alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 212.

#### Henry et al., doing business as Suburban Broadcasters, *v.*Federal Communications Commission.

*Lester W. Spillane, Robert L. Heald*and *Edward F. Kenehan*for petitioners.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Loevinger, Max D. Paglin, Daniel R. Ohlbaum*and *Ernest 0. Eisenberg*for respondent.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Certiorari denied.
No. 478, Misc.

#### Levine *v.*Radio Corporation of America et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 140 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 140

  Requesting the Secretary of Defense to remove members of the United 
          States Armed Forces from street patrol duty in Iraq.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 8, 2007

 Mr. Johnson of Georgia submitted the following resolution; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Requesting the Secretary of Defense to remove members of the United 
          States Armed Forces from street patrol duty in Iraq.

Whereas the conflict in Iraq has become a civil war for which there is no 
        military solution;
Whereas members of the United States Armed Forces are targets for attacks by 
        insurgents in Iraq, and approximately 60 percent of Iraqis support such 
        attacks;
Whereas members of the Armed Forces are conducting street patrols in Iraq, which 
        has led to an increasingly high rate of casualties of members of the 
        Armed Forces;
Whereas the conduct of street patrols in Iraq should be the sole duty of trained 
        Iraqi troops;
Whereas members of the Armed Forces would be more effective if they were used to 
        fortify sensitive areas in Iraq, protect Iraqi Government officials, 
        entities, and functions, and respond to destabilizing emergencies 
        throughout Iraq; and
Whereas Iraqi politics and United States diplomacy, including dialogue with 
        Iran, Syria, and other countries in the region, are the only strategies 
        that can end the civil war in Iraq: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives--
            (1) requests the Secretary of Defense to remove members of 
        the United States Armed Forces from street patrol duty in Iraq 
        by not later than the end of the six-month period beginning on 
        the date of the adoption of this resolution, with the exception 
        of those members of the Armed Forces who are training Iraqi 
        troops to conduct street patrols in Iraq; and
            (2) requests the Secretary of Defense to ensure that 
        members of the Armed Forces who are taken off of street patrol 
        duty in Iraq are used to fortify sensitive areas in Iraq, 
        protect Iraqi Government officials, entities, and functions, 
        and respond to destabilizing emergencies throughout Iraq.
                                 <all>
```
From: hrmea@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:19:26 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,

Harvey Allen

Idalia, CO 80735
No. 66446.

#### A. Zerkowitz & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 61/11500.

Protest dismissed November 20, 1961. (Not published.) Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
# 

# CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (SM)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

Registration No.  333-97047

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  345                                                               Trade Date:  10/06/03

(To Prospectus Supplement dated August 15, 2002 &

  Prospectus dated August  8, 2002)                                                                     Issue Date:   10/09/03

The Date of this Pricing SupplementOctober 6, 2003

SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

  CUSIP                                                                                                                                Date and terms of redemption or

     or        Stated                                                                  Interest                                    repayment (including any

Common  Interest                      Price to  Discounts &        Payment  Survivors                  applicable regular or special

  Code      Rate (1)               Maturity                Public (2)                Commissions      Frequency      Option     Yes/No                record dates)

14911QQK0   5.25%                        10/15/18          100%                    2.10%                 Quarterly           YES                       YES                        Callable at 100% beginning 10/15/06

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    and quarterly thereafter.          

                          

Principal                                                                                1st Payment Day         

Amount                   Proceeds                 Dealer                            Date                  Count

$3,555,000.00                $3,480,345.00         ABN AMROInc.                 01/15/04                 30/360    

