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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:00:19 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,

Mark Schreiber

Simpsonville, SC 29680
Before the First Division,

March 12, 1957

No. 60561.

#### Leading Forwarders, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 273691-K (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
H. Res. 554 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 5, 2007. 

Whereas through international travel, Americans can individually play a major role towards improving foreign relations by building bridges and making connections with 

citizens of other countries; 

Whereas interacting with the global community inspires 

Americans to reflect on the diverse multi-cultural background that has defined the United States as a great 

country of cooperation and progress; 

Whereas having a passport and traveling abroad creates connections with the global community, supporting goodwill 

throughout the world; 

Whereas having a passport and traveling abroad promotes 

understanding and goodwill throughout the world, opening the doors to increased peace, tolerance, and acceptance; 

Whereas having a passport and traveling abroad opens up a 

preponderance of educational opportunities and experiences for Americans of all ages; 

Whereas having a passport and traveling abroad enables 

Americans to see first-hand the effect of the United 

States on the world, including the tremendous amount of 
2 

•HRES 554 EH 

humanitarian aid given by the United States through 

both public and private sectors; 

Whereas having a passport and traveling abroad reminds 

Americans that they are members of a global family and 

gives them opportunities to mend rifts around the world; 

Whereas fewer than 23 percent of Americans have passports, 

thereby limiting their ability to travel outside the United 

States; 

Whereas the more Americans travel outside the United 

States, the more they will experience opportunities to increase their understanding of the world and the place of 

the United States in it; 

Whereas the creation and support of a National Passport 

Month signals to Americans the important role they can 

play as ambassadors for the United States by serving as 

agents of understanding, tolerance, and mutual respect; 

and 

Whereas travel publishers along with travel editors from the 

most prestigious media outlets in the United States, student travel organizations, and book sellers have designated September as ‘‘National Passport Month’’ to educate the public about the importance of having a passport 

and the positive impact international travel has on individuals: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) supports the goals and ideals of National Passport Month; and 

(2) requests that the President issue a proclamation 

calling on the Federal Government, States, localities, 

schools, nonprofit organizations, businesses, other enti-
3 

•HRES 554 EH 

ties, and the people of the United States to observe National Passport Month with appropriate ceremonies, programs, and activities. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
H. Res. 661 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 11, 2007. 

Whereas Barrington Irving was born in 1983 in Kingston, 

Jamaica, and raised in inner-city Miami, Florida; 

Whereas Irving discovered his passion for aviation at the age 

of 15 when Captain Gary Robinson, a Jamaican airline 

pilot who has since served as his mentor, took him to 

tour the cockpit of a Boeing 777; 

Whereas Irving overcame financial hardship to pursue his 

dream to become a pilot by working miscellaneous jobs 

and working for private aircraft owners in exchange for 

flying lessons; 

Whereas Irving was the recipient of a joint Air Force/Florida 

Memorial University Flight Awareness Scholarship to 

cover college tuition and flying lessons for his tireless volunteer efforts and commitment to community service; 

Whereas in 2003, Irving contacted companies including aircraft manufacturer Columbia, which agreed to provide 

him with a plane to fly around the world if he could secure donations and components; 

Whereas over several years, Irving visited aviation trade 

shows throughout the country and secured more than 

$300,000 of cash and donated components including the 

engine, tires, cockpit systems, and seats for a Columbia 
2 

•HRES 661 EH 

400, one of the world’s fastest single-engine piston airplanes; 

Whereas in the process of pursuing his dream of an around 

the world flight, Irving founded a nonprofit organization 

in 2005 to address the significant shortage of youth pursuing careers in aviation and aerospace; 

Whereas Irving’s efforts have garnered widespread community support and sponsorship as an effective model to expose young people and underrepresented groups to opportunities in aviation; 

Whereas on March 23, 2007, Irving embarked from Miami, 

Florida, on a 24,600-mile flight around the world in an 

airplane named ‘‘Inspiration’’ at 23-years of age while 

still a senior majoring in aerospace at Florida Memorial 

University; 

Whereas on June 27, 2007, Irving concluded his flight in 

Miami, Florida, after stopping in 27 cities throughout the 

world; and 

Whereas Irving continues to inspire youth and adults alike 

with his achievements and work to increase the accessibility of opportunities in aviation and aerospace: Now, 

therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) honors the accomplishments of Barrington Irving, the youngest pilot and first person of African descent ever to fly solo around the world and founder of 

a nonprofit organization that inspires youth to pursue 

careers in aviation and aerospace; 
3 

•HRES 661 EH 

(2) encourages young people and minorities to pursue educational opportunities in preparation for careers 

in aviation and related industries; and 

(3) encourages museums throughout the Nation related to aviation to commemorate the historic achievements of Captain Barrington Irving. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
No. 67154.

protests 60/23903, etc. (Philadelphia).

