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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Recind Obama Care Once & 4 All!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:00:48 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,

Randy Decker

, 54701-4664
From: undercoverangel82@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:02:25 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,

Brendan Meyer

Decorah, IA 52101
From: wajwarne@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:34:27 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Wanda Warne

Denver, CO 80219
No. 59761.

#### M. E. Dey & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 165064-K (Milwaukee).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cane furniture similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Calif-Asia Co., Ltd.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 133, C. A. D. 475), the chairs in question were held dutiable at 20 percent under the provision in paragraph 412, as modified by T. D. 51802, for chairs, wholly or in chief value of wood, and furniture, other than chairs, was held dutiable at *12}i*percent under said modified paragraph,
Sale Agreement Assignment



 Exhibit 10.4 
 SALE AGREEMENT ASSIGNMENT 
 This Sale Agreement Assignment ("Assignment") is made as of
January 16, 2013 by and between MMIC Acquisition Corporation, a Florida corporation ("Assignor") and CHP Claremont CA Owner, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Assignee"), and is made with respect to the Sale Agreement by
and between Assignor and Claremont Venture I, L.P., a California limited partnership ("Seller") dated as of November 9, 2012, as amended from time to time (collectively, the "PSA"). For good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: 
 Assignor hereby assigns to Assignee all of
Assignor's right, title and interest in and to the PSA, the escrow created pursuant to the PSA, any Deposits (as defined in the PSA) in such escrow or held by Seller, and all other rights and assets appurtenant to any of the above ("Assets").

 Assignee hereby accepts the Assets and assumes all of Assignor's obligations under the PSA, whether arising before or after the date of
this Assignment. Assignor acknowledges that it is not released (as a result of such assignment or for any other reason) from any PSA obligations, whether arising before or after the date of this Assignment. All of Assignor’s knowledge with
respect to the Property is hereby attributed to Assignee, which is deemed to have such same knowledge. 
 [signatures appear on following
pages] 







 In witness whereof, the undersigned have executed this Assignment as of the above date. 

 

			
	ASSIGNOR:
	
	 MMIC ACQUISITION CORPORATION, a Florida
 corporation

	
	By:        /s/ William S.
Rogers                    
	Name:              William S.
Rogers              
	Title:                 Vice
President                   


  
 [signatures continue on following page]








 
			
	ASSIGNEE:
	
	CHP CLAREMONT CA OWNER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
	
	By:        /s/Joshua J.
Taube                      
	Name:
                Joshua J. Taube              
	Title:                 Vice
President
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mary CASTO, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-4148.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 20, 2005.

Decided Aug. 10, 2005.

Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas E. Johnston, United States Attorney, Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Mary Casto appeals the district court’s judgment revoking her supervised release and sentencing her to fourteen months in prison. On appeal, Casto argues the district court failed to fully consider her history and characteristics, and it abused its discretion by denying her motion for modification in lieu of'revocation. We affirm.

*145We review a district court’s judgment revoking supervised release and imposing a term of imprisonment for abuse of discretion. *United States v. Davis,*53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir.1995). In exercising this discretion, the district court must consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000). *See*18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e) (West 2000 & Supp.2004). The district court abuses its discretion when it fails or refuses to exercise its discretion or when its exercise of discretion is flawed by an erroneous legal or factual premise. *See James v. Jacobson,*6 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir.1993). Our review of the record convinces us the district court fully considered Casto’s history and characteristics and did not abuse its discretion.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.

*AFFIRMED*
No. 66056.

#### Rohner, Gehrig & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/27501 (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It appearing that the protest was prematurely filed under section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, the motion to dismiss was granted.
|   |      (1)     The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;    and |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |      (2)     The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:    | /s/ Konstantin  Tsirulnikov                             |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Konstantin      TsirulnikovChief      Executive Officer |

----
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:05:08 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,

Roger Fritz

Poulsbo, WA 98370
Case No. 14,218.

#### TUCKER v. FAIRBANKS.

[Cited in Wilson Packing Co. v. Clapp, Case No. 17,851, and King v. Frostel, Id. 7,794. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 5 (Thursday, January 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 1029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C1-2014-30685]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0479; FRL-9916-07]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; 
Comment Request Reporting in the FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Work Plan 
and Report Template OMB Control No. 2070-NEW

Correction

    In notice document 2014-30685 appearing on pages 40 through 41 in 
the issue of Friday, January 2, 2015, make the following correction:
    1. On page 40, in the third column, in the DATES section, ``March 
3, 2014'' should read ``March 3, 2015''

[FR Doc. C1-2014-30685 Filed 1-7-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1501-01-D
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                              86
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,627
<ALLOWANCES>                                       601
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,781
<PP&E>                                          18,931
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,156
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,623
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      4,376
<COMMON>                                        28,673
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,100
<SALES>                                         22,944
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,944
<CGS>                                           20,725
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,725
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    33
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  83
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,103
<INCOME-TAX>                                       883
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,220
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,220
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13
        

</TABLE>
No. 63339.

protests 284763-K, etc. (Norfolk).

#### Algemene Kunstzidje Unie NV *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise, facts, and issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 Cust. Ct. 267, C.D. 1834), the collector was directed to reliquidate the entries, assessing duty upon the unit appraised value per conditioned pound or kilo, multiplied by the total number of conditioned pounds or kilos, as set forth in the invoices.
#### Ali AL-ZUBIDI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-73904.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 17, 2005.

Decided Aug. 23, 2005.

Amos Lawrence, Esq., Attorney at Law, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Janice K. Redfern, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

*689Before: REAVLEY,* T.G. NELSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable Thomas M. Reavley, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

1. Substantial evidence supports the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) adverse credibility determination, including discrepancies in Ali Al-Zubidi’s statements concerning his political activities and opinions, and his vague statements regarding the alleged persecution. *See Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir.2003).

2. The IJ’s determination that Al-Zubidi failed to show that he was persecuted for his political opinions is supported by substantial evidence. Evidence of “conscription” alone does not satisfy the burden to show persecution because of a political opinion. *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481-482, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

3. There was substantial evidence in the record to support the IJ’s determination that there was a fundamental, change in conditions in Yemen after Al-Zubidi left, including the facts that a different political party is now in power,- and that Al-Zubidi’s family remains unharmed. *See Hakeem v. INS,*273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001).

PETITION DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
From: rhall77@woh.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:37:54 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,

Richard Hall

Dayton, OH 45432
From: adopt-a-critter@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:45:55 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,

Kim Carey

Alpine, CA 91901