alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 7, Misc.,

No. 63,

#### Harvey, alias McCargo, *v.*Cunningham, Penitentiary Superintendent, Chewning *v.*Cunningham, Penitentiary Superintendent,

Petitioners *pro se.*

*Reno S. Harp III,*Assistant Attorney General of Virginia, for respondent.

October Term, 1961.

October Term, 1961.

369 U. S. 152; and

368 U. S. 443. The motions of petitioners to clarify opinions and for other relief are denied.

Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of th,ese motions.
From: sheilas@themerchandiser.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:07:31 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,

Sheila Sholly

Lebanon, PA 17042
Exhibit



EXECUTION COPY



FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE 
AVON PRODUCTS, INC. DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
This FOURTH AMENDMENT is made to the Avon Products, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan, as it was amended and restated effective as of January 1, 2008, and as it has been amended from time to time thereafter (the “Plan”), by AVON PRODUCTS, INC., a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York (the “Company”).
INTRODUCTION
In connection with the transfer of its North America business to New Avon LLC (“New Avon”), effective as of March 1, 2016, the Company wishes to amend the Plan to:  (1) reflect that each Covered Employee (as hereinafter defined) shall cease to be an Eligible Employee under the Plan; and (2) provide that the Account of each Covered Employee shall be fully vested.
AMENDMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, the Company hereby amends the Plan, effective as of March 1, 2016, as follows:
1.A new last paragraph is added to the INTRODUCTION to read as follows:
“In connection with the transfer of its North America business to New Avon LLC (“New Avon”), effective as of March 1, 2016, the Plan was amended to:  (1) reflect that each Covered Employee (as hereinafter defined) shall cease to be an Eligible Employee under the Plan; and (2) provide that the Account of each Covered Employee shall become fully vested.”
		
	2.
	A new Section 17 is added to the Plan to read as follows:


"SECTION 17 
SALE OF NORTH AMERICA BUSINESS
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Plan to the contrary, the following provisions shall apply, effective as of March 1, 2016:
17.1    Cessation of Eligible Employee Status.  Each Covered Employee shall cease to be eligible an Eligible Employee under the Plan.
17.2    Vesting.  To the extent not otherwise vested, the Account of each Covered Employee shall become fully vested.
17.2    Definitions.  For purposes of this Section 17, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
(a)    “Separation and Investment Agreement” means the agreement, dated as of December 17, 2015, among the Company, New Avon LLC (f/k/a C-A NA LLC) and Cleveland NA Investor LLC; and
(b)    “Covered Employee” has the meaning set forth in the Separation and Investment Agreement.”
Except as specifically amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect as prior to this Fourth Amendment.
[Signature on next page]



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Fourth Amendment to the Plan to be executed on the date set forth below.
AVON PRODUCTS, INC.
		
	Dated:  _______________, 2016
	By:                             


Name:  
Title:    


CPAM: 9020574.3
No. 242, Misc.

#### Rinaldi *v.*New Jersey.

Supreme Court of New Jersey. Certiorari denied.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 04529**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  04529\04529_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 04529\04529_Part G.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04529\04529_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04529\04529_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04529\04529_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04529\04529_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04529\04529_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04529\04529_PartF.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04529\04529_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04529\Part F - Management of Ponds and Landfill - Final.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04529\Part F Section 5-6 Aerial.pdf Plant submitted survey file x 04529\Part G - Leachate Sampling - Final.xls Plant submitted survey file

04529\Certification Statement_04529.pdf Plant certification statement 04529\Supporting Documentation\04529_AES Somerset Property Boundary (A5.2).pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04529\Supporting Documentation\04529_Ground Water (Part F).pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

04529\Supporting Documentation\Part F Section 5 Discussion.doc Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04529\Supporting Documentation\Part G Section 3-2 Aerial.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 04529\Supporting Documentation\Plant Water Balance.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04529\04529_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

04529\04529_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed February 24, 2016.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15-1280

Lower Tribunal No. 14-1451

________________

Nadyne Mata,

Appellant,

vs.

Angel R. Mata,

Appellee.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade

County, George A. Sarduy, Judge.

AV Professional Association, and Alba Varela, for appellant.

Angel R. Mata, in proper person.

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE, and SCALES, JJ.

LOGUE, J.
A general magistrate issued a report recommending that Angel R. Mata

(“former husband”) pay $5,500 per month in temporary alimony to Nadyne Mata

(“former wife”) and $733.14 per month in child support. On reviewing exceptions

to the general magistrate’s report filed by the former husband, the trial court

rejected the general magistrate’s recommendation.

“Once a trial court appoints a magistrate to take testimony and make

findings, it loses the prerogative of substituting its judgment for that of the

magistrate.” Cerase v. Dewhurst, 935 So. 2d 575, 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). “In

such instances, a trial court reviewing a magistrate’s findings and

recommendations takes on a role similar to that of an appellate court reviewing a

trial court’s actions.” Rodriguez v. Reyes, 112 So. 3d 671, 673 (Fla. 3d DCA

2013). If exceptions to the magistrate’s report have been filed, “a trial court

reviews the record to determine whether the magistrate’s factual findings and

conclusions are supported by competent substantial evidence, and whether the

magistrate’s legal conclusions are clearly erroneous or whether the magistrate

misconceived the legal effect of the evidence.” Id. (quotation and citation omitted).

In this case, competent, substantial evidence supported the magistrate’s

findings, including the income it imputed to the former husband based on the

former wife’s unrebutted testimony regarding his historical earnings. See Ghay v.

