alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 60532.

#### Naumes Forwarding Service *v.*United States,

protest 292344-K/ 8318 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of peppers or pickles similar in all material respects to those the subject of *E. J. Petrosemolo Co., Inc.,*and *Barian Shipping Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 159, C. D. 1461), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: blairphillips93@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:30:35 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,

Blair Phillips

Le Roy, IL 61752
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 490 

Honoring the 2007 NBA Champion San Antonio Spurs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 15, 2007 

Mr. SMITH of Texas (for himself, Mr. CUELLAR, Mr. RODRIGUEZ, and Mr. 

GONZALEZ) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the 2007 NBA Champion San Antonio Spurs. 

Whereas on June 14, 2007, the San Antonio Spurs won the 

2007 National Basketball Association (NBA) Championship with a victory over the Cleveland Cavaliers; 

Whereas the Spurs’ win results in their fourth NBA Championship in the last 9 years; 

Whereas the Spurs, after sweeping the Cavaliers to decisively 

win the Finals 4–0, are widely recognized as a modernday basketball dynasty; 

Whereas San Antonio’s four-game sweep was only the eighth 

sweep since the finals began in 1947; 

Whereas the Spurs’ .727 winning percentage is the highest 

in finals history; 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HRES 490 IH 

Whereas under the leadership and instruction of Coach Gregg 

Popovich, the Spurs’ Tony Parker, Tim Duncan, Manu 

Ginobili, Robert Horry, Bruce Bowen, Michael Finley, 

Fabricio Oberto, Francisco Elson, Jacque Vaughn, and 

Brent Barry played together as a team with determination and resolve to bring the NBA trophy back home to 

the Alamo City; 

Whereas Tony Parker was named the Finals Most Valuable 

Player after using his speed and quickness to average 

24.5 points and an amazing 57 percent from the field 

during the Finals, becoming the first European-born 

player to be honored as MVP; 

Whereas Tim Duncan and Bruce Bowen anchored the Spurs 

with stifling defense throughout the NBA Finals; 

Whereas Manu Ginobili used his pinpoint three-point shooting and strong drives to the basket to lead the Spurs to 

victory in Game 4 with 27 points; 

Whereas Coach Gregg Popovich is recognized as one of the 

greatest coaches of all time after winning his fourth NBA 

Championship; and 

Whereas San Antonio has the best fans in the league and the 

Alamo City is the perfect setting for a championship celebration: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives con2 gratulates the San Antonio Spurs and Coach Gregg 

3 Popovich for winning the 2007 National Basketball Asso4 ciation Championship. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
From: sanitizeit-jen@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:30:50 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,

Jennifer Riley

Cumming, GA 30041
From: lauxydad@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:50:37 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,

ED LAUX

Covington, LA 70433
#### Dwight David LEWIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Alton BASKERVILLE, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 05-6087.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 17, 2005.

Dwight David Lewis, Appellant pro se. Susan Foster Barr, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

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

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*173Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Dwight Lewis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition in which he alleged that his sentence was calculated incorrectly. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lewis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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*
EXHIBIT 15





ACCOUNTANT’S
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT





To the
Board of Directors and Shareholders


of
Mediware Information Systems, Inc.:





We are
aware that Mediware Information Systems, Inc. has incorporated by reference in
Registration Statement Nos. 333-07591, No. 333-83016, No. 333-119503, No.
333-123496 and No. 333-130576 its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31,
2008, which includes our report dated January 27, 2009 covering the unaudited
interim financial information contained therein. Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Act”), that report is not considered a part
of the registration statement prepared or certified by our firm or a report
prepared or certified by our firm within the meaning of Section 7 and 11 of the
Act. It should be noted that we have not performed any procedures subsequent to
January 27, 2009.








