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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:36:52 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,

Luann Granzow

Overland Park, KS 66221
From: tiggerificallyfun@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:01:08 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,

Paulette Johnson

Trumann, AR 72472
[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: Registrationof photographs.**
 
1999| 2005| 2006
 
SuDoc Number:LC 3.4/2:FL-107/
Item Number:0802-A (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000957651
 
July 25, 2018
No. 58698.

protests 235862-K, etc. (New York).

#### The Ambriola Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Fontana Hollywood Corp.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 98, C. D. 1503), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
[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: Dataon solar-geophysical activity associated with the major geomagnetic storm ofMarch 8, 1970**
 
Parts: OneTwoThree
 
SuDoc Number:C 55.220:12
Item Number:0273-D-17 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000959809
 
July 31, 2018
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1873

ELIGIO V. SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CITY OF CLINTON,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, District

Judge. (CA-99-78-7-F)

Submitted: January 18, 2001 Decided: January 30, 2001

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel F. Read, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Patricia L.

Holland, Maranda J. Freeman, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, L.L.P.,

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Eligio V. Sanchez appeals from the district court’s order

granting summary judgment in his employment discrimination suit.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. Sanchez v. City of Clinton, No. CA-99-78-7-

F (E.D.N.C. June 7, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
From: avant@spamarrest.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:45:06 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,

Thomas Avant

Deridder, LA 70634
| 1.     | Such Annual Report of Form 10-K for the period ending May 31, 2010, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2010, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Zhong Sen International Tea Company. |

| Date: July 16, 2010                 |
|-------------------------------------|
|                                |
| Zhong Sen International Tea Company |
|                                |
| By: /s/ Nie Pin                     |
| Nie PinChief Executive Officer      |
Charl ie Cr'isl Florida Department of Governor 

Environmental Protection 	 Jell /(ollkaillp 

Lt, Governor Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building 

3900 COlllmonwealth Boulevard 

Michael W, Sole Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Secretary 

December 23, 2009 

Mr. A. Stanley Meiburg 

Acting Regional Administrator 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 

Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 

61 Forsyth Street Southwest 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960 

Dear Mr. Meiburg: 

On October 21,2009, Franklin Hill, Superfund Division Director for the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4, wrote to solicit the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection's (DEP) support for EPA to add the Sanford Drycleaners site, located in Seminole 

County, Florida, to the National Priorities List (NPL). 

Based on the high levels of volatile organic compounds in groundwater, the proximity of the 

public supply wells, a nearby lake and a responsible party that is financially unable to conduct 

cleanup, DEP supports EPA's plans to continue its process for listing the Sanford Drycleaners 

site on the NPL. 

We appreciate EPA's assistance in assessing and cleaning up contaminated sites in Florida. If 

you have any questions, please feel free to contact Mary Jean Yon, Director of DEP's Division 

of Waste Management, at (850) 245-8705. 

Sincerely, 

~y;/;t- Michael W. Sole 

Secretary 

cc: 	 Mimi A. Drew, Deputy Secretary, Regulatory Programs, DEP 


Mary Jean Yon, Director, Division of Waste Management, DEP 


Vivian F. Garfein, Director, Central District, DEP 


"f\I/orc Prolection, Less Process " 

lw dep .s la c, II , IIS
#### Juan VALDEZ, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Stephen M. DEWALT, Warden, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 05-6302.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 25, 2005.

Decided Aug. 10, 2005.

Juan Valdez, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, United States Attorney, James A. Frederick, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

*148Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Juan Valdez appeals the district court’s order granting the Government’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment and dismissing Valdez’ petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the court construed as a petition for writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Valdez v. Dewalt,*No. CA-04-3391-8-DKC (D.Md. Feb. 10, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 1498

In R e: BEVERLY L. HENNAGER , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

. ( 1:15

- cv - 00149

- LO

- TCB )

Submitted : May 9, 2017 Decided: May 30, 2017

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

. Beverly L. Hennager, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Beverly L. Hennager has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in which she asks this court to order the district court to disburse to her earnings derived from the sale of certain property, and to have voided various district court orders with which she disagrees. We conclude that Hen nager is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v.
Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003). Ma ndamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal , however

. In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Lo an Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). It is clear that Hennager is using mandamus as a substitute for appeal and, in any event, she has not established a clear right to the relief sought . Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and deny as moot her motion to expedite. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
No. 68447.

protest 62/17195 (New York).

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

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise, described on the invoice as “Sodium vapour lamp,” consists of metal illuminating articles, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District

APRIL 6, 2016

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b).

1. Case No. SD33951

Re: STATE OF MISSOURI,

Respondent,

vs. GARRY L. FILBECK,

Appellant.
From: bnpsam55@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:53:48 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,

Patsy Samuel

Colorado Springs, CO 80921
From: ssmuelle@tnics.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:36:55 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,

Suzanne Mueller

Milbank, SD 57252
From: tjsauder@frontier.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:18:36 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Jenny Sauder

Grabill, IN 46741
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Consumer Product Safety Commission

# TIME AND PLACE:

 Wednesday, October 4, 2023—10:00 a.m.

# PLACE:

Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD.

# STATUS:

Commission Meeting—Open to the Public

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

*Decisional Matter:*                         Notice of Proposed Rulemaking—Safety Standard for Infant Rockers and Infant/Toddler Rockers.                    

                        A live webcast of the meeting can be viewed at the following link:                         *https://cpsc.webex.com/​weblink/​register/​rcba2daff690fcdbc61d969fd800c6446.*

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Alberta E. Mills, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, 301-504-7479 (Office) or 240-863-8939 (Cell).

      ( print page 67259)    
Dated: September 27, 2023.

Elina Lingappa,

Paralegal Specialist, Office of the Commission Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2023-21720 Filed 9-27-23; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6355-01-P