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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:11:05 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,

James Souders

Frederick, MD 21702
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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

RONALD AND DEBORAH KEAL,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5737RJB

ORDER ON OUTSTANDING

MOTIONS

This Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge

pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The plaintiffs are proceeding in forma pauperis. (Dkt. #

4). Before the court are two motions. Defendant Mallogue seeks to strike plaintiff’s responsive

pleading to her answer. (Dkt. #123). Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel. (Dkt. # 127).

Defendant is correct in noting that a responsive pleading to an answer is not allowed under

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the document will not be struck from the record. 

The court ORDERS the document remain in the file but it will not be considered by the court and

may not be cited to by any party.

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Plaintiffs indicate the complaint is

complex and raises over 22 legal claims. (Dkt. # 126 and 127). They complain they have limited

Case 3:05-cv-05737-RJB-JKA Document 132 Filed 05/19/06 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

27

28 ORDER - 2

access to legal material and cannot afford counsel. There is no right to have counsel appointed in

cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although the court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), can request

counsel to represent a party proceeding in forma pauperis, the court may do so only in exceptional

circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Franklin v. Murphy,

745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980). A finding of

exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and

the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues

involved. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.

Plaintiffs have demonstrated an adequate ability to articulate the claims pro se. Moreover, it

appears that this case does not involve exceptional circumstances which warrant appointment of

counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED.

The clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to plaintiff and counsel who have appeared

in the case and remove docket number 123 and 127 from the courts calendar.

DATED this 19th day of May, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05737-RJB-JKA Document 132 Filed 05/19/06 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 248 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 1 of 29
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 248 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 2 of 29
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 248 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 3 of 29
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 248 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 4 of 29
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 248 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 5 of 29
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 248 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 6 of 29
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 248 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 7 of 29
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 248 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 8 of 29
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 248 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 9 of 29
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 248 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 10 of 29
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 248 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 11 of 29
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 248 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 12 of 29
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 248 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 13 of 29
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 248 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 14 of 29
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 248 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 15 of 29
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 248 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 16 of 29
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 248 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 17 of 29
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 248 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 18 of 29
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 248 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 19 of 29
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 248 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 20 of 29
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 248 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 21 of 29
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 248 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 22 of 29
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 248 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 23 of 29
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 248 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 24 of 29
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 248 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 25 of 29
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 248 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 26 of 29
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 248 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 27 of 29
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 248 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 28 of 29
Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 248 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 29 of 29
No. 63858.

protest 59/14999 (New York).

#### Frederic Henjes, Jr., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
From: brupp1970@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:12:56 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,

Barbara Ruppert

Kensington, MD 20895
Case No. 14,241.

#### TURBETT v. DUNLEVY.

District Court. E. D. Pennsylvania.

1848.

Carriers— Passengers — Authority of Master of Vessel — Personae Indignities.

The mastei of a vessel has a general authority over the passengers, as well as the crew; and if a passenger so demean himself as to endanger the safety or convenience of others on board, the master may control him; but It is a marine trespass for the master to shave the head of a stowaway on board his vessel, for the mere purpose of putting a mark upon him.

[See Krauskopp v. Ames, Case No. 7,931.]

[Decided by KANE. District Judge. Nowhere reported: opinion not now accessible. The above statement was taken from 1 Brightly, Dig. 802.]

TURLEY (UNITED STATES v.). See Case No. 16,546
Director Compensation Summary


	Exhibit 10(i)


	 


	 


	1st FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORPORATION


	Director Compensation Summary Term Sheet


	 


	Compensation to be paid to the following directors, whether or not executive officers of the Company, will be as follows: 


	 


	Name of Director

	Compensation


	 

	 


	Ben F. Cheek,. III  (Vice Chairman)

	$-  * 


	Ben F. Cheek, IV  (Chairman)

	$35,000 


	A. Roger Guimond

	$35,000 


	James H. Harris, III

	$35,000 


	John G. Sample, Jr. (Audit Committee Chairman)

	$40,000 


	C. Dean Scarborough

	$35,000 


	Keith D. Watson

	$35,000 


	 

	 


	* Note:  Ben F, Cheek, III elected not to receive any Director fees.
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 Continuing Government’s Response Date/

United States v. Goodson, et al., CR05-5797RBL - 1

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

(206) 553-7970

Judge Leighton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) NO. CR05-5797RBL

Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) ORDER CONTINUING

) RESPONSE TO PRE-TRIAL 

MARCY GOODSON, ) MOTIONS

)

Defendant. ) 

 ________________________________)

Based upon the stipulation between the United States of America, and defendant

Marcy Goodson, and for the reasons stated in the written Stipulation, this Court

GRANTS the stipulation and ORDERS that, 

Defendant Marcy Goodson may file additional pre-trial motions by or before

April 11, 2005. 

The government’s responses to pre-trial motions is continued to Wednesday,

April 19, 2006, and defendant Goodson’s motions are renoted for Friday, April 21,

2006. 

DATED this 28th day of March, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cr-05797-RBL Document 33 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 1
From: roydixon2@suddenlink.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: No Abortions by Health Insurance

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:44:01 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,

Roy Dixon

Abilene, TX 79606
Exhibit 32.2




Certification of Principal Financial Officer




Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of SK Shasta Acquisition Corp. 2 (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kurt Pichler, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 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.





/s/ Kurt PichlerKurt PichlerPrincipal Financial OfficerAugust 1, 2011
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 28, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 128882 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 46TH CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, Justices 

Plaintiff, Counter-Defendant,

Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 128882 

 COA: 254181 

Crawford CC: 02-005951-CZ 

COUNTY OF CRAWFORD and CRAWFORD 

COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, 

Defendants, Counter-Plaintiffs,

Third-Party Plaintiffs,

and 

COUNTY OF KALKASKA,

 Third-Party Plaintiff, 

Counter-Defendant,

and 

COUNTY OF OTSEGO,

 Third-Party Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

COHL STOKER TOSKEY & MCGLINCHEY PC, 

Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 3, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it appearing to this Court that the 

case of 46th Circuit Trial Court v Crawford County (Docket No. 128878) is pending on 

appeal before this Court and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in 

the present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in 

ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case. 

d1220 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 28, 2005 

Clerk
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

DETENTION ORDER

PAGE -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. 05-407M 

 )

v. )

)

CORETTA CALDWELL ) DETENTION ORDER 

)

Defendant. )

________________________________ )

Offense charged: 

Count I: SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUD - Title 42, U.S.C., Section 408(a)(7)(B)

Count II: AGGRAVATED IDENTITY THEFT - Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1028(A)

 Date of Detention Hearing: August 18, 2005.

The court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and

based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth, finds that

no condition or combination of conditions, which defendant can meet, will reasonably assure the

appearance of defendant as required and the safety of any other person and the community.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) The Defendant is viewed as risk of nonappearance due to the nature of the current

charges. Furthermore, the Defendant has multiple identification cards under

different alias names and ongoing issues with substance abuse.

(2) The Defendant is viewed as a risk of danger to the community due to the nature

of the instant offense and an extensive criminal history. Moreover, the

Defendant’s sister expressed concern regarding the Defendant’s mental state

given that she has admitted to daily substance abuse and has failed to adequately

Case 2:05-cr-00371-RSM Document 6 Filed 08/22/05 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

DETENTION ORDER

PAGE -2-

care for her son amidst allegations of physical abuse by the co-defendant. Other

discrepancies between the sister’s account of events and the Defendant’s account

give rise to skepticism surrounding the Defendant’s trustworthiness.

Thus, there is no condition or combination of conditions that would reasonably assure future

court appearances.

It is therefore ORDERED:

(l) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the 

Attorney General for confinement in a correctional facility separate, to the extent

practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences, or being held in custody

pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with

counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

Government, the person in charge of the correctional facility in which defendant is

confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose of

an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The clerk shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United States

Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 22nd day of August, 2005. 

