alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: rkwilsonmd@charter.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:26:07 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,

Rick Wilson

Denton, TX 76205
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

MINUTE ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

GEORGE HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

AIR TRANSPORT DISTRICT 143

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE

WORKERS, LOCAL LODGE 1040

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE

WORKERS,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C05-1824JLR

MINUTE ORDER

The following minute order is made by the direction of the court, the Honorable

James L. Robart:

In response to the court’s November 14, 2005 order dismissing this action for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiff has moved for reconsideration (Dkt. # 3). Plaintiff

seeks leave to file an amended complaint that attempts to state a basis for this court’s

jurisdiction. He also asks that the amended complaint relate back to the November 3,

2005 filing date of his original complaint in this action.

Pursuant to Local Rules W.D. Wash. CR 7(h)(1), motions for reconsideration are

disfavored, and will ordinarily be denied unless there is a showing of (a) manifest error in

Case 2:05-cv-01824-JLR Document 4 Filed 11/28/05 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

27

28

MINUTE ORDER - 2

the prior ruling, or (b) facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to the

attention of the court earlier, through reasonable diligence. Plaintiff has not made either

showing in his motion. He simply alleges that he mistakenly failed to state his bases for

federal jurisdiction in his original complaint. Absent exceptional circumstances, the court

cannot grant a motion for reconsideration to correct a plaintiff’s mistake. The court

therefore denies Plaintiff’s motion.

The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s amended complaint, however, and finds that it

facially states a basis for federal jurisdiction. The court grants Plaintiff leave to file the

amended complaint. Because Plaintiff has not served Defendant with any document in

this case, the court declines to rule on whether the amended complaint relates back to the

original complaint. When Plaintiff serves Defendant, it directs the court to provide

Defendant with copies of all pleadings in this action, including Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration and this order. The court will consider the “relation back” issue if, after

service, one of the parties raises it in a proper motion.

As stated above, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt.

# 3), but grants Plaintiff leave to file his amended complaint. 

Filed and entered this 28th day of November, 2005.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

s/Mary Duett

By

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:05-cv-01824-JLR Document 4 Filed 11/28/05 Page 2 of 2
Order entered August 21, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00925-CV

THAD F. BAKER A/K/A FRED BAKER, ET AL, Appellants

V.

W. R. EDWARDS, JR., Appellee

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-10-00003-F

ORDER

On August 1, 2013, after a review of the clerk’s record revealed appellee-debtor had filed 

a notice of bankruptcy, we informed the parties that the appeal would be abated pursuant to 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 8.2 unless the parties filed a motion to reinstate showing the 

appeal is permitted by federal law or the bankruptcy court. See TEX. RS. APP. P. 8.2, 8.3. The 

parties complied, asserting that the automatic stay of judicial proceedings provided in section 

362 of the Bankruptcy Code does not apply to this appeal because the case was initiated by 

appellee-debtor, and no claims were brought against him. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (West Supp. 

2013); McMillan v. MBank Fort Worth, N.A., 4 F.3d 362, 366 (5th Cir. 1993); In re McDaniel, 

149 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004, order). 
Because the automatic stay is only applicable to claims against the debtor, we GRANT

appellee’s August 5, 2013 motion regarding involuntary bankruptcy and appellants’ August 6, 

2013 motion to reinstate appeal suspended by bankruptcy. See Montgomery Ward & Co. v. 

Denton Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 13 S.W.3d 828, 829 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, pet. denied). 

We ORDER appellants to file their brief on the merits no later than September 23, 2013.

/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/

ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

JUSTICE
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

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

MAZZAR ROBINSON,

 Defendant.

Case No. CR05-5784

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 ( X ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

ARGES; ALLEGATIONS REGARDING WEAPONS AT TIME OF ARREST. ( X ) 

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( X ) Alias name, date of birth, and social security numbers..

 ( ) Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal,

without prejudice to review..

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 November 14, 2005.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cr-05784-RBL Document 25 Filed 11/14/05 Page 1 of 1
From: sodonnell1015@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:31:22 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,

Sharon O'Donnell

Springfield, PA 19064
| 1. | I      have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Pure Earth, Inc.;      and |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a      material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the      statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements      were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this      report. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:       April      30, 2010 | By:    | /s/      Brent Kopenhaver                  |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                               |   | Brent      Kopenhaver                      |   |
|                                                               |   | Chairman,      Executive Vice President,   |   |
|                                                               |   | Chief Financial Officer and      Treasurer |   |

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 25, 2011 

p0418 

Order 

 

April 25, 2011 

142134 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142134 

 COA: 299954 

Jackson CC: 2008-004942-FH

ROBERT WILLIAM WHITTENBERG, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 28, 2010 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
IV 

★

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 631 

Honoring the sacrifice and courage of the six missing miners and three 

rescuers who were killed in the Crandall Canyon mine disaster in Utah, 

and recognizing the rescue crews for their outstanding efforts in the 

aftermath of the tragedies. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 

Mr. MATHESON submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the sacrifice and courage of the six missing miners 

and three rescuers who were killed in the Crandall Canyon mine disaster in Utah, and recognizing the rescue 

crews for their outstanding efforts in the aftermath of 

the tragedies. 

