alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:51:53 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,

G. Heynen
Before the First Division,

February 23, 1967

No. P67/41.

#### Joe King *v.*United States,

protests 59/9041-S, etc. (Laredo).

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of finger jointed moldings similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Best Moulding Corporation*v. *United States (Brown, Alcantar & Brown, Inc., Party in Interest)*(51 CCPA 7, C.A.D. 829), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: caseymy@archildrens.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:10:21 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,

Marian Casey

Roland, AR 72135
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      Exhibit 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                 State of Incorporation

            Name                                                 Incorporation
------------------------------                                   ---------------
<S>                                                              <C>
Cellcom Telephone Company, Inc.                                  Delaware
Car-Tel Systems Corp.                                            New Jersey
Cellcom Cellular Corp.                                           Delaware
Cellular Dynamics Telephone Company of Connecticut               Connecticut
Cellular Dynamics Telephone Company of Boston, Inc.              Delaware
Cellular Dynamics Telephone Company of Los Angeles, Inc.         California
Cellular Dynamics Telephone Company of San Francisco, Inc.       California
Cellular Dynamics Telephone Company of Maryland, Inc.            Maryland
Cellular Dynamics Telephone Company, Inc.                        Nevada
Racehorse Cell-Fone Corp.                                        Delaware
Cellular Dynamics Telephone Company of San Diego, Inc.           California
Cellcom Management Company, Inc.                                 Delaware
</TABLE>


                                       18
From: tnlms44@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:20:21 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.

Surely you realize the cost of this to our country...and I am not talking dollars I am talking rights.

Sincerely,

susan reichert

Collierville, TN 38017
Before the Second Division,

October 23, 1968

No. P68/445.

protest 60/15154 (New York).

No. P68/446.

protests 64/9954, etc. (New York).

No. P68/447.

protests 64/12083, etc. (New York).

#### I. B. Cohen & Sons Corp. *v.*United States, Traveler Trading Co. *v.*United States, William Shaland Corp. et al *v.*United States,

Bao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of miniature knives similar in all material respects to those the subject of *M. Pressner & Co. et al.*v. *United States*(49 Cust. Ct. 301, Abstract 67195), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-50017

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN CHAVEZ-ALDABA, also known as Isais Rivera-Aguilerra,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:12-CR-390-1

Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Juan Chavez-Aldaba appeals the 36-month, nonguidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegally

reentering the United States after having been removed. His sole claim on

appeal is that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

Because Chavez-Aldaba doesnot contend thatthe district court committed

any procedural error in imposing the sentence, our review is confined to whether

the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 9, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 13-50017 Document: 00512401698 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/09/2013
No. 13-50017

51 (2007). After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), sentences are

ordinarily reviewed for substantive reasonableness under an abuse of discretion

standard. United States v. Johnson, 619 F.3d 469, 471-72 (5th Cir. 2010). 

Because Chavez-Aldaba failed to challenge the reasonableness of his sentence

on the same grounds that he raises on appeal, however, we review the

substantive reasonableness of his sentence for plain error. See United States v.

Dunigan, 555 F.3d 501, 506 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d

389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). 

Chavez-Aldaba argues that the illegal reentry Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2

— which he contends has had a “problematic development” — double-counted

his criminal history and overstated the seriousness of his illegal reentry offense,

resulting in a guidelines range that was greater than necessary to satisfy the

sentencing goals of § 3553(a). Any argument that § 2L1.2 is not empirically

based is foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See United States v. Duarte, 569

F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009). Further, we have repeatedly rejected the

arguments that a sentence imposed pursuant to § 2L1.2 is greater than

necessary to meet § 3553(a)’s goals as a result of any double counting inherent

in that Guideline, see id. at 529-31, and that § 2L1.2 overstates the seriousness

of illegal reentry because it is an international trespass offense, see United

States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006). In addition, although

Chavez-Aldaba contends that there were mitigating factors for his reentry into

the United States, the district court did not fail to take those factors into

account.

Accordingly, because we find no error, plain or otherwise, the district

court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-50017 Document: 00512401698 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/09/2013
(R.D. 11495)

#### Mantell Export Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 827211, etc.

(Decided March 7, 1968)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

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

Watson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as follows:

> (1) That the appeals for reappraisement listed on Schedule “A”, attached hereto and made a part hereof, are limited to unlacquerecl second-quality wooden coat hangers exported from Yugoslavia, which items have been marked “A” and initialed ME (Import Specialist’s *791Initials) by Import Specialist Max Eisen (Import Specialist’s Name) on the invoices covered by the said appeals.

> (2) That the said merchandise is not identified in the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.E. 54521, effective February 27, 1958; that the merchandise was entered for consumption subsequent to the effective date of Section 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act, and was accordingly appraised under Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

> (3) That the issues and merchandise involved herein are in all material respects similar to those involved in *Mantell Export Company*v. *United*States, R.D. 11290, etc., decided April 12,1967; and that the record in the said case may be incorporated herein.

> (4) That on or about the dates of exportation of the said merchandise, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold, or, in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal markets of Yugoslavia, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, were $95.00 per thousand with respect to those shipments exported during the year of 1963, and $95.50 per thousand with respect to those shipments exported during the year of 1964, all less the pro rata share of the items of ocean freight and marine insurance premium as invoiced.

> (5) That the appeals listed on Schedule “A” may be submitted for decision on the incorporated record and this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such value was $95 per thousand with respect to those shipments exported during the year of 1963, and $95.50 per thousand with respect to those shipments exported during the year 1964, all less the pro rata share of the items of ocean freight and marine insurance premium as invoiced.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000874971
<NAME>                        BERTUCCI'S, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-5-1996
<CASH>                                           1,694
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      269
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        997
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,849
<PP&E>                                         121,179
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,151
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 101,079
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,361
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            44
<OTHER-SE>                                      66,197
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   101,079
<SALES>                                         98,043
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                98,043
<CGS>                                           24,925
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,925
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                62,933
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,007
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,240
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,214
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,026
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,026
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.23
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6695

JOSEPH EUGENE HOOVER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BUTCH JACKSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., District Judge. (1:10-cv-00168-WO-LPA)

Submitted: August 10, 2012 Decided: August 16, 2012

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Eugene Hoover, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, 

Assistant Attorney General, Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH 

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Eugene Hoover seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Hoover has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Hoover’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

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

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Orbit/FR, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ending September 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Dave Lubbe, Chief 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.

November 14, 2006

/s/ Dave Lubbe
------------------------
Dave Lubbe
Chief Financial Officer



                                       22
1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required
to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Principal
Life Income Fundings Trust 2008-033 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, do
not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is
included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.
    
    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this
report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing
agreement(s) in all material respects; and5.
    
    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.
   /s/ Dwight N. SoethoutDwight N. SoethoutVice President  Principal Life Insurance Company