alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: svoigt@wyng949.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:51:13 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,

Sally Voigt

Mount Carmel, IL 62863
From: joywhitney@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:43:50 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,

Joy Whitney

Princeton, NJ 08540
Case No. 8,797.

#### McGILL v. SHEHEE.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 62.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Jan. Term, 1802.

Costs — Continuance—Attachment.

If judgment he rendered against the defendant in a cause which has been continued at the costs of the defendant the court will not issue an attachment against, the defendant for the costs of the continuance.

[See Case No. 8,796.]

Motion for an attachment of contempt against the defendant, for not paying the costs of a former continuance, the cause having been continued, at October term, at the cost of the defendant. The cause had been tried at this term, and judgment for the plaintiff. Motion overruled.
From: dennis.powell@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:37:56 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,

Dennis Powell

Heber Springs, AR 72543
No. 64534.

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

protests 59/9206 and 59/9426 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beads the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *S. H. Kress & Co.*(46 C.C.P.A. 135, C.A.D. 716), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7580** 

JEVON EDWARD BROWN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. PATRICK, Virginia Department of Corrections Officer, C/O, employee for Unit #27; MR. RAGSDALE, Virginia Department of Transportation, Forman, "Crew Virginia"; MS. FRANCHER, Virginia Department of Corrections, Unit #27, Medical Care Assistant/Personnel; R. GRAMMER, Virginia Department of Corre ctions, Unit #27, former inmate; J. H. SNODGRASS; A. HARRIS , Defendants

- Ap pellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. T. S. Ellis, III , Senior District Judge. ( 1:08

- cv - 01345

- TSE

- TRJ )

Submitted : March 29, 2012 Decided: April 3, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KING , and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Jevon Edward Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jevon Edward Brown appeals the district court’s order denyi ng his self

- styled motion for permission to appeal, which the district court construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion , and has filed motions for appointment of counsel and for a transcript at government expense
. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Brown’s motions and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Brown v. Patrick , No. 1 : 08

- cv - 01345

- TSE

- TRJ ( E. D. Va
. filed Nov. 2 , 2011 ; entered Nov. 3, 2011 ). We dispense with oral argument because the f acts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
From: pastortdial@windstream.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:48:32 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,

Thomas Dial

Colbert, GA 30628
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Wigham, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 490]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), rendered October 25, 1993, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.
From: fatherlukemagnus@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:50:36 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,

Luke Thorne

Stanwood, WA 98292
##### 



Exhibit 32 WRITTEN STATEMENT
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 The undersigned, Greg H. Weaver, the Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer of Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. (the Company), and
Carl W. Womack, the Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, hereby certify that:  (i)
    
    the Quarterly Report of the Company, on Form
10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company. Dated:  August 30, 2004
    /s/ Greg H. WeaverGreg H. WeaverChairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. Dated:  August 30, 2004
    /s/ Carl W. WomackCarl W. WomackSenior Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
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

RODNEY CLARK, et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

SANDRA CARTER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5613 FDB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge that Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment be denied and Defendant’s motion for summary

judgment on the merits be granted.

Plaintiffs filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that their

First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights were violated when Mr. Clarks’s sexually explicit

outgoing mail to his wife was rejected by prison officials. As detailed by the Magistrate Judge,

Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim is without merit as an inmates right to privacy does not prevent

opening and reading inmate mail. The Plaintiffs were not denied due process under the Fourteenth

Amendment as Plaintiff was provided notice and an opportunity to be heard. Finally, the Defendants

Case 3:05-cv-05613-FDB Document 41 Filed 11/27/06 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

have shown that the letter was obscene speech and not subject to First Amendment protections. 

Alternatively, the mail is subject to censorship due to penalogical interest in furthering prison safety

and security.

Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation does not convince this Court

otherwise. The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of magistrate Judge J.

Kelly Arnold, the Objections filed by Plaintiffs, and the remaining record, does hereby find and

ORDER:

 (1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation

(2) The action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for the reasons outlined in the Report

and Recommendation.

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiffs, counsel for Defendants

and to the Honorable J. Kelly Arnold.

DATED this 27th day of November, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05613-FDB Document 41 Filed 11/27/06 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:05-cv-05575-RBL Document 86 Filed 11/15/07 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:05-cv-05575-RBL Document 86 Filed 11/15/07 Page 2 of 5
Case 3:05-cv-05575-RBL Document 86 Filed 11/15/07 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:05-cv-05575-RBL Document 86 Filed 11/15/07 Page 4 of 5
Case 3:05-cv-05575-RBL Document 86 Filed 11/15/07 Page 5 of 5
From: jenni.musser@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:24:56 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,

Jennifer Musser

Tinley Park, IL 60477
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION 

OF MARYLAND 

Petitioner 

V. 

BRANDON D. ROSS 

• IN THE 

• COURT OF APPEALS 

• OF MARYLAND 

• Misc. Docket AG 

• No.81 

• September Term, 2016 

Respondent 

ORDER 

This matter having come before the Court on the presentation or a certified copy of the 

Order of the New Hampshire Supreme Court dated September 19, 2016 wherein Brandon D. Ross 

was disbarred from the practice of law in the State of New Hampshire; and it appearing that 

Brandon D. Ross is also a member of the Bar of this Court; it is this 13th day of 

January ,2017, 

ORDERED by the Court of Appeals of Maryland that the Respondent, Brandon D. Ross, 

be, and he is hereby, indefinitely suspended, effective immediately, from the further practice of 

law in the State of Maryland, pending further order of this Court, pursuant to Maryland Rule 19- 

737(d); and it is further, 

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name Brandon D. Ross from the 

register of attorneys, and pursuant to Maryland Rules 19-737(i) and 19-761(b) shall certify that 

fact to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund and the clerks of all judicial tribunals in the State. 

/s/ Clayton Greene Jr 

Senior Judge
From: danny.l.forster@gm.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:17:13 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,

Dan Forster

Howell, MI 48855