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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:13:57 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,

C Ken Adams

Saint Joseph, MO 64506
Before the Third Division,

August 16, 1967

No. P67/273.

#### F. F. Straus *v.*United States, protest 63/7182 (Los Angeles).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of vases similar in all material respects to those the subject of *F.*Lunning, *Inc.,*and *Traders Service Corp. et al.*v. *United States*(39 Cust Ct. 271, C.D. 1941), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

HARRY VERN FOX,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH LEHMAN,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5562FDB

ORDER GRANTING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. #1) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is 

currently detained at the Special Commitment Center on McNeil Island, and does not appear to have funds

available to afford the $250.00 filing fee.

The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff.

DATED this 29th day of August, 2005.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05562-FDB Document 3 Filed 08/29/05 Page 1 of 1
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 GRANTING MOTION

TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL MOTIONS DEADLINE 1 

CR05-5633

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARNOLD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MICHAEL J. FOX,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR05-5633

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

CONTINUE PRETRIAL MOTIONS

DEADLINE

Upon motion of the defendant to continue the pretrial motions due date, the Court

finds that such a continuance would serve the ends of justice; therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the pretrial motions due date in this matter be

continued to November 16, 2005. 

DONE this 9th day of November, 2005.

___/s/ J. Kelley Arnold

JUDGE J. KELLEYARNOLD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Presented by:

___________________________ ____________________________

Colin A. Fieman Captain Glen Templeton

Assistant Federal Public Defender Special Assistant United States Attorney 

Case 3:05-cr-05633-JKA Document 9 Filed 11/09/05 Page 1 of 1
From: beverly.curtin@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:33:27 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,

Beverly Curtin

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
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

(PROPOSED) ORDER TO EXTEND

TIME TO FILE INDICTMENT

(Eddie Martinez-Santana; #05-315JLR)

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

1 (206) 553-1100

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARY ALICE THEILER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EDDIE MARTINEZ-SANTANA,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR05-315-JLR

(PROPOSED) ORDER TO EXTEND

TIME TO FILE INDICTMENT

The Court, having reviewed the stipulation of the parties, and the defendant’s

agreement to extend the time for an indictment, finds as to the facts stipulated to by counsel

in that document, and hereby makes the following findings of fact:

1. A failure to grant the continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time

necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, within

the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii). 

2. The parties believe that an extension of time in which to indict may result in

the possible resolution of the case without an indictment and without trial. Thus, the Court

further finds that the ends of justice will be served by ordering a continuance in this case,

that a continuance is necessary to insure effective trial preparation and that these factors

outweigh the best interests of the public in a more speedy trial, within the meaning of 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A). 

Case 2:05-cr-00315-JLR Document 12 Filed 09/20/05 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

(PROPOSED) ORDER TO EXTEND

TIME TO FILE INDICTMENT

(Eddie Martinez-Santana; #05-315JLR)

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

2 (206) 553-1100

IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY ORDERED that the time within which an

indictment in this case must be filed against the defendant shall be extended from

September 22, 2005, to October 28, 2005. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the period of delay from September 22, 2005,

to October 28, 2005, is excludable time pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18, U.S.C. §§

3161 et seq.

DONE this 20th day of September 

A

, 2005. 

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Presented by:

s/ Jennifer E. Wellman

WSBA # 29193

Assistant Federal Public Defender

Attorney for Eddie Martinez-Santana

Federal Public Defender’s Office

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, WA 98101

Phone: (206) 553-1100

Fax: (206) 553-0120

jennifer_wellman@fd.org

s/ Donald Reno

Assistant United States Attorney

E-Mail Approval

Case 2:05-cr-00315-JLR Document 12 Filed 09/20/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 63345.

protests 214294-K, 218712-K, and 217125-K (Detroit).

#### John V. Carr & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fresh or frozen boneless pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 59714, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

October 15, 1962

No. 67122.

protests 60/16613, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Arthur J. Fritz & Co. of L.A. et al. *v.*United States,

Richardson, Judge:

Five protests covering 13 entries have been consolidated for trial. The involved importations consist of plywood and men’s cotton shirts of Japanese origin, which were entered at Los Angeles, Calif., at various times. The subject entries were liquidated by the collector of customs on the basis of advanced values. It is claimed that the liquidations are illegal and void because notice of appraisement was not given as required by statute.