Original Issue Discount Note:                                                                   Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes                X   No                                                                                   N/A

The interest rates on the PowerNotes (SM) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (SM) offered prior to the effective date of the change.  Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $292.634 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (SM) were sold at interest rates then in effect.   Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (SM) will be made under the Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated August 8,2002.

Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
From: joannakschultz@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:21:38 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,

Joanna Schultz

Omaha, NE 68127
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18D0022. HAROLD MARTY v. JULIE MARTY.

On May 16, 2016, the superior court entered a final judgment and decree of

divorce in this case. Harold Marty (“Husband”) filed a motion for new trial, which

the superior court denied by order entered on June 21, 2017. On July 25, 2017, the

Clerk of Court received this application for discretionary appeal by priority U. S.

mail. When a pro se party makes a filing with this court by United States mail, the

document is deemed filed as the date shown by the official postmark affixed by the

United States Postal Service. Court of Appeals Rule 4 (c). In this case, the official

postmark is illegible, but it appears from the United States Postal Service’s on-line

tracking system that the document was deposited with the Postal Service on July 22,

2017.

A discretionary application must be filed within 30 days of entry of the

judgment sought to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). The requirements of OCGA

§ 5-6-35 are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an application for appeal not

made in compliance therewith. Boyle v. State, 190 Ga. App. 734, 734 (380 SE2d 57)

(1989); see also In the Interest of B. R. F., 338 Ga. App. 762, 762 (791 SE2d 859)

(2016) (filing deadline for discretionary applications “isjurisdictional, and this court

is unable to accept an untimely application”). Because it appears that Husband filed

this application 31 days after entry of the judgment he seeks to appeal, it is untimely,

August 21, 2017
and we lack jurisdiction to consider it.1 Accordingly, this application is hereby

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

1

If Husband can show that the United States Postal Service postmark was

actually July 21, 2017, Husband may timely file a motion for reconsideration from

this order.

08/21/2017
No. 85.

#### Wade et al. *v.*Union Carbide & Carbon Corp. et al.

August 2, 1962.

*Joseph L. Alioto, Maxwell Keith*and *Richard Saveri*for petitioners.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsMultimodal Perception and Multicriterion Control of Nested SystemsThe purpose of this report is to identify the essential characteristics of goal-directed whole-body motion. The report is organized into three major sections (Sections 2, 3, and 4). Section 2 reviews general themes from ecological psychology and control-systems engineering that are relevant to the perception and control of whole-body motion. These themes provide an organizational framework for analyzing the complex and interrelated phenomena that are the defining characteristics of whole-body motion. Section 3 of this report applies the organization framework from the first section to the problem of perception and control of aircraft motion. This is a familiar problem in control-systems engineering and ecological psychology. Section 4 examines an essential but generally neglected aspect of vehicular control: coordination of postural control and vehicular control. To facilitate presentation of this new idea, postural control and its coordination with vehicular control are analyzed in terms of conceptual categories that are familiar in the analysis of vehicular control.Document ID19980017145Acquisition SourceJohnson Space CenterDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsRiccio, Gary E.*(Nascent Technologies Ltd. Houston, TX United States)*McDonald, P. Vernon*(National Space Biomedical Research Inst. Houston, TX United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1998Subject CategoryMan/System Technology And Life SupportReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.60:3703S-835NASA/TP-3703Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19980017145.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRIAN L. BROWN,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.

BARBARA VON BLANCKENSEE,

Respondent

- Appellee. No. 20

- 15748

D.C. No. 4:19

- cv

- 00436

- RCC

- LCK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 17, 2021 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Brian L. Brown appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Alaimalo v. United

States

, 645 F.3d 1042 , 1047 (9th Cir. 20 11 ), we affirm.

* 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 oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 24 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 15748

