alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: ortego6@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:17:58 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,

Jack Ortego

Baton Rouge, LA 70814
From: slewishome@earthlink.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:16:20 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,

Sheri Lewis-Sorensen

Los Gatos, CA 95032
H. Res. 514 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 26, 2007. 

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 2643) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for 

the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 

All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived 

except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 

one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 

ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 

amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order 

against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 

2 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill for 

amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
2 

•HRES 514 EH 

may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 

Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed 

in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for 

that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and 

reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation 

that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 

passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 2643 

pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 

the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the 

Speaker. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
### · PROBATE NO. PR35159 IN THE ESTATE OF 

### § § § § 

### § § 

### § INTHECOUNTYCOURT AT FRANKIE LEE SETSER LAWNO.TWO DECEASED ANDPROBATECOURTOF BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS

CLERK'S NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL
Cause No.: =PR3=5=-:l=-=5-"-9
____________________ _ Style ofCause: IN THE ESTATE OF FRANKIE LEE SETSER. DECEASED Court: County Court At Law#2 and Probate Court Judge: Marc W. Holder Appellant: Charles Edward Heim Appellant's Attorney: VonH. Shleton, 2038 E. Mulberry, Angleton, TX 77515 Appellee: Mundy Boggs Appellee's Attorney: Matthew T. Williams, P.O. Box 1476, Lake Jackson, TX 77566 Date ofJudgment: September 22,2015 Date Motion for NewTrial filed:**.=...N!!-"/A~---------------­** 

### Notice ofAppeal: September 30, 2015 Type ofAppeal: Application for Probate and for Issuance ofLetters Testamentary Assigned: 1st Court ofAppealsFiled for Record 9/30/2015 9:56:14 PM Joyce Hudman, County Clerk Brazoria County, Texas PR35159 Linda Hatchett, Deputy 

### CAUSE NO. PR35159 IN THE ESTATE OF FRANKIE LEE SETSER CHARLES EDWARD HElM, APPLICANT 

### § § § § § § § IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAWNO.TWO ANDPROBATE COURT OF BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS APPLICANT CHARLES HElM'S NOTICE OF APPEAL Whereas, on September 22, 2015, the County Court at Law No. Two and Probate Court of Brazoria County, Texas rendered Judgment and Granted, Applicant Mundy Boggs' Application to admitthe Last Will and Testament ofFrankie Lee Setser as 

### a Muniment oftitle. And on September 22, 2015 entered Judgment Denying Applicant, Charles Edward Heim Application to admit 

### will to Probate Judgments from which the undersigned appellant desire to appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals for the_SupremeJudicial District ofTexas. Nowtherefore Charles Edward Heim give notice ofappeal.

-**--~---** 

### --**~~ ~-~**  -- ---- ---- -- 

### -- Respectfully submitted,

1 Von H. Shelton State BarNo. 18211500 2038

### E. Mulbeny Angleton, Texas 775152 Telephone (979) 849-2402 Facsimile (979-849-8893 vhslaw@sbcglobal.net Attorney for Applicant, Charles E. Heim

-------**----~----------** -- =-------- -- ,_**-~---**CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE As Attorney ofRecord for Charles E. Heim, I do hereby certify that a true and correct copy ofthe above and foregoing document was this date providedto the all attorneys ofrecord, by certified mail,
. return receipt requested, hand delivery or via fax mail. Date: September 29,2015.



# - UWJ-¢/

# iM/flhAttorney for Charles E. Heim
No. 60522.

#### A. S. Samper & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 262825-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the principles herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that four bales of twine reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.
T.C. Memo. 2008-67

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

ESTATE OF MARY ROPPOLO ARTALL, DECEASED, JASPER ARTALL, COEXECUTOR, BETTY JO ARTALL VOLLENWEIDER, CO-EXECUTOR, AND RALPH

ARTALL, CO-EXECUTOR, Petitioners v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 18899-05. Filed March 18, 2008.

Donald A. Capretz and Lawrence D. Huter, for petitioners.

Lillian D. Brigman, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HALPERN, Judge: Respondent determined a $247,101 deficiency

in Federal estate tax.

All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in

effect for November 21, 2001, the date of the death of Mary 
- 2 -

Roppolo Artall (decedent). All Rule references are to the Tax

Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Some of the facts have been stipulated, and are so found. 

The stipulation of facts, with accompanying exhibits, is

incorporated herein by this reference. Jasper and Ralph Artall

resided in Louisiana and Betty Jo Artall Vollenweider resided in

Texas at the time the petition was filed.

The sole issue remaining for decision is a question of law

that, recently, we answered in Estate of Farnam v. Commissioner,

130 T.C. __ (2008). The question is whether, for purposes of the

liquidity test of section 2057(b)(1)(C), decedent’s loans to an

entity owned by her and two of her children and carrying on a

trade or business are to be treated as interests in that entity. 

In Estate of Farnam we answered that question in the negative. 

Petitioners have made no arguments that lead us to believe that

we erred in Estate of Farnam. We rely on Estate of Farnam and

hold accordingly.

Decision will be entered

under Rule 155.
/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 3, 2015

No. 04-15-00010-CV

Pedro MARQUEZ, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

Lisa A. WATKINS,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. CC-14-89

Honorable Romero Molina, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellee Lisa A. Watkins has filed a notice stating that she filed for relief under the 

United States Bankruptcy Code on September 29, 2015. The notice states that the bankruptcy 

proceeding is pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, 

Corpus Christi Division, under Case No. 15-203720C013, styled In re: Lisa Ann Watkins. 

