alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7432

ERIC ERWIN COLLIER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-20-4-1-MU)

Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 14, 2001

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Erwin Collier, Appellant Pro Se. Mary D. Winstead, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Eric Erwin Collier seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief under § 2254. We dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction because Collier’s notice of appeal was not timely

filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district

court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App.

P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and

jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434

U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.

220, 229 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on March

29, 2000. Collier’s notice of appeal was filed on July 25, 2000.

Because Collier failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to

obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 193 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform in the One Hundred Tenth Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2007 

Mr. WAXMAN (for himself and Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform in the One Hundred 

Tenth Congress. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES. 

3 For the expenses of the Committee on Oversight and 

4 Government Reform (hereafter in this resolution referred 

5 to as the ‘‘Committee’’), including the expenses of all staff 

6 salaries, there shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts 

7 of the House of Representatives for committee salaries 

8 and expenses, not more than $22,876,214 for the One 

9 Hundred Tenth Congress. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 193 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS. 

2 Of the amount specified in section 1— 

3 (1) not more than $10,790,667 shall be avail4 able for expenses incurred during the period begin5 ning at noon on January 3, 2007, and ending imme6 diately before noon on January 3, 2008; and 

7 (2) not more than $12,085,547 shall be avail8 able for expenses incurred during the period begin9 ning at noon on January 3, 2008, and ending imme10 diately before noon on January 3, 2009. 

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS. 

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on 

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the 

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner 

15 directed by the Committee on House Administration. 

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS. 

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall 

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by 

19 the Committee on House Administration. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
From: ruthven@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:15:19 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,

Mary Ruthven

Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
United States
Securities and Exhange Commission
Washington, D.C.   20549

Form 12b-25

Notification of Late Filing

(Check one):
___ Form 10-K    __ Form 20-F   __ Form 11-K    ___ Form 10-Q    X  Form N-SAR

For the Period Ended:

12/31/96          

Part I - Registrant Information

Full Name of Registrant

Scudder Securities Trust
  Development Fund
        
Former Name if Applicable


Address of Principal Executive Office (Street & Number)

Two International Place
Boston, MA 02110
        

Part II - Rules 12b-25(b) and (c)

If the subject report could not be filed without  unreasonable effort or expense
and the registrant seeks relief pursuant to Rule 12b-25(b), the following should
be completed.

(a)  the resons  described in  reasonable  detail in Part III of this form could
     not be eliminated without unreasonable effort or expense.
                                           
(b)  The subject annual report,  semi-annual  report,  transition report on Form
     10-K, Form 20-F, 11-K, Form N-SAR, or portion thereof,  will be filed on or
     before the fifteenth calendar day following the prescribed due date; or the
     subject quarterly report transition report on form 10-Q, or portion thereof
     will be filed on or before the fifth  calendar day following the prescribed
     due date (XX)

(c)  The accountant's  statement or other exhibit required by Rule 12b-25(c) has
     been attached if applicable

Part III - Narrative

State below in  reasonable  detail the reasons  why the Form 10-K,  11-K,  10-Q,
N-SAR, or the transition  report or portion  thereof,  could not be filed within
the prescribed time period.

The registrant requests additional time to file form NSAR so that it can compile
the necessary information to file a complete and accurate document. (XX)

Part IV - Other Information

(1)  Name  and  telephone  number  of  person  to  contact  in  regard  to  this
     notification

     Thomas F. McDonough, Assistant Secretary
     (617) 295-2567

       
(2)  Have all other periodic  reports  required under Section 13 or 15(d) of the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or Section 30 of the Investment Company Act
     of 1940 during the preceeding 12 months been filed?

     Yes   


(3)  Is it anticipated that any significant change in results of operations from
     the corresponding  period for the last fiscal year will be reflected by the
     earnings  statements  to be  included  in the  subject  report  or  portion
     thereof?

     No 



(Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter) Scudder Securities Trust

has caused this notification to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned 
hereunto duly authorized.

Date:   2/5/97                                  By: John Lumbard
                                                /s/:John Lumbard
Before the Second Division,

August 28, 1961

No. 65989.

#### Frances Hirsch et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/11133, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that tbe issue is tbe same in all material respects as that tbe subject of *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), and tbe record showing that tbe merchandise consists of knit nylon gloves similar in use to silk gloves, tbe claim of tbe plaintiffs was sustained.
#### ASH GROVE CEMENT COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LAFARGE CORPORATION, a Maryland corporation, Defendant-Appellant, and LaFarge Clanda, Inc., a foreign corporation, Defendant.

No. 99-36071. D.C. No. CV-98-01155-JCC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.*

Decided June 18, 2001.

