alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ruben Dones, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 116]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Carruthers, J.), rendered November 17, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 7 to 14 years, unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence to a term of 5 to 10 years, and otherwise affirmed.

Closure of the courtroom during the undercover officer’s testimony, except to members of defendant’s family, the press, and the Bar, was properly based on a showing that the officer was still actively engaged in undercover work in the Brooklyn area of defendant’s arrest, which was easily accessible from the Manhattan courthouse where the officer was to testify, and that the officer had reasonable fears for her safety were her identity to become known *(see, People v Martinez,*82 NY2d *268436, 443; *People v Miller,*190 AD2d 609, *Iv denied*81 NY2d 974).

We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.
No. 60538.

#### N. Katsoris, Inc. (Transferee) *v.*United States,

protest 278064-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Fontana Hollywood Corp.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 98, C. D. 1503), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Case No. 8,204.

#### LEE v. WELCH.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 477.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1807.

Arrest in Civil Cause — Affidavit to Hold to Bail — Whole Debt not Due — Sureties not Resident.

When a bond for the payment of money is filed, an affidavit to hold to bail is not necessary, and the court will not mitigate the bail upon affidavit that the whole is not due; nor receive as bail persons not resident in the district.

This was an action of debt on a bond in the penalty of six thousand dollars. There was an indorsement, the precise meaning of which could not well be understood.

F. S. Key objected, that there ought to have been an affidavit to show the precise amount claimed by the plaintiff, and moved for leave to appear for the defendant without special bail.

But THE COURT (nem. con) upon the authority of Smith v. Watson [Case No. 13,124], June, 1806, in this court, overruled the objection.

Mr. Key then moved the court to limit the amount of bail to a certain sum, and said he could produce an affidavit that the whole was not due.

But THE COURT refused, and also refused to receive persons resident in Baltimore as bail. The defendant was committed.
Before the Second Division,

April 13, 1964

No. 68442.

protest 60/23788 (Los Angeles).

#### Uni Importing Co. and Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., of L. A. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Bao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cotton pistol belts similar in all material respects to those-the subject of Abstract 64074, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1243

EDDIE E. SUTHERLAND,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior 

District Judge. (4:08-cv-00006-jlk-bwc)

Submitted: April 26, 2010 Decided: May 5, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joel C. Cunningham, Jr., JOEL C. CUNNINGHAM, JR., P.C., Halifax, 

Virginia, for Appellant. Eric P. Kressman, Brian O’Donnell, 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 

Beverly H. Zuckerman, Special Assistant United States Attorney, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Julia C. Dudley, United States 

Attorney, Sara Bugbee Winn, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eddie Sutherland appeals the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment to the Commissioner and upholding the 

denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental 

security income. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Sutherland v. Commissioner, No. 4:08-cv00006-jlk-bwc (W.D. Va. Feb. 10, 2009). 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.

AFFIRMED
From: plumgrama@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:53:45 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,

Patricia Plumley

Ventura, CA 93003
From: rosegarden@bresnan.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:41:10 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,

Patricia Alden

Grand Junction, CO 81505
From: hjevance1@frontier.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:52:14 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,

JoEllen Vance

Wilmington, OH 45177
48 44

63 28

58 32

33 66

54 50 13 56 16

60

25 21 43

31

64 55 19

9

40

11

67

53

38

30

39

34

20

27

7

23

10

59

29

61 49

65

6

15

68

52

12

41 14

18

42 62

4

5

71

70

22

45

26

37

3

8

46

17

51 36

24

47

69

1

35

2

57 35

12 8 7 8 9 10 11

31 32 33 34 35 36 31

3

33 34 36 31 32

6 2 1

3

4 5 2 1 6

7

6 5 4

7 10 11 12

10

9

9

8

7 8

7

11 12

18 13

13

14

14

15

15

16

16

17

17

18

18

23 24 19

23 24

22

22

21

21

19 20

19 20

25 30 26

26 25

27

27

29 28 30

30 29 28

35 36 31

36

31

35

34

34

33 32

31 32 33

6 1

2

1 6 3

2 3

4

4

5

5 6

7

10 11 12 9

Asotin Creek

Wenatchee Creek

WICKIUP CG

WENATCHEE

GUARD

STATION RC

CABIN SADDLE CG INDIAN

TOM TH

CLOVERLAND SP

South George Project Planning Area - Inventory of Potential Wilderness Areas

H-4A

1 0.5 0 1 Miles

LEGEND

South George Project Planning Area

Washington State Fish and Wildlife

Pomeroy Ranger District

Inventoried Roadless Area(IRA)

Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness

Acres not Containing Past Harvest or Forest Roads

Recreation Feature

Forest Roads  ́

Map H-4A: Acres not containing Past Timber Harvest or Forest Roads

Depicts acres not containing past timber harvest 

or forest roads. These acres will be examined 

using inventory criteria at FSH 1909.12 ch. 71. 

(Appendix H - South George DEIS)

This product is reproduced from geospatial information prepared by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. GIS data and product accuracy may vary. They may be: developed from 

sources of differing accuracy, interpretation, incomplete while being created or revised, etc. 

Using GIS products for purposes other than those for which they were created may yield inaccurate 

or misleading results. The Forest Service reserves the right ot correct, update, modify, or replace GIS 

products without notification. For more information contact the Umatilla National Forest Supervisors Office. 

D.Dixon

GIS/Data Service Specialist

06/03/2011

4300

4400

4300

4304
From: Ann@BolandGroup.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:10:20 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,

Ann Boland

Catonsville, MD 21228
From: Tehringer@Verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:58:40 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,

Theresa Ehringer

Seffner, FL 33584
Exhibit
32
 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 BNH Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nehemya Hesin,
Chief  Executive and Financial 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; 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 12, 2009
                                  /s/ Nehemya HesinNehemya
      HesinPresident,
      Treasurer and DirectorPrincipal
      Executive Officer and PrincipalFinancial
      and Accounting Officer
From: curt_h_99@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:42:00 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,

Curt Hollis

Janesville, WI 53545
[Type text] [Type text]

June 5, 2012

Honorable Ray LaHood, Secretary

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: DOT

- OST

- 2012

- 0083

Dear Secretary LaHood:

Please accept this letter of support for the application of Volaris to operate scheduled passenger service

between Denver International Airport (“DEN”) and Mexico City’s Benito Ju á rez International Airport.

The Colorado Tourism Office believes the expan ded passenger service will be economically beneficial to

growing the local and national economy. Mexico is one of the top international markets for visitors to

Colorado , and the improved passenger service will provide opportunities to expand travel for Mex ican

citizens and increase visits to Colorado and the mountain west for recreation.

DEN has lacked year

- round nonstop service to Mexico City since the bankruptcy of Mexicana in August

2010. The introduction of new service by Volaris will stimulate market demand, further growing

passenger traffic that will benefit all carriers. In addition, new international air service is a key driver of

increased tourism activity, creating new jobs and increased tax revenue across the State of Colorado.

Thank you for y our consideration. We urge you to approve this application.

Sincerely,

Al White,

Director, Colorado Tourism Office