alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: joymosley@q.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 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,

Joy M. Mosley

Cottonwood, AZ 86326
From: PFenne3628@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:30:36 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,

Paul Fennessey

Massapequa Park, NY 11762
Before the Second Division,

October 4, 1966

No. P66/237. —

No. P66/238. —

#### Robert Bosch Corp. et al. *v.*United States, protests 58/18313, etc. (San Francisco). Robert Bosch Corporation and P. W. Bellingall *v.*United States, protests 60/4696, etc. (San Francisco). *812Robert Bosch Corp. and P. W. Bellingall, Inc., et al. *v.*United States, protests 60/19547, etc. (San Francisco).

No. P66/239. —

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of spark plugs not dedicated to use in automobiles similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Lodge Spark Plug Co.*v. *United States*(49 Cust. Ct. 158, C.D. 2379), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 69644.

#### Centennial Novelty Co. *v.*United States,

protest 64/1155 (B) (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Oliver, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plastic paperweights similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 67488, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.5

 SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION FOR SALLY FRAME KASAKS, INTERIM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

During her period of service as Interim Chief Executive Officer, Ms. Kasaks will
receive a base salary of $87,500 per month, or $1,050,000 on an annualized
basis, plus an annual bonus, if any, based on the Company's performance. Ms.
Kasaks will also be reimbursed for costs incurred in connection with her
relocation to Southern California in service of the Company, including rent and
utilities for a local residence, use of a car, and travel for her and her spouse
to and from their primary residence in Vermont. While in her role as Interim
Chief Executive Officer, Ms. Kasaks will not receive any equity-based awards,
but will be entitled to receive general employee benefits such as medical,
dental, vision, basic and supplemental life and disability insurance.
Before the First Division,

April 2, 1963

No. 67546.

#### W. J. Byrnes & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 61/16623 (San Francisco).

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The merchandise the subject of this protest was entered on March 20, 1961, under an informal entry which described it as—

> ART. BIRDS W/FEATHERS

> dutiable at the rate of 50 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1518 of the Tariff Act of 1930. Presumably, duties were paid on that basis.

> Under informal entry procedures, the entry was liquidated and the merchandise was assessed with duty at the rate of 21 cents per pound and 17 per centum ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 1539(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by T.D. 54108, for manufactures wholly or in chief value of a product of which a synthetic resin or resinlike substance is the chief binding agent. This liquidation, it would seem, should have resulted in a refund of part of the duties paid, but, according to the statement of counsel for the plaintiff made when the case was called for hearing, no refund was ever made to the importer for the difference between the duties paid upon entry and those found to be due upon liquidation.

As originally filed, the protest claim reads as follows:

> WITH REGARD TO THE BELOW MENTIONED ENTRY WHICH WE BELIEVE WAS ENTERED IN ERROR AND THAT A REFUND SHOULD BE ISSUED. ENTERED AT PAR. 1518 AT 50 PERCENT ARTIFICIAL FLOWERS FABRIC SHOULD BE MANUFACTURES OF FEATHERS UNDER PAR. 1518 17 PERCENT AND A REFUND IS THUS DUE WE ASK FOR IMMEDIATE LIQUIDATION OF THIS ENTRY AND AN APPROPRIATE REFUND ISSUED.

At the trial, the protest was amended by adding to it a claim that the merchandise was “dutiable at 17 percent and 21 cents per pound, under Paragraph 1539(a).”

When the case was called for trial, counsel for the plaintiff made an opening statement as above outlined, and moved in evidence the official papers. The Government offered no objection to the motion, and the said papers were *250received in evidence without marking. The case was thereupon submitted for decision with the request that no briefs be required to be filed.

It appears to the court that the question of the correct classification of the merchandise is moot, inasmuch as the paragraph and rate claimed under the protest amendment are those under which the entry was liquidated by the collector. Consequently, a judgment by this court with respect to such classification can have no effect. On the other hand, there is nothing before the court, excepting the statement of counsel for the plaintiff, which establishes that any refund is due to the plaintiff. Counsel for the Government did not join in the statement of counsel for the plaintiff; there'is no stipulation as to the facts of the matter, and the official papers do not establish, one way or the other, whether a refund, if due, was not paid or offset by other claims of the Government.

On the record presented, the court is of the opinion that the record before it is insufficient to support a judgment that the entry be reliquidated, making refund of excess duties paid to the plaintiff. The protest is, accordingly, overruled and judgment will issue accordingly.
From: graff_jl@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:14:42 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,

Laurie Graff

Royal Oak, MI 48067
•

CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9'

40 CFR Parts 270 and 124 as of June 30, 1999 (cont'd)

CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9

For Authorization of One Provision

EPA Administered Permit Programs: The Hazardous Waste

Permit Program; Procedures for Decision Making

40 CFR Parts 270 and 124 as of June 30, 1999

as published in the July 1, 1999 CPR

State's Note of Explanation: This section of checklist C9 is included in this application because the State is

submitting it to be authorized for a portion of its "permit by rule" provisions. The state was originally authorized

for Permit by Rule as part of the Base Program Authorization. The checklist is blank since this is a state provision

for which there is no federal analog. Submittal of the checklist is not required; however, it is a useful tool to

identify all contents of the application.

