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

### Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 15, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40897 consolidated with No. 05-41087 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS FELIPE LOPEZ-RODRIGUEZ,Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(1:05-CR-160-ALL) (1:02-CR-62-ALL) ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* This court previously affirmed the conviction and sentence of Appellant, Felipe Lopez-Rodriguez. United States v. LopezRodriguez, 203 F. App’x 600 (5th Cir. 2006). OnMarch 30, 2007, the Supreme Court vacated our judgment in this case and remanded the case to this court for further consideration in light of Lopez v.Gonzales, 127 S.Ct. 625 (2006).

Following the Supreme Court’s remandwe received supplemental letter briefs from both parties with respect to the impact of Lopez. The government concedes and we agree that, under Lopez, the district court erred in imposing an eight-level enhancement for Appellant’sprior controlled substance conviction. Inlight of this error, the issue onappeal is whether we shouldvacate the sentence and remand for resentencing or whether the appeal is now moot. The parties agree that Lopez-Rodriguez has completed the confinement portion of his sentence but remains subject to the terms of his supervised release. Also, the government asserts, without challenge, that Lopez-Rodriguez has been deported. This Court recently found a similar case moot when the appellant had already been released from prison and deported. See United States

v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, __ F.3d __, No. 05-41400, 2007 WL 926832 (5th Cir. Mar. 29, 2007). Because the defendant in Rosenbaum-Alanis was barred from entering the United States, and therefore could not be resentenced, the Court couldnot grant the relief requested. Id. at *2. We find Rosenbaum-Alanis controlling, and because LopezRodriguez is barred from entering the United States, we cannot grant his request to be resentenced. The appeal is moot and therefore DISMISSED.
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Coverage of Preventive Care in Health Care Law

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 4:45:33 PM

TO: HHS

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you

to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as they 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 believe that the only "religious" standards which should be in place for these

cases are those of the women seeking care.

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.

Betty Chenoweth

bwinechen@earthlink.net

EarthLink Revolves Around You.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BENITO ZARAGOZA-TINOCO,

Petitioner,

v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 15-70905 Agency No. A206-410-295
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Im m igration Appeals Subm itted August 16, 2016 * * Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Benito Zaragoza-Tinoco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Im m igration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dism issing his appeal from an im m igration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of rem oval. We dism iss in part and deny in part the petition for review. 

# FILED
AUG 23 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* The panel unanim ously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argum e nt. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * The panel unanim ously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argum e nt. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determ ination that ZaragozaTinoco failed to show exceptional and extrem ely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales , 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). In his opening brief, Zaragoza-Tinoco fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the BIA’s denial of his m otion to rem and. See Rizk v. Holder , 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in an opening brief are waived). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part
.

15-70905 2
From: Amado Cruz

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:16:36 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.

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,

Amado Cruz
Weslaco, Texas
Appendix 7 

Acute Impacts Refined Analysis Figures 
Refined Acute Modeling Approach 

 Initial acute screening risk calculations were performed with the HEM-3 model. 

HEM-3 estimates acute (1-hour) impacts at both polar and census block receptors. It is 

assumed for this short period of time that an exposed individual could be located at any 

off-site location. The lack of readily available detailed property boundary information 

for many of the facilities evaluated made it difficult to determine whether receptors were 

on- or off-site. In the absence of such information, the first ring of polar receptors was 

placed 100 meters from the plant center for many facilities. However, these polar rings 

often transected on-site locations, restricting public access to exposures at these levels 

and thereby overestimating exposures. 

 The screening approach used by HEM-3 to estimate maximum 1-hour exposures 

also likely overestimates. To estimate maximum 1-hour concentrations at each receptor, 

HEM-3 sums the maximum concentrations attributed to each source, regardless of 

whether those maximum concentrations occurred during the same hour. In other words, 

HEM-3 assumes that the maximum impact from each source at each receptor occurs at 

the same time. In actuality, maximum impacts from different sources may occur at 

different times. 

