alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is

not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40507

(Summary Calendar)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL DONNELL WHITE,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:95-CR-166-4

__________________________________________

May 22, 1997

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Michael Donnell White argues that the district co urt clearly erred in enhancing his offense

level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 (b)(5).

We have reviewed the record, the presentence report, and the briefs and find that the district

court did not clearly err in enhancing White’s offense level by four levels f or use of a firearm i

n

connection with another felony offense because White acquired the firearms as a result of conductwhich also constituted a felony offense of burglary under Texas law. S ee United States v. Guerrero

,

5 F.3d 868, 871-72 (5th Cir. 1993).

White also failed to demonstr at e t hat the district court plainly erred in imposing the

enhancement in light of United States v. Bailey

, 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995). B ailey defined the term “use”

in 18 U.S.C. § 924© and did not define terms contained in the sentenc ing guidelines. S ee United

States v. Flucas

, 99 F.3d 177, 179 (5th Cir. 1996), petition for cert. filed

, (U.S. Jan. 22, 1997) (No.

96-7679).

Counsel was also directed to brief whether the district court plainly erred in enhancing White’s

offense level under both § 2K2.1(b)(4) and § 2K2.1(b)(5). Counsel failed to do so. However, our

review of the record reflects th at , assuming error occurred, it was not clear or obvious error that

"seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity, or public reputati on of [the] judicial proceedings." U nited

States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 164 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.
H. Res. 1297 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 25, 2008. 

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

6275) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide individuals temporary relief from the alternative minimum tax, and for other purposes. All points of order against 

consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under 

clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the nature 

of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and 

Means now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. 

The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points 

of order against provisions of the bill, as amended, are 

waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 

on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening 

motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 

the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to 

recommit with or without instructions. 
2 

•HRES 1297 EH 

SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 6275 pursuant to 

this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 

question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 

bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
From: Spencer Stall

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: necessary health care.

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:14:35 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. Religion shold have no place in the decisions of any

health care by the caregivers. If they took an oath to provide healthcare then

they should not be allowed to deny it.

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.

Spencer Stall

PO Box 1001

El Prado, NM 87529
Merrimack,

Dec., 1899.

#### Guay *v.*Kehoe *& a.*

In the absence of an agreement, a landlord is not liable for the value of improvements made by his tenant.

Assumpsit. Facts found by a referee. In 1896, the defendant Mary Kehoe had an equitable and later a legal title to certain real estate, a part of which she let the plaintiff have the use of for §>o per year. At this time he wanted to buy or lease, but she declined on the ground that she did not have a perfect title. Within the year, he cleared the land and erected some small buildings on it, for which he claims to recover. These improvements were made with the knowledge of Kehoe, but not with any definite arrangement or understanding between the parties. February 11, 1891, she conveyed the premises to the defendant Ann Dixon. Guay, after the expiration of the year for which he hired the premises, paid a monthly rental to Dixon. He made some improvements on the premises after the sale, but against her objection. The court ordered judgment for the defendants, and the plaintiff excepted.

*David W.*Perkins, for the plaintiff.

*Sullivan*& Broderick, for the defendants.

Wallace, J.

The plaintiff has no rights against the defendants, or either of them, arising out of a partially executed oral contract to purchase the land, as claimed by him, because the case discloses no such contract. Neither does it show an express or implied promise to pay for the improvements which the plaintiff made. He made the improvements for which he seeks to recover while in the occupation of the premises as a tenant. His labor in *152clearing and otherwise improving the land was performed for his own benefit and to enhance his enjoyment of the leased premises. No reason appears why the defendants, or either of them, should pay for this labor.

*JExoeption overruled.*

Pike, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
No. 358, Misc.

#### Fox *v.*Massachusetts.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Edward J. McCormack, Jr.,*Attorney General of Massachusetts, and *Robert J. DeGiacomo,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Certiorari denied.
From: Arlene Drucker

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: religious exemptions?????

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:10:37 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.

Arlene Drucker

San Diego, CA 92121
From: bizlink@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:30:17 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,

Rachel Thorpe

Wilmington, DE 19803
#### Elias Mitchell, Respondent, v. The New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad, Appellant. Adam Metsger, Respondent, v. The Same, Appellant.

-Judgments affirmed, wlth'costs. Opinion by

Bockes, J.;

Landon, J., not acting.
file:///C|/..._List_29-08-2011_12-55-54-352/Document%20List%2029-08-2011%2012-55-54-352_docs/EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0059.html[8/29/2011 2:37:42 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: August 29, 2011

Received: August 24, 2011

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 80eebaf4

Comments Due: September 30, 2011

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0018

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of

Preventive Services Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0018-0002

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services under

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0059

Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Darlene L. Suggs

Address:

33 Deerhill Lane

Cincinnati, OH, 45218

Email: teachsuggs@fuse.net

General Comment

I write this to express my outrage at the bureaucratic violation of individual conscience occurring

under the new HHS guidelines.

Under the new HHS guidelines, most health insurance plans in the United States will have to provide

the full range of birth control drugs by August 1, 2012. No co-pay can be required. From a fiscal

perspective, it is impossible to see how this will bring down health care costs because birth control

drugs are extremely expensive. And more importantly, this regulation will completely eliminate the

right of employers to follow their conscience and refuse to offer birth control drugs to their

employees in company-funded health care plans. Many employers object to using their company

resources to pay for birth control, and many more strongly object to using company resources to pay

for abortion-inducing drugs like “Ella” and the “morning after pill.” 

The included religious exemption is extremely narrow and will only apply to churches and other

houses of worship, and possibly denominational seminaries. Religious organizations, most religious

colleges, and other religious employers who have conscientious objections to offering birth control or

abortion-inducing drugs will be forced to choose between abhorrent options. They will have to decide

whether to end their insurance programs—which will hurt millions of employees across the nation—or

violate their conscience by including birth control and abortion-inducing drugs in their insurance

programs.

I have grave concerns with this narrow religious exemption. I believe that it should be broadened to

not only include houses of worship, but also religious organizations, religious colleges, and employerfunded private health insurance plans if the employer has a conscientious objection to using

corporate funds to pay for birth control or abortion-inducing drugs.
From: mphsbecks@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:41:52 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,

Elizabeth Beck

Memphis, TN 38119
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1443 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1443

   To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to modify a 
              provision relating to easement prohibitions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 20, 2001

  Mr. Miller introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to modify a 
              provision relating to easement prohibitions.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GEORGIA, HOME PRESERVATION.

    Section 516(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
(Public Law 106-541; 114 Stat. 2651) is amended by striking ``(if'' and 
all that follows through ``level)''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 21-0474

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:

ROGER L. ROWE,

 Petitioner and Appellant,

 and

MARI E. ROWE,

 Respondent and Appellee.

ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parties having failed to jointly 

and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c),

IT IS ORDERED THAT Brenda L. Wahler, whose name appears next on the list

of attorneys desiring appointment as mediators for Domestic Relations appeals which is 

maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct the 

mediation process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set forth in M.R.App.P., 

7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appointment.

A true copy of this order is being mailed to counsel of record for the parties, or to 

the parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof.

DATED this October 12, 2021.

Bowen Greenwood, Clerk of the Supreme Court

c: Joseph Connors, Jr., Sean Paul Bracken, Brenda L. Wahler

10/12/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0474
H. Res. 1291 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 26, 2008. 

Whereas millions of veterans returning home from World 

War II looked to the guarantee of educational, medical, 

housing, and other basic benefits provided by the GI bill; 

Whereas these benefits were denied in large part to Americans of Mexican descent and other Hispanics throughout 

the United States; 

Whereas the American GI Forum was founded in 1948 by 

Army Major Hector P. Garcia, a physician from Corpus 

Christi, Texas, in response to such inequities; 

Whereas the Forum’s motto is ‘‘Education Is Our Freedom 

and Freedom Should Be Everybody’s Business’’; 

Whereas in 1998 the Forum was granted a Federal charter 

pursuant to an Act of Congress (Public Law 105–231); 

Whereas one of the purposes expressed in the Forum’s charter is ‘‘fostering and enlarging equal educational opportunities, equal economic opportunities, equal justice under 

the law, and equal political opportunities for all United 

States citizens, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, or 

national origin’’; 

Whereas the Forum’s Veterans Outreach Program is based in 

San Antonio, Texas, and provides training, employment, 
2 

•HRES 1291 EH 

and counseling for veterans in the Southwestern United 

States; and 

Whereas the American GI Forum continues to be a beacon 

of hope and an avenue for involvement for returning veterans and ordinary citizens aspiring to improve conditions within their own communities: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) recognizes the need for equal access to veterans’ 

benefits for all who have honorably served; 

(2) supports the goals, ideals, and deeds of the 

American GI Forum and its members; 

(3) commends the work of the American GI Forum 

on its 60th anniversary; and 

(4) encourages others to join with the American GI 

Forum to ensure that veterans are never again denied 

the benefits they rightfully deserve. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
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 quarterly report of Cybertel Capital Corp. (the
      "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2006, as
      filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, James A. Wheeler, CEO, President and director of the Registrant, 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 our knowledge and belief:





(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 result of operations of the Registrant.


CYBERTEL
                  CAPITAL CORP.Dated:
                  November 17, 20067
              By:
              /s/ James
                A.
                WheelerJames
                A. WheelerCEO,
                President and Director
From: mmcclusky@usccb.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Rescind unjust mandate, RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:28:05 PM

Dear Staff at HHS;

As a taxpayer who respects the right of each of us to practice their beliefs as our Constitution

guarantees, I urge you to 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,

Mary McClusky

Alexandria, VA 22301