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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 380 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 380

Resolution commending Idaho on winning the bid to host the 2009 Special 
                      Olympics World Winter Games.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2007

    Mr. Sali (for himself and Mr. Simpson) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Resolution commending Idaho on winning the bid to host the 2009 Special 
                      Olympics World Winter Games.

Whereas Special Olympics is an international nonprofit organization that 
        promotes personal development through sports training and competition;
Whereas Special Olympics advances the understanding of intellectual disabilities 
        through participation and fellowship in the Nation and around the World;
Whereas Special Olympics serves more than 2,500,000 individuals with 
        intellectual disabilities around the globe;
Whereas Special Olympics offers more than 205 programs in over 165 countries;
Whereas Special Olympics offers 30 Olympic-type summer and winter sports to both 
        children and adults with intellectual disabilities;
Whereas Boise, Idaho won the International bid to host the 2009 Special Olympics 
        World Winter Games to be held during February 6-13, 2009;
Whereas thousands of athletes are expected to compete in 7 winter sports in the 
        2009 Special Olympics World Winter Games; and
Whereas the 2009 Special Olympics World Winter Games will be the largest multi-
        sport event ever held in the State of Idaho: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives--
            (1) applauds the goals and principles of Special Olympics;
            (2) salutes the athletes, coaches, family members, friends, 
        and volunteers that make Special Olympics World Winter Games 
        possible;
            (3) congratulates the State of Idaho as the host for the 
        2009 Special Olympics World Winter Games; and
            (4) supports the 2009 Special Olympic World Winter Games 
        and the goals of the Special Olympics to enrich the lives of 
        people with intellectual disabilities through sports.
                                 <all>
```
From: mandmwhitt@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:56:01 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,

MARCUS WHITT

Mullens, WV 25882
H. Res. 393 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 10, 2007. 

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are 

hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS: Mr. Calvert. 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES: Mr. Shuster, to rank 

after Mr. Franks of Arizona. 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr. McCotter. 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Mr. Bilirakis. 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES: Ms. Fallin and 

Mr. McCarthy of California. 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM: Mr. Jordan of Ohio. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 18, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00579

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.J.R., A CHILD

From the 45th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020PA02365

Honorable Nicole Garza , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal of an order terminating appellant’s parental rights which must be disposed of by this court within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. T EX

. R.

J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2. The reporter’s record was originally due September 19, 2022, but was not filed. On October 3, 2022, we ordered the court reporter , David J. Laurel, to file the reporter’s record by October 13, 2022, but it was not filed. On October 1 8 , 2022

, we ordered Mr. Laurel to file the reporter’s record by October 2 8, 2022. On October 27, 2022, Mr. Laurel notified this court that the reporter’s record was not filed because appellant failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the record and appellant is not entitled to appeal without paying the fe e for preparation of the reporter’s record

.

On October 28, 2022, we advised Mr. Laurel that appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the fee for preparation of the reporter’s record and we ordered Mr. Laurel to file the reporter’s record by November 7, 2022 . Again

, the reporter’s record was not filed.

On November 16, 2022

, Mr. Laurel filed a second notice of late record explaining

“ N otice of appeal was delivered to me within the past month; it remains unpaid. ” Appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the fee for preparation of the reporter’s record.

I t is ORDERED that David J. Laurel file the reporter’s record in this court no later than November 28, 2022

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.3(c)

. If the record is not received by such date, an order will be issued directing Mr

. Laurel to appear before this court in person and show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failing to file the record. The clerk of this court shall cause a copy of this order to be served on Mr. Laurel by certified mail, return receipt requested,

or give other personal notice of this order with proof of delivery. Because “[t]he trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed,”

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.3(c), the clerk of the court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the

Honorable Nicole Garza , Judge of the 37 th Judicial District Court.It is so ORDERED on November 2022.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

________ ________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, CLERK OF COURT
No. 61519.

#### Moscahlades Brothers, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 320738-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (SM)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

 

Registration No.  333-59540

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  210				Trade Date: 08/15/02
(To Prospectus Supplement & Prospectus dated

  June 1, 2001)							Issue Date:  08/20/02
The Date of this Pricing Supplement August 16, 2002
SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

  CUSIP									Date and terms of redemption or

     or	Stated				             Interest			repayment (including any

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

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

14911QJT9   4.40%	08/15/08	     100%	       1.00%                Semi-Annually	     YES	    NO	

Principal						1st Payment	Day	

Amount		Proceeds		Dealer		      Date		Count

$4,616,000.00	$4,569,840.00	ABN AMRO Inc.	   02/15/03		30/360	
 

Original Issue Discount Note:					Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes	  X   No						N/A

 

 
- The interest rates on the PowerNotes (SM) 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 (SM) offered prior to the effective date of the change.   Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $676.877 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (SM) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (SM) will be made under a Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated June 1, 2001.