The protests were submitted to the court upon a stipulation which reads as follows:

> Mr. Glad : * * *

> I offer to stipulate'that in all of these cases no notice of appraisement on Customs Form 4301, was [sic] required by Section 501 of the Tariff Act, was given.

> Mr. Braverman : From information obtained from Mr. Arthur Hoffnung, chief liquidator in the office of the Collector of Customs at Los Angeles, the Government so stipulates.

Accepting this stipulation as evidence of the facts and upon the authority of 19 U.S.C.A., section 1501 (§ 501, Tariff Act of 1930), and *United States*v. *James H. Rhodes & Co.,*40 C.C.P.A. (Customs) 1, C.A.D. 488, we hold that the appraise-ments and liquidations heretofore undertaken in connection with the entries covered by the protests listed in the schedule of protests hereto attached and made a part hereof are illegal and void. In accordance with the provisions *261of 28 U.S.C.A., section 2636(d), the matter is remanded to a single judge of this court to determine the proper dutiable value of the subject merchandise in the manner provided by law.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the Third Division,

January 28, 1969

No. P69/30.

protests 65/21486 and 65/21487 (Los Angeles).

No. P69/31.

protests 67/49557, etc. (New York).

#### World Famous Sales Company, Inc., et al. *v.*United States, Inland Marine Company *v.*United States,

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of boats the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Andrew Dossett Imp., Inc.*v. *United States*(59 Cust. Ct. 350, C.D. 3167), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

BILLY DEAN DAVIS

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 15

- 4273

[ April 6, 2016 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Barbara McCarthy

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 82

- 5979 CF10B

.

Billy Dean Davis, Bushnell, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed. See Atwell v. State , 128 So. 3d 167 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), rev. granted , 16 0 So. 3d 892 (Fla. 2014).

S TEVENSON

, C ONNER and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 533 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 83
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 533

                          [Report No. 110-226]

  Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2956) to require the 
Secretary of Defense to commence the reduction of the number of United 
States Armed Forces in Iraq to a limited presence by April 1, 2008, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 11, 2007

  Ms. Slaughter, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2956) to require the 
Secretary of Defense to commence the reduction of the number of United 
States Armed Forces in Iraq to a limited presence by April 1, 2008, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2956) to require the 
Secretary of Defense to commence the reduction of the number of United 
States Armed Forces in Iraq to a limited presence by April 1, 2008, and 
for other purposes. All points of order against the bill and against 
its consideration are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 
of rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as read. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage 
without intervening motion except: (1) four hours of debate, with three 
hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Armed Services and one hour equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs; and (2) one motion to recommit.
    Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 2956 pursuant to this 
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the 
Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as 
may be designated by the Speaker.
                                                  House Calendar No. 83

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 533

                          [Report No. 110-226]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

  Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2956) to require the 
Secretary of Defense to commence the reduction of the number of United 
States Armed Forces in Iraq to a limited presence by April 1, 2008, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 11, 2007

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
No. 61546.

#### Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 304927-K (New York).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance With rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2010-NM-157-AD

Costs: Labor per airplane (1 work hour(s) x $85/hour) Parts per airplane Cost per airplane Number ofU.S.~registered airplanes Total tleet cost $ 85 $ + 

### -.2 $ 85


## , 241 $20.485

Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a"significant regulatory' lion"? YES () explain NO (X) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Isthe AD significant? YES () explain NO (X) Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number ofsmall entities? YES () explain NO (X) Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation inAlaska. Is i appropriate to include specific requirements foraircraft operated inAlaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES () explain NO (X)
Before the Second Division,

February 16, 1956

No. 59721.

#### Artmart Linen Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 188502-K (New York).

*342Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of doilies the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 58520, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: cheryldee61@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:01:50 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,

Cheryl Higham

Terre Haute, IN 47802
From: proorganizing@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:21:50 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,

Michele Schap

Clayton, NC 27527