alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sandra Zeigler, Individually and as Mother and Natural Guardian of Ismael K. Reynolds, an Infant, Respondent, v *346Nina Neely, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 121]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered November 23, 1994, which, after a jury trial, *inter alia,*awarded the infant plaintiff the sum of $275,000 and his natural guardian the sum of $12,500, and bringing up for review an order of the same court (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about March 9, 1994, which set aside a jury verdict finding both parties equally liable and awarding no damages, and directed a new trial on the issue of damages only, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of vacating the award of damages to the natural guardian, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The trial court properly set aside the jury verdict in the first trial (CPLR 4404 [a]) and ordered a new trial on the issue of damages only. A review of the record of that trial leads us to conclude that the findings of liability and apportionment of fault were amply supported by the record and were not infected by the jury’s failure to award damages in the face of the uncontroverted testimony of plaintiffs’ medical expert *(Figliomeni v Board of Educ.,*38 NY2d 178).

With respect to the second trial, we find the court erred in-submitting the infant plaintiff’s natural guardian’s loss of services claim to the jury since the parties had previously entered into a stipulation in open court withdrawing said cause of action, and further, there has been no evidence to warrant the award of such damages. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.
#### Evelyn M. CONWAY, an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY; George J. Tenet, individually and in his capacity as Director of Central Intelligence Agency; John B, individually and in his capacity as former Chief, Central Eurasia Division, Central Intelligence Agency; Charles L, individually and in his capacity as former Deputy Chief, Central Eurasia Division, Central Intelligence Agency; Dawn Eilenberger, individually and in her capacity as former Director, Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, Central Intelligence Agency; Kathleen McGinn, individually and in her capacity as former Complaints Attorney, Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, Central Intelligence Agency, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-1184.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 8, 2001.

Decided June 21, 2001.

George R.A. Doumar, Dilsworth Paxson, P.L.L.C., Janine M. Brookner, Washington, DC, for appellant. Kenneth E. Mel-son, United States Attorney, Rachel C. Ballow, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, VA, for appellee.

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Evelyn M. Conway appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her claim of employment discrimination based on national origin. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *Conway v. CIA*No. CA-00-1417-A (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 10, 2000, entered Oct. 12, 2000; filed & entered Dec. 1, 2000; *&*filed Dec. 8, 2000, entered Dec. 11, 2000). 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.*
From: Flyingbug@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:40:36 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,

Katheryne Koelker

Hawthorne, CA 90250
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 14 - 00439 - CR

SALVADOR VILLAGOMEZ APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 432ND DISTR ICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 1339 038W

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM O PINION 1

---------- On October 17, 2014, the trial court revoked Appellant Salvador Villagomez’s community supervision, adjudicated his guilt for robbery causing bodily injury, and sentenced him to six years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. On the same day, the trial court entered its certification of defendant’s right to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 25.2(a)(2). The certification states that “the defendant has waived the right to appeal.” On October 23, 2014, Appellant fil ed a pro se notice of appeal. On October 27, 2014, we notified A ppellant that the certification indicating that he had waived the right to appeal had been filed in this court and that this appeal could be dismissed unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a
response on or before November 6, 2014, showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 44.3. No response has been filed. Because the trial court’s certific ation affirmatively shows t hat A ppellant has waived the right to appeal, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Hill v. State , 929 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. App.

— Waco 1996, no pet.)

.

PER CURIAM
PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J. DO NOT PUBLISH Te x. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: December 18, 2014
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.                  

###### Consumer Product Safety Commission

      ( print page 63942)    

# TIME AND DATE:

Wednesday, September 20, 2023-10:00 a.m.

# PLACE:

The meeting will be held remotely, and in person at 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland, 20814.

# STATUS:

Commission Meeting—Open to the Public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

*Briefing Matter:*

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking—Safety Standard for Infant Rockers and Infant/Toddler Rockers

                    To attend the meeting virtually, please use the following link:                     *https://cpsc.webex.com/​weblink/​register/​r40908b005fac735e48a3993d91242503.*

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Alberta E. Mills, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, 301-504-7479 (Office) or 240-863-8938 (Cell).

