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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:05:35 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,

Carolyn Tidmore

Katy, TX 77494
Packaging Corporation of America Packaging Corporation of America

Counce, Hardin County, Tennessee Counce, Hardin County, Tennessee

Based on USGS 1:24,000 topographical map for Counce, Tennessee, 1970.

approximate quadrangle location

Property Line Property Line

Kilometers

0 .5 1

G:\DATA\Client Files\PCA\Counce\USGS\PCA Counce Property Boundary Map.wor
**Exhibit 32.02**

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 

AsAdopted Pursuant to 

Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

In connection with the Annual Report of Mastech Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31,2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John J. Cronin Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: 

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

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

Date:March 8, 2010
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 8 Filed 11/25/02 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 8 Filed 11/25/02 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 8 Filed 11/25/02 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 8 Filed 11/25/02 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 8 Filed 11/25/02 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 8 Filed 11/25/02 Page 6 of 6
From: msgrdjf@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:28:36 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,

Rev Msg Don J Fitzpatrick

, 61603-4107
No. 67115.

protest 61/11273 (Norfolk).

#### Cavalier Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of mosaics, imported for the use of a religious organization, substantially similar to those the subject of Abstracts 66735 and 66736, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO 

REVISE CASE SCHEDULE - 1 

Case No. C05-1835 RSL

Washington Forest Law Center 

615 Second Ave., Suite 360 

Seattle, WA 98104 

(206) 223-4088

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

29

The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

SEATTLE AUDUBON SOCIETY and 

KITTITAS AUDUBON SOCIETY, nonprofit corporations, 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary of the 

Interior, and H. DALE HALL, Director of 

the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 

 Defendants. 

___________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. C05-1835RSL 

ORDER GRANTING 

JOINT MOTION TO REVISE CASE 

SCHEDULE 

NOTED: June 15, 2006 

Upon consideration of the parties Joint Motion to Revise Case Schedule and the parties’ 

interest in settling this matter, the Court hereby revises the May 31, 2006 Amended Revised Case 

Management Order. The relevant deadlines are now as follows: 

1. Deadline for submission of the administrative record: July 24, 2006 

2. Record supplementation completed by: August 24, 2006 

3. Motions to Supplement the Record noted by: August 24, 2006 

Case 2:05-cv-01835-RSL Document 29 Filed 06/16/06 Page 1 of 2
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO 

REVISE CASE SCHEDULE - 2 

Case No. C05-1835 RSL

Washington Forest Law Center 

615 Second Ave., Suite 360 

Seattle, WA 98104 

(206) 223-4088

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

29

4. Motions to Supplement the Administrative Record filed by: August 4, 2006 

5. Responses to Motions to Supplement filed by: August 17, 2006 

6. Replies in Support of Motions to Supplement filed by: August 24, 2006 

7. Plaintiffs shall file a motion for summary judgment 

 of no more than 24 pages by: September 22, 2006 

8. Defendants shall file a combined opposition and cross 

 motion for summary judgment of no more than 

 36 pages by: October 23, 2006 

9. Plaintiffs shall file a combined reply and opposition 

 of no more than 24 pages by: November 22, 2006 

10. Defendants shall file a reply of no more than 12 pages by: December 22, 2006 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated this 16th day of June, 2006. 

A

Robert S. Lasnik 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01835-RSL Document 29 Filed 06/16/06 Page 2 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

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

JUAN CARLOS ESCOBAR,

 Defendant.

Case No. 05-5187M

DETENTION ORDER

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

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

other person and the community.

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

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

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

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Safety Reasons:

 (X) Defendant was on supervision when arrested on this current offense.

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

 (X) Defendant’s prior history of warrants.

 (X) Defendant has substance abuse issues.

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 (X) Defendant’s lack of sufficient ties to the Western District of Washington.

 ( ) Immigration and Naturalization Service detainer.

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

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

 

Order of Detention

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

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

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

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

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

 October 20, 2005.

