alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Gerald Thibodeau

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:58:32 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,

Gerald Thibodeau
Brewer, Maine
From: twig1960@roadrunner.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:36:22 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,

Kathleen Lopez

Palmdale, CA 93551
No. 61054.

protests 281634-K, etc. (New York).

#### J. Zissu et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: marilouhobrock@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:05:31 PM

I do not want my taxpayer money legally plundered to fund sterilizations and contraceptives.

This is an offensive governmental bully mandate.

Sincerely,

Maria Hobrock

Encinitas, CA 92024
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.01

                           MICRONICS COMPUTERS, INC.
                      COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
                                  (UNAUDITED)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                       THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                                          DECEMBER 31,           
                                                                               ----------------------------------
                                                                                   1996                  1995         
                                                                               -------------        -------------  
<S>                                                                            <C>                  <C>
PRIMARY
Net income  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            $         166        $         929
                                                                               =============        =============
Average shares outstanding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                   13,923               13,742
Options   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        3                    8
                                                                               -------------        -------------
  Total common stock and common stock equivalents   . . . . . . . .                   13,926               13,750
                                                                               =============        =============
Net income per common share   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            $        0.01        $        0.07
                                                                               =============        =============

FULLY DILUTED
Net income  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            $         166        $         929
                                                                               =============        =============
Average shares outstanding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                   13,923               13,742
Options   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        3                    8
                                                                               -------------        -------------
  Total common stock and common stock equivalents   . . . . . . . .                   13,926               13,750
                                                                               =============        =============
Net income per common share   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            $        0.01        $        0.07
                                                                               =============        =============
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.3


                                  CERTIFICATION


     In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Booth Creek Ski Holdings,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  as the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company,  hereby  certifies  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as  adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          Section 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.

June 14, 2004


                                              By:     /s/ ELIZABETH J. COLE
                                              ----------------------------------
                                                    Elizabeth J. Cole
                                                  Executive Vice President and
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
From: teabychance@charter.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:48:26 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,

Nathan Mathews

Kennedale, TX 76060
Aug. 13, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Amendment to Exemption 11842 ProFly Drones SenseFly eBee

This is a request for an amendment to Ex emption No. 11842 Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015– 1148, granted to ProFly Drones. This amendment will provide for the addition of the SenseFly eBee sUAS to the inventory of approved aircra ft for use during VLOS operations currently covered under Exemption 11842.

These airframes are commercially available to the gene ral public, as are a ll components used to complete them. In addition, all configurations of these components follow standard, wellestablished practices. No aspect of these aircraft is proprietary to ProFly Drones in design or

manufacture.

SenseFly eBee

Extended_User_Manual_eBee_and_eBee_Ag_v16.pdf (Uploaded to Docket)
Before the Second Division,

September 7, 1967

No. P67/294.

#### Sunwear, Inc. *v.*United States, protests 60/13524 and 61/20424 (Boston).

Ford, J.

In accordance with, stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of chip or chip-wood hats similar in all material respects, except as to the component material of chief value, to those subject of *Amberg, Schwab & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(64 Treas. Dec. 433, T.D. 46701); that the component material of chief value in said articles is chip or chipwood; and that said hats are not sewed, blocked, or trimmed, but are bleached, colored, dyed, or stained, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7316
EMMETT BARKLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT PIERCE; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SHANK; DAN DEVAROE, Correctional Officer II, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:07- cv-01974-JFM) Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 25, 2008 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emmett Barkley, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Emmett Barkley appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Barkley v. Pierce , No. 1:07-cv-01974-JFM (D. Md., Aug. 21, 2007). We further deny as moot Barkley’s motion for exped ited adjudication of this appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
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

Dated this 4th day of January , 2006

/S/ PETER H. VOELKER 

 Deputy Clerk

MINUTE ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the WESTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

SEATTLE AUDUBON SOCIETY et al.,

 Plaintiff,

)

)

)

vs. )

) C05-1835 JPD

GALE NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et

al.,

 Defendant.

