alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 13,476.

#### In re STOKES.

[2 N. B. R. 212 (Quarto, 76).] 1

District Court, S. D. New York.

1868.

Bankruptcy — Discharge — Debt Contracted by Fraud.

Objection to discharge based upon the fact that the debt was contracted by fraud, is not good, for such debt will not be affected by the discharge.

In bankruptcy.

1

 [Reprinted by permission.)

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

This case will stand for hearing on the specifications filed by the creditors, for whom Mr. Seixas appears. Either party may take further testimony ' before the register. The specifications filed by Richard Bell are insufficient. *135They go wholly to the fraud in contracting the debt to Bell, and, if true, the discharge will pot affect that debt.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant To
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, John L. Coker, Vice President, Finance and Administration and Chief
Financial Officer of BioReliance Corporation (the Corporation), certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
that:

(1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Corporation for the period
June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (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
Corporation.

|                                                                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ John L. CokerJohn L. Coker
Vice President, Finance and Administration
and Chief Financial Officer
August 11, 2003

32
From: reeves@connectgrad.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:30:16 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,

Mike Reeves

Owensboro, KY 42301
From: hgraham2@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:17:07 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,

harvey graham

Monticello, UT 84535
No. 67057.

protests 290360-K, etc. (New York).

#### Kaufman & Vinson Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The record establishing that the merchandise consists of nylon knit hose similar in use to silk knit hose and following *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 67050.

protests 283336-K, etc. (New York).

#### Lang & Marshall Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bench vises similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 59420, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### Patricia Neary et al., Respondents, v Victoria Vecchione et al., Defendants, and William Kossman, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 632]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant William Kossman appeals, as limited by his brief, from (1) so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), entered November 30, 1993, as, upon a jury verdict finding him 95% at fault in the happening of the accident, is in favor of the plaintiff Carol Neary and against him in the principal sum of $34,000, (2) so much of an amended judgment of the same court, entered December 9, 1993, as is in favor of the plaintiff Patricia Neary and against him in the principal sum of $737,500, and (3) so much of an amended judgment of the same court, entered December 9,1993, as is in favor of the plaintiff Kathleen Neary and against him in the principal sum of $1,062,500.

Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgments are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

On June 13, 1988, the defendant William Kossman’s automo*567bile collided with an automobile driven by the defendant Victoria Vecchione at the intersection of East Meadow Avenue and North Jerusalem Road in Nassau County. The plaintiffs, Patricia Neary and Kathleen Neary, were passengers in the Kossman automobile.

Kossman contends that the jury’s verdict, finding him 95% at fault in the happening of the accident, was against the weight of the evidence. We disagree. It is well settled that issues regarding the credibility of witnesses and the accuracy of their testimony are primarily for the jury to determine, and its verdict should not be set aside if it could have been reached by any fair interpretation of the evidence *(see, Silva v Micelli,*178 AD2d 521; *Frangello v Namm,*157 AD2d 649). The evidence supports the finding that Kossman was 95% responsible for the accident as the jury could have found that Kossman drove through a red light into the intersection.

We find that the jury’s assessment of damages in the principal sum of $1,100,000 (which was reduced by a settlement with the defendants Richard Cicchillo and Mary Cicchillo) to Kathleen Neary and in the principal sum of $750,000 (which was reduced by a settlement with the Cicchillo defendants) to Patricia Neary did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation *(see,*CPLR 5501 [c]). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
No. 68889.

#### Rolcor Products, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/1469, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Nichols, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of ink pastes and varnish similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Marset, Inc.,*and *W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N.Y., Inc.*v. *United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 127, C.D. 2400), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained. Merchandise entered on and after July 1, 1958, is properly subject to a copper tax at 1.275 cents per pound under section 4541 (2), Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as modified by the Sixth Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 54108).
From: riley15@roadrunner.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:21:34 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,

Charlotte Riley

Van Wert, OH 45891
H. Res. 1514 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 28, 2008. 

Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule 

XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House 

is waived with respect to any resolution reported on the legislative day of September 28, 2008, or September 29, 2008. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Exhibit 32.1CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ENACTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of LNB Bancorp, Inc. (the Corporation) for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel E. Klimas, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted 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 results of operations of the Corporation.

|/s/ Daniel E. Klimas                  | 
|------------------------------------- | 
|Daniel E. Klimas                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|March 2, 2007                        

---
As the the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has

responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This

includes fostering sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife,

and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national

parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor

recreation. The department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to

ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging

stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The department also has a major

responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in

island territories under U.S. administration.

NPS D-5A / April 2004 / Printed on recycled paper
From: Mary Cobb

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 5:00:00 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,

Mary Cobb
Indianapolis, Indiana
From: rvthurman@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:01:48 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,

Raylene Thurman

, 2012
Before the Second Division,

March 30, 1965

No. 69199.

#### Lafayette Radio Electronics Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 62/17659 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of multitesters similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *G. L. Electronics, Inc., Arrow Sales, Inc.*(49 CCPA 111, C.A.D. 804), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1503 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 279
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1503

                          [Report No. 110-888]

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 25, 2008

    Ms. Castor, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the 
same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to any 
resolution reported on the legislative day of September 26, 2008, 
providing for consideration or disposition of a measure making 
supplemental appropriations for job creation and preservation, 
infrastructure investment, and economic and energy assistance for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.
                                                 House Calendar No. 279

110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 1503

                          [Report No. 110-888]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 25, 2008

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

Supreme Court Cause No. DA 22-0035

BROAD REACH POWER, LLC,

and

NORTHWESTERN ENERGY

Appellants,

v.

THE MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE REGULATION, 

MONTANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

Appellee.

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME

Appellants NorthWestern Energy and Broad Reach Power, LLC, having 

filed an Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time pursuant to Rule 26(1) of the 

Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure, and good cause appearing therefrom; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said motion is GRANTED. Appellants’ 

reply brief is due August 18, 2022. 

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 12 2022

07/12/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0035
No. 63268.

protests 58/24309(A), 58/23952(B), and 58/23952(C) (New York).

#### Mego Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that item No. 200, described as “Toy Rubber Pool 33" in diameter,” are not toys and that they are manufactured wholly or in chief value of india rubber, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.