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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:58:17 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,

V Olsen

Dayton, MN 55327
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 13

- 429 V

Filed: September 10, 2014

Not for P ublication

*************************************

PATRICIA HERCIK

, *

*

Petitioner

, *

*

* Damages decision based on stipulation;

v. * influenza (flu) vaccine; Guillain

- Barr é

* Syndrome (GBS)

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Diana Stadelnikas Sedar

, Sarasota, FL

, for petitioner

. Ann D. Martin , Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1

On September 9 , 2014 , the parties filed the attached stipulation in which they agreed to

settle this case and described the settlement terms. Petitioner allege s that she suffered

Guillain

- Barr é Syndrome (“GBS ”) that w as caused by her January 13 , 2011

, receipt of influenza

(“flu ”) vaccine

. Petitioner further allege s that she suffe r ed the residual effects of this injury for

more than six months. Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner’s alleged GBS or

any other injury

. Nonetheless, the parties agreed to resolve this matter informally.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned exp lanation for the special master’ s action in this

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal

Claims’ s website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899,

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify a nd

move to delete such information prior to the document ’ s disclosure. If the special master, upon review,

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall

delete such material from public access

.2

The undersigned finds the terms of the stipulation to be reasonable. The court hereby

adopts the parties ’ said stipulation, attached hereto, and awards compensati on in the amount and

o n the terms set forth therein. Pursuant to the stipulation, the court awards a lump sum of

$ 260 ,000.00 , representing compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C.

§ 300aa

- 15(a) (2006) . The award shall be in the form of a check for $ 260 ,000.00 made payable to

petitioner

.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the

court is directed to enter judgment herewith. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 10, 2014 s/ Laura D. Millman

Laura D. Millman

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party , either separately or

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
Before the Second Division,

March 17, 1966

No. 69833.

protests 63/16094, 64/4333, and 64/22996 (New York).

#### Unex Products Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of spark plugs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Lodge Spark Plug Co.*v. *United States*(49 Cust. Ct. 158, C.D. 2379), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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 DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

CURTIS S. THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ROBERT SHILLING, et al.,

Defendants.

No. C05-1600L

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

On March 14, 2006, plaintiff filed a timely request for reconsideration of the

Court’s “Order Dismissing Civil Rights Action With Prejudice.” Motions for reconsideration

are disfavored in this district. Such motions will be granted only upon a “showing of manifest

error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to

[the Court’s] attention earlier without reasonable diligence.” Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1). After

again considering the objections filed by plaintiff on February 1, 2006, and February 7, 2006

(Dkt. # 12 and 13) as well as the “additional information” submitted with his request for

reconsideration (Dkt. # 16), the Court finds that plaintiff has not met his burden. 

Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration is therefore DENIED. If, as was suggested

in his last submission, plaintiff intends to appeal the Court’s judgment in favor of defendants, he

Case 2:05-cv-01600-RSL Document 17 Filed 03/28/06 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

27

28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2

should review the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, particularly Rules 3 and 4. Pursuant to

those rules, plaintiff should file a notice of appeal containing the information required by Fed.

R. App. P. 3(c) with the district court clerk within thirty days after judgment was entered. 

Although this time period may be extended by operation of Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4) or on

plaintiff’s motion, the safest course of action is to file the notice of appeal within thirty days of

March 2, 2006.

DATED this 28th day of March, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01600-RSL Document 17 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 68885.

#### Lansen-Naeve Corp. and Aristo-Craft Distinctive Miniatures *v.*United States,

protest 62/14921 (A) (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, O.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 plaintiffs was sustained.
From: rkerber@fuse.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:07:42 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,

Chris Kerber

West Chester, OH 45069
Exhibit 10.8

 

Dear Suresh Yannamani :

 

You are a highly-valued executive, and we consider your continued service and dedication to SourceHOV, and its affiliates (“SourceHOV”) essential to our business.

 

In lieu of a bonus for services you provided to SourceHOV to incentivize you to remain employed from April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2018 (the “Retention Period”), assuming you satisfy the eligibility criteria set forth below, you will earn a bonus in the amount of $450,000, less all applicable withholdings and deductions (the “Bonus”). The Bonus will be paid in the form of an advance on or before July 31, 2017.

 

You earn this Bonus if all of the following eligibility criteria are satisfied, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law:

 

a)                                     You are actively employed by SourceHOV on the last day of the Retention Period;

 

b)                                     You have not given notice of your intent to resign or before the last day of the Retention Period; and

 

c)                                      SourceHOV has not given you notice of its intent to terminate your employment for Cause on or before the last day of the Retention Period.

