alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 8,198.

#### LEE v. PATTERSON.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 199.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

April Term, 1820.

Clerk op Court — Attachment por Fees.

The clerk of this court may have an attachment for the non-payment of his fees.

[See In re Atlantic Mut. Life Ins. Co., Case No. G29.]

Mr. [E. JJ Lee, the clerk of this court, had obtained a rule on James D. Patterson, to show cause why an attachment of contempt should not issue against him for not paying fees due to the clerk. The rule having been served, and Mr. Patterson not having appeared, the rule was made absolute; Mr. Lee having made affidavit that he believed he was able to *pay.*

Mr. Taylor, for plaintiff,

cited Cadwell v. Jackson, 7 Cranch [11 U. S.] 27G, and 13 Vin. Abr. 153.
From: stieneke@ncn.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:46:37 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,

Leone Stieneke

Aurelia, IA 51005
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lamont BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-6631.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 21, 2001.

Decided July 5, 2001.

Lamont Brown, pro se. Janet S. Reincke, Office of the United States Attorney, Norfolk, VA, for appellee.

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Lamont Brown appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *United States v. Brown,*No. CR-94-100 (E.D.Va. Mar. 14, 2001). 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.*
From: jreeves1010@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:30:00 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Verna Justine Reeves

Baton Rouge, LA 70811
Case 3:05-cv-05591-RBL Document 22 Filed 05/02/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:05-cv-05591-RBL Document 22 Filed 05/02/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 472 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      October 22, 2007.
Whereas on April 21, 2007, the Wichita State University (WSU) women's bowling 
        team won the 2007 United States Bowling Congress (USBC) Intercollegiate 
        Bowling National Championship Tournament in Wichita, Kansas;
Whereas WSU, on the final day of the tournament, defeated Central Florida 
        University 4 games to 1 in the semi-finals and McKendree College 
        (Illinois) 2 games to 0 in the finals to win the national championship;
Whereas the WSU women's bowling team has won eight Intercollegiate Bowling 
        National Championships (1975, 1977, 1978, 1986, 1990, 1994, 2005, and 
        2007) and has advanced to the national tournament a record 31 times;
Whereas Head Coach Gordon Vadakin has coached the WSU bowling team since 1978, 
        leading them to the Intercollegiate Bowling National Championship 
        Tournament 29 times and has coached the team to six national titles;
Whereas Women's Coach Mark Lewis and Assistant Women's Coach Kristal Scott 
        directly coached the 2007 WSU women's bowling team to the national 
        championship in Wichita, Kansas;
Whereas both Head Coach Gordon Vadakin and Women's Coach Mark Lewis are members 
        of the USBC Hall of Fame;
Whereas the 2007 national championship team is comprised of the following 
        members: Daniela Alvarado, Ashley Cox, Elysia Current, Sandra Gongora, 
        Melissa Hurst, Samantha Linder, Emily Maier, Rocio Restrepo, Ricki 
        Williams, and Felicia Wong; and
Whereas WSU Juniors Elysia Current and Emily Maier were named as First Team All-
        Americans, and Maier was named as a member of the All-Tournament Team of 
        the 2007 Intercollegiate Bowling National Championship Tournament: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) congratulates and commends the Wichita State University (WSU) 
        women's bowling team for winning the 2007 United States Bowling Congress 
        (USBC) Intercollegiate Bowling National Championship Tournament;
            (2) recognizes the significant achievements of the players, coaches, 
        students, alumni, and support staff whose dedication and hard work 
        helped the WSU women's bowling team win the national championship; and
            (3) respectfully requests the Clerk of the House of Representatives 
        to transmit enrolled copies of this resolution to the following 
        individuals for appropriate display--
                    (A) Donald L. Beggs, President of Wichita State University;
                    (B) Gordon Vadakin, Head Coach;
                    (C) Mark Lewis, Women's Coach; and
                    (D) Kristal Scott, Assistant Women's Coach.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000874971
<NAME>                        Bertucci's Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    OCT-04-1997
<CASH>                            4,161
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                       233
<ALLOWANCES>                          0
<INVENTORY>                       1,077
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  7,953
<PP&E>                          127,131
<DEPRECIATION>                   31,144
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  102,049
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            11,445
<BONDS>                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                             44
<OTHER-SE>                       70,466
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    102,049
<SALES>                         104,644
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                104,644
<CGS>                            26,077
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    26,077
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 67,124
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  810
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   4,309
<INCOME-TAX>                      1,569
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               2,740
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                      2,740
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                         0.31
        

</TABLE>
From: jimrockireland@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:53:49 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 Rock

Henniker, NH 03242
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of Alkermes, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Richard F. Pops,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James M. Frates, 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, to my knowledge that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Richard F. Pops
                             -------------------
                             Richard F. Pops
                             Chief Executive Officer

                             /s/ James M. Frates
                             -------------------
                             James M. Frates
                             Chief Financial Officer
No. 68399. protest 63/16701 (New York).

#### Van Oppen & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

An examination of the papers in the case showing that the protest was not filed within the 60-day period provided by section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, the protest was dismissed as untimely.
IV 

House Calendar No. 71 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 463 

[Report No. 110–178] 

Dismissing the election contest relating to the office of Representative from 

the Fifth Congressional District of Florida. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 6, 2007 

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, from the Committee on House Administration, 

reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Dismissing the election contest relating to the office of Representative from the Fifth Congressional District of Florida. 

1 Resolved, That the election contest relating to the of2 fice of Representative from the Fifth Congressional Dis3 trict of Florida is dismissed. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

House Calendar No. 71 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 463 

[Report No. 110

–178] 

RESOLUTION 

Dismissing the election contest relating to the office 

District of Florida. of Representative from the Fifth Congressional 

JUNE 6, 2007 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer System for UltraLow-Emission Combustor Exhaust StudiesA gas chromatograph (GC)/mass spectrometer (MS) system that allows the speciation of unburnt hydrocarbons in the combustor exhaust has been developed at the NASA Lewis Research Center. Combustion gas samples are withdrawn through a water-cooled sampling probe which, when not in use, is protected from contamination by a high-pressure nitrogen purge. The sample line and its connecting lines, filters, and valves are all ultraclean and are heated to avoid condensation. The system has resolution to the parts-per-billion (ppb) level.Document ID19960045921Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsBrabbs, Theodore A.*(NYMA, Inc. Brook Park, OH United States)*Wey, Chowen Chou*(Army Research Lab. Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJune 1, 1996Subject CategoryAircraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberARL-MR-293NASA-TM-107253NAS 1.15:107253E-10152Accession Number96N32761Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-62-0ECONTRACT_GRANT: NAS3-27186Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19960045921.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MILTON DOWELL, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Civil Action No.: 10-0096 (RMU) : FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, : Re Document No.: 13 : Defendant. : MEMORANDUM OPINION G RANTING THE D EFENDANT ’ S M OTION TO D ISMISS AS C ONCEDED ; D ENYING AS M OOT THE P LAINTIFF ’ S M OTION TO A MEND H IS C OMPLAINT The plaintiff brought this action under the Privacy Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 552a, against the Federal Bureau of Prisons. On April 5, 2010, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss. See generallyDef.’s Mot. to Dismiss. On April 6, 2010, the court issued an order advising the plaintiff of his obligation under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of this Court to file an opposition to the defendant’s motion by May 7, 2010. Order (Apr. 6, 2010). The plaintiff was expressly advised that his failure to file a timely opposition could result in dismissal of the case. Id. To date, the plaintiff has neither filed an opposition nor requested an extension of time to do so. Rather, on April 27, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint, in which he failed to address the arguments for dismissal raised in the defendant’s motion. See generallyPl.’s Mot. to Amend. It is well settled that a plaintiff’s failure to respond to a motion to dismiss permits a court to grant the motion as conceded. See Fox v. Am. Airlines, Inc ., 389 F.3d 1291, 1294-95 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (affirming the district court’s dismissal of a complaint based on the plaintiff’s failure

1to file a timely response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss); Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia , 117 F.3d 571, 577 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (observing th at “[w]here the district court relies on the absence of a response as a basis for treating the motion as conceded, [the Circuit will] honor its enforcement of the rule”); see also Cooper v. Farmers New Century Ins. Co. , 607 F. Supp. 2d 175, 180 (D.D.C. 2009) (granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss as conceded based on the plaintiff’s failure to respond to arguments raised in the motion). Because the plaintiff failed to respond to the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the court grants the defendant’s motion as conceded. Furthermore, because this case is dismissed, the court denies the plaintiff’s motion to amend as moot. 1 An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued this 21st day of May, 2010.

RICARDO M. URBINA United States District Judge

1 In the alternative, the plaintiff’s motion to amend, which seeks to add the United States Probation Department as a party defendant, must be denied as futile. “United States Probation Offices are units of the federal courts and therefore are not subject to the Privacy Act.” Ramirez v. Dep’t of Justice , 594 F. Supp. 2d 58, 62 (D.D.C. 2009); see also Bowles v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons , 2010 WL 23326, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2010); Jefferson v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons , 657 F. Supp. 2d 43, 47 (D.D.C. 2009); Callwood v. Dep’t of Prob ., 982 F .Supp. 341, 342 (D.Vi.1997). 2
H. Res. 474 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 12, 2007. 

Whereas fathers factor significantly in the lives of children; 

Whereas fathers play an important role in teaching their children life lessons and preparing them to succeed in school 

and in life; 

Whereas children with involved fathers are more likely to do 

well in school, have a better sense of well-being, and have 

fewer behavioral problems; 

Whereas supportive fathers promote the positive physical, social, emotional, and mental development of children; 

Whereas promoting responsible fatherhood can help increase 

the chances that children will grow up with two caring 

parents; 

Whereas, when fathers are actively involved in the upbringing 

of children, the children demonstrate greater self-control 

and a greater ability to take initiative; 

Whereas responsible fatherhood can help reduce child poverty; 

Whereas responsible fatherhood strengthens families and 

communities; and 

Whereas Father’s Day is the third Sunday in June: Now, 

therefore, be it 
2 

•HRES 474 EH 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) commends the millions of fathers who serve as 

a wonderful, caring parent for their children; 

(2) calls on fathers across the United States to use 

Father’s Day to reconnect and rededicate themselves to 

their children’s lives, to spend Father’s Day with their 

children, and to express their love and support for their 

children; 

(3) urges men to understand the level of responsibility fathering a child requires, especially in the encouragement of the moral, academic, and spiritual development of children; and 

(4) encourages active involvement of fathers in the 

rearing and development of their children, including the 

devotion of time, energy, and resources. 

Attest: 

Clerk.