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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:32:30 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,

Mary Reynolds

Somerset, KY 42503
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 September 30, 2003 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
                                               (Principal Financial Officer and
                                               Chief Accounting Officer)
                                               November 12, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or any
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7771** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. AROZ KENYON BRIDGES, a/k/a Ken , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 5:01

- cr - 00016

- BO

- 2; 5:12

- cv - 00506

- BO )

Submitted : April 29, 2014 Decided: May 2, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States At torney, Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Shailika K. Shah, Assistant United States Attorney s , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Aroz Kenyon Bridges appeals the district court ’ s ord er dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion as untimely . We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the recor d and conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider what is Bridges’ second § 2255 motion absent prefiling authorization fro m this c ourt. United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 205 (4th Cir. 2003) . Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the motion on that ground. See United States v. Smith , 395 F.3d 516, 519 (4th Cir. 2005) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60720
JE R E M YN E W S O M E , by H i s M ot h er and N ext F ri en d, L yn di a T rayl or; LY N D IATR AY LO R , I ndi vi dual l y P l ai n t i f fs - A pp el l an t s v. M IS S IS S IP P I H IG H S C H O O L A C T IV IT IE S A S S O C IA T IO N IN C ; NETT LE TON S CHOO L DI S TR I CT D efen da n t s - A pp el l ee s

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt fo rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i U SD C N o. 1: 07- C V

- 293

B ef ore R E AV L E Y , W IE N E R , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * Ha v i n ghe a r d o r a la r g u me n ta n d r e v i e we d t h e r e c o r d a n d t h e b r i e fs , we AF FI RM t he j udg m e nto f t he di s t r i c tco ur tf

o rt he r e as o ns s t at e d i n i t s o pi ni o n. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 17, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk
From: tgmpbw@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:41:51 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,

TERRENCE GEORGE BROWN

Seattle, WA 98115
MEMORANDUM
FROM : Anita Lee, EPA Region 9
TO: Docket Number EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2016

- 0339, Revisions to the S o urce
- Specific Federal Implementation Plan for Four Corners Power Plant, Navajo N a tion
DATE: December 22, 2016

On Decemb er 21, 2016, representatives from Arizona Public Service (APS), Navajo Nation EPA, and EPA Region 9 held a conference call at the request of APS to discuss APS ’ s questions related to the Proposed R u le titled “ Revisions to the S o urce
- Specific Federal Implement ation Plan for Four Corners Power Plant, Navajo N a tion ” at EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2016

- 0339 . The proposed rule published in the Federal Register on December 2, 2016 and the public comment period closes on January 3, 2017.

Attendees: Navajo Nation EPA: Tenille Begay and Prashanth Subburam APS: Eric Massey, Chas Spell, and Mark Hajduk EPA Region 9: Colleen McKaughan, Ann Lyons, and Anita Lee
From: johnkeisling@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:57:40 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,

John Keisling

Belen, NM 87002
H. Res. 558 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 23, 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. 3074) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, 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 
2 

•HRES 558 EH 

Committee of the Whole 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. 3074 

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.
**EXHIBIT 15.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We herebyconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 No. 333-156454 of Global Ship Lease, Inc. of our reports dated June 19, 2009 relating to the combined financial statements of Global Ship Lease, Inc., andits Predecessor, which appears in this Amendment No 1 to the Annual Report on Form 20-F. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers 

PricewaterhouseCoopers 

Neuilly-sir-Seine, France

December 9, 2009 

*PricewaterhouseCoopers is represented by PricewaterhouseCoopers Audit, 63 rue de Villiers—92200 Neuilly-sur-Seine, France*
From: j.dean.robertson@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:57:52 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,

Jerry Robertson

Garden Grove, CA 92840
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

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

RUSSELL J. YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUSAN I. BAUR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5565 RBL/KLS

ORDER RE-NOTING MOTIONS

AND DIRECTING RESPONSE TO

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

DISMISS

This civil rights action has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. Presently pending before the Court is the

motion of Defendant Susan Baur for summary judgment (Dkt. # 54) and the motion to dismiss of Plaintiff

Young (Dkt. # 59). Both are noted for October 27, 2006. Neither party has responded to the other’s

motion. Prior to considering Defendant Baur’s summary judgment motion on the merits, the Court will

take up the Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and Defendant Baur is directed to file a response to that motion

within ten days of the date of this Order. 

Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to re-note Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 59) for

November 17, 2006 and Defendant Baur’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 54) for December 1,

2006.

DATED this 2nd day of November, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05565-RBL-KLS Document 60 Filed 11/02/06 Page 1 of 1
From: daaymfg@ricebelt.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:52:21 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,

Carl Dixon

Weiner, AR 72479
#### R. Charles BRYFOGLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS, a body corporate 2020 N. Central Ave, Phx AZ and its subdivision University of Arizona and Department Steward Observatory; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-17027.

D.C. No. CV-00-00419-WDB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001 *.

Decided June 21, 2001.

*539Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable *539for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

R. Charles Bryfogle appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action, which alleged that decisions of a state court deprived him of various constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to abstain under *Younger v. Harris,*401 U.S. 87, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), *see Martinez v. Newport Beach City,*125 F.3d 777, 780 (9th Cir.1997), and we review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, *see Hexom v. Oregon Dep’t of Transp., 171*F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its order filed October 3, 2000.

We deny Bryfogle’s motion to lift the stay filed May 3, 2001 as moot.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
From: homebody53@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:25:22 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,

Debra Kelley

Monmouth, OR 97361