alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Civ. No. 1262.

Third Appellate District.

May 7, 1914.]

#### In the Matter of Application of MATTIE E. DAVIDSON for a Writ of Mandamus against EUGENE D. GRAHAM, Clerk of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County.

District Court or Appeal—Jurisdiction in Mandamus to Compel Clerk or Superior Court to Enter Depault.—The district court of appeal has no jurisdiction of a proceeding in form a petition for a writ of mandate to compel the clerk of a superior court to enter the default of the defendant in a civil action to recover the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars, for failure to answer within the time required by law, when the effect of the application is to call for a review of an order of the trial court, made after the refusal of the clerk to enter the default, denying the plaintiff’s motion to direct the entry of judgment in his favor.

APPLICATION for Writ of Mandate to be directed to the Clerk of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Webster, Webster & Blewett, for Petitioner.

A. H. Carpenter, and Walter F. Lynch, for Respondent.

THE COURT.

An action was brought in the above entitled court by petitioner against Samuel Hinckley and A. T. Harry to recover the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars. Plaintiff claimed that Harry was in default for failure to answer and made demand that the clerk of the court enter said default, which he refused. Thereupon plaintiff moved the court to direct judgment to be entered in her favor on the ground that said defendant had not answered to the complaint of plaintiff within the time allowed by law. According to an allegation of the petition herein it appears: “That thereafter, to wit, on the 19th day of January, 1914, said above entitled motion coming on regularly for hearing upon the entire record including said demand for default the same was by the court denied. ’ ’

The proceeding here is in form a petition for a writ of mandate to compel the said clerk to enter the default of said *408defendant, but the effect of the application is to call for a review of the said order of the superior court. As, admittedly, we have no direct appellate jurisdiction of said cause pending in said court (Cal. Const., art. VI, sec. 4), we think the same incapacity attends the consideration of the application and that the principle is the same as that involved in *Rickey Land etc. Co.*v. *Glader,*6 Cal. App. 114, [91 Pac. 414], and *Stewart*v. *Torrance,*9 Cal. App. 209, [98 Pac. 396].

The cause is therefore transferred to the supreme court.*

*

After the papers in this proceeding had been transferred to the clerk of the supreme court, that court held that the district court of appeal had jurisdiction of the proceeding and directed a return of the papers and that the district court of appeal should proceed to a decision of the cause. The opinion of the supreme court is reported in 167 Cal. 727. The decision of the district court of appeal disposing of the application was rendered on September 21, 1914.
From: Regina Oliver

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Action on Preventive Health Coverage for Women

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:49:09 PM

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

the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as 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 urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.
From: bearcreekbuilder@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:53:30 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,

Bruce Jacobsen

Belfry, MT 59008
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 179 (Monday, September 18, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 63942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20182]



[[Page 63942]]

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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, September 20, 2023-10:00 a.m.

PLACE: The meeting will be held remotely, and in person at 4330 East-
West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland, 20814.

STATUS: Commission Meeting--Open to the Public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
Briefing Matter:

    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking--Safety Standard for Infant Rockers 
and Infant/Toddler Rockers

    To attend the meeting virtually, please use the following link: 
https://cpsc.webex.com/weblink/register/r40908b005fac735e48a3993d91242503.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Alberta E. Mills, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, 301-504-7479 (Office) or 240-863-8938 
(Cell).

    Dated: September 13, 2023.
Alberta E. Mills,
Commission Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-20182 Filed 9-14-23; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
No. 505.

#### Miller et al. *v.*East Georgia Motors, Inc.

*H. Wayne Unger*for petitioners.

*B. Allston Moore, Jr.*for respondent.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

OCT 30 2000

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

DANNY DEWAYNE BREWER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

vs.

GARY GIBSON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee,

 and

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

 Respondent.

No. 00-7037

(D.C. No. 99-CV-67-S)

(E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.**

Mr. Brewer, an inmate appearing pro se, seeks to appeal from the district

court’s denial of his habeas petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He was convicted by a
- 2 -

jury of robbery by force and fear, kidnaping, and first degree rape, all after former

conviction of two or more felonies. He was sentenced to 50, 100 and 300 years,

respectively. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by the Oklahoma

Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA); that court also affirmed the denial of postconviction relief.

