alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA QUESADA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 11-57059

D.C. No. 3:10-cv-01139-JM-POR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Jeffrey T. Miller, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 22, 2013** 

Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

Maria Quesada appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the

Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability

insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction

FILED

MAR 05 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-57059

under 28 U.S.C. §1291. We review de novo, Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1231

(9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.

Substantial evidence supports the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”)

rejection of the treating physicians’ opinions because the examining physicians’

independent clinical findings differed from the treating physicians’ findings and

the medical expert’s testimony undermined the treating physicians’ conclusions. 

See Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 632 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[W]hen an examining

physician provides independent clinical finding that differ from the findings of the

treating physician, such findings are substantial evidence.” (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted)); Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 726 (9th Cir. 1998)

(consistency of treating physician’s report with other medical findings is a

legitimate basis for evaluating report’s reliability). 

The ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons, supported by substantial

evidence, for determining that Quesada was not credible. See Tonapetyan v.

Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 2001) (the claimant’s tendency to exaggerate

is a legitimate consideration in determining credibility). The ALJ’s reliance on the

incorrectly dated discogram was harmless error, because the ALJ’s remaining

reasons for finding Quesada not credible constitute substantial evidence supporting
3 11-57059

the finding. See Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1162-63

(9th Cir. 2008).

The ALJ did not err in relying on the testimony of the vocational expert to

conclude that Quesada could perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the

national economy because the ALJ asked the vocational expert to identify any

conflicts with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”) and the vocational

expert’s statement that her testimony was in conformance with the DOT is

supported by the record. See Massachi v. Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir.

2007).

AFFIRMED.
January 21, 1963.

No. 332.

#### Boesche, Administrator, *v.*Udall, Secretary of the Interior.

*Scott A. Pfohl*and *A. O. McClintock*on the motion.

Certiorari, *ante,*p. 886, to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The motion of the Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Assn, for leave to present oral argument, as *amicus curiae,*is denied.
No. 419.

#### Local Lodge No. 1836, District 38, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, et al. *v.*Local No. 1505, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, et al.

*Robert M. Segal*and *Plato E. Papps*for petitioners.

*Paul F. Hannah*for Raytheon Company, respondent.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari granted. The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief setting forth the views of the United States.
#### Catharine Ludwig, Respondent, v. Lawrence Glaessell, Appellant.

Judgment and order reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide event.
No. 354, Misc.

#### Jackson *v.*United States.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *Theodore George Gilinsky*for the United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 595.

#### Welch, doing business as Welch Trucking Co., et al. *v.*Runge.

*Lucian Touchstone*for petitioners.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 413.

#### Miles Lumber Co. *v.*Harrison & Grimshaw Construction Co. et al.

*Robert B. Langworthy*for petitioner.

*John H. Cantrell*and *Remington Rogers*for certain named respondents.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
----

| For                the Period: 12/26/2007 to                1/7/2008 |                               |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
| Coupon                                                               | Interest                           | Maturity | Callable | Survivor'sOption | Price1 | Yield2 | Moody's | S&P | CUSIP |
| 5.000%                                                               | Semi-Annual(†††) | 7/15/13 | NO | YES§ | 100.00 | 5.000% | A2 | A | 14912HHQ6 |
| 5.500%                                                               | Semi-Annual(†††) | 1/15/18 | 1/15/10*** | YES§ | 100.00 | 5.499% | A2 | A | 14912HHR4 |
| 5.750%                                                               | Monthly(†)                   | 1/15/23 | 1/15/11* | YES§ | 100.00 | 5.819% | A2 | A | 14912HHS2 |
| 6.000%                                                               | Semi-Annual(†††) | 1/15/28 | 1/15/12*** | YES§ | 100.00 | 6.000% | A2 | A | 14912HHT0 |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0001036070
<NAME> VIRGINIA FINANCIAL CORPOATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          14,922
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              94
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     74,914
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          57,710
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            56,468
<LOANS>                                        329,277
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,841
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 490,604
<DEPOSITS>                                     419,062
<SHORT-TERM>                                    20,660
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,887
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,905
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,090
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 490,604
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 20,208
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,810
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   103
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                26,121
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              11,114
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,272
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           13,849
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      561
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  19
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,380
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,420
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,644
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.17
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.33
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,399
<LOANS-PAST>                                       437
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,470
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      264
<RECOVERIES>                                        74
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,841
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,533
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            308


</TABLE>
From: r-rbrown@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:17:56 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,

Rebecca Brown

Haslet, TX 76052
From: dzulaski@frontier.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:10:59 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,

Darlene Zulaski

Mcminnville, OR 97128
From: paulgayle7@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:59:33 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,

Gayle Hughes

Sewell, NJ 08080
No. 446.

#### Castelli, alias Gagliano, *v.*United States.

*Elmer Fried*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *Theodore George Gilinsky*for the United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 25, 2020

p1118 

# Order

Clerk November 25, 2020

161676

HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 161676

COA: 346942

Wayne CC: 16

- 010593

- CK

PAUL M. LUBIENSKI,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 24, 2020

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
From: Goldie Locks

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:19:58 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.

sincerely,

jp
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

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    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 (2.79 MB)
 
 Kuwait Army National Guard Camp Buehring California National Guard Task Force Phoenix
 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
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

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    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 (2.07 MB)
 
 military working dog
 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: teel@mail2zoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

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

Krista Teel

Madisonville, KY 42431