alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: npw6@pitt.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:26:04 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,

Nick Wytiaz

Clairton, PA 15025
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:22:50 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,

Barbara Lundberg

Meridian, ID 83646
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

JOSEPH ELIJAH AGEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHANE STEVENSON, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C05-1506-MJP-MAT

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff has filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. #5).

Defendants were ordered by the court to file an answer to the complaint by November 28, 2005.

(Dkt. #6). To date, however, defendants have neither filed the answer nor sought an extension

of time in which to do so. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

(1) Defendants shall show cause within 21 days from receipt of this Order why plaintiff

should not be granted relief. Alternatively, defendants may file their answer(s) within that time

period without need for further response.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-01506-MJP Document 14 Filed 01/03/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

PAGE -2

(2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to counsel for defendants, to

plaintiff, and to the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman.

DATED this 3rd day of January , 2006.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01506-MJP Document 14 Filed 01/03/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 68073.

#### Lafair & Sons Co. and Harper, Robinson & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 61/9160 (SanFrancisco).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass balls similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Joseph Markovits, Inc.*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 151, C.D. 2216), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 60536.

#### John H. Faunce Philadelphia, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 293625-K (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

The protest was dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 540 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 12, 2007.
    Resolved,  That the following named Member be, and is hereby, elected to the 
following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on the Judiciary: Ms. Sutton (to rank immediately after Mr. 
Johnson of Georgia).
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Date: June 2 9 , 20 1 1

Subject: T elephone Call with Valspar Regulatory Affairs Manager

– Wood Coatings

Woo d Furniture Manufacturing RTR RTI Project No. 021 2783.013

From: Dave Reeves , RTI International

To: Nick Swanson

OAQPS/SPPD/

NR G (D243

- 02)

U.S. Env ironmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

I. Contact

M s

. Sherry Stookey Regulatory Affairs Manager

- Wood Coatings High Point, NC (336) 80 2

– 4305

II. Summary of Information

N . Swanson and I made a follow

- up telephone call to Ms. Stookey to ask about specific coating information related to Kitchen Kompact. Ms. Stookey indicated that she had reviewed the information as part of the public comments provided by Kitchen Kompact and also America n Coatings Association (ACA). She stated that the main coatings used by Kitchen Kompact are a conversion varnish topcoat and sealer and they were developed/formulated specifically for Kitchen Kompact’ s high volume/high speed panel production line :

Coating Formaldehyde Content Density

Topcoat 0.2% by wt 7.9 lb/gal

Sealer 0.17% by wt 7.8 lb/gal

Ms. Stookey commented that quick

- cure coatings typically require resins with higher free formaldehyde content. Performance requirements are the driving criteria for

kitchen cabinet coating systems. When asked about the time frame to commercialize a new coating, she responded “6 months to a year.”

Her thoughts on what is generally referred to as low

- and no

- formaldehyde coatings: low

- formaldehyde is less than 0.1 % (by weight); ul tra

- low

- formaldehyde is 0.0

- 0 049% (takes into account rounding). Ms. Stookey emphasized that these are merely her interpretation and that these are constantly changing based on the current state of coating technology.2

Ms. Stookey could not provide an y specific cost information for the new conversion varnish coatings that Valspar has developed beyond stating that they would be more expensive. She also stated that a facility like Kitchen Kompact may have to install longer conveyer lines and

add more hea t to their ovens to utilize the new conversion varnish coatings.

M s

. Stookey stated that based on her calculations, there are 3 other wood furniture

customer sites that exceed ed 400 pounds of formaldehyde emissions last calendar year. He r calculations i nvolv ed formaldehyde content and the purchased volumes of Valspar coatings in

2010. She indicated that these three other facilities are much closer to the 400 pounds than Kitchen Kompact.
No. 58225.

protest 220245-K (New York).

#### William G. Young & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It appearing from the official papers that the protest was not filed within the 60-day period required by section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, the protest was dismissed.
#### SIERRA CLUB; Mineral Policy Center, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. EL PASO GOLD MINES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-1236.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Aug. 24, 2005.

John M. Barth, Hygiene, CO, Jeff Parsons, Roger Flynn, Paul Alan Zogg, Paul Zogg Law Firm, Boulder, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

James L. Merrill, Paul G. Anderson, Stephen D. Harris, Connie H. King, Merrill, Anderson, King & Harris, Colorado Springs, CO, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before MURPHY, McKAY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

*769ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge.

The Sierra Club and the Mineral Policy-Center (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit against El Paso Gold Mines, Inc. (“EPGM”) for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado entered judgment against EPGM and directed that entity to take certain actions, including the reimbursement to Plaintiffs for the attorneys’ fees and costs they incurred in prosecuting the case. An appeal was taken from that judgment by EPGM and that appeal was assigned Case No. 03-1105.

Subsequently, the District Court entered an order on May 2, 2003 assessing a specific amount of attorneys’ fees and costs to be awarded. EPGM filed a notice of appeal from that order and this appeal, Case No. 03-1236, was opened. In this appeal, EPGM argues simply that if the court reverses the judgment of the District Court in Case No. 03-1105, then Plaintiffs may no longer be prevailing parties and that the District Court’s award of attorneys’ fees and costs in this appeal must also be reversed.

