alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 68420.

protests 63/1106, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### J. W. Robinson Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliveb, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plastic paperweights similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 67488, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 27, 2015

No. 04-14-00372-CR

Andres Ramon JUAREZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR0936B

Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice 

Jason Pulliam, Justice

The panel has considered the Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing, and the motion is 

DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on October 27, 2015. 

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ___________________________________

 Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Page 1 PROPOSED ORDER - [C05-1559-MAT]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

COLLEEN E. PETTY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant

Civil No. C05-1559-MAT

PROPOSED ORDER

Based on the stipulation of the parties, it is ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to

the Commissioner pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 405(g), Sentence Six. On receipt of this Court’s

remand order, the Commissioner will remand the case to an administrative law judge for a de

novo hearing, unless the Commissioner locates the missing hearing tape and associated claim

documents in the interim, in which case the Commissioner will assemble and file a transcript of the

previous administrative proceedings with this Court along with an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.

Case 2:05-cv-01559-MAT Document 9 Filed 11/30/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Page 2 PROPOSED ORDER - [C05-1559-MAT]

DATED this 29th day of November, 2005.

s/ Mary Alice Theiler 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Presented by:

s/ Leisa A. Wolf 

LEISA A. WOLF

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

Attorney for Defendant

701 Fifth Ave, Ste 2900, M/S 901

Seattle, WA 98104-7075

Phone: 206-615-3621

Fax: 206-615-2531

leisa.wolf@ssa.gov

Case 2:05-cv-01559-MAT Document 9 Filed 11/30/05 Page 2 of 2
From: lmk26@students.calvin.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:55:37 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,

Logan Knoppers

Sparta, MI 49345
From: jasrl@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:41:02 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,

james lacy

Fayetteville, AR 72703
1

The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3812

___________

Tanya Boyd Harper, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Arkansas.

*

Brookshire Grocery Company, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 8, 2006

Filed: November 14, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Tanya Boyd Harper appeals from the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment. In this diversity action, Harper claimed that Brookshire Grocery Company

wrongfully discharged her, defamed her, and committed the tort of outrage against

her. 
-2-

Upon de novo review, see Dennen v. City of Duluth, 350 F.3d 786, 790 (8th Cir.

2003), we find the district court’s analysis to be correct, thorough, and well-reasoned.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
No. 60523.

#### Canada Dry Ginger Ale, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 264416-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the issues and facts 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 quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
From: sisterjudithmarie@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:57:15 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,

Sister Judith-Marie Evanowski

, 55116-2659
From: AuAgSMITH@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:06:50 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,

Don Naylor

Elizabethtown, KY 42701
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

VINCENT DANIEL HOPPER A.K.A.

ANTOLIN ANDREW MARKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL MELENDEZ,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5680RBL

ORDER 

This Bivens action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28

U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrates' Rules MJR 1, MJR 3, and MJR 4. The

only remaining defendant is Michael Melendez. The remaining claims address the constitutionality of the

telephone system available for plaintiff. All other defendants and all other claims were dismissed at

summary judgment. See, (Dkt. # 129 and 132).

Mr. Marks now litigates under a sanction as a result of improper filings. As part of that sanction

documents filed by Mr. Marks are submitted under seal for court review. Mr. Marks has filed one

document not covered by the court’s last order (Dkt. # 176). Document 176 is a motion for return of legal

papers and access to library services. This action is stayed and Plaintiff does not need to access those

services at this time. The document is UNSEALED but no further court action will be taken on this filing. 

The clerk’s office is directed to send copies of this letter to plaintiff and to counsel for defendants.

DATED this 9 day of October, 2007.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate 

Case 3:05-cv-05680-RBL Document 180 Filed 10/09/07 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66449-66450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21163]


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

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Notice

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, October 10, 2023.

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511, 1331 Pennsylvania 
Avenue NW, Suite 504 North, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street 
entrance).

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Commission will consider and act upon the 
following in open session: Thomas v. CalPortland Co., Docket Nos. WEST 
2018-0402-DM and WEST 2019-0205. (Issues include whether the Judge 
erred in ruling that the miner had established that the operator had 
discriminated

[[Page 66450]]

against him under section 105(c)(3) of the Mine Act.)
    Any person attending this meeting who requires special 
accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 
interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. 
Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO: Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-
9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

PHONE NUMBER FOR LISTENING TO MEETING: 1 (866) 236-7472, Passcode: 678-
100.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: September 22, 2023.
Sarah L. Stewart,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2023-21163 Filed 9-25-23; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 188 (Friday, September 29, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 67333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21363]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Division of 
Intramural Research Board of Scientific Counselors, NIAID.
    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in 
accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of 
individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National 
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, including consideration 
of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of 
individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a 
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Division of Intramural Research Board of 
Scientific Counselors, NIAID.
    Date: December 11-13, 2023.
    Time: 7:45 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate personnel qualifications and 
performance, and competence of individual investigators.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, Building 50, Conference Room 1227/
1233, 50 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Laurie Lewallen, Division of Intramural Research 
Program Support Staff, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Building 33, Room 1N24, 33 
North Drive Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 761-6362, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ec2effbfce7eba0c2ebf9efe2e2ebe0cee0e7e6a0e9e1f8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0d416c787f64682341687a6c616168634d636465236a627b">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 25, 2023.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-21363 Filed 9-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

JOSE SAGRERO GALLARDO,

 Defendant.

Case No. 05-5171M

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( x ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 ( ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

 ( ) 

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 (X ) Defendant’s lack of community ties and resources..

 (X ) Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal,

without prejudice to review..

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 September 22, 2005.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-mj-05171-JKA Document 16 Filed 09/22/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 66033.

#### Novik & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 58/24462, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bridal headdresses similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Novik & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 183, C.D. 2221), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 64548.

#### B. Westergaard & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 288841-K (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bread similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nordic Baking & Importing Co., Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 78, C.A.D. 733), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.