alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the Second Division,

January 6, 1969

No. P69/4.

protests 328260-K, etc. (New York).

#### Stelber Cycle Corp. *v.*United States, *1060The Trico International Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

No. P69/5.

protests 60/3210,etc. (New York).

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “A”, covered by the foregoing protests, consist of inner tubes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Seedman International Corp. et al.*v. *United States*(60 Cust. Ct. 127, C.D. 3285); that the items of merchandise marked “B”, consist of rim strips or rim tapes or rim bands or flaps; that said merchandise is composed of synthetic rubber of the butyl type and contains over 20 percent free carbon by weight; and that said merchandise is not dedicated to use with bicycles but is commercially used as parts of other articles such as delivery tricycles, motorized bicycles, adult tricycles, and other three-wheeled vehicles, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: howard_and_betty_wellsfry@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:35:09 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,

Howard & Mrs. Betty Wellsfry

Richland, WA 99352
From: AHRAHORN@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:22:25 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,

Raymond Hornbostel

Arlington Heights, IL 60004
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go

to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 22

- BG

- 627

IN RE JIN

- HO CYNN

, DDN 2020

- D 185

A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 395450

BEFORE: Deahl and AliKhan , Associate Judges, and Washington , Senior Judge.

O R D E R (FILED

— October 27, 2022)

On consideration of the certified order from the Commonwealth of Virginia suspending respondent fro m the practice of law for 90 days with terms ; this court’s August 23 , 2022 , order suspending respondent pending final disposition of this proceeding and directing him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed ; and the state ment of Disciplinary Counsel; and it appearing that respondent has not filed a response or his D.C . Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit, it is

ORDERED that Jin

- Ho Cynn is hereby suspended for 90 days from the practice of law in the District of Columbia subject to the terms imposed in Virginia

. See In re Sibley , 990 A.2d 483, 487

- 88 (D.C. 2010) (explaining that there is a rebuttable presumption in favor of imposition of identical discipline and exceptions to this presumption should be rare) ; In re Fuller , 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C . 2007) ( explaining that a rebuttable presumption of iden tical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate)

. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that

, for purposes of reinstatement, respondent’s suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that fully

c omplies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).

PER CURIAM
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 473 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 12, 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. 2638) making appropriations for the Department 
of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, 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 Appropriations. After 
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
rule. Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with 
clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill for amendment, 
the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose 
in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. 
When the committee rises and reports the bill back to the House with a 
recommendation that the bill do pass, 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 of H.R. 2638 in the House 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.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 10-Q FOR
THE NINE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          16,116
<SECURITIES>                                   154,875
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               178,128
<PP&E>                                          43,732
<DEPRECIATION>                                (12,821)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 220,521
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,429
<BONDS>                                         31,873
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         23
<COMMON>                                           212
<OTHER-SE>                                     166,433
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   220,521
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,976
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,427
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,221
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,532
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,895)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,895)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,895)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.73)
        

</TABLE>
No. 68915.

#### Empire Findings Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/1431, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “S” and “P” consist of stethoscopes or parts thereof, respectively, similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 68126, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 10.16.1



 Exhibit 10.16.1 

FOURTH AMENDMENT OF THE 
 LIPOSCIENCE, INC. 2007 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 
 THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT to the
LipoScience, Inc. (the “Company”) Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is effective as of August 27, 2012. 
 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of the Company has adopted and the stockholders of the Company have approved the Plan; and 

WHEREAS, the Board has approved the amendment of the Plan in order to increase the number of shares of Common Stock of the Company
issuable pursuant to awards granted under the Plan by 600,000 shares, from 3,308,043 to 3,908,043 shares. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the
Plan shall be amended as follows: 
 1. The first sentence of Paragraph 4 of the Plan shall be deleted in its entirety and the
following substituted in lieu thereof: 
 “Subject to adjustment under Section 8, Awards may be made
under the Plan for up to 3,908,043 shares of the Common Stock of the Company, $0.001 par value per share (the “Common Stock).” 
 2. Except as amended herein, the terms and provisions of the Plan shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
From: mightymouse1953_4@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:30:55 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,

Kathleen Weissinger

Miami, FL 33189
From: chrysalisgifts@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:25:10 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,

Christine Kalmbach

Houston, TX 77095
#### Donald Wayne PEERY, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Keith William DeBlasio; Donald Wells; S. Batts; D. Wilson; D. McBride; John Harris; Eric Hobbs; Nash; Kevin A. Eggleston; Steven C. Whisenant; Walter Epps; Wesley Hammond; Clarence W. Terry; Thomas Alexander; Derrick K. Jones, Plaintiffs, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Deputy Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; Ron Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; W.P. Rogers, Regional Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; C.D. Larson, Warden, Lunenburg Correctional Center; Carol F. Wallace, Associate Warden of Operations, Lunenburg Correctional Center; Jerry R. Townsend; Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees. Kareem Harris, Movant. Donald Wayne Peery, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Ira Wayne Madison, Plaintiff, v. Ronald J. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; Gene Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; David A. Garraghty, Warden, G.R.C.C.; G.R.C.C. Staff and Security, Defendants-Appellees. Kareem Harris, Movant. *159Donald Wayne Peery, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Richard Gutridge; Derrick D. Steele; Casha S. Al; Uhuru Nasheed, Plaintiffs, v. Gene M. Johnson, Deputy Director; Ronald Angelone, Director; K.V. Bonner, Unit Manager, Defendants-Appellees. Kareem Harris, Movant. Donald Wayne Peery, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Lian J. Ross; I-Tal Rastafarian Community, Plaintiffs, v. Department of Corrections; Ron Angelone, Defendants-Appellees, and Ron De’Angelo, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendant. Kareem Harris, Movant. Donald Wayne Peery, Plaintiff-Appellant, and T. Understanding Allah, Plaintiff, v. R. Angelone, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendant-Appellee. Kareem Harris, Movant.

Nos. 00-7700, 00-7701, 00-7702, 00-7703, 00-7704.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 22, 2001.

Decided July 9, 2001.

Donald Wayne Peery, pro se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for appellees.

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Donald Wayne Peery appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants in his civil action challenging Division Operating Procedure 864, a prison grooming policy requiring that male inmates’ hair not be more than one inch in thickness/depth and prohibiting beards. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion, along with Peery’s allegations of error, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Peery’s motion to be excused from paying the filing fee and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *DeBlasio v. Johnson,*128 F.Supp.2d 315 (E.D.Va. 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be*160fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Before the Second Division,

April 12, 1965

No. 69238.

#### The Rembar Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 64/15729, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of integral, necessary components of electrical X-ray apparatus or instruments, which are not X-ray tubes or parts thereof, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: billsack77@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:23:21 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,

William Sack

, 26505-2420