alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: kristiew@sonnet.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:35:09 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,

Kristie Wilde

Sonora, CA 95370
| **Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Details)**                            | 12 Months Ended |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|
||
| **Organization, Consolidation and Presentation of Financial Statements [Abstract]** |            |
| Period after which collection of future income is considered as not probable        | 120 days        |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
This element represents the period after which collection of future income is considered as not probable.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**cfsc_PeriodAfterWhichCollectionOfFutureIncomeIsConsideredAsNotProbable**Namespace Prefix:**cfsc_**Data Type:**xbrli:durationItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_OrganizationConsolidationAndPresentationOfFinancialStatementsAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51236 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE ANGEL ESCARCEGA-BRIONES, also known as Roberto Ross Macias, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-869-ALL

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Angel Escarcega-Briones raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
**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
        on Form 10-QSB of Sunrise Energy Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the
        period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
        on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Konstantin Tsirulnikov, 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
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
  (2)     The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company.
   Date:
        May
        15, 2007
  By:
                    /s/ Konstantin Tsirulnikov
                Konstantin
                  Tsirulnikov
                Chief
                  Executive Officer
NUMBER 13-10-00639-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

DANIEL COLMENERO, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 319th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Daniel Colmenero, by and through his attorney, has filed a motion to 

dismiss his appeal because he no longer desires to prosecute it. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

42.2(a). Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion to dismiss 

pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) and dismiss the appeal. Having 

dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, 
2

and our mandate will issue forthwith. 

 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Delivered and filed the

21st day of December, 2010.
No. 61023.

protests 931958-G, etc. (New York).

#### Oscar Feldman, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of kidskin plates the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480) or *Prime Fur Corp.*v. *United States*(37 Cust. Ct. 83, C. D. 1802) and lambskin plates similar to those the subject of *A. S. Gold & Bro., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 1643) or C. D. 1802, *supra,*the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained, except as to merchandise invoiced as “cat piece head plates,” on the invoice accompanying entry 108346, covered by protests 991999-G'and 992000-G, which was abandoned.

Mollison, J.,

dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1802, *supra.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the BJ's
Wholesale Club, Inc. consolidated statements of income and consolidated
balance sheets filed with the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 1998
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                          7,675
<SECURITIES>                                       98
<RECEIVABLES>                                  41,582
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                   430,373
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              497,346
<PP&E>                                        579,190
<DEPRECIATION>                                162,766
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                924,373
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         362,289
<BONDS>                                        66,797
<COMMON>                                          377
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                    450,954
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  924,373
<SALES>                                     2,442,828
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            2,497,730
<CGS>                                       2,231,811
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               2,231,811
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              194,017
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (456)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                72,358
<INCOME-TAX>                                   28,220
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            44,138
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                     (19,326)
<NET-INCOME>                                   24,812
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.65
        

</TABLE>
No. 58223.

protest 216031-K (New York).

#### American Molasses Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial, counsel for the Government offered in evidence a portion of the collector’s memorandum, which stated that that office was satisfied, upon review, that a *bona fide*shortage of 20 bags of sugar did exist, and had the affidavit of the importer been filed within the time specified in the customs regulations, due allowance would have been made for the shortage. On the record presented and following *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351), it was held that duty is not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.
Case 2:02-cv-01691-RSL Document 12 Filed 11/01/02 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-01691-RSL Document 12 Filed 11/01/02 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-01691-RSL Document 12 Filed 11/01/02 Page 3 of 3
Just the Facts!

Online Resources

Team Nutrition (http://teamnutrition.usda.gov)

MyPlate (http://teamnutrition.usda.gov/myplate.html) 

USDA Choose MyPlate (www.ChooseMyPlate.gov)

Let’s Eat for the Health of It (http://teamnutrition.usda.

gov/Resources/letseat.html)

Fuel Up to Play 60 (http://teamnutrition.usda.gov/

HealthierUS/futp60.htm)

Changing the Scene – Improving the School 

Nutrition Environment (http://teamnutrition.usda.gov/

Resources/changing.html)

USDA Recipes for Schools (http://teamnutrition.usda.

gov/Resources/usda_recipes.html)

USDA Recipe Finder (http://healthymeals.nal.usda.gov/

schoolmeals/Recipes/recipefinder.php)

MyPlate for Kids: Make Half Your Plate Fruits and 

Vegetables Poster (http://teamnutrition.usda.gov/

Resources/myplate_halfplateposter.html)

Kid-Friendly Veggies and Fruits (http://www.

choosemyplate.gov/food-groups/downloads/TenTips/

DGTipsheet11KidFriendlyVeggiesAndFruits.pdf)

Fruits and Vegetables Galore: Helping Kids Eat More

(http://teamnutrition.usda.gov/Resources/fv_galore.html)

Best Practices: Handling Fresh Produce in 

Schools (http://www.nfsmi.org/documentlibraryfiles/

PDF/20100826093915.pdf)

Let’s Eat for the Health of It (http://teamnutrition.usda.

gov/Resources/letseat.html)

Fruits & Veggies: More Matters

(www.fruitsandveggiesmatter.gov)

Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Fruits & Veggies: 

More Matters (www.fruitsandveggiesmatter.gov) 

Better With Beans (Legumes) (http://www.nfsmi.org/

documentlibraryfiles/PDF/20120102044212.pdf)

Grains With Gusto (http://www.nfsmi.org/

documentlibraryfiles/PDF/20120102044049.pdf)

Increasing Dietary Fiber (http://www.nfsmi.org/

documentlibraryfiles/PDF/20120102035930.pdf)

Salt and Sodium (http://www.choosemyplate.gov/foodgroups/downloads/TenTips/DGTipsheet14SaltAndSodium.

pdf)

Reducing Sodium Intake (http://www.nfsmi.org/

documentlibraryfiles/PDF/20120102035310.pdf)

Read It! Poster (http://teamnutrition.usda.gov/Resources/

read_it.html) 

Trimming the Fat (http://www.nfsmi.org/

documentlibraryfiles/PDF/20120102035517.pdf)

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Trans Fat ata-Glance (http://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/

Consumers/ucm079609.htm)

USDA Foods Toolkit (http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/foods/

healthy/Professional.htm)

U.S. Department of Agriculture ● Food and Nutrition Service ● August 2012 ● FNS 449-K ● USDA is an equal opportunity employer and provider.

