alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(R.D. 11526)

#### Parsons & Whittemore, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 2563-H.

(Decided May 23, 1968)

*Sharp, Bolter & Hutchison*for the plaintiff.

*Bdwin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> *8737. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
From: mcds4@shentel.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:45:09 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,

Cherie McDonald

Fulks Run, VA 22830
From: mjbears@dishmail.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:59:33 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,

Mark Klein

Wakefield, NE 68784
Before the Third Division,

April 4, 1966

No. P66/18.

protests 64/25105 and 64/9947 (New York).

#### Benziger Bros., Inc., and Gimbel Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consist of figures similar in all material respects to those the subject of Wm. *S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 CCPA 15, C.A.D. 458), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 32.1 Certification of Periodic Financial Report Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
From: eaelmore@swbell.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:01:07 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,

Ellen Elmore

Saint Louis, MO 63141
From: samuelsens@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:15:07 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,

Ronald Samuelsen

, 06027-0235
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S HABEAS

PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

JAMES A. BATTLE, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

KENNETH QUINN,

Respondent.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: C05-1541-JLR

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

HABEAS PETITION WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

The Court, having reviewed petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, respondent’s

answer thereto, the Report and Recommendation of Mary Alice Theiler, United States Magistrate

Judge, and the remaining record, does hereby find and Order:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Petitioner’s habeas petition and this action are DISMISSED, without prejudice;

and,

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner, to counsel for

respondent, and to Judge Theiler.

DATED this 26th day of May, 2006.

A 

JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01541-JLR Document 22 Filed 05/26/06 Page 1 of 1
From: markay3@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:58:01 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,

Mark & Kay Landerdahl

, 61604-3451
Document Headings

                    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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; TRND1 Chemistry Manufacturing and Controls for Drug Substances.                    

*Date:*                         November 2-3, 2023.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Victor Henriquez, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Director, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Room 1066, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-0813,                         *henriquv@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, B—Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 26, 2023.

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-21443 Filed 9-28-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Before the Third Division,

November 18, 1963

No. 68123.

#### Aut Customs Brokers, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 62/19455 (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

An examination of the official papers showing that the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, the protest was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
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 DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

ULTIMATE IMAGE, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

WILLIAM M. PEDERSEN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. CV05-1572L

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ “Motion to Consolidate” cause

numbers C05-1572L and C05-5618FDB. Dkt. # 26. The action that was before the Honorable

Franklin D. Burgess was remanded to state court on December 16, 2005, and is no longer

“pending before the court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate is,

therefore, DENIED. 

DATED this 23rd day of January, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01572-RSL Document 32 Filed 01/23/06 Page 1 of 1
Case No. 14,176.

#### TRIPLET et al. v. VAN NAME et al.

[2 Cranch. C. C. 332.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

May Term, 1822.

Average — Deck Load.

The vessel, and the cargo in the hold, are not liable to contribution for the deck load thrown overboard for the general safety.

Bill in equity [by Triplet & Neale] for contribution from the vessel, and remaining part of the cargo, for a part of the deck load thrown overboard for the general safety of vessel and cargo, in a voyage from New York to Alexandria, D. C.

Mr. Mason, for defendant,

contended that the cargo under deck is not liable for average of deck load thrown overboard for the preservation of the whole. Smith v. Wright. 1 Caines, 43; Judah v. Randal, 2 Caines, Cas. 324; Lenox v. United Ins. Co., 3 Johns. Cas. ITS; Stev. Av. 14. IS, 50; Code Nap.

Mr. Taylor, contra.

This is a coasting voyage, and the question depends upon the usage of the trade. The general principle is, that the vessel and remaining goods shall contribute for any part of the cargo thrown overboard for the safety of the residue. There is no reason for excepting the deck load, unless the vessel is thereby overladen: in which case the master only is liable. The error has arisen from applying the law of insurance to a mere question of contribution. But the law of insurance is founded on the fact that a deck load is liable to greater risk than a cargo under deck. Beaw. Lex. Merc. tit. “Salvage.” The Code Napoleon is the municipal law of Prance, and is no evidence of the general maritime law upon this particular case.

Mr. Taylor

also cited a MS. note of the case of the sloop Matilda from New York to Alexandria. D. C., which was submitted to arbitrators. James Bruce Nichols, an insurance broker, and George Coleman, a master of a vessel, who decided it to be a proper case for average, it not appearing that the vessel was overloaded.

THE COURT,

having taken time to consider, in the vacation, was of opinion that it was not a ease of average, and dismissed the bill.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6245
JAMES EDWARD BLUNT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-1715-AM) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 7, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edward Blunt, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, 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 relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause toappeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate.We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Blunt v. Warden , No. CA-95-1715-AM (E.D. Va. Feb. 1, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED