alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 69645.

#### Polk’s Modelcraft Hobbies, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 62/16436 (B) (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of HO gauge railroad accessories similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Polk’s Model Craft Hobbies, Inc.,*
      *487
      *et al.*(47 CCPA 137, C.A.D. 746), except that the involved articles are in chief value of a type of plastic, not specially enumerated in the tariff act, which most resembles in use the metal railroad accessories in said O.A.D. 746, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 10.24

[*] Certain information in this document has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Confidential
treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portions.

AMENDMENT NO. 01

TO

diaDexus, Inc.

SERVICES AND SUPPLY AGREEMENT

This Amendment No. 01 is effective August 17, 2009 and is issued to change [*] Exhibit B, Pricing, as a result of additional testing efforts requested by diaDexus.

Accordingly, Exhibit B, Pricing, pages 17 and 18 of the SERVICES AND SUPPLY AGREEMENT, effective January 1, 2009, is replaced with the attached
Exhibit B, Pricing, pages 17 and 18, revised on August 17, 2009.

Except as specifically stated herein, all other terms, conditions and
provisions of the original Services and Supply Agreement, as amended, remain unchanged.



|                            |  |  |  |                              
|--------------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------
|DiaDEXUS, INC.              |  |  |  | DIAZYME LABORATORIES         
|                            |  |  |  | A division of General Atomics
|                            |  | 
|/s/ P. Plewman              |  |  |  | /s/ Anthony Navarra          
|Signature                   |  |  |  | Signature                    
|                            |  | 
|P. Plewman; President & CEO |  |  |  | Anthony Navarra,             
|(Name & Title of Signatory) |  |  |  | Senior Vice President        
|                            |  | 
|8/18/09                     |  |  |  | 8-16-09                      
|Date                        |  |  |  | Date                         



---



EXHIBIT B

PRICING

[*]

[*] Two pages have been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portion.
From: ellynherrick@netscape.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:14:09 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,

ellyn herrick

Miramar Beach, FL 32550
No. P68/478.

protests 66/26047, etc. (New York).

#### New York Merchandise Co., 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 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 3061), and that said merchandise is wholly or in chief value of iron or steel, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

THE RELATED GROUP, (f/k/a The ) Related Group of Florida), RELATED ) FLORIDA, INC., TRG- FT. MYERS, ) INC., and TRG OASIS (TOWER ONE), ) LTD., ) ) Petitioners, ) Case No. 2D18-16 ) v. ) ) OASIS TOWER ONE CONDOMINIUM ) ASSOC., INC.; WOLFBERG/ALVAREZ ) AND PARTNERS, INC.; CHM ) STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, LLC; ) BBL-FLORIDA, LLC; ACRES & SON ) PLUMBING, INC.; ALLEN CONCRETE & ) MASONRY, INC.; ADVANCE WATER ) TECHNOLOGY, CORP.; C.L.W. ) CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, INC.; ) CMC STEEL FABRICATORS D/B/A CMC ) REBAR FLORIDA; COASTAL FIRE ) PROTECTION, INC.; DISTINCTIVE ) FINISHES, L.L.C.; IBA CONSULTANTS, ) INC.; LOPEZ BROTHERS MASONRY, ) INC.; MCW ACQUISITION, LLC D/B/A ) METRO CAULKING & WATER ) PROOFING; POWER DESIGN, INC.; RC ) ALUMINUM INDUSTRIES, INC.; ) SOUTHLAND FORMING, INC.; WEST ) COAST FLORIDA ENTERPRISES, INC. ) f/k/a WEST COAST ROOFING & WATER ) PROOFING, INC. ) ) Respondents. ) )- 2 -

Opinion filed June 22, 2018.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Lee County; John E. Duryea, Judge.

Julissa Rodriguez, Michael Thomas, Christopher Barnett, Elliot H. Scherker, Bridgid F. Cech Samole, and Stephanie L. Varela of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Miami, and David B. Haber and Lauren S. Fallick of Haber Slade, P.A., Miami, (withdrew after briefing), for Petitioners The Related Group (f/k/a The Related Group of Florida), Related Florida, Inc., TRG-Ft. Myers, Inc., and TRG Oasis (Tower One), Ltd.

Jason R. Moyer and Hannah M. Tyson of Moyer Law Group, St. Petersburg, for Petitioner TRG Oasis (Tower One), Ltd.

Stacy D. Blank and Patrick M. Chidnese of Holland & Knight LLP for Respondent
Oasis Tower One Condominium Association, Inc.

No appearance for remaining Respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Denied.

NORTHCUTT, CRENSHAW, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6911
ARTHUR LEE BRANCH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONNIE INGRAM, Officer; DWIGHT KORNEGAY, Officer, Defendants - Appellees, and
LENOIR COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; KINSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; M. BOWEN, Officer, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-94-202-CT-BO) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 26, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Lee Branch, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Ray Wooten, WARD & SMITH, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees.23 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Branch v. Ingram , No. CA-94-202-CT-BO (E.D.N.C. Feb. 6 & Aug. 11, 1995; May 31, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Peter Sudarsky et al., Appellants, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 26]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered April 14, 1994, granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel, and denying plaintiffs’ cross-motion to file a late notice of claim or to deem prior filings to constitute a notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e, unanimously reversed, on the law, defendants’ motion denied, the complaint reinstated and the matter remanded for further proceedings, without costs.

The plaintiffs assembled eight contiguous buildings on East 52nd and East 53rd Streets in Manhattan for the purpose of constructing a 17-story residential building on the East 52nd *354Street site and renovating the three buildings on East 53rd Street. They contend that by reason of various actions or inactions, the defendants held up the proposed project until the area was downzoned, thus preventing the consummation of their plan and resulting in the sale of the parcel for $10 million, less than its fair market value before downzoning.

Plaintiffs initially sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging constitutional as well as Federal and State law claims. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ constitutional claim and the defendants were granted summary judgment on plaintiffs’ regulatory taking claim, basically on the ground that the matter was not ripe for adjudication inasmuch as there had not been a final determination by the local administrative agencies with respect to the issues and plaintiffs had not made use of the State court system in order to obtain compensation for the alleged taking, and dismissed plaintiffs’ pendent State claims under the abstention doctrine *(Sudarsky v City of New York,*779 F Supp 287, 299, *affd*969 F2d 1041, *cert denied*506 US 1084, *reh denied*507 US 980, *motion to vacate denied*1992 US Dist LEXIS 16557 [SD NY, Oct. 28,1992, Ward, J.], *reh denied*1993 US Dist LEXIS 53 [SD NY, Jan. 5, 1993, Ward, J.]).

Under the circumstances, the Federal court’s determination was not final and so could not be the ground for application of the doctrine of res judicata, although some aspects might have a collateral estoppel effect, which question can only be determined when all of the contentions are considered in a trial of the issues.

The cross-motion by plaintiffs to file a late notice of claim or to deem prior filings to constitute a notice of claim was denied on the ground of mootness in view of the granting of summary judgment to the defendants on the ground of res judicata. Accordingly, upon remand the cross-motion should be considered anew. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 17

- 00032

- CR

EX PARTE MICHAEL TIN G

- HUEI KUNG

From the 272nd District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 13

- 02265

- CRF

- 272

- A

ORDER

The State ’ s motion for exten s ion of time to file brief filed on May 23, 2017 is
granted. T he brief is due by Friday, July 7, 2017.

PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Order issued and filed May 31 , 2017
From: mygyro@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:38:06 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,

James Sutton

, 7)179
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of Sinocom Pharmaceutical, Inc., previously known as Tiger Acquisitions, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the "Report"), I, XueXiang Ai, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  /s/XueXiang AiXueXiang Ai, Chief Executive Officer March 19, 2009
From: dottymart@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:12:39 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am a nurse-- Univ. of Penna.-- and am appauled at the newest mandates requiring 100% participation

in providing medical care, and 100% participation in paying for this medical care -- on people and

organizations who are strongly, morally, religiously against such activities. In short, this is wrong.

As a young nurse I was forced to participate in and abortion, and was told to 'flush it away' -- I will

never forget the horror I experienced then, and to this day, as that tiny living thing was discarded with

blood and bodily waste. Those who haven't been there just don't know what they are talking about -- a

fetus -- you are kidding.

DO NOT MAKE ME PARTICIPATE IN SUCH ACTIVITIES. DO NOT MAKE ME PAY FOR THESE

ACTIVITIES, EITHER BY TAXES OR BY PAYING FOR MY EMPLOYEES MEDICAL CARE. THIS IS

INVASION OF MY BELIEFS, MY LIBERTIES.

