alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 63337.

protests 259812-K and 261693-K (New York).

#### Jules Orteig, Ltd. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C.C.P.A. 112, C.A.D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
#### Dennis Burns, Respondent, v. Henry Winchell, Appellant.

—Judgment and order reversed, ana

new trial ordered in the Onondaga County Court, with costs to abide the event. Followed Wright v. Bank of Metropolis. — Manuscript opinion of Hardin, P. J., January Term, 1885.
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Leonard F. Ferro, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Collins & Aikman Floorcoverings, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does 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 the report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in
the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|Date: June 13, 2005                       
|                                          
|/s/ Leonard F. Ferro                      
|Leonard F. Ferro                          
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|(Principal Financial & Accounting Officer)
02/03/2010 18:33 FAX 2024835142 FAA

.. OMS 141001/004



# ,**~,~I/;aCIVEr~;** 

# R

'\. Lf-l'**,;~'"** L-**~** ,""""" !""". U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION



### FEDERAL AVIATION 

### ADMINISTRATION

### JA!"~ 

### 2**~** 

### 2010 OFFTCEOF HEARINGS 

## HEJ\R.tNG DOCKeT

WASHmGTON, D.C. hlthe Matter ofPiedmont Airlines, Inc. FAA DocketNo. CP08S00010



### AGENCY'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARTNG
COMES NOW the Agency) by and through its designated representative, the Regional Counsel for the Eastern Region and his duly designated agents, and moves for a continuance ofthe hearing in this case, which is scheduled for April 6, 2010 

### in Washington, D.C. The basis for this motion is that the Agency's representative. the undersigned, 

### will not be available on April 6 due to religious observance (Passover). Counsel for Respondent,

.Maren L. Matal, has indicated that she has no objection to continuance ofthe hearing. Widl respect to rescheduling the hearing, 1he parties agree that May 26, 2010 would be amutually convenient date. WHEREFORE, the Agency requests thatthis motion be granted and thatthe hearing

102/03/2010 18:33 FAX 2024935142 FAA .,. OMS 002/004



### be continued. Respectfully submitted, Alfred R. Jolmson, Jr. 

### Regional Counsel

Date: By: 

# z;.cIwyJil

# ~ Attorney Federal Aviation Adrninisn"ation 1

### Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 Telephone: 718 553-3258 

### Facsimile: (718) 995-5699

202/03/2010 1B:33 FAX 2024935142 FAA + OMS III 003/004

CERTIFICATE OF 

### SERVICE [ hereby certi1)r 

### that on 

### this day copies of

### the foregoing 

### Agency's Motion for 

### Continuance was sent

### viafirst class mail and facsimile, addressed as follows: 

### Maren L. 

### Matal, Esq. US Airways 1401 HStreetNW, Suite 1075 

### Washington, DC 20005 Telefax: (202)326-5162 MarkW. 

### Atwood Alison B. 

### Macdonald Sher & BlackwelL LLP 1850 M Street, N.W. 

### Waslrington, DC 20036 

### Telefax: (202)463-4950 

### The Honorable Isaac D. Ben1cin, Administrative 

### Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 

### U.S. Department of

### Transportatioll 1200 New Jersey Avenue) 

### S.E. East Building Growld 

### Floor, Room 

### E12-320 Washington, DC 20590 Telefax: (202)366-7536 

### I hereby certify 

### that on this day 

### copies ofthe foregoing Agency's 

### Motion for 

### Continuance was sentvia first 

### class mail, addressed as follows: 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 lndependence 

### Avenue, S.W. Washinbrton, D.C. 

### 20591

3

## ----- 02/03/2a10 18:33 FAX 2024835142 FAA -l' OMS 004/004



### Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur WrightBuilding

- Suite 2WIOOOO


### JAN 1 3 2010

# .~**//~;** Date: ." .,**~;7-4~.** 

### Hooks L' 

### Paralegal Specialist Office ofRegional Counsel 

### 1 Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434

4
Case 3:05-cr-05651-FDB Document 8 Filed 09/09/05 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2099

JERRY L. BISHOP, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PEPPERTREE RESORTS, LTD., a/k/a Equivest Resorts Incorporated, a/k/a Equivest Finance, a/k/a Equivest Financial, Incorporated, a/k/a Equivest, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Dist rict Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-01-87-1-T) Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: March 13, 2003 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry L. Bishop, Appellant Pro Se. Earl Thomison Holman, ADAMS, HENDON, CARSON, CROW & SAENGER, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jerry L. Bishop appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to the Defendants in his age discrimination and retaliation suit and denying reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the re asoning of the district court. See Bishop v. Peppertree Resorts, Ltd. , No. CA-01-87-1-T (W.D.N.C. July 25, 2002; Aug. 27, 2002). 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.

AFFIRMED
No. 64542.

#### C. J. Wahlers *v.*United States,

protest 60/4014 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, O. J.

The protest was dismissed.
No. 63319.

protest 297874-K/8495 (Chicago).

#### Gallagher & Ascher Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as the articles involved in Abstract 61736, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 60170.

protests 952895-G, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### California Mill Supply Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that 20 percent of the merchandise consists of rags used chiefly for papermaking, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained with respect to said 20 percent of the merchandise.
Before the First Division,

August 23, 1966

No. P66/200. —

#### Paul E. Sernau, Inc. *v.*United States, protest 65/4915 (New York).

Oliver, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of plastic stir sticks similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Border Brokerage Co.*v. *United States*(51 Cust. Ct. 247, Abstract 68090), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: centralpoint@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:37:24 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,

Barbara Mallon

Anaheim, CA 92804
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement on Form N-1A of our report dated February 26, 2008, relating to the
financial statements and financial highlights which appears in the December 31,
2007 Annual Report to Shareholders of Delafield Fund, Inc, which is also
incorporated by reference into the Registration Statement. We also consent to
the references to us under the headings "Financial Highlights", "Counsel and
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm" and "Financial Statements" in
such Registration Statement.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
New York, New York
April 28, 2008
#### In the Matter of Haki Kurtish, Appellant, v James Recore, as Director of Temporary Release Programs of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 85]

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Canfield, J.), entered November 14, 1994 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review two determinations of respondent denying petitioner’s requests to participate in an industrial training program and a work release program.

