alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: bsanberg@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:37:59 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,

Irita Sanberg

Maple Valley, WA 98038
# 

# CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (SM)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

Registration No.  333-97047

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  362                                                               Trade Date:  11/17/03

(To Prospectus Supplement dated August 15, 2002 &

  Prospectus dated August  8, 2002)                                                                     Issue Date:   11/20/03

The Date of this Pricing SupplementNovember 17, 2003

SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

  CUSIP                                                                                                                                Date and terms of redemption or

     or        Stated                                                                  Interest                                    repayment (including any

Common  Interest                      Price to  Discounts &        Payment  Survivors                  applicable regular or special

  Code      Rate (1)               Maturity                Public (2)                Commissions      Frequency      Option     Yes/No                record dates)

14911QRB9   4.00%                        11/15/09          100%                    1.0%                   Monthly            YES            NO                

                          

Principal                                                                                1st Payment Day         

Amount                   Proceeds                 Dealer                            Date                  Count

$5,132,000.00                $5,080,680.00         ABN AMROInc.                 12/15/03                 30/360    

Original Issue Discount Note:                                                                   Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes                X   No                                                                                   N/A

The interest rates on the PowerNotes (SM) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (SM) offered prior to the effective date of the change.  Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $343.724 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (SM) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (SM) will be made under the Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated August 8,2002.

Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before

KERN, ALDYCIEWICZ, and MARTIN

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v.

Private First Class CERION R. ALLEN

United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20120742

Headquarters, 82d Airborne Division

Tara A. Osborn and Stephen E. Castlen, Military Judges

Lieutenant Colonel Paul J. Cucuzzella, Staff Judge Advocate 

For Appellant: Major Vincent T. Shuler, JA; Captain Robert H. Meek, JA. 

For Appellee: Major Elisabeth A. Claus, JA.

19 February 2014

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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

Per curiam:

Upon review of the entire record pursuant to Article 66(c), UCMJ, we note 

that appellant was charged with and pleaded guilty to both attempted robbery and 

attempted larceny (Specifications 1 and 2 of Charge I, respectively). He was also 

charged with and pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit larceny and conspiracy to 

commit robbery (Specifications 1 and 2 of Charge II, respectively).* “Robbery is a 

compound offense consisting of assault and larceny.” United States v. Cunningham, 

19 C.M.R. 232, 233, 6 U.S.C.M.A. 106, 107 (C.M.A. 1955). “Offenses are 

multiplicious if one is a lesser-included offense of the other.” United States v. 

Palagar, 56 M.J. 294, 296 (C.A.A.F. 2002). As a matter of logic, both appellant’s 

 

* On appeal, appellant personally challenged the attempted larceny and conspiracy to 

commit larceny as multiplicious with the attempted robbery and conspiracy to 

commit robbery, respectively. Appellant personally raised this issue pursuant to 

United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982). His other personal 

submissions lack merit. 
ALLEN—ARMY 20120742

2

attempt to commit robbery and his conspiracy to commit robbery necessarily include 

an attempt to commit larceny and a conspiracy to commit larceny, respectively. 

Accordingly, the findings of guilty of Specification 2 of Charge I and 

Specification 1 of Charge II are set aside, and those specifications are dismissed. 

The remaining findings of guilty are AFFIRMED. Although the military judge 

varyingly used the terms “multiplicious for the purposes of sentencing” and 

“unreasonable multiplication of charges for purposes of sentencing,” the record is 

clear that the military judge only sentenced appellant for the grea ter offenses. 

Considering the modified findings, we find the sentence as approved by the 

convening authority is appropriate and is AFFIRMED. All rights, privileges, and 

property, of which appellant has been deprived by virtue of that portion of the 

findings set aside by this decision, are hereby ordered restored.

FOR THE COURT:

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court

FOR THE COURT:
No. 69252.

#### Louis Marx & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 64/21962 (Philadelphia).

*398Opinion by

Nichols, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of miniature motors similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 66961, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4503-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Alabama (FEMA-4503-DR), dated March 29, 2020, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This change occurred on June 29, 2023.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Robert D. Samaan, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.                          ( print page 66487)    

This action terminates the appointment of Gracia B. Szczech as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2023-20991 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
From: hgredmon@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:45:41 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Howard Redmon

Springfield, MO 65810
# OAR Box 

# 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 166 ) M-K-(C)- 2 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7 p. i

Printed 11/12/200811:12:54 AM Sheet 166 of 325P. 2

II-K-(C)- 2
INFORMATION

ABOU T TH E INDUSTRIAL FUE L CHOIC E ANALYSI S MODE L (IFCAM ) DEVELOPE D B YEEA . Lette r fro

m E . Medine , EEA

t o W . Marx , Counci l o f Industria l Boile r Owners . Octobe r 26 , 1979 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(C)- 2
From: jlklyn@iowatelecom.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:02:02 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,

Lois Klyn

New Sharon, IA 50207
February 16, 1959

No. 62771.

Suit 4944.

#### J. B. Henriques, Inc. *v.*United States.

reversed December 15, 1958. C.A.D. 695.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

MIGUEL DIAZ-JIMENEZ,

 Defendant.

Case No. 05-5172M

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 ( X ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

 ( ) 

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( X ) Defendant’s lack of community ties and resources..

 ( X ) Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal,

without prejudice to review..

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 September 28, 2005.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-mj-05172-GHK Document 7 Filed 09/28/05 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O

. 00-2351
G AR Y P. G A D A SH , A PP EL L ANT ,

V

. ANTHONY J. P RI NCI PI , S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE

.

Be fore KRAMER, Chief Judge , and HOL DAWAY and GREEN E, J ud ge s.
O R D E R
On Dec ember

11, 2000, the appe llant appea led throug h counsel a n Aug ust 15, 2000, decision of the B oa rd of Ve te ra

ns ' Ap pe a ls tha t r e ma nd e d a c la im f or se rv ic e c on ne c tio n f

or po st- tr a umatic st re s s d i s o rd er . The Sec reta ry filed a motion to dismis s for lac k of jurisdiction, and the a ppellant responde d. On Fe bruar

y 9, 2001, the Court in a si ng le-judg e order dis missed this appea l for lack of j u r i s d i c t i o n
. O n F e b r

u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 0 1 , t h e a

p p e l l a n t f i l e d a m o t i o n f

o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n b y a p a n e l

. In an Apr il 3, 2001, order , this Court construed that motion as one for a pane l decision and de nied that construed motion.
O n Apri l 18, 2001, t

he appel l ant

fi l ed a moti on f

or re consid er atio n o f a pane l deci si on pu rp o rte d ly pu rs u an t to R u le 3 5 (b ) an d (c) o f th is C o u rt's R u les o f Pr ac tice an d Pr o ce d u re (R u les ). Ho we v e r , R

ul e 35 ( a ) p r o v i d e s t ha t " [ a ] p a r t y i n a c a s e d e c i d e d by a p a n e l m ay m ove f or r ec on s i de r at i on by

t he p an el

. " U. S. V ET
. A PP
. R. 35(a )

. A pane l deni al of a m ot i on for a panel de cisi on is not a "case d ecided by a pa nel. " See U. S. V ET
. A PP
. R. 35(c ) ( " A par t y m ay m ove f or deci si on by t he f

ul l Cou rt
. . . ( 2) af

t er a pane l has deci ded a cas e, or ( 3) af t er a pane l has deni ed a moti on f

or pa nel deci si on . . . . " )

. Rul e 3 5( a) does not cont empla t e a moti on f or re cons i derat i on by a pan el af

t er a p an el ha s de ni ed a mo t i on f or a p an el de c i s i on . N or do Rul e 3 5 p ar ag r ap hs ( b) or ( c) cont empla t e such a moti on. Accordi ngl y , t he C ourt wi l l di rec t

t he C l erk of

t he C ourt t o ret urn t o t he appel l ant

his Apri l 18, 2001, mot i on. Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g , it

is ORDERED that the appe llant's A pril 18, 2001, motion for rec onsid er ation is not acce pted for f iling. The Clerk of the Court is direc ted to return to the appellant his April 18, 2001, motion for
rec onsideration of the April 3, 2001, denial of a panel de cision.

DA TE D: Ma y

31 , 2 00 1 PER CU RI AM

.
From: chris.serman@sabic-ip.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:03:49 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,

Chris Serman

Tyler, AL 36785