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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:04:28 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,

Paula Crawford

Colorado Springs, CO 80920
From: jenbennett5@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:36:57 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,

Jennifer Bennett

Wallingford, CT 06492
From: rgrcons1@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:55:52 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

As an active Roman Catholic, I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind

the unjust and coercive mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by

private health insurance with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand

conscience protections for any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral

or religious objections. I strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans

especially for drugs and devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as

ella and Plan B).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Robert Reynolds

Lansdale, PA 19446
Before the Second Division,

November 26, 1963

No. 68138.

#### World Sales Promotion Co. *v.*United States,

protest 62/19750 (Los Angeles).

■Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of horns similar in all material respects to those the subject *272of *G. Joannou Cycle Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 172, C.D. 2253), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EX-4.5



 Exhibit 4.5 
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION 
 EXECUTIVE DEFERRED
COMPENSATION PLAN 
 (2003 Amendment and Restatement) 

WHEREAS, The Progressive Corporation Executive Deferred Compensation Plan is currently maintained pursuant to a 2003 Amendment and
Restatement and the First Amendment thereto (“Plan”); and 
 WHEREAS, it is deemed desirable to amend the Plan
further; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended in the respects hereinafter set forth: 

 

	 	1.	Effective December 31, 2003, The Table of Contents of the Plan, Line 1.34 is hereby amended to provide as follows: 


1.34 “Withdrawal Amount” 
  

	 	2.	Effective December 31, 2003, as it relates to distributions of Deferrals of Restricted Stock Awards and effective January 31, 2004 as it relates to
distributions of all other Deferrals, Article 3, Section 3.4 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to provide as follows: 

 3.4 Form of Distribution. 
 All distributions shall be made in cash. 

 

	 	3.	Effective January 31, 2004, the last sentence in Article 3, Section 3.5 shall be deleted and replaced by the following sentence: 


The Withdrawal Amount shall be paid in cash. 
  

	 	4.	Except as expressly provided in this Amendment, the terms and provisions of the Plan shall remain entirely unchanged and continue in full force and effect.


 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly
authorized representative effective as of the date set forth above. 
  

			
	THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	/s/ Charles E. Jarrett
		
	Title:	 	Vice President & Secretary
EX-99.B11-ufpwopin

                       Report of Independent Accountants


To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
United Funds, Inc.


In our opinion, the accompanying statement of changes in net assets and the
financial highlights present fairly, in all material respects, the changes in
the net assets and financial highlights of each of the four mutual funds (United
Bond Fund, United Income Fund, United Accumulative Fund and United Science and
Technology Fund) comprising United Funds, Inc. (the "Corporation") for the year
ended December 31, 1995, and for each of the nine years in the period ended
December 31, 1995, respectively, in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles.  This statement of changes in net assets and financial
highlights (hereafter referred to as "financial statements") are the
responsibility of the Corporation's management; our responsibility is to express
an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.  We conducted our
audits of these financial statements in accordance with generally accepted
auditing standards which require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and
evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.  We believe that our
audits, which included confirmation of securities at December 31, 1995 by
correspondence with the custodian and brokers and the application of alternative
auditing procedures where confirmations from brokers were not received, provide
a reasonable basis for the opinion expressed above.  We have not audited the
financial statements of the United Funds, Inc. for the twelve-month period ended
December 31, 1996.


Price Waterhouse LLP
Kansas City, Missouri
February 8, 1996
From: dilamb61@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:38:22 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,

Diane Lamb

Nashua, NH 03060
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                           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 Quarterly Report of Remington Oil and Gas
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, J. Burke Asher, Vice President/Finance (Principal Financial
Officer) of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec.1350, as adopted
pursuant to sec.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

     This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S. C. Section
1350, and not for any other purpose.

                                                  /s/ J. BURKE ASHER
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                      J. Burke Asher
                                                  Vice President/Finance
                                              (Principal Financial Officer)

December 16, 2003

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Remington Oil and Gas Corporation and will be retained by
Remington Oil and Gas Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JEFFREY L. CAMPBELL 

Petitioner,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5611RBL

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION 

 

 NOTED FOR: 

 December 9th, 2005

This habeas corpus action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to

Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrates' Rules MJR 3 and MJR 4. 

Petitioner filed this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY CONCLUSION

Petitioner was ordered to show cause why this petition should not be dismissed as it does not

appear petitioner has exhausted the issues raised in the petition. (Dkt. # 4). Petitioner did not

respond to the courts’ order. The court recommends this petition be DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE as unexhausted.

FACTS

Petitioner challenges his confinement in an out of state facility and attempts to remove an

Case 3:05-cv-05611-RBL Document 5 Filed 11/15/05 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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 2

action from state court because the “defendants” have not answered. (Dkt. # 1 and supporting

documents). From the documents filed it appears petitioner is challenging the legality of his

confinement. An order to show cause was entered as there is nothing in the record to show any issue

has been exhausted. (Dkt. # 4). Indeed, the file shows the action being removed from the state

superior court. (Dkt. # 1). Petitioner did not respond to the court’s order.

