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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44 - Rescission

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:12:19 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,

Robert R Wall

Normal, IL 61761
From: timmo1kc@cmich.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:50:37 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 timmons

Mount Pleasant, MI 48858
From: areese@rgare.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:04:42 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,

Audrey Reese

De Soto, MO 63020
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JENNIFER A. HERR, §

§ No. 299, 2015

Defendant Below, §

Appellant, § Court Below: 

§ Superior Court of the

v. § State of Delaware

§

STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 1401010595

§

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: November 17, 2015

Decided: January 4, 2016

Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices.

O R D E R

This 4

th day of January 2016, upon consideration of the appellant’s 

brief under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), her defense counsel’s motion to 

withdraw, and the State of Delaware’s response, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On January 7, 2015, a Superior Court jury found the appellant, 

Jennifer A. Herr, guilty of Felony Theft and Conspiracy in the Second 

Degree. On May 29, 2015, after a presentence investigation, the Superior 

Court sentenced Herr to two years at Level V suspended for one year at 

Level II probation. This is Herr’s direct appeal. 
2

(2) On appeal, Herr’s defense counsel has filed a brief and a motion 

to withdraw under Supreme Court Rule 26(c).1 Defense counsel asserts that, 

based upon a complete and careful examination of the record, there are no 

arguably appealable issues. Defense counsel represents that he provided 

Herr with a copy of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying brief and 

informed Herr of her right to identify any points she wished this Court to 

consider on appeal. Herr did not submit any points for the Court’s 

consideration. The State has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief and has 

moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.

(3) When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying 

brief under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), this Court must be satisfied that the 

appellant’s defense counsel has made a conscientious examination of the 

record and the law for arguable claims.2 Also, the Court must conduct its 

own review of the record and determine whether “the appeal is indeed so 

frivolous that it may be decided without an adversary presentation.”3

 

1

See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 26(c) (governing criminal appeals without merit).

2

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 

U.S. 429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 

3

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. at 81.
3

(4) In this case, having conducted “a full examination of all the 

proceedings” and having found “no nonfrivolous issue for appeal,”

4

the 

Court concludes that Herr’s appeal “is wholly without merit.”5 The Court is 

satisfied that Herr’s defense counsel made a conscientious effort to examine 

the record and the law and properly determined that Herr could not raise a 

meritorious claim on appeal.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 

affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 

The motion to withdraw is moot.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice

 

4

Id. at 80.

5

See supra note 1.
From: mrcpw@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:27:24 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,

Michael Callan

Virginia Beach, VA 23454
From: cbarbee@bellsouth.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:56:21 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,

Corletta Barbee

Stanfield, NC 28163
From: algin@suddenlink.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:27:12 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,

virginia Voelker

Georgetown, TX 78628
BOX ENERGY CORPORATION
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                 Exhibit 11.1
                    (In thousands, except per share amounts)
  
  
  <TABLE>
  <CAPTION>
                                            Three Months Ended        Six Months Ended
                                                 June 30,                 June 30,
                                              1997      1996           1997       1996
                                            --------  --------       --------  --------
<S>                                         <C>       <C>            <C>       <C>
Net income for primary income per share     $   (462) $ (3,473)      $  1,345  $ (1,056)
Interest expense on 8 1/4% convertible
  subordinated notes                           1,133     1,133          2,253     2,266
Income tax effect (assumed to be 35%)           (397)     (397)          (789)     (793)
                                            --------  --------       --------  --------
Net income for fully-diluted 
 income per share                           $    274  $ (2,737)      $  2,809  $    417
                                            ========  ========       ========  ========

Primary income per share                    $  (0.02) $  (0.17)      $   0.06  $  (0.05)
                                            ========  ========       ========  ========
Fully-diluted income per share              $   0.01  $  (0.10)      $   0.11  $   0.02
                                            ========  ========       ========  ========
Calculation of weighted average shares
  Class A (Voting) common stock                3,246     3,250          3,248     3,250
  Class B (Non-Voting) common stock           17,422    17,553         17,487    17,553
  Stock options considered common
    stock equivalents                              0         0              0         0
                                            --------  --------       --------  --------
  Total shares used for primary
    income per share                          20,668    20,803         20,735    20,803
  Contingent shares from remaining 
    stock options granted                        279       604            279       601
  Contingent shares from 8 1/4% convertible
    subordinated notes                         5,007     5,007          5,007     5,007
                                            --------  --------       --------  --------
    Total shares used for fully-diluted
      income per share                        25,954    26,414         26,021    26,411
                                            ========  ========       ========  ========

</TABLE>
No. 60207.

protest 283491-K (Baltimore).

#### The Crosse & Blackwell Company *v.*United States,

*352Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the fruit raspberry is the component material of chief value, rather than the sugar, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Case No. 8,806.

#### McGOWAN v. CALDWELL.

[1 Cranch. C. C. 481.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

June Term. 1808.

Pleading at Law — General Performance — Rejoinder— Excuse for not Performing — Decree a Vinculo Matrimonii — Articles for Alimony.

1. After a plea of general performance, a rejoinder stating ud excuse for not performing is bad.

2. A decree for a divorce a vinculo, and declaring that the articles entered into previously for alimony should remain in force, is no bar to an action upon a bond given to perform those articles.

[This was an action at law by McGowan against Timothy Caldwell.]

Debt on bond for performance of covenants for separate maintenance of the defendant’s wife. Plea, general performance. Replication, non-payment of annuity. Rejoinder, divorce, and decree for alimony in Vermont. General demurrer and joinder.

Mr. Jones and Mr. F. S. Key, for defendant,

contended that the bond is made void by the decree, although he admits that the covenants remain in forre. When a person gets a security of a higher nature it merges the lower security. It is the same as if a judgment had been recovered on the bond. The court of Vermont has decreed the execution of the articles; but nothing is said of the bond. The divorce a vinculo matrimonii dissolves all the relation of husband and wife, and all the obligations of that relation. It dissolves not only the primary obligations, but all obligations or contracts founded upon such primary obligations. If the court had decreed a less alimony, or that a smaller sum should be allowed, the bond would have been void. So if a larger sum had been allowed. The court in Vermont, decreed that in lieu of all other alimony, the articles should remain in force as if the decree of divorce had not been made.

*125Mr. Law and Mr. Morsell, in reply.

The court in Vermont could not annul the bond, and discharge the surety. Smith v. Buchanan, 1 East, 11. McGowan, the trustee, did not get a higher security. It is not a decree enforcing the articles. The covenants are not void; the consideration has not failed; the consideration was not marriage, but separation. The dissolution of the marriage does not dissolve agreements and contracts of the parties grounded not on the marriage but on the separation. The decree says that the covenants should not lose their effect. The court in Vermont, did not intend to discharge the covenants, or the bond given to secure their performance.

THE COURT

(nem. con.) adjudged the rejoinder to be bad; not only as a departure from the plea, but as bad in substance, the bond not being affected by the decree.
From: allenz_4@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:24:38 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Allen Zidack

Diamond Bar, CA 91765