alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Country Title, L.L.C. v. Morenike Jaiyeoba

Appellate case number: 01

- 14

- 00931

- CV

Trial court case number: 07

- CV

- 159705

Trial court: 268th District Court of Fort Bend County

Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal filed December 23, 2014 is DENIED . Further,

Appellant’s request for an award of attorney fees incurred in preparing a response to the motion

to dismiss is also DENIED

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Ac ting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 8 , 2015
From: sbell4@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:16:59 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,

Steven Bell

Torrance, CA 90503
* 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. 02-60217 Conference Calendar

GARY WALDEN, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus K. Z. YUSUFF, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 5:02-CV-74-RG

-------------------- February 19, 2003 Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Gary Walden, federal prisoner # 06455-004, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The district court construed Walden’s petition, which challenged the validity of his 1992 cocaine conspiracy convictions, as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. Walden has not challenged in this court the district court’s reasons for dismissing his complaint. Accordingly, it is as ifNo. 02-60217 -2- Walden had not appealed the judgment. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Walden’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
No. 62786.

#### Athena Films, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/806 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
Case No. 7,618.

#### The KATE.

[Blatchf. Pr. Cas. 550.] 1

District Court, S. D. New York.

Oct. 10, 1863.

Pbize — Violation of Blockade.

Vessel condemned for an attempt to violate the blockade.

1

 [Reported by Samuel Blatchford, Esq.]

BETTS, District Judge.

This vessel was captured at sea, August 1, 1803. off New Inlet, North Carolina, and sent into this port for adjudication. A libel was filed against her, August 26. A warrant of attachment and a monition thereon were served by the marshal on the same day, and were returned in court on the 15th day of September thereafter. Proclamation being made in open court, and no one appearing or intervening for the said vessel, and satisfactory proof being made to the court that, before capture, the said vessel had been chased by the blockading squadron investing the said port, and driven on shore, on her attempting to violate the blockade of the port of Wilmington, North Carolina, on the 12th day of July last, and that she was, on being abandoned, stripped of her lading, rigging, and machinery by the enemy, and was afterwards found so afloat, and was captured by a United States vessel-of-war, and sent to this port, and that she belonged to England, and no contradictory or explanatory evidence being offered thereto, it is ordered that the said vessel be condemned, as prize of war, and forfeited to the United States. Decree accordingly to be entered.
From: cporter1532@wowway.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:13:34 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 Porter

, 48310-2850
EXHIBIT
32.2





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 Cemtrex, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K
for the year ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Renato Dela Rama, principal
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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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 result of operations of the
      Company.





/s/ Renato Dela RamaRenato
      Dela Ramaprincipal
      financial officerJanuary
      13, 2010





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
No. 68448.

protest 63/4118 (New York).

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

*319Opinion toy

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise, designated on the invoice as illuminators, consists of metal illuminating articles, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 61030.

protests 286128-K, etc. (New York).

#### E. Leitz, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, 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 protests were dismissed, and the matters were 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)).
#### In the Matter of Joseph Targia, Appellant, v Catherine Abate, as Commissioner of Correction of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

[632 NYS2d 557]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered July 12, 1994, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent Department’s determination terminating petitioner’s probationary employment as a correction officer, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Evidence in the record supporting the conclusion that petitioner suffered from a medical condition that made him unable to reasonably perform the essential duties of a correction officer, including the opinion of respondent Department’s medical experts, established that the termination was made in good faith *(see, Matter of Johnson v Katz,*68 NY2d 649; *Matter of Butler v Abate,*204 AD2d 171, 172). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Asch, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.28





FIVE BELOW, INC.
COMPENSATION POLICY FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS
(Effective March 20, 2018)


		
	1.
	ANNUAL CASH AND STOCK COMPENSATION


•Eligible Directors: Each member of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) who is not an employee of the Company (a “Non-Employee Director”).


•Annual Cash Retainer. Each eligible director shall receive $70,000 annually paid in arrears for each fiscal quarter.


◦    Additional Annual Retainers for Chairs of Committees who are Eligible Directors: $25,000 annually for the Audit Committee and the Compensation Committee and $15,000 annually for the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, in each case paid quarterly in arrears together with the annual retainer for all eligible directors.


◦    Stock in lieu of Retainers: Prior to the end of the fiscal quarter with respect to which such cash retainer relates, an eligible director may elect, in lieu of the cash retainer, to receive fully vested shares of the Company’s common stock (“Shares”) having a Fair Market Value (as such term is defined under the Five Below, Inc. Amended and Restated Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”)) equal to the amount of the foregone retainer for such period. Any such elected Shares will be delivered on or about the last day of the fiscal quarter with respect to which the foregone cash retainer relates. Any fractional Shares will be paid in cash.


•Annual Equity Award. At each annual meeting of shareholders, each eligible director will receive a restricted stock unit award having a Fair Market Value equal to $100,000 issued under the Plan and subject to an award agreement (an “Award Agreement”). Subject to such director’s continued service with the Company, each award shall vest in full at the next annual meeting of shareholders. Such vesting may be accelerated upon certain events as provided in an Award Agreement.


