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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:55:21 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,

Diane Hargis

Russellville, KY 42276
No. 57429.

#### Charles R. Allen *v.*United States,

protest 136350-K (Tampa).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of canned grated or shredded coconut meat in sirup, similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Allied Food Corporation of America*v. *United States*(28 Cust. Ct. 222, C. D. 1412), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: phuong29_99@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:40:00 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,

Phuong Nguyen

Garland, TX 75041
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

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CLINTON HECK,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARK STERN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5030 RJB/KLS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. This matter comes before the court on plaintiff’s filing of an

application to proceed in forma pauperis and a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To file a

complaint and initiate legal proceedings plaintiff must pay a filing fee of $250.00 or file a proper

application to proceed in forma pauperis.

On January 17, 2006, the clerk received plaintiff’s complaint and application to proceed in forma

pauperis. (Dkt. #1). The clerk sent a letter to the plaintiff advising him of steps he needed to take in order

to cure certain IFP deficiencies. The plaintiff has timely filed the written consent and authorization. He

has not, however, provided a complete copy of his trust fund account statement for the six months

preceding his filing of the complaint. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2):

A prisoner seeking to bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or

proceeding without prepayment of fees or security therefor . . . shall submit a certified

copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for

Case 3:06-cv-05030-RJB Document 4 Filed 02/16/06 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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal,

obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner is or was

confined.

Plaintiff thus is required to submit a statement showing the balance and activity of his account for the sixmonth period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint. The plaintiff filed a copy of his trust fund

account for only three months of the six months period. 

Accordingly, this court orders the following:

(1) Plaintiff shall seek to cure this deficiency by filing no later than March 20, 2006, a copy of

his prison trust account statement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) showing the balance

and activity of his account for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his

petition. 

Failure to cure this deficiency by the above date shall be deemed a failure to properly

prosecute this matter and the court will recommend dismissal of this matter.

(2) The clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff along with the appropriate

written consent form.

DATED this 16th day of February, 2006. 

/s/ Karen L. Strombom 

KAREN L. STROMBOM

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05030-RJB Document 4 Filed 02/16/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 10-Q FOR
THE SIX MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          14,325
<SECURITIES>                                   307,095
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,847
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               358,070
<PP&E>                                          57,106
<DEPRECIATION>                                (23,799)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 417,818
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,081
<BONDS>                                        220,092
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         23
<COMMON>                                           549
<OTHER-SE>                                     172,154
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   417,818
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,481
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,938
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,704
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,479
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,479
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,479
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)


</TABLE>
From: janzac@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:05:20 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,

janice zaccardo

Rochester, NY 14617
From: sekaedwards@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:12:03 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,

Kathleen Edwards

Tucson, AZ 85718
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 9, 2021

No. 04-20-00062-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.M., B.M. AND A.B.M., MINOR CHILDREN,

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-CI-09419

Honorable Aaron Haas, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

In the trial court, David Avila and Carrie Avila filed an Original Petition for Name 

Change of Minor Children, requesting that the minor children’s names be changed to their 

stepfather’s name “Avila.” The trial court granted the petition and ordered the name change. 

Philip Martin, the children’s father, filed a pro se notice of appeal from the trial court’s order. 

Martin, who is incarcerated, filed a pro se brief on March 9, 2021. The brief of Appellees David 

Avila and Carrie Avila is currently due. On May 24, 2021, Appellant Martin filed a letter with 

this court, stating that Carrie Avila had passed away. On May 27, 2021, Appellees’ attorney filed 

a letter confirming the death of Carrie Avila, the mother of the children and their sole managing 

conservator. Appellees’ attorney requests guidance from this Court in light of Carrie Avila’s 

death. 

As the children’s sole managing conservator has passed away, there is no party in this 

appeal who can represent the children’s interests. Therefore, we ABATE this appeal and 

ORDER the trial court to appoint an attorney ad litem, on or before July 9, 2021, to represent the 

children’s interests in this appeal. We further ORDER the trial court clerk to file a supplemental 

clerk’s record that includes the trial court’s order within ten days of the trial court signing the 

order. All appellate deadlines are suspended pending further order of this court. 

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 9th day of June, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Before the Third Division,

December 16, 1965

No. 69696.