Just the Facts: Online Resources http://teamnutrition.usda.gov
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined

that this opinion should not be published. 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-00085

 Conference Calendar 

__________________

TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE CO.,

 Plaintiff-Petitioners,

versus

HOUSTON CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.,

 Defendant-Respondents.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana 

USDC No. CA-94-1443

- - - - - - - - - -

June 27, 1995

Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tennessee Gas Pipeline's petition for interlocutory appeal

is DISMISSED as moot. Although "[f]ailure to file an application

for permission to appeal from an interlocutory order . . . within

the ten-day period prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Rule

5(a), Fed. R. App. P., is a jurisdictional defect that deprives

the appellate court of power to entertain the appeal," the

parties can request that the district court re-enter the order as

certified. Aparicio v. Swan Lake, 643 F.2d 1109, 1111 (5th Cir.
No. 95-00085

-2-

1981). A new ten-day period is triggered by such re-entry. See

id. at 1111-13. 

In May, TGP requested that the district court re-enter its

order as certified while this appeal was still pending. The

district court did so on May 26, 1995. Thereafter, TGP again

petitioned this court for interlocutory appeal, which the Clerk's

office docketed as a separate appeal under docket number 95-

00122. Accordingly, TGP's earlier petition for interlocutory

appeal is moot in light of their timely appeal under docket

number 95-00122. 

DISMISSED.
No. 60192.

protests 227209-K, etc. (New York).

#### Acme Imitation Stones, Ltd., and H. W. Robinson & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of Abstract 59105, the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked with the letter “A” at 10 percent under the provision in paragraph 1528, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52836), for imitation semiprecious stones, faceted, and (2) the items marked with the letter “B” at 30 percent under the provision in said paragraph, as modified by T. D. 51802, supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 51898), for imitation semiprecious tones, not faceted.
#### Robert Earl MARSHALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.D. ROBERTSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-6164.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 29, 2001.

Decided July 19, 2001.

Robert Earl Marshall, pro se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

Robert Earl Marshall appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 *&*Supp.2000).1 We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the magistrate judge.2*See Marshall v. Robertson,*No. CA-00-231-3 (E.D.Va. Jan. 2, 2001). 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.

*DISMISSED.*

1

. The parties consented to jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. *See*28 U.S.C.A. § 636(a) (West 1994 & Supp.2000).

2

. Marshall raised several new claims for the first time in his informal brief on appeal. Marshall fails to present exceptional circumstances justifying review of these claims. We therefore decline to address them. *See Muth v. United States,*1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993).
Order entered April 25, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00324
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF B .H. AND J.H. , CHILD REN On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Cou rt

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. JC
- 16
- 00779
- X



### O RDER The reporter’s record in this child protection case is overdue. By postcard dated April 1, 2019, we notified Court Reporter Pamela Sumler that the reporter’s record was overdue

. We direc ted Ms. Sumler to file the record within ten days and cautioned her that any request for an extension must be submitted in writing explaining the extraordinary reasons for the delay. On April 12, 2019, Ms. Sumler filed a letter stating she filed the repor ter’s record in June 2018. On April 22, 2019, appellant filed his request for preparation or the reporter’s record and designation
of matters to be included. The order being appealed is the February 28, 2019 order terminating Father’s par ental rights to h is children. W e ORDER Pamela Sumler, Official Court Reporter for the 305th Judicial District Court, to file, within TEN DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER , the reporter’s record in this appeal. We caution Ms. Sumler that the failure to do so will result in t he Court taking whatever remedies it has available to it to ensure this accelerated appeal proceeds ina timely fashion, which may include ordering that Ms. Sumler not sit as a court reporter until the

complete reporter’s record is filed.
We DIRECT the Cle rk of the Court to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the following persons:
Honorable Cheryl Lee

- Shannon Presiding Judge of the 305th Judicial District Court Ms. Pamela Sumler Official Court Reporter, 305th Judicial District Court All parties

/s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
No. 61004.

#### Hammel, Riglander & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 283816-K (New York).

*349Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise in question consist of metal screws, made of one piece of metal, and are dedicated for use and exclusively used in watch movements, and that said screws are not jewels, the claim’ of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: lsteele@entre-okc.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: lsteele@entre-okc.com

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:32:19 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unconstitutional, 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,

Larry Steele

Oklahoma City, OK 73162
From: mfsole@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:13:07 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you DO NOT rescind the mandate that all

"contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance with no co-pay to

patients.

Thank You

Sincerely,

Michael Sole

Dumont, NJ 07628
No. P66/15.

protests 63/16555, etc. (New York).

#### Lafayette Brass Mfg. Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of hose nozzles similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *896
      *Lipman's*(52 CCPA 59, C.A.D. 859), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.