alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: num1wrench@email.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:22:06 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,

Terry Reid

Anoka, MN 55303
February 7, 1966

No. 69786.

protests 59/15184, etc.

#### Davidow, Inc., Sportswear et al. *v.*United States,

Protests abandoned December 16,1965. (Not published.) (Initial No. 60/3988.) Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing granted.
From: bpoandl@glenmary.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:25:03 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,

Bob Poandl

Claxton, GA 30417
From: neutsally@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:42:04 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,

Neuton & Sally Williamson

Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

DANIEL WISEMAN BOGER,

Petitioner,

v.

DOUG WADDINGTON,

 

 Respondent.

CASE No. C05-1674MJP

ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS

PETITION WITH PREJUDICE

The Court having reviewed the petition for writ of habeas corpus, respondent’s response,

the Report and Recommendation of Judge James P. Donohue, Mr. Boger’s objection to

Magistrate Donohue’s Report and Recommendation, and the remaining record, does hereby find

and order:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation

(2) Petitioner’s federal habeas petition (Dkt. No.1), and this action, are DISMISSED

with prejudice.

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Petitioner, to counsel for

respondent, and to Judge Donohue.

Dated this 21st day of April, 2006 A

Marsha J. Pechman

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01674-MJP Document 16 Filed 04/24/06 Page 1 of 1
From: molly.valenti@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:24:14 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,

Molly Valenti

Bend, OR 97702
*

 After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral

argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted July 25, 2007*

Decided July 26, 2007

Before

Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

No. 07-1675

ANGEL D. MITCHELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

GE HEALTHCARE,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 04-C-353

J.P. Stadtmueller,

Judge.

O R D E R

Angel Mitchell filed suit against her employer, GE Healthcare (“GE”),

alleging that it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42

U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., by failing to accommodate her alleged disability of migraine

headaches and sinus pain. Specifically, Mitchell claimed that her supervisors at GE

refused to enforce a company policy prohibiting employees from playing personal

radios loudly, and that the radios’ excessive volume aggravated her headaches. 

Mitchell also alleged that GE retaliated against her for requesting that the policy be

enforced. In February 2007, the district court granted summary judgment for GE

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 07-1675 Page 2

because Mitchell failed to establish that she qualified for ADA protection, that GE

otherwise failed to accommodate her headaches and sinus pain, or that GE

retaliated against her. 

Mitchell appeals, but she does not identify any specific error made by the

district court, develop an argument supported by citations to legal authority or the

record, or otherwise comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28. See Fed.

R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). 

Instead, her brief is unorganized, disconnected, and devoted generally to topics

unrelated to her lawsuit. Mitchell comes closest to formulating an argument when

she describes the court’s decision as “wrong base[d] on GE’s (appellee) own

[a]dmission that the radios[ ] were a privilege and not a [r]ight,” but this lone

assertion does not address how the district court’s grant of summary judgment was

in error. Although we will construe a pro se litigant’s brief liberally, we will not

attempt to craft arguments and perform legal research on the litigant’s behalf when

the litigant fails to do so. See Anderson, 241 F.3d at 545. Mitchell points to no

error, we see no obvious errors, and thus her appeal is

DISMISSED.
From: kristinedement@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:43:31 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,

Kristi Dement

Clayton, NC 27520
From: chelmoreno@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:07:49 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,

Michelle Moreno

Duluth, GA 30096
211(b) Toxicology Research Group Gasoline TBA VC:

Sister Chromatid Exchange

Reviewer Checklist 

1

Comments Action/Response Page

EPA

No comments

Peer Reviewer – Goldsworthy

This study was properly conducted and scientifically 

sound. The positive control fulfilled the requirements 

for a valid test. The report correctly concludes the GTBA was negative for the induction of SCEs in male 

and female rat peripheral lymphocytes. 

Editorial comments include suggesting that the 

Summary Section note that the positive control fulfilled 

the requirements for a valid test.

Noted

Added to the Summary

OK

Peer Reviewer – Schlesinger

The data presented support the conclusion. Noted

p.ll. As the Dunnett test is a post hoc test, the 

investigators should indicate which

primary statistical test was used to determine whether 

there were, in fact, any overall

inter-group differences in response. The last sentence in 

the "Evaluation of Test Results"

section is somewhat unclear, and seems to indicate a 

large degree of potential subjectivity

in evaluation of results.

