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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:31:12 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Daniel Brewer

Fisherville, KY 40023
```

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 67774]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21645]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute on Drug Abuse; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel, October 31, 2023, 12:00 
p.m. to October 31, 2023, 2:00 p.m., National Institute on Drug Abuse, 
301 North Stonestreet Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in 
the Federal Register on September 25, 2023, FR Doc 2023-20693, 88-FR 
65696.
    This notice is being amended to change the agenda from reviewing 
and evaluating grant applications to reviewing and evaluating contract 
proposals. The meeting date, time and location will remain the same. 
The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: September 26, 2023.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-21645 Filed 9-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 25, 2013*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**F.106 Rest of the World** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
2-3-2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Amendment to Exemption 11066 issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act 

and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0353-0001.

Dear Sir or Madam;

Aerial MOB llc was issued an Exemption numbered 11066 (hereinafter the Exemption) 

for the purpose of conducting scripted, closed-set filming for the motion picture and television 

industry. Aerial MOB llc herby requests an amendment to the Exemption to allow an additional 

type of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that fully complies with the conditions of the 

Exemption. 

Aerial MOB llc wishes to operate a DJI Phantom2 under the same terms and conditions 

contained in the Exemption. Attached hereto, and submitted as a confidential document, is the 

Flight Operations and Procedures Manual (FOPM) for the additional UAS. All operations of the 

additional UAS will be in full compliance with the terms of the Exemption.

As this is an amendment to an existing exemption asking for only the addition of another 

type of unmanned aerial vehicle, Aerial MOB llc respectfully submits that good cause exists so 

that notice does not need to be published in the Federal Register for the requested amendment.

Please contact the undersigned should you have any question concerning this request for 

an amendment to the Exemption.

Sincerely yours, 

Tony Carmean 

cc:

James Williams

Robert Pappas

Jake Troutman

John McGraw

Jonathan B. Hill
No. 59797.

#### Edward P. Paul & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 157155-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures or figurines similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn*Corp. v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: Delnjoyce@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:44:44 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,

Delmar Walker

Kokomo, IN 46901
HON. JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 ) No. CR06-27JCC 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL 

 v. ) DATE 

 ) 

KHAU THANH LE, ) 

QUANG LY, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

 Defendant KHAU THANH LE and Defendant QUANG LY through 

their respective counsel move to continue trial. The 

defendants submit the defense need for a continuance outweighs 

the public’s interest in a speedy trial. 

The discovery in this case is extensive and the charges 

are complex. The defense contends more time is needed for 

defense investigation. The defense also indicates a trial 

continuance will allow them an opportunity to negotiate 

towards an agreed disposition of charges and a plea agreement. 

The defendants request that trial be continued until May 

3, 2006. The defendants agree to file speedy trial waivers 

Case 2:06-cr-00027-JCC Document 22 Filed 03/06/06 Page 1 of 2
excluding time from the running of the Speedy Trial clock from 

the granting of a continuance until the new trial date. The 

government does not object. 

In view of the parties' agreement to continue the trial 

date and each defendant's knowing, voluntary, and intelligent 

waiver or anticipated waiver of his right to a speedy trial, 

this Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a 

continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and 

defendants in a speedy trial. 

The parties’ motion for continuance is GRANTED. Trial is 

reset for May 3, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. The time from March 20, 

2006, through May 3, 2006, shall be excludable under the 

Speedy Trial Act, Title 18, United States Code, Sections 

3161(h)(8)(A), 3161(h)(B)(i), and 3161(h)(B)(ii). 

All pretrial motions shall be filed on or before March 

31, 2006. 

Dated this 3rd day of March 2006. 

A

HON. JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 

Case 2:06-cr-00027-JCC Document 22 Filed 03/06/06 Page 2 of 2
Summer Savings with Charter

1 of 2 7/2/2007 7:19 PM

Subject: Summer Savings with Charter

From: Charter Communications <CharterCommunications@deployimedia.com>

To: <faye@gordonworks.com>

Save BIG with Charter High-Speed® Internet 3Meg

Download songs in seconds, dominate online games,

and get more from the Internet. 

