alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert Christopher KETTENBURG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE; U.S. Government, the Federal Government of the United States of America, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-6254.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 7, 2001.

Before RALPH B. GUY, JR., BOGGS, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

Pro se Michigan resident Robert Christopher Kettenburg appeals a district court judgment that dismissed his civil suit as frivolous. The case has been referred to this panel pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. We unanimously agree that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

Kettenburg sued the University of Louisville and the United States government. He claimed, among other things, that the government caused him to be in a serious car accident and then arranged to have a “micro computer chip” placed inside his chest when he received surgery at the hospital at the university.

The district court dismissed Kettenburg’s suit as factually frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

On appeal, Kettenburg iterates his claims against the defendants and moves this court to expedite the appeal and to research and verify the factual basis for his claims on the world-wide web and through telephonic inquiries to the “National Security Agency.” The defendants have not been served and have not filed a brief.

We review de novo a judgment dismissing a suit under § 1915. *See McGore v. Wrigglesworth,*114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir.1997). A complaint is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. *See Neitzke v. Williams,*490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).

Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly considered and rejected Kettenburg’s claims. *See Denton v. Hernandez,*504 U.S. 25, 32, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992); *Neitzke,*490 U.S. at 327-28, 109 S.Ct. 1827; *Lawler v. Marshall,*898 F.2d 1196, 1199 (6th Cir.1990).

Accordingly, all pending motions are denied, and the district court’s judgment is affirmed for the reasons stated by that court in its August 15, 2000, opinion and *283order. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
From: estherbalos@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:18:48 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,

Esther VanDeusen

Santa Ana, CA 92707
From: darlenefburgii@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:38:52 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.

The bottom line is even worse --- you are destroying the young people with your services. You are

influencing them down the wrong path . . . their rights are taken away piece by piece as you show no

faith in them to "care for themselves."

Sincerely,

Darlene Burgi

, 8409 7
STATE OF WYOMING ATTORNEY GENERAL'S STATEMENT FOR FINAL AUTHORIZATION FOR CHANGES TO THE FEDERAL HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM PROGRAM REVISION 6 I hereby ce1iify, pursuant to my authority as Attorney General and in accordance with Section 3006(b) ofthe Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (42 USC 6901 et seq.), and 40 CFR 271, that in my opinion the laws ofthe State ofWyoming provide adequate authority to calTy out the hazardous waste program set fmih in the Revision 6 Program Description /Reauthorization Package submitted by the Wyoming Department ofEnvironmental Quality on April 28, 2015, and to meet the requirements of40 C

.F
.R
. Part 271, Subpaii A. The specific authorities provided are contained in statutes or regulations lawfully adopted at the time this Statement is signed and which are in effect now . The statutory authmities for Wyoming are documented in the State's RCRA Statutory Checklist, dated April 28, 2015, and attached to this statement (See Attachment A)

. In my opinion, statutes relied on in previously approved authorization applications have not been amended, modified, or revised by statute orjudicial decision in a way that diminishes or interferes with the authority to carry out the previously authorized hazardous waste prograi11 to meet the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 271 , Subpaii A

. The provisions for which Wyoming is seeking authorization are documented in the attached Revision Checklists

. Differences between the State's provisions and the Federal provisions are noted on the Revision Checklists. The official State regulations may be found in Chapter 1 ofthe Wyoming Depaiiment of Enviromnental Quality Hazardous Waste Rules and Regulations,
"General Provisions," effective March 18 , 2015. This ce1iification supplements my or my predecessor's certifications ofJuly 14, 1995 , December 9, 1997, and September 14, 2011. The State of Wyoming is authmized to adopt federal regulations by reference. Authority for incorporation by reference is contained in W.S

. § 16-3-103(h)

. However, the statute specifically prohibits prospective incorporation by reference. Under W.S

. § 16-3-103(h)(ii), the incorporating agency must identify the location and date ofthe incorporated matter and the rule must not include any later amendments or editions ofthe incorporated matter. Seal of Office

Name (Type or Print) 

## W 11o/lll 1

# ~, 

# A**l/~rn v** **&1t ~i.-** **I Titl** **~** 

# I
Region

ASBESTOS

WORKERS

 BOILER

 MAKERS LAYERS

 BRICK CARPENT-

 ERS

 CEMENT

 MASONS

 CRANE

OPERATOR

 ELECTR

 ICIAN

 ELEV.