Brown contends that the Bureau of Prisons v iolated his due process and First

Amendment rights

, as well as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq

. , by removing him from the Religious Diet

Program. As the district court correctly concluded, t h e appropriate remedy for

these claims lies in a civil rights action under Bive n s v. Six Unknown Named

Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), rather than a § 2241 petition. See Tucker v. Carlson

,

925 F.2d 330, 3 3 2 (9th Cir. 1991) ( federal p risoner asserting civil rights violation

must file a Bivens action rather than a § 2241 petition ); see also Hernandez v.

Campbell , 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000) ( a § 2241 petition is limited to

challenges to “ the manner, location, or conditions of a sentence’s execution ” )

.

Even if, as Brown asserts, his suspension from the Religious Diet Program

constituted a disciplinary action

, that action did not subject him to greater

restrictions of his li berty sufficient to invoke habeas jurisdiction. See Bostic v.

Carlson , 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989)

, overruled on other grounds

by Nettles v. Grounds , 830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016)

.

AFFIRMED.
#### BEL OIL CORP. *v.*COCREHAM, COLLECTOR OF REVENUE OF LOUISIANA.

No. 123.

Decided October 8, 1962.

*Howard B. Gist*for appellant.

*Chapman L. Sanford*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Mr. Justice Goldberg took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
<page>			            EXHIBIT 32.02


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Annual Report of Morgan Stanley Cornerstone
Fund III L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Christian
Angstadt, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management
Corporation, the general partner of the Partnership, 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 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 Partnership.








By:	  /s/	Christian Angstadt

Name:		Christian Angstadt
Title:	Chief Financial Officer

Date:		March 28, 2008
#### John Conway, Appellant, v. The Troy and Boston Railroad Company, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Bockes, J.;

Peckham, J., not sitting.
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IMPERIAL MERCHANT SERVICES, INC., 

a California corporation doing

business as Check Recovery No. 07-15976

Systems, D.C. No.

Plaintiff-Appellant,  CV-06-07795-MJJ

v. OPINION

BRADY G. HUNT,

Defendant-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Martin J. Jenkins, District Judge, Presiding

Argued April 17, 2008

Resubmitted for Decision September 1, 2009

San Francisco, California

Filed September 1, 2009

Before: Stephen S. Trott and Sidney R. Thomas,

Circuit Judges, and Michael R. Hogan,* District Judge.

Per Curiam Opinion

*The Honorable Michael R. Hogan, United States District Judge for the

District of Oregon, sitting by designation. 

12197
COUNSEL

For Imperial Merchant Services, Inc., plaintiff-appellant:

Clark Garen, Esq., Attorney, Law Offices of Clark Garen,

Palm Springs, California.

For Brady G. Hunt, defendant-appellee: Paul S. Arons, Esq.,

Attorney, Law Offices of Paul S. Arons, Friday Harbor,

Washington; Irving L. Berg, Esq., Attorney, The Berg Law

Group, Corte Madera, California; O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.,

Attorney, Horowitz Horowitz & Associates, Ltd, Chicago,

Illinois.

12198 IMPERIAL MERCHANT SERVICES v. HUNT
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Imperial Merchant attempted to recover both a service

charge, pursuant to section 1719 of the California Civil Code,

and pre-judgment interest, pursuant to section 3287 of the

California Civil Code, on a returned check. The district and

bankruptcy courts concluded that the remedies were exclusive

and that Imperial Merchant could not recover damages under

both statutes.

We certified that state law issue to the Supreme Court of

California, stayed all proceedings pending receipt of the

answer to the certified question, and withdrew the appeal

from submission. Imperial Merch. Servs. v. Hunt, 528 F.3d

1129 (9th Cir. 2008). The question posed on certification was

as follows: “May a debt collector recovering on a dishonored

check impose both a service charge under section 1719 of the

California Civil Code and prejudgment interest under section

3287 of the California Civil Code?” Id. at 1130.

[1] The Supreme Court of California graciously accepted

our certification request. The Supreme Court concluded that

“the statutory damages prescribed in section 1719 are exclusive in the sense that a debt collector who recovers a service

charge pursuant to section 1719 may not also recover prejudgment interest under section 3287.” Imperial Merch. Servs. v.

Hunt, No. S163577, 2009 Cal. LEXIS 8030, at *2 (Cal. Aug.

10, 2009).

We resubmitted the appeal for decision. The reasoning of

the California Supreme Court is self-explanatory and dispositive. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

IMPERIAL MERCHANT SERVICES v. HUNT 12199