alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-521

In Re: ROBERT M. BRANISH,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (CA-96-1005-3)

Submitted: May 1, 1997 Decided: May 8, 1997

Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert M. Branish, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert M. Branish, a federal prisoner, petitions this court

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994).

Branish contends that the district court in which his 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997) motion was pending has erroneously

refused to accept jurisdiction over claims asserted in his supplemental motions filed in that court.

A court will not entertain a § 2241 petition unless a motion

pursuant to § 2255 is "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [an inmate's] detention." See Swain v. Pressley, 430 U.S.

372, 381 (1977). The petitioner bears the burden of showing the inadequacy or ineffectiveness of a § 2255 motion. McGhee v. Hanberry,

604 F.2d 9, 10 (5th Cir. 1979).

Because Branish has an adequate remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255,

namely an appeal from a final order disposing of the motion or a

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion challenging the dismissal of his supplemental motions, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and

dismiss this petition. Branish's motion for release on bail pending

disposition of this petition is now moot and is denied for that

reason. 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.

PETITION DENIED
From: Suford Lewis

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Contraception as preventive health care

Date: Saturday, August 13, 2011 6:41:22 AM

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.

This is not freedom of religion! It forces women to abide by other people's religious principles to

their own detriment. That is directly against the establishment of religion! Any religious exemption

that means that someone in the normal course of doing their job can suddenly refuse to do their job

because some part of it is against their religion is being empowered to harm people of different

religious persuasions. Worse, such religious exemption comes with no warning to those of other

religions that they cannot be treated according to their own religion by this person or employer but

must find some other resource. There is not always a possibility to do this; it can generate real

hardship. This amounts to religious persecution.

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.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 62560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19630]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas and Oil Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP23-1033-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Formula Based Negotiated 
Rate--10/1/2023 Update to be effective 10/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 9/6/23.
    Accession Number: 20230906-5046.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/18/23.

    Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a 
complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with 
Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 
385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the 
specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is 
necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number. eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information 
relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and 
qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 
208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, 
call (202) 502-8659. The Commission's Office of Public Participation 
(OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in 
Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including 
landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and 
others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission 
processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such 
as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is 
encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#07485757476162756429606871"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5b140b0b1b3d3e2938753c342d">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: September 6, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-19630 Filed 9-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
From: kgoodman@fwna-eng.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:21:40 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 Goodman

Bedford, TX 76022
From: Kathleen Austin

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: I oppose the Definition of Religious Employer in Health Care Rules

Date: Monday, August 08, 2011 5:09:22 PM

The current definition of religious employer does not provide true

conscience protection for those committed to preserving life. Health

care plans should not be forced to violate the moral and religious

convictions of providers or employees in order to participate in the

health care system. Requiring such an unacceptable demand threatens both

universal access to health care and religious freedom of conscience.

Kathleen Austin

3325 Claymore Drive

Plano, TX 75075
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

Certification Pursuant To18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant To Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

 

 
| The undersigned hereby certifies, in my capacity as an officer of NSTAR, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   (i)                                                                                                                                                                                                   | the enclosed Quarterly Report of NSTAR on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

  |
|   (ii)                                                                                                                                                                                                  | the information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of NSTAR.

  |
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |   |

 
| Dated: November 7, 2005      |   | By:   | /s/ THOMAS J. MAY       |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                  |   |            | Thomas J. May                                         |
|                                                  |   |            | Chairman, President and                               |
|                                                  |   |            | Chief Executive Officer                               |
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

Certification Pursuant To18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant To Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

 

 
| The undersigned hereby certifies, in my capacity as an officer of NSTAR, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   (i)                                                                                                                                                                                                   | the enclosed Quarterly Report of NSTAR on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

  |
|   (ii)                                                                                                                                                                                                  | the information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of NSTAR.

  |
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |   |

 
| Dated: May 3, 2005      |   | By:   | /s/ THOMAS J. MAY       |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                                             |   |            | Thomas J. May                                         |
|                                             |   |            | Chairman, President and                               |
|                                             |   |            | Chief Executive Officer                               |
From: andy.richter@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:26:59 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,

Andy Richter

Franklin, TN 37067
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 (3.49 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: Kelly Kleiman

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:36:49 AM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

Dear Ms. Sibelius,

I'm delighted to read that the Department will require insurers to cover birth control, with no co-pay, as

part of standard health insurance. This is a huge and long-overdue step toward making women's health

as much a priority as the health of men.

I do urge you, however, to remove the so-called conscience exemption enabling Catholic employers and

affiliated insurers to opt out of the requirement. We don't permit Christian Scientists, who oppose all

medical intervention, to determine national health care policy, nor should we permit the Catholic Church,

which opposes birth control, to determine what sort of options are available to women.

Again, thank you for the new regulations.

Sincerely,

Kelly Kleiman

5701 N. Sheridan Rd

Apt. 27-J

Chicago, IL 60660
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1235
CHARLES MILLICAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, and DEDEE MILLICAN, Plaintiff, versus HICKORY SPRINGS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee, and COLLEGIATE DESIGNS, INCORPORATED; LOCKE WHITE; ROBERT DAMERON, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-975-R) Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 9, 1996 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary M. Bowman, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. W. David Paxton, Melissa Warner Scoggins, K. Brett Marston, GENTRY, LOCKE, RAKES & MOORE, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM:Charles Millican appeals the district court's decision granting summary judgment for Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company (Hickory) in Millican's retaliation action, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (1994). Hickory claimed Millican's failure to timely file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) barred his action, and the district court agreed. Finding no error, we affirm. To maintain a Title VII retaliation action, a claimant must establish that he filed a claim with the EEOC within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory act. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). Here, Millican filed an EEOC complaint on December 20, 1994, in which he attested that the last act of retaliation occurred on May 1, 1994. Because more than 180 days elapsed between the final act of retaliation and the filing of the EEOC complaint, Millican may not maintain this action. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's decision. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
December 4 , 2014



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CLAUDIA HARPER, INDI VIDUALLY AND AS INDE PENDENT CO

EXECUTRIX FOR THE ES TATE OF JAMES WESLEY CLERK, JR., AND ALICE CLAR K , Appellant s

NO. 14

- 14

- 00022

- CV V.

KIRBY CORPORATION AN D KIRBY INLAND MARIN E, L.P. , Appellee s

________________________________ Today the Court heard appellant s ’ motion to dismiss the appeal from the order granting a par tial summary judgment signed October 28, 2013, and made appealable by an order of severance signed December 6 , 2013. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal. We further order that mandate be issued immediately.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 32.01

                            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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Travelers Insurance
Company (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), George C.
Kokulis, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Glenn D. Lammey, as
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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; 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/ George C. Kokulis
-------------------------------------
GEORGE C. KOKULIS
Chief Executive Officer
March 30, 2005


/s/ Glenn D. Lammey
-------------------------------------
GLENN D. LAMMEY
Chief Financial Officer
March 30, 2005

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       79