Petitioner is currently serving a prison term of 8 to 24 years upon a conviction of manslaughter in the first degree. He commenced this proceeding challenging the denial of his requests to participate in an industrial training program and a work release program. Initially, inasmuch as petitioner is now statutorily ineligible to participate in a work release program due to his conviction of manslaughter in the first degree *(see,*L 1994, ch 60, § 42), he is not entitled to any relief with regard to this request *(see, Matter of McCormack v Posillico,*213 AD2d 913). However, because there is no statutory bar to petitioner’s participation in an industrial training program *(see,*L 1994, ch 60, § 42; *see also, Matter of Diggins v Recore,*163 Misc 2d 607), we are compelled to review the merits of this claim.

Petitioner was denied participation in the industrial training program because of "the extremely violent nature” of the crime he committed. Given that participation in temporary release programs is a privilege *(see, Matter of Szucs v Recore,*209 AD2d 803), we do not find that the denial of petitioner’s request based upon the seriousness of his crime was irrational *(see, Matter of Bell v Posillico,*213 AD2d 959). We have considered petitioner’s equal protection argument and find it to be without merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 1001-1014), the Director, National Institutes of Health (NIH) announces the establishment of the Social and Community Influences on Health Integrated Review Group (IRG) as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 282(b)(16), section 402(b)(16) of the Public Health Service Act, as amended.

The Director, NIH, has determined that the Social and Community Influences on Health IRG is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on NIH by law, and that these duties can best be performed through the advice and counsel of the committee.

The committee provides advice and recommendations on funding applications and proposals, including but not limited to, the scientific and technical merit of applications for grants-in-aid for research, research training, or research-related grants and cooperative agreements, or contract proposals relating to scientific areas relevant to social, interpersonal, community, and cultural influences on health, development, and well-being across the life span.

                    Inquiries may be directed to Claire Harris, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 1000, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 (Mail code 4875), Telephone (301) 496-2123, or                     *Claire.Harris@nih.gov.*

Dated: September 21, 2023.

Lawrence A. Tabak,

Acting NIH Director, National Institutes of Health.

[FR Doc. 2023-21234 Filed 9-27-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
From: donna.smith@thielekaolin.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:19:11 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,

Donna Smith

Sandersville, GA 31082
#### Alma Ignacio ALMODIEL, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 99-70815.

INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 9, 2001.*

Decided July 11, 2001.

Before HUG, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Alma Ignacio Almodiel (“Almodiel”) entered the United States on September 30, 1989. She was served with an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) on December 14, 1995, and conceded deportabihty at a hearing before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) on May 2, 1996. On October 18, 1996, the IJ denied Almodiel’s application for suspension of deportation because the IJ believed that she was statutorily ineligible for such relief under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), enacted on September 30, 1996. In particular, the IJ ruled that, under IIRIRA’s “stop-time rule,” *see*INA § 240A(d)(l), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(l), Almodiel had not accrued seven years of continuous physical presence in the United States before being served with an OSC. Almodiel appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed the IJ’s decision on June 8,1999.

In *Astrero v. INS,*104 F.3d 264 (9th Cir.1996), we held that the stop-time rule was not effective until the general effective date of IIRIRA on April 1, 1997. Therefore, when the IJ in this case applied the stop-time rule to Almodiel on October 18, 1996, he subjected her to the rule before its effective date. Following *Guadalupe-Cruz v. INS,*240 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir.2001), we therefore grant the petition for review, reverse the decision of the BIA, and remand with instructions to remand to the IJ. If Almodiel chooses to pursue her ap*660plication for suspension of deportation before the IJ, the IJ shall, in determining whether she is eligible for suspension of deportation, (1) apply the law as it existed on October 18, 1996, and (2) consider the current facts and Almodiel’s current circumstances.

PETITION GRANTED, REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOLEX INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee, and SEIKO INSTRUMENTS USA INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-1289.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 8, 2001.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company moves to voluntarily dismiss its appeal.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) All parties shall bear their own costs.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4346

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ERIC ANDRE FIELDS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Robert B. Jones, 

Jr., Magistrate Judge. (7:11-cr-00125-F-4)

Submitted: October 3, 2013 Decided: October 21, 2013

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Andre Fields, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eric Andre Fields appeals the district court’s 

pretrial detention order in his criminal case. The issue of 

pretrial detention is moot after a conviction. See Murphy v. 

Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481-82 (1982) (finding, in civil action 

seeking declaratory and injunctive relief related to denial of 

pretrial bail, that civil plaintiff’s “claim to pretrial bail 

was moot once he was convicted”). Because Fields was convicted 

long before this appeal was docketed, we lack jurisdiction to 

address his challenge to his pretrial detention.

Fields also moves, pro se, for release pending the 

resolution of his appeal of the underlying criminal judgment, 

pending in No. 12-4724. A defendant seeking release pending 

appeal must first move for such relief in the district court. 

See United States v. Hochevar, 214 F.3d 342, 343-44 (2d Cir. 

2000) (citing Fed. R. App. P. 9); 4th Cir. R. 9(b). Because 

Fields has not moved in the district court for release pending 

appeal, we deny the motion. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. We also deny Fields’ motion for release pending 

appeal, without prejudice to his ability to file such a motion 

in the district court. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED