alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: staceyjs@troymi.gov

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:51:04 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,

Jeffrey Stacey

Oxford, MI 48371
No. 63867.

protests 75999-K, etc. (New York).

#### Oldetyme Distillers Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: ckcaldwell@ymail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:32:26 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,

Connie Caldwell

Seneca, SC 29672
Exhibit 99.1


                         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                          18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bion Environmental Technologies,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company certifies,
that to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
     the Company.


/s/ David J. Mitchell
-------------------------------
David J. Mitchell
Chief Executive Officer
January 17, 2003
From: mtkerr@maine.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:00:53 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,

Meredith Kerr

North Yarmouth, ME 04097
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kimani Lockhart, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 656]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered November 15, 1993, convicting *691him of robbery in the second degree and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of the branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that he was entitled to have counsel present during the lineup because he was represented by counsel in another, unrelated case. At the *Wade*hearing, the detective who arranged the lineup testified, contrary to the defendant’s testimony, that the defendant never asked for his counsel at the lineup. The hearing court determined that the credibility of the detective outweighed that of defendant. Consequently, the hearing court properly denied the branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the testimony about the identification of the defendant at the lineup *(see, People v LaClere,*76 NY2d 670; *People v Coates,*74 NY2d 244).

While the testimony concerning the defendant’s prior criminal activity was improper *(see, People v Vails,*43 NY2d 364; *People v Henry,*166 AD2d 720), the mere mention of uncharged criminal activity does not irretrievably prejudice the defendant. The prejudice may be alleviated by the court’s sustaining the defendant’s objection and taking prompt curative action *(see, People v Santiago,*52 NY2d 865). The trial court in this case properly sustained defense objections to the testimony in question and promptly gave the jury a curative instruction, thereby obviating any prejudice to the defendant *(see, People v Santiago, supra).*As a result, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial *(see, People v McCallop,*159 AD2d 731). Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
|   |   | (1)   | The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|   |   |       |                                                                                                                                                 |

|   | /s/ Yash R. Puri                                                                                   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Dr. Yash R. PuriExecutive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |
From: elvotes@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:40:07 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to urge you to rescind the coercive mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization

procedures be covered by private health insurance with no co-pay to patients. I additionally ask that

you expand conscience protections for any organizations that provide individual and group insurance

and have moral or religious objections. I am totally opposed to the government forcing 'free' insurance

coverage on Americans, especially for drugs and devices that can cause abortions (such as Ella and Plan

B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer to offer true conscience protection for

any organization or business that has moral or religious objections to providing

contraceptive/sterilization/abortion insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the

spirit of "conscience laws" which prohibit government discrimination against those who object to health

services on moral or religious grounds. The current definition of "religious employer" is so narrow as to

only include churches, and leaves unprotected a multitude of businesses and organizations with

conscience objections, who will be forced to choose between violating their conscience or not offering

health insurance to their employees.

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

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

especially those which can kill not-yet-born children. No Americans should be forced by the federal

government to subsidize in any way "services" they object to. I totally urge you to remove

contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory preventive services.

Sincerely,

Ernest Lottman

, 32825-7816
Case 2:06-cv-00176-JLR Document 1 Filed 02/03/06 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00176-JLR Document 1 Filed 02/03/06 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00176-JLR Document 1 Filed 02/03/06 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00176-JLR Document 1 Filed 02/03/06 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00176-JLR Document 1 Filed 02/03/06 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00176-JLR Document 1 Filed 02/03/06 Page 6 of 6
No. 57439.

#### International Hat Company et al. *v.*United States,

protests 152288-K, etc. (St. Louis).

Ford, Judge:

The suits listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, were filed by the plaintiffs seeking to recover certain sums of money alleged to have been illegally exacted as customs duties upon certain hats. The collector classified some of the merchandise as colored chip hats and assessed duty thereon at the rate of 15 per centum ad valorem and 25 cents per dozen under paragraph 1504 (b) (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and T. D. 51909 and T. D. 50454, and the remainder of the hats the collector classified as chip hats, not blocked, trimmed-, or colored, and levied duty thereon at the rate of 15 per centum ad valorem under said paragraph 1504 (b) (1) and T. D. 51909.

Plaintiffs claim all of said merchandise to be properly dutiable at only *6j4*per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (5), as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 82 Treas. Dec. 305, T. D. 51802, as hats known as harvest hats, valued at less than $3 per dozen, not blocked, trimmed, or sewed.

At the trial of this case, samples of the involved merchandise were admitted in evidence, and it was established by the testimony of four witnesses that said hats were valued at less than $3 per dozen; that they were not blocked, trimmed, or sewed; and that they were in fact hats known as harvest hats in the trade and commerce throughout the United States.

It was also established at the trial that the involved* hats were similar in all material respects to the hats involved in *International Hat Company*v. *United States,*Abstract 53147, and the record in that case as to item 707 was admitted in evidence as a part of the record herein.

Upon the established facts and following the cited authority, we hold the merchandise covered by said suits, which was assessed with duty at either 15 per centum ad valorem and 25 cents per dozen, or at the rate of 15 per centum ad valorem, as set out above, to be properly dutiable at *6%*per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified, *supra,*as alleged by the plaintiffs.

To the extent indicated, the specified claim in said suits is sustained; in all other respects and as to all other merchandise all the claims are overruled. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 188 (Friday, September 29, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 67327]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21445]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Initial Review 
Group; Cancer Centers Study Section (A).
    Date: December 1, 2023.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Cancer Institute, Shady Grove, 9609 Medical 
Center Drive, Room 7W530, Rockville, Maryland 20850 (Telephone 
Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Shamala K. Srinivas, Ph.D., Associate Director, 
Office of Referral, Review, and Program Coordination, Division of 
Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical 
Center Drive, Room 7W530, Rockville, Maryland 20850, 240-276-6442, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#64171751575310240a0d0c4a030b12"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f98a8acccace8db9979091d79e968f">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 26, 2023.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-21445 Filed 9-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO AMEND COMPLAINT

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

REGINALD BELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

DENNIS LEE, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C06-0004-RSM-MAT

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO AMEND COMPLAINT

The Court, having reviewed plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, and the balance of the

record, does hereby ORDER:

(l) Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file his amended complaint (Dkt. No.

14) is GRANTED. Plaintiff may file his amended complaint not later than May 15, 2006.

Plaintiff is advised that his failure to timely file his amended complaint may result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

(2) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to plaintiff and to the Hon. Ricardo S.

Martinez.

DATED this 20th day of April, 2006.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00004-RSM Document 15 Filed 04/20/06 Page 1 of 1
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 Continuing Date for Government’s Response 

U.S. v. Mosely/CR05-5822RBL - 1 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 700

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 428-3800

Judge Leighton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) NO. CR05-5822RBL

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER CONTINUING 

) GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE

JARDONALD DANTE MOSELY, ) TO DEFENDANT’S PRETRIAL 

) MOTIONS

Defendant. ) 

_________________________________)

The Court having reviewed the records and files herein and considered the

stipulation of the parties, enters the following order:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Government’s response to the defendant’s

pretrial motions shall be due no later than January 4, 2006. 

Dated this 29th day of December, 2005

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

s/ Kent Y. Liu 

KENT Y. LIU

Special Assistant United States Attorney

s/ Colin Fieman * 

COLIN FIEMAN

Attorney for Jardonald Dante Mosely

*telephonic approval

Case 3:05-cr-05822-RBL Document 23 Filed 12/29/05 Page 1 of 1
From: bsmi88@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:08:00 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,

Helen Smith

Berkley, MI 48072
No. 62211.

#### Selig Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 266213-K, etc. (Boston).

*336Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chairs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Davies Turner & Co.*v. *United States*(45 C. C. P. A. 39, C. A. D. 669), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.