DISCUSSION

Exhaustion of State Remedies.

In order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement, petitioner’s claims must have been fairly

presented to the state's highest court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v.

Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985). Petitioner does not appear to have presented any claim

to the states highest court and seeks to remove this action from the superior court. Petitioner did not

respond to the court order to show cause. 

CONCLUSION

This petition appears unexhausted and petitioner did not respond to an order to show cause. 

Accordingly, the petition should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A proposed order

accompanies this report and recommendation.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal rules of Civil Procedure, the

parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report to file written objections. See also Fed.

R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of

appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule

72(b), the clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on December 9th, 2005, as noted in the

caption. 

Dated this 15th day of November, 2005.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05611-RBL Document 5 Filed 11/15/05 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 10,322.

#### The NIAGARA v. VAN PELT.

[See Case No. 10,220.]
From: bill@theradiosource.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:30:49 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

Please rescind the unjust and coercive mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be

covered by private health insurance at no cost or provide a conscience provision that allows anyone to

opt out of paying for these premiums for others if they have moral or religious objections.

Certain forms of contraception, as you are aware, actually cause abortions, and mandating that my

family to pay for this disgusting service for those who have no conscience is immoral at minimum. Evil

is perhaps a more adequate description of what these regulations encourage, and forcing me to pay for

it only compounds it.

I again urge you in the strongest way possible to remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list

of mandatory preventive services.

Sincerely,

Bill Baker

Zeeland, MI 49464
Case No. 14,187.

#### The TROPIC WIND.

[The ease reported under above title in 24 Law Rep. 144, is the same as Case No. 16,541a.]
No. 58664.

protests 231350-K, etc. (New York).

#### Dodge & Olcott, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of camphor oil the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Orbis Products Corp.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 244, C. D. 1527), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

NOTICE REGARDING DOCUMENTS FILED IN CASE

STAYED FOR BANKRUPTCY

Appellate case name: Service Employees International Union Local 5 v. Professional 

Janitorial Service of Houston, Inc.

Appellate case number: 01-16-00988-CV

Trial court case number: 2007-27181

Trial court: 61st District Court of Harris County

This appeal is stayed pursuant to the “Notice of Bankruptcy,” that appellant Service 

Employees International Union Local 5 filed in this Court on December 27, 2016, stating that 

appellant has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11, United States Code, in Case 

16-80294, In re Terence J. Martinez, Debtor, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the 

Southern District of Texas. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (2000) (automatic stay in bankruptcy). Until 

the parties notify the Court that the bankruptcy has concluded and move to reinstate the case, the 

Court will take no further action other than to receive and hold any documents tendered during 

the period of suspension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.2 (providing bankruptcy suspends “the appeal” 

from date bankruptcy petition was filed until court reinstates or severs appeal in accordance with 

federal law); see also Budzyn v. Citibank (S.D.), N.A., No. 01–08–00211–CV, 2010 WL 

2044628, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 19, 2010, no pet.) (staying “entire appeal”).

Unless a party successfully moves to reinstate the appeal or sever the appeal with respect 

to the bankrupt party, this appeal will be an inactive case on the Court’s docket. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 8.3. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 12, 2017
|                                  |   | Other Names under which  |   |                  |
|---------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|--------|-----------------------|
| Name                                  |   | Subsidiary Does Business |   | State of Organization |
| Anru Physical ALC TLP Beheer B.V.     |   |                     |   | The Netherlands       |
|                                  |   |                     |   |                  |
| CISMIS Springfield Corp.              |   |                     |   | Delaware              |
|                                  |   |                     |   |                  |
| DIAPAC Ltd.                           |   |                     |   | Russia                |
|                                  |   |                     |   |                  |
| Envirocoustics A.B.E.E.               |   |                     |   | Greece                |
|                                  |   |                     |   |                  |
| Euro-Physical Acoustics S.A.          |   |                     |   | France                |
|                                  |   |                     |   |                  |
| Mistras Canada Inc.                   |   |                     |   | Canada                |
|                                  |   |                     |   |                  |
| Nippon Physical Acoustics Ltd.        |   |                     |   | Japan                 |
|                                  |   |                     |   |                  |
| Physical Acoustics Argentina S.A.     |   |                     |   | Argentina             |
|                                  |   |                     |   |                  |
| Physical Acoustics Corporation        |   |                     |   | Delaware              |
|                                  |   |                     |   |                  |
| Physical Acoustics India Private Ltd. |   |                     |   | India                 |
|                                  |   |                     |   |                  |
| Physical Acoustics Ltd.               |   |                     |   | England & Wales   |
|                                  |   |                     |   |                  |
| Physical Acoustics South America LTDA |   |                     |   | Brazil                |
|                                  |   |                     |   |                  |
| Quality Services Laboratories, Inc.   |   |                     |   | Delaware              |
|                                  |   |                     |   |                  |
| ThermTech Services, Inc.              |   |                     |   | Florida               |

----