)

)

) MINUTE ORDER

)

The following Minute Order is made at the direction of the Court, the Honorable 

James P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge:

On January 3, 2006, defendants filed a motion to extend time to file an answer (dkt #7).

The motion is unopposed and reflects the parties’ attempt to reach an early settlement. Having

considered the motion and supporting record, the Court GRANTS the motion for an extension of

time to file an answer. Pursuant to the parties’ request, defendants shall have until Friday,

January 13, 2006, to file an answer.

Case 2:05-cv-01835-RSL Document 8 Filed 01/04/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 395, Misc.

#### King *v.*Maxwell, Warden, et al.

Supreme Court of Ohio. Certiorari denied.
From: james.metzger@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:47:50 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,

James Metzger

North Haven, CT 06473
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 605 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 24, 2007.
Whereas the American Gold Star Mothers have suffered the supreme sacrifice of 
        motherhood by losing a son or daughter who served in the Armed Forces, 
        and thus perpetuate the memory of all whose lives are sacrificed in war;
Whereas the American Gold Star Mothers assist veterans of the Armed Forces and 
        their dependents in the presentation of claims to the Department of 
        Veterans Affairs and aid members of the Armed Forces who served and died 
        or were wounded or incapacitated during hostilities;
Whereas the services rendered to the United States by the mothers of America 
        have strengthened and inspired Americans throughout the history of the 
        United States;
Whereas Americans honor themselves and the mothers of America when they revere 
        and emphasize the role of the home and the family as the true 
        foundations of the United States;
Whereas by doing so much for the home, the American mother is a source of moral 
        and spiritual guidance for the people of the United States and thus acts 
        as a positive force to promote good government and peace among all 
        mankind; and
Whereas September 30, 2007, is being recognized as Gold Star Mothers Day: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of Gold Star Mothers Day; and
            (2) requests that the President issue a proclamation calling upon 
        the people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate 
        ceremonies and activities.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Caroline Labeille
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                            2826
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      611
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       1912
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  5378
<PP&E>                                            4687
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   11363
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             5141
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            55
<OTHER-SE>                                        4452
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     11363
<SALES>                                           5303
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  5303
<CGS>                                             2642
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2769
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (108)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (108)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (108)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
Before the Third Division,

March 4, 1963

No. 67485.

#### Stern Morgenthau & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

petition 7255-R (New York).

Donlon, Judge:

This is a petition for remission of additional duties that were assessed under section 489, Tariff Act of 1930, on merchandise which was imported from England and entered at New York on October 16, 1950.

The official papers are in evidence. They show that, on October 13, 1950, 3 days before entry, the customs examiner at New York tentatively approved entry on the basis of export value and at the invoice dollar prices that were then sub*226mitted to him by the importer, subject to information to be obtained by the importer as to home market value in England. Upon receipt of such information, obtained by the importer and duly submitted to the customs examiner, the appraiser appraised the merchandise on the basis of foreign value, stated in sterling. This value was higher than the entered dollar value.

Appeal to reappraisement was the subject of protracted litigation. The appeal was dismissed on March 28, 1961, thus affirming the basis of appraisement and value found by the appraiser. *(Stern Morgenthau Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*reappraisement 211684-A.)

Petitioner has the burden of showing affirmatively that “the entry of the merchandise at a less value than that returned upon final appraisement was without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise.” (Section 489, Tariff Act of 1930.)

James B. Herzog, who was president of the petitioning firm, Stern Morgenthau & Co., Inc., at the time of this importation, and Samuel Stern, a partner in S. Stern & Co., the custom broker who prepared the entry, both testified. Prom their testimony, it is clearly shown that they cooperated in furnishing to the examiner all information in their possession as to the value of merchandise and that they did not conceal or misrepresent any facts.

Counsel have stipulated that the report of ithe customs agent assigned to investigate the petition herein “did not disclose any intent to defraud the revenue of the United States.” (R. 24.)

The petition for remission is granted. Judgment will enter for petitioner.