In his federal petition, Mr. Brewer argued ineffective assistance of counsel,

denial of procedural due process and a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Upon

recommendation of the magistrate judge, the district court denied the petition. On

appeal, Mr. Brewer raises the same claims.

Mr. Brewer had different trial and appellate counsel and we agree with the

State that the ineffectiveness claim raised in the petition concerning trial counsel

does not require going beyond the record. See R. doc. 5 at 5. Accordingly, that

claim is procedurally barred, and Mr. Brewer has not demonstrated cause and

prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice that would excuse that

procedural default. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991);

English v. Cody, 146 F.3d 1257, 1264 (10th Cir. 1998); Okla. Stat. Ann., tit. 22

§ 1086. The OCCA rejected Mr. Brewer’s other claims, including (and in the

context of ) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, R. doc. 5, Ex. F, after

applying Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), and we cannot

conclude that its resolution was contrary to federal law. See 28 U.S.C.
- 3 -

§ 2254(d)(1) & (2); Williams v. Taylor, 120 S. Ct. 1479, 1522-23 (2000).

Because Mr. Brewer has failed to make a “substantial showing of the denial

of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), we DENY his application for a

certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
EXHIBIT 99.2



inTEST CORPORATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of inTEST Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Hugh T. Regan, Jr., Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
(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 result of operations of the Company.
Date:	August 14, 2002

/s/ Hugh T. Regan, Jr.
Hugh T. Regan, Jr.
Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
Attachment 011– TS1201UC – Certificate of Analysis 

1 of 2 pages

Sanitized
Attachment 011 – TS1201UC – Certificate of Analysis 

2 of 2 pages

sanitized
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                              752,613       
<SECURITIES>                        104,327      <F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                       214,177
<ALLOWANCES>                        0
<INVENTORY>                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    0
<PP&E>                              17,764,866   <F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                      5,716,797
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      13,151,405
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               0
<BONDS>                             11,000,831   <F3>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<COMMON>                            2,203,522    <F4>
<OTHER-SE>                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        13,151,405
<SALES>                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    2,115,761    <F5>
<CGS>                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       3,324,418    <F6>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    (223,093)    <F7>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  1,036,329
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     0
<INCOME-TAX>                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                        (2,021,893)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                       0

<FN>
<F1>   "SECURITIES" REPRESENTS INVESTMENT IN JOINT VENTURE
<F2>   "PP&E" REPRESENTS INVESTMENT IN REAL ESTATE [LAND AND
BUILDING]
<F3>   "BONDS" REPRESENTS MORTGAGES PAYABLE
<F4>   "COMMON" REPRESENTS TOTAL PARTNERS' CAPITAL
<F5>   "TOTAL REVENUES" REPRESENTS RENTAL, INTEREST, AND OTHER
INCOME
<F6>   "TOTAL COSTS" REPRESENTS TOTAL EXPENSES LESS INTEREST
<F7>   "OTHER EXPENSES" REPRESENTS EQUITY AND MINORITY INTEREST
IN JOINT VENTURES' NET INCOME/LOSS
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Michael Mulchy, Respondent, v. Selan Sabine, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by

Merwin, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000732718
<NAME> U S WEST, INC
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             201
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,113
<ALLOWANCES>                                       125
<INVENTORY>                                        159
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,112
<PP&E>                                          37,756
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,475
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,855
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,074
<BONDS>                                         14,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,131
<PREFERRED>                                        920
<COMMON>                                        10,741
<OTHER-SE>                                       (112)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,855
<SALES>                                         12,911
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,911
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,056
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 612
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,840
<INCOME-TAX>                                       696
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,144
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                           34
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,178
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.58
        

</TABLE>
From: jlvalenti@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:02:13 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,

Elizabeth Valentine

Vancouver, WA 98682
From: davepanee@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:06:13 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,

Panee Reynolds

La Verne, CA 91750
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION 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 report of
CommScope, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the
Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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 Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |                                                     
|----- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|By:   |  | /s/ FRANK M. DRENDEL                                
|      |  | Frank M. Drendel                                    
|      |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                
|      | 
|Date: |  | October 27, 2009                                    
|      | 
|By:   |  | /s/ JEARLD L. LEONHARDT                             
|      |  | Jearld L. Leonhardt                                 
|      |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|      | 
|Date: |  | October 27, 2009
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 7
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 7
 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 7
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 7
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 7
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 7
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 7