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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:20:03 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,

Joan Grammond

Baker, MT 59313
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.1


                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002,
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of Alkermes,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Richard F. Pops, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. section 1350 that, to
my knowledge:

     1. Amendment No. 1 to 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 Amendment No. 1 to the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.


                                        /s/ Richard F. Pops
                                        ---------------------------
                                        Richard F. Pops
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        November 14, 2002
From: verag@arroyoins.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:24:22 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,

Vera Gale

San Dimas, CA 91773
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CALVIN WEATHERSPOON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D12-2775

[August 19, 2015]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Karen Miller, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

2008CF017526BXXXMB.

Ira Karmelin, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph A. 

Tringali, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

ON MOTION REQUESTING CERTIFICATION OF QUESTION OF

GREAT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

PER CURIAM.

We grant the appellant’s motion to certify a question of great public 

importance and certify the following question to the supreme court:

IN LIGHT OF THE LEGISLATURE’S CREATION OF SECTION 

782.051, WHICH CREATED A CRIME CALLED “ATTEMPTED 

FELONY MURDER,” THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY DECLARED BY 

STATE V. GRAY, 654 SO. 2D 552 (FLA. 1995), TO BE A NONEXISTENT CRIME UNDER SECTION 782.04(1)(A), DOES THE 

STATE NEED TO SPECIFICALLY ALLEGE THE ELEMENTS 

OF AND CITE TO SECTION 782.051 OR DOES AN 

ALLEGATION OF ATTEMPTED PREMEDITATED MURDER 

AUTOMATICALLY INCLUDE ATTEMPTED FELONY MURDER, 

JUST AS AN INDICTMENT FOR PREMEDITATED MURDER 

AUTOMATICALLY INCLUDES FELONY MURDER?
2

We deem it a question of great public importance because the issue affects 

all attempted felony murder prosecutions and how the state charges a 

defendant for attempted felony murder after the enactment of section 

782.051, Florida Statutes.

CIKLIN, C.J., WARNER and GERBER, JJ., concur. 

* * *
From: ljmatatics@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:28:14 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,

Leslie Matatics

Scranton, PA 18509
No. 61526.

#### The Best Foods, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 301903-K and 301904-K (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

Plaintiff having raised no objection, the motion was granted on the ground that the protests were prematurely filed.
From: dstandtgt@windstream.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:35:05 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,

Don Turner

Lexington, SC 29072
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:16:01 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,

Waclaw Borken-Hagen

, 94901-3941
Case 2:05-cv-01614-MJP Document 96 Filed 02/26/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:05-cv-01614-MJP Document 96 Filed 02/26/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:05-cv-01614-MJP Document 96 Filed 02/26/2007 Page 3 of 3
From: mike421@atlanticbb.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:57:46 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,

susan abramo

Queenstown, MD 21658
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:51:38 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,

Tom Gerlach

Franklin, WI 53132
#### In the Matter of Tonya C. Margaret R., Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 180]

—In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the paternal aunt who had custody of the child appeals from so much of an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J.), dated February 4, 1991, as, upon a fact finding order of the same date, made after a hearing, determined that she had neglected the child. The appeal brings up for review the fact finding order dated February 4, 1991.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court’s determination that the appellant’s fifteen-year-old niece, who was in the appellant’s custody, had been neglected was supported by a preponderance of the evidence *(see,*Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]). The appellant admitted that she had administered twenty-five lashes with a belt to the child. In addition, the physician who examined the child the

*499next day testified that he had observed numerous bruises about her head and body including linear bruises on her arms, legs, chest, and back. The child’s eye was swollen which resulted in a narrowing of her vision for several days. Also, the child sustained a small scar below her right eyebrow as a result of the beating. Such evidence was sufficient to establish neglect by a preponderance of the evidence *(see, Matter of Anthony C.,*201 AD2d 342; *Matter of Jonathan C.,*195 AD2d 554).

We have examined the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.
Order entered June 14, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00462-CV

DON HARRIS, ET AL., Appellants

V.

TERRY KNUTSON, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-16333

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants’ June 12, 2019 unopposed motion for an extension of time 

to file their brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to July 3, 2019.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
From: vcolvin772@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:30:54 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,

Vickie Colvin

Kelly, NC 28448
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-2134

KENT J. ASHTON,

Petitioner,

versus

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; CITY OF

CONCORD, NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondents.

No. 01-1562

KENT J. ASHTON,

Petitioner,

versus

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; CITY OF

CONCORD, NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of Orders of the Federal Aviation Administration. (16-99-09, 16-00-01)

Submitted: September 13, 2001 Decided: September 20, 2001
2

Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kent J. Ashton, Petitioner Pro Se. Kenneth P. Quinn, Frank San

Martin, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D.C.; Anthony

Alan Yang, Michael Jay Singer, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C.; Keith J. Merritt, David Betts Hamilton,

KILPATRICK STOCKTON, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated proceedings, Kent J. Ashton filed two

petitions for review of final agency decisions issued by the Associate Administrator for Airports for the Federal Aviation Administration. We have reviewed Ashton’s arguments, the record, and

the orders issued by the Director, Office of Airport Safety and

Standards, and the Associate Administrator and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny the petitions for review. We deny

motions to strike informal briefs and grant Ashton’s motion to file

a corrected informal brief. 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.

PETITIONS DENIED