alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 68111.

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 63/3326 (San Diego).

Richardson, Judge:

The merchandise involved in the instant protest consists of wool tubular rugs, which are covered by entry No. DE 924 at the port of San *256Diego, Oalif. It is claimed that liquidation of said entry is void, because final appraisement has not been completed with respect to all of the items of merchandise covered thereby: that, with respect to the said wool tubular rugs, there is pending in this court an appeal for reappraisement under R60/10342-371; and that said reappraisement appeal is suspended under R58/23790-09443.

Entry No. DE 924 also covers, among other things, an item of merchandise, consisting of bamboo blinds, that was the subject of an appeal for reappraisement under R60/10343-372, which was dismissed by reason of abandonment, by order of the court, dated April 23,1962 (initial No. R60/6040). It appears that, following the dismissal of the appeal pertaining to the bamboo blinds as aforesaid, said entry was returned to the collector at San Diego, and the liquidation complained of herein was made thereupon on October 25,1962. The entry was subsequently returned to the court, where it now is associated with the official papers in the pending reappraisement appeal under R60/10342-371.

Against this background, the instant protest was submitted to the court upon a stipulation, as follows:

> Mb. Shostak: Your Honor, the merchandise in this particular question involved in this case, which is an administrative case, is whether or not the liquidation of the entry was invalid. Plaintiff has in its protest recited that at the time of the liquidation of the entry with an increase in duty, there was an existing, pending appeal on wool tubular rugs.

> We offer to stipulate that the liquidation of the entry was premature since this existing, proper appeal, was pending at that time.

> Mb. Kaplan : I am advised by the people in the Collector’s office in San Diego, that that is the fact, and the Government does so stipulate.

Accepting this stipulation as evidence of the facts, and upon the authority of *Stubbs*v. *United States,*7 Ct. Oust. Appls. 399, T.D. 36967, we hold that liquidation of the entry covered by the instant protest is premature, illegal, and void, in view of the pendency of a reappraisement appeal affecting said entry. Although appraisement has become final with respect to some of the items of merchandise covered by the involved entry, including the said bamboo blinds, appraisement has not become final with respect to the merchandise covered by the pending appeal, namely, wool tubular rugs. It is the duty of the collector to abstain from liquidating the involved entry on wool tubular rugs until appraisement has become final.

The matter is remanded to the single judge in reappraisement before whom the case is pending on the suspension calendar.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. P67/54.

#### Mattoon & Co., Inc., and T. G. Cullen Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 62/18899, etc. (San Francisco).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of Von Arx air guns and parts similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of *Mattoon & Company, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 282, C.D. 2545), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6135

In Re: IMAM ABU MUHAMMAD, formerly known as

Brian Lewis Hines,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-591-M-5)

Submitted: March 9, 1999 Decided: March 24, 1999

Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Imam Abu Muhammad, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Imam Abu Muhammad, formerly known as Brian Lewis Hines, filed

a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that this court compel

the district court for the Eastern District of North Carolina to

adjudicate the merits of his “Motion for Modification of Judicial

Order” now pending before that court. In this mandamus petition,

Muhammad fails to establish that he has a clear right to the relief

sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n., 860 F.2d 135, 138

(4th Cir. 1988). We therefore grant Muhammad’s in forma pauperis

status but deny Muhammad’s petition for writ of mandamus. 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.

PETITION DENIED
From: UserKitten4590@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:30:56 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.

Thank you very much for your time. God Bless.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Lapos

Broadview Heights, OH 44147
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 271 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 271

  Recognizing the heroism and sacrifice of Medal of Honor recipients, 
   commending the efforts of the Medal of Honor Host City Program in 
 Gainesville, Texas, to celebrate and honor the contributions of Medal 
   of Honor recipients, and encouraging the expansion of the program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 26, 2007

 Mr. Burgess submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Recognizing the heroism and sacrifice of Medal of Honor recipients, 
   commending the efforts of the Medal of Honor Host City Program in 
 Gainesville, Texas, to celebrate and honor the contributions of Medal 
   of Honor recipients, and encouraging the expansion of the program.

Whereas the Medal of Honor is the highest award for valor that can be bestowed 
        upon a member of the United States Armed Forces for action against an 
        enemy of the United States;
Whereas the people of the United States will forever be in debt to the 
        recipients of the Medal of Honor for their great courage, selflessness, 
        and sacrifice;
Whereas the City of Gainesville, Texas, established the Medal of Honor Host City 
        Program in 2001 to recognize the contributions of Medal of Honor 
        recipients and invites Medal of Honor recipients to visit Gainesville 
        and covers their expenses during their stay in Gainesville;
Whereas the City of Gainesville has hosted more than a dozen Medal of Honor 
        recipients in the last six years, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 
        1922 and community volunteers welcome Medal of Honor recipients with 
        open arms; and
Whereas the City of Gainesville has begun outreach efforts to encourage other 
        communities in the United States to join the Medal of Honor Host City 
        Program: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the heroism and sacrifice of Medal of Honor 
        recipients;
            (2) commends the efforts of the Medal of Honor Host City 
        Program in Gainesville, Texas, to celebrate and honor the 
        contributions of Medal of Honor recipients; and
            (3) encourages the expansion of the Medal of Honor Host 
        City Program to communities throughout the United States.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of Registrant



