alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Rockingham, )

June 6, 1911.

#### Townsend, *Adm'x, v.*Portsmouth Savings Bank.

Assumpsit, for money had and received. Trial by the court. Transferred from the October term, 1910, of the superior court by *Chamberlin,*J., on an agreed statement of facts.

William Mathes died in May, 1881, having money on deposit in the defendant bank, and leaving a will of which he made his wife executrix and by which he disposed of his property as follows: “I give, devise, and bequeath unto my wife, Hannah J. S. Mathes, all and singular my estate of every description and wherever situate and being, to have and to hold to her and her heirs and assigns forever, and my desire is that if at the decease of said Hannah she shall have left any of said estate that it shall go to the grandchild of Mrs. Martha White, the sister of my wife; said grandchild’s name is Lillian A. LaPierre, residing in Boston. Her father’s name is Lewis LaPierre to have and hold the same to said Lillian, her heirs and assigns forever, in case she survives my said wife.”

The will was proved May 10, 1881. There is no record of the appointment of the wife as executrix, and she never gave bond as such; but she took possession of the testator’s property and paid his debts. On her representation that she was executrix of her husband’s estate, the bank in good faith paid her the sum on deposit, which she applied to her own uses. Hannah died September 28, 1906. November 29, 1908, the plaintiff, who is the person referred to in the will as Lillian A. LaPierre, was appointed administratrix with the will annexed of the estate of William Mathes. There were no claims outstanding against the estate.

Judgment is to be rendered for such sum as the plaintiff is entitled to receive, or for the defendants, as the court determines.

*Samuel W. Emery, Jr.,*for the plaintiff.

*Frink, Marvin & Batchelder,*for the defendants.

Bingham, J.

This case is governed by the decision in *Langley*v. *Farmington,*66 N. H. 431.

*Judgment for the defendants.*

All concurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       5,204,942
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,403,631
<PP&E>                                         312,016
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (93,139)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,623,578
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          133,195
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,240
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,400,273
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,623,578
<SALES>                                         22,417
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,417
<CGS>                                           16,486
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,486
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               505,188
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,138
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (435,166)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (435,166)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (435,166)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.19)
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>  1

                                                       Exhibit 23






                 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Post-Effective 
Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 2-73466
dated July 31, 1981), Post-Effective Amendment No. 12 to the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 2-29022 dated July 31, 1981),
and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-42543 dated August
30, 1991) all pertaining to the Cognitronics Corporation 1967
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 33-42544 dated August 30, 1991) pertaining to the Cognitronics
Corporation 1990 Stock Option Plan and to the references to our
firm under the caption "Experts" in the related prospectuses of our
report dated March 13, 1996, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Cognitronics Corporation included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1995.




                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
                                          Ernst & Young LLP



Stamford, Connecticut
March 27, 1996
#### Charles Rayher v. Wilhelmina Sparman.

Motion denied. Mem.

Per *Curiam.*
From: Koala_Jeanne@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:01:38 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,

Bonny Moore

Harvest, AL 35749
TY  - RPRT
A3  - U.S. G.P.O.,
CY  - 
C6  - 
ET  - -
LA  - ENGLISH
M3  - Report
SN  - 1053
SP  - 
T2  - Bulletin
VL  - 
AU  - Snavely Jr., Parke Detweiler
AU  - Brown Jr., R.D.
AU  - Roberts, A.E.
AU  - Rau, W.W.
AU  - Schopf, J.M.
TI  - Geology and coal resources of the Centralia-Chehalis district, Washington, with a section on microscopical character of the Centralia-Chehalis coal
PY  - 1958
DO  - 
DB  - USGS Publications Warehouse
UR  - http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/b1053
ER  -
file:///C|/..._List_29-08-2011_12-55-54-352/Document%20List%2029-08-2011%2012-55-54-352_docs/EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0061.html[8/29/2011 2:42:37 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: August 29, 2011

Received: August 24, 2011

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 80eebe2f

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-0061

Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Kim 

Address:

San Diego, CA,

Email: bkstoddonline@mac.com

General Comment

I vigorously oppose the illegally narrow religious exemption created in the Interim Final Rule. I

believe that the religious exemption should be broadened. Under the guidelines released on August

1, 2011 by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), most health insurance plans in

the United States - including those offered by private employers - must provide full access to birth

control drugs, as well as abortion-inducing drugs. As a result of the HRSA guidelines, employers who

have a pro-life, religious, or other conscientious objection to facilitating the use of birth control drugs

or abortion-inducing drugs are now required to provide the very drugs that they believe result in the

death of a human being. According to the dictates of their conscience, this would be murder and

sinful. Birth control drugs and abortion-inducing such as "Ella" and "the morning after pill" are

commercially available. Women who desire to use them can easily obtain these drugs. I, a US

Citizen, am not suggesting trampling the rights of other US citizens who would want to obtain or use

these drugs by making it illegal to do so. However, now that employers will be required to pay for

these drugs, the religious and conscientious rights of employers are being trampled by these

guidelines and the narrow religious exemption. When Congress passed the Patient Protection and

Affordable Care Act and President Obama signed the bill into law, the intent was to ensure that all

Americans have health coverage, not to force religious employers into a Hobson’s choice between

violating their religious convictions or ending their insurance plans for their employees and face fines.

In keeping with this intent, we urge HHS to adopt a robust religious exemption that will allow all

employers who have religious and conscientious objections to opt out This will demonstrate that the

Department and the Obama Administration want to protect the religious freedom of ALL citizens in

the United States.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

_________________________

No. 06-12-00104-CR

______________________________

LAWRENCE S. GRAHAM, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 124th Judicial District Court

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 41,149-B

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Lawrence S. Graham, appellant, has filed with this Court a motion to dismiss his appeal. 

The motion is signed by Graham and by his counsel in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). As authorized by Rule 42.2, 

we grant the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: November 5, 2012

Date Decided: November 6, 2012

Do Not Publish
From: s.rash@dsidsi.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:00:48 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,

STEVE RASH

Hickory, NC 28601
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 (4.38 MB)
 
 GazaHA
 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
No. 424.

#### Watson et al. *v.*City of Memphis et al.

*Jack Greenberg, Constance Baker Motley*and *H. T. Lockard*for petitioners.

*J. S. Allen, Walter Chandler*and *Frank B. Gianotti, Jr.*for respondents.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 11

- 00694

- CR

WILLIAM SMITH A/K/A BILL SMITH

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On a ppeal from the 94th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Cause No. 11

- CR

- 0403

- C

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having consid ered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. October 31, 2013.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7228

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ELDRED DONELL EADY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (5:00-cr-00041; 5:04-cv-00094)

Submitted: April 17, 2008 Decided: April 21, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eldred Donell Eady, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Eldred Donell Eady seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Eady has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Pennswood Manor Real Estate :

Associates, LLC, :

Appellant :

:

v. :

:

Zoning Hearing Board of the :

City of Scranton : No. 896 C.D. 2014

O R D E R

NOW, November 10, 2015

, having considered appellant’s application for

re argument

, the application is denied.

DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1057 Referred in House (RFH)]

  1st Session
                                S. 1057

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 23, 2001

                 Referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To authorize the addition of lands to Pu`uhonua o Honaunau National 
    Historical Park in the State of Hawaii, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Pu`uhonua o Honaunau National 
Historical Park Addition Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. ADDITIONS TO PU`UHONUA O HONAUNAU NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK.

    The first section of the Act of July 26, 1955 (69 Stat. 376, ch. 
385; 16 U.S.C. 397), is amended--
            (1) by striking ``That when'' and inserting ``Section 1. 
        (a) When''; and
            (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        subsections:
    ``(b) The boundaries of Pu`uhonua o Honaunau National Historical 
Park are hereby modified to include approximately 238 acres of lands 
and interests therein within the area identified as `Parcel A' on the 
map entitled `Pu`uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park Proposed 
Boundary Additions, Ki`ilae Village', numbered PUHO-P 415/82,013 and 
dated May, 2001.
    ``(c) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire 
approximately 159 acres of lands and interests therein within the area 
identified as `Parcel B' on the map referenced in subsection (b). Upon 
the acquisition of such lands or interests therein, the Secretary shall 
modify the boundaries of Pu`uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park 
to include such lands or interests therein.''.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
necessary to carry out this Act.

            Passed the Senate October 17, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                  JERI THOMSON,

                                                             Secretary.
```