Eisner
LLP


New York,
New York


January
27, 2009
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
 
 
 Project No.Central Rivers Power NH, LLC:J. Brodie Smith Hydroelectric Project
2287-053Gorham Hydroelectric Project
2288-057Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC:Shelburne Hydroelectric Project
2300-052Upper Gorham Hydroelectric Project
2311-067Cross Power Hydroelectric Project
2326-054Cascade Hydroelectric Project
2327-047Sawmill Hydroelectric Project
2422-058Riverside Hydroelectric Projec
2423-031
 On September 22, 2023, Central Rivers Power NH, LLC and Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) copies of its applications for Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certifications filed with the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (New Hampshire DES), in conjunction with the above captioned projects. Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act [1]
                    
                     and section 5.23(b) of the Commission's regulations,[2]
                    
                     a state certifying agency is deemed to have waived its certifying authority if it fails or refuses to act on a certification request within a reasonable period of time, which is one year after the date the certification request was received. Accordingly, we hereby notify New Hampshire DES of the following: *Date New Hampshire DES received the certification requests:*
                     September 22, 2023. If New Hampshire DES fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification requests on or before September 22, 2024, then the agency certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1). Dated: September 25, 2023. Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Deputy Secretary.


# Footnotes

1.
    
                         33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1). Back to Citation
 2.
    
                         18 CFR 5.23(b) (2022). Back to Citation


[FR Doc. 2023-21507 Filed 9-28-23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
ORDER PERMITTING FILING OF 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT - 1 

No. C-05-5656 JKA 

8756.1\wilkinson\p...\complaint 2d amended-file order 

Hon. J. Kelley Arnold 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 

JAMES Q. WILKINSON, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ELDON VAIL, et al., 

 Defendants. 

No. C05-5656 JKA 

ORDER PERMITTING FILING OF 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 

 Based on the Stipulation of counsel to permit filing of plaintiff's Second Amended 

Complaint [Dkt 48], it is 

 ORDERED that plaintiff may file his Second Amended Complaint. 

 DONE IN OPEN COURT this 23rd day of January, 2007. 

 /s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

 J. Kelley Arnold 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

/ / / 

Case 3:05-cv-05656-JKA Document 51 Filed 01/23/07 Page 1 of 2
ORDER PERMITTING FILING OF 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT - 2 

No. C-05-5656 JKA 

8756.1\wilkinson\p...\complaint 2d amended-file order 

Presented by: 

MacDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 

By 

Jesse Wing, WSBA No. 27751 

Jay S. Brown, WSBA No. 19835 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Approved for entry, notice of presentation waived: 

ROB McKENNA 

Attorney General of Washington 

By 

Allison Stanhope, WSBA No. 30486 

Sara J. Olson, WSBA No. 33003 

Assistant Attorneys General 

JACKSON & WALLACE LLP 

By 

Matthew Wojcik, WSBA No. 27918 

Attorneys for Defendant Ellis 

Case 3:05-cv-05656-JKA Document 51 Filed 01/23/07 Page 2 of 2
From: ddhviste@drtel.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:55:36 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Betty Hvistendahl

Ellendale, ND 58436
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7049

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JIMMY LAWRENCE NANCE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CR-92-135-R, CA-97-473-R)

Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 10, 1997

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmy Lawrence Nance, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn Eckert, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

without prejudice his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

Appellant's motions for appointment of counsel, for preparation of

a transcript at government expense, for general relief, and to preclude the Assistant United States Attorney from these proceedings,

deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. United States v. Nance, Nos. CR92-135-R; CA-97-473-R (W.D. Va. July 9, 1997). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This financial data schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the Consolidated Balance Sheet and related Consolidated Statement of Income
as of and for the three month period ending March 31, 1999 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                         MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                     6,712
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             87,374
<ALLOWANCES>                                               4,041
<INVENTORY>                                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         180,140
<PP&E>                                                 3,718,628
<DEPRECIATION>                                           617,937
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         5,919,847
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    138,408
<BONDS>                                                  835,056
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                   1,492
<OTHER-SE>                                             2,718,189
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           5,919,847
<SALES>                                                  193,509
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         193,509
<CGS>                                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            115,194
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        24,389
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           53,926
<INCOME-TAX>                                              23,458
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       30,468
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                              30,468
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              $ .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              $ .20
        

</TABLE>