alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: steveferguson76@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:34:56 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,

Stephen Ferguson

Turlock, CA 95382
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

# TIME AND DATE: 

2:00 p.m., Tuesday, October 10, 2023.

# PLACE: 

The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 504 North, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).

# STATUS: 

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

                        The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:                         *Thomas*                         v.                         *CalPortland Co.,*                         Docket Nos. WEST 2018-0402-DM and WEST 2019-0205. (Issues include whether the Judge erred in ruling that the miner had established that the operator had discriminated                               ( print page 66450)                            against him under section 105(c)(3) of the Mine Act.)                    

Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO: 

Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

# PHONE NUMBER FOR LISTENING TO MEETING: 

1 (866) 236-7472, Passcode: 678-100.

*Authority:*5 U.S.C. 552b.                    

Dated: September 22, 2023.

Sarah L. Stewart,

Deputy General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2023-21163 Filed 9-25-23; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
Case No. 12,885.

#### SIMPSON v. MAD RIVER R. CO.

[6 McLean. 603.) 1

Circuit Court, N. D. Ohio.

July Term, 1855.

Patents — Utility—Damages.

1. A person who approves of an improvement of a patented right, but refuses to pay the price charged for it, is inexcusable for using it.

2. The fact of use is evidence of its utility, and should subject the defendant to damages.

[This was an action by Thomas D. Simpson against the Mad River Railroad Company for damages for the violation of letters patent No. 4,213, granted to plaintiff September 30, 1845.)

Curtis & Scribner, for plaintiffs.

OPINION OF

THE COURT.

This is an action for the violation of a patent right. On the 30th of September, 1843, the plaintiff obtained a patent for “an improvement in the mode of removing truck wheels, of locomotive and other engines.” The agent of plain- • tiff was called on by the agent of defendant, ! who on examination was pleased with the j improvement; and when the price of two j hundred and fifty dollars was stated to him > he refused to pay it. He had had the im- j provoment in operation two weeks, as wit- j ness understood, and he said to the witness, *\*he might bring suit. ;

There is no defence set up by the defend- ! ants, and the court instructed the jury that , they could assess the damages, to which the ¡ plaintiff is entitled, for the violation of the j patent. From the statement of the witness, ; it appears to be a very useful improvement ¡ in removing truck wheels of engines or cars, ; when they become defective and need re- I pair. It saves much labor and expense, and , also time. It is natural to conclude that from j the time the improvement was first used by , the defendants, nothing to the contrary ap- j pearing, it was continued in use, up to the i time this suit was commenced. The case ] proved is evidence of the utility of the im- ¡ provement. j

The jury found a verdict of five hundred dollars, in damages. Judgment.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 179 (Monday, September 18, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 63967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20120]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Complementary & Integrative Health; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Complementary and 
Integrative Health Special Emphasis Panel Early Phase Clinical 
Trials of Natural Products (NP).
    Date: October 20, 2023.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health 
Democracy II 6707 Democracy Blvd. Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual 
Meeting).
    Contact Person: Shiyong Huang, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Office of Scientific Review, Division of Extramural Activities, 
NCCIH/NIH, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 401, Bethesda, MD 20817, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c2b1aaabbbadaca5ecaab7a3aca582acabaaeca5adb4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1b6873726274757c35736e7a757c5b757273357c746d">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.213, 
Research and Training in Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 13, 2023.
Victoria E. Townsend,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-20120 Filed 9-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
From: vickizd@charter.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:41:59 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,

Vicki Zdanowski

Greer, SC 29650
From: henry.mowry@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:08:49 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,

Henry Mowry

Manitowoc, WI 54220
H. Res. 498 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 20, 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. 2764) making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs for 

the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, 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 Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 

amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order 

against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 

2 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill for 

amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
2 

•HRES 498 EH 

may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 

Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed 

in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for 

that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and 

reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation 

that the bill do pass, 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. 2764 

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.
From: jeniswope@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:51:54 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today because I see that the grave concerns that conscientious people all over the country

have had against the "2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act" were well founded.

Already we see that all the assurances about choice in health care options and exclusion of abortion

funding are being subordinated to another agenda.

The Contraceptive Mandate of August 2011 amounts to nothing less than coercion of individuals and

institutions to act against their consciences and the ethical principles which they uphold. This is

intolerable in a country which claims to be founded upon freedom.

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,

Jennifer Swope

Derry, NH 03038
From: Mattia Healy

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:45:16 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,

Mattia Healy
Carson City, Nevada
```

[114th Congress Public Law 28]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 129 STAT. 420]]

Public Law 114-28
114th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To revoke the charter of incorporation of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma at 
   the request of that tribe, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: July 6, 
                          2015 -  [H.R. 533]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REVOCATION OF CHARTER OF INCORPORATION.

    The request of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to surrender the charter 
of incorporation issued to that tribe and ratified by its members on 
June 1, 1940, pursuant to the Act of June 26, 1936 (25 U.S.C. 501 et 
seq.; commonly known as the ``Oklahoma Welfare Act''), is hereby 
accepted and that charter of incorporation is hereby revoked.

    Approved July 6, 2015.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 533 (S. 321):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 114-77 (Comm. on Natural Resources).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 114-40 (Comm. on Indian Affairs) accompanying S. 
321.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 161 (2015):
            June 1, considered and passed House.
            June 24, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
From: artistaip@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:57:33 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,

Matt Morrison

Richmond, OH 43944
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Y AHMII BALOGUN UHURU, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES PAROLE 

COMMISSION, et al., 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 09-0566 (RJL) 

--------------------------) 

ORDER 

For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby 

ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment [Dkt. #22] is GRANTED; 

and it is 

FURTHER ORDERED that JUDGMENT shall be entered for defendants. 

This is a final appealable Order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). 

SO ORDERED.