alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: st00di0@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:41:11 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,

Nancy Trump

Blacksburg, VA 24060
No. 62238.

#### Kline & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 149475-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the. merchandise consists of sheepskins the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Nawi Noonoo & Co. et al.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 57, C. D. 1904), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James Thurman DAUGHTIE, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-4785.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 3, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 23, 2005.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, 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:

James Thurman Daughtie pled guilty without a written plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and use of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense. He was sentenced to 101 months imprisonment (41 months on the drug count and 60 months on the firearms count, to run consecutively), followed by five years of supervised release. The court also announced an identical alternative sentence pursuant to *United States v. Hammoud,*378 F.3d 426 (4th Cir.2004) (order), *opinion issued by*381 F.3d 316 (4th Cir.2004) (en banc), *vacated,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1051, 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005). Daughtie appeals his sentence on the drug count, contending that the judicially enhanced guidelines sentence was imposed in violation of the Sixth Amendment under *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We find that, because the alternative discretionary sentence was identical to the sentence imposed under the federal sentencing guidelines as they existed at the time, any error in the imposition of Daughtie’s sentence was harmless. *See Booker,*125 S.Ct. at 769. Accordingly, we affirm. 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*
From: travelingpugh@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:27:22 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,

Donald Pugh

Carrollton, TX 75006
From: Michael Dumas

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:45:34 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Michael Dumas
East Providence, Rhode Island
From: sarabutler6@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:01:50 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,

SARA B BUTLER your billing Name

Germantown, TN 38138
From: wjrkwr@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:05:54 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,

William Raymond

Ogden, UT 84403
No. 67549.

#### Zenith Novelty Co. *v.*United States,

protests 59/209, etc. (New York).

*251Opinion by

Oliver, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of vi,nyl ornaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 67011, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained,
No. 62254.

#### American Lamb Skin Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 150267-K (A), etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of kidskins or lambskins the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Joseph Rotberg & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(40 Cust. Ct. 22, C. D. 1952), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.
MATERIALS NOT INCLUDED IN

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (AD) DOCKET

FAA-2013-0479

Docket Number

2011-SW-070-AD

Directorate Identifier

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 53.01.47, EASB No. 

53.00.48, and EASB No. 53A001, all revision 4, dated September 27, 2011.

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region

Rules Docket

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663

Fort Worth, Texas 76137

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays.
From: Rsiek@Siek.info

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:20:04 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 Siek

Epsom, NH 03234
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

June 13, 2011

Order 

June 13, 2011

143001

ARTHUR LAUDERDALE,

Plaintiff,

SC: 143001

v AGC: 0179/08

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION,

Defendant.

____________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, it appearing that the Attorney Grievance 

Commission has re-opened the investigative file which is the subject of the complaint, the 

complaint for superintending control is DISMISSED as moot.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 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 September 30,
2004, 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. This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, and not for any other purpose. /s/ James A. Watt 
 Chief Executive Officer
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Remington Oil and Gas Corporation and will be retained by
Remington Oil and Gas Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                             CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report (the "Report") on the Form 10-K/A of Sync2
Networks Corp. (the "Company") for the year ended June 30, 2012, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, John Moore, Chief
Executive Officer, President and Director, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or
          15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     2.   The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          the Company.

Date: April 8, 2013


/s/ John Moore
---------------------------------
John Moore
Chief Executive Officer,
President and Director
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 1852

LENTON CRE D ELLE BROWN
,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v.

BARBARA GIBSON, State of North Carolina, Human Resources; ERICA A. HOOKS, North Carolina Department of Public Safety, individually; JOSH STEINS, State of North Carolina; DENNIS DANIELS, Maury Correctional Superintendent, individually; GARY PARKS, Personnel Administrator, Maury Correctional, individually; JOHN GRAY, Lieutenant, Maury Correctional, individually; JOH N HERRING, Assistant Superintendent, Maury Correctional, individually; CAPTAIN WATSON, Maury Correctional, individually; JAMIE COBB, Captain, Maury Correctional, individually; CHRISTIAN THOMAS RUSSELL, Sergeant, Maury Correctional, individually; SYNDEY SMI TH, Assistant Unit Manager, Maury Correctional, individually; TIFFANY KERNER, NC DPS EEO Investigator, individually; GLORIA ELLERBE, NC DPS EEO Investigator, individually; JOHANNA FARR COOKE, Nurse, Vidant Medical, individually; THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SA FETY MAURY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; VIDANT MEDICAL
,

Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Greenville

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 4:17

- cv

- 00180

- FL )

Submitted : December 19 , 2019 Decided: December 23, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE , and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.2 Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Lenton Cre d elle Brown , Appellant Pro Se

.

Unpublished opinions are not binding preceden t in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Le nt on Cre de lle Brown appeals the district court’s order s d ismissing his civil

complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the a ppeal

. Brown v. Gibson , No.

4:17

- cv

- 00180

- FL (E.D.N.C. July 1, 2019; July 25, 2019) . We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISS ED
From: sarahjive@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:42:32 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,

Sarah King

Warwick, RI 02886