alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: mewers@hillsdale.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

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

Mary Ewers

Hillsdale, MI 49242
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAYENDRA A. SHAH, M.D., Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant - Appellee. No. 10-56284 D.C. No. 2:08-cv-06499-CAS-CW
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 7, 2012 ** Pasadena, California Before: FARRIS, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s action for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 

# FILED
MAR 16 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 To establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendant “deprived him of federal rights, privileges or immunities” under color of state law. Thornton v. City of St. Helens , 425 F.3d 1158, 1163–64 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and indicati ons of alteration removed). A local government’s retaliation against a plaintiff for suing the local government may deprive the plaintiff of his First Amendment right to petition the courts. Sorrano’s Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan , 874 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989). A public employee’s litigation, however, “must involve a matter of public concern in order to be protected by either the Petition Clause or the Speech Clause of the First Amendment.” Rendish v. City of Tacoma , 123 F.3d 1216, 1220 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri , 131 S. Ct. 2488, 2493-2501 (2011). Plaintiff’s litigation involved his private employment grievances, not matters of public concern. Additionally, Plainti ff’s complaint does not adequately allege that his prior litigation against the County was “a substantial or motivating factor in the [County’s] decision” not to ratify Plaintiff’s settlement. Sorrano’s Gasco , 874 F.2d at 1314 (internal quotation marks re moved). Accordingly, the County’s conduct did not deprive Plaintiff of his First Amendment rights.3 The district court’s order explains why the County’s conduct did not deprive Plaintiff of his Due Process and Equal Protection rights. We agree with the district court’s reasoning and conclusions, and therefore need not repeat them here. AFFIRMED
.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-02-1998
<CASH>                                           3,591
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,162
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     43,406
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                86,918
<PP&E>                                          38,157
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,157
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 116,426
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,294
<BONDS>                                        249,855
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            4,242
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (164,349)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   116,426
<SALES>                                         60,045
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,045
<CGS>                                           34,272
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   49,448
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (35)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,331
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,301
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,729
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,572
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,572
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 19, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 64464]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20183]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731-TA-860 (Fourth Review)]


Tin- and Chromium-Coated Steel Sheet From Japan; Notice of 
Commission Determination To Conduct a Full Five-Year Review

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives notice that it will proceed with a 
full review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 to determine whether 
revocation of the antidumping duty order on tin- and chromium-coated 
steel sheet from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. A 
schedule for the review will be established and announced at a later 
date.

DATES: September 5, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alejandro Orozco (202-205-3177), 
Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E 
Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 
information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal 
on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need 
special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact 
the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information 
concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its 
internet server (https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this 
review may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at 
https://edis.usitc.gov.
    For further information concerning the conduct of this review and 
rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 
201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 5, 2023, the Commission 
determined that it should proceed to a full review in the subject five-
year review pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
U.S.C. 1675(c)). The Commission found that both the domestic and 
respondent interested party group responses to its notice of 
institution (88 FR 35920, June 1, 2023) were adequate. A record of the 
Commissioners' votes will be available from the Office of the Secretary 
and at the Commission's website.
    Authority: This review is being conducted under authority of title 
VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 
Sec.  207.62 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.
    Issued: September 13, 2023.
Katherine Hiner,
Supervisory Attorney.
[FR Doc. 2023-20183 Filed 9-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
### Docket Number: FAA-2012-0592
On motion to dismiss appeal.

Appeal dismissed December 11, 1923.

#### STATE *v.*FRANK RECOB and ARLEN KINNEY.

(220 Pac. 576.)

Criminal Law — Filing of Undertaking of Bail not Legal Stay of Proceedings.

1. On appeal from judgment of conviction of larceny, tbe filing of appellant’s undertaking of bail does not, of itself, stay proceedings. *"*

*478Criminal Law — Appeal Abandoned on Failure to File Certificate of Probable Cause.

2. Where, on appeal from conviction for larceny, defendant files undertaking for bail, but no certificate of probable cause, there is no legal stay of proceedings, and the appeal is abandoned.

From Tillamook: George R. Bagley, Judge.

In Banc.

Appeal Dismissed.

For the motion, *Mr, T. H. Goyne,*District Attorney.

*Contra,*no appearance.

McBRIDE, C. J.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal and affirm judgment.

1, 2. The appellant, on the sixteenth day of October, 1922, was convicted in the Circuit Court of Tillamook County of the crime of larceny and adjudged to serve an indeterminate term of not to exceed four years in the penitentiary. On the twentieth day of October, 1922, he served and filed his notice of appeal. On the twenty-third day of October, 1922, he filed in the Circuit Court his undertaking of bail, since which time he has done nothing.

There is no certificate of probable cause and therefore no legal stay of proceedings, as the filing of appellant’s undertaking of bail does not, of itself, stay the proceedings, and whether he is in the penitentiary or out of it does not appear.

The appeal is clearly abandoned and the judgment is therefore affirmed, and this cause is remanded to the court below for such further proceedings as may be proper under the circumstances:

Appeal Dismissed and Judgment Affirmed.
From: myteacup@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:35:47 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,

Lester Cote

Lincoln, RI 02865
From: kkerlagon@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:46:57 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.

Thank you for recognizing and protecting the rights and freedoms provided to us as citizens of the

United States by denying the passage of this mandate.

Sincerely,

Kathy Kerlagon

, 63021-6106
No. 164, Misc.

#### Wright *v.*Myers, Correctional Superintendent.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .


EXHIBIT 21.1

                              List of Subsidiaries*

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name                                    Jurisdiction
----                                    ------------
<S>                                     <C>
3Com Europe Ltd.                           England
3Com APR Pte Ltd.                         Singapore
3Com Technologies                       Cayman Islands
H3C Technologies Co., Limited ("H3C")     Hong Kong
Hangzhou H3C Technologies Co., Ltd.**       China
</TABLE>

*    Omits subsidiaries that, considered in the aggregate as a single
     subsidiary, do not constitute a significant subsidiary as of the end of the
     2007 fiscal year(using the definition of "significant subsidiary" in Rule
     1-02(w) of Regulation S-X).

**   100%-owned by H3C.
From: grannaje@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:26:36 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,

Joni Hancock

Denver City, TX 79323
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-116076), Form S-8 (No. 333-114512) and Form S-4
(No. 333-112309) of Laidlaw International, Inc. of our report dated November 6,
2006 relating to the financial statements, management's assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness
of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Chicago, Illinois
November 6, 2006
No. 633, Misc.

#### Cooper *v.*Wiman, Warden.

Petitioner pro *se.*

*MacDonald Gallion,*Attorney General of Alabama, and *David W. Clark,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Supreme Court of Alabama. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit
32.2











Certification
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,


As
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





on Form
10-K for the period ended May 31, 2010 (the “Report”) of Immucor, Inc. (the
“Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:




(1)         The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2)         The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.











July 26,
2010                                                                                                  
 /s/ Richard A.
Flynt


Richard A. Flynt


Chief Financial
Officer
From: BEVIN PIZZO

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 9:44:40 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

BEVIN PIZZO

280 MARL RD

PINE BUSH, NY 12566