___s/ Karen L. Strombom 

Karen L Strombom, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-mj-05187-KLS Document 15 Filed 10/20/05 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 23 Filed 08/28/03 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 23 Filed 08/28/03 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 23 Filed 08/28/03 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 23 Filed 08/28/03 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 23 Filed 08/28/03 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 23 Filed 08/28/03 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 23 Filed 08/28/03 Page 7 of 7
Before Chief Judge Rao,

October 10, 1968

No. R68/35.

reappraisements R61/21558, etc. (Boston).

No. R68/36.

reappraisements R62/9868, etc. (Boston).

#### Chadwick-Miller Importers, Inc. *v.*United States,

#### Chadwick-Miller Importers, Inc. *v.*United States,

*677In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise, facts, and issues are the same in all material respects as those involved in *United States*v. *Chadwick-Miller*Importers, *Inc., et al.*(54 CCPA 98, C.A.D. 914), the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis of value for the sundry and novelty items involved herein and that said value is the invoice unit ex-factory prices, net packed.
From: legalrn35@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:51:39 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,

Julie Martin

Henderson, NV 89002
From: robert.brinson@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:24:22 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,

Robert Brinson

Garner, NC 27529
From: michelleh@oilcity.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:22:45 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,

Michelle Hoovler

Oil City, PA 16301
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
ALLIED HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC.
Financial Data Schedule for Second Quarter 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                         1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                          1
<CASH>                               1,375
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                       17,621
<ALLOWANCES>                           972
<INVENTORY>                         21,240
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    39,539
<PP&E>                              21,709
<DEPRECIATION>                       2,892
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      87,501
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               21,494
<BONDS>                             13,895
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                               101
<OTHER-SE>                          52,011
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        87,501
<SALES>                             24,033
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    24,033
<CGS>                               17,290
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       17,290
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     3,328
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   1,213
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      2,202
<INCOME-TAX>                         8,886
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (6,684)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                        (6,684)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (0.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (0.86)
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 384 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 23, 2007.
Whereas on March 31, 2007, the University of Wyoming Cowgirls defeated the 
        University of Wisconsin Badgers by a score of 72-56 in the championship 
        basketball game of the Women's National Invitation Tournament;
Whereas the victory of these 14 very accomplished young women and their coach, 
        Joe Legerski, was witnessed by over 15,000 fans at the University of 
        Wyoming's sold out Arena-Auditorium;
Whereas the Cowgirls won 21 games in their regular season and tied for second in 
        the Mountain West Conference (MWC);
Whereas Jodi Bolerjack scored 16 points in the championship game and earned 
        Third Team All-MWC honors;
Whereas Elisabeth Dissen scored the last shot for the Cowgirls of the first 
        half, giving the team a 39-26 lead;
Whereas Megan McGuffey scored back-to-back layups in the second half, totaling 
        10 points for the game, and received the MWC Newcomer of the Year honor;
Whereas Justyna Podziemska scored 16 points in the championship game, had 10 
        rebounds, and 8 assists;
Whereas Dominique Sisk scored 5 points, had 2 assists, and 7 rebounds for the 
        Cowgirls;
Whereas Rebecca Vanderjagt scored 4 points and had 1 block during the 
        championship game;
Whereas Aubrey Vandiver brought a strong end to the first half, shooting or 
        assisting the last seven points;
Whereas Hanna Zavecz scored 12 points and earned the award of the Women's 
        National Invitation Tournament Most Valuable Player;
Whereas Amy Bolerjack, Mallory Cline, Annie Gorenstein, Angiah Harris, Gemma 
        Koehler, and Megan Mordecai also contributed to the team's top season; 
        and
Whereas these top athletes are also dedicated to academic achievement, and serve 
        as the standard of excellence, scholarship, and sportsmanship for the 
        entire Nation: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives congratulates the University of 
Wyoming women's basketball team for their championship victory in the 2007 
National Invitational Tournament.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```