alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: j.manning@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:59:07 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,

Joseph Manning

Narragansett, RI 02882
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Epithermalgold deposits.**
 
Parts: OneTwo
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:1857-H | I 19.3:1857-I
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000959330
 
August 2, 2018
No. P66/59.

protest 59/3087 (Los Angeles).

#### Guy B. Barham and D. P. Harris Hardware & Mfg. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of air horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Sherwin*International, *Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 466, Abstract 69382), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesse Dean MINCE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-10189.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

Jeffrey Robert Haag, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jerry V. Beard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jesse Dean Mince presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by *United States v. Daugherty,*264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir.2001), which rejected a Commerce Clause challenge to the felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
No.63372.

protest 58/24227 (New York).

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

Opinion by

Oliver, O. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of parts of cameras, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: richardsfamily@q.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:02:48 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,

Tonda richards

Missoula, MT 59803
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Jointand national intelligence support to military operations.**
 
PDF | ePub
 
SuDoc Number:D 5.12:2-01/2012
Item Number:0315-C (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000955973
 
July 19, 2018
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

RICHARD ROY SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

PACIFIC COUNTY,

Defendant.

Case No. MC05-5029-MJP

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a Bar Order litigant, has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis with a 

proposed civil rights complaint. Dkt. 132. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis was 

referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Dkt. 133. Previously, the undersigned granted the 

motion. Dkt. 135. However, in light of plaintiff’s status as a Bar Order litigant, the undersigned, 

by separate order, withdrew the order granting plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis. The undersigned finds and RECOMMENDS as follows:

(1) The March 26, 2007 Bar Order prohibits plaintiff from proceeding in forma 

pauperis in any action in this District “unless the Court determines that he is in imminent danger 

of death or serious injury.” See Scott v. Weinberg, C06-5172-BDB, Dkt. 95 at 15 (W.D. Wash. 

March 26, 2007). A review of plaintiff’s complaint shows that it contains no allegations of 

imminent danger of death or serious injury. Instead, plaintiff alleges that Special Commitment 

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 137 Filed 11/15/12 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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 2

Center staff have retaliated against him for engaging in litigation. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis should therefore be DENIED.

(2) Plaintiff should be given 30 days from the date this Recommendation is adopted 

to pay the $350 filing fee. If plaintiff does not pay the fee, this action should not be permitted to 

proceed. If plaintiff pays the filing fee, plaintiff’s proposed complaint should be forwarded to 

the Chief Judge for review pursuant to the terms of the April 5, 2005 Order Adopting Report and 

Recommendation. See Scott v. Seling, C04-5147-RJB, Dkt. 170 at 4 (April 5, 2005).

A proposed Order accompanies this Report and Recommendation. Any objections to this 

Recommendation must be filed and served upon all parties no later than December 6, 2012. The 

Clerk should note the matter for December 7, 2012, as ready for the District Judge’s 

consideration if no objection is filed. If objections are filed, any response is due within 14 days 

after being served with the objections. A party filing an objection must note the matter for the 

Court’s consideration 14 days from the date the objection is filed and served. The matter will 

then be ready for the Court’s consideration on the date the response is due. Objections and 

responses shall not exceed five (5) pages. The failure to timely object may affect the right to 

appeal.

DATED this 15th day of November, 2012.

A

BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 137 Filed 11/15/12 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 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

ROBERT WARD GARRISON,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5837 FDB/KLS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

VACATE ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS 

This civil rights action has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L.

Strombom pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. Before the Court is

Defendants’ Motion to Vacate Order Denying Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. # 79). The Court being

fully advised and having examined the records and files herein, finds that the motion should be

granted.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED:

Defendants’ Motion to Vacate (Dkt. # 79) is GRANTED. The Court’s Order Denying

Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 73) is VACATED. The Court’s Order will be re-noted as a Report and

Case 3:05-cv-05837-FDB Document 80 Filed 05/25/07 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

27

28 ORDER - 2

Recommendation. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and to counsel for

Defendants.

DATED this 25th day of May, 2007. 

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05837-FDB Document 80 Filed 05/25/07 Page 2 of 2
Before the Third Division,

December 14, 1965

No. 69692.

#### L. Batlin & Son, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 303955-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “B” consist of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *W. Kay Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 130, C.D. 2484), and that the items marked “A” consist of cups and saucers the same as those the subject of *United States*v. *The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. a/c United China & Class Company*(47 CCPA 1, C.A.D. 719), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
IV 

House Calendar No. 109 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 637 

[Report No. 110–320] 

Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill 

(H.R. 2669) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of 

the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 

Ms. SUTTON, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2669) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac3 company the bill (H.R. 2669) to provide for reconciliation 

4 pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on 

5 the budget for fiscal year 2008. All points of order against 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
2 

HRES 637 RH 

1 the conference report and against its consideration are 

2 waived. The conference report shall be considered as read. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS

cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 109 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 637 

[Report No. 110

–320] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the conference report 

2008. current resolution on the budget for fiscal year reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the conto accompany the bill (H.R. 2669) to provide for 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
From: cgrace85@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:32:10 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,

Caroline Elmer

Toledo, OH 43614
From: s_newton@mindspring.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:36:48 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,

Stephanie Newton

Smyrna, GA 30080
Case No. 8,226.

#### LEITER v. PAYSON.

[The ease reported under above title in 9 N. B. R. 205. and 6 Chi. Leg. News, 157, is the same as Case No. 8,227.]
From: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: Deirdre Murphy/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Nealson Watkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/U S@EPA, Kristal Mozingo/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 12/23/2010 12:14 PM

Subject: RE: Additional CO NAAQS materials

Thanks Heidi. I just talked to Kristal and she is going to check again with folks. She's been waiting to

hear back from a couple of people. She's going to work on it now.

From: "King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov>

To: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Deirdre Murphy/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Nealson Watkins/RTP/USEPA/U S@EPA

Date: 12/23/2010 11:04 AM

Subject: RE: Additional CO NAAQS materials



### Thank you very much, Deirdre and Lydia, I will distribute them immediately.

On monitoring briefing, I suggested to Crystal that we schedule something at EPA ’ s convenience 1/6, 7

or 8, but I have not heard back from her. Do you think we could confirm a t ime, before folks disappear

for the holiday?

Best regards,

heidi

From: Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 11:01 AM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc: Murphy.Deirdre@epamail.epa.gov; Martin.Karen@epamail.epa.gov;

Crabtree.Tricia@epamail.epa.gov; Watkins.Nealson@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: Additional CO NAAQS materials

Heidi,

Deirdre has put together the pdfs of some of the key studies on CO and a technical monitoring memo that

are cited in the draft proposed rule package. They are attached below. Please let us know if you or folks

from other agencies would like any other mate rials that are discussed in the draft proposed rule.

Lydia

1. Allred et al publications for the late 80s HEI

- sponsored controlled human exposure study

2. Technical Memo on the CO monitoring network
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-03-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             528
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     99,657
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               112,580
<PP&E>                                         132,106
<DEPRECIATION>                                  70,402
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 196,846
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           96,396
<BONDS>                                          4,688
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           208
<OTHER-SE>                                      88,014
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   196,846
<SALES>                                        120,451
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               120,451
<CGS>                                           91,209
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   91,209
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,965
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 544
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    733
<INCOME-TAX>                                       176
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                557
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       557
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
        

</TABLE>