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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:39:06 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,

Dave Mattozzi

Pittsburgh, PA 15217
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

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

 

NATIONAL SPECIALTY

UNDERWRITERS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GEORGE BENNETT and LOIS BENNETT,

Defendants.

NO. C05-1492JLR

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The court having been notified of the settlement of this matter and it appearing that no

issue remains for the court’s determination,

IT IS ORDERED that this action and all claims asserted herein are DISMISSED with

prejudice and without costs to any party.

In the event settlement is not perfected, any party may move to reopen the case,

provided such motion is filed within 60 days of the date of this order. Any trial date and

pretrial dates previously set are hereby VACATED. 

DATED this 13th of March, 2006.

A 

JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01492-JLR Document 28 Filed 03/13/06 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 505 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 505

 Recognizing the innumerable contributions of the recreational boating 
  community and the boating industry to the continuing prosperity and 
                    affluence of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 20, 2007

 Mr. Klein of Florida (for himself, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Tanner, 
Mr. Coble, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Taylor, and Mrs. Miller of 
Michigan) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Recognizing the innumerable contributions of the recreational boating 
  community and the boating industry to the continuing prosperity and 
                    affluence of the United States.

Whereas the boating community in the United States includes over 73,000,000 
        individuals, generates more than $39,000,000,000 annually in the United 
        States economy, and provides jobs for 380,000 citizens of the United 
        States;
Whereas boaters often serve as stewards of the marine environment of the United 
        States, educating future generations of the value of these resources, 
        and preserving such resources for such generations' enjoyment;
Whereas there are approximately 1,400 active boat builders in the United States, 
        using materials and services contributed from all 50 States;
Whereas boating, as an activity, provides opportunities for families to be 
        together, appeals to all age groups, and has a beneficial effect on the 
        physical fitness and scholastic performance of those who participate; 
        and
Whereas, July 1, 2007, would be an appropriate day to establish as National 
        Boating Day: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) the recreational boating community and the boating 
        industry of the United States should be commended for their 
        innumerable contributions to the economy of the United States, 
        the well-being of United States citizens, and responsible 
        environmental stewardship of the marine resources of the United 
        States; and
            (2) the President should issue a proclamation calling on 
        the people of the United States to observe National Boating Day 
        with appropriate programs and activities.
                                 <all>
```
From: fre3lin@embarqmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:59:53 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing this to object to being forced to pay for other people's decisions on health care issues that

are against the way I believe. It is not fair to employers to have to cover something that is not directly

related to a person's overall health.

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.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Linda Eldredge

Havelock, NC 28532
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: EnergyStar overview of ... achievements**
 
2006 | 2007| 2009
2010 | 2011| 2012 | 2013 | 2014
 
SuDoc Number:EP 4.37/4:
Item Number:0483-E-47 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000932237
 
July 18, 2018
H. Res. 392

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 23, 2007.

Whereas the United States has fought in wars outside of its 

borders to restore freedom and human dignity; 

Whereas the United States has spent its national treasure 

and shed its blood in fighting those wars; 

Whereas many of those who died on the battlefield were laid 

to rest exactly where they fell; 

Whereas those plots of ground are now known as American 

Cemeteries, Memorials and Markers, and they exist in 10 

foreign countries on four continents; 

Whereas these cemeteries exist as the final resting place for 

American servicemembers who fought valiantly in battles 

across the globe, including Ardennes and Flanders, Belgium; Manila, the Philippines; North Africa, Tunisia; 

Florence, Italy; and Normandy, France; 

Whereas each year millions of American and foreign citizens 

visit the American Cemeteries, Memorials and Markers; 

Whereas these overseas sites annually recognize Memorial 

Day with speeches, a reading of the Memorial Day Proclamation, wreath laying ceremonies, military bands and 

units, and the decoration of each grave site with the flag 

of the United States and that of the host country; and 
2

•HRES 392 EH 

Whereas the splendid commemorative sites inspire patriotism, 

evoke gratitude, and teach history: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That House of Representatives strongly urges 

Americans and people of all nationalities to visit the American Cemeteries, Memorials and Markers abroad, where the 

spirit of American generosity, sacrifice, and courage are displayed and commemorated. 

Attest:

Clerk.
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

38 40 42 44



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 07/07 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 07 Jul 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.81 N 76.74 WMeters AGL
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. DA R YL C UR T I S GL E NN , D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 10- 10270 D . C . N o . 1 : 0 8 - c r - 0 0 0 2 3 - O WW ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia O l i ve rW . W ange r , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 17, 2012 ** B efo re: L E A V Y , P A E Z , an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D a ry l C u rtis G le n n ap p e a ls f r o m h is ju ryc o n v ic tio n a n d1 8 0 - m o n th se nt ence for tw o cou nt s of r ec eiptor di stribu t i on of m at er i ali nv ol vi ng the se xu al e xpl oi t a t i on of

m i nor s , i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 2252( a ) ( 2) . P ur s uantt o A n ders



# FI LED APR25 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 10270 2 v . Ca lifo rn ia , 38 6 U . S . 73 8 (19 67 ), G l enn’ s c ou nselhas f i l ed a bri ef

st at i ng there a r e n o g r o u n d s f

o rr e lie f , a lo n g w ith am o tio n to w ith d r aw a s c o u n s e l o f r e c o r d . We h a v e p r o v i d e dGl e n n th e o p p o rtu n i tyt o f i l e ap r o s e s up p l e m e n t a l b r i e f . No p r o s e s up p le m e n ta l b r ie f o ra n s w e r in g b r ie f

h a s b e e n f

ile d . O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 - 8 1 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o a r g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. C o u n s e l’s m o tio n to w ith d r aw is G R A N TED , an dth e d istrict co u rt’s j u d g m en ti s AF F I RME D.
Before the Second Division,

August 16, 1967

No. P67/272.

