alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: lionsroar517@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:51:50 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,

michael carroll

Travelers Rest, SC 29690
From: bleeked@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:18:02 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,

David Bleeker

Belmont, MI 49306
No. P66/40.

protest 62/9309 (Savannah).

#### Sears, Roebuck and Co. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of galvanized wire fencing, composed of wires not over twenty one-hundredths and not under eight one-hundredths of one inch in diameter, similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Amerlux Steel Products Corp. et al.*v. *United States*(52 Cust. Ct. 83, C.D. 2441), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: Wendytreat@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:52:10 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,

Wendy Treat

Kent, WA 98032
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 DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_______________________________________)

RICHARD ROY SCOTT, )

) No. MC05-5029

Plaintiff, ) 

v. )

) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

)

Defendant. )

_______________________________________)

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration” (Dkt.

#85). Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the Court’s July 25, 2006 Order (Dkt. #82) rejecting

plaintiff’s proposed complaint (Dkt. #19) for failure to comply with the governing bar order. 

See Scott v. Selig, et al., No. C04-5147(RJB); Dkt. #170 (April 5, 2005 bar order). Despite

three opportunities (and over five months), plaintiff failed to provide a signed affidavit as

required by the bar order “verifying under penalty of perjury that none of the issues raised in the

proposed complaint have been litigated in the past by the plaintiff” with the proposed complaint. 

Id. at ¶2; Dkt. #82. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #85) is DENIED. 

Neither the Clerk of Court nor defendant need take any further action with regards to the

proposed complaint filed on January 19, 2006 (Dkt. #19).

//

//

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 103 Filed 12/07/06 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 DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -2-

DATED this 5th day of December, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 103 Filed 12/07/06 Page 2 of 2
287 

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

 This is to certify that the attached proceedings 

before: 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

In the Matter of: 

ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD 

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS FOR DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS 

 Were held as herein appears and that this is the 

original transcript thereof for the file of the 

Department, Commission, Board, Administrative Law Judge 

or the Agency. 

 Further, I am neither counsel for or related to 

any party to the above proceedings. 

 

 

Wendy Greene 

 Official Reporter 

Dated: April 21, 2011
From: chrislall01@gmail.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,

Chris Lall

Loxahatchee, FL 33470
**Exhibit      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|               | (1)                                  | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|          |        |                                                                           |
|          | (2)                                  | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |

|  Date:   January                17, 2007                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |                      |                     | /s/                Dirk A. Montgomery                                           |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                              |                      |      | Dirk                A. Montgomery                                               |
|                                                         |                      |      | Senior                Vice President and Chief Financial                Officer |
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                  0
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        0
<PP&E>                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   0
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                6,520
<OTHER-SE>                              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            0
<SALES>                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        0
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            0
<EPS-BASIC>                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0



</TABLE>
Dismissed and Opinion Filed January 24, 2018.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-17-01230-CV

MIAMI UNIVERSITY, Appellant

V.

PAVE SYSTEMS, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-13904

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang-Miers, Fillmore, and Stoddart

Opinion by Justice Stoddart

Before the Court is appellant’s January 12, 2018 agreed motion to dismiss the appeal. 

Appellant has informed the Court the parties have reached a settlement agreement and no longer 

wish to pursue this appeal. Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2).

171230F.P05

/Craig Stoddart/

CRAIG STODDART

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

MIAMI UNIVERSITY, Appellant

No. 05-17-01230-CV V.

PAVE SYSTEMS, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-13904.

Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Fillmore 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

Subject to any agreement between the parties, it is ORDERED that appellee Pave 

Systems, Inc. recover its costs of this appeal from appellant Miami University.

Judgment entered this 24th day of January, 2018.
From: RRemick@GWI.Net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:37:28 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Rogers Remick

, 04092-4729
From: gfowlerhouse@peoplepc.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:33:50 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,

Gloria Fowler

, 31217-8125
Before the First Division,

April 6, 1964

No. 68410.

protests 303388-K, etc. (New York).

#### Max Eckardt & Sons, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plastic paperweights similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 67488, the claim of the plaintiffs 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

ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR TRIAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_______________________________________)

JERRY BRENDEN, )

) Case No. C05-1681L

Plaintiff, ) 

v. )

) ORDER DENYING SECOND 

SELLEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ) MOTION FOR TRIAL

)

Defendant. )

_______________________________________)

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Second Time: Motion: For

Trial, Rule 50, FRAP & Stay of Mandate Rule 45, FRAP.” Dkt. # 21. Although plaintiff has

added a request for a “stay of mandate,” this motion essentially duplicates Dkt. # 11, which was

denied by the Court as premature and without merit. See Dkt. # 17. Plaintiff’s second motion

contains additional strings of words, dates, and numbers that convey no material information to

the Court and do not justify either a “new trial” or a “stay of mandate.” See, e.g., bottom margin

reference to “(U.S. NINTH CIRCUIT OF APPEALS, Sent: 3 Lbs. 14.20 oz. for “4” JUDGES)

11/30/05, EQ 285228216 US; Dec. 24, 2005, 70051820000812419 PAGE 3 OF 15; JANUARY

01-01-2006. Motions, pages 1,2&3; Cert. Mail #4.” Plaintiff has also attached a United States

Postal Service tracking sheet and a three-page document variously titled “Motion to Recall

Mandate,” “Cross-Appeal,” and “Request for Admission.” Dkt. # 21 at 3, 9-11. Neither of

these documents supports plaintiff’s demand for an immediate trial or explains why plaintiff is 

Case 2:05-cv-01681-RSL Document 24 Filed 01/06/06 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 DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR TRIAL -2-

seeking relief under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure when no appeal has been filed in

this matter.

Plaintiff’s second motion for a trial and/or stay of mandate is DENIED. 

DATED this 6th day of January, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01681-RSL Document 24 Filed 01/06/06 Page 2 of 2