alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: jodie.m@asu.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:11:16 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,

Joann Milam

Tempe, AZ 85282
From: deloresnelson@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:32:03 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,

Delores Nelson

Springville, UT 84663
From: rkwine22-info@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:35:34 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,

Robert Winebarger

Muncie, IN 47304
Before the Second Division,

February 24, 1966

No. 69804.

protests 275069-K, etc. (New York).

#### Belf & Lustig et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Kao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of hose nozzles, wholly or in chief value of brass, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Lipman's*(52 CCPA 59, C.A.D. 859), the claim at 15 percent under the provision in paragraph 339, as modified by T.D. 51802, for brass household utensils or, depending upon the date of entry, at 14,13%, or 12% percent under said paragraph, as modified by T.D. 54108, was sustained. The items marked “B,” stipulated to be the same as those involved in said C.A.D. 859, except that the component material of chief value of the merchandise herein is zinc, were held dutiable at 20 percent under the provision in said paragraph 339, as modified by T.D. 51802, for household utensils, wholly or in chief value of other base metal, other than brass, or, depending upon the date of entry, at 19, 18, or 17 percent under said paragraph, as modified by T.D. -54108, as claimed.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-153805) pertaining to the Home Bank Profit Sharing 401(k) Plan and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-160155) pertaining to the HomeBancorp, Inc. 2009 Stock Option Plan of our report dated March 27, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Home Bancorp, Inc., included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

New Orleans, Louisiana 

March 15, 2010
No. 67528.

#### Dessy Atco, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/27314, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of nylon gloves similar in use to gloves in chief value of silk or cotton, the claims of the plaintiffs were sustained as follows: The items marked “A” at 30 percent under the provision in paragraph 1208, as modified by the Japanese Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 53865), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 53877), for silk gloves, knit or crocheted, the items marked “B” at 30 percent under the provision in paragraph 915, as modified, *supra,*for cotton gloves, made of fabric knit on a warp-knitting or other machine, and the items marked “C” at 25 percent under paragraph 915 of the act as cotton gloves, made of woven fabric. *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 CCPA 47, C.A.D. 727), followed.
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

RICHARD LIONEL DYSON,

Petitioner,

v.

REED HOLTGEERT,

Respondent.

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

CASE NUMBER: C05-1500-MJP

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury

has rendered its verdict.

 X Decision by Court. This action came to consideration before the Court. The issues have been considered

and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

The Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved. Petitioner’s federal habeas petition and this

action are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.

Dated this ___27th _ day of ___February____________, 2006.

 BRUCE RIFKIN 

 Clerk

_____/s Mary Duett___________________________

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:05-cv-01500-MJP Document 16 Filed 02/27/06 Page 1 of 1
From: brandeenielsen@me.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:22:36 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,

Brandee Nielsen

Saint Petersburg, FL 33705
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KERRY RANSOME,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 185 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10th day of January, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
From: restacheng@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:12:20 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Resta Saphore-Cheng

Lexington, MO 64067
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-21017 

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FEDERICO BARRAZA-ESQUIVAL,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-280--ALL

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

September 19, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender has filed a motion for leave to

withdraw as counsel for Federico Barraza-Esquivel (Barraza) and

has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). Barraza did not file a response to counsel’s motion

to withdraw. Our independent review of counsel’s brief and the

record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, the motion

for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 
No. 01-21017

-2-

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
H. Res. 461 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 12, 2007. 

Resolved, That the election contest relating to the office 

of Representative from the Twenty-fourth Congressional District of Florida is dismissed. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 174-4 Filed 09/20/04 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 174-4 Filed 09/20/04 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 174-4 Filed 09/20/04 Page 3 of 3
From: churchsec@shcfellowship.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:24:57 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,

Lynne Semple

Rochester, NY 14626
From: ANN7765@AOL.COM

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:00:54 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,

ANN ANAGNOSTOPOULOS

Silver Spring, MD 20906
September 6, 1961

No. 66040.

Suit 5043.

#### Rico, Inc. *v.*United States.

A.R.D. 121 affirmed May 5, 1961. C.A.D. 773.
From: pdschmidt520@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:56:26 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,

Darryn Schmidt

Andover, MN 55304