alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 62730.

#### Liberty Import Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 58/12387 (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of sprats in oil, packed in tins, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Arnold Sorensin Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 199, C.D. 1862), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 60138.

protest 168703-K (Detroit).

#### F. W. Myers & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “A” consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained as to said merchandise. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of frozen beef lungs and frozen *301beef melts similar to those the subject of *A. N. Deringer, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(32 Cust. Ct. 41, C. D. 1578), were held dutiable at 5 percent under paragraph 1558, as modified, *supra.*
From: mary@gilliam.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:03:13 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Mary Gilliam

Castle Rock, CO 80109
From: englanddon@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:46:01 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,

Don England

Mitchell, IN 47446
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-14-0001125 23-MAR-2016 07:46 AM
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





Eran
Gronich, the Secretary, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer and Director
of The Mobile Star Corp. (“Mobile Star”), certifies, under the standards set
forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and  results of operations of the Company.





(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.






THE
      MOBILE STAR CORP.By:
                /s/ Eran
      GronichName:
                Eran
      GronichTitle:
                Secretary
      and Director(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. P68/472.

protests 65/7537, etc. (New York).

No. P68/473.

protests 66/7925, etc. (New York).

#### Fred Bronner Corp. *v.*United States, Fred Bronner Corp. *v.*United States,

Maletz, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of “Models of Yesteryear” miniature vehicles similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Fred Bronner Corp.*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 428, C.D. 2832), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: janbhawley@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:14:05 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,

Janis Hawley

Cleveland, OH 44111
EX-10.18



 Exhibit 10.18 
 AGREEMENT 
 This Agreement is dated as of December 20, 2012 (the
“Agreement”) by and among             ,              and Xenonics Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the
“Company”). 
 RECITALS 
 A. Each of                      and
                     is the holder of a promissory note of the Company in the principal amount of $500,000 (together the “Company Notes”).
Each of the Company Notes provides that principal is due on December 31, 2012, and each of the Company Notes is secured by substantially all of the assets of the Company. 
 B. The parties have agreed to extend the maturity date of the Company Notes to January 15, 2013 upon the terms and conditions as set forth herein. 

C. Each of                      and
                     has agreed to lend the Company an additional $37,500 upon the terms and conditions set forth herein. 

AGREEMENT 
 NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants contained in this Agreement, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company,
                     and                     
agree as follows: 







 1.
                     and                     
each agree that, effective as of the Closing, the maturity date of the Company Notes shall be extended from December 31, 2012 to January 15, 2013. The Company Notes shall not be modified in any other respect and shall continue to be
secured by substantially all of the assets of the Company. 
 2. At the Closing,
                     and                     
each agree to purchase an additional $37,500 in principal amount of notes of the Company (the “Additional Notes”). The Additional Notes shall contain the terms and conditions set forth in the form attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.
Each of the Additional Notes shall provide for a maturity date of January 15, 2013, interest at the rate of 13% payable and shall be secured by substantially all of the assets of the Company. 

3. The Closing of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement shall take place on or before December 20, 2012. 

Signatures on following page 

  
 2 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of
the date first above written. 
  

			
	 
	
	 
	
	XENONICS HOLDINGS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 
		 	Alan M. Magerman
		 	Title: Chief Executive Officer



  
 3
No. 60482.

#### Earl Stewart *v.*United States,

protest 254998-K (Detroit).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

The protest was dismissed.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 7 659

EDWARD DANE JEFFUS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. S TEPHANIE HOLLEMBAEK , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III , Chief District Judge. ( 5:15

- hc

- 02240

- D )

Submitted : April 18, 2017 Decided: April 21, 2017

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Edward Dane Jeffus, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Edward Dane Jeffus appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
motion for relief from the court’s dis missal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jeffus v. Hollembaek, No

. 5:15

- hc

- 02240

- D (E.D.N.C. Oct. 5, 2016). 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.
AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 99.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Carter A. Lee, Principal Financial Officer of VaxGen, Inc. (the
"Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this
      certification is attached as an exhibit (the "Report"), fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

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


Dated: November 14, 2002                     /s/  Carter A. Lee
                                             ---------------------------
                                             Carter A. Lee
                                             Senior Vice President
                                             Finance & Administration
                                             Principal Financial Officer


                                       45
From: johndbwv@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:24:02 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,

John deBlecourt

Saint Albans, WV 25177
From: jim@townofgypsum.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:48:44 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,

Jim Hancock

New Castle, CO 81647
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-4333

___________ Craig Campbell, * * Plaintiff - Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. Spero Electric Corporation, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant - Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: May 14, 1998 Filed: June 11, 1998

___________ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. This is a diversity action by terminated sales representative Craig Campbell to recover unpaid com

missions from Spero Electric Corporation. The parties’ prior tenyear rela tionship is reflected in a September 6, 1985, letter from Spero’s presiden t addressed to Campbe ll in Maumelle, Arkansas, and stating, “This letter will officially ap point you as our representative for the state of Oklahoma .” (Emphasis added. ) Spero moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that it did not have the constitutionally requi site minimum contacts with the State of Arkansas. Campbell responded, arguing that the contract with an Arkansas resid ent was enough, and furtherThe HONORAB LE JIMM LARRY HENDREN, United States District Judge 1 for the Western District of Arkansas. -2- asserting without supporting evidence that the contract as per formed had included sales in Arka nsas and other Arkansas contacts. The district court granted the motion t o 1 dismiss because Camp bell “offers no evidence to support his contentions that [Spero] has tra nsacted business in Arkansas.” Campbell appeals, without first asking th e districtco urt to reconsider its decision or otherwise showing that he has, or coul d obtain through discovery, concrete evidence to support his contention that the contract was partially performed in Arkansas. After careful review of the record, we agree with the district court that this failure of proof is fatal to Campbell’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over Spero in Arkansas. Accordingly, we affirm, except that we modif y the dismissal to be without prejudice. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 5098

_____________________________
D ANIEL S TRADER ,
Petitioner
,

v.

M ARK S. I NCH , S ecretar y for the F lorida D epartment of C orrections
, Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

— Original Jurisdiction

.

March 11, 2019

P ER C URIAM

. The petition for writ of mandamus is denied on the merits.

W ETHERELL , O STERHAUS , and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Daniel Strader, pro se
, Petitioner

. No appearance for Respondent

.