alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7084

THADDEUS SWINDLER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARTIN MCDADE, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Russell A. Eliason, Magistrate Judge. (CA-01-18-1) Submitted: October 17, 2001 Decided: November 7, 2001 Before NIEMEYER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thaddeus Swindler, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Thaddeus Swindler, III, seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s orders denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001) petition and his motions to reconsider that order. Although Swindler’s § 2254 petition was untimely, the magistrate judge denied relief on the merits. Because Swindler filed his § 2254 petition beyond the AEDPA’s one-year limitations period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on modified grounds that Swindler’s § 2254 petition was untimely. See 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2244(d)(1) (West Supp. 2001). 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.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .



                                                                     EXHIBIT 12

                             BELLSOUTH CORPORATION
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                               For the years ended December 31,
                                                             1999          2000          2001          2002          2003
                                                          ----------    ----------    ----------    ----------    ----------

<S>                                                       <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>
1. EARNINGS

(a) Income from continuing operations before
      deductions for taxes and interest ...............   $    6,518    $    7,926    $    5,332    $    5,763    $    6,700

(b) Portion of rental expense representative of
      interest factor .................................           99           105           106           110           115

(c) Equity in losses from less-than-50% owned
      investments (accounted for under the equity
      method of accounting)
                                                                 396           142           249           487             7

(d) Excess of earnings over distributions of less-
      than-50%-owned investments (accounted for
      under the equity method of accounting) ..........          (87)         (707)         (148)         (373)         (484)
                                                          ----------    ----------    ----------    ----------    ----------

         TOTAL ........................................   $    6,926    $    7,466    $    5,539    $    5,987    $    6,338
                                                          ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========
2. FIXED CHARGES

(a) Interest ..........................................   $    1,059    $    1,361    $    1,348    $    1,209    $    1,056

(b) Portion of rental expense representative of
      interest factor .................................           99           105           106           110           115
                                                          ----------    ----------    ----------    ----------    ----------

    TOTAL .............................................   $    1,158    $    1,466    $    1,454    $    1,319    $    1,171
                                                          ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========

   Ratio (1 divided by 2) .............................         5.98          5.09          3.81          4.54          5.41
                                                          ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========
</TABLE>
From: Klucsor, Carmen

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventative Services

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 11:19:06 AM

To OHPSCA:

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept

the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care

under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These

preventive services are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless women

better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to

contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services,

are pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are

pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with

religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they

employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny

access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Sincerely,

Carmen A. Klucsor

Sunnyvale, CA 94086-6540
From: Joanna Morgan

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Stop controlling women"s bodies

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:10:34 PM

Women are capable of making decisions for themselves and should have the 

freedom to control their own bodies. They do not need or want others controlling 

their access to healthcare. This country was founded on religious freedom. Why 

would you listen to religious extremists? Fortunately we are not a Muslim country, 

but some factions continue to attack and control women's right to obtain 

contraception and abortion when medically necessary. 

If religious refusal exemptions are included, bosses will be able to op out just to 

save money not because of religious preference.

Having unwanted babies can result in too many mouthes to feed and 

overpopulation. Sickness, starvation and or crime can result. It doesn't make any 

sense.

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you 

to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to 

coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any 

exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical 

element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to 

necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women 

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all 

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even 

larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to 

religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be 

exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all 

faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to 

thousands of women just because of where they work.

For the sake of sanity, I urge you to ensure women have access to quality 

preventive care by accepting IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the 

proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Joanna Morgan
#### JULIUS MEYERS, Petitioner, v. CHRIS BERTSCH, Respondent.

(234 N. W. 513.)

*128Opinion filed October 29, 1930.

*F. O.*Hellsirom, for petitioner.

*Gordon V. Cox,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

The above named plaintiff, Julius Meyers, has applied to this court for a writ to restrain the defendant Bertsch from acting or pretending to act as chairman of the Democratic county central committee of Burleigh county. The plaintiff claims that he, and 'not the defendant, is such chairman.

Upon the argument plaintiff’s counsel asserted that the controversy is primarily one between the plaintiff and the defendant, and that, consequently, the proceeding should be instituted in the name of the person whose interests are involved, and should not be brought in the name of t-he state. This contention, in our opinion, discloses the existence of facts requiring a denial of the application; for the original jurisdiction of the supreme court may not be invoked for the determination of private rights or controversies, nor may it be invoked by any individual plaintiff. This jurisdiction is “reserved for the use of the state itself when it appears to be necessary to vindicate or protect its prerogatives or franchises, or the liberties of its people; the state uses it to punish or prevent wrongs to itself or to the whole people; *the state is always the plaintiff and the only*plaintiff, whether the action be brought by the attorney general, or, against his consent, on the relation of a private individual under the permission and direction of the court.” State ex rel. Linde v. Taylor, 33 N. D. 76, 83, 84, L.R.A.1918B, 156, 156 N. W. 561, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 583. When instituted in the name of the state on the relation of a private individual it is not the suit of such relator. “He is a mere incident; he brings the public injury to the attention of *129the court, and the court, by virtue of the power granted by the Constitution, commands that the suit be brought *by and for the state."*Ibid.

