alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Euroopa Liidu C 122A/16.

| | ISSN 1977-0898 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 122A |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 58. köide16. aprill 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0898

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 122A

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

58. köide16. aprill 2015

---

| Teatis nr | Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Parandused |
| 2015/C 122A/01 | Avalike konkursside korraldamise teate parandus — Administraatorid (AD 5/AD 7), kes on spetsialiseerunud õigusalastele uuringutele — EPSO/AD/295/15 — juristid, kellel on Bulgaaria (BG) õiguse alane haridus — EPSO/AD/296/15 — juristid, kellel on Saksa (DE) õiguse alane haridus — EPSO/AD/297/15 — juristid, kellel on Horvaatia (HR) õiguse alane haridus — EPSO/AD/298/15 — juristid, kellel on Iiri (IE) õiguse alane haridus — EPSO/AD/299/15 — juristid, kellel on Leedu (LT) õiguse alane haridus — EPSO/AD/300/15 — juristid, kellel on Slovaki (SK) õiguse alane haridus — ( ELT C 68 A, 26.2.2015 ) | 1 |

Teatis nr

Sisukord

Lehekülg

Parandused

2015/C 122A/01

Avalike konkursside korraldamise teate parandus — Administraatorid (AD 5/AD 7), kes on spetsialiseerunud õigusalastele uuringutele — EPSO/AD/295/15 — juristid, kellel on Bulgaaria (BG) õiguse alane haridus — EPSO/AD/296/15 — juristid, kellel on Saksa (DE) õiguse alane haridus — EPSO/AD/297/15 — juristid, kellel on Horvaatia (HR) õiguse alane haridus — EPSO/AD/298/15 — juristid, kellel on Iiri (IE) õiguse alane haridus — EPSO/AD/299/15 — juristid, kellel on Leedu (LT) õiguse alane haridus — EPSO/AD/300/15 — juristid, kellel on Slovaki (SK) õiguse alane haridus — ( ELT C 68 A, 26.2.2015 )

( ELT C 68 A, 26.2.2015 )

1

---

| ET | |
| --- | --- |

ET

---

Parandused

| 16.4.2015 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | CA 122/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2015

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

CA 122/1

---

Avalike konkursside korraldamise teate parandus — Administraatorid (AD 5/AD 7), kes on spetsialiseerunud õigusalastele uuringutele — EPSO/AD/295/15 — juristid, kellel on Bulgaaria (BG) õiguse alane haridus — EPSO/AD/296/15 — juristid, kellel on Saksa (DE) õiguse alane haridus — EPSO/AD/297/15 — juristid, kellel on Horvaatia (HR) õiguse alane haridus — EPSO/AD/298/15 — juristid, kellel on Iiri (IE) õiguse alane haridus — EPSO/AD/299/15 — juristid, kellel on Leedu (LT) õiguse alane haridus — EPSO/AD/300/15 — juristid, kellel on Slovaki (SK) õiguse alane haridus

(
  Euroopa Liidu Teataja C 68 A, 26. veebruar 2015
  )

(2015/C 122 A/01)

Leheküljel 2 I jaotise punktis 3:

asendatakse:

„Tähtpäev (sealhulgas kandideerimisavalduse kinnitamise jaoks): 31. märts 2015 kell 12.00 Brüsseli aja järgi”

järgmisega:

„Tähtpäev (sealhulgas kandideerimisavalduse kinnitamise jaoks): 9. aprill 2015 kell 12.00 Brüsseli aja järgi”.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 460 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          June 6, 2007.
    Resolved,  That on such date as the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
may designate, official photographs of the House may be taken while the House is 
in actual session. Payment for the costs associated with taking, preparing, and 
distributing such photographs may be made from the applicable accounts of the 
House of Representatives.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
From: Peter Gelinas

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 9:39:59 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Peter Gelinas
Point Pleasant Beach, New Jersey
From: fsmpm@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:42:53 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,

florian matsalla

, 32082-4709
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods presented in the financial statements included in the report.
  /s/ Robert C. SepuchaRobert C. SepuchaChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
From: jstucker1@hargray.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:51:39 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,

Jack Tucker

Okatie, SC 29909
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER DENYING STIPULATED

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRUCE ARPIN,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05-193M

ORDER DENYING STIPULATED 

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

On June 24, 2005, the parties to the above-captioned matter filed a Stipulated Motion

Continuing the Time to Seek Indictment from June 24, 2005, until July 20, 2005. Dkt. No. 12. 

The Court was provided with a proposed order stating that the “ends of justice” outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy indictment. Dkt. No. 13. The

proposed Order suggests that there are novel questions of fact or law, a suggestion not

supported by the record.

Congress “did not intend the ‘ends of justice’ exclusion to be granted as a matter of

course but rather [intended it] to be used sparingly and only when necessary.” United States v.

Lewis, 980 F.2d 555, 560 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citations omitted). Hence, an “ends of

Case 2:05-mj-00193-JPD Document 14 Filed 06/27/05 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER DENYING STIPULATED

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

PAGE -2

justice” exclusion may be granted only for a specific duration when “justified by the record

with reference to the facts.” United States v. Ramirez-Cortez, 213 F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th Cir.

1999) (internal citations and punctuation omitted). Generalized assertions that the “ends of

justice” will be satisfied by the granting of a continuance are insufficient. Id. at 1154-55. 

Here, the parties have provided no evidence, nor adduced any facts from the record

sufficient to justify granting a continuance. Rather, the stipulation appears to be a boilerplate

stipulation that is very similar to a stipulation previously filed to extend the time for an

indictment from May 23, 2005, to June 20, 2005. Dkt. Nos. 9, 10. The only substantive

difference appears to be the elimination of Mr. Arpin’s participation in an inpatient substanceabuse program. 

The reasons proffered by the parties are insufficient to justify a continuance. 

Moreover, an ongoing plea agreement negotiation is not a factor sufficient for this Court to

find that granting a continuance will satisfy the “ends of justice.” Id. at 1155-56 (citing United

States v. Perez-Reveles, 715 F.2d 1348, 1352 (9th Cir. 1983)). The parties’ motion is

therefore DENIED.

DATED this 27th day of June, 2005.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-mj-00193-JPD Document 14 Filed 06/27/05 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 66493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21000]



[[Page 66493]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4663-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]


Kentucky; Amendment No. 13 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4663-DR), dated July 29, 2022, 
and related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on July 31, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, John E. Brogan, 
of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for 
this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Myra M. Shird as Federal 
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-21000 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
From: airborne7382@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:41:04 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,

Kirk Smith

Sanford, NC 27330
From: email@hermanhome.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:39:38 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,

Jay Herman

Champlin, MN 55316
From: laverneks@live.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:44:06 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,

LaVerne Schmidt

, 23851-1761