Speeds up to twice as fast as 1.5Mbps DSL††

An always on, never busy connection

10 e-mail boxes with 20MB of Web space

Anti-virus, firewall, and spam-filtering software,

plus parental controls

30-Day Money-Back Guarantee 

Hurry, this offer ends soon!** 

©2007 Charter Communications. **Offer valid until 7/15/07. *Offer valid to new residential customers

only. To be considered a new Charter customer, customer must not have subscribed to Charter

High-Speed® Internet 3Meg within the previous 30 days and customer must have no outstanding

obligation to Charter. Standard rates apply after promotional period expires and vary depending on

location. Installation extra. A cable modem, set-top box and/or network card may be required at

installation. Equipment charges may apply. Taxes, fees and surcharges extra and will vary depending on

location. Internet speeds may vary. †Compared to 56kbps dial-up. ††Compared to 1.5Mbps DSL

Activation of service may be subject to credit approval, deposit or prepayment and re quires a valid service

address, social security number or major credit card. All programming, packages, pricing and services

provided are subject to the terms and conditions of subscriber agreement and are subject to change. Other

restrictions may apply. Call 1-877-279-3370 for full details. 

Charter Communications

12405 Powerscourt Drive

St. Louis, MO 63131

To opt out of future Charter Communications emails please click here.

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 136-3 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 1 of 2

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 136 Att. 2

Dockets.Justia.com
Summer Savings with Charter

2 of 2 7/2/2007 7:19 PM

This message was sent to you because you've agreed to receive information from Virtumundo and our partners.

Click here to opt-out.

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 136-3 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 2 of 2
Order entered July 26, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00088
- CV BILLY D. BURLESON, III, ET AL. , Appellant s

V. COLLIN COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISRICT , App ellee

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 416
- 04944
- 2014

O RDER Before the Court is appellants’ July 25, 2021 unopposed third motion for an extension of time to file their brief on the merits. Appe llants seek a further extension, in part, due to an inaccuracy discovered in the clerk’s record. We GRANT the motion as follows. We ORDER Collin County District Clerk Lynne Finley to file, by August 2, 2021 , the corrected clerk’s record as requested by

a ppellants. We extend the time for appellants’ brief on the merits to August 27 , 2021

.We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to Ms.

Finley and all parties.
/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
No. 58700.

protests 217981-K, etc. (New York).

#### The Worcester Royal Porcelain Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise appearing on schedule “B,” attached to and made a part of the decision in this case, consist of china figures similar in all material *265respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the First Division,

January 27, 1955

No. 58721.

protests 236439-K, etc. (New York).

#### Metasco, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hot plate mats of wood the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 57261, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
1 Attachment 

Hi Nick,

Attached are the interagency comments on the latest draft. Please let me know if you have questions.

Regards,

Cortney

From: Nick Parsons [mailto:Parsons.Nick@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 10:39 AM 

To: Higgins, Cortney 

Cc: Paul Versace; Penny Lassiter; JohnB Chamberlin 

Subject: Revised CMAS Preamble

 

Hi Cortney, 

Attached is the revised preamble for the CMAS reconsideration package that addresses interagency comments. There are 

also several clerical and minor clarification edits made my EPA. 

Thanks, 

Nick

RE: Revised CMAS Preamble 

Higgins, Cortney 

to: 

Nick Parsons 

10/11/2012 04:13 PM 

Cc: 

Paul Versace, Penny Lassiter, JohnB Chamberlin 

Hide Details 

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

To: Nick Parsons/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Paul Versace/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Penny Lassiter/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, JohnB 

Chamberlin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

EO12866_CMAS Recon 2060-AQ89Final_20121009_commentsunderEO13563.doc

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\nparsons\Local Settings\Temp\notes87944B\~web3228.... 10/11/2012
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) (Mod. 10/93) Judgment in a Civil Case "

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

DAVID KING and RHONDA KING,

 JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v. ON FEES AND COSTS

CASE NUMBER: C05-5675RBL

KALAMA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 402

and JAMES SUTTON, 

[ % ] Decision by Court. This action came under consideration before the Court. The issues have been

considered and a decision has been rendered.