 This appendix includes the results of refined acute assessments performed for 

facilities that exceeded short-term health benchmarks using the HEM-3 approach. The 

refinements can address both areas of conservatism described above. The simplest 

refinement is to plot the HEM-3 polar grid results on aerial photographs of the facilities; 

This allows the assessment of off-site locations that may be accessible to the public (e.g.,

roadways and public buildings.). In cases where this refinement results in lower acute 

risks no further refinement was conducted. However, if acute risk still remain at or near 

levels of concern a further refinement is conducted. This second refinement includes 

remodeling with the AERMOD model directly (instead of using HEM) to estimate 

maximum 1-hour concentrations at each receptor by pairing individual source impacts in 

time and space. The AERMOD results are then plotted on aerial photographs as noted 

above to determine off-site impacts. Modeling with AERMOD also allows the 

estimation of the frequency of higher impacts at or above the health levels of concern. 

The attached figures present the estimated hazard quotient values (the modeled 1-hour 

concentration of a pollutant divided by its short-term health benchmark) at the polar 

receptors near the facilities. Each set of figures is prefaced with a description of the 

maximum off-site hazard quotient value and where that value occurs. 
Polybutadiene Rubb

Production Facilitie

• Figure 1 - NEI32876; maximum 

acute HQ for toluene of 1.40 to southeast of facility
Figure 1 – NEI32876 Acute Toluene HQ (RE
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

BilingualismChild LanguageFamily EnvironmentForeign CountriesLanguage AcquisitionLanguage AttitudesLanguage ImpairmentsLanguage UsageMultilingualismSecond Language LearningYoung Children

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
From: pfpashie9@ymail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:17:55 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,

Paul Paszkiewicz

Campbellsport, WI 53010
#### HOLT v. HENLEY et al.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

February 20, 1912.)

No. 1,063.

Appeal from the 'District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk, in Bankruptcy.

S. O. Bland (R. T. Armistead, on the brief), for appellant.

Xorvell L. Henley and O. D. Batchelor (Henley & Henley, on the brief), for appellees.

Before PRITCHARD, Circuit Judge, and DAYTON and ROSE, District Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The able opinion of the learned judge below is reported in 190 Fed. 871. We agree with it. There are only two questions in the case. Union Trust Co. v. Southern Saw Mills Co., 166 Fed. 193, 92 C. C. A. 101, and Tippett & Wood v. Barham, 180 Fed. 76, 103 C. C. A. 430, an*1021swer one of them; the act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 838, c. 412), amendatory of the bankrupt law, the other. That act was intended to apply to every bankruptcy, the petition in which was filed after its passage. The conditional vendor in this case had not recorded his contract. By the law of Virginia, a lien creditor or a subsequent purchaser without notice was not bound by it. A trustee for creditors under a conventional assignment might ignore it. Arbuckle Bros. v. Gates, 95 Va. 802, 30 S. E. 496. Congress had the right to make it ineffective as against a trustee in bankruptcy. An act of Congress may to some extent lawfully affect rights which had their inception before its passage. Wilson v. Nelson, 183 U. S. 191, 22 Sup. Ct. 74, 46 L. Ed. 147; Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Mottley, 219 U. S. 480, 31 Sup. Ct. 265, 55 L. Ed. 297, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 671. Affirmed.
No. 606.

#### New York Times Co. *v.*Sullivan.

*Herbert Brownell, Thomas F. Daly, Herbert Wechsler*and *Marvin E. Frankel*for petitioner.

*Sam Rice Baker, M. Roland Nachman, Jr.*and *Calvin Whitesell*for respondent.

Supreme Court of Alabama. Certiorari granted.
No. 557.

#### Flora Construction Co. *v.*Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
From: dandmlandry@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:35:57 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,

James Dale Landry, Jr.

Abbeville, LA 70510
From: hilton.sonnier@halliburton.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:33:39 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,

Hilton Sonnier

Lafayette, LA 70508
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors of Rogers Communications Inc.

We
consent to the use of:



| |  | our Independent Auditors Report of Registered Public Accounting Firm dated February 11, 2014 on the consolidated financial statements of Rogers Communications Inc. (the Company) which comprise the
consolidated statements of financial position of the Company as at December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, and the consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in shareholders equity and cash flows for each of
the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2013, and notes, comprising a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information;
|- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated February 11, 2014 on the consolidated statements of financial position of the Company as at December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 and
the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in shareholders equity and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2013; and
|- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated February 11, 2014 on the Companys internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2013,
|- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

each of which is included in this annual report on Form 40-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference of such reports in Registration Statement No. 333-170234 on Form F-3D of the Company.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Chartered Professional Accountants, Licensed
Public Accountants

February 14, 2014

Toronto, Canada