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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:18:57 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,

zaida gutierrez

Clearwater, FL 33756
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:08:12 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,

Christina St. Hilaire

Dwight, NE 68635
€t3S?.r)______UNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCYREGIONIllLPRO11650ArchStreetPhiladelphia,Pennsylvania19103-2029FEb—92010Mr.KeithAnderson,InterimDirectorDistrictDepartmentoftheEnvironment51NStreet,NE,5thFloorWashington,DC20002DearMr.Anderson:OnJanuary29,2010,theUnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyreceivedarevisiontotheDistrictofColumbiaStateImplementationPlan(SIP)fromtheDistrictDepartmentof.theEnvironment.ThisSIPrevisionconsistsofaStateImplementationPlanRevision:TransportationConformityRegulations.TheprojectofficerforthissubmissionwillbeMr.MartinKotsch,OfficeofAirProgramPlanning.Ifyoushouldhaveanyquestions,pleasefeelfreetocontactmeorhaveyourstaffcontactMr.Kotschat(215)814-3335.Sincerely,DavidArnold,ActingDirectorAirProtectionDivisioncc:CecilyBeall,(DDOE)CustomerServiceHotline:1-800-438-2474
From: veraciousdove@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:24:21 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,

nicole cannon

Westland, MI 48185
No. 66024.

#### F. B. Wilcon *v.*United States,

protests 58/13834, etc. (Boston).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fish similar in all material respects to the fish blocks the subject of *The Lee Herrmann Co., a/c The Coldwater Seafood Corp.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 49, C.D. 2101), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 174-9 Filed 09/20/04 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 174-9 Filed 09/20/04 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 174-9 Filed 09/20/04 Page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 438 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 24, 2007.
    Resolved,  That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2206) making emergency supplemental 
appropriations and additional supplemental appropriations for agricultural and 
other emergency assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and 
for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the 
House, without intervention of any point of order, a motion offered by the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee that the House 
concur in the Senate amendment with the House amendments printed in the report 
of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The Senate amendment and 
the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Appropriations. The previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion or demand for 
division of the question except that the Chair shall divide the question of 
adoption of the motion between the two House amendments.
    Sec. 2. If both portions of the divided question specified in the first 
section of this resolution are adopted, the action of the House shall be 
engrossed as a single amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2206.
    Sec. 3. During consideration of the motion to concur pursuant to this 
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair 
may postpone further consideration of such motion to such time as may be 
designated by the Speaker.
    Sec. 4. (a) During consideration in the Committee of the Whole of a bill 
making supplemental appropriations for military operations in Iraq or 
Afghanistan for fiscal year 2008, before consideration of any other amendment, 
it shall be in order to consider an amendment only proposing to add to the bill 
the text of H.R. 2451. Such amendment shall be considered as read, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question in the House or the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against 
such amendment are waived except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI.
    (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to a bill making regular appropriations 
for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT 99.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Osteotech, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael J. Jeffries,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (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.


                                        /S/ Michael J. Jeffries
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Michael J. Jeffries
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        August 8, 2002


                                                                           E-220
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 10 Filed 01/13/03 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 10 Filed 01/13/03 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 10 Filed 01/13/03 Page 3 of 3
No. P67/81.

#### Gimbel Bros., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 65/20017, etc. (New York).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of figures similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 CCPA 15, C.A.D. 458), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 64557.

#### Joseph S. Finch & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 115848-K, etc. (Pittsburgh).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Unites States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austm, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *Unites States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: markpowers80@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:24:56 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Mark Powers

Costa Mesa, CA 92626
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

Dated this 20th day of January , 2006

/S/ PETER H. VOELKER 

 Deputy Clerk

MINUTE ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the WESTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

UNITED STATES of AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

)

)

)

vs. )

) CR05-5692

BRYAN STONE,

 Defendant.

)

)

) MINUTE ORDER

The following Minute Order is made at the direction of the Court, the Honorable 

James P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge:

Oral Argument is hereby scheduled on defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence (dkt #6)

on Wednesday, March 8, 2006 at 2:00pm, at the Union Station Courthouse, Tacoma,

Washington. 

The Motion to Continue Oral Argument (dkt #9) is stricken as moot. The motion to

Suppress Evidence is hereby re-noted to March 8, 2006.

Case 3:05-cr-05692-JPD Document 12 Filed 01/20/06 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.2
                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                       OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual   Report  of Triangle  Alternative  Network
Incorporated (the "Company")  on  Form  10-K for the  year  ended  December 31,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date
hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  Gerry  Shirren_, Chief Financial Officer  of  the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements  of  Sections  13(a)  or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)    Information  contained  in  the  Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: April 15, 2009		/s/ Gerry Shirren
				-----------------
                        	By: Gerry Shirren
                       		Its: Chief Financial Officer
Remington Oil and Gas Corporation
                  Computation of Earnings per Share
                            Exhibit 11.1
               (In thousands, except per share amounts)


                                             For the Three Months Ended
                                                       March 31,
                                                1997             1996
                                             --------------------------


Net income (loss) available for basic 
  income per share                           $   (1,995)     $    1,807
 Interest expense on the Notes 
   (net of tax) (1)                                  -               - 
                                             --------------------------
Net income (loss) available for diluted
  income per share                           $   (1,995)     $    1,807
                                             ==========================

Basic income (loss) per share                $    (0.10)     $     0.09
                                             ==========================

Diluted income (loss) per share              $    (0.10)     $     0.09
                                             ==========================

Weighted average
 Class A Stock                                    3,222           3,250
 Class B Stock                                   17,129          17,553
                                             --------------------------
Total common shares for basic income 
  (loss) per share                               20,351          20,803
                                             --------------------------
 Dilutive stock options outstanding
  (treasury stock method) (1)                        -               -
 Shares assumed issued by conversion of
  the Notes (1)                                      -               -
                                             --------------------------
Total common shares for diluted income 
  (loss) per share                               20,351          20,803
                                             ==========================

(1)  Non dilutive.

Potential increase to net income for
  diluted income per share 
 Interest expense on Notes (net of tax)      $      514     $       728

Potential issues of common stock for
  diluted income per share
 Weighted average stock options granted             562             310
 Weighted average shares issued assuming
  conversion of Notes                             3,488           5,007
August 29, 1961

No. 66014.

#### Markt & Hammacher Co. and Air Express International Agency, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 324756-K.

Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing granted.
From: dmdhouston@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:37:47 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,

Diane Houston

Carrollton, TX 75007