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

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
```

[House Report 114-256]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

114th Congress   }                                        {     Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session     }                                        {    114-256

======================================================================

 
  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION (H.J. RES. 64) 
DISAPPROVING OF THE AGREEMENT TRANSMITTED TO CONGRESS BY THE PRESIDENT 
  ON JULY 19, 2015, RELATING TO THE NUCLEAR PROGRAM OF IRAN; AND FOR 
                             OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

 September 8, 2015.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

              Mr. Sessions, from the Committee on Rules, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 408]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 408, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 64, 
disapproving of the agreement transmitted to Congress by the 
President on July 19, 2015, relating to the nuclear program of 
Iran, under a closed rule. The resolution provides ten hours of 
debate equally divided among and controlled by the respective 
chairs and ranking minority members of the Committees on 
Foreign Affairs, Financial Services, the Judiciary, Oversight 
and Government Reform, and Ways and Means. The resolution 
waives all points of order against consideration of the joint 
resolution. The resolution provides that the joint resolution 
shall be considered as read. The resolution waives all points 
of order against provisions in the joint resolution. The 
resolution provides a final period of debate, which shall not 
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 
The resolution provides one motion to recommit.
    Section 2 of the resolution provides that upon receipt of a 
message from the Senate transmitting H.J. Res. 61 with a Senate 
amendment to the text thereof consisting only of the text of 
H.J. Res. 64 as passed by the House, the House shall be 
considered to have concurred in the Senate amendment or 
amendments.

                         EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

    Although the resolution waives all points of order against 
consideration of the joint resolution, the Committee is not 
aware of any points of order. The waiver is prophylactic in 
nature.
    Although the resolution waives all points of order against 
provisions in the joint resolution, the Committee is not aware 
of any points of order. The waiver is prophylactic in nature.

                                  [all]
```
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 REQUEST - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MART LIIKANE, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SEATTLE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-1829L

ORDER DENYING REQUEST

FOR A CONFERENCE

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s request for a conference. (Dkt.

#52). Plaintiff seeks a conference with this Court and defendants to discuss what plaintiff

alleges is defendants’ use of fraudulent and inauthentic documents in this case. 

As an initial matter, plaintiff’s request is not styled or noted as a motion. 

Nevertheless, because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will construe his “request”

as a motion. Plaintiff is reminded, however, that if he seeks relief from this Court, he

must follow the Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding motions,

particularly Local Rule 7. Furthermore, plaintiff has not shown a need for the requested

conference or identified any specific improper documents.

Case 2:05-cv-01829-RSL Document 53 Filed 11/07/06 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 ORDER DENYING REQUEST - 2

Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for a conference is DENIED.

DATED this 7th day of November, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01829-RSL Document 53 Filed 11/07/06 Page 2 of 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ruben Alvarado VELASQUEZ, a/k/a Edgar Rodriquez Rivera, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-4925.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 17, 2005.

Christopher R. Clifton, Grace, Holton, Tisdale *&*Clifton, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney, Gretchen C,F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM: .

Ruben Alvarado Velasquez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2000). Velasquez’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, but stating that he finds no meritorious grounds for appeal. Velasquez declined to file a pro se supplemental brief despite being informed of his right to do so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

In the *Anders*brief, counsel raises the potential issue of whether the district court complied with the requirements of 21 U.S.C. § 851(b) (2000). We find that Velasquez was given ample opportunity to challenge the existence of this prior conviction, and declined to do so. Accordingly, any challenge to the use of the prior conviction is precluded. *United States v. Campbell,*980 F.2d 245, 252 (4th Cir.1992).

In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Velasquez’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in *169the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
From: brockhollingsworth@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:16:39 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,

Brock Hollingsworth

Strasburg, CO 80136
From: jasondyrud@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:50:02 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,

Jason Dyrud

Moorhead, MN 56560
No. 57436.

#### Modernophone, Inc., and H. S. Dorf & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

protests 177375-K, etc. (New York).

Paper boxes assessed at 35 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1413, Tariff Act of 1930, as manufactures of paper, not specially provided for, are claimed dutiable at 5 cents per pound and 10 percent ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 1405, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 51802), for paper boxes, covered or lined with cotton. ¡¡¡¿Opinion by Rao, J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the paper boxes the subject of Abstract 56890, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required
to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Principal
Life Income Fundings Trust 2008-058 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, do
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;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is
included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.
    
    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this
report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing
agreement(s) in all material respects; and5.
    
    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.
   /s/ Dwight N. Soethout

Dwight N. SoethoutVice President  Principal Life Insurance Company
No. 69280.

#### F. B. Vandegrift & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 64/1857 and 64/1864 (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of ram units or parts thereof similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 67453, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

March 7, 1962

No. 66519.

#### Engis Equipment Co. *v.*United States,

protests 59/21305-10994, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of talyrond apparatus and equipment similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 64440, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.