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,

Dorothy Martin, RN

, 20853-1633
From: pearlyb51@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:10:13 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,

Shirley Bault

Corona, CA 92882
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of InfoTech USA, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jonathan F. McKeage, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|                             | /s/ Jonathan F. McKeage                                         |
|----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                             | Jonathan F. McKeage, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director |
| Date:  August 11, 2006 |                                                                 |
EX-99.B11-ggconsnt

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

United Gold & Government Fund, Inc.:

We consent to the use in Post-Effective Amendment No. 20 to Registration
Statement No. 2-96520 of our report dated February 7, 1997 appearing in the
Statement of Additional Information, which is a part of such Registration
Statement, and to the reference to us under the caption "Financial Highlights"
appearing in the Prospectuses, which are also a part of such Registration
Statement.



Deloitte & Touche LLP
Kansas City, Missouri
March 26, 1997
### Tabl e o f Content s Volum e On e 1 . Governor' s Lette r 2 . Attome y General' s Certificatio n 3 . Attorne y General' s Statemen t 4 . Demonstratio n o f

Adequat e Enforcemen t

Procedure s 5 . Memorandu mo f

Agreemen t 6 . Progra mDescriptio n 7 . Statute s an dRule s A . OR S 183.31 0 throug h 183.750 : Administrativ e Procedure s Ac t B . OR S 465.00 3 throug h 465.992 : Hazardou s Wast e & Hazardou s Material s I • OR S 465.20 0 throug

h 465.900 : Remova

l o r Remedia l Action C . OR S 466.00 5 throug h 466.995 : Hazardou s Wast e & Hazardou s Material s H • OR S 466.70 6 throug

h 466.995 : UndergroundStorag e Tanks D . OR S 468.00 5 throug h 468.997 : Environmenta l Quality Generall y • OR S 468.00 5 throug

h 468.140 : Enforcemen

t • OR S 468.963 : Audi

t Privileg e E . Orego n Administrativ e Rule s Compilatio n - 201 0 Editio n - Volum e 6 • OA R340-012-002 6 throug

h 340-012-0053 , 340-012-0067 , 340-012-0074 , 340-012-0170 : Enforcemen t Procedur e an dCivil Penaltie s F . Orego n Administrativ e Rule s Compilatio n - 201 0 Editio n - Volum e 7 • OA R340-122-020 5 throug

h 340-122-0360 : Cleanu

p Rule s fo r Leaking PetroleumUS T Systems • OA R340-12 2 Appendices : Gridfo r OA R340-122-0330(5)(c ) an

dTable fo r OA R340-122-0335(2 ) • OA R340-150-000 1 throug

h 340-150-0620 : Undergroun dStorag e Tan

k Rule s • OA R340-15 0 Appendice s A-L • OA R340-15 1 -000 1 throug

h 340-15 1 -0025 : Financia

l Responsibilit

y fo r UST S • OA R340-160-000 5 throug

h 340-160-0150 : Registration an dLicensing Requirement s fo

r Undergroun

dStorag e Tan

k Servic e Provider s • OA R340-162-000 5 throug

h 340-162-0150 : Registration an dLicensing Requirement s fo

r Undergroun

dStorag e Tan

k Soi l matri x Cleanu p Servic e Provider s an

dSupervisor s• OA R340-163-000 5 throug h 340-163-0150 : Registratio n an dLicensin g Requirement s for

Heatin g Oi l Tan k

soi l Matri x Cleanu p Servic e Provider s an dSupervisor s G . Orego n Cod e of

Civi l Procedur e 33 C • OA R690-240-000 5 throug h 690-240-0180 : Construction , Maintenance , Alteration , Conversio n an dAbandonmen t of Monitorin g Wells , Geotechnica l Hole s an dOthe r

Hole s i n Orego n H . Rule s of

Genera l Applicabilit y an dOrganizatio n • OA R340-01 1 -0545 : Burde n an dStandar do f Proo f i n Conteste dCas e Hearings ; Departmen t

Interpretatio n o f

Rule s an dStatutory Term s I . OA R837 , Divisio n 40 : Fir e an dLif e Safet y Regulation s
https://cdn.loc.gov/service/gmd/gmd6/g6831/g6831f/ct002505.gif[7/8/2016 2:45:54 PM]