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protest 65/3392 (San Diego).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise covered by the foregoing protest are padlocks similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Shriro Trading Corp.*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 422, C.D. 2669), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 188 (Friday, September 29, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 67320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21357]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, NIHAI75N93023R00003: Pre-clinical 
Models of Infectious Diseases--Task Area C.
    Date: November 1-2, 2023.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G74, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Hailey Peterson Weerts, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G74, 
Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 669-5931, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b8d0d9d1d4ddc196cfddddcacccbf8d6d1d096dfd7ce"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4b232a22272e32653c2e2e393f380b252223652c243d">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 25, 2023.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-21357 Filed 9-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6338

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. DAVID ALLEN RILEY, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (1:07-cr-00023-jpj-mfu-1)

Submitted: April 3, 2009 Decided: April 17, 2009

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Allen Riley, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: David Allen Riley seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion following the Government’s motion to dismiss based on a waiver provision in Riley’s plea agreement. On appeal, Riley does not contest the validity of the waiver, but rather argues new evidence supports a § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that because Riley makes no argument on appeal that the district court erred in finding the plea was knowing and voluntary and that his claims are within the scope of the waiver, he has waived appellate review of these claims. Edwards v. City of

23 Goldsboro , 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999). Even if Riley properly pursued these claims on appeal, however, we would find that reasonable jurists would not find the district court’s disposition debatable or wrong. Furthermore, Riley’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel presented in the first instance on appeal is barred as it falls within the scope of his waiver of the right to pursue relief pursuant to § 2255. See

United States v. Blick , 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005);

United States v. Lemaster , 403 F.3d 216, 220 (4th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marcus Harrison, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 16]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered May 5, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, including consideration of the testimony of defendant’s alibi witness and the inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the People’s case pointed out by defendant, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The inconsistencies and inaccuracies in question may indicate that the complainant is a person susceptible to suggestion, but were at best tangential to the theft and the complainant’s unwavering identification of defendant as the thief. Complainant’s testimony was all the more credible given the witness’s prior acquaintanceship with defendant and ample opportunity to observe in well-lit conditions. The alibi witness, among other things, did not convincingly explain why defendant, who was just an acquaintance of hers, showed up at her apartment an hour before the theft and then stayed for six hours. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Tom, JJ.
No. 62246.

#### Surface Freight Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 317369-K (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

The protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
#### Mark L. Taff, Appellant, v County of Nassau et al., Respondents.

[631 NYS2d 921]

—In an action to recover damages, *inter alia,*for violation of constitutional rights, intentional interference with business relationships, and prima facie tort, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Saladino, J.), dated December 10, 1993, which granted the defendants’ motion, among other things, for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, a pathologist formerly employed by the Nassau County Medical Examiner’s Office, commenced this action against the County of Nassau and Chief Medical Examiner Leslie Lukash alleging that the defendants had prevented him from publishing articles in scholarly journals and thereby damaged his reputation and ability to earn a living. At issue were certain letters sent by the County Attorney to both the plaintiff and his publisher, informing them that published articles written by the plaintiff had made unauthorized use of confidential records from the Medical Examiner’s files.

The plaintiffs contention that his use of records relating to autopsies performed by him in preparing articles for publication in scholarly journals was not subject to the requirements of County Law § 677 (3) (b), as well as the similar provisions of Nassau County Charter § 906 (4), is unavailing. County Law § 677 (3) (b) plainly provides that only the District Attorney and close relatives of the decedent may obtain records as of right, whereas all others must secure court permission before records are released *(see, Matter of Diaz v Lukash,*82 NY2d 211, 216-217; *see also, Matter of Central Gen. Hosp. v Lukash,*140 *AD2d 113, affd*74 NY2d 619; *Herald Co. v Murray,*136 AD2d 954, 955).

The Supreme Court properly found that the plaintiffs conclusory allegations were insufficient to establish a triable issue of fact. In contrast, the defendants presented evidence that the *407policy of the Medical Examiner’s Office had been to prohibit individual pathologists from retaining copies of records relating to autopsies they performed, and although all pathologists, including the plaintiff, had been so advised, he had nonetheless refused to comply.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.
2



    	 



    

 






    	3



    	 



    

 






    	4



    	 



    

 






    	5



    	 



    

 






    	6



    	 



    

 






    	7



    	 



    

 






    	8



    	 



    

 






    	9



    	 



    

 






    	10



    	 



    

 






    	11



    	 



    

 






    	12



    	 



    

 






    	13



    	 



    

 






    	14



    	 



    

 






    	15
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 ORD ON MTN TO CONT - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

MYFREEMEDICINE.COM, LLC, et al.,

Defendant(s).

NO. C05-1607

 ORDER ON MOTION TO REVISE 

 CASE SCHEDULE

 

The Court, having received and reviewed the Stipulation and Order Continuing Trial Date,

makes the following findings:

1. The motion contains no specific (or insufficient) facts to establish good cause

for a continuance and/or

2. The motion provides no suitable explanation as to why the existing case

schedule deadlines were not met.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the request to revise the existing case schedule is

DENIED without prejudice to bring a renewed motion which cures the defects noted above and

outlines a plan for meeting the revised deadlines.

The clerk is directed to send copies of this order to all counsel of record.

Dated: June 16, 2006 AMarsha J. Pechman

U.S. District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01607-MJP Document 29 Filed 06/16/06 Page 1 of 1