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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:02:24 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,

Bob Sproul Jr

Birmingham, AL 35244
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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MICHAEL GORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUPERINTENDENT NEWLIN et al.,,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5841 FDB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION DENYING

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR

FAILURE TO PERFECT SERVICE

This mater comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge that Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to perfect service be denied. Defendant has not

filed objection to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. As detailed by the Magistrate Judge, the

United States Government is responsible for service in this in forma pauperis proceeding. See, 28

U.S.C. § 1915(d). No fault of the alleged failure to properly perfect service rests the Plaintiff. 

Additionally, Defendant had actual notice of this action and had an attorney enter an appearance on

his behalf without indicating counsel was appearing specially or that service was being contested. 

Accordingly, not only has Defendant waived any argument regarding improper service, there has

been no prejudice to Defendant from any alleged defect in service, whereas Plaintiff would suffer

substantial prejudice if the matter were dismissed.

Case 3:05-cv-05841-FDB Document 27 Filed 10/03/06 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 - 2

The Court, having reviewed the Motion to Dismiss, the Report and Recommendation of

Magistrate Judge J. Kelly Arnold, and the remaining record, does hereby find and Order:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) The motion to dismiss for failure to serve summons and complaint [Dkt # 19] is

DENIED;

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

and to the Hon. J. Kelly Arnold

DATED this 2nd day of October, 2006. 

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05841-FDB Document 27 Filed 10/03/06 Page 2 of 2
#### Iran R. POE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Marlena CORDERO, Dr.; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 04-56900.

D.C. No. CV-02-07568-GPS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 5, 2005.

Iran R. Poe, Santa Rosa, CA, pro se.

Eric D. Bates, Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants — Appellees.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Iran R. Poe, who is civilly committed pursuant to California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act, appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that employees of Atascadero State Hospital violated his eon*626stitutional rights by denying him medical care, placing him in seclusion, and searching his living area. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Frost v. Agnos,*152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Poe’s claims of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, after allowing him two opportunities to amend his complaint, because Poe failed to allege that hospital staff knew of, and consciously disregarded his complaints of pain. Moreover, Poe’s disagreement, if any, as to his treatment plan does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. *See Jackson v. McIntosh,*90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996).

The district court properly dismissed Poe’s claims regarding his conditions of confinement and the search of his living area because he did not, and could not allege that these measures were not related to a legitimate penological interest. *See Frost,*152 F.3d at 1130. Further, detainees do not have a protected liberty interest to remain in a certain classification, remain in the general population, or not have their privileges restricted as a preventative security measure. *See id.*Poe’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
MEMORANDUM TO FILE 

TO: Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009; Approval of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Navajo Nation; Regional Haze Requirements for Navajo 

Generating Station; Proposed Rule 

FROM: Anita Lee 

Date: April 25, 2014 

Subject: Record of Teleconference with Six Navajo and Environmental NGOs 

1. Participants in Teleconference 

 Stephanie Kodish, Nathan Miller, and Rebecca Walsh (National Parks Conservation Association) 

 Bill Corcoran and Nellis Kennedy Howard (Sierra Club) 

 Noah Long (Natural Resources Defense Council) 

 Donna House 

 Nicole Horseherder (To Nizhoni Ani) 

 Lori Goodman (Dine CARE) 

 Roger Clark (Grand Canyon Trust) 

 Jared Blumenfeld, Trina Martynowicz, Deborah Jordan, Colleen McKaughan, Ann Lyons, and 

Anita Lee (EPA Region 9) 

2. Date and Location of Meeting: 

 April 25, 2014 via teleconference 

3. General Statement of the Topic of Discussion: 

 Representatives from the six organizations expressed support for our proposed BART 

determination for NGS and opposition to the Technical Work Group Alternative to BART 

4. Copy of Any Materials Presented or Received: 

 none 
MEMORANDUM TO FILE 

TO: Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009; Approval of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Navajo Nation; Regional Haze Requirements for Navajo 

Generating Station; Proposed Rule 

FROM: Anita Lee 

Date: May 14, 2014 

Subject: Record of Meeting with Environmental Groups on NGS 

1. Participants in Meeting 

 Janet McCabe, Tamara Saltman (EPA) 

 John Walke (Natural Resources Defense Council, NRDC) 

 Mark Wenzler (National Parks Conservation Association , NPCA) 

 Stephanie Kodish, Kevin Dahl, and Rebecca Walsh (NPCA by phone) 

 Sandy Bahr (Sierra Club by phone) 

 Noah Long (NRDC by phone) 

 Donna House (consultant by phone) 

 Mike Koerber, Tom Powers, Colleen McKaughan, Ann Lyons, and Anita Lee (EPA, by phone) 

2. Date and Location of Meeting: 

 May 14, 2014 in Washington, DC 

3. General Statement of the Topic of Discussion: 

 Representatives from the organizations expressed support for our proposed BART determination 

for NGS and opposition to the Technical Work Group Alternative to BART 

4. Copy of Any Materials Presented or Received: 

 none
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>     1
<PERIOD-TYPE>               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                       (1,285,56)
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             (1,285,56)
<PP&E>                                          35,252
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,260
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,706
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           83,279
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    20,198,157
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,194,956
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,706
<SALES>                                          5,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,000
<CGS>                                            1,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   78,538
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                37,018
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,713
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (110,556)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (110,556)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.01)

        


</TABLE>
The CIA under Harry Truman

Foreword The History Staff is publishing this new collection of declassified docu

ments in conjunction with the Intelligence History Symposium, The Ongin and Development of the CIA in the Administration of Harry S.