		
	2. 
	EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT - Each Non-Employee Director will be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket travel expenses incurred in connection with attendance at Board and committee meetings and other Board related activities in accordance with the Company’s plans or policies as in effect from time to time1.




		
	3. 
	AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION - This Policy may be amended or terminated by the Board at any time.


























































                                                                                              


1To the extent that any such reimbursements constitute compensation, (i) such amount shall be reimbursed no later than December 31 of the year following the year in which the expense was incurred, (ii) such amount shall not affect the amount of compensatory expense reimbursements in any subsequent year, and (iii) the right to such reimbursement shall not be subject to liquidation or exchange for any other benefit.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-16-0000066 16-MAR-2016 02:09 PM

SCPW-16-0000066
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I
BRETT P. RYAN, Petitioner,

vs.
DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE HAWAI ' I SUPREME COURT and OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC NO. 11-084-9008)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Upon consideration of Petitioner Brett P. Ryan’s February 4, 2016 petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition and the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, March 16, 2016. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

February 13, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00066

- CV

CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPAN Y,

Appellant

v.

VAQUILLAS UNPROVEN MINERALS, LTD

., Appellee

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CV Q000438

- D4

Honorable Oscar J Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

The appellant ’ s unopposed petition for permission to appeal from an interlocutory order

is GRANTED. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.3. “A separate notice of appeal need not be filed” as “a notice

of appeal is deemed to have been filed on [the date of this order].” Id . at 28.3(k). This appeal is

governed by the rules for accelerated appeals. Id

.

The clerk’s reco rd is due no later than February 23, 2015

. Id . at 35.1(b). The clerk of

this court is directed to file a copy of this order with the trial court clerk. Id . at 28.3(k).

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNE SS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 13th day of February, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Petitioner

v. JOHN M. MUSAU, Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : No. 510 EAL 2013 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 10th day of June, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 2012

- 0726 Directorate Identifier: 2012

-NM

- 023

-AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

c ost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet

17.0 $1,445.0

0 $5,205 $6,650.00 83 $551,950.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $551,950 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $
**On**
**- Condition Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- h ours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

( @ $8 5 /hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

3.0 $ 255.00 $4,643 $4,898.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also b e used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO
* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES * NO
* Explanation: **Regulato ry Flexibility Act:**  Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO


### * Explanation 

### :
No. 58648.

protest 229560-K (New York).

#### Abercrombie *&*Fitch Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and 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). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the cited case, the protest was dismissed, and the *250matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraiscmont for determination of the value of the merchandise in the maimer provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
From: cmln@centurytel.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:52:42 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,

Charlene Mellen

Lorain, OH 44053
SHERMAN CO

GILLIAM CO 

GRANT CO

BAKER CO 

WASHINGTON 

OREGON 

PA

C I F I C

O

C

E

A

N 

Boardman

Heppner

Junction

Maryhill Arlington

Rufus

Biggs

Cecil

Wasco

Morgan

Ione Olex

Moro

Lexington

Grass

Valley

Heppner La Grande

Condon Ruggs

Kent

Hardman

Ukiah

Mayville

Shaniko

Fossil Dale

Clarno Antelope

Spray Service Monument Creek

Sumpter Kimberly Kimberly Hamilton

Long Creek Richmond

Fox

Beech Creek Austin

Mitchell Bates

Prairie City Dayville

Mount John

Vernon Day Unity

Canyon City

Prineville

Logdell

Post

Paulina

Seneca

Izee

Suplee Silvies

UMITILLA COUNION CO

MORROW CO 

GRANT CO 

 WASCO COUNTY 

JEFFERSON COUNTY 

WHEELER COUNTY 

CROOK COUNTY 

Deschutes River 

River 

River 

Columbia 

Fork 

North 

Fork

Middle 

North 

John 

Fork 

Day 

Rive

John 

Day r 

10 0 10 20 Miles 

10 0 10 20 Kilometers 

N
 

W E
 

S
 

OREGON Astoria 

30 

26 101 Pendleton Portland 84 The Tillamook Dalles 

197 395 84 5 97 

Salem 26 Baker

John Day Basin John Day Basin City Newport Albany Madras Planning Planning

26 Area

20 John 

Prineville Day 26 

Eugene Florence Bend Prineville Vale 

District 20 395 

Coos Bay Burns
 

Roseburg
 

5 

395 95 97 

Grants Pass 

101 Medford Klamath 

Falls Lakeview 199 

112 

GRANT COUNTY
 

HARNEY COUNTY


LEGEND

Sensitive Soil: Soil area that when disturbed, Planning Area Boundary 

has a high risk of being eroded from 

concentrated water flow. 

Administered Land

 Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

PRINEVILLE DISTRICT 

John Day Basin
 

Resource Management Plan
 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement
 

2008 

Map 3: Sensitive Soils 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, 

reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other 

data. Original data were compiled from various sources. This information may not 

meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated without notification. 

M07-09-01:4-8-08 

Millican

Brothers

84 

74 

19 

97 

206 

206 244 

97 

293 

218 

218 19 

207 395 

402 

207 19 

7 

395 26 

26 

26 26 

380 

27 

395 

20 

63