|                   |  |                               |  |                                     |  |            
|------------------ |  | ----------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------- |  | -----------
|Name of Subsidiary |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|                   |  |                               | 
|                   |  |                              |  | Aduro GVAX Inc.                     |  | Delaware   
|                   |  |                               | 
|                   |  |                              |  | Aduro International (Bermuda) Ltd.  |  | Bermuda    
|                   |  |                               | 
|                   |  |                              |  | Aduro Netherlands Coöperatief U.A.  |  | Netherlands
|                   |  |                               | 
|                   |  |                              |  | Aduro Biotech Holdings, Europe B.V. |  | Netherlands
|                   |  |                               | 
|                   |  |                              |  | Audro Biotech, Europe B.V.          |  | Netherlands
Exhibit
      32.1








CERTIFICATIONS
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 UNITED STATES CODE SS. 1350





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Griffin Land & Nurseries, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended February 26, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Periodic
Report”), I, Frederick M. Danziger, President and 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
      Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.










/s/
      FREDERICK M. DANZIGERFrederick
      M. DanzigerPresident
      and Chief Executive OfficerApril
      12, 2005
From: cnelsonatlanta@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:22:41 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,

Christian Nelson

Cumming, GA 30040
From: princesswithagun2003@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:06:57 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,

Katherine Wieler

Seagraves, TX 79359
No. 69217.

#### Hostachem Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 63/18229 (New York).

Opinion by'

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise designated on the invoices as “Diazo HC-1, Diazo HC-2, and Diazo W,” are, in fact, Azo salts, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: rubel11@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:10:48 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,

Richard Ubel

Springfield, OR 97478
IV 

House Calendar No. 50 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 370 

[Report No. 110–121] 

Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 21) 

setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government 

for fiscal year 2008 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for 

fiscal years 2007 and 2009 through 2012. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 3, 2007 

Ms. SLAUGHTER, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (S. 

Con. Res. 21) setting forth the congressional budget 

for the United States Government for fiscal year 2008 

and including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal 

years 2007 and 2009 through 2012. 

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution 

2 it shall be in order without intervention of any point of 

3 order to consider in the House the concurrent resolution 

4 (S. Con. Res. 21) setting forth the congressional budget 

5 for the United States Government for fiscal year 2008 and 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

HRES 370 RH 

1 including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 

2 2007 and 2009 through 2012. The concurrent resolution 

3 shall be considered as read. An amendment in the nature 

4 of a substitute consisting of the text of House Concurrent 

5 Resolution 99, as adopted by the House, shall be consid6 ered as adopted. All points of order against the concurrent 

7 resolution, as amended, are waived. The previous question 

8 shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolu9 tion, as amended, to final adoption without intervening 

10 motion or demand for division of the question. If the Sen11 ate concurrent resolution, as amended, is adopted, then 

12 it shall be in order to move that the House insist on its 

13 amendment to the concurrent resolution and request a 

14 conference with the Senate thereon. The previous question 

15 shall be considered as ordered on that motion to adoption 

16 without intervening motion. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 50 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 370 

[Report No. 110

–121] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the concurrent resoand 2009 through 2012. propriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 ment for fiscal year 2008 and including the ap- gressional budget for the United States Govern- lution (S. Con. Res. 21) setting forth the conMAY 3, 2007 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
##### 



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 Remington Oil and Gas
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, James A. Watt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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. This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, and not for any other purpose. /s/ James A. WattJames A. WattChief Executive Officer
July 28, 2004
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Remington Oil and Gas Corporation and will be retained by
Remington Oil and Gas Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

Lockheed Martin Corporation, Missiles and ) ASBCA No. 61237

Fire Control )

)

Under Contract Nos. W31P4Q

- 08

- C

- 0021

W31P4Q

- 05

- C

- 0018

DAAH01

- 03

- C

- 1054

DAAH01

- 03

- C

- 0171

W31P4Q

- 11

- C

- 0166

W31P4Q

- 15

- C

- 0103

W31P4Q

- 12

- C

- 0151 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT : Brian T. McLaughlin, Esq.

John E. McCarthy

, Jr., Esq.

Jonathan M. Baker

, Esq.

Christopher D. Garcia, Esq.

Crowell & Moring LLP

Washington, DC

Thomas A. Lemmer, Esq.

Dentons US LLP

Denver, CO

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Scott N. Flesch

, Esq.

Army Chief Trial Attorney

Zachary Jacobson, Esq.

Harry M. Parent, III, Esq.

Trial Attorney s

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The government and appellant Lockheed Martin Corporation, Missiles and Fire

Control, acting on beha lf of Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc., are commended for resolving the

underlying dispute. Appellant’s unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal as settled is

granted. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: October 6 , 2020

REBA PAGE

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeal s2 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. 61237 , Appeal of Lockheed Martin

Corporation, Missiles and Fire Control , rendered in conformance with the Board’s

Charter.

Dated: October 6, 2020

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals