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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:52:58 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,

erick selgren

Fort Collins, CO 80525
#### Edward Mansoh-Frimpong, Appellant, v Nasir L. Kambo, Respondent.

*[633*NYS2d 198]

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.) entered August 9, 1994, which denied his motion, *inter alia,*for leave to enter a default judgment and granted the defendant’s cross motion to vacate his default and to compel the plaintiff to accept his answer on the condition that, within 30 days of service of a copy of the court’s order with notice of entry, the defendant pay the plaintiff’s attorney costs of $150.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the facts, by deleting the provision thereof granting the defendant’s cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

In support of his cross motion, *inter alia,*to vacate his default in answering the plaintiff’s complaint, the defendant submitted an affidavit in which he merely claimed that he had never *727been served with the summons and complaint. Under these circumstances in which the plaintiff submitted an affidavit of a process server attesting to personal delivery of the summons and complaint to the defendant, the Supreme Court should have conducted a hearing before concluding that the excuse proffered by the defendant was reasonable *(see, Skyline Agency v Ambrose Coppotelli, Inc.,*117 AD2d 135). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                                29
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                          23
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                   1,014
<CASH>                                               4
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               2,647
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,475
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                  4,954
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                    579
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,368)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,843
<PREMIUMS>                                           0
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                                 52
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 (1)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                     (1)
<BENEFITS>                                       (174)
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                         38
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    168
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                168
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       168
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                   5,687
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                 4,954
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit      32.2**

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

|               | (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. |

|  Date:  August                9, 2005                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |                      |                     | /s/                Joseph W. Hartnett                                                                                                    |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                              |                      |      | Joseph                W. Hartnett                                                                                                        |
|                                                         |                      |      | Vice                President - Corporate Accounting andInterim                Principal Financial and Accounting                Officer |
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 25, 2011

p0418 

# Order

April 25, 2011

142134

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142134 COA: 299954 Jackson CC: 2008-004942-FH ROBERT WILLIAM WHITTENBERG, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 28, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
From: nursejp@embarqmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:57:12 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,

Joann Peachey

Belleville, PA 17004
No. 64545.

#### Morganite, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/27706 and 59/27901 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Morganite strips for trolley inserts similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Morganite, Inc.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 76, C.D. 1448), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 68439.

protests 62/7675, 62/10613, and 63/10823 (Los Angeles).

#### Davis Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of footballs and other balls, which are not chiefly used for the amusement of children, are not wholly or in chief value of rubber, and are primarily designed for use in physical exercise, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Case 3:05-cv-05608-RBL Document 33 Filed 03/17/08 Page 1 of 7
Case 3:05-cv-05608-RBL Document 33 Filed 03/17/08 Page 2 of 7
Case 3:05-cv-05608-RBL Document 33 Filed 03/17/08 Page 3 of 7
Case 3:05-cv-05608-RBL Document 33 Filed 03/17/08 Page 4 of 7
Case 3:05-cv-05608-RBL Document 33 Filed 03/17/08 Page 5 of 7
Case 3:05-cv-05608-RBL Document 33 Filed 03/17/08 Page 6 of 7
Case 3:05-cv-05608-RBL Document 33 Filed 03/17/08 Page 7 of 7
#### Fernando MARCELLA, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Kevin MURPHY, et al., Defendants, Appellees.

No. 00-2027.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

June 12, 2001.

Fernando Marcella, on brief pro se.

Marc DeSisto, on brief for appellees.

Before SELYA, Circuit Judge, CAMPBELL and STAHL, Senior Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

After carefully reviewing the record and briefs on appeal, we *affirm*the decision below.

