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

October 16, 19 97 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE WESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON

JESSIE W. JONES and wif e, MELISSA A. J ONES, Plaintiff s/Appella nts,

vs. Tipton Law No. 4368 Appeal No. 02A01-9704-CV-00090 TIPTON CO UNTY, TENN ESSEE, Defendant/ Appellee.

DISSENT

HOL LY KI RBY LI LL ARD , J. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s affirmation of the trial court’s gra nt of summary judgmentto defen dant Tipto n County. I believe that the a llegation s in the Comp laint, toge ther with the plain tiff’s a ffidavit s, are su fficien

t to survive

the defe ndant’s m otion for summary ju dgment. In their co mplaint, th

e Jonese s aver generally that a “defective unsafe or dangerous cond ition” existed with resp ect to the road in qu estion. Th

e majorit y rightly n otes that t

he only specific fact cited in support of this allegation is the purported existence of a “ large po th ole or sinkhole in the road. . . .” The plaintiffs have produced no evidence that the defenda nts had actual

or constructive knowledge of the pothole or sinkhole. Therefore, if the pothole or sinkhole were the only alleged defect in the road, summary judgment would be appropria te. Howe ve r, Mr. Jones also file d an aff idavit in r esponse t o the City’ s motion to di smiss in which he stated that he “went over a hill at a spot where the road curves to the left.” At this point in the road, “there were no signs warning of a hill or cur

ves at thisspot.” He

alleges that inad

equate signs, a “dangerous drop-off” and lac k of guardrails created a danger ous condition. Obviously, the defendants would have notice of the signage, the cur ve in the road and the lack of guardrails. In Tennessee, a

pleading “which, by fair and natural construc tion, show s a substa ntial cau se of action, i s sufficie

nt, and ev ery rea sonable p resumptio n must be ma

de in its fa

vor, not a gainst it.” Wheeler v. City of Maryv ille , 203 S.W.2d 924, 926, 29 Tenn. App. 318, 321-22 (1947). Here, the complaint genera lly alleges a dange

rous cond ition and c ites only th

e pothole or sinkhol e as a specific fact supportin g the alle gati on . Howeve r, the pla intiff’s affida

vit cites a dditional s pecific

facts to further support the Complaint’s general allegation of a danger ous condition.2

Alt hough this Court h as no duty t o creat e a clai m the plea

der doesnot spell out in it s complain t, see Donaldson v. Donaldson , 557 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1977), we will give effect to the substance rather than the form and terminology of a pleading. See Usre y v. Lewi s , 553 S.W.2d 612, 614 (Tenn. App. 1977). See also Brown v. City of Manchester , 722 S.W.2d 394 (Tenn. App. 1986); Adams v. Carter County Memorial Hospital , 548 S.W.2d 307, 308-09 (Ten n. 1977) (“All that Tenn. R. Civ. P. req

uires is th at a comp laint con tain a sho rt, plain s tatement

of a cla im showing the pleader is entitled to relief along with a claim of damages.). Consequently, I would

reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remand the case for trial.

HOL LY KI RBY LI LL ARD , J.
From: E Joan Emery

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 7:08:14 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,

E Joan Emery

211 West 56 Street 10H

New York, NY 10019
From: momofkkkkk@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:35:58 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I write today, asking in the strongest way possible for you to rescind the unjust and coercive mandate

that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance with no copay to patients. If you choose not to reverse your course, I urge you to expand conscience protections

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

I vehemently oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs

and devices that I oppose due to the fact some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan

B).

Please also reconsider your definition of "religious employer" and provide an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business which has moral or religious objections to providing this

type of insurance to their employees. This legal mandate is in clear violation of the spirit of current

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 this regulation is so

narrow as to only include churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations with

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 to which they object. 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,

Sharon Cathey

Aurora, IL 60504
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 (0.32 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
Exhibit 32.1


                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 filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
South Jersey Gas Company (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Edward J. Graham, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify pursuant to 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:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 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/ Edward J. Graham
-------------------------------
Name:  Edward J. Graham
Title:  Chief Executive Officer
May 10, 2005
REG 19010 Page Lott

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION As of: Se
= * : September 01, 2011
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS Received: August 16, 2011

BRANCH Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: September 01, 2011

Tracking No. 80ee1b65
Comments Due: September 30, 2011
Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0017
Requirement for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers to Provide Coverage of
Preventive Services under the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0017-0038
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services
under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: IRS-2010-0017-0115
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information
Name: Taffy Lund
Address:
2260 Division St NW#20B
Olympia, WA, 98502
Email: taphin80@msn.com

General Comment

I strongly support the new policy requiring health-insurance plans to cover birth contro] without a
co-pay, CMS-9992-IFC2. Thank you for this important improvement to women's health care.

I also want you to know that I am concerned that certain religious employers may be allowed to
opt out of the requirements. All women should have access to contraceptive coverage, regardless
of where they work.

