alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 61463.

#### Felix M. Mendelson and Hoyt, Shepston & Sciaroni *v.*United States,

protest 237266-K (San Francisco).

*416Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protest was dismissed, and the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
From: rory@rochester.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:38:15 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,

Dave Holland

North Greece, NY 14515
#### Sunil Mohandas TALREJA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-2455.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 29, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 19, 2005.

Nana Babington, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Song Park, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Sunil Mohandas Talreja, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) finding him subject to removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)® (2000), for having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude for which a sentence of one year or longer can be imposed, that is committed within five years of the date of his admission.

The Government has the burden of proving to the immigration judge by clear and convincing evidence that “in the case of an alien who has been admitted to the United States, the alien is deportable. No decision of deportability shall be valid unless it is based upon reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(A) (2000); *see*8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(a) (2005) (“A[n alien] charged with deportability shall be found to be removable if the Service proves by clear and convincing evidence that the respon*185dent is deportable as charged”). The alien bears the burden of showing “by clear and convincing evidence, that the alien is lawfudly present in the United States pursuant to a prior admission.” § 1229a(c)(2)(B) (2000). Thus, this court considers whether substantial evidence supports the decision of the immigration judge, as affirmed by the Board, that the Department of Homeland Security established Talreja’s removability by clear and convincing evidence, and that Talreja did not bear his burden of establishing a prior admission. *Nakamoto v. Ashcroft,*363 F.3d 874, 881-82 (9th Cir. 2004).

Talreja claimed that he was admitted in 1985, and therefore, the 1998 crime was not within five years of his admission. However, Talreja failed to prove an admission in 1985, and the Attorney General did establish entry in 1994, within five years of the crime involving moral turpitude. Therefore, we hold that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Talreja is removable as charged. Talreja’s complaint that the immigration judge erred in failing to act on his request for voluntary departure is irrelevant as the Board found him ineligible for voluntary departure under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(l)(B) (2000).

Therefore, we deny the petition for review. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6**  **154**

WILLIAM HENRY MULDROW , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. ERIC D. WILSON , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Anthony John Trenga , District Judge. ( 1 :1 3

- cv - 0 1477

- AJT

- IDD )

Submitted : May 22, 2014 Decided: May 29, 2014

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion
. William Henry Muldrow , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: William Henry Muldrow , a federal prisoner, appeals the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Muldrow v. Wilson , No. 1:13

- cv - 01477

- AJT

IDD (E.D. Va. Dec. 12, 2013) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
(R.D. 11512)

#### Judson Sheldon Int. Corp. et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 846302, etc.

(Decided April 18, 1968)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiffs.

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

Rao, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following- stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the appeals for reappraisement set forth in Schedule “A” hereto attached and made a part hereof, are limited to the spark plugs invoiced at either 20 cents each, 25 cents each, or 75 cents each exported from the United Kingdom and entered for consumption after the effective date (February 27, 1958) of Section 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54165).

> 2. That the merchandise involved herein is not identified on the Final List (T.D. 54521) published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, and that said merchandise is subject to appraisement under Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> 3. That at the time of exportation thereof to the United States, the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment, to the United States, were the invoice unit price of 20 cents each, 25 cents each, or 75 cents each, respectively, plus the pro rata share of any separately invoiced cost of packing as invoiced.

> 4. That the appeals for reappraisement as set forth in the Schedule “A” attached may be deemed submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

Upon the agreed facts, I find export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs *838Simplification Act of 1956, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise covered by said appeals for reappraisement and that such value is the invoice unit price of 20 cents each, 25 cents each, or 75 cents each, respectively, pins the pro rata share of any separately invoiced cost of packing as invoiced.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. P67/239.

#### W. J. Byrnes, a/c St. Mary of Assumption Church *v.*United States, protest 66/57429 (Los Angeles).

Oliver, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of faceted stained glass window panels which are works of art, imported for and installed in a church, similar in all material respects to the stained glass windows the subject of *Mission of San Gabriel*and *W. J. Byrnes & Co.*v. *United States*(44 Cust. Ct. 157, C.D. 2171); *V. Rev. Kilian*McGowan, *C. P. Rector*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 450, C.D. 2673); and *Castelazo & Associates et al.*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 67, C.D. 2728), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: wlind@bluefield.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:25:51 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. (It should be obvious, for instance, that religious colleges --one of which I work for--

and schools, religious publishing houses, parachurch organizations, religious bookstores, churchoperated charities and missions, church-owned hospitals, etc. are all "religious employers.")

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,

Werner Lind

Bluefield, VA 24605
From: billandelenora@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:31:00 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,

Bill Asbury

Dallas, TX 75209
Before the Second Division,

November 19, 1968

No. P68/493.

protest 61/2060 (Boston).

#### Metasco, Inc. *v.*United States,

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of bicycles, with or without tires having wheels in diameter (measured to the outer circumference of the tire) over 25 inches, weighing less than 36 pounds complete without accessories, and not designed for use with tires having a cross-sectional diameter exceeding 1% inches and that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard &*Co., *Mangano Cycles Co.*(47 CCPA 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
United States Department of Agriculture

YOU CONTROL YOU

It’s up to you to build strong bones 

by drinking fat-free milk.

U.S. Department of Agriculture • Food and Nutrition Service • March 2014

FNS-468-D • USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

http://teamnutrition.usda.gov
No. 66018.

#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States,

protest 60/27720 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beads the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *S. H. Kress & Co.*(46 C.C.P.A. 135, C.A.D. 716), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
|     |                                                                                                                             |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (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  operations of the Company. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
| Date:  | February 19, 2013 | /s/ Kent M. Adams |
|   |   | Kent M. Adams |
|   |   | President, Director and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   |   |
| Date:  | February 19, 2013 | /s/ James A. Duensing |
|   |   | James A. Duensing |
|   |   | Executive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer |
##### 



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 of Remington Oil and Gas
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, James A. Watt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, and not for any other purpose. /s/ James A. WattJames A. WattPresident and Chief Executive OfficerApril 27, 2004 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Remington Oil and Gas Corporation and will be retained by
Remington Oil and Gas Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
From: tex_rblair@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:50:32 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,

R. G. Blaire

Ransom Canyon, TX 79366
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

SHEENA N. LOOMER-BATTON, )

)

Plaintiff, ) NO. C05-5573FDB

)

vs. ) STIPULATED 

) ORDER FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, 

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, ) COSTS AND EXPENSES UNDER EQUAL

Commissioner of Social Security, ) ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT

)

Defendant, )

______________________________________ )

The parties, acting through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate to entry of judgment

against Defendant in favor of Joseph B. Lavin, attorney for Plaintiff, in the amount of $3,052.70 as

reasonably incurred attorney’s fees; costs of $250.00; and expenses of $55.44 as service of process

expenses, pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. §2412. Defendant shall pay this

judgment to Joseph B. Lavin.

DATED this 16th day of February 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

Dated: February 16, 2006 s/Joseph B. Lavin

JOSEPH B. LAVIN, W.S.B.A #11680

Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: February 16, 2006 s/Joseph B. Lavin for

RICHARD A. MORRIS, W.S.B.A. #33780

Special Assistant United States Attorney 

(Per Oral Authorization)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

Case 3:05-cv-05573-FDB Document 17 Filed 02/17/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350





The
      undersigned officer of ALLIED HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC. (the "Company"), hereby
      certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Quarterly Report
      on
      Form 10-Q for the Company’s fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the "Report")
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in
      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the
      Company.





/s/
                EARL R. REFSLANDEarl.
                R. RefslandPresident
                & Chief Executive
                Officer


May
      2,
      2007




3