Accordingly, the appeal and all time periods are stayed from the date the bankruptcy petition was 

filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.2. 

It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal is ABATED. For administrative purposes, the 

appeal will be treated as a closed case, unless and until it is reinstated in accordance with Rule 

8.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 3rd day of November, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
From: jaimejoy71@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:12:28 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 (that is supposed to be sponsored by me - We The People)forcing free

insurance coverage on Americans (again, We The People) 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,

Jaime Ronk

Hillsboro, OR 97124
EXHIBIT 99.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to
the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-162381 on Form
F-3 of our reports dated February 23 , 2010, relating to the combined and
consolidated financial statements of Safe Bulkers, Inc. (the Company),
and the effectiveness of the Companys internal control over
financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year
ended December 31, 2009.

|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/
 Deloitte Hadjipavlou, Sofianos &
 Cambanis S.A.
|                                                    
|Athens,
 Greece                                     
|                                                    
|February 23,
 2010                                  

Exhibit 99.1

---
From: leeleekw@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:31:40 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,

Leandra Wynne

Broomall, PA 19008
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 549 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      October 17, 2007.
Whereas the United States has a maritime border that exceeds 95,000 miles;
Whereas the Department of Homeland Security has begun to focus greater attention 
        on potential security threats from small vessels and the importance of 
        increasing maritime domain awareness;
Whereas the Coast Guard currently conducts a maritime homeland security public 
        awareness program called America's Waterway Watch program;
Whereas America's Waterway Watch is a public outreach program to encourage 
        America's 70,000,000 boaters and others who live, work, or engage in 
        recreational activities around America's waterways to maintain a 
        heightened sense of awareness in the maritime domain and report 
        suspicious and unusual activities to the Coast Guard National Response 
        Center and other appropriate law enforcement agencies;
Whereas America's Waterway Watch program educates the public on what suspicious 
        activity is and provides a toll-free telephone number, (877) 24-WATCH, 
        for the public to report such activity to prevent terrorism and other 
        criminal acts;
Whereas the Coast Guard promotes this program by distributing educational 
        materials, boat decals, posters, and reporting forms to recreational 
        boaters, marine dealers, marinas, and other businesses located near 
        waterways;
Whereas America's Waterway Watch program acts as a force multiplier for the 
        Coast Guard and local law enforcement and builds on local and regional 
        security programs;
Whereas the Department of Homeland Security conducted a National Small Vessel 
        Security Summit on June 19 and June 20, 2007, to educate small vessel 
        operators and other stakeholders on current security risks and initiate 
        dialogue on possible solutions to mitigate gaps in United States 
        maritime domain awareness; and
Whereas, during the National Small Vessel Security Summit, participants 
        highlighted America's Waterway Watch program and recognized its 
        importance to increasing maritime domain awareness: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the importance of increasing maritime domain 
        awareness;
            (2) encourages those who live, work, or engage in recreational 
        activities around America's waterways to maintain a heightened sense of 
        awareness in the maritime domain and report suspicious and unusual 
        activities to appropriate authorities; and
            (3) supports the goals of America's Waterway Watch program.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
# • MITSUBISHI

..... POWER SYSTEMS

Mfsuasli PowerSystems Amelico s.lnc.l 1 00 BoyY.ewCide. Sute w:JJ I Newporl Beoch. CA 926UJ USA I Phone 949.856.8400 I Fox949 .856.4481 April 9, 2009 U .S. Steel - Headquarters 600 Grant Street Room 2028 Pittsburgh, Pa . 15219 Attention: Mr. Alex Parou (copy: Mr. Darren Gietzen) SUBJECT: Decline to Bid REFERENCE: RFQ- UM0-0486-1 MINNTAC LOW NOx REDUCTION SYSTEM Dear Sir, With reference to above mentioned subject and project, MPSA would like to inform you that we will not be submitting our proposal to your RFQ (ref UM0-0486-1). Having attended the p re-bid meeting this week, we now have a better understanding of th e Minntac's goals and targets, manufacturing process, and at the same time, the challeng es that SCR, as a technology, would have in its application.

1) Temperature and layout pose significant challenges for SCR. And the same challenges are most likely non-issues for other technologies. An example of this is how best to extract 100% of the flue gas and treat them in the optimal SCR operating range of 600 N 750F. 2) NOx reduction requirement of 70% is well within the capabilities of SNCR and L oTOx . For the se rea s ons, we feel that SNCR and LoTOx will likely offer better sol utions for your parti cular appl ication. If you h ave SCR related qu es tions or if the proj ect param eters change , please l et u s know and we will try our best to assist. We wish the best of luck to US Steel. Since re ly, 

## FusatoDana Manag e r, Contract Administration Te l: 949 -856-8416 Cel: 949-275-8368 e - mail: fd a na @mpshq.com
#### Andrew Randall, Appellant, v. The Albany City National Bank, Respondent.

Order modified by striking out ‘‘with ten dollars costs of said motion to be paid by the plaintiff,” and as modified affirmed, with costs of appeal to abide the event. Opinion by

Bockes, J.