 CONST

 IRON

WORKERS

 Region Averages

CONSTRUCTION LABOR RESEARCH COUNCIL

UNION WAGES AND SUPPLEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD 07/01/2008-07/01/2013

26-Jun-13

New England

Rate - 07/01/08 $52.80 $48.55 $49.15 $51.87 $64.94

Rate - 07/01/13 $60.90 $56.78 $52.95 $60.13 $77.60

Increase $8.10 $8.23 $3.80 $8.26 $12.66

Middle Atlantic

Rate - 07/01/08 $40.45 $51.61 $46.76 $44.54 $35.88 $50.97 $51.30 $58.82 $67.77

Rate - 07/01/13 $48.25 $62.95 $53.88 $51.67 $42.49 $59.78 $59.42 $71.52 $82.41

Increase $7.80 $11.34 $7.12 $7.13 $6.61 $8.81 $8.12 $12.70 $14.64

Southeast

Rate - 07/01/08 $31.99 $41.64 $28.76 $26.34 $32.83 $52.59 $34.90

Rate - 07/01/13 $36.18 $47.29 $31.38 $28.79 $35.96 $65.09 $37.42

Increase $4.19 $5.65 $2.62 $2.45 $3.13 $12.50 $2.51

East North Central

Rate - 07/01/08 $56.48 $50.12 $47.20 $45.68 $44.42 $44.25 $56.39 $61.10 $44.79

Rate - 07/01/13 $65.16 $58.95 $52.98 $51.88 $50.04 $51.43 $64.86 $73.80 $50.54

Increase $8.68 $8.83 $5.78 $6.20 $5.62 $7.18 $8.47 $12.69 $5.76

West North Central

Rate - 07/01/08 $50.37 $49.31 $41.47 $42.86 $40.04 $44.86 $57.60 $44.97

Rate - 07/01/13 $57.67 $58.57 $46.60 $49.73 $44.56 $52.64 $70.29 $53.47

Increase $7.30 $9.26 $5.13 $6.86 $4.51 $7.78 $12.69 $8.51

1
Region

ASBESTOS

WORKERS

 BOILER

 MAKERS LAYERS

 BRICK CARPENT-

 ERS

 CEMENT

 MASONS

 CRANE

OPERATOR

 ELECTR

 ICIAN

 ELEV.

 CONST

 IRON

WORKERS

 Region Averages

CONSTRUCTION LABOR RESEARCH COUNCIL

UNION WAGES AND SUPPLEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD 07/01/2008-07/01/2013

26-Jun-13

South Central

Rate - 07/01/08 $39.12 $27.08 $26.77 $30.60 $51.45

Rate - 07/01/13 $44.34 $28.53 $27.37 $34.31 $64.33

Increase $5.22 $1.45 $0.60 $3.71 $12.88

Mountain-Northern Plains

Rate - 07/01/08 $46.12 $54.58

Rate - 07/01/13 $56.59 $67.61

Increase $10.47 $13.02

Southwest Pacific

Rate - 07/01/08 $53.18 $45.32 $51.62 $46.62 $53.13 $47.43 $67.14 $54.55

Rate - 07/01/13 $66.35 $52.98 $57.75 $54.49 $62.72 $53.46 $79.86 $59.11

Increase $13.17 $7.66 $6.13 $7.86 $9.59 $6.03 $12.72 $4.56

Northwest

Rate - 07/01/08 $50.07 $45.52 $43.67 $48.38 $62.86 $50.13

Rate - 07/01/13 $61.34 $50.11 $47.95 $54.47 $75.53 $56.09

Increase $11.27 $4.59 $4.28 $6.09 $12.67 $5.96

U.S. Average

Rate - 07/01/08 $47.69 $47.20 $46.42 $45.06 $43.87 $46.76 $50.53 $59.32 $50.66

Rate - 07/01/13 $54.85 $55.88 $52.78 $51.26 $49.77 $54.22 $57.71 $72.02 $57.29

Increase $7.16 $8.69 $6.36 $6.20 $5.89 $7.47 $7.18 $12.70 $6.63

2
Before the Second Division,

July 20, 1967

No. P67/247.

#### Firestone Tire & Rubber Company *v.*United States, protests 65/12346 and 66/44470 (Norfolk).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the mer-

chandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of drawtwister machines and parts similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Allied Chemical Corp., National Aniline Division, and Alltransport, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 233, Abstract 68680, and 56 Cust. Ct. 880, Abstract 69811), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: ndaaho@roadrunner.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:24:00 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,

Naomi Aho

Warren, ME 04864
From: papaalbin@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:01:19 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,

Dale Albin

Arizona City, AZ 85123
No. 59712.

#### Pistorino & Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 272600-K (Boston).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended May 25, 1955, effective July 1, 1955, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Before the Second Division,

July 25, 1958

No. 62205.

#### Aluminum Import Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 220254-K, etc. (Detroit).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of aluminum alloys similar in all material respects to those the subject of C. *J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(45 C. C. P. A. 43, C. A. D. 670), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: Tom.Loarie@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:25:44 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,

Thomas Loarie

Danville, CA 94506
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 364 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                           May 3, 2007.
    Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1592) to provide Federal assistance to 
States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for 
other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived 
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the 
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed 
in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on 
Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against the bill, as 
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 1592 pursuant to this resolution, 
notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone 
further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the 
Speaker.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Before the Second Division,

December 2, 1964

No. 68911.

#### I. B. Cohen & Sons Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 63/20544 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cycle horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of G. *Joannou Cycle Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 172, C.D. 2253), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4701-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Tennessee (FEMA-4701-DR), dated April 7, 2023, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This change occurred on August 15, 2023.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Yolanda J. Jackson, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

This action terminates the appointment of Andrew D. Friend as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2023-21005 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P