 

By signing below, you agree that if your employment with SourceHOV ends before the close of the Retention Period and/or if you fail to satisfy all of the other eligibility criteria set forth above,  SourceHOV may deduct the entire amount of the unearned, advanced Bonus from your final paycheck, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law. Additionally, to the extent such deduction is not permitted by applicable law and/or it is not possible to deduct the entire amount of the unearned, advanced Bonus in full from your final paycheck, you agree to re-pay to SourceHOV the remainder of the unearned, advanced Bonus within fifteen (15) business days after the termination of your employment, to the extent permitted by applicable law. If your employment is terminated (i) due to your death or disability, (ii) by you for Good Reason or (iii) for any reason by SourceHOV other than for Cause prior to the end of the Retention Period, you shall not be required to repay any amount of the unearned, advanced Bonus.

 

This letter agreement is intended to comply with, or be exempt from, Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (“Section 409A”) and shall be construed and administered in accordance with Section 409A.

 

This letter agreement encompasses the entire agreement of the parties relating to the Bonus, and supersedes all previous understandings and agreements between the parties with respect to the Retention Period. This letter agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns. This letter agreement, for all purposes, shall be construed in accordance with the laws of Delaware without regard to conflicts-of-law principles that would result in the application of the laws of another jurisdiction.

 

	
Agreed and accepted
    	
Compensation Committee
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/ Suresh Yannamani
    	
 
    	
/s/ James G. Reynolds
    
	
Suresh Yannamani
From: viclovesJesus@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:02:33 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Vic Sciarrino

Malone, NY 12953
No. 69229.

#### Shalom & Co. and Windsor Pen Mfg. Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 62/18086 and 62/6071 (New York).

Opinion by

Nichols, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plastic cases permanently fitted and furnished with traveling sets similar in use to leather cases and that the principles are the same as those involved in Abstract 64484, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

PONDEXTER BRYANT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5607RJB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. This matter comes before the court on petitioner’s filing of a

civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To file a petition and initiate legal proceedings petitioner

must pay a filing fee of $250.00 or file a proper application to proceed in forma pauperis.

On September 13, 2005, the clerk received petitioner’s complaint. (Dkt. #1). On September 15,

2005, the clerk sent petitioner a letter stating that he must either pay the full $250.00 filing fee or file an

application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. #2). The letter further stated that if petitioner did not so

respond by October 17, 2005, this action may be subject to dismissal. To date, however, petitioner has not

responded to the clerk’s letter. 

Accordingly, this court orders the following:

(1) Petitioner shall seek to cure this deficiency by no later than November 26, 2005, by

paying the full $250.00 court filing fee or filing a proper application to proceed in forma

Case 3:05-cv-05607-RJB Document 3 Filed 10/26/05 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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

pauperis. Failure to cure this deficiency by the above date shall be deemed a failure to

properly prosecute this matter and the court will recommend dismissal of this matter.

(2) The clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to petitioner. 

DATED this 26th day of October, 2005.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05607-RJB Document 3 Filed 10/26/05 Page 2 of 2
From: jstanleyvol@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:50:20 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,

Jill Stanley

Ripley, TN 38063
### SERVED: August 12, 2013

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF 

### CHEMSYSTEMS, INC. FAA DOCKETNo. [TO BEASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) DMS FAA-2012-0911 

### ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE. !?**~** "'-=

ComplainantFederal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") has filed a Motion for Continuance ("Motion"), asking that the hearingbepostponedto permit more time for settlement discussions. Italso represents that Respondent ChemSystems, Inc. ("Respondent") has been contacted and, with a similar interest in continuing negotiations, does not object to grant ofthe Motion. For good cause shown, Complainant's Motion is hereby GRANTED. The hearing inthis matter is hereby continued. Itwill berescheduledby subsequent order and, at Complainant's request, the newhearing date will be after October 31, 2013. 

# g tluu!

# r**'CwoL~**f), Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service ListFDMS No. FAA-2012-0911 (Civil Penalty Action) SERVICE LIST-BY US. MAIL & FAX
ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 ONE COPY Nancy Meikle, President ChemSystems, Inc., Respondent 1

0101 Genard Road Houston, TX 77041 Robert Fling, Respondent's Counsel S. Robert Fling, PLLC. P.O. Box 411, Katy, TX 77492 5518 Fifth Street, Suite C Katy, TX 77493 TEL: 281-391-2003 FAX: 281-727-0082 Courtney Adolph, Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel Western-Pacific Region, AWP-7 Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 TEL: 310-725-7128 FAX: 310-725-6816

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. -2-The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536

-3-