AMonica J. Benton

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cr-00371-RSM Document 6 Filed 08/22/05 Page 2 of 2
Before the First Division,

October 23, 1962

No. 67138.

protests 60/20739, etc. (New York).

#### Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of wall ornaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher, Inc.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 112, C.D. 2289), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
|   | 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of1934. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | To      my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in      all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of      Union National as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the      Report. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By     | /s/      Mark D. Gainer           |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------|--------|
|   | Chairman,      CEO, and President |   |
|   |                              |   |
|   | Date:      August 14, 2009        |   |

| By     | /s/      Michael D. Peduzzi                               |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Executive      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |                                                      |   |
|   | Date:      August 14, 2009                                |   |

----
# Jurnalul Oficial C 122A/16 a

| | ISSN 1977-1029 |
| --- | --- |
| Jurnalul Oficial
  al Uniunii Europene | C 122A |
| | |
| Ediţia în limba română | Comunicări şi informări | Anul 5816 aprilie 2015 |

ISSN 1977-1029

Jurnalul Oficial

al Uniunii Europene

C 122A

Ediţia în limba română

Comunicări şi informări

Anul 5816 aprilie 2015

---

| Informarea nr. | Cuprins | Pagina |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Rectificări |
| 2015/C 122A/01 | Rectificare la anunțul de concursuri generale – Administratori (AD 5/AD 7) Specializați în cercetare juridică – EPSO/AD/295/15 – Juriști cu formare juridică bulgară (BG) – EPSO/AD/296/15 – Juriști cu formare juridică germană (DE) – EPSO/AD/297/15 – Juriști cu formare juridică croată (HR) – EPSO/AD/298/15 – Juriști cu formare juridică irlandeză (IE) – EPSO/AD/299/15 – Juriști cu formare juridică lituaniană (LT) – EPSO/AD/300/15 – Juriști cu formare juridică slovacă (SK) — ( JO C 68 A, 26.2.2015 ) | 1 |

Informarea nr.

Cuprins

Pagina

Rectificări

2015/C 122A/01

Rectificare la anunțul de concursuri generale – Administratori (AD 5/AD 7) Specializați în cercetare juridică – EPSO/AD/295/15 – Juriști cu formare juridică bulgară (BG) – EPSO/AD/296/15 – Juriști cu formare juridică germană (DE) – EPSO/AD/297/15 – Juriști cu formare juridică croată (HR) – EPSO/AD/298/15 – Juriști cu formare juridică irlandeză (IE) – EPSO/AD/299/15 – Juriști cu formare juridică lituaniană (LT) – EPSO/AD/300/15 – Juriști cu formare juridică slovacă (SK) — ( JO C 68 A, 26.2.2015 )

( JO C 68 A, 26.2.2015 )

1

---

| RO | |
| --- | --- |

RO

---

Rectificări

| 16.4.2015 | RO | Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene | CA 122/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2015

RO

Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene

CA 122/1

---

Rectificare la anunțul de concursuri generale – Administratori (AD 5/AD 7) Specializați în cercetare juridică – EPSO/AD/295/15 – Juriști cu formare juridică bulgară (BG) – EPSO/AD/296/15 – Juriști cu formare juridică germană (DE) – EPSO/AD/297/15 – Juriști cu formare juridică croată (HR) – EPSO/AD/298/15 – Juriști cu formare juridică irlandeză (IE) – EPSO/AD/299/15 – Juriști cu formare juridică lituaniană (LT) – EPSO/AD/300/15 – Juriști cu formare juridică slovacă (SK)

(
  Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene C 68 A din 26 februarie 2015
  )

(2015/C 122 A/01)

La pagina 2, la titlul I, la punctul 3:

în loc de:

„Termen-limită (inclusiv validarea): 31 martie 2015, ora 12.00 (dupăamiaza), ora Bruxelles-ului”,

se va citi:

„Termen-limită (inclusiv validarea): 9 aprilie 2015, ora 12.00 (dupăamiaza), ora Bruxelles-ului”.

---