alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: dakjoel@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:03:12 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,

Joel Dickinson

Phoenix, AZ 85016
Before the Third Division,

July 26, 1956

No. 60132.

protest 262277-K (San Juan, P. R.).

#### Juan A. Vega *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

When this case was called for trial, the protest was submitted upon all the official papers. An examination of the record disclosed that the appraiser’s report, in answer to a request for information sent to him by the acting deputy collector, showed that the examiner had advised the importer of possible changes in rates, but that plaintiff did not pay attention. No evidence was adduced by the plaintiff to refute the report. Plaintiff apparently questioning the timeliness of the notice of advance and not the correctness of the rates of duty, the protest was overruled, the court finding no evidence to support plaintiff’s claim.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

tk/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALAN NAKAMURA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-55961

D.C. No. 2:06-cv-06776-GW-SS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2010** 

Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Alan Nakamura appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the defendants violated his Fourth

FILED

MAR 30 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
tk/Research 2 09-55961

Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). We

affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Nakamura’s

unlawful search and arrest claims because his arrest was supported by probable

cause. See United States v. Smith, 389 F.3d 944, 950-52 (9th Cir. 2004) (allowing

a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest); Cabrera v. Huntington Park, 159

F.3d 374, 380 (9th Cir. 1998) (explaining that a plaintiff must show there was no

probable cause to prevail on a section 1983 claim for false arrest). 

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Nakamura’s

excessive force claim because Officer Jones’s use of force was minimal and

objectively reasonable under the circumstances. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S.

386, 396 (1989) (“Not every push or shove . . . violates the Fourth Amendment.”)

(citation omitted); Long v. City & County of Honolulu, 511 F.3d 901, 905 (9th Cir.

2007) (“In a Fourth Amendment excessive force case, defendants can still win on

summary judgment if the district court concludes, after resolving all factual

disputes in favor of the plaintiff, that the officer’s use of force was objectively

reasonable under the circumstances.”) (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted).
tk/Research 3 09-55961

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Nakamura’s

claims for municipal liability because he had not suffered any constitutional injury. 

See City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986) (per curiam). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Nakamura’s request

for additional discovery. See Qualls ex rel. Qualls v. Blue Cross of Cal., Inc., 22

F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will only find that the district court abused its

discretion if the movant diligently pursued its previous discovery opportunities,

and if the movant can show how allowing additional discovery would have

precluded summary judgment.”) (italics omitted). 

Nakamura’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Michael G. Moore, Chief Financial Officer of Gulfport Energy Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 7, 2010



/s/ Michael G. MooreMichael G. MooreChief Financial Officer


A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
ACCEPTED

03-14-00416-CV

7344195

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

10/13/2015 9:59:14 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 10/13/2015 9:59:14 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
From: texastwister415@consolidated.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:33:48 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,

Ted Howard

Diboll, TX 75941
From: yehudi3@q.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:20:19 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.

This isn't CHINA, you knuckleheads!!

Sincerely,

Dorrie Gillingham

Grants Pass, OR 97526
RIDDELL SPORTS INC.                                      EXHIBIT 11
  STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                                          Three Months Ended March, 31
                                          ----------------------------
                                             1997             1996
                                          -----------      -----------
Primary earnings per share:
-----------------------------------
  Weighted average common shares
  outstanding during period                8,067,985        8,067,985

  Common shares equivalents of dilutive
   stock options based on treasury
   stock method using average market
   price for  quarter                            -0-          388,977
                                          -----------      -----------
  Average common shares and equivalents    8,067,985        8,456,962
                                          ===========      ===========
  Net income (loss) for the period          ($17,119)      $1,290,398
                                          ===========      ===========
  Per share amount                             $0.00            $0.15
                                          ===========      ===========

Fully diluted earnings per share:
-----------------------------------
  Weighted average common shares           8,067,985        8,067,985
  outstanding during period

  Common shares equivalents of dilutive
   stock options based on treasury
   stock method using quarter ending
   market price which is higher than
   average market price                          -0-          529,924
                                          -----------      -----------
  Average common shares and equivalents    8,067,985        8,597,909
                                          ===========      ===========
  Net income for the period                 ($17,119)      $1,290,398
                                          ===========      ===========
  Per share amount                            ($0.00)           $0.15
                                          ===========      ===========
Before the Second Division,

February 20, 1962

No. 66474.