Dated: September 13, 2023.

Alberta E. Mills,

Commission Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2023-20182 Filed 9-14-23; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
From: gallocrew442@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

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

Ellen Gallo

Wilmington, DE 19803
From: schrimsher24@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:38:29 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,

Frank Schrimsher

Orlando, FL 32803
No. 69232.

#### Volvo Western Distributing, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 63/1071, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise consist of metal and rayon safety belts, which are manufactures in chief value of metal, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-3110

___________________________

Jeffrey Charles Rodd

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

K. Crandall, HS Asst.; Dr. Benjamin Rice; PA Ashley Peterson; C. Nickrenz;

Captain J. Feda; United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota

 ____________

 Submitted: February 9, 2022

Filed: February 14, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Former federal inmate Jeffrey Rodd brought this action under Bivens v. Six

Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Torts Claims Act

against prison staff, alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to injuries he

suffered when he fell out of his wheelchair in November 2014.
The district court1

 granted summary judgment dismissing Rodd’s Bivens claims

for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, as he did not attempt to file

formal grievances. See Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003). His

alleged blindness did not excuse failure to exhaust because Bureau of Prisons

regulations provide for assistance in obtaining administrative remedies, and Rodd did

not allege that prison officials prevented him from seeking assistance. See 28 C.F.R.

§ 542.16(a). The court dismissed Rodd’s Federal Tort Claims Act claims because this

action was not filed within six months after the Bureau of Prisons denied the claim,

see 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b); and Rodd was not entitled to equitable tolling because he

failed to establish that anything prevented him from timely filing suit, see Pace v.

DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005).

After careful review of the record, we agree with the district court’s analysis. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1The Honorable Eric C. Tostrud, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

-2-
EXHIBIT 8.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF SAFE BULKERS, INC.

The following companies are subsidiaries of Safe Bulkers, Inc. as of May 15, 2009.

|Subsidiary                          | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|----------------------------------- | -----------------------------
|Avstes Shipping Corporation         | Liberia                      
|Efragel Shipping Corporation        | Liberia                      
|Eniadefhi Shipping Corporation      | Liberia                      
|Eniaprohi Shipping Corporation      | Liberia                      
|Eptaprohi Shipping Corporation      | Liberia                      
|Kerasies Shipping Corporation       | Liberia                      
|Marathassa Shipping Corporation     | Liberia                      
|Marindou Shipping Corporation       | Liberia                      
|Marinouki Shipping Corporation      | Liberia                      
|Maxdeka Shipping Corporation        | Liberia                      
|Maxdekatria Shipping Corporation    | Liberia                      
|Maxdodeka Shipping Corporation      | Liberia                      
|Maxenteka Shipping Corporation      | Liberia                      
|Maxpente Shipping Corporation       | Liberia                      
|Maxtessera Shipping Corporation     | Marshall Islands             
|Pelea Shipping Ltd.                 | Liberia                      
|Pemer Shipping Ltd.                 | Liberia                      
|Petra Shipping Ltd.                 | Liberia                      
|Shikoku Friendship Shipping Company | Liberia                      
|Soffive Shipping Corporation        | Liberia                      
|Staloudi Shipping Corporation       | Liberia                      





---
From: william500@cableone.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:53:16 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,

William Mac Lean

Nampa, ID 83686
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 66515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20942]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: September 27, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 21, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 63 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2023-278, CP2023-281.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-20942 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
No. 61021.

protests 695685-G, etc. (New York).

#### M. Bernstein Sons & Forman, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of dogskins similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Arnhold & Co., Inc., et al.*(27 C. C. P. A. 135, C. A. D. 74), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: tkemple@integrity.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:30:16 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,

Terry Kemple

Brandon, FL 33511