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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:20:26 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,

Debra Heard

Dubach, LA 71235
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

JON ROYAL FLEMING,

Petitioner,

v.

KEN QUINN,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5719RJB

ORDER DENYING

PETITIONER’S MOTIONS FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF THE 

ORDER DENYING EXPANSION OF 

THE RECORD

This 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief has been referred to the undersigned

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) and local Rules MJR 3 and 4. Petitioner in this

action is seeking federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Petitioner has filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying his motion to “expand

the record.” (Dkt. # 40). Petitioner believes this case cannot be decided without review of each

prison disciplinary hearing held between 1996 and 2001. Plaintiff is in error. The relevant issue this

court must consider is whether the state court decisions were contrary to clearly established federal

law, as determined by the Supreme Court; or resulted in a decision that was based on an

unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented to the state courts. This is

Case 3:05-cv-05719-RJB Document 53 Filed 06/22/06 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

the habeas standard set forth under 28 U.S.C. §2254(d). Thus, there is no reason to expand the

record. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. As the court noted in it’s order denying

expansion of the record, “petitioner has not shown that he was unable to place the evidence before

the state court.” (Dkt. # 37). 

The clerk is directed to send copies of this order to petitioner and counsel for respondent.

DATED this 22nd day of June, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05719-RJB Document 53 Filed 06/22/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Osteotech,  Inc. and Subsidiaries Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30,
1998 and the Condensed  Consolidated Statement of Operations for the nine months
ended  September  30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          16,434,000
<SECURITIES>                                     2,919,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,355,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                       150,000
<INVENTORY>                                      1,243,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,850,000
<PP&E>                                          24,749,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,488,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  52,929,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,324,000
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            89,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,108,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    52,929,000
<SALES>                                            803,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,012,000
<CGS>                                              584,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,725,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  64,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,173,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,020,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,153,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,153,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .76
                                               


</TABLE>
Before the Second Division,

April 14, 1964

No. 68453.

protests 59/21619 (B), etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Toyo Rug Co., Ltd. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of wool blend rugs similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 67908, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: maggiethomas16@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:47:16 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to sincerely ask 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 to reverse

course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory preventive services.

Sincerely,

margaret thomas

Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 463 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 71
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 463

                          [Report No. 110-178]

       Dismissing the election contest relating to the office of 
    Representative from the Fifth Congressional District of Florida.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 6, 2007

Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, from the Committee on House Administration, 
  reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House 
                   Calendar and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
       Dismissing the election contest relating to the office of 
    Representative from the Fifth Congressional District of Florida.

    Resolved,  That the election contest relating to the office of 
Representative from the Fifth Congressional District of Florida is 
dismissed.
                                                  House Calendar No. 71

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 463

                          [Report No. 110-178]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

       Dismissing the election contest relating to the office of 
    Representative from the Fifth Congressional District of Florida.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              June 6, 2007

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
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 DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_________________________________ )

RICHARD ROY SCOTT, ) No. MC05-5029

)

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

) PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

_________________________________ )

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On March 26, 2007, this Court entered

an order barring plaintiff from proceeding in forma pauperis in any future action in the United

States District Court for the Western District of Washington unless the Court determines he is in

imminent danger of death or serious injury. See Dkt. #95 in Scott v. Weinberg, et al. (Case No.

C06-5172-FDB) (“Order Adopting Report and Recommendation and Order Restricting Future In

Forma Pauperis Filings”) at 15. On April 3, 2007, the Clerk of Court received a motion to

proceed in forma pauperis from plaintiff, along with a complaint, a declaration, and a praecipe

for service. See Dkt. #107. These documents are now before the undersigned for review

pursuant to the terms of the March 26, 2007 order.

In his proposed complaint, plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment “that one’s time spend

[sic] in evaluation at the SCC [Special Commitment Center for sexually violent predators

operated by the State of Washington] must be counted against community custody time” and that

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 108 Filed 06/18/07 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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS -2-

a “total Internet access ban” at the SCC is “unconstitutional on [F]irst Amendment grounds.” 

Dkt. #107-2 at 2. 

Upon review of the documents filed by plaintiff, the Court finds there is no showing that

plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Accordingly, under the terms of the

March 26, 2007 order restricting future in forma pauperis filings, the new action submitted by

plaintiff on April 3, 2007 (Dkt. #107) shall not be permitted to proceed. The Clerk of Court

shall docket this order in MC05-5029. Neither the Clerk of Court nor defendants need take any

further action with regards to this matter. 

DATED this 18th day of June, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 108 Filed 06/18/07 Page 2 of 2
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Remington Oil and Gas Corporation
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
James A. Watt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  § 1350, as adopted pursuant to  § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



| | (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/ James A. Watt

James A. Watt
Chief Executive Officer
August 2, 2002
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

THEODIS TENSELY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C05-5739JKA

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Plaintiff does not appear to have

funds available to afford the $250.00 filing fee.