The proceeding here is not one which the court may entertain in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. It is not a suit by the state. The plaintiff does not seek to bring action by the state on his relation. On the contrary he disclaims any such purpose; he seeks to obtain a writ in his own name and for his own use as a private litigant. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court does not apply to a proceeding of that kind.

Application denied.

Burke, Ch. J., and Christianson, Birdzell, Nuessle, and Burr, JJ., concur.
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (0.92 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (3.04 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
From: Diane Moskal

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 6:16:57 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Diane Moskal

956 Hao St

Honolulu, HI 96821
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determine d that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________
No. 97-60070 Summary Calendar

__________________

JAMES T. KIRKPATRICK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Mississippi

(1L96-CV-53 RG)

______________________________________________

August 25, 1997

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge: *

Appellant James T. Kirkpatrick appeals from an adverse summary
judgmen t dismissing his age discrimination claims against Yellow

Freight Systems, Inc. We have carefully reviewed the briefs,

pleadings, and summary judgment proof and conclude that appellant’s2

claims on appeal are wholly without merit. Appellant’s summary

judgment proof fails to raise a genuine material fact issue that

his age was a material factor in his termination. We affirm

substantially for the same reasons set out in the district court’s

thorough and well-reasoned Memorandum Order dated January 17, 1997.

AFFIRMED.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-2139

___________ Samuel E. Haley, Jr., * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. William Galloway; Mason; Jimmy * Payne; Plummer; Grimm; Michael * [UNPUBLISHED] Kemna; Jean Ann Johnson; Ann Page; * Russell Hollowell; Shanna Keeter; * Amy Gertz; D. Greene; L. Carr; P. * Gans; John Doe; Matthews, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: March 19, 2004 Filed: March 26, 2004

___________ Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.1 The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2- Missouri inmate Samuel E. Haley, Jr., appeals the district court’s 1 orders disposing of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the voluminous record in this case, we conclude that the district court was required to grant defendants’ motion to dismiss Haley’s lawsuit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (prisoner shall not bring § 1983 prisonconditions lawsuit before exhausting available administrative remedies). After the served defendants moved to dismiss, Haley did not present proof he had exhausted all the medical/retaliation claims raised in his original complaint, his supplement, and his motion to reopen. See Johnson v. Jones , 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003) (dismissal required when inmate has not administratively exhausted before filing lawsuit); Graves v. Norris , 218 F.3d 884, 885-86 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (dismissal proper where at least some of claims were unexhausted). Accordingly, we need not address Haley’s remaining arguments on appeal, and we affirm the dismissal of Haley’s lawsuit, but we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice. SeeChelette v. Harris , 229 F.3d 684, 688 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1156 (2001). We also deny Haley’s pending motions.

______________________________
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 19

- 00094

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 89th District Court Wichita County, Texas Trial Court No. 186,594

- C

Before Bassel, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Womack, J. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### K IM 

### W ILLIAMS 

### , Appellant

V



### .

T HOMAS 

### A LLISON AND 

### S HIRLEY 

### A LLISON 

### , Appellees2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
On March 19, 2019, and April 5, 2019, we notified appellant, in accordance
with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless
appellant paid the $205 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 44.3. Appellant ha s n ot

done so. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).
Because appellant ha s not complied with a procedural requirement and the

Texas Supreme Cou rt’s order of August 28, 2015, 1 we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R.
App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).
Appellant must pay all cost s of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered: M a y 2, 2019

1 See Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi

- District Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 15

- 9 158 (Aug. 28, 2015) (listing courts of appeals’ fees).
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (3.28 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
From: jdewaldmason@roadrunner.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: TOP PRIORITY

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:42:15 PM

Importance: High

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the new

health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a

critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to necessary health

care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to contraceptive

services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are pushing the

government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to

apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from

the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this

larger exemption would deny access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.
RICHARD DEAN 

BONAVENTURA,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-5650

_____________________________/

Opinion filed March 17, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Michael C. Overstreet, Judge.

Richard Dean Bonaventura, pro se, Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, C. J., MARSTILLER, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.