alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: psanta33@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:39:19 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,

Patrick Santavenere

Rosedale, MD 21237
From: jncs77@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:11:57 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,

Charise McNutt

Moreno Valley, CA 92557
Case No. 14,818.

#### UNITED STATES v. The CLEOPATRA.

[The case reported under above title in 14 Int. Rev. Rec. 29, is the same as Case No. 2.880.]
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

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

STACY CHARLES COMER,

 Defendant.

Case No. 05-5167M

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( X) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 (X) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

 ( ) 

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant’s lack of sufficient ties to the community.

 ( ) Immigration and Naturalization Service detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 (X) Failures to appear for past court proceedings and comply with court orders.

 (X) Defendant has an outstanding warrant from Department of Corrections.

 

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal.

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 October 11, 2005.

___s/ Karen L. Strombom 

Karen L Strombom, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cr-05747-RBL Document 18 Filed 10/11/05 Page 1 of 1
From: brad.smith3@merck.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:16:06 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,

Brad Smith

Huntersville, NC 28078
Case No. 14,192.

#### The TROY.

[4 Blatchf. 355.] 1

Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

Sept. 20, 1859.

Admiralty— Jurisdiction — Service op Vessel Wholly within ¡State.

The district court has no jurisdiction to enforce, in a suit in rem,-in-admiralty, a claim for materials and labor, for the repair of a steamboat engaged in running-upon waters wholly within the limits of the staie of New York.

[Appeal from the district court of the United States for the Southern district of New York.)

This was a libel in rem, filed in the district court, against the steamboat Troy, to recover for materials-supplied to and work done upon that vessel, in July, 1857. The Troy was engaged in running upon the Hudson river, between the port of Troy and the port of New York, touching at intermediate places, exclusively within the state of New York.

Richard H. Huntley, for libelants.

Welcome R. Beebe, for claimants.

NELSON, Circuit Justice.

The question involved in this case is, whether the court below had jurisdiction of the libel. In the case of Allen v. Newberry, 21 How. [62 U. S.] 244, the supreme court held, that the district court for Wisconsin had no jurisdiction over a contract of affreightment of goods between the port of Two Rivers and the port of Milwaukee, both being within the same state, because the contract related to the purely internal commerce of the state, which was not within the cognizance of .the admiralty. And, again, at the same term, in the case of Maguire v. Card, Id. 248, it was held, that the district court for California had no jurisdiction over a contract for supplies furnished to the Goliah. a steamboat engaged in the business of navigation and trade on the Sacramento river, between ports exclusively witb-*221¡in the state of California. The court regarded that case as governed by the principle decided in Allen v. Newberry. The case of Maguire v. Card comes fully up to the one in hand. The principle is, that a contract arising out of the trade and navigation of a vessel engaged in the purely internal commerce of a state, is governed by state laws, and belongs exclusively to state cognizance. In the ¡case of The Goliah, the supplies furnished •were coal. In the present case, they are materials and labor for the repair of the vessel.

I make no question under the local law giv.ing a lien in the case, for the suit was commenced before .the rule was made refusing any longer to recognize and enforce such a lien in the admiralty. That rule did not take effect till May 1, 1859. All suits commenced .previous to that time were saved.

I must, therefore, for the reason given, reverse the decree of the court below, for want of jurisdiction in that court, and dismiss the libeL
| For      the Period: 3/24/2008 to 3/31/2008 |
|---------------------------------------------|

| Coupon | Interest                           | Maturity | Callable   | Survivor'sOption | Price1 | Yield2 | Moody's | S&P | CUSIP     |
|--------|------------------------------------|----------|------------|------------------|--------|--------|---------|---------|-----------|
| 4.250% | Semi-Annual(†††) | 4/15/13  | NO         | YES§        | 100.00 | 4.250% | A2      | A       | 14912HKD1 |
| 4.250% | Semi-Annual(†††) | 4/15/15  | 4/15/09*** | YES§        | 100.00 | 4.248% | A2      | A       | 14912HKE9 |
| 5.250% | Semi-Annual(†††) | 4/15/23  | 4/15/11*** | YES§        | 100.00 | 5.249% | A2      | A       | 14912HKF6 |
| 5.500% | Semi-Annual(†††) | 4/15/28  | 4/15/12*** | YES§        | 100.00 | 5.499% | A2      | A       | 14912HKG4 |
From: toddsusiecook@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:56:20 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,

Todd Cook

Kenosha, WI 53140
No. 63825.

protest 806347-G (Boston).