The clerk is directed to issue summonses submitted by plaintiff to enable plaintiff to properly serve

copies of the complaint on the appropriate parties. Plaintiff shall note that it is her responsibility to

properly serve copies of the complaint along with appropriate summons as required by Rule 4 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 2ND day of December, 2005.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05739-RBL Document 3 Filed 12/02/05 Page 1 of 1
Before the First Division,

March 24, 1969

No. P69/78.

protests 67/6429 and 67/6430 (Philadelphia).

No. P69/79.

protests 67/43480, etc. (Los Angeles).

No. P69/80.

protests 67/90067, etc. (Honolulu).

#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States, F. W. Woolworth Co. et al. *v.*United States, F. W. Woolworth Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Watson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by filie foregoing protests consists of artificial flowers in Chief value of plastic, assembled in the same manner as the plastic artificial flowers in *Armbee Corporation et al.*v. *United States*(60 Cust. Ct. 105, C.D. 3278) and *Zunold Trading Corporation et al.*v. *United States*(60 Cust. Ct. 112, C.D. 3279), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: loswn6@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:25:38 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Lori Sweeney

Casa Grande, AZ 85122
264-14 SAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERALAVIATION ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OFHEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

### IN THEMATTER OF: ) FAA CASE NO. 2014-GL-70-0239 ) COMPASS SYSTEMS & SALES, INC. ) FDMS No. FAA-2015-2440 ) Respondent ) JUDGE J.E. SULLIVAN ) ) NOTICE OFAPPEARANCE OF ) COUNSEL

Louis P. Alexander, Jr., Esq., of Roth, Blair, Roberts, Strasfeld & Lodge, L.P.A., pursuant to 14 CPR 13.204, hereby enters his appearance as counsel on behalf of the Respondent, Compass Systems & Sales, Inc. inthis matter.
All co=unications, notices, pleadings or documents are respectfully requested to be forwarded as follows: StuartA. Strasfeld, Esq. Louis P. Alexander, Jr., Esq. Roth, Blair,Roberts, Strasfeld & Lodge, L.P.A. 100 EastFederal Street, Suite 600 Youngstown, Ohio 44503 Telephone: (330) 744-5211 Facsimile: (330) 744-3184 Email: sstrasfeld@roth-blair.com lalexander@roth-blair.comRespectfully Submitted,**~--- ~~"7**  / .·

## ~**~:~--" -"~z:=---c~-c~**  Stuart A. Strasfeld, Esq. (Ohio #0012399) Louis P. Alexander, Jr., Esq. (Ohio #0076529) Roth, Blair, Roberts, Strasfeld & Lodge, L.P.A. 100 East Federal Street, Suite 600 Youngstown, Ohio 44503 Telephone: (330) 744-5211 Facsimile: (330) 744-3184 Email: sstrasfeld@roth-blair.com lalexander@roth-blair.com Attorneys forRespondent, Compass Systems & Sales, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original and one copy of the foregoing Notice of Appearance were sent via Overnight Mail this 161h day of December, 2015, to the following address for filing with the Federal Aviation Administration:

Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue, S.W. Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 Washington D.C. 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430

[Certification page continues]I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing Notice of Appearance was served upon the following via Overnight Mail this 161 h day ofDecember, 2015.

Brian K. Khan, Esq. FederalAviation Administration Office ofRegional Counsel 2300 EastDevon Avenue, AGL-7H Des Plaines, IL 60018 Attorney for Complainant, FederalAviationAdministration

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and accurate copy ofthe foregoing Notice Appearance

was served uponthe following via OvernightMail this 16th day ofDecember, 2015.

Hon. J.E. Sullivan, Administrate Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. DepartmentofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, D.C. 20590

**~--? -~--------~-**  ...,



### ~"'f- **~--:~~** <,.L.._



## ~

# __ **cZ::=-=--=-~~---** sTUART A. STRASFELD (Ohio #0012399) LOUIS P. ALEXANDER, JR. (Ohio #0076529) Attorneys for Respondent Compass Systems & Sales, Inc.

Date: December 16, 2015
H. Res. 66

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 18, 2007.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6) 

to reduce our Nation’s dependency on foreign oil by investing 

in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater 

efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and 

Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative energy, 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) three hours of debate, with 60 minutes equally divided 

and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 

of the Committee on Ways and Means, 60 minutes equally 

divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 

member of the Committee on Natural Resources, 30 minutes 

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
2

•HRES 66 EH 

minority member of the Committee on Agriculture, and 30 

minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 

ranking minority member of the Committee on Science and 

Technology; and (2) one motion to recommit. 

SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 6 pursuant to this 

resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 

question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 

bill to a time designated by the Speaker. 

Attest:

Clerk.