alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: beckyedwards2@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:52:14 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,

Rebecca Edwards

, 92081-6713
#### Tremaine L. KITCHEN-EL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Patrick CONROY; Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 01-6234.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 12, 2001.

Decided June 26, 2001.

Tremaine L. Kitchen-El, pro se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Mary Ann Rapp Ince, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, for appellees.

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Tremaine L. Kitchen-El seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See Kitchen-El v. Conroy,*No. CA-00-1926-DKC (D.Md. Jan. 25, 2001). We also deny Kitchen-El’s motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
From: ldjolley@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:02:26 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,

Lisa Jolley

East Berlin, CT 06023
To: Robin Dunkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

From: "Frey , Nathan J." <Nathan_J._Frey @omb.eop.gov> Date: 07/27/2012 09:42AM Cc: John Bradfield/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Bill Schrock/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Thundiy il/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Scott Jordan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Steve Fruh/ RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Amy Cole/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Subject: Re: Package For OMB

=======================

Thanks Robin. Please upload the final clean version to ROCI S. I t is open for amendment. We'll be in touch about next steps.
From: jwtblt@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:22:53 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 Thar

Fort Mitchell, AL 36856
No. P69/47.

protest 67/84381 (Baltimore).

#### Ross Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of batteries, classified as entireties with flashlights, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Torch Mfg. Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 521, C.D. 2863), wherein said batteries were held to be separately dutiable and that no separate value for each of said items had been returned by the appraiser, the protest was dismissed and the matter remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement to determine the separate value of the flashlights and batteries in the manner provided by law. (28 U.S.C. § 2636 (d).)
H. Res. 49 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

April 29, 2008. 

Whereas the commercial activity and economic vitality of the 

Nation is significantly enhanced by the timely and efficient service of letter carriers of the United States Postal 

Service; 

Whereas letter carriers of the United States Postal Service 

provide mail delivery service to over 144,000,000 households across the Nation; 

Whereas letter carriers of the United States Postal Service 

deliver more than 43 tons of mail per year, averaging approximately 2,300 letters, cards, magazines, and circulars 

per carrier a day; 

Whereas letter carriers of the United States Postal Service 

delivered approximately 212,000,000,000 pieces of mail 

in 2005; 

Whereas letter carriers of the United States Postal Service 

handle over 44 percent of the world’s mail volume, more 

than any other national postal service; and 

Whereas the United States Postal Service employs over 

705,000 career letter carriers and 98,000 noncareer employees, making it the 3rd largest employer in the Nation; Now, therefore be it 
2 

•HRES 49 EH 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports 

the goals and ideals of a National Letter Carriers Appreciation Day to recognize the unique contributions made by letter 

carriers of the United States Postal Service to the well-being 

and prosperity of the Nation. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
From: mzastrocky@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:47:22 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 Zastrocky

Broomfield, CO 80020
No. 64551.

#### C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 321305-K, etc. (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of prepared or preserved pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 2100), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-23-00174-CR

ERIC FOBBS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from Criminal District Court 

No. 2

of Tarrant County (1648121)

May 23, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was error in the trial court’s judgments. The judgment to Count-One is modified to 

delete the $100 fine and reflect that no fine was assessed. We affirm the Count-One 

judgment as modified.

The judgment to Count-Three is modified to delete the portion of the 

judgment identifying the offense as indecency with a child by sexual contact and
reflect the offense as sexual assault of a child. We affirm the Count-Three judgment 

as modified.

We affirm the Count-Four and Count-Five judgments.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dana Womack

 Justice Dana Womack
From: jerome-family@otmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:54:19 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,

Marlene Jerome RN

Grove City, OH 43123
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:00:37 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 Price

Dallas, TX 75225
SCWC-13-0000424
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

IN THE MATTER OF THE TAX APPEAL OF BOBBY R. NARMORE,

Petitioner/Appellant-Appellant,

vs. DIRECTOR OF TAXATION, STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent/Appellee-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-13-0000424; CASE NO. 02-0065)
ORDER REJECTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C . J . , N a k a y a m a , A c o b a , M c K e n n a , a n d P o l l a c k , J J . )

The petition for writ of certiorari, filed on December 9, 2013, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, January 14, 2014. Bobby R. Narmore, petitioner pro se /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-13-0000424 14-JAN-2014 07:50 AM
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 1 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 2 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 3 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 4 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 5 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 6 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 7 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 8 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 9 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 10 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 11 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 12 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 13 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 14 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 15 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 16 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 17 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 18 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 19 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 20 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 21 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 22 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 23 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 24 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 25 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 26 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 27 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 28 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 29 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 30 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 31 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 32 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 33 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 156 Filed 08/12/04 Page 34 of 34
No. 62217.

#### F. E. Macartney, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 301397-K and 301398-K (Duluth).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of yellow cedar the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Border Brokerage Co. et al.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 179, C. D. 1923), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 15-4 Filed 08/14/03 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 15-4 Filed 08/14/03 Page 2 of 2
From: ajvandenberg1@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:34:39 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,

Hermena Vanden Berg

Zeeland, MI 49464