Not revised since this is the 

professional judgment of the PI

OK

211(b) Research Group Reviewer

p. 11, Evaluation of Test Results, 1st paragraph: 

Revise sentences addressing statistics to include the 

one-tailed Dunnett’s test and trend test requested 

by EPA. 

Revised

OK

p. 1186

p. 12, Results and Discussion: 4th paragraph, 8th

sentence: Revise sentence on use of Dunnett’s test 

to include one-tail and trend analysis. 

Revised

OK

p. 1187

211(b) Research Group QA/QC Reviewer

Satellite Report, Sister Chromatid 

Exchange Assay, Page 6: The last two 

entries indicate the experimental start and 

completion dates for SCE. Since the GLPs 

have specific definitions for “experimental 

start date” and it does not mean slide 

evaluation, maybe another term would be 

Not revised 
211(b) Toxicology Research Group Gasoline TBA VC:

Sister Chromatid Exchange

Reviewer Checklist 

2

Comments Action/Response Page

better. 

Satellite Report, Sister Chromatid 

Exchange Assay, Page 2: The positive 

control exceptions were taken out. They 

should have remained in the compliance 

statement. 

They have been added back into 

the document

Ok 

p. 1177
Before the First Division,

January 22, 1969

No. P69/28.

protests 68/33592-7915, etc. (Chicago).

#### Keen Industries, Inc. v. United States,

Watson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of artificial *1064flowers, trees, foliage, fruits, vegetables, grasses, or grains, and articles made of the foregoing, in chief value of plastic, assembled in the same manner as the merchandise the subject of *Armbee Corporation et al.*v. *United States*(60 Cust. Ct. 105, C.D. 3278) and *Zunold Trading Corporation et al.*v. *United States*(60 Cust. Ct. 112, C.D. 3279), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                CERTIFICATION Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned officer of ALLIED HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC. (the "Company"),
hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the Company's fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2005
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

                                /s/ Earl R. Refsland
                                           Earl R. Refsland
                                           President & Chief Executive Officer
November 2, 2005
```

[Federal Register: August 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 153)]
[Notices]               
[Page 48320-48321]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10au10-31]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

 
Unconventional Resources Technology Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Unconventional 
Resources Technology Advisory Committee. The Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this 
meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

DATES: Thursday, September 9, 2010, 8 a.m.--5 p.m. (CDT).

ADDRESSES: Sugar Land Marriott Town Square, 16090 City Walk, Sugar 
Land, Texas 77479-6539.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elena Melchert, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, Washington, DC 20585. Phone: 
202-586-5600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Committee: The purpose of the Unconventional 
Resources Technology Advisory Committee is to provide advice on 
development and implementation of programs related to onshore 
unconventional natural gas and other petroleum resources to the 
Secretary of Energy; and provide comments and recommendations and 
priorities for the Department of Energy Annual Plan per requirements of 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Title IX, Subtitle J, Section 999D.

Tentative Agenda

September 9, 2010

7:30 a.m.-8 a.m. Registration.
8 a.m.-noon. Call to Order, Welcome, Introductions, Opening Remarks,

[[Page 48321]]

Overview of the Section 999 Research Portfolio (Unconventional 
Resources, Small Producers, and NETL Complementary Research).
1 p.m.-4:45 p.m. Overview of Draft 2011 Annual Plan.
4:45 p.m.-5 p.m. Public Comment.
5 p.m. Adjourn.

    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. The 
Designated Federal Officer and the Chairman of the Committee will lead 
the meeting for the orderly conduct of business. If you would like to 
file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either 
before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements 
regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact Elena 
Melchert at the address or telephone number listed above. You must make 
your request for an oral statement at least two business days prior to 
the meeting, and reasonable provisions will be made to include the 
presentation on the agenda. Public comment will follow the 5 minute 
rule.
    Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying within 60 days at the Freedom of Information Public 
Reading Room, Room 1G-033, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on August 4, 2010.
LaTanya R. Butler,
Acting Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-19714 Filed 8-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```