#### United China and Glass Company *v.*United States,

petitions 7245-R and 7246-R (New Orleans).

Ford, Judge:

These are petitions for the remission of additional duties filed under the provisions of section 489 of the Tariff Act of 1930, assessed by *343reason of the undervaluation upon entry of an importation, consisting of ehinaware and earthenware from Japan. The merchandise was entered in three entries made in September and November 1948.

The record herein establishes that additional duties resulted by reason of undervaluation, due to a difference of opinion between the petitioner and the collector as to whether certain inland charges were part of the dutiable value. It appears that the entries covered by the above petitions after appraisement were the subject of appeals for reappraisement, which were subsequently abandoned as a result of an adverse decision on the inland freight issue.

Jerome Levy, vice president of petitioner, with whom he has been associated for 88 years, was called on behalf of petitioner and testified that he supervised the entries of the merchandise in question and directed the customs broker to increase the invoice value to conform to the current market value in all instances where his information was indicative of a higher value than shown on the invoices. In the entries before the court, there are numerous examples of such increases made on behalf of petitioner. Mr. Levy stated that, at the time of making the entries, it was his opinion that the inland charges were non-dutiable. Accordingly, he entered the merchandise at the unit price, less the inland charges and certain commissions.

It is the contention of petitioner that the differential between the entered value and the appraised value is attributable to the prorata portion of the inland charges. Government counsel replying to a question by the court agreed that this was a correct statement.

Based upon the record before the court and the concession of the Government as to the correctness of petitioner’s contention, it is our opinion that the undervaluation of the merchandise was due to an honest difference of opinion as to the dutiability of the inland charges, and the court is satisfied that the entry was made without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United 'States, or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case, or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. *Newland, Schneelock & Piek, Inc.*v. *United States,*43 Cust. Ct. 288, Abstract 63198.

The petitions are, therefore, granted and judgment will be entered accordingly.
From: eitelmom@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:13:03 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,

Betty Eitelman

Abilene, TX 79602
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ray Charles Tillery, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 99]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), rendered July 22, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Although the court’s charge did contain the rhetorical "who speaks the truth”, we reject defendant’s contention that the court erroneously "made virtually certain that the jurors would *not*apply the reasonable doubt standard until after they had determined what was the truth”. The charge as a whole conveyed to the jury that it must determine whether the credible proof established defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We have considered defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Kupferman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

 

**FORM 8-K**

 

CURRENT REPORT

 

Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

 

Date of report (Date of earliest event reported): October 24, 2007

 

 

**FIRST NATIONAL LINCOLN CORPORATION**

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in charter)

 

MAINE

(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)

 

0-26589 01-0404322

(Commission file number) (IRS employer identification no.)

 

Main Street, Damariscotta, Maine 04853

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

 

(207) 563-3195

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

 

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is

intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligations

of the registrant under any of the following provisions:

 

[_] Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)

 

[_] Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)

 

[_] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))

 

[_] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4 (c))

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

| Item 2.02 Results of Operations and Financial Condition | Page 1 |
|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|

 

| Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits | Page 1 |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|

 

| Signatures | Page 2 |
|------------|--------|

 

| Exhibit Index | Page 3 |
|---------------|--------|

Section 2 - Financial Information

 

Item 2.02 Results of Operations and Financial Condition.

 

On October 24, 2007, the Registrant issued the press release filed herewith as Exhibit 99.1 with information regarding the results of operations and financial condition of First National Lincoln Corporation for the quarter ended September 30, 2007.

 

 

Section 9 - Financial Statements and Exhibits

 

Item 9.01 Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information and Exhibits.

 

(c) Exhibits.

--------

 

The following Exhibits are being furnished herewith:

 

99.1 Registrant's Press Release dated October 24, 2007.

 

SIGNATURE

 

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

 

 

FIRST NATIONAL LINCOLN CORPORATION

 

By: /s/ F. STEPHEN WARD

F. Stephen Ward

Executive Vice President & 

Chief Financial Officer

 

Dated: October 24, 2007

 

Exhibit Index

 

 

| Exhibit Number | Description of Exhibit |
|----------------|------------------------|

 

| 99.1 | Registrant's Press Release dated October 24, 2007. |
|------|----------------------------------------------------|