alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: bakrantz59@insightbb.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:07:47 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,

Barbara Krantz

Fort Mitchell, KY 41017
Order entered August 28, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00276-CV

JALIA STEPHENS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS

GUARDIAN OF B.S. AND S.S., MINORS, Appellant

V.

ROBERTO LICEA, Appellee

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-02564

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s August 27, 2020 fourth motion for an 

extension of time to file her brief on the merits.1 As a need for a fourth extension, 

appellant, a California resident, states that she has had to evacuate due to the fires 

in California. We GRANT appellant’s motion and extend the time to September 

28, 2020. We expressly caution appellant that failure to file her brief on or before 

1 Appellant incorrectly states in her motion that this is her first extension request.
September 28, 2020 may result in dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1).

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
#### People *ex rel.*James T. Wyatt v. State Assessors.

Determination of assessors affirmed, with fifty dollars and disbursements. Opinion by

Bockes, J.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 179 (Monday, September 18, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 63968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20105]



[[Page 63968]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Rational Systematic 
Characterization and Selection of Adjuvants for HIV Vaccine 
Candidates (R-CASA).
    Date: October 10, 2023.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 
20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Stephen Anthony Gallo, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, National Institute of Allergy 
and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers 
Lane, MSC-9823, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 669-2858, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4231362734276c25232e2e2d022c2b2a6c252d34"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1764637261723970767b7b7857797e7f39707861">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 12, 2023.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-20105 Filed 9-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### VOLTAGGIO *v.*CAPUTO, COUNTY CLERK OF ESSEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, et al.

No. 559.

Decided January 7, 1963.

*Abraham I. Harkavy*for appellant.

*Howard W. Hayes*for appellee Caputo.

Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed as moot.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Stanislas Vilgrain, Chief Executive Officer of Cuisine Solutions, Inc. certify that:1. I have reviewed this Annual report on Form 10-K of Cuisine Solutions, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and Iare responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this reportis being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.       Dated: September 22, 2006         /s/ STANISLAS VILGRAIN     Stanislas Vilgrain    Chief Executive Officer    (Principal Executive Officer)  
53
### INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

TYLER DAVID POOL, Petitioner, vs. THE SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, INAND FOR THE COUNTYOF HUMBOLDT;AND THE HONORABLE MICHAELMONTERO, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Partyin Interest. No. 85571 

# FILED
NOV 5 20

## li .TH EVR.01

.q.11 CL 'UP 'ME:: COURT 13



### ORDER DENYING PETITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus or, in the alternative, prohibition challenges the district court'sjurisdiction to enter a scheduling order following the State's filing ofa notice of appeal in both thejustice court and the district court.

A writ ofmandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires
.. . or to control an arbitrary or capricious exerciseofdiscretion." Intl Game Tech.,Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179P.3d 556, 558 (2008);see NRS 34.160.

A writ of prohibition "arrests the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board or person exercising judicial functions, when such proceedings are without or in excess of the jurisdiction of such tribunal, corporation, board orperson." NRS 34.320.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
10) 1, 47A ..14DP 

## 55 -9Z3A writ is an extraordinary remedy, and whether a petition for

extraordinary relief will be considered is solely within this court's discretion. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). Petitioner bears the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist, Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

Having considered the petition and documents submitted in support thereof, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention iswarranted. Petitioner hasnot demonstrated that the district court failed to perform an act the law requires or arbitrarily or capriciously abused its discretion, Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558, nor has he demonstrated that the district court acted in excess ofitsjurisdiction, NRS 34.320. The State appropriately filed a notice of appeal in the justice court challenging that court's granting of petitioner's motion to suppress. See generally NRS 189.020 ("The party intending to appeal must file with the justice
. . . a notice entitled in the action, setting forth the character of the judgment, and the intention of the party to appeal therefrom to the district court.").

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA ( I./47A •::Wu., 2, C.J.

