alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 63839.

protests 58/2616, 58/13477, and 58/18720 (A) (New York).

#### Dux Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of chairs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Davies Turner & Co.*v. *United States*(45 C.C.P.A. 39, C.A.D. 669), the claim at 19 percent under the provision in paragraph 412, as modified, *supra,*for “Furniture, * * * Chairs,” was sustained. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of furniture the same as that in C.A.D. 669, *supra,*were held dutiable at 11% percent under the provision in said paragraph 412, as modified, *supra,*for other furniture.
From: twkennedy28150@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:47:41 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,

Theodore Kennedy

Shelby, NC 28150
Before the First Division,

November 27, 1963

*No. 68140.*

#### Max Eckardt *& Sons,*Division of Thor Corp., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/23700, etc. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Oliver, 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.
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

ORDER STRIKING AND BARRING POST-JUDGMENT FILINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_______________________________________)

JERRY BRENDEN, )

) Case No. C05-1681RSL

Plaintiff, ) 

v. )

) ORDER STRIKING AND BARRING

SELLEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ) POST-JUDGMENT FILINGS

)

Defendant. )

_______________________________________)

On March 11, 2008, and March 12, 2008, plaintiff filed a variety of documents

including what appear to be notices of claim and subpoenas under the above cause number. This

matter has been closed since July 31, 2006, and the Court has warned plaintiff that he has no

right or entitlement to discovery or other relief in this matter. The Court has already stricken a

number of post-judgment filings. See Dkt. # 66, 73, and 77. Docket numbers 78 and 79 are

hereby STRICKEN and plaintiff is BARRED from filing any other papers in this matter. The

Clerk of Court is directed to return to plaintiff any motions, notices, or other documents filed by

plaintiff in the above-captioned case. Defendants need not respond to or comply with any

subpoena or discovery served in C05-1681RSL until and unless specifically ordered to do so by

the Court.

Dated this 17th day of March, 2008.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01681-RSL Document 80 Filed 03/17/08 Page 1 of 1
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





In connection with the Annual Report of Xun Energy Inc.  (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



1.

The Report 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 operation of the Company.



3.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Date:   September 13, 2012



By: /s/ Jerry G. Mikolajczyk

Jerry G. Mikolajczyk,

Chief Executive Officer
No. 61042.

protest 303520-K (Los Angeles).

#### Winter Wolff & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the articles identified on the invoices as item 618, water pump pliers, are, in fact, slip joint pliers, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: musicman_300@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:34:54 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,

John L Harmon III

Vinton, VA 24179
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

1 - STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Selchow v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. C05-5683RBL

MARKOWITZ, HERBOLD,

GLADE & MEHLHAF, P.C.

SUITE 3000 PACWEST CENTER

1211 SW FIFTH AVENUE

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3730

(503) 295-3085

THE HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

INGO SELCHOW,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,

Defendant.

No. C05-5683RBL

STIPULATED MOTION AND

ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE

SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), plaintiff Ingo Selchow moves for an order

permitting him to file his Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has conferred with

defendant and has received defendant’s consent to his filing of the Second Amended

Complaint, as indicated below. 

DATED this 8th day of January, 2007.

ATER WYNNE LLP MARKOWITZ, HERBOLD, GLADE &

 MEHLHAF, P.C.

By: s/ Kathy L. Feldman By: s/ Lynn R. Nakamoto

 ____________________________ ___________________________

 Kathy L. Feldman, WSBA #15273 Lynn Nakamoto, pro hac vice Attorneys for Defendant Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 3:05-cv-05683-RBL Document 30 Filed 01/09/07 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff may file his Second Amended Complaint

pursuant to the stipulation of the parties.

DATED this 9th day of January, 2007.

A

RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05683-RBL Document 30 Filed 01/09/07 Page 2 of 2
Before Judge Watson,

November 14, 1968

No. R68/41.

reappraisements R62/8355, etc. (San Francisco).

#### Lilli Ann Corporation *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues and facts are the same in all material respects as those in *Stockheimer & Harder*and *American Foreign*Industries, *Inc.*v. *United States*(58 Cust. Ct. 801, A.R.D. 218), the court found and held that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402(f), Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved herein and that such values were the appraised unit values, noted in red ink, less 10 percent.
No. 414.

#### Shenker *v.*Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.

*Charles Alan Wright*and *John Buffalo*for petitioner.

*H. Fred Mercer*for respondent.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted.
#### Oumadatt Maharaj et al., Respondents, v Tibor G. Farras, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[632 NYS2d 470]

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendant Tibor G. Farkas appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated November 15, 1994, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3404 to dismiss the action on the ground that it had been abandoned, and (2) an order of the same court, also dated November 15, 1994, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, where the action was not marked off the calendar due to any default on the plaintiffs’ part, the motion to restore was brought within one year of the date the case was marked off the calendar, and the physician’s affidavit annexed to the plaintiffs’ moving papers constituted a sufficient affidavit of merit, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to grant a motion to restore the action to the trial calendar *(see, Balducci v Jason,*133 AD2d 436).

