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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:28:51 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,

James Smith

Holtwood, PA 17532
From: Cathy Murphy

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:18:41 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Cathy Murphy
Columbus, Ohio
From: mhemann@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:56:33 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Mardette Hemann

Phoenix, AZ 85016
## Express November 5, 2014 Hearing Docket Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue S.W. Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Legal Department 3620 Hacks Cross Road Building B, 3rd Floor Memphis,TN 38125 US 

# RECEIVED NOV 

## -6 2014 HEARING 

## DOCKET

RE: Request for Formal Hearing- FAA Case Number: 2014SW700042 Dear Sir: In response to the Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty that was issued in FAA case number 2014SW700042 and received by my office on October 30, 2014, Federal Express, in accordance with 14 CFR 13.16(g)(2)(ii), respectfully requests ahearing inthis matter. A copy of this request is being sent to James Archier, Attorney, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Office ofRegional Counsel, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. All correspondence regarding this matter should be sent to my attention at 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 950, Washington, DC 20006. If there are any questions, please call me at (202) 393-9285 or email greg,stofko@fedex.com. Sincerely,

### ;~:J;?ERAL**;~>.~:s** ?RPORATION

# "'-~~'-·"'**<"~;ry·'f>C:>t** -.._.,___/

.-c_;:_>·**/:~ C:r~**  G'r G. Stofko S'enior Attorn y Regulatory Affairs Office: (202) 393-9285 greg.stofko@fedex.com

cc: James Archier
#### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector German RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 99-50648.

D.C. No. CR-99-00724-BTM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

May 3, 2001.

Before KOZINSKI and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and WINMILL, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable B. Lynn Winmill, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Idaho, sitting by designation.

ORDER

Submission of Rodriguez’s *Apprendi*claim is deferred pending this court’s deeision in *United States v. Buckland,*259 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.2001).
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Theuse of the panoramic camera in topographic surveying : with notes on theapplication of photogrammetry to aerial surveys**
 
Report | Plates: OneTwo
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:657
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000956018
 
July 18, 2018
No. 62782.

#### Parker Machine Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/1653 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
From: popnhunny@charter.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:12:00 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,

Gerrie D'Angelo

Greer, SC 29650
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

VINCENT DANIEL HOPPER A.K.A.

ANTOLIN ANDREW MARKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL MELENDEZ,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5680RBL

ORDER 

This Bivens 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 1, MJR 3, and MJR 4. This

action was dismissed on November 16, 2007, by the District Court Judge (Dkt # 188). Judgment was

entered on November 19, 2007, (Dkt # 189).

Mr. Marks now litigates under a sanction as a result of improper filings. As part of that sanction

documents filed by Mr. Marks are submitted under seal for court review. Mr. Marks has filed three

documents since the court’s last order (Dkt. # 181, 186, and 187). Dkt. # 181 is an improper notice to the

court. The court does not conduct business by “notice.” THE COURT ORDERS THIS DOCUMENT

UNSEALED. 

Dkt. # 186 is an object to a Report and Recommendation. THE COURT ORDERS THIS

Case 3:05-cv-05680-RBL Document 190 Filed 11/21/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

DOCUMENT UNSEALED.

Dkt. # 187 is a response to an order to show cause why monetary sanctions should not be imposed. 

The court has considered the response. The number of improper filings, and over length filings in this case

warrants sanctions. Sanctions will not be entered only because the action has been dismissed. Plaintiff is

cautioned, the court will not tolerate any further improper filings in any of plaintiffs cases. THE COURT

ORDERS THIS DOCUMENT UNSEALED.

The clerk’s office is directed to send copies of this letter to plaintiff and to counsel for defendants.

DATED this 21 day of November, 2007.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate 

Case 3:05-cv-05680-RBL Document 190 Filed 11/21/07 Page 2 of 2
From: ccarreon@llu.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:10:31 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,

Carmen Carreon-Mariscal

San Jacinto, CA 92582
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_________________________________ )

RICHARD ROY SCOTT, ) No. MC05-5029

)

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) ORDER

)

KELLY CUNNINGHAM, )

)

Defendant. )

_________________________________ )

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On April 5, 2005, the United

States District Court judges who sit in Tacoma entered an order dismissing a number of

plaintiff’s causes of action and barring future litigation “[i]n all future cases” unless plaintiff

provides a signed affidavit, along with the proposed complaint, “verifying under penalty of

perjury that none of the issues raised in the proposed complaint have been litigated in the past by

the plaintiff.” Scott v. Seling, C04-5147RJB, Dkt. # 170 at 4. On March 26, 2007, the Court

also entered an order declaring plaintiff a vexatious litigant and prohibiting him from proceeding

in forma pauperis in any action in the United States District Court for the Western District of

Washington unless he shows that he is in imminent danger of death or serious injury. Scott v.

Weinberg, C06-5172FDB, Dkt. # 95 at 15. 

On April 21, 2011, the Clerk of Court received a complaint (Dkt. # 119) and a

letter (Dkt. # 120) indicating that a check in the amount of the filing fee would be sent directly

from plaintiff’s trust account to the Court in a few days. These documents are now before the

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 121 Filed 05/04/11 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-

undersigned for review pursuant to the terms of the April 5, 2005, bar order.

As of this date, the Court has not yet received the promised filing fee. Nor is there

any indication that plaintiff is in imminent danger of death or serious injury. His most recent

claims are based on an alleged deprivation of access to the courts as retaliation for his litigation

and First Amendment activities: no physical harm is alleged. Pursuant to the March 26, 2007,

order restricting plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status, this action may not proceed.

Plaintiff has also failed to “submit a signed affidavit . . . verifying under penalty of

perjury that none of the issues raised in the proposed complaint have been litigated in the past by

plaintiff” as required by the April 5, 2005, bar order. For this additional reason, the action

submitted on April 21, 2011(Dkt. #119) shall not be permitted to proceed. The Clerk of Court is

directed to docket this order in MC05-5029. Neither the Clerk of Court nor defendant need take

any further action with regards to this matter. 

Dated this 4th day of May, 2011.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

Chief Judge, United States District Court 

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 121 Filed 05/04/11 Page 2 of 2
|   | 1. | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or      15(d), as applicable, 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. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| March 24,      2010 |   | /s/      Richard J. King                  |
|--------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|                     |   | Richard      J. King                      |
|                     |   | President      and Chief ExecutiveOfficer |
No. 64550.

#### Railway Express Agency, Inc. *v. United States,*

protest 58/17784 (Minneapolis).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the items in question (item No. 12334 in entry No. 684 and item No. 12250 in entry No. 413) are similar in all material respects to the merchandise the *275subject of *Paramount Import Export Co. et al.*v. *United States*(45 C.C.P.A. 82, C.A.D. 677), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
|        | (1)    | The Report fully complies with      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange      Act of 1934, as amended; and                    |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                |
|   | (2)    | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |

|   |   |                             |   |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------|--------|
|   | By:    | /s/      Konstantin Tsiryulnikov |   |
|   |   | Konstantin      Tsiryulnikov     |   |
|   |   | Chief      Executive Officer     |   |

----
From: jssfrk4ever@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:49:30 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 Lee

Los Angeles, CA 90004
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350





The
undersigned officer of ALLIED HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the Company’s fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





/s/
      Daniel C. DunnDaniel
      C. DunnVice
      President, Chief Financial Officer &
  Secretary


May 7,
2010