alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Estate of Lowell E mery Vereen, Deceased

No. 06

- 12

- 00121

- CV Appeal from the County Court at Law of
Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 40,808

- CCL ). Opinion delivered by Justice Carter

, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley
participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the joint motion of the parties to

dismiss the appeal by agreement should be granted. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that each party shall bear its own costs of appeal.

RENDERED MARCH 6, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:
Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (0.39 MB)
 
 20th FW 407th Air Expeditionary Group Operation Inherent Resolve F-16 Fighting Falcon 20th Fighter Wing deployment crew chief 407th AEG South Carolina OIR deployed fighter pilot Shooters 55th EFS 55th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron Shaw Fighting fifty-fifth
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
From: Agnes Doherty

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Thursday, August 04, 2011 7:27:40 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,

Agnes Doherty
San Bruno, California
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D2 3

- 569 Lower Tribunal No. 2013CF

- 321

_____________________________

M ARVIN G LEN C OOK , Appellant

,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hardee County. Michael E . Raiden , Judge.

June 4 , 2024

PER CURIAM

.

AFFIRMED

.

NARDELLA, WHITE and SMITH , JJ., c oncur.

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Lisa B. Lott, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTI L TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
H. Res. 1332 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 31, 2008. 

Whereas, on any given day, there are more than 500,000 

youth in foster care in the United States; 

Whereas an estimated 26,000 of these youth are discharged 

from the foster care system or ‘‘age out’’ with little to 

no resources to start their own lives; 

Whereas the people of the United States have a sincere appreciation for the circumstances that place children in 

foster care; 

Whereas foster youth possess unique qualities and skills that 

make them ideal candidates for employment, but compared to youth nationally and youth from low-income 

families, they are less likely to be employed or employed 

regularly; 

Whereas, when afforded comprehensive support, this resilient 

population excels in the job market; 

Whereas, within 18 months after leaving foster care, 25 percent of foster youth become homeless and comprise more 

than a quarter of the United States homeless population; 

Whereas, without positive intervention, youth who age out of 

foster care often have bouts of homelessness, criminal activity, and incarceration; 
2 

•HRES 1332 EH 

Whereas addressing job readiness early in the transition to 

adulthood is critical to shaping the future trajectories of 

these youth; and 

Whereas youth who begin connecting to the workforce prior 

to discharge from foster care maintain the highest probability of employment: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) recognizes the importance of connecting foster 

youth to the workforce through internship programs, 

such as the Orphan Foundation of America’s 

InternAmerica program, that provide foster youth the 

foundation upon which to build their careers and to be 

successful members of the work force; and 

(2) encourages employers of all sectors and Federal, 

State, and local governmental agencies to increase employment of the young men and women who have been 

discharged from foster care in the United States. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
### FOR PUBLICATION 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  I MPERIAL M ERCHANT S ERVICES , I NC ., a California corporation doing business as Check Recovery No. 07-15976 Systems, D.C. No.



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

v. OPINION B RADY G. H UNT ,

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.

12197COUNSEL 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 I MPERIAL M ERCHANT S ERVICES v. H UNTOPINION

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 servicecharge 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 ofthe California Supreme Court is self-explanatory and dispositive. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 12199

I MPERIAL M ERCHANT S ERVICES v. H UNT
#### The Corn Exchange Bank (of Chicago), Appellant, v. Alphonzo W. Blye, Receiver, etc., Respondent.

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Brady, J.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1


                         Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration Statements
pertaining to the Telco Systems, Inc. 1983 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (Form
S-8 No. 33-26976); the Telco Systems, Inc. 1980 Stock Option Plan (Form S-8
Nos. 2-94474, 33-2024 and 33-10548); the Telco Systems, Inc. 1988
Non-Statutory Stock Option Plan (Form S-8 No. 33-28295) and the 1990 Stock
Option Plan (Form S-8 Nos. 33-42751 and 333-00959) of our report dated
October 16, 1996, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedules of Telco Systems, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended August 25, 1996.


                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP




Boston, Massachusetts
November 25, 1996
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 1085

In re: JOHN DOE , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 7:01

- cr - 00027

- M

- 1 )

Submitted : March 21, 2023 Decided: March 24, 2023

Before WYNN and RICHARD S ON , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

John Doe , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1085 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
John Doe petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his motions for relief under the First Step Act

. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. The present record does not reveal undue delay
in the district court. A ccordingly, while we grant Doe leave to proceed by pseudonym, we deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIE D USCA4 Appeal: 23-1085 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
From: rochus1917@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:41:50 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,

Dorene Pfeifer

Maitland, FL 32751
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1202 Referred in House (RFH)]

  1st Session
                                S. 1202

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 16, 2001

Referred to the Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the 
Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined 
 by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
        fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) to extend 
the authorization of appropriations for the Office of Government Ethics 
                       through fiscal year 2006.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Office of Government Ethics 
Authorization Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 405 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) 
is amended by striking ``1997 through 1999'' and inserting ``2002 
through 2006''.

            Passed the Senate November 15, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                  JERI THOMSON,

                                                             Secretary.
```
No. 392, Misc.

#### Jordan *v.*Alabama.

Petitioner *pro se.*

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

Supreme Court of Alabama. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          24,054
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              38
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                13,650
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     38,222
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           5,497
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             5,481
<LOANS>                                        300,443
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,512
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 441,827
<DEPOSITS>                                     382,764
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,443
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,041
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,943
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 441,827
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 14,755
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,040
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   806
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                16,601
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,176
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,190
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           11,411
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       80
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  9,733
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,224
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,224
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,969
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.54
<LOANS-NON>                                        202
<LOANS-PAST>                                       467
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  2,280
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,590
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      204
<RECOVERIES>                                        46
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,512
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,660
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            852


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 19-0733

_________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

 

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

TOBY CARL McADAM,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to Toby Carl McAdam, to all counsel 

of record, and to the Honorable Brenda Gilbert, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 15 2020

07/15/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0733
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,033
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              22
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     13,985
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         116,701
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           116,701
<LOANS>                                        161,533
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,421
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 303,028
<DEPOSITS>                                     247,092
<SHORT-TERM>                                     6,634
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,549
<LONG-TERM>                                     13,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,867
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,886
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 303,028
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 13,413
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                7,044
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   246
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                20,703
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               9,208
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,121
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           10,374
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      275
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 179
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,535
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,192
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,888
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.67
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.30
<LOANS-NON>                                        854
<LOANS-PAST>                                        27
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  4,682
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,371
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      269
<RECOVERIES>                                        44
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,421
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,421
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            568
        

</TABLE>
#### Emma A. Fish, Respondent, v. Martin F. Lindsley, Sheriff, etc., Appellant.

Motion for new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Opinion by

Barker, J.