This policy finally should make near-universal access to birth control a reality for all women who
use it.

Improving women's access to birth control is positive in so many ways. A woman who can plan
when to have a family is able to participate in society more fully. Allowing women to space their
pregnancies contributes to healthy childbearing. And ultimately, fewer unintended pregnancies
can reduce the need for abortion.

Thank you for following science-based recommendations and making women's health a priority.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=09000... 9/1/2011
From: hola777@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:37:50 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,

Tami Bletzinger

Springboro, OH 45066
### NUMBER 13 - 1 5 - 00 531 - CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ JUAN DAVID ORTIZ, IN DIVIDUALLY, AND MARIA ACIANA SAE NZ, I NDIVIDUALLY , A ppellan t s ,
v. RICARDO ORTIZ AND Y OLANDA ORTIZ ALANIZ , A ppellees

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 93rd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant s , Juan David Ortiz, Individually, and Maria Aciana Saenz, Individually , attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered by the 93rd District Court of2

Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number C

- 6421

- 13

- B

. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction. Judgment in this cause was signed on August 3, 2015 . A motion for new trial was filed on September 3, 2015, and notice of appeal was filed on October 28, 2015. On November 10, 2015 , the Clerk of this Court notified appellant s that it appeared that the notice of appeal was not timely perfected

. Appellant s w ere advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court ’ s letter, the appeal
would be dismissed. Appellants have not filed a response to the Court’s notice. O n November 19, 2015, appellees filed a motio n to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction

. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26. 1 provides that an appeal is perfected when notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the judgment is signed, unless a motion for new trial is timely filed

. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 26. 1 (a)(1). Where a timely motion for new trial has been filed, notice of appeal shall be filed within ninety days after the judgment is signed

. Id. Appellants’ deadline for filing the motion for new trial was September 2,
2015 . The motion for new trial was untimely because it was filed on September 3, 2015

. Accordingly , appellants’ notice of appeal was due to have been filed on or before September 2, 2015

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.1(a)

. The Court, having examined and fully c onsidered the documents on file, appellants ’ failure to timely perfect their appeal, and appellants’ failure to respond to this Court ’ s notice, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of3

jurisdiction. Appellees’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.3(a )(c). PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed the 10th day of December , 20 1 5

.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EVELYN NINETH MORAN

- ALVAREZ,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 22

- 716 Agency No. A209

- 234

- 395

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 15, 2023 **
Before: TASHIMA , S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges

. Evelyn Nineth Moran

- Alvarez , a native and citizen of Guatemala , petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
her appeal from an immigratio n judge ’s (“IJ”) decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protectio n under the Convention Against

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without or al argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 23 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 716

Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr , 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.
B ecause Moran

- Alvarez does not conte s t the BIA’s determination that she failed to the challenge the IJ’s finding that she did not experience harm rising to the level of persecution, we do not address it. See Lopez

- Va squez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079

- 80 (9th Cir. 2013). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
conclusion that Moran

- Alvarez failed to establish a reasonable possibility of future persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS , 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility
of future persecution “too speculative”). Because Moran

- Alvarez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she failed to establish eligibility for withholding of
removal. See Villegas Sanchez v. Garland , 990 F.3d 1173, 1183 (9th Cir. 2021). Thus, Moran

- Al varez’s asylum and withholding of removal claim s fail. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Moran

- Alvarez failed to show it is more likely than not s he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Guatemala

. See Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009) ; see also Wakkary v. Holder , 558 F.3d 1049, 1067

- 68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture).3 22

- 716

Moran

- Alvarez’s request for remand based on the IJ’s citation to Matter of
A

- B

- , 27 I

. & N

. Dec. 316 (AG 2018) is denied. See Park v. Garland , 72 F.4th 965, 979 (9th Cir. 2023) ( “ Where the BIA conducts a de novo review, any error committed by the IJ will be rendered harmless by the BIA ’ s application of the correct legal standard ”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.00000
<CASH>                                          67,233
<SECURITIES>                                    38,341
<RECEIVABLES>                                   56,792
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     27,929
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               202,252
<PP&E>                                         245,662
<DEPRECIATION>                                (86,483)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 603,793
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          135,671
<BONDS>                                        168,424
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,522
<OTHER-SE>                                     181,165
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   603,793
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               342,840
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  296,489
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (21,757)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,395
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 56,713
<INCOME-TAX>                                    27,547
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    29,166
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    1.170
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    1.140


</TABLE>
#### Daniel Truesdell, Respondent, v. Henry J. Sarles and others, Appellants.

Judgment modified; decree to be settled in accordance with opinion. Opinion by Barnard, P. J.; Dykman, J., not sitting.
From: james hennigan

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: conscience protection

Date: Saturday, August 13, 2011 5:05:24 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." Thank you Mary Hennigan
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 (0.2 MB)
 
 Loadmaster operation inherent resolve
 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