alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(R.D. 11482)

#### Parsons *&*Whittemore, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. M-2510.

(Decided January 30, 1968)

*Sharp, Solter & Hutchison*for the plaintiff.

*Edwin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> *773_ IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court :

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Orbit/FR, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the three and six months ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Israel
Adan, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted 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
Company.

August 15, 2005

/s/ Israel Adan
-------------------------------------
Israel Adan
President and Chief Executive Officer
From: lauriekyle@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:14:16 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,

Laurie Brown

Plano, TX 75023
From: prince@embarqmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:15:40 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,

Sue Cornthwaite

Camden, OH 45311
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 40227 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
OSCAR GARCIA

- HERNANDEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:14

- CR

- 72

- 1

Before DAVIS, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Oscar Garcia

Hernandez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Unit ed States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Garcia

- Hernandez h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 24 , 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-40227 Document: 00512946130 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2015No. 14

- 40227

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 14-40227 Document: 00512946130 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2015
No. 62729.

#### Adolph Goldmark & Sons Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 318989-K (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.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 19

- 00019

- CR
JUAN GABRIEL CERVANT ES , Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 361st District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 14

- 04555

- CRF

- 361

ORDER

Appellant’s Motion to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal was filed on January

1 4 , 2019. In the motion, appellant asserts that he was convicted on December 5, 2018, but
due to a mistake, did not timely file a notice of appeal. He also asserts that a notice of
appeal was filed with the trial court on January 1 4 , 2019, and attached a copy of the notice.
Appellant requests an extension of time to file the notice of appeal until the date it was

filed in the trial court.
Because the notice of appeal and the motion for extension of time were filed in theCervantes v. State Page 2

proper locations within 15 days after the date of the deadline for filing the notice of
appeal, a ppellant’s motion is granted. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 26.3.
Accordingly, appellant’s notice of appeal wa s timely filed with the trial court on January 1 4 , 2019.

PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray, and Justice Davis Motion granted Order issued and filed Ja nuary 23 , 2019
From: psuerairdon@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:59:48 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,

Susan Rairdon

Indian Hills, CO 80454
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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.

March 26, 2014

h0319 

# Order

Clerk March 26, 2014

147751

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147751

COA: 312020

Berrien CC: 2012

- 015106

- FH

JEFFREY GENE MILLER, 2012

- 015107

- FH

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 28, 2013 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

C AVANAGH

, J ., would remand this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration

as on leave granted.
No. P68/460.

protests 63/10519, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### The Mundo Corporation *v.*United States,

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of cast-iron fittings similar in all material respects to those the subject of *The Mundo Corp.*
      *661and *Arthur J. Fritz*& *Co.*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 303, C.D. 2640), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 60998.

protests 92411-K, etc. (New York).

#### Manevich & Vesely, Inc., and W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N. Y., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of kidskin or lambskin plates similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Prime Fur Corp.*v. *United States*(37 Cust. Ct. 83, C. D. 1802) and that the items marked “B” consist of goatskins similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Winograd Bros., Inc.*(32 C. C. P. A. 153, C. A. D. 302), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Mollison, J.,

dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1802, *supra.*
From: followingthecross@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:32:10 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,

Diana Kiihne

Greenville, SC 29605
From: flontim@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:04:49 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,

Flo Rasmussen

Julian, CA 92036
### Swanson , Bria n (OST) 

# l>£n^o9r^^^>od-^^f^' ^ From : Sent : To : Subject : Devany , Denni s (OST ) Thursday , Decembe r29 , 201 1 2:4 9 P M Swanson , Bria n (OST

) FW : mal<anika i ai r -^^/ M l ">' • O 

## 1 ^

From : Josep h Kaiama(ia)nDs.ao v["mailt o Josep h Kaiama(q)nps.aov 1 Sent : Thursday , Decembe r29 , 201 1 2:1 3 P M To : Devany , Denni s (OST ) Subject : RE : mal<anil<a

i ai r h i denni s sofa rmal<anika l ai rbe n ver ygood,ther e o n tim e an d consitent,Bria n th e pilo ti s respectfu l an d kin d t o th e peopl e here

. i a m a residen to fkalaupapa,an d wor k fo rth e park.w e wal k

u p thi s 2,00 0 foo t cliff,fo r1 0 yr.no wa s yo u kno wi t n o eas ytask , s o havin g a afordibl e ai rsevic e i s wonderfull

. than k you ! mahal o Josep h Kaiam a Wor k Leader , Histori cPreservatio n Kalaupap a Nationa l Historica l Par k 

### 808-567-6802ext.l40 1 fa x808-567-613 5
#### In the Matter of William Johnson, Appellant, v New York City Police Department et al., Respondents.

[632 NYS2d 568]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered April 5, 1995, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging respondents’ denial of access under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL; Public Officers Law art 6) to, *inter alia,*certain DD5 reports and police officers’ memo books, and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of remanding the proceeding to the IAS Court for the purpose of determining whether other materials sought by petitioner exist, and if so, whether they too are exempt from FOIL disclosure, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

We adhere to our decision in *Matter of Scott v Chief Med. Examiner of City of N. Y.*(179 AD2d 443, 444, *Iv denied*79 NY2d 758, *cert denied*506 US 891) that DD5 reports and police officers’ memo books are exempt from FOIL disclosure. Insofar as petitioner seeks certain other records, respondents’ concession that such should have been created if normal agency procedures were followed necessitates a remand for proceed*321ings to determine their existence and whether they are exempt from disclosure. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.
Exhibit
32


Certification
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted


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





In
connection with the Annual Report of BNH Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nehemya Hesin,
Chief  Executive and Financial Officer of
the  Company,  certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted 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 Company.





Date:
                February 16, 2011
                
                /s/
      Nehemya HesinNehemya
      HesinPresident,
      Treasurer and DirectorPrincipal
      Executive Officer and PrincipalFinancial
      and Accounting Officer