alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: j23c@roadrunner.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:34:06 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,

James Casper

Auburn, NY 13021
Case No. 6,485.

#### In re HILL et al.

[5 Law Rep. 326.]

District Court, S. D. New York.

1842.

Involuntabt Bankruptcy — Defective Petition —Amendments

This was a case of compulsory bankruptcy, and on the day for showing cause why a decree should not pass, exceptions were taken on the part of the debtors to the sufficiency of the proceedings; some of which were merely formal, and some rested on matters of substance.

John Yan Vleeck, for petitioners.

P. J. Joachemssen, for bankrupts.

THE COURT

decided, that the jurat subscribed by the commissioner need not contain a venue, when it could be sufficiently collected from the deposition itself, that the oath was administered where the officer resides. That' if a debt must be due, to found these proceedings, yet a promissory note over due on its face when the petition was sworn to, and actually due by the expiration of the days of grace, at the time the petition was presented to the judge, and was acted -on by him, was sufficient to authorize and support the proceedings; that the application to the court, is the time the petition comes into action, and not the date of its subscription or attestation. THE COURT further decided, that the petition on its face must show that an indebtedness above $2000 accrued, against the parties in their partnership capacity, and that it was not enough that the parties (by name) owed over $2000. It was further decided, that the petition must allege, that the acts of bankruptcy were committed during the continuance of the partnership, and for these defects the petition was disallowed.

On a motion to amend the petition in these particulars, subsequently made by the.creditors, THE COURT decided, that this court has under the act [of 1841 (5 Stat. 440)] ability to. allow amendments in support of the justice of a -case, when by the’ more rigid rules of practice in bankruptcy in England, like favors might possibly- be denied. But even there, as appears from tiie authorities cited, the refusal to permit amendments, usually rests on a reluctance- to vary a commission issued and under execution, or to introduce new foundations for the proceedings, which shall also protect steps already taken without legal.justification. THE COURT being satisfied from the affidavits of the creditors and counsel, that the defective aver-ments in the petition, resulted from misapprehension of the counsel, who had the facts properly communicated to him, will permit the amendments to be made on payment of costs.
#### Jonathan BERHANU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE FUND, New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 99-9436.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 18, 2001.

Jonathan Berhanu, Brooklyn, NY, pro se. Jacob H. Weintraub, The State Insurance Fund, New York, NY; James P. O’Connor, on the brief for New York State Insurance Fund Richard C. Rubinstein, Assistant Attorney General of the State of New York; Michael S. Belohavek, Deputy Solicitor General, Marion R. Buchbinder, Assistant Solicitor General, Eliot Sptizer, Attorney General, on the brief for New *31York State Department of Taxation and Finance.

Present CARDAMONE and PARKER, Circuit Judges, and SPATT, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Arthur D. Spatt, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the decision of the said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Jonathan Berhanu, *pro se*and *in forma pauperis,*appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Jones, /.), entered on January 4, 2000, granting defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Berhanu brought claims against defendants, two former employers, for employment discrimination, alleging retaliatory failure to hire, retaliatory dismissal, conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of his civil rights, invasion of privacy, misappropriation of likeness for commercial purposes, denial of equal protection of the laws, and deprivation of liberty or property without due process of law.

Berhanu was hired as a tax auditor trainee, and subsequently fired during his probationary period, by three New York state agencies. While employed by defendant-agencies, he received poor performance reviews and his employment was therefore terminated.

This Court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment *de novo. Graham v. Long Island R.R.,*230 F.3d 34, 37 (2d Cir.2000). Summary judgment is appropriate only where the parties’ submissions show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. “[I]n ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court must resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant.” *Belfi v. Prendergast,*191 F.3d 129, 135 (2d Cir.1999).

Berhanu contends on appeal that the district court erred in granting defendants’ summary judgment motions. We have reviewed these arguments and are satisfied that the district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims.

Therefore, we affirm for substantially the same reasons, as set forth by the district court in its thorough review of Berhanu’s claims. *See Berhanu v. New York State Ins. Fund,*Nos. 91 Civ. 4956, 91 Civ. 6088, 93 Civ. 6891, 1999 WL 813437 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 8, 1999).

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
No. 67551.

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

protests 59/4236 and 59/4242 (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of marble slabs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *The A. W. Fenton Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(44 Cust. Ct. 16, C.D. 2147), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit
32.2





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, 2009 (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/
      Daniel C. DunnDaniel
      C. DunnVice
      President, Chief Financial Officer & SecretaryMay
      12, 2009
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 ON MOTION 

TO DISMISS PURSUANT 

TO 12(b)(6) - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

CLAUDIA YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAL. NEDERLAND N.V., HOLLAND

AMERICA LINE N.V. and CHUKKA

CARIBBEAN ADVENTURES, LTD., S.A.,

Defendants.

No. C05-1523L

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

PURSUANT TO 12(b)(6)

This matter comes before the Court on the “Motion of Defendants Hal Nederland N.V.

and Holland America Line N.V. to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6)” (Dkt. # 7). 

Defendants Hal. Nederland N.V. and Holland America Line N.V. (together, “the moving

defendants”) seek to dismiss this action for failure to state a claim based on plaintiff’s alleged

execution of a waiver releasing the defendants from liability. See Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d

449, 454 (9th Cir. 1994) (describing the “incorporation by reference” doctrine, which permits

consideration of the waiver at this stage of the proceedings). The moving defendants argue that

the waiver in question satisfies the elements of a federal common law waiver: informed consent,

Case 2:05-cv-01523-RSL Document 28 Filed 01/25/06 Page 1 of 2
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 ON MOTION 

TO DISMISS PURSUANT 

TO 12(b)(6) - 2 -2-

not inconsistent with public policy, and not an invalid cohesion contract. See, e.g., Murley v.

Deep Explorers, Inc., 281 F.Supp.2d 580, 589 (E.D.N.Y. 2003). Notwithstanding the moving

defendants’ presentation of the alleged waiver, the validity of the waiver according to the

elements outlined in Murley requires some fact-intensive inquiry.

Motions to dismiss are disfavored. “A complaint should not be dismissed unless it

appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would

entitle him to relief.” Van Buskirk v. CNN, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations

omitted). The moving defendants have not met this burden at this stage.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the moving defendants’

motion to dismiss is DENIED.

DATED this 25th day of January, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01523-RSL Document 28 Filed 01/25/06 Page 2 