Ghay, 954 So. 2d 1186, 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“[T]he Florida Supreme Court

2
and other district courts have suggested that a presumption arises from a spouse’s

historical earnings that supports a finding the spouse can continue to earn the same

amount, absent evidence to the contrary.”) (citing Garfield v. Garfield, 58 So. 2d

166, 167 (Fla. 1952); Seitz v. Seitz, 471 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)). We

therefore reverse the trial court’s decision and remand for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion. Rodriguez, 112 So. 3d at 674.

Reversed and remanded.

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRANDON EUGENE BALES,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

CLARENCE W. DUPNIK; ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

ARIZONA; CHARLES L. RYAN,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 14-16067

D.C. No. 4:12-cv-00483-BPV

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Bernardo P. Velasco, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 10, 2016** 

San Francisco, California

Before: SILVERMAN, FISHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Brandon Eugene Bales appeals the denial of federal habeas relief after he

challenged his Arizona state conviction for driving under the influence. The

FILED

FEB 12 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
district court held that Bales’s habeas appeal was barred by Stone v. Powell, 428

U.S. 465 (1976). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

Bales contends that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when his

blood was drawn pursuant to Arizona’s “implied consent” statute, Ariz. Rev. Stat.

Ann. § 28–1321 (2015). However, Stone v. Powell directs that “where the State

has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment

claim, a state prisoner may not be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the

ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was

introduced at his trial.” Stone, 428 U.S. at 494 (footnote call number omitted).1

Bales appears to argue that he did not receive a “full and fair” trial because the

state court misconstrued the facts and misapplied clearly established federal law. 

But these arguments, like all of the arguments in Bales’s opening brief, go to

whether his Fourth Amendment claim was wrongly decided, not whether the

hearing itself was fair. See id. at 482. In this case, Bales had a full evidentiary

hearing on his suppression motion, as well as an appeal to the superior court and an

opportunity for further appellate review. Thus, the district court properly ruled that

Bales had the opportunity for a full and fair hearing on his Fourth Amendment

1

 We recently confirmed that Stone survived enactment of the Antiterrorism

& Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). Newman v. Wengler, 790 F.3d 876,

879–81 (9th Cir. 2015). 
claim. 

Finally, in his reply Bales argues for a new exception to the Stone doctrine

that would allow habeas review of Fourth Amendment issues that affect a large

number of people or claims. He provides no persuasive reason to support this

alleged exception, however, and we decline to create such a rule. Stone is clear: 

We cannot reconsider the merits of Bales’s Fourth Amendment claim, so federal

habeas relief is unavailable. 

AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Country Title, L.L.C. v. Morenike Jaiyeoba

Appellate case number: 01-14-00931-CV

Trial court case number: 07-CV-159705

Trial court: 268th District Court of Fort Bend County

Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal filed December 23, 2014 is DENIED. Further, 

Appellant’s request for an award of attorney fees incurred in preparing a response to the motion 

to dismiss is also DENIED.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 8, 2015
```

[House Report 107-694]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-694

======================================================================

 
   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 111, MAKING 
           CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2003

                                _______
                                

 September 25, 2002.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Hastings of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 550]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 550, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution provides for consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 111, making continuing appropriations for the fiscal 
year 2003, and for other purposes, under a closed rule. The 
rule provides one hour of debate in the House equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
    The rule waives all points of order against consideration 
of the joint resolution. Finally, the rule provides one motion 
to recommit.

                                  

```
|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Coupon | Interest | Maturity | Callable | Survivor's Option | Price | CUSIP |   |
| 2.250% | Semi-Annual(†††) | 12/15/2022 | No | Yes § | 100.00 | 14912HQC7 |   |

|                         |
|-------------------------|
|                         |  |  |
| (†††) | First Payment date 6/15/2013 |   |
|                    |   |
EXHIBIT 31.1


                           CERTIFICATION

I, J. Gerald Bazewicz, President and Chief Executive Officer,
certify, that:

     1.      I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K for
the period ended December 31, 2003, of First Keystone Corporation.

   2.      Based on my knowledge, the quarterly report does not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report.

   3.      Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this quarterly report,
fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this annual report.

   4.      The registrant's other certifying officer and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14)
for the registrant and we have:

      a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to
   ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
   including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
   by others within those entities, particularly during the
   period in which this annual report is being prepared;

      b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
   disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90
   days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the
   "Evaluation Date"); and

      c)   presented in this annual report our conclusions about
   the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures
   based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

   5.      The registrant's other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

      a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or
   operation of the internal controls which could adversely
   affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
   and report financial data and have identified for the
   registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal
   controls; and

      b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
   management or other employees who have a significant role in
   the registrant's internal controls.




                        /s/ J. Gerald Bazewicz
                        J. Gerald Bazewicz
                        President and Chief Executive Officer



Date:  March 12, 2004


                               26
From: sunflower.anastasia@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:58:01 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,

Anastasia DuPuis

Glendale, AZ 85310
No. 65101.

Suit 5037.

#### United States *v.*IDL Mfg. & Sales Corp.

C.D. 2146 affirmed November 17, 1960. C.A.D. 756.
From: john@lifesavingadvice.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:27:59 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,

John Eubank

San Diego, CA 92122
No. 404.

#### National Labor Relations Board *v.*General Motors Corp.

*Solicitor General Cox, Stuart Rothman, Dominick L. Manoli*and *Norton J. Come*for petitioner.

*Aloysius F. Power*and *Harry S. Benjamin, Jr.*for respondent.

*J. Albert Woll, Theodore J. St.*

*Antoine*and *Thomas E. Harris*for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, as *amicus curiae,*in support of the petition.

Motion of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations for leave to file brief, as *amicus curiae,*granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted.