alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by N i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3.

T he H onor abl e R oge rT . B e ni t e z , U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f orthe ** S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof

C a l i f orni a , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T C ON C E P C I ON C AR R I L L O, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J R ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 73777 B . I . A . N o. A 076- 804- 563 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d J a nua ry11, 2011

S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on Be f o r e : GRABERa n d M . SM I TH, J R. , Ci r c u i tJ u d g e s , a n d BE NI TE Z, D i stri ct ** Judg e. P et i t i on erC on ce pci on C arri l l o, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f M exi co, se eks r evi ew o f th e B o ar d o f I m m ig ra ti o n A p p ea ls’ d ec isio n u p h o ld in g th e im m ig ra ti o n ju d g e’s d e n ia l o f h e rr e q u e s t f

o raw a iv e ro f

in a d m is s ib ilitya n d f

o ra d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s to th a t o f le g a l p e rm a n e n t r e s id e n t. 

# FI LED JU N 21 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

O n January30 , 19 98 , P et i t i on erw as st op ped atthe U ni t ed S t at es -M exi co bor de ra nd r e m ove d pur s ua ntt o 8 U . S . C . § 1225. P e t i t i one rl a t e re nt e r e d the U ni t ed S t at es w i tho utadm i ss i on or parol e i n F ebruaryor M ar ch of 19 98 . S he has n o t d e p a rte d f

r o m th e U n ite d S ta te s s in c e th a t tim e . B ec ause P et i t i on eri s i l l egal l y pre se nti n the U ni t ed S t at es af t erhavi ng been pr e vi ous l y r e m ove d, s he i s i na dm i s s i bl e unde r8 U . S . C . § 1182( a ) ( 9) ( C ) ( i ) ( I I ) . S he a r g u e s , h o w e v e r , th a t s h e is e n title d to aw a iv e ro f in a d m is s ib ilityu n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1182( a ) ( 9) ( C ) ( i i ) . T ha ts e c t i on pr ovi de s a n e xc e pt i on t o i na dm i s s i bi l i tyi f 10 y e a r s ha ve pa s s e d s i nc e the a l i e n’ s l a s tde pa rtur e a nd i f the a l i e n obt a i ns the S e c r e t a ry of

the D e pa rtm e ntof

H om e l a nd S e c ur i ty ’ s c ons e ntt o r e appl yf or a d m is s io n b e f

o r e r e e n te r in g th e U n ite d S ta te s . In l i gh tof ou r dec i si on i n C arri l l o d e P al ac i os v. H ol der, N o. 09 -720 59 , fi l ed thi s da t e , P e t i t i one ri s note nt i t l e d t o aw a i ve rof i na dm i s s i bi l i ty— nunc pr o tunc or othe rw i s e — be c aus e , a l though 10 y e a r s ha ve e l aps e d s i nc e s he l a s tde pa rt e d the U ni t ed S t at es , she di d n otre m ai n o ut si de the U ni t ed S t at es for a tl ea st10 ye ar s be f or e r e e ntry . W e the r e f

or e de nythe pe t i t i on. P e t i t i o n DE NI E D.
H. Res. 1533 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 10, 2008. 

Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule 

XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House 

is waived with respect to any resolution reported through the 

legislative day of December 13, 2008, providing for consideration or disposition of a measure relating to financial assistance to eligible automobile manufacturers, and for other purposes. 

SEC. 2. House Resolutions 1516 and 1526 are laid on 

the table. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
H. Res. 453 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 6, 2007. 

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 2446) to reauthorize the Afghanistan Freedom 

Support Act of 2002, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 

against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall 

be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 

divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 

member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. After general 

debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 

five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the 

bill shall be in order except those printed in the report of the 

Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 

amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
2 

•HRES 453 EH 

report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 

report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the 

time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by 

the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 

amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 

of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 

Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 

waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 

At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment 

the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 

such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 2446 

pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 

the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the 

Speaker. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
825 Lotus Avenue Louisville, KY 40213

502.359.5000 tel

May 1, 2013

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 400 7th Street SW, Plaza 401 Washington, DC 20590-0001

Re: Exemption 8118D, Docket Number FAA-2003-15439

Ladies/Gentlemen:

In accordance with Title 14 of the Code of F ederal Regulations (14CFR) § 11.61, United Parcel Service (UPS), Operating Certif icate IPXA097B, petitions the Admi nistrator for an extension of Exemption No. 8118, Docket FAA-2003-15439. This exemption was originally granted on August 26, 2003. Extensions were granted on August 17, 2005, June 22, 2007, August 31, 2009, and June 7, 2011. The current extension is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2013.

Exemption No. 8118 provides relief to the extent necessary permitting UPS to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman or aircrew program designee for an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in 121.424(1)(ii).

The conditions and circumstances, in regard to pub lic interest and equivalent levels of safety, which warranted the original grant of exemption, continue to exist. This petition does not seek to change the conditions and limitations of the cu rrent exemption. This exemption is not a compromiser of safety.

The renewal of this exemption is not a contro versial issue. For this reason, and the reasons stated above, UPS requests that a finding of good cause be made for waiving publication in the Federal Register (14 CFR §11.87). Granting the requested relief will set no precedents. The existence of the exemption is well known and widely accepted.

A summary of this petition as required by 14 CFR § 11.25 is attached.

If you have any questions or need additional informati on, please contact either myself or Andrew Newcomer, UPS Flight Operations Compliance, at (502) 395-5713 or anewcomer@ups.com

.

Sincerely,

/s/

Christopher A. Williams Director of Operations

Attachment

cc: Mr. William H. King

ACE-LOU-UPS-CMO-25 POI Mr. Philip K. Dougherty

ACE-LOU-UPS-CMO-25 APOIAttachment



## SUMMARY OF UNITED PARCEL SERVICE (UPS) PETITION

United Parcel Service (UPS) petitions fo r an extension of Exemption No. 8118. This exemptions permits UPS to s ubstitute a qualified and authorized check airman or aircrew program designee for an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command who is completing init ial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and landing, subject

to certain conditions and limitations.
#### Gilad Giladov, an Infant, by His Father and Natural Guardian, Daniel Giladov Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v Arthur Kurzweil, Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 164]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff Gilad Giladov appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), entered April 18, 1994, which, upon a jury verdict finding that the defendant was 90% at fault in the happening of the accident and finding that the plaintiff Gilad Giladov had suffered damages in the principal sum of $60,000 for past pain and suffering and loss of the enjoyment of the pleasures of life, is in his favor in the principal sum of only $54,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On April 19, 1991, the appellant, Gilad Giladov, who was then 11 years old, was riding his bicycle when he was struck by a car driven by the defendant. The appellant sustained a fracture to his left elbow that required surgery, the insertion of pins, and a removable cast. He remained in the hospital for 10 days. At the time of trial, the appellant had no functional disability, and he had a full range of motion in his left arm. The jury awarded the appellant $60,000 for past pain, suffering, and loss of the enjoyment of the pleasures of life and nothing for future pain, suffering, and loss of the enjoyment of the pleasures of life.

*482Contrary to the appellant’s contention, under the circumstances of this case, the damages awarded do not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation *(see,*CPLR 5501 [c]; *Rivera v State of New York,*205 AD2d 602). Moreover, the jury’s determination not to award damages for future pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of the pleasures of life was proper in light of the facts that the appellant has no functional disability and he has full range of motion in his left arm.

The record does not support the appellant’s contention that the trial court’s questioning of the witnesses adversely affected the jury’s view of the merits of the appellant’s claim. The questions that the trial court asked were intended to clarify the testimony and expedite the orderly progress of the trial. There is no evidence in the record that the appellant was prejudiced by the court’s questions *(see, Pallotta v West Bend Co.,*166 AD2d 637, 639; *Gallo v Supermarkets Gen. Corp.,*112 AD2d 345, 348; *cf., Lopez v Linden Gen. Hosp.,*89 AD2d 1010; *Gentile v Terrace Hgts. Hosp.,*57 AD2d 585). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.
Case No. 10,212.

#### In re NEW YORK MAIL STEAMSHIP CO.

[3 N. B. R. 280 (Quarto, 73).] 1

District Court, S. D. New York.

1869.

Bankruptct — Claim for Counsel Pee — Div-JPEXI).

1. Dividend was ordered on claims of certain lawyers for alleged professional services rendered bankrupt. *Meld,*reference ordered to register to examine into the proof of such debts, and the register and assignee restrained from further proceedings until further order of the court.

2. Motion to vacate an order for a dividend may be made on proper papers and notice.

[The ease was finally heard upon the claim of petitioning creditor for allowance for counsel fees. Case No. 10,208.)

In bankruptcy.

‘[This case is first reported as heard upon the question of removal of one of the assignees. Case No. 10,209. It was then heard upon the matter of allowance of counsel fees. Id. 10,210. Counsel for the bankrupt claimed a lien on papers. Id. 10,211.)

1

 [Reprinted by permission.)

BLATCHPORD, District Judge.

In this case, an order must be entered in the usual form, referring it to the register in charge of the case to examine into the three proofs of debt filed by Horatio P. Allen, Marshall B. White, and others, and Brown, Hall & Van-derpoel, with a view to determine their validity and proper amount. It is impossible for me to determine, on the paper before me, whether the declaration of the dividend ordered at the second meeting of creditors, ought or ought not to be set aside, but the case is a proper one to restrain the register and the assignee from taking any further steps towards making or paying such dividends, until the further order of the court, with a view to give an opportunity to any person interested to apply to the court, on proper papers and proper notice, to vacate the orde” for the dividend.
No. 65140.

#### Wm. M. Allison & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/14137, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the principles herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C.C.P.A. 112, C.A.D. 351), and that the case or cases reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, was or were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty is not assessable upon the merchandise which was reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
No. 62221.

#### Imperial International Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 317670-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

The protests were dismissed.
From: ejwallin@usfamily.net

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 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,

Jennifer Wallin

North Branch, MN 55056
From: pylesnews@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:06:08 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,

Barbara Pyles

Manassas, VA 20109
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

I, Mindy Grossman, certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:

(1) the Annual Report of HSN, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 of HSN, Inc. (the
Report), which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                                       
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------
|Date: February 21, 2013 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Mindy Grossman                    
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Mindy Grossman Chief Executive
Officer
From: mikemmtravel@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:25:21 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,

michael milano

Patchogue, NY 11772
From: rboza@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:08:39 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.

STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE CONSCIENCE "CONTROL"

Sincerely,

Ramon Boza

Miami, FL 33138