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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:51:47 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,

Annetta Mobley

Jefferson City, MO 65101
Case 3:05-cv-05605-RBL Document 35-2 Filed 11/21/05 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:05-cv-05605-RBL Document 35-2 Filed 11/21/05 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:05-cv-05605-RBL Document 35-2 Filed 11/21/05 Page 3 of 3
From: peg5633@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:11:05 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,

Margaret Schrader

Suffolk, VA 23435
No. 58214.

protests 188795-K and 188796-K (Ogdensburg).

#### A. N. Deringer, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of alfalfa meal similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(31 Cust. Ct. 108, C. D. 1553), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 60524.

#### W. A. Camp Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 299219-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the duty and import fee were assessed on 26,421 pounds of shelled almonds and that the correct dutiable weight of the said almonds, as imported, was 26,024 pounds, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. The collector was directed to reliquidate the entry, assessing duty and import fee on the basis of 26,024 pounds.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Office of Personnel Management

          - 5 CFR Part 843
          - [Docket ID: OPM-2023-0008]
          - RIN 3206-AO55

# AGENCY:

Office of Personnel Management.

# ACTION:

Proposed rule; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        This document corrects the RIN in a proposed rule that was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on July 14, 2023, regarding the Present Value Conversion Factors for Spouses of Deceased Separated Employees in the Federal Employees' Retirement System.                    

# DATES:

This correction is effective on September 27, 2023.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karla Yeakle, (202) 606-0299.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Correction

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of July 14, 2023, in FR Doc. 2023-14983, on page 45100 in the document heading, the RIN is corrected to read “3206-AO55.”                

Dated: September 21, 2023.

Kayyonne Marston,

Federal Register Liaison.

[FR Doc. 2023-20963 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325-38-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 95-7792 ANGELA COLEY, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-88-184, CA-93-138) Submitted: July 16, 1996 Decided: August 8, 1996 Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Angela Coley, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's denial of her motion to vacate her sentence filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217. We affirm. This is Appellant's second § 2255 motion. Her first motion was denied by the district court. The district court found that Appellant failed to receive proper notice of the denial of that first motion. To remedy the loss of an opportunity for appeal on the issues raised inthe first motion, the court treated this claim of lack of notice as restating all the claims raised in the first motion. The district court denied these claims for the reasons stated in its order denying the first motion. Appellant appealed and we have before us for review claims from both motions. We affirm as to the two claims raised in the second motion on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Coley , No. CR-88-184; CA-93-138 (N.D.W. Va., Oct. 2, 1995). We affirm the denial of reliefon all of the remaining claims except one on the reasoning of the district court's first order denying § 2255 relief. United States v. Coley , No. CR-88-184 (N.D.W. Va., Mar. 18, 1993). The remaining claim is that Appellant was subjected to double jeopardy b ecause she was convicted of violating both 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1988) and 21 U.S.C.A. § 845a (West Supp. 1996) (now codified at § 860). We reject this claim because Appellant was convicted only of the § 845a offense. The recitation of both statutory provisions in the indictment, plea agreement, and judgment results from the fact that § 845a enhances the punishment for § 841(a) offenses committed near aschool. The language describing the nature of the offense of conviction in all of these instruments, the punishment, and the special assessment show that Appellant was convicted only of the § 845a offense. Therefore, Appellant was not subjected to double jeopardy. We therefore affirm the denial of relief. We dispense with oralargument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
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

1

 Defendant Lynnwood Honda has responded to plaintiffs’ discovery requests and plaintiffs have

withdrawn their motion as to that defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO COMPEL - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

ULTIMATE IMAGE, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

WILLIAM M. PEDERSEN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-1572RSL

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL 

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ “Motion to Compel.” Dkt. # 49. 

Defendant Foothills Toyota does not oppose the motion, but requests that it be given until

September 15, 2006, to respond to plaintiffs’ discovery requests in light of the recent major

emergency surgery undergone by its owner.1

 

 Although Foothills Toyota’s memorandum is unsupported by any admissible

evidence, the Court will assume that Ms. Nelson is a key client representative, that she has been

incapacitated since late July 2006, and that she will not return to work at the dealership until

after Labor Day. Defendant will not be required to respond to plaintiffs’ discovery requests

without the assistance of its owner, especially now that the trial date and discovery deadlines in

this matter have been continued. See Dkt. # 60. Nevertheless, defendant’s failure to serve

Case 2:05-cv-01572-RSL Document 66 Filed 08/29/06 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

2

 The fee amount requested by plaintiffs has been reduced from $250 to $200. Rule 37(a)(4)

authorizes an award of “the reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees

. . . .” Costs associated with the discovery conference required by Rule 37(a)(2) were not “incurred in

making the motion” to compel and are, therefore, not recoverable.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO COMPEL - 2

timely responses in May 2006 and its subsequent failure to compile responses in July 2006, as

negotiated between the parties, has forced plaintiffs to incur expenses in making this motion. 

An award of fees is, therefore, appropriate.

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery responses

from Foothills Toyota is GRANTED. Defendant shall serve full and complete discovery

responses and pay $200 to plaintiffs on or before September 15, 2006.2

 

DATED this 29th day of August, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01572-RSL Document 66 Filed 08/29/06 Page 2 of 2
From: annearkins@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:53:50 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,

Anne Arkins

Bella Vista, AR 72714
From: toolman@zoominternet.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:10:48 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,

Jim Soullier

Stewartstown, PA 17363
From: dmj3340@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:56:09 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,

Donna Johnston

, 15237-4116
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

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATED MOTION 

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE - 1

(Julio Perez-Garcia; CR05-00325-JLR)

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

(206) 553-1100

JUDGE JAMES L. ROBART

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JULIO PEREZ-GARCIA,

Defendant. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR 05-325 JLR

ORDER ON STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

THE COURT having considered the unopposed motion of the defendant, the

records and files herein, the Court hereby makes the following findings:

1. The Court finds that a failure to grant the continuance would deny counsel

the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise

of due diligence, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii).

2. The Court further finds that the ends of justice will be served by ordering a

continuance in this case, that a continuance is necessary to insure effective trial

preparation and that these factors outweigh the best interests of the public in a more

speedy trial, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).

//

//

//

Case 2:05-cr-00325-JLR Document 31 Filed 04/04/06 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

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATED MOTION 

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE - 2

(Julio Perez-Garcia; CR05-00325-JLR)

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

(206) 553-1100

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the trial date is extended from

April 24, 2006, to May 22, 2006 at 1:30 p.m.

DONE this 3rd day of April, 2006.

A 

JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Presented by:

s/Nancy Tenney

WSBA No. 35304

Attorney for Julio Perez-Garcia

Federal Public Defender’s Office

1601 Fifth Ave., Suite 700

Seattle, WA 98101

206/553-1100

206/553-0120

Nancy_Tenney@fd.org 

s/Patricia Lally

WSBA No. 28910

Assistant United States Attorney

700 Stewart St., Suite 5220

Seattle, WA 98101-1271

Patricia.Lally@usdoj.gov

Case 2:05-cr-00325-JLR Document 31 Filed 04/04/06 Page 2 of 2
From: OdileDraa@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:56:36 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,

Odile Draa

Manteca, CA 95337
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲

▲

▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/01

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.81 N 76.74 W Meters AGL