The Court finds that plaintiffs’ attorneys did not violate Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1927

and therefore declines to award defendants attorneys’ fees.

Statutory Costs in favor of the defendants and against plaintiffs are hereby taxed in the amount

of $5,942.46.

 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Dated: January 9, 2008 Clerk

 s/Jean Boring 

 (By) Deputy Clerk

Case 3:05-cv-05675-RBL Document 256 Filed 01/09/08 Page 1 of 1
uo/^^/zai a ID: m aiDJzamuD SHJJ rHijc : \jz / HI J 

O 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

DEP!0-5''TTMQ^ 

n\ 

Small Aiiplanc Diicctoiatc 

901 Locust Street 

Kansas City, Missouri 64106 

MAY 2 4 2010 

Mr, Leland Snow 

President 

Air Tractor, inc. 

P.O. Box 485 

Obey, TX 76374 

Dear Mr. Snow: 

This letter is to inform you that we have received and begun processing your petition for 

exemption. It acknowledges receipt of the petition and describes how we will process it 

We Have the Petition 

We've received your April 23,2010, petition on behalf of Air Tractor, Inc, (Air Tractor) for 

an exemption from § 23.1001(b), (c)(2) and (c)(3) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR). This exemption, if granted, would relieve Air Tractor from the requirement for the 

fuel discharge to be clear of the airplane, and the requirement that no fuel or fumes enter any 

part of the airplane, when using the fuel jettisoning system on the Air Tractor model AT802/802A 

We've added your petition to the public docket (No. FAA-2010-0468) and we are processing 

it. We will contact you if we need additional information. 

How We'll Process the Petition 

A petition for an exemption, according to 14 CFR 11.63(d), must be sent to the FAA at least 

120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. In addition, we publish a 

summary of the petition in the Federal Register for public comment unless, according to 

14 CFR 11.87, we determine that good cause exists for not publishing it. 

HiHIl M a i 
tJO/zq/ztJiti 13:14 eiojz^jtitJD SHL) rHUc. 

We will advise you of the agency's final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you 

have any questions in the meantime, you may contact Peter L. Rouse at (816) 329-4135. 

Sincerely, 

CO^Kim Smith 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate 

Aircraft Certification Service
#### WHITESIDE BIOMECHANICS, INC. Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, v. DANEK MEDICAL, INC., Defendant-Appellant, and SDGI Holdings, Inc., DefendantAppellee, and Sofamor Danek Group, Inc., Defendant.

No. 00-1354, 00-1355.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 9, 2001.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, PAULINE NEWMAN and RADER, Circuit Judges.

Judgment

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

*AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
From: k_c_rex@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:35:54 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Kevin Rexroad

Lutz, FL 33549
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 33-2 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 1 of 5

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 33 Att. 1

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 33-2 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 33-2 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 33-2 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 33-2 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 5 of 5
No. 57014.

Suit 4702.

#### Old Rose Distributing Co. *v.*United States.

C. D. 1347 reversed November 4, 1952. O. A. D. 499.
Exhibit
32.2









CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. 1350)




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), the
undersigned officer of SwissINSO Holding Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge and
belief, that:




(1)           The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (the
“Form 10-K”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)           The
information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materials
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Date:  April
15, 2010




/s/ Clive D.
Harbutt


Clive D.
Harbutt


Interim
Chief Financial Officer


(Principal
Financial Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
SwissINSO Holding Inc. and will be retained by SwissINSO Holding Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
From: sisl1@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Contraceptives and Sterilization

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:18:37 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,

Sherri Overby

Silverdale, WA 98383