alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 11-1674 – State of West Virginia v. Christopher Wayne Bowling 

FILED 

October 8, 2013 

released at 3:00 p.m.
 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

Justice Ketchum, dissenting: 

The majority opinion holds that the prosecutor erroneously introduced into 

evidence five different inadmissible statements, three of which were constitutional errors. 

Again and again, the majority opinion demonstrates that this mess of a trial was 

dominated by inadmissible evidence. Yet the majority opinion somehow concludes that 

the parade of inadmissible evidence was harmless, and that the defendant got a fair trial. 

It all reminds me of the trial in Alice in Wonderland, with the Queen 

demanding that the accused be “Sentence[d] first – verdict afterwards.” By the 

majority’s measure, I guess the Sanhedrin gave Jesus Christ a fair trial.1 

Conveniently, the majority opinion does not discuss the cumulative effect 

of the stream of inadmissible evidence as it eroded the fairness of the accused’s trial. We 

have repeatedly held that: 

Where the record of a criminal trial shows that the 

cumulative effect of numerous errors committed during the 

trial prevented the defendant from receiving a fair trial, his 

conviction should be set aside, even though any one of such 

errors standing alone would be harmless error. 

Syllabus Point 5, State v. Smith, 156 W. Va. 385, 193 S.E.2d 550 (1972). 

1 I suggest, though, that if this prosecutor had been around 2000 years ago, she 

might have had difficulty finding prior bad acts to admit before the Sanhedrin under Rule 

404(b). 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In addition, the trial court held a pre-trial hearing to consider Rule 404(b) 

bad character evidence in open court, with the press present. I believe in freedom of the 

press and in open courts, but this type of evidence is supposed to be reviewed in camera. 

Black’s Law Dictionary defines an in camera hearing as one “in the judge’s private 

chambers.” When the prosecutor uses the press to spill details of an accused’s prior bad 

acts into the public forum, it tends to prejudice the accused’s ability to get a fair trial on 

the present accusation. And the majority opinion bypassed our “book rules” and a 

century of case law to say that was okay. 

A fair trial is one in which the rules of evidence are honored, so that every 

factual assertion can be fairly challenged. 

Under the majority opinion’s philosophy, we might as well start future 

criminal trials with the prosecutor stating, in front of the jury, “bring the guilty S.O.B. in 

here!” 

I dissent. This case is terrible. 

2
#            

# CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES®

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

Registration No.  333-124310

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  631                                                                   Trade Date:  08/22/05

(To Prospectus Supplement dated July 7, 2005 &

  Prospectus dated May 13,2005)                                                                    Issue Date:   08/25/05

The Date of this Pricing SupplementAugust 22, 2005

SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

 CUSIP                                                                                                                                   Date and terms of redemption or

     or       Stated                                                                  Interest                                       repayment (includingany

Common  Interest                      Price to  Discounts &        Payment     Survivors                  applicable regular or special

  Code      Rate (1)   Maturity  Public (2) Commissions       Frequency       Option  Yes/No     record dates)

14911QG88   4.30%         08/15/09        100%                0.80%                 Monthly                       YES         NO                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Principal                                                                                 1st Payment             Day         

Amount                  Proceeds                  Dealer                           Date                   Count

$1,189,000.00         $1,179,488.00         ABN AMRO Inc.        09/15/05                               30/360    

Original Issue Discount Note:                                                                         Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes                X   No                                                                                  N/A

The interest rates on the PowerNotes® may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes® offered prior to the effective date of the change.  After the issuance of the PowerNotes® covered by this

Pricing Supplement, $958.050 mm principal amount of PowerNotes® remain available for sale

pursuant to the accompanying Prospectus Supplement.

Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
From: Victor Ferdinand

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 1:06:11 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

Oral contraceptives are also DANGEROUS to women's health, contrary to your claims

and the ignorance and silence of the mainstream media. In fact, they have been

classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the World Health Organization!

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.
Sincerely,

Dr. Victor Ferdinand

Columbus, Ohio
From: Maria Dolan

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Thursday, August 04, 2011 6:22:10 AM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Maria Dolan
Allenwood, New Jersey
From: Cheryl Carlson

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 5:50:41 PM

To Whom it may concern,

I am deeply disturbed with the new proposed mandate that all

employers are to provide coverage for contraception as part of

the ‘Obamacare’ healthcare. Particularly the regulation saying that

religious organizations can only serve people of ‘their own faith’.

This is ridiculous! Religious, ‘faith-based’ organizations provide

millions of dollars worth of healthcare and charity to ALL who

are in need, not just those of their own faith.

I am aghast at the way, once again, this administration turns it’s

cheek to the wishes of the American people!!! You, as our

elected officials are there to SERVE the public, not shove policy

through without regard to what the American people want.

 This is an outrage and I am writing to ask that you not pass

this policy!

With due respect,

Cheryl Carlson
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1


                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED
                                  STATES CODE

         I, C. Robert Henrikson, the Chief Executive Officer of The Travelers
Insurance Company (the "Company"), certify that (i) the Company's Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Form 10-K") 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 the Form 10-K fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Date:    March 31, 2006


                                  /s/ C. Robert Henrikson
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                  C. Robert Henrikson
                                  Chairman of the Board, President and Chief
                                  Executive Officer
From: Laura Gillis

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Women’s preventive health care coverage under new health insurance plans

Date: Friday, August 19, 2011 11:00:04 PM

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.

Thank you,

Laura Gillis, RN, MS

Baltimore, MD
-----Original Message-----

From: redderhead@mac.com [mailto:redderhead@mac.com] 

Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 9:00 AM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

Labor Secretary Thomas Perez,

I support INCREASED regulation of financial advisors.

Thanks for your efforts.

Thomas G. Chasteen

175 Scott Road

Huntsville, Texas 77320
*

The Honorable Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., United States District Judge for the Southern District of

Ohio, sitting by designation.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 06a0256n.06

Filed: April 12, 2006

Case No. 05-5130

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. )

)

 Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

) THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF 

v. ) TENNESSEE, AT MEMPHIS

) 

)

STEVEN EUBANKS, )

 )

 Defendant-Appellant.) 

BEFORE: RYAN and COLE, Circuit Judges; and SARGUS, District Judge.*

SARGUS, District Judge. Steven Eubanks pleaded guilty to attempting to

manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; possession of equipment,

chemicals, products, and materials which may be used to manufacture methamphetamine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(6); and possession of pseudoephedrine with the intent to

manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c). The relevant Sentencing

Guidelines range was 46 to 57 months, and the district court sentenced Eubanks to a term of 57

months’ imprisonment. 
The court sentenced Eubanks on the assumption that the sentencing guidelines were

mandatory, as that term was used in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 233 (2005). The

sentencing took place before Booker was decided and the district judge did not announce an

alternative sentence as suggested by this court in United States v. Koch, 383 F.3d 436 (6th Cir.

2004) (en banc), vacated by 125 S. Ct. 1944 (2005). 

We held in United States v. Barnett, 398 F.3d 516, 528 (6th Cir. 2005), that there is a

presumption of prejudice when a defendant was sentenced under the mandatory Guidelines, but

that the presumption can be rebutted by “clear and specific evidence that the district court would

not have, in any event, sentenced the defendant to a lower sentence under an advisory

Guidelines regime.” United States v. Webb, 403 F.3d 373, 382 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Barnett,

398 F.3d at 529), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1110 (2006). We find that the court’s imposition of a

sentence at the top of the Guidelines range is not, standing alone, “clear and specific evidence”

that Eubanks would not have received a lower sentence under an advisory Guidelines regime. 

Based upon the foregoing, Eubanks’s sentence is VACATED and his case is

REMANDED for resentencing under Booker.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification by the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Genzyme Corporation (the "Company"), hereby
certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                                                              |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|                                                              |  | 
|/s/ MICHAEL S. WYZGA Chief Financial OfficerFebruary 27, 2009 |  | 

---



QuickLinks
From: Sallijward@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Please reject religious refusal exemption provisions

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 6:12:09 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.

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.

Yours,

Salli Ward

Owings Mills, MD 21117
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-1273 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-CE-045-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
Exhibit





Exhibit 10.1



EXHIBIT A


MEMBERS


	
				
	Name, Address, Fax and E-mail
	Sharing
Ratio
	Parent
	Representative and Alternate Representatives

	

MVP HOLDCO, LLC


EQT Plaza
625 Liberty Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
Fax: (412) 553-7781
Attention: Blue Jenkins
   [***]
   David Gray
   [***] 
   Sean McGinty
   [***] 


with a copy to:


Baker Botts L.L.P.
98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 1500
Austin, Texas 78701
Fax: (512) 322-8349
Attn: Michael L. Bengtson
         [***] 




	

45.5%
	

EQT Midstream Partners, LP
	

David Gray – Representative




Blue Jenkins – Alternate Representative



	

US MARCELLUS GAS INFRASTRUCTURE, LLC


601 Travis Street
Suite 1900
Houston, Texas 77002
Fax:  713.751.0375
Attention: Lawrence A. Wall, Jr.
   [***] 
   Karina Amelang
   [***] 


 
	

31%
	

NextEra Energy Capital Holdings, Inc.
	

TJ Tuscai, Chief Executive Officer – Representative




Lawrence A. Wall, Jr., President – Alternate Representative



	WGL MIDSTREAM, INC.


c/o WGL Holdings, Inc.
101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20080
Fax: (202) 624-6655
Attn: Anthony M. Nee
         [***] 
	7%
	WGL Holdings, Inc.
	N/A






Exhibit A
    






	
				
	VEGA MIDSTREAM MVP LLC


c/o Vega Energy Partners, Ltd.
3701 Kirby Dr., Suite 1290
Houston, Texas 77098
Fax: (713) 527-0850
Attn: David A. Modesett
         [***] 


with a copy to:


Norton Rose Fulbright
1301 McKinney St., Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77010
Fax: (713) 651-5246
Attn: Ned Crady 
         [***] 


	3%
	Vega Energy Partners, Ltd.
	N/A

	VEGA NPI IV, LLC


c/o Vega Energy Partners, Ltd.
3701 Kirby Dr., Suite 1290
Houston, Texas 77098
Fax: (713) 527-0850
Attn: David A. Modesett
         [***] 


with a copy to:


Norton Rose Fulbright
1301 McKinney St., Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77010
Fax: (713) 651-5246
Attn: Ned Crady 
         [***] 


	0%
	Vega Energy Partners, Ltd.
	N/A

	RGC MIDSTREAM, LLC


519 Kimball Ave NE
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Fax: (540) 777-2636
Attn: Paul Nester
         [***] 




	1%
	RGC Resources, Inc.
	N/A

	CON EDISON GAS MIDSTREAM, LLC


4 Irving Place
New York, New York 10003
Fax: (917) 534-4476
Attn: Joseph Oates
         [***] 
	12.5%
	Consolidated Edison, Inc.
	N/A










Exhibit A