In an opinion issued today in Case No. 03-1105, we have reversed the District Court’s entry of judgment and have remanded for additional proceedings. *See Sierra Club v. El Paso Gold Mines, Inc.,*— F.3d -, 2005 WL 2033619 (10th Cir., August 24, 2005). Because of that decision, the fee dispute in this appeal is subject to reconsideration by the District Court. We accordingly REVERSE the District Court’s order of May 2, 2003 regarding the assessment of attorneys’ fees and costs and REMAND to the District Court for further proceedings relating to those issues consistent with the judgment of this court entered in Case No. 03-1105 and any further proceedings of the court.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
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 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MS. EFFIE LIGON, as former Manager of

IBIS COMPANY TRUST,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No. MS05-5023FDB

ORDER

This cause of action has been erroneously filed as a miscellaneous action. Plaintiff, therefore,

is ORDERED to pay the required fee for filing a civil action by no later than Friday, September

30, 2005 or this cause of action will be dismissed.

DATED this 29th day of August, 2005.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05599-RBL Document 2 Filed 08/29/05 Page 1 of 1
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

ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_______________________________________)

JERRY A. BRENDEN, )

) Case No. C05-1681RSL

Plaintiff, ) 

v. )

) ORDER STRIKING MOTION 

SELLEN CONSTRUCTION, INC., )

)

Defendant. ) 

_______________________________________)

On August 14, 2006, the Court received plaintiff’s “Motion - Relief of Default” in

the above-captioned matter. Dkt. # 63. The motion was not noted for consideration on the

Court’s calendar as required by LR 7(b). Plaintiff has twice been directed to review the Court’s

local civil rules to ensure compliance with the requirements of LR 7. See Orders at Dkt. # 25

and # 55. Plaintiff was warned in July 2006 that future motions filed without a note date will be

stricken and not considered by the Court. Dkt. # 55. Despite the fact that plaintiff attached a

copy of that warning with the current motion, he again failed to comply with the local rules. 

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s “Motion - Relief of Default” is hereby

STRICKEN. The Court will not take any further action with respect to Dkt. # 63. 

Case 2:05-cv-01681-RSL Document 64 Filed 08/17/06 Page 1 of 2
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

ORDER -2-

DATED this 17th day of August, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01681-RSL Document 64 Filed 08/17/06 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eduardo Torres, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 997]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), rendered June 20, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress a statement made by him to the police.

*786Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The testimony established that the complainant identified the defendant in a lineup as the individual who robbed him of $70 and his taxicab at gunpoint. Prior to the robbery, the complainant had seen the defendant on two occasions in the neighborhood. He also had ample opportunity to observe the defendant during the robbery. Thus, the evidence establishing the defendant’s identity as the robber was overwhelming.

The minor inconsistencies regarding the location of the robbery created a credibility issue, the resolution of which was primarily the function of the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94; *People v Middleton,*143 AD2d 1053). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

We also find that the defendant’s inculpatory statement to a detective was made voluntarily after he had been read the *Miranda*rights, and had knowingly and intelligently waived them. The record shows that although the defendant, who had been involved in an automobile accident, was having pains, seemed tired and appeared to exhibit symptons of methadone withdrawal, he was coherent, alert and fully aware of his surroundings and what he was doing when he spoke to the detective in a waiting room of a hospital *(see, People v Rice,*199 AD2d 1054; *People v Mercado,*198 AD2d 380; *People v Eastman,*114 AD2d 509; *People v Pearson,*106 AD2d 588).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.
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

 ORDER

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DONNA MAE LEITNER,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN E. POTTER and UNITED STATES

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5674 RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte. Having considered the entirety of the records and file

herein, the Court finds and rules as follows:

This case is fraught with miscommunication. In an attempt to move this case forward, the Clerk is

directed to forward a copy of the Summons and Complaint to the United States Attorney for the Western

District of Washington. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1)(A). The United States shall have sixty (60) days to answer

or otherwise defend. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing

pro se.

Dated this 13th day of December, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05674-RBL Document 8 Filed 12/13/07 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 188 (Friday, September 29, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67325-67326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21362]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; 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 Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel International Research in Infectious 
Diseases (R01 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).
    Date: November 30-December 1, 2023.
    Time: 9:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E70A, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Soheyla Saadi, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National 
Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E70A, Rockville, MD 
20852, 301-435-0903, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3d4e5c5c59544e52557d53545c545913535455135a524b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c8bba9a9aca1bba7a088a6a1a9a1ace6a6a1a0e6afa7be">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)


[[Page 67326]]


    Dated: September 25, 2023.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-21362 Filed 9-28-23; 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>
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 TAXATION OF COSTS -- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

BULENT ERTUR,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROL L. EDWARD and JESSE F. BERGER,

as husband and wife, and the marital community

composed theeof; CAROL L. EDWARD P.S. . a

Washington Public Service Corporation doing

business in Washington ,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-1532JLR

TAXATION OF COSTS

Costs in the above-entitled action are hereby taxed against PLAINTIFF BULENT ERTUR and

on behalf of DEFENDANTS in the amount of $370.78.

Dated this 18th day of APRIL, 2007 .

A

Bruce Rifkin

Clerk, U.S. District Court

Case 2:05-cv-01532-JLR Document 56 Filed 04/18/07 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.01

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As
Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Mastech Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas B. Moran, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:
March 8, 2010



/S/ THOMAS B.
MORANThomas B. MoranPresident, Chief Executive Officer, and Director
From: angiembeard@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:58:03 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Angela Beard

Nashville, TN 37207