Truman, which CIAs Center for the Study of Intelligence is cosponsor

ing in March 1994 with the Harry S. Truman Presidential Library and its

Institute. This is the third volume in the CIA Cold War Records series

that began with the 1992 publication of CIA Documents on the Cuban

Missile Crisis, 1962, and continued with the publication in 1993 of

Selected Estimates on the Soviet Union, 1950-1959. These three volumes

of declassified documentsand more will followresult from CIAs new

commitment to greater openness, which former Director of Central Intel

ligence Robert M. Gates first announced in February 1992, and which

Director R. James Woolsey has reaffirmed and expanded since taking

office in February 1993.

The Center for the Study of Intelligence, a focal point for internal CIA

research and publication since 1975, established the Cold War Records

Program in 1992. In that year the Center was reorganized to include the

History Staff, first formed in 1951, and the new Historical Review Group,

which has greatly extended the scope and accelerated the pace of the pro

gram to declassify historical records that former Director William J.

Casey established in 1985.

Dr. Michael Warner of the History Staff compiled and edited this collec

tion of documents and all of its supporting material. A graduate of the

University of Maryland, Dr. Warner took a history M.A. from the Univer

sity of Wisconsin in 1984 and received his Ph.D. in history from the Uni

versity of Chicago in 1990. Before joining the History Staff in August

1992, Dr. Warner served as an analyst in CIAs Directorate of Intelli

gence.

As with the previous volumes in this series, we are grateful for the abun

dant skill and help of the Historical Review Group, which persuaded a

host of overburdened declassification reviewers in CIA and other agen

cies and departments not only to release these records, but also to do it

ix
without delay. We again thank our History Assistant, Ms. Diane Marvin,

and all those talented members of the Directorate of Intelligences

Design Center and Publications Center and of the Directorate of Admin

istrations Printing and Photography Group whose professional contribu

tions made this new volume possible.

J. Kenneth McDonald

Chief CIA History Staff

x
#### Andrew RED STAR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. E.J. GALLEGOS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-3084.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

July 28, 2005.

Andrew Red Star, Leavenworth, KS, pro se.

Before SEYMOUR, HARTZ, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

HARRIS L. HARTZ, Circuit Judge.

Applicant Andrew Red Star, proceeding *pro se*and *in forma pauperis,*appeals the district court’s denial of his application for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. As a federal prisoner proceeding under § 2241, Applicant does not need a certificate of appealability. *See McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm’n.,*115 F.3d 809, 810 n. 1 (10th Cir.1997). Because the issues he raises on appeal are different from those he brought before the district court, we affirm.

Applicant pleaded guilty to assault in an administrative disciplinary proceeding and was sanctioned to a loss of telephone and commissary privileges for 45 days, 15 days segregation, and forfeiture of 14 days of good-time credit. Before the district court, Applicant sought expungement of this disciplinary report based on a procedural error — namely, failure to conduct a hearing before the Unit Discipline Committee within three days. Finding that the error resulted in only a brief delay and that the administrative-appeals process and subsequent rehearing adequately protected Applicant’s rights, the district court denied habeas relief.

On appeal Applicant argues that the district court erred in not ordering Respon*767dent to file an answer to his procedural claim. He also contends that he was not allowed to call witnesses or present evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. Nothing in the record indicates that Applicant raised these issues before the district court. Generally, “a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below.” *In re Walker,*959 F.2d 894, 896 (10th Cir.1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). Applicant “does not argue on appeal that any special circumstance requires us to address [his] eontention[s] despite lack of preservation below.” *United States v. Windrix,*405 F.3d 1146, 1156 (10th Cir.2005). Therefore, we do not consider these claims.

We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10 th Cir. R. 36.3.
From: lnhager@netins.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:54:56 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,

Norma Hager

, 50651-2159
No. 63871.

protest 313684-K (Detroit).

#### The Asbury Graphite Mills, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of amorphous graphite the same in all material respects as that the subject of *The Asbury Graphite Mill’s, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 141, C.D. 2077), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: annamaven@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:31:57 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,

Anna Derry

Rockville, MD 20850
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:30:08 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Doris Jones

Eustis, FL 32726
Before the Third Division,

March 2, 1959

No. 62792.

#### A. & P. Import Co. and Erlanger Textile Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 315654-K and 315474-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is similar in all material respects to that involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C.C.P.A. 112, C.A.D. 351) and that three bales of bamboo blinds and blind material covered by protest 315654-K and two bales of staple fiber covered by protest 31547A-K, reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty is not assessable upon the bales of merchandise reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Before the First Division,

December 10, 1964

No. 68933.

#### Louis Marx & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/20529, etc. (New York).

*326Opinion by

Oliver, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of miniature motors similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 66961, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.