We are satisfied that the evidence showing the prior disposition of the two criminal charges against Marcella was immaterial and was properly excluded by the district court. The disposition sought to be placed in evidence was the dismissal of the criminal assault charge coupled with the one-year filing under R.I.G.L. § 12-10-12 of the charge for resisting arrest. This disposition must be viewed in light of Marcella’s past illness and the likely interest of those concerned to effectuate a non-criminal disposition consistent with his future improvement. It is impossible rationally to infer from this pragmatic plea arrangement that the prosecution was or was not conceding anything as to the underlying truth of the assault charge. Dismissal of that charge cannot be viewed in isolation from the continued retention for possible prosecution within one year of the resisting arrest charge. We note that defendant Murphy testified in the instant case that he arrested Marcella because of Marcella’s alleged assault upon him. Had the resisting arrest charge been prosecuted during the one-year following the disposition, the government would presumably have expected to seek to prove the assault as constituting a lawful basis for the arrest. Hence, we cannot say that admission of evidence of this prior disposition of the criminal charges would “make ... the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 401. We hold that the district court acted properly within its broad discretion to exclude the evidence in ques*11tion. *Faigin v. Kelly,*184 F.3d 67, 79-80 (1st Cir.1999).

*Affirmed.*Loc.R. 27(c).
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In re Occidental Oil & Gas * Original Mandamus Proceeding,

Corporation et al.,

No. 11-18-00071-CV * April 19, 2018

* Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Willson, J., 

Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment)

This court has considered Relators’ agreed motion to dismiss and concludes that 

the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the 

motion is granted and the proceeding is dismissed.
From: msusfl@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:02:54 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,

Emily Wilkinson

Bozeman, MT 59718
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-20433

Summary Calendar

 

DARRYL WAYNE BROCK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

R. ACREMAN; ET AL.,

 Defendants,

J.D. BALLARD,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-H-92-3520

- - - - - - - - - -

May 13, 1997

Before SMITH, DUHE’ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Darryl Wayne Brock (a/k/a Darryl Wayne Bell), Texas prisoner 

# 611583, moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(IFP) on appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of

the defendants and the dismissal of his civil rights complaint. 

On January 29, 1997, Chief Judge Politz ordered Brock to comply
No. 96-20433

- 2 -

with the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) by filing an

affidavit setting forth all assets Brock possesses and filing a

certified statement by the custodian of Brock’s prison trust-fund

account, stating the average balance in the account for the sixmonth period preceding April 8, 1996. The order held Brock’s

appeal in abeyance for 30 days pending payment of the $105 filing

fee or the submission of the required documents pursuant to the

PLRA. The documentation submitted by Brock does not comply with

the requirements imposed by the PLRA because he did not submit

information regarding his prison trust-fund account. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a), (b). Accordingly, Brock’s motion for leave to

proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and his appeal is dismissed for

want of prosecution. See 5th Cir. R. 42.3. Should Brock wish to

reinstate his appeal, he is instructed to pay the $105 filing fee

to the clerk of the district court within 30 days from the date

of this order. 

MOTION DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED.
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 GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MICHAEL A. SCOTT, SR., )

)

Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. C05-1950-RSL-JPD

)

v. )

)

MAGGIE MILLER-STOUT, et al., ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

) MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

The Court, having reviewed plaintiff’s second amended complaint, defendants’ motion to

dismiss this action, the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable James P. Donohue, United

States Magistrate Judge, and the remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.

(2) Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 23) is GRANTED, and this action is

DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 

Case 2:05-cv-01950-RSL Document 30 Filed 12/04/06 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 GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS - 2

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for defendants,

and to the Honorable James P. Donohue.

DATED this 4th day of December, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01950-RSL Document 30 Filed 12/04/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.A. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Sync2 Networks Corp., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30 2011 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commision (the "Report"), John Moore as
Chief Executive Officier and Chief Financial Officier of the Company does hereby
certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.A. ss.
1350), that to his knowledge:

     1.The Report fully complies with the reguirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
          of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

     2.   The information contained in thee Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.

September 26, 2011
                                            By /s/John Moore
                                               --------------------------------
                                               CEO/CFO/DIRECTOR