We have reviewed the appellant’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.
February 2010



### U.S. Customs and Border **Pr otection**  **Preventing Acts of T** 

**errorism ,**  **Securing the Borders and Facilitating**  **Legitimate Tr** **ade and T ravel** 

**Ai r and Marine**  **Field Operations Border Patrol** February 2010 

# Office of Field Operations

 OFO operates at 20 major field of fices, 327 ports of entry, 58 operational Container Security Initiative ports, and 15 preclearance stations in Canada, Ireland, and the Caribbean.February 2010 

# We protect American agriculture
 Agriculture specialists inspect ships, airplanes, vehicles, cargo, passengers, and their baggage for **prohibited products**  **that may** 

**c arry**  **pests and disease.** February 2010 

# OAM protects by air and sea

 CBP Air and Marine is **the world’s largest law**  **enforcement air and marine force.** February 2010 

# U.S. Border Patrol Background

 Founded May 28, 1924.  Uniformed law enforcement component of DHS.  Provides border security between designated Ports of Entry.  Primary Responsibility for 6,000 miles of land border: • 2,000 miles with Mexico • 4,000 miles with Canada  Operates in an “all -threats” environment.February 2010 

# United States Border Patrol - Mission

 Priority Mission: Preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States.  Traditional Mission: Preventing illegal aliens, smugglers, narcotics and other contraband from entering the United States.  Strategic Goal: Establish and maintain effective operational control of our Nation’s borders.  Operational Control is defined as the ability to consistently:  **Detect** entries when they occur;  **Identify** what the entry is **and classify** it’s level of threat (who they are, wh at they are doing, how many, etc.);  Effectively and efficiently **respond** to the entry, and;  Bring the situation to the appropriate law e nforcement **resolution** .February 2010 

# Strategic Deployment Develop and Deploy the right combination of:  Personnel  Rapid Response Capability  Infrastructure  Roads, fence, boat ramps, etc.  Technology  Situational AwarenessFebruary 2010



### Urban, Rural & Remote EnvironmentsFebruary 2010 

# Supplemental Enforcement Strategies
 Defense-in - Depth (Checkpoints, Transportation Checks, etc.)  Partnerships  Intelligence  Situational Awareness/Common Operating Picture (COP)  Legal Consequences (Operation Streamline)
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<CASH>                       112,631
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                   24,656
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             159,703
<PP&E>                       846,759
<DEPRECIATION>               206,042
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               919,320
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>        115,536
<BONDS>                        1,091
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<COMMON>                         781
<OTHER-SE>                   778,857
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 919,320
<SALES>                      938,391
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             946,417
<CGS>                        350,471
<TOTAL-COSTS>                773,560
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>              115,727
<INCOME-TAX>                  41,663
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           74,064
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                  74,064
<EPS-BASIC>                   0.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0.93


</TABLE>
From: nobledrug@rcom-ne.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:30:36 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,

Kim Fulmer

Holdrege, NE 68949
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

DR. SUSAN KEGERISE,

Respondent

v.

KATHY L. DELGRANDE, JOHN F. 

DIETRICH, CLIFTON D. EDWARDS, 

CAROL L. KARL, JESSE RAWLS, SR., 

DR. PETER J. SAKOL, HELEN D. 

SPENCE, AND MARK Y. SUSSMAN, IN 

THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY,

Petitioners

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 877 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of May, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

a. Whether the Commonwealth Court majority’s holding that a claim of 

constructive discharge does not require actual resignation conflicts 

with the United State Supreme Court’s holdings in Green v. 

Brennan, 136 S.Ct. 1769 (2016) and Pennsylvania State Police v. 

Suders, 124 S.Ct. 2342 (2004)[?]

b. Whether the Commonwealth Court majority’s holding that a claim of 

constructive discharge does not require actual resignation conflicts 

with this Court’s decision in Pennsylvania Labor Relations Bd. v. 

Sand’s Ret. Corp., 240 A.2d 801 (Pa. 1968) or the Superior Court’s 

decisions in Kroen v. Bedway Sec. Agency, Inc., 633 A.2d 628 

(Pa. Super 1993) and its progeny[?]
[877 MAL 2016] - 2

c. Whether the Commonwealth Court majority erred as a matter of law 

and so abused its discretion as to call for this Court’s review in 

concluding that Kegerise had a clear right to relief in mandamus 

pursuant to Section 1080 of the Public School Code, even though 

Section 1080 is silent as to the District’s obligations in the face of a 

superintendent’s resignation[?]
| Exhibit                32.1 |
|-----------------------------|

|   | 1. | The                Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)                or                15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as                amended;                and |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The                information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in                all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                FREDERICK M. DANZIGER             |
|------------------------------------------------------|
| Frederick                M. Danziger                 |
| President                and Chief Executive Officer |
| October                11, 2007                      |
No. 68411.

protests 62/1222, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Air-Sea Forwarders, a/c Kindred Aviation, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of paperweights similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 67488, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. P69/74.

protest 60/7464-11258 (Chicago).

#### Arnold Schwinn & Co. *v.*United States,

Newman, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of electric horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of *S. Hiller & Co. et al.*v. *United States*(59 Cust. Ct. 79, C.D. 3082), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: joesnym@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:42:09 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,

Carl Snyder

Cumberland, MD 21502