Additionally, the total principal amount of PowerNotes(SM) offered by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation pursuant to its Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated June 1, 2001 has been increased from $500.0mm to $750.0mm.  $250.0mm principal amount of debt securities registered pursuant to Registration Statement No. 333-59540 originally offered by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation pursuant to its Prospectus Supplement dated June 15, 2001 and related Prospectus dated May 25, 2001 are being offered as PowerNotes(SM) by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation pursuant to its Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated June 1, 2001.
- 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.
Number of 

water-budget 

subareas

Area 

(square 

miles)

Mean recharge as 

a percentage of 

water input1

Number of 

water-budget 

subareas

Area 

(square 

miles)

Mean recharge as 

a percentage of 

water input1

Number of 

water-budget 

subareas

Area 

(square 

miles)

Mean recharge as 

a percentage of 

water input1

Open native forest (outside fog zone) 729 2.43 13.9 0 – – 0 – –

Closed native forest (outside fog zone) 0 – – 0 – – 0 – –

Alien and mixed forest (outside fog zone) 0 – – 0 – – 0 – –

Open native forest (inside fog zone) 1,041 7.32 26.7 0 – – 0 – –

Closed native forest (inside fog zone) 11 0.05 41.2 0 – – 0 – –

Alien and mixed forest (inside fog zone) 0 – – 0 – – 0 – –

Shrubland 3,626 83.46 56.0 0 – – 0 – –

Agriculture: Macadamia 0 – – 0 – – 0 – –

Coffee 0 – – 0 – – 0 – –

Diversified 0 – – 0 – – 0 – –

Forest (eucalyptus) 0 – – 0 – – 0 – –

Fallow/Grassland 0 – – 0 – – 0 – –

Golf course 0 – – 185 0.92 9.9 0 – –

Low-intensity developed 5 <0.005 10.9 1,191 2.28 9.2 0 – –

High-intensity developed 192 0.25 54.9 0 – – 0 – –

Grassland 1,822 23.09 17.7 0 – – 0 – –

Sparsely vegetated 3,935 198.91 60.8 0 – – 0 – –

Wetland vegetation 0 – – 0 – – 0 – –

Water body2 56 0.09 – 0 – – 0 – –

2

Recharge was not calculated using the water-budget model (see USGS SIR 2011–5078, p. 28).

1

Recharge as a percentage of water input was calculated for each subarea using the formula: [(recharge - direct recharge)/(rainfall + fog + irrigation)] x 100. Values for each subarea in a particular land-cover category were then multiplied 

by the area and summed, and that sum was then divided by the total area of that category to obtain a mean. Direct recharge is described in USGS SIR 2011–5078.

Table S-8. Estimated mean annual groundwater recharge as a percentage of water input for baseline conditions in the Northwest Mauna Loa aquifer sector of the Island of Hawai‘i, compiled by 

land-cover type and precipitation amount (refer to USGS SIR 2011–5078).

[<, less than; –, not applicable; water input is defined as the sum of mean annual rainfall, fog, and irrigation; baseline conditions are defined as 2008 land cover and mean annual rainfall for the period 1916–83; the 

Northwest Mauna Loa aquifer sector consists of the ÿAnaehoÿomalu aquifer system and is defined by the Hawai‘i Commission on Water Resource Management (see 

http://www.state.hi.us/dlnr/cwrm/mapsillustrations/gwhu_hawaii.pdf); reported mean recharge is an area-weighted average; no distinction is made between fog and non-fog conditions for shrubland, coffee, and 

eucalyptus forest plantations]

Land-cover description

Mean annual rainfall plus fog equal to 40 

inches or less

Mean annual rainfall plus fog greater than 40 

inches and less than 80 inches

Mean annual rainfall plus fog equal to 80 

inches or greater
From: DAD013@AOL.COM

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:18:47 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,

Myron GONALAKIS

, 34119-1331
From: itsmesteph11@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:15:56 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,

Stephenie Weissinger

Deer Park, TX 77536
No. 62737.

#### Inter Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 325488-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hand saws, valued over 5 cents each, and that they are not household utensils, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
yearID sourceTypeID sourceTypePopulation

2009 11 166 2009 21 2184 2009 31 1588 2009 32 529 2009 41 4 2009 42 2 2009 43 30 2009 51 4 2009 52 137 2009 53 17 2009 54 34 2009 61 67 2009 62 78
#### Casey Lee JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Theodore KULONGOSKI; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-35752.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 12, 2005.

*646Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Casey Lee Johnson, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act, and several constitutional amendments. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo summary judgment. *Barnett v. Centoni,*31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. See *Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa,*49 F.3d 583, 584 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam).

With respect to defendants Kulongoski, Reed, Meyers, de Haan, Morrow, Hill, and Belleque, the district court properly granted summary judgment because Johnson attempted to base their liability on a respondeat superior theory. *See Taylor v. List,*880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Johnson’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims because he failed *647to raise a germine issue of material fact as to whether the remaining defendants denied him the benefit of any services, programs, or activities on the basis of his disability. *See Duffy v. Riveland,*98 F.3d 447, 454-55 (9th Cir.1996).

To the extent Johnson claimed that he was denied access to the courts, summary judgment was proper because he failed to present evidence that he suffered actual injury to “contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim.” *Lewis v. Casey,*518 U.S. 343, 348, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996).

Because Johnson could have asserted his Eight Amendment claim in his prior federal civil rights action and failed to do so, the district court did not err by dismissing this claim on the grounds of res judicata. *See Clark v. Bear Stearns & Co.,*966 F.2d 1318, 1320-21 (9th Cir.1992).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson’s motion for appointment of counsel because he did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances. *See Terrell v. Brewer,*935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991).

Contrary to Johnson’s contention, the district court gave him fair notice of the requirements for responding to a motion for summary judgment. *See Rand v. Rowland,*154 F.3d 952, 960-61 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc).

All remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
From: buttawbar@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:43:21 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,

Tom Razz

Belleville, NJ 07109