alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-20659 Summary Calendar

PHILLIP CHARLES MELONCON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus SAM NUCHIA, Chief; JOHN DOE, #1, Officer; JOHNNY KLEVENHAGEN, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-95-CV-4453

- - - - - - - - - - July 7, 1998 Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Phillip Charles Meloncon (#702760), a state prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights action. Meloncon contends that his civil rights were violated because he was never taken before a magistrate and advised that he had been charged with unauthorized use of a motor vehicle after his arrest. Meloncon’s summary-judgment pleadings in the district court, his appellate brief, and his motion for a temporary restraining orderNo. 97-20659 -2- expose his action for what it is--a collateral attack on his conviction for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. “A section 1983 claim that effectively attacks the constitutionality of a conviction or imprisonment does not accrue until that conviction or sentence has been ‘reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.’” Hudson v. Hughes , 98 F.3d 868, 872 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994)). Although Meloncon has requested damages, it is clear that he believes he is illegally imprisoned and that he is attempting to challenge the fact or length of his confinement. If a prisoner is challenging the fact or duration of his physical confinement and seeks an immediate or a speedier release from imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas

corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez , 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973).Although Meloncon contends that he is unable to raise his nonjurisdictional claim in a habeas proceeding because he waived it by pleading guilty, Meloncon must still show that his conviction has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into question before he may raise the issue in a § 1983 action. See Williams v. Schario , 93 F.3d 527, 528-29 (8th Cir. 1996). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R.No. 97-20659 -3- 42.2. Meloncon is warned that frivolous filings will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Meloncon should review any pending appeals or motions to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous. Meloncon has filed various motions, which are DENIED.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED; MOTIONS DENIED.
From: dcox@parkvilleinsurance.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:56:21 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,

David Cox

Whittier, CA 90601
From: c.j.lingo@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:17:22 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

Perhaps we should start with the fact that what we are talking about is not authorized under the

Constitution. It is specifically absent from the authorizations which appear only in Article 1, Section 8.

the federal government is not authorized to have passed the "Patient Protection and Affordable care

Act" which like almost all other laws within the past ten years or so is misnamed as it provides neither

patient care nor is it affordable.

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,

Charles Lingo

Henderson, NV 89011
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 Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of Sunrise Energy Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the
period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Konstantin Tsirulnikov, President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:




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





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





Date:
August 14, 2009




By:
              /s/ Konstantin
      TsirulnikovKonstantin
      TsirulnikovChief Executive
      Officer
ORDER APPROVING MINOR SETTLEMENT – 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

 AT TACOMA 

OLGA RYBAK AND SERGEY RYBAK, 

husband and wife, SERGEY RYBAK as

guardian for A. R. and D. R., minor children, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

CITY OF WASHOUGAL, a municipal

corporation, ROBERT E. RITCHIE AND JANE 

DOE RITCHIE, husband and wife, RICHARD

FOSTER AND JANE DOE FOSTER, husband

and wife, ROBERT D. GARWOOD and JANE 

DOE GARWOOD, husband and wife,

CAMERON HERSHAW and JANE DOE

HERSHAW, husband and wife, 

 

 Defendants. 

______________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 No. C05-5645 RJB 

ORDER APPROVING MINOR 

SETTLEMENT 

 

 

 The Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement having come before the Court and the 

Court having considered the Report of the Settlement Guardian Ad Litem and having 

considered the files and records herein; it is hereby ORDERED: 

1. The proposed settlement for the minor children as set forth in the Joint Motion for 

Approval of Settlement, is approved; 

Case 3:05-cv-05645-RJB Document 11 Filed 03/30/06 Page 1 of 2
ORDER APPROVING MINOR SETTLEMENT – 2 

2. Vernon McCray is approved as Guardian Ad Litem. 

3. The settlement funds for minor children in the amount of $10,000 shall be placed 

in a blocked account and are not to be released, except pursuant to further order of 

this Court; 

4. The Guardian ad Litem or a parent of the minor is authorized to execute releases 

of the children's claims. 

5. The costs and attorney's fees incurred herein are found to be reasonable and 

approved. 

6. Counsel shall, within 30 days, file a Receipt of Funds into a Blocked Financial 

Account, as evidence that the court’s order requiring deposit in a blocked account 

has been carried out. 

Dated and signed this 30th day of March, 2006. 

 

A

ROBERT J. BRYAN 

United States District Judge 

Presented by: 

/s/ Thomas Foley 

________________________________________ 

THOMAS FOLEY, W.S.B.A. # 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Case 3:05-cv-05645-RJB Document 11 Filed 03/30/06 Page 2 of 2
From: majondahl@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:01:06 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,

Miriam Jondahl

Waite Park, MN 56387
Before the Third Division,

March 8, 1966

No. 69827.

protests 62/9982, etc. (Boston).

#### Chadwick-Miller Importers, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *W. Kay Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 130, C.D. 2484), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
---

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 accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Resource Group, Inc. for the Year Ended February 28, 2009, I, James P.
Geiskopf, President and Chief Executive Officer of Resource Group, Inc. hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



|1. | Such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Year ended
      February 28, 2009, 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 such Annual Report on Form
      10-K for the Year ended February 28, 2009, fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      Resource Group, Inc.

By:       /s/ James P.
Geiskopf       
      James
Geiskopf             
President and Chief Executive Officer

Dated: May 28, 2008

---
From: llsmith691@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:36:48 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,

Lisa Smith

Richmond Hill, GA 31324
No. 69665.

#### J. C. De Jong & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/15617, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of pole ends similar in all material respects to those the subject of *J. C. De Jong & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(52 CCPA 26, C.A.D. 852), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 69630.

#### D. C. McGiehan and Lansen-Naeve Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/24731, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of centralographs and parts thereof, which parts are dedicated to use thereon, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *D. C. McGiehan*and *Lansen-Naeve Corp.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 87, C.D. 2477), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
VENDOR PROFILE

Note: Information is from vendor, however specifications may have 

changed. Contact vendor for updates.

Water Treatment Catalog and Decision Tool

Aquatech

Contact Information

Company Name: Aquatech

Profile: Established in 1981, Aquatech is a water purification company 

with technologies for industrial and infrastructure markets with a 

focus on desalination, water reuse, and zero liquid discharge. 

Feedwater for treatment includes surface water, well water, 

seawater, and wastewater stream. The company has recently 

designed a mobile evaporation unit to treat flowback water in the 

Marcellus Basin.

Address: One Four Coins Drive, Canonsburg, PA 15317 USA

Phone: 724-746-5300

Website: http://www.aquatech.com/index.php

Treatment Technology

Category: Thermal Evaporation

Subcategory:

Technology Name: MoVapTM

Surface Footprint 424 ft2

Process 

Description:

Feedwater TDS/

% Water Recovery

% Waste Stream:

Feed Capacity: 43,000-72,000 gpd, depending on the TDS concentration

Costs:
From: Delmar Forst

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:47:23 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Delmar Forst
Crete, Nebraska
No. 64512.

#### Gitkin Co. *v.*United States,

protest 59/21862 (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of valances similar in all material respects to those the subject of *D.*N. *& E. Walter & Co. et al.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 26, C.D. 2098), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
February 16, 1961

No. 65177.

#### The A. W. Fenton Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 241454-K.

Protest abandoned January 4, 1961. (Not published.) Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.