#### H. P. Lambert Company *v.*United States,

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 *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**Exhibit
      3.01**








**CERTIFICATE
      OF AMENDMENT OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION**





**OF**





**OUTBACK
      STEAKHOUSE, INC.**





It
      is
      hereby certified that:





1.  The
      name
      of the corporation (hereinafter called the “Corporation”) is OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE,
      INC.





2.  The
      Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is hereby amended by changing
      the First Article thereof so that, as amended, said Article shall be and read
      as
      follows:





FIRST:
      The name of this corporation is “OSI Restaurant Partners,
      Inc.”





3.  The
      amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation herein certified has been duly
      adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the General
      Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.





Signed
      and attested to on April 25, 2006.





OUTBACK
      STEAKHOUSE, INC.











By:
      /s/ A. William Allen,
      III


A.
      William Allen, III


Chief
      Executive Officer








Attest:








/s/
      Joseph J.
      Kadow


Joseph
      J.
      Kadow, Secretary
From: cottonballdaddy@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:58:36 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Kenneth Cotton

Caro, MI 48723
{ SERVED: March 21, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

'! 

. ; \ -, \. - ,, 

'' ,, ,, , ..... '' .,.,. 

1''\' ' "} ? c: ' / 3 t) -------------- t; ,.,J ·' t<' '"" ...... 

IN THE MATTER OF 

RYAN CORNWALL 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0117 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

ORDER REASSIGNING PROCEEDlNG 

Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin has transferred to the Food and Drug 

Administration. Accordingly, this proceeding is hereby reassigned from Judge Goodwin to 

Administrative Law Judge Douglas M. Rawald. Any dates set for hearing or prehearing 

conference are suspended until further notice. All other orders remain in full force and effect 

absent further order. 

SO ORDEREI>. 

Attachment-Service List 
SERVICE LJST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington; DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

Ryan Cornwall, Respondent 

6025 Birdcage Street 

No. 88 

Citrus Heights, CA 95610 

ONE COPY 

Mark G. Camacho, Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Central Region ACE-7, Room 506 DOT Building 

901 Locust 

Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 

TEL: 816-329-3 765 

FAX: 816-329-3771 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0117 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W 1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
No. 66050.

#### Russell & Hathaway Enterprises *v.*United States,

protest 58/23637 (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of golf caddy carts similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 64052, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
[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: Geologicstructure in the Cushing oil and gas field, Oklahoma, and its relation to theoil, gas, and water**
 
Report | Plates: FourFiveSevenEightNineTen
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:658
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000956107
 
July 18, 2018
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the WESTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

LOCAL 302 & 612 INTERNATIONAL

UNION of OPERATING ENGINEERS

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY HEALTH

and SECURITY FUND, et al.

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 vs. 

AMERICON INC.,

 Defendant.

 C05-1595 RSM

 MINUTE ORDER

 REASSIGNING CASE

Pursuant to the Amended General Order entered by the Chief Judge on

November 3, 2004, this action has been reassigned to the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez, United

States District Judge. 

All future documents filed in this case must bear the cause number C05-1595 RSM and

bear the Judge’s name in the upper right hand corner of the document.

Dated this 7th day of November, 2005

BRUCE RIFKIN

Clerk of Court

by: /s/ PETER H. VOELKER

 Peter H. Voelker, Deputy Clerk

Case 2:05-cv-01595-RSM Document 9 Filed 11/07/05 Page 1 of 1