Whereas on August 6, 2007, six miners, Kerry Allred, Don 

Erickson, Juan Carlos Payan, Brandon Phillips, Manuel 

Sanchez, and Jose Luis Hernandez, were trapped 1,800 

feet below ground in the Crandall Canyon mine in Utah; 

Whereas Federal, State, and local rescue crews worked relentlessly in an attempt to locate and rescue the trapped 

miners; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

HRES 631 IH1S 

Whereas three rescuers, Gary Jensen, Brandon Kimber, and 

Dale ‘‘Bird’’ Black lost their lives during the rescue attempt; 

Whereas the loss of the miners has had a tremendous effect 

on the local community; 

Whereas the emergency efforts coordinated by the Emery 

County Sheriff’s Department have been exemplary; 

Whereas Utah is one of the largest coal producing States in 

the Nation, producing over 21 million tons of coal in 

2005; 

Whereas coal continues to be the economic engine for many 

communities; 

Whereas during the last century over 100,000 coal miners 

have been killed in mining accidents in the Nation’s coal 

mines; 

Whereas the Nation is greatly indebted to coal miners for the 

difficult and dangerous work they perform to provide the 

fuel needed to operate the Nation’s industries and to provide energy to homes and businesses; and 

Whereas many residents of Emery County and Carbon County, Utah, and the surrounding areas, came together to 

support the miners’ families and the community has been 

steadfast in its efforts to help the families of the missing 

and deceased: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House— 

2 (1) recognizes Kerry Allred, Don Erickson, 

3 Juan Carlos Payan, Brandon Phillips, Manuel 

4 Sanchez, Jose Luis Hernandez, Gary Jensen, BranVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:58 Sep 06, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR631.IH HR631

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

HRES 631 IH1S 

1 don Kimber, and Dale ‘‘Bird’’ Black for their sac2 rifice in the Crandall Canyon, Utah coal mine; 

3 (2) extends the deepest condolences of the Na4 tion to the families of these men; 

5 (3) recognizes the many volunteers who partici6 pated in the rescue efforts and provided support for 

7 the miners’ families during the rescue ooperations; 

8 and 

9 (4) honors the long national heritage of coal 

10 mining families and supports the tradition for the 

11 future. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,317
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  159,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,217
<INVENTORY>                                     13,791
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               179,429
<PP&E>                                          35,581
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,430
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 253,539
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          142,496
<BONDS>                                         36,733
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            44
<OTHER-SE>                                      74,266
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   253,539
<SALES>                                        406,983
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               406,983
<CGS>                                          359,542
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  359,542
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   715
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,990
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,608
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,439
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,169
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,169
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 16, 2019

No. 04-19-00549-CR

David Michael ESPIRITU,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR9243

Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Attorney Debra L. Parker is the court-appointed appellate counsel for Appellant David 

Michael Espiritu. On December 9, 2019, counsel filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2014). The next day, counsel filed a motion to withdraw.

On December 11, 2019, we advised counsel that the December 9, 2019 Anders brief and 

the December 10, 2019 motion to withdraw did not comply with the requisite procedures. See 

Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20. We identified the defects in the documents and ordered counsel to 

file an amended brief and correcting documents.

The same day, counsel refiled the original brief and motion to withdraw. Counsel added

a copy of counsel’s December 11, 2019 letter to Appellant that corrected all but one of the 

defects in counsel’s previous documents. Counsel advised Appellant that he may request a free 

copy of the appellate record, but counsel did not provide Appellant with a completed pro se 

motion, addressed to this court, for a free copy of the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d at 

319–20 (requiring counsel to “include in [counsel’s] letter to the appellant a form motion . . . 

lacking only the appellant’s signature and the date”). 

Our December 11, 2019 order is SATISFIED IN PART pending counsel’s providing 

written proof to this court that counsel has sent Appellant a form motion as required. See Kelly, 

436 S.W.3d at 319–20. 
We ORDER Debra L. Parker to provide written proof to this court within TEN DAYS of 

the date of this order that counsel has sent Appellant a motion for a free copy of the appellate 

record as required by Kelly. See id. 

If Appellant wishes to file a pro se brief, he must file it with this court within THIRTY 

DAYS after counsel sends Appellant the motion for a free copy of the appellate record.

Although the State filed its brief waiver based on Appellant’s initial brief, which we 

struck, because Appellant’s December 11, 2019 brief is identical to the original brief, we will 

accept the State’s brief waiver as effective unless the State notifies this court to the contrary 

within TEN DAYS of the date of this order.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of December, 2019.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
No. 68119.

#### Morris Friedman *v.*United States,

protests 62/7960, etc. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of articles in chief value of colored glass similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Joseph Markovits, Inc.*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 151, C.D. 2216), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### Ronald P. TOWNSEND, Jr., Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 00-3329.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 6, 2001.

Before RADER, SCHALL, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.