import Corp. and Loewenthal Trimming Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 306141-K and 330335-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel- that certain items of the merchandise consist of narrow woven fabrics of cotton- similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Beer Stern Import Corp.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 294, C.D. 1944), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.