Before B. FLETCHER, BRUNETTI, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant LaFarge Corporation (“LaFarge”) appeals the district court’s award *512of $8,872.57 to Ash Grove Cement Company (“Ash Grove”) for reimbursement costs paid to Stoneway Concrete. The district court did not err in its findings of fact and conclusions of law. Implicit in the district court’s findings of fact is a determination that Ash Grove was under a legal obligation to reimburse Stoneway Concrete for its trucking costs. Because Ash Grove incurred a legitimate cost of operation as a proximate result of LaFarge’s negligence and is not merely asserting the rights of a third party, we hold that *Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint,*275 U.S. 308, 48 S.Ct. 134, 72 L.Ed. 290 (1927), is not implicated. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#            

# CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (R)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

Registration No.  333-109182

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  521                                                                   Trade Date:  12/20/04

(To Prospectus Supplement dated November 6, 2003 &

  Prospectus dated October 15,2003)                                                              Issue Date:   12/23/04

The Date of this Pricing SupplementDecember 20, 2004

SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

 CUSIP                                                                                                                                   Date and terms of redemption or

     or       Stated                                                                   Interest                                       repayment (includingany

Common  Interest                      Price to  Discounts &        Payment     Survivors                  applicable regular or special

  Code      Rate (1)   Maturity  Public (2) Commissions       Frequency       Option  Yes/No     record dates)

14911QXS5  4.00%          12/15/10        100%                0.95%             Semi-Annually               YES         NO                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Principal                                                                                 1st Payment             Day         

Amount                  Proceeds                  Dealer                           Date                   Count

$9,795,000.00         $9,701,947.50         ABN AMRO Inc.        06/15/05               30/360    

Original Issue DiscountNote:                                                                          Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes                X   No                                                                                  N/A

The interest rates on the PowerNotes (R) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (R) offered prior to the effective date of the change.  Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $265.574 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (R) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (R) will be made under the Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated October 15,2003.

Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

 

-----------------

 

**FORM 8-K**

 

**CURRENT REPORT**

 

Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

 

Date of report (Date of earliest event reported): April 26, 2005

 

----------------

 

**FIRST NATIONAL LINCOLN CORPORATION**

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in charter)

 

MAINE

(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)

 

0-26589                      01-0404322

(Commission file number)   (IRS employer identification no.)

 

Main Street, Damariscotta, Maine        04853

(Address of principal executive offices)  (Zip Code)

 

(207) 563-3195

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

 

 

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously

satisfy the filing obligations of the registrant under any of the following provisions:

 

[_]  Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)

 

[_]  Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)

 

[_]  Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))

 

[_]  Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4 (c))

 

 

 

 

**Table of Contents**

 

| Item 2.02 Results of Operations and Financial Condition | Page 1 |
|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|

 

| Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits | Page 1 |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|

 

| Signatures | Page 2 |
|------------|--------|

 

| Exhibit Index | Page 3 |
|---------------|--------|

 

 

 

 

 

**Section 2 - Financial Information**

 

Item 2.02 Results of Operations and Financial Condition.

 

On April 26, 2005, the Registrant issued the press release filed herewith as Exhibit 99.1 with information regarding the results of operations and financial condition of First National Lincoln Corporation for the quarter and three months ended March 31, 2005.

 

 

**Section 9 - Financial Statements and Exhibits**

 

Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.

 

(c)  Exhibits.

 

The following Exhibits are being furnished herewith:

 

99.1 Registrant's Press Release dated April 26, 2005.

 

 

 

 

**Signatures**

 

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

 

 

FIRST NATIONAL LINCOLN CORPORATION

 

By:  /s/ F. STEPHEN WARD

 

F. Stephen Ward

Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer

 

Dated:  April 26, 2005

 

 

 

 

**Exhibit Index**

 

| Exhibit Number | Description of Exhibit |
|----------------|------------------------|

 

| 99.1 | Registrant's Press Release dated April 26, 2005. |
|------|--------------------------------------------------|
#### Electa Town, Respondent, v. John King, Jr., Appellant.

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by

Bradley, J.;

Barker, J., not sitting.
From: sfmapes@frontier.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:35:48 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,

Faith Mapes

Ravenswood, WV 26164
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gainst Pierre, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 202]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Patterson, J.), rendered May 4, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of robbery in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt. There was ample evidence that the defendant and his accomplice consciously displayed something that could have been, and was, perceived to be a gun *(see, People v Lopez,*73 NY2d 214; *People v Baskerville,*60 NY2d 374). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]; *see, People v Broadhead,*179 AD2d 766; *People v Haney,*162 AD2d 613).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, it was not error to admit into evidence the icepick recovered from him and the candle recovered from his accomplice *(see, People v Scarola,*71 NY2d 769; *People v Roídos,*161 AD2d 610).

The defendant’s other contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Hines,*205 AD2d 468; *People v*
      *539
      *Proctor,*151 AD2d 788) or without merit *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.
No. P68/479.

protests 66/20041, etc. (New York).

No. P68/480.

protests 66/24420, etc. (New York).

#### Mahana Corp. *v.*United States, Canton-Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

Maletz, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of nodding head animals similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Wilson's Customs*Clearance, *Inc.*v. *United States*(59 Oust. Ct. 36, C.D. 3061:), and that said merchandise is wholly or in chief value of papier mache, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: dennis6@surewest.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:49:14 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,

Dennis Schoessow

Roseville, CA 95747