The State amended its rule in 1998 to clarify that WAC 173-303-802(5) applies only to state-only wastes or

federally regulated hazardous wastes that are generated on site. As previously written, the provision applied to all

dangerous wastes. There is an entry in the Attorney General's Statement noting that this provision is broader in

scope than the federal program for state-only wastes and more stringent for federally regulated hazardous wastes.

Authorization is being sought for this provision, which previously applied to both federally regulated hazardous

.astes and state-only wastes, now that the rule has been amended to clarify that it applies only to state-only wastes.

STATEANAWG IS:

FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST FEDERALRCRACITATION ANALOGOUS STATE

REFERENCE CITATION LESS MORE EQUIV· STRIN· STRJN· BROADER

ALENT GENT GENT IN SCOPE

PART 270 - EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS:

THE HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT PROGRAM

SUBPART F - SPECIAL FORMS OF PERMITS

t PERMITS BY RULE

RCRA permit by rule if * 270.60 listed conditions are met

ocean disposal barges or

vessels; specific V 270.60(a)

conditions:

permit under Part 220 V 270.60(a)(l)

compliance with V 270.60(a)(2) conditions of that permit

compliance with specified V 270.60(a)(3)

hazardous waste

270.60(a)(3)(i)
CONSOLIDATED CHECKLIST C9

40 CPR Parts 270 and 124 as of June 30, 1999 (cont'd) o STATE ANALOG IS:

FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST FEDERAL RCRA CITATION ANALOGOUS STATE LESS MORE REFERENCE CITATION EQUIV- BROADER

ALENT STRIN- STRIN- IN SCOPE GENT GENT

regulations 270.60(a)(3)(ii)

270.60(a)(3)(iii)

270.60(a)(3)(iv)

270.60(a)(3)(v)

270.60(a)(3)(vi)

injection wells; specific V 270.60(b) conditions:

permit under Part 144 or V 270.60(b)(l) 145

compliance with permit

conditions and V 270.60(b)(2)

144.14 requirements

17 L 270.60(b)(3) C) conditions for DIC permits

issued after November 8, 270.60(b)(3)(i)

1984 44C

270.60(b)(3)(ii)

publicly owned treatment V 270.60(c) works; specific conditions:

NPDES permit V 270.60(c)(l)

compliance with V 270.60(c)(2) conditions of permit

270.60(c)(3)

270.60(c)(3)(i)

270.60(c)(3)(ii)

compliance with specified V 270.60(c)(3)(iii)

regulations 270.60(c)(3)(iv)

270.60(c)(3)(v)

270.60(c)(3)(vi)

17 L 270.60(c)(3)(vii) C)

waste meets all V 270.60(c)(4) pretreatment requirements
From: jlucy@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:44:44 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,

Jason Lucy

Des Moines, IA 50317
No. P66/33.

protest 60/26837 (Philadelphia).

#### John H. Faunce, Phila., Inc. *v.*United States,

Nichols, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of slabs of marble measuring not less than 4 superficial inches and not more than 1 inch in thickness, polished on four sides and one face or surface, not drilled, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Selectile Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 30, C.D. 2504), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 10-Q FOR
THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,016
<SECURITIES>                                    81,630
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                89,922
<PP&E>                                          16,893
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (8,018)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 101,182
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,901
<BONDS>                                         12,210
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           208
<OTHER-SE>                                      75,240
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   101,182
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,931
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,608
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 437
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,028)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,028)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,028)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)
        

</TABLE>
DJI PHANTOM 2 VISION+ Manufacturer’s User Manual

User manual can be found at:

http://www.dji.com/product/phantom

‐ 2

‐ vision/download
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

Report and Recommendation Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

WAYNE WALTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON et al.,

Defendants,

Case No. C05-5545RJB

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

NOTED FOR:

November 18th, 2005

This Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to

Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrates' Rules MJR 3 and MJR 4. 

Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. # 5). That order was entered because the

original complaint did not name any person as a defendant, only state agencies and the state itself. 

(Dkt. # 4). Thus, the complaint fails to state a claim. 

The order gave plaintiff until October 7th, 2005 to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. # 5). As

of October 27th, 2005 nothing has been filed.

The court now recommends that this action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for

failure to state a claim, lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with court orders. Dismissal for

failure to state a claim counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1915 (g). 

Case 3:05-cv-05545-RJB Document 6 Filed 11/01/05 Page 1 of 2
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

Report and Recommendation Page - 2

CONCLUSION

The court should dismiss this complaint with prejudice. Petitioner cannot state a claim

against the named defendants as the defendants are not persons within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Further, plaintiff has not responded to a court order to amend the complaint and has failed to

properly prosecute the action. A proposed order accompanies this Report and Recommendation.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal rules of Civil Procedure, the

parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report to file written objections. See also Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of 

appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule 

72(b), the clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on November 18th, 2005, as noted in 

the caption. 

DATED this 31st day of October, 2005.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05545-RJB Document 6 Filed 11/01/05 Page 2 of 2