alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 58662.

protest 224638-K (New York).

#### Ungerer & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of camphor oil the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Orbis Products Corp.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 244, C. D. 1527), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION



<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 32.2



                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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  accompanying  Annual  Report on Form  10-K of  Bedrock
Energy,  Inc. for the year ended  December 31, 2008, I, Herbert T. Sears,  Chief
Financial  Officer,  Treasurer,  Director and  Principal  Accounting  Officer of
Bedrock  Energy,  Inc.,  hereby 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:

     a)   such Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bedrock  Energy,  Inc. for the year
          ended  December 31, 2008,  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
          section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     b)   the  information  contained  in such  Annual  Report  on Form  10-K of
          Bedrock  Energy,  Inc. for the year ended  December  31, 2008,  fairly
          presents,  in all  material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and
          results of operations of Bedrock Energy, Inc.


Date:  March 30, 2009


                                        /s/ Herbert T. Sears
                                        --------------------
                                            Herbert T. Sears, Chief Financial
                                            Officer, Treasurer and Director
                                            (Principal Accounting Officer)



This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
From: mitchyd@mac.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:06:09 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,

Carol Davis

Charlotte, MI 48813
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

The Ryan Company ) 

) 

Under Contract No. DACW69-02-C-OOO 1 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 58137 

Lawrence M. Prosen, Esq. 

Christian F. Henel, Esq. 

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP 

Washington, DC 

Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq. 

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 

Willie J. Williams, Esq. 

Bradley J. Stark, Esq. 

Engineer Trial Attorneys 

U.S. Army Engineer District, Huntington 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Pursuant to the request of the parties in their joint "STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL," 

dated 21October2016, this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

Dated: 2 November 2016 

J. REID PROUTY 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 58137, Appeal of The Ryan Company, 

rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
From: tcctinfo@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:11:02 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,

Kent Teague

Gastonia, NC 28054
No. 58661.

protest 189342-K (New York).

#### Dodge & Olcott, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of camphor oil the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Orbis Products Corp. v. United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 244, C. D. 1527), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 174-5 Filed 09/20/04 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 174-5 Filed 09/20/04 Page 2 of 2
From: Dboeve1@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:36:55 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,

Karen Boeve

Holland, MI 49424
Before the Second Division,

December 29, 1954

No. 58651.

protest 229612-K (New York).

#### Ernest L. Frankl Associates *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

An examination of the papers in this case disclosed nothing which would tend in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the decision of the collector. The protest was therefore overruled.
From: ddwaldopark@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:52:46 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,

Dianna Kane

Raymore, MO 64083
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Booth Creek Ski Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, as the President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



September 13, 2004



By:

/s/ CHRISTOPHER P. RYMANChristopher P. RymanPresident and Chief Operating Officer
From: myount@cardinals.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:40:16 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,

Melody Yount

Saint Louis, MO 63125
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Douglas J. Mattscheck, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of AGY Holding Corp. (the Registrant);

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 this 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 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 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: March 31, 2010                 
|                                     
|/s/ Douglas J. Mattscheck            
|Douglas J. Mattscheck                
|Chief Executive Officer and President
|(Principal Executive Officer)
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed September 11, 2014.

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 1 3
- 00 912
- CR
DARIN RAMONE THOMAS , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the Crimina l Distri ct Court No. 1 Dallas Coun ty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F 12
- 58074
- H



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices O’Neill, Lang

- Miers, and Brown Opinion b y Justice O’Neill Darin Ramone Thomas waived a jury and pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon

. See T EX
. P ENAL C OD E A NN
. § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011) . The trial court assessed punishment at fourteen years’ imprisonment

. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which s he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirement s of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 811

– 12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Co unsel delivered a- 2

- copy of the brief to appellant. See Kelly v. State , 2014 WL 2865901 (Tex. Crim. App. June 25, 2014) (identifying duties of appellate courts and counsel in Anders cases). Appellant filed a pro se response raising several issues After re viewing counsel’s brief, appellant’s pro se response, and the record, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 82 6

– 2 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We find not hing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/Michael J. O'Neill/ MICHAEL J. O’NEILL JUSTICE Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 130912F.U05- 3

- 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** 

JUDGMENT

DARIN RAMONE THOMAS , Appellant
No. 05

- 13

- 00912

- CR V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F12

- 58074

- H). Opinion delivered by Justice O’Ne ill, Justices Lang

- Miers and Brown participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED

.

Judgment entered September 11, 2014.
#### Dennis LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNDERHILL WIPING CLOTH, Rural Metro Ambulance, Defendants, United States of America, City of Buffalo, City of New York, CCNY, Dime Savings Bank, RJD Security Co., FJC Security Service, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 00-6374.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

July 11, 2001.

Dennis Lee, New York, NY, pro se.

Edward F.X. Hart, Assistant Corporation Counsel, for Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY.

Andrew D. O’Toole and Gideon A. Schor, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Mary Jo White, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY.

David R. Hayes, Assistant Corporation Counsel, for Michael B. Risman, Corporation Counsel of the City of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.

Present MINER, LEVAL, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

Dennis Lee appeals from a judgment dismissing his amended complaint. We find no error in the district court’s decision that much of Lee’s claim has already been dismissed with prejudice. *See Lee v. United States,*No. 98 Civ. 7883(SAS), 1999 WL 335830 (S.D.N.Y. May 25, 1999). In any event, his amended complaint did not comply with the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.
Order entered June 20, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00817-CV

DAYDRICK NORRIS, Appellant

V.

TRANS AM SFE II LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-02790-D

ORDER

Before the Court are appellant’s June 17, 2019 motions. The motions are accompanied 

by a copy of appellant’s original brief. By the motions, appellant, who is pro se, appears to be 

seeking a thirty-day extension of time to file an amended brief that corrects deficiencies we 

identified in his original brief. Appellant explains he would like to have an attorney review the 

amended brief to ensure it complies with the briefing requirements. 

We GRANT the motion and ORDER the amended brief be filed no later than July 22, 

2019. We note the amended brief was first due April 18, 2019, and we have already granted one 

extension. Accordingly, we caution appellant that further extension requests will be disfavored. 

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE