alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: JOB3313@AOL.COM

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:05:51 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,

RYAN VANDER HEIDE

Camarillo, CA 93012
From: csteiner@appletonalliance.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:43:26 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,

Carol Steiner

Wrightstown, WI 54180
From: bobandrobyn@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:20:30 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,

Robyn Ireland

Omaha, NE 68138
From: jmm.missa@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:53:55 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Michael Missaggia

Bayonne, NJ 07002
|                            | (i)                                |   | the      Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                            |
|---------------------------------|------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                            |                               |   |                                                                                                                                                                  |
|                            | (ii)                               |   | the      information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Issuer. |
|                            |                               |   |                                                                                                                                                                  |   |
|                            |                               |   |
| Date:      March 31, 2010  | /s/      GEOFFREY W NEHRENZ   |   |
|                            | Geoffrey      W Nehrenz       |   |
|                            | Chief      Executive Officer  |   |

----
No. 59743.

#### John S. Connor *v.*United States,

protests 256001-K and 256002-K (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case, the court found nothing tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the classification by the collector. The protests were therefore overruled.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1202 

CAF 11-01551 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF JOSHUA BURRELL, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANGELA D. BURRELL, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

 

CARA A. WALDMAN, FAIRPORT, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

CULLEY, MARKS, TANENBAUM & PEZZULO, LLP, ROCHESTER (JON E. BONAVILLA

OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

WENDY S. SISSON, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, GENESEO, FOR BRIANNA B. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Steuben County (Peter

C. Bradstreet, J.), entered July 8, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to

Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, awarded

petitioner primary physical custody of the subject child. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order awarding

petitioner father primary physical custody of the parties’ child. We

agree with Family Court that the father established the requisite

change in circumstances to warrant an inquiry into whether the best

interests of the child would be served by modifying the existing

custody arrangement (see Matter of Simonds v Kirkland, 67 AD3d 1481,

1482). The father established that the mother left the child without

adult supervision on several occasions late at night while she ran

errands and that the child had indicated to both parents that she had

been touched sexually or otherwise inappropriately by her half

brother. Although we note that the statement of the child to her

parents that she was touched sexually or otherwise inappropriately by

her half brother was not corroborated (cf. Matter of Nikki O. v

William N., 64 AD3d 938, 938-939, lv dismissed 13 NY3d 825), the

mother admitted that, upon hearing that statement, she enrolled the

child’s half brother in counseling. In our view, the mother’s conduct

in leaving the child without adult supervision late at night while she

ran errands, coupled with the child’s statement of the touching by the

half brother, constituted the necessary change in circumstances. We

further conclude that the court properly considered the totality of

the circumstances in determining that it was in the best interests of

the child for the father to have primary physical custody (see
-2- 1202 

CAF 11-01551 

generally Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171-174; Matter of

Brothers v Chapman, 83 AD3d 1598, 1598-1599, lv denied 17 NY3d 707).

Entered: November 16, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
No. 68129.

#### Max Eckardt & Sons, Division of Thor Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 59/15712 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plastic paperweights similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 67488, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66051-66052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20983]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-23-046]


Sunshine Act Meetings

Agency Holding the Meeting:  United States International Trade 
Commission.

TIME AND DATE: October 2, 2023 at 11:00 a.m.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
    1. Agendas for future meetings: none.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Commission vote on Inv. Nos. 701-TA-382 and 731-TA-800, 801 and 
803 (Fourth Review) (Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Japan, South 
Korea, and Taiwan). The Commission currently is scheduled to complete 
and file its determinations and views of the Commission on October 16, 
2023 .
    5. Outstanding action jackets: none.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sharon Bellamy, Supervisory 
Hearings and Information Officer, 202-205-2595.
    The Commission is holding the meeting under the Government in the 
Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b). In accordance with Commission policy, 
subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, 
may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.


[[Page 66052]]


    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: September 21, 2023.
Sharon Bellamy,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-20983 Filed 9-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
From: unbelievinghearts@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:45:49 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, and means 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 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,

William Brownlee

Maple Heights, OH 44137
Before the Third Division,

December 13, 1965

No. 69686.

#### United China & Glass Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 294134 — K, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *W. Kay Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 130, C.D. 2484), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 64543.

#### Irving Ross *v.*United States,

protest 60/4015 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

The protest was dismissed.
From: dandl.h@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:07:29 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,

Lynn Hemphill

Saint Louis, MO 63128
From: jofneb@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:59:20 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,

JoAnn Preitauer

Fremont, NE 68025
From: gackermann@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:20:56 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,

Gwen Ackermann

Carson, CA 90745