alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ WASHINGTON KIM, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. BARACK OBAMA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Respondents - Appellees. No. 15-6118 (D.C. No. 5:15- CV-00607-F) (W.D. Okla.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before HARTZ , TYMKOVICH , and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Proceeding pro se and in forma paupe ris (IFP), Washington Kim appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 19 15(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). Because we conclude Kim has forfe ited appellate review, we affirm. On June 2, 2015, Kim—who says he is a nuclear specialist for the United States Army—filed a complaint in federal district court. Kim’s allegations arise from his treatment during basic training and the Army’s subsequent refusal to “approve [his] graduation.” Complaint, Doc. 1, at 2.

* After examining Kim’s brief and the appe llate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This orde r and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32; 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### September 25, 2015
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 The district court dismissed Kim’s co mplaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Specifically, the district court relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii), which require courts to dismiss IFP actions that are frivolous or fail to state a claim. Kim appealed. Because Kim proceeds pro se, we liberally construe his brief and apply a more forgiving standard than the one we apply to attorney-drafted filings. Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer , 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). But pro se parties must follow the same procedural rules that govern other litigants. Thus, we won’t act as Kim’s advocate by formulating arguments or scouring the record on his behalf. Id. In his opening brief, Kim argues the dist rict court made both factual and legal errors in dismissing his compla int. But Kim offers neither le gal authority nor citations to the portions of the record that might support his arguments. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A) (requiring appellant’s brief to incl ude “citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appe llant relies”). Thus, we decline to address them. See Bronson
v. Swensen , 500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2007) (no ting we routinely refuse to consider arguments that fail to meet Rule 28’s requirements). Because Kim has forfeited appellate revi ew by failing to comply with the applicable procedural rules, we affirm the di strict court’s dismissal of his complaint. Entered for the Court,

Nancy L. Moritz Circuit Judge
From: hmrohlfs@windstream.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:43:16 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,

Marjorie Rohlfs

Lincoln, NE 68510
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsEstimation of Slow Crack Growth Parameters for Constant Stress-Rate Test Data of Advanced Ceramics and Glass by the Individual Data and Arithmetic Mean MethodsThe two estimation methods, individual data and arithmetic mean methods, were used to determine the slow crack growth (SCG) parameters (n and D) of advanced ceramics and glass from a large number of room- and elevated-temperature constant stress-rate ('dynamic fatigue') test data. For ceramic materials with Weibull modulus greater than 10, the difference in the SCG parameters between the two estimation methods was negligible; whereas, for glass specimens exhibiting Weibull modulus of about 3, the difference was amplified, resulting in a maximum difference of 16 and 13 %, respectively, in n and D. Of the two SCG parameters, the parameter n was more sensitive to the estimation method than the other. The coefficient of variation in n was found to be somewhat greater in the individual data method than in the arithmetic mean method.Document ID19970012953Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsChoi, Sung R.*(Cleveland State Univ. Cleveland, OH United States)*Salem, Jonathan A.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Holland, Frederic A.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateFebruary 1, 1997Subject CategoryNonmetallic MaterialsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:107369E-10537NASA-TM-107369Accession Number97N17072Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-63-1MCONTRACT_GRANT: DE-AC05-84OR-21400Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970012953.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
From: LCervantes.CSUF@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:50:51 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,

Liliana Cervantes

Hacienda Heights, CA 91745
1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief J udge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-2842

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Northern District of Iowa. * Robert Orlando Bolden, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 14, 2010 Filed: April 19, 2010

___________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Robert Bolden challenges the reasonablen ess of the sentence the district court 1 imposed after revoking his supervised release. Upon careful review, we hold that the district court did not clearly err in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Bolden had violated the conditions of his supervised release, seeUnited States v. Carothers , 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003) (government must prove by-2- preponderance of evidence th at defendant violated supervised release condition; district court’s finding that violation occurred is reviewed for clear error; district court’s credibility determinations at superv ised release revocation hearing are virtually unreviewable on appeal), and we conclude that the revocation sentence is not unreasonable, see United States v. Tyson , 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (revocation sentences are review ed for unreasonableness in accordance with United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Bolden about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.

______________________________
From: rqbchas@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:20:55 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,

Charles Harding

Oklahoma City, OK 73162
#### Cozzell BERRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Barbara BOCK, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-1482.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 7, 2001.

Before RALPH B. GUY, JR., BOGGS, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

Cozzell Berry appeals a district court judgment that denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

Following a bench trial in the Detroit, Michigan, Recorder’s Court in 1992, petitioner was convicted of possession with intent to deliver 650 grams or more of cocaine and possession with intent to deliver marijuana and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed petitioner’s convictions, and the Michigan Supreme Court denied petitioner leave to appeal. Thereafter, petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment, which the trial court denied. The Michigan Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s delayed application for leave to appeal, and the Michigan Supreme Court again denied petitioner leave to appeal.

Next, petitioner filed his federal habeas petition in the district court alleging seven grounds for relief: (1) that insufficient evidence supports his convictions; (2) that the trial court rendered clearly erroneous findings of fact; (3) that the verdict was against the evidence; (4) that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel; (5) that his waiver of a jury trial was involuntary; (6) that his right to confront a confidential informant was violated; and (7) that he showed cause for his failure to assert his claims in the state courts on direct appeal. After respondent filed an answer in opposition, the district court denied petitioner’s habeas petition as without merit. Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal, and the district court granted petitioner a certificate of appealability.

*277On appeal, petitioner essentially reiterates his claims for habeas corpus relief. The state responds that adequate evidence supports petitioner’s convictions and that petitioner procedurally defaulted his remaining claims. Upon de novo review, *see Clemmons v. Sowders,*34 F.3d 352, 354 (6th Cir.1994); *Carter v. Sowders,*5 F.3d 975, 978 (6th Cir.1993), we affirm the judgment for the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum opinion and order filed March 20, 2000.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is affirmed. *See*Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
From: davidmcelroy@tularosa.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: davidmcelroy@tularosa.net

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:10:59 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I write today to demand in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive mandate

for all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures to be covered by private health insurance with no

co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course, you should expand conscience protections for any and

all organizations that provide individual and group insurance AND have MORAL or RELIGIOUS

objections. I strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans, most

especially for drugs and devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as

ella and Plan B). Being forced to pay for the deaths of unborn children violates our freedom of

conscience and free practice of religion.

You must reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience protection

for any organization or 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 formal churches, (but

not parachurch organizations)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. Disgusting!

Please protect our conscience rights with insurers, providers and people like me who OBJECT to being

FORCED by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and anti-life sterilization

services, especially when some of these drugs can take the lives of unborn children. No Americans

should be forced by the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to and find

morally repugnant. I again urge you in the strongest way possible to reverse course. Remove

contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory preventive services.

Sincerely,

David McElroy

Alamogordo, NM 88310
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**First National Lincoln Corporation Increases Dividend**

 

DAMARISCOTTA, Maine – (BUSINESS WIRE) – September 19, 2007 – The Board of Directors of First National Lincoln Corporation (NASDAQ: FNLC), today declared a quarterly dividend of 17.5 cents per share. This third-quarter dividend, which is payable October 31, 2007, to shareholders of record as of October 9, 2007, represents an increase of 12.9% or 2.0 cents per share over the third-quarter dividend declared in 2006 of 15.5 cents per share.

“The Company has raised its regular cash dividend for 14 consecutive years and for 48 consecutive quarters,” noted Daniel R. Daigneault, FNLC’s President & Chief Executive Officer. “The quarterly dividend of 17.5 cents per share translates into an annual dividend of 70.0 cents per share, and based on today’s closing price of $15.04 per share, this results in a very attractive current annual dividend yield of 4.65%.

“Yesterday’s lowering of interest rates by the Federal Reserve and corresponding steepening of the yield curve will be good for many banks,” President Daigneault went on. “This is positive for FNLC as well, especially when combined with good asset growth that the Company has experienced during the third quarter. Because of these factors, the Board of Directors voted to continue to increase our quarterly dividend payout, which, as we have noted before, is important to the majority of our shareholders.”

First National Lincoln Corporation, headquartered in Damariscotta, Maine, is the bank holding company for The First, N.A. The First is an independent community bank serving Midcoast and Downeast Maine with fourteen offices in Lincoln, Knox, Hancock and Washington Counties that provide consumer and commercial banking products and services. It also provides investment advisory and trust services though First Advisors, a division of the Bank.

Forward-looking and cautionary statements: except for the historical information and discussions contained herein, statements contained in this release may constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements involve a number of risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual 

results to differ materially, as discussed in the company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

 

For additional information contact F. Stephen Ward, Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer, at 207.563.3272.
EXHIBIT 31.01

Certification of Mindy Kline, Chief Executive Officer pursuant to

Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



I, Mindy Kline, certify that:



1. I have reviewed the annual report on Form 10-K of Gold Star Tutoring Services, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008;



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(s) 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(s) 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.



March 25, 2009



___/s/Mindy Kline_____________

Mindy Kline

Chief Executive Officer

Principal Executive Officer
No. 63761.

protests 58/16641, etc. (New York).

#### Electric & Musical Ind. (US), Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

*331Opinion by

Oliver, O. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of recording tapes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Electric & Musical Industries (US), Ltd.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 87, C.D. 2070), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.