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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:56:40 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,

Rachelle Pew

Pleasant Grove, UT 84062
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 188 (Friday, September 29, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 67321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21353]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel NIAID Clinical Trial Implementation 
Cooperative Agreement (U01 Clinical Trial Required).
    Date: October 25, 2023.
    Time: 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G56, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Poonam Tewary, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Program Division of Extramural Activities, 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National 
Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G56, Rockville, MD 
20852, (301) 761-7219, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c8bcadbfa9bab1b888a5a9a1a4e6a6a1a0e6afa7be"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5723322036252e27173a363e3b79393e3f79303821">[email protected]</span></a>.

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


    Dated: September 25, 2023.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-21353 Filed 9-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
From: cannon12pdr@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:57:00 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,

Glenn Hoxie

Memphis, TN 38122
From: mark@gietzen.us

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:49:51 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,

Mark Gietzen

Wichita, KS 67216
From: tcrains@adams.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:26:34 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,

Tom Rains

Quincy, IL 62301
From: Sean.Marshall22@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:08:29 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,

Sean Marshall

Baton Rouge, LA 70816
Report
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




The Board
of Directors


Citibank,
N.A.:




We have
examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Appendix I, that
the Agency and Trust division of Citibank, N.A. (or “Company”) complied with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission’s Regulation AB for publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level
reporting initially required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended) automobile loan or lease-backed securities and student loan-backed
securities issued on or after January 1, 2006 for which the Company provides
trustee and paying agent services (the “Platform”), except for servicing
criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii),
1122(d)(2)(vi)-1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i)-1122(d)(4)(xv),
which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it
performs with respect to the Platform, as of and for the twelve months ended
December 31, 2008.  Management is responsible for the Company’s
compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance based on our
examination.




Our
examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States)and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance
with the servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures
as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination
included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise
the Platform, testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and
determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and
performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing
criteria.  Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected
transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period
covered by this report.  Our procedures were not designed to determine
whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that
may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company
during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any
other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing
criteria.




In our
opinion, management’s assessment that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the twelve months ended December
31, 2008 is fairly stated, in all material respects.








/s/ KPMG
LLP








Chicago,
Illinois


February
27, 2009
From: 2008mustang@live.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:26:46 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,

Roy Moore

Columbia City, OR 97018
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-16-00755-CV

In re Arthur J. “AJ” Lawrence

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R AN D U M O P I N I O N

Relator’s amended petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Jeff Rose, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Bourland

Filed: December 30, 2016
No. 69664.

#### Bloomfield Industries, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 65/4710-14553, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of battery-powered mixers or swizzle sticks similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 68974, 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

COMPULSION ORDER/COMER— 1 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

Judge Leighton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) NO. CR05-5747RBL

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) COMPULSION ORDER 

)

STACEY CHARLES COMER, )

)

Defendant. ) 

_______________________________________)

On motion of John McKay, United States Attorney for the Western District of

Washington, by William H. Redkey, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney for said

District, filed in this matter, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the Court:

1. That Raul Alvarado-Martinez has been called to testify or provide other

information in the above-captioned case; and

2. That Raul Alvarado-Martinez has refused to testify or provide other

information on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination; and

3. That in the judgment of the United States Attorney, the testimony or other

information from Raul Alvarado-Martinez may be necessary to the public interest; and

4. That this Motion has been made with the approval of the Acting/Deputy

Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division of the Department of

Justice, pursuant to the authority vested in him by Title 18, United States Code,

Section 6003, and 28 C.F.R. § 0.175.

Case 3:05-cr-05747-RBL Document 124 Filed 06/26/06 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

COMPULSION ORDER/COMER— 2 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code,

Section 6002, that Raul Alvarado-Martinez give testimony or provide other information

which he has refused to give or to provide on the basis of his privilege against selfincrimination as to all matters about which he may be questioned in the above-captioned

case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that in accordance

with the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 6002, Raul AlvaradoMartinez shall be forever immune from the use of such testimony or any information

directly or indirectly derived from such testimony against him in any prosecution, penalty

or forfeiture, either State or Federal or otherwise; but the witness shall not be exempt

from prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement or contempt committed while

giving testimony or producing evidence under this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of June, 2006. ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

 /s/ William H. Redkey, Jr. WILLIAM H. REDKEY, JR.

Assistant United States Attorney

WA Bar # 7734

United States Attorney’s Office

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, WA 98101

Telephone: (206) 553-1206

Fax: (206) 553-4986

E-mail: william.redkey@usdoj.gov

Case 3:05-cr-05747-RBL Document 124 Filed 06/26/06 Page 2 of 2
From: whybsharp@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:05:51 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,

Brenda Sharp

Los Alamos, NM 87544
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 23-2 Filed 08/28/03 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 23-2 Filed 08/28/03 Page 2 of 2