#### United China & Glass Co. *v.*United States,

protest 64/2669 (San Francisco).

Donlon, Judge:

Prior submission of this ease having been set aside, the protest herein was amended and the case resubmitted on November 19,1965, on the following stipulation:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, as to merchandise covered by the protest enumerated in the annexed Schedule, which is incorporated herein:

That the following items, wherever they appear on the invoices accompanying the entry covered by the protest enumerated in the attached Schedule of Oases, were invoiced and appraised at the following unit values, and assessed with duty at the following rates:

> Item number Description Invoices and appraised value Rate of duty assessed

> 86/7517 Noel Set $0.29 per set 25% ad valorem and 10 cents per dozen pieces under Par. 211, Tariff Act of 1930 as modified.

> 86/7544 Set of 4, *7}i"*Plate $0.69 per set 60% ad valorem and 10 cents per dozen pieces under Par. 212, Tariff Act of 1930 as modified.

> 86/7545 Set of 4, 10" Plate $1.21 per set 60% ad valorem and 10 cents per dozen pieces under Par. 212, Tariff Act of 1930 as modified.

*520That the liquidation was not based upon said appraised values as set forth hereinabove. That on liquidation of the entry, duty was incorrectly assessed on Item 86/7517 on a value of $0,384 per set, on Item 86/7544 on a value of $0.92 per set, and on Item 86/7545 on a value of $1.61 per set. That the values on which duty was assessed on liquidation were higher than the appraised values, and that as a result, excessive duties were assessed on liquidation of the entry.

That this protest may be deemed submitted on this stipulation and the record thus made.

Accepting this stipulation as an agreed statement of facts and on authority of *Gerhard & Hey Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*38 Cust. Ct. 500, Abstract 60751, the protest claim that the liquidation at values other than the final appraised values is erroneous is sustained as to item Nos. 86/7517, 86/7544, and 86/7545 on the invoice of the entry in this protest.

As to all other claims and all other item merchandise, the protest is overruled.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
From: jlb88888@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:12:56 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,

Larry Browning

Orem, UT 84057
Motion to Dismiss Page 1

BDFTE No. 20100031406298

No. 01-14-00262-CV

In the Court of Appeals

for the

First Court of Appeals District of Texas

Sitting at Houston, Texas

Guamnetta M. Briggs

vs.

Bank of America and Federal National Mortgage Association

Appealed from the 131st District Court

of Bexar County, Texas

The Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr.

Motion to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction

1. On January 8, 2015 the Clerk of the Court signed correspondence to the parties stating 

that unless appellant files a response demonstrating by citation to the law that this Court 

has jurisdiction of the appeal, this appeal will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). 

2. Appellant’s response was due no later than 5:00 p.m., January 28, 2015.

3. Almost two full months have passed and no response has been filed.

4. Appellee respectfully requests that the Court dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction, 

as it is in fact in interlocutory appeal.

ACCEPTED

01-14-00262-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

3/23/2015 10:52:01 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 3/23/2015 10:52:01 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
Motion to Dismiss Page 2

BDFTE No. 20100031406298

Respectfully submitted,

BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER

TURNER & ENGEL, LLP

/s/Coury M. Jacocks_________________

Coury M. Jacocks

State Bar No. 24014306

15000 Surveyor Boulevard, Suite 100

Addison, TX 75001

couryj@bdfgroup.com

972-340-7961

972-341-0734 (Fax)

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. AND

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE

ASSOCIATION

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On this 20th day of March, 2015 a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served

upon Pro Se Appellants in accordance with the provision of the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure as follows

VIA CM RRR# 7196 9008 9115 0312 1782

AND U.S. FIRST CLASS MAIL

Guamnetta M. Briggs

1927 North Pan Am Expressway

San Antonio, Texas 78237

/s/Coury M. Jacocks_________________

Coury M. Jacocks
EXHIBIT
13.2




Certification




In connection with the annual report of
China Mass Media Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December
31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), I, Eric Wang Lam Cheung, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:





(1).           the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, 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 31, 2010




By:      /s/
      Eric Wang Lam CheungName:
      Eric Wang Lam CheungTitle: 
      Chief Financial Officer





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.