J. Petitioner points to no case law or statute that supports the argument that the State filing an additional and superfluous notice of appeal in the district court to appeal a justice court's suppression decision woulddeprivethe district courtofitsappellatejurisdiction. NRS 189.120(1) ("The State rnay appeal to the district court from an order ofajustice court grantingthe motion ofa defendantto suppressevidence."). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Hardesty

, J. Stiglich

cc: Hon. Michael Montero, District Judge Humboldt County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Humboldt County District Attorney Humboldt County Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA (01 I947A • 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF LOSS AND
ACCUMULATED DEFECIT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999             APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999             JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                          67,200                  67,200
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  402,200                 402,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,289,600               1,289,600
<PP&E>                                      14,765,600              14,765,600
<DEPRECIATION>                               (504,200)               (504,200)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,553,200              15,553,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,673,100               1,673,100
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                  3,095,000               3,095,000
<COMMON>                                     4,204,700               4,204,700
<OTHER-SE>                                   (900,300)               (900,300)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,553,200              15,553,200
<SALES>                                        344,400                 819,700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               345,700                 824,800
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  574,200               1,318,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             143,800                 398,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (372,300)               (891,600)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (372,300)               (891,600)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (372,300)               (891,600)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)                  (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)                  (0.22)
        

</TABLE>
No. 156.

#### Houston *v.*United States.

*Claude L. Dawson*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Guilfoyle*and *John G. Laughlin, Jr.*for the United States.

Court of Claims. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                                           2,324
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   96,390
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,234
<INVENTORY>                                     27,420
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          40,799
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,632
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 168,592
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        109,131
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            35
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,747
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   168,592
<SALES>                                         68,686
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                90,495
<CGS>                                           13,568
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   55,035
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,041
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,468
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,419
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (530)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,419
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,949
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.13


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 62619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19711]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 12179]


Determination Under Section 506(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance 
Act of 1961 To Provide Military Assistance to Ukraine

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by section 506(a)(1) of the 
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (the ``Act'') (22 U.S.C. 2318(a)(1)) and 
Presidential Delegation of Authority dated October 4, 2022, I hereby 
determine that:
    <bullet> an unforeseen emergency exists which requires immediate 
military assistance to Ukraine; and
    <bullet> the emergency requirement cannot be met under the 
authority of the Arms Export Control Act or any other provision of law.
    I, therefore, pursuant to authority delegated to me by the 
President, direct the drawdown of up to $625 million in defense 
articles and services of the Department of Defense, and military 
education and training, under the authority of section 506(a)(1) of the 
Act to provide assistance to Ukraine. The Department of State will 
coordinate implementation of this drawdown.
    This determination shall be reported to the Congress and published 
in the Federal Register.

    Dated: October 4, 2022.
Antony Blinken,
Secretary of State.

    Note:  This document was received for publication by the Office 
of the Federal Register on September 7, 2023.

[FR Doc. 2023-19711 Filed 9-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-25-P
No. 464, Misc.

#### Powell *v.*Langlois, Warden.

*William G. Grande*for petitioner.

Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
Exhibit 23.1
 
 Consent of Sidley Austin LLP (included as part of Exhibit 5.1).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          10,623
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,807
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,117
<INVENTORY>                                      3,871
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,867
<PP&E>                                         510,493
<DEPRECIATION>                                  60,501
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 494,550
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           44,851
<BONDS>                                        253,949
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           212
<OTHER-SE>                                     181,664
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   494,550
<SALES>                                        219,581
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               219,581
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  181,588
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,215
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,778
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,412
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,366
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,366
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .90
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

ORDER AMENDING RULE 402 OF 

THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE 

MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 

JUDGES

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 436

MAGISTERIAL RULES DOCKET 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of July, 2019, upon the recommendation of the Minor 

Court Rules Committee, the proposal having been published for public comment at 45 

Pa.B. 1252 (March 14, 2015) and 47 Pa.B. 7305 (December 2, 2017): 

It is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania 

that Rule 402 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure Before Magisterial District 

Judges is amended in the attached form.

This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall 

be effective on January 1, 2020.

Additions to the rule are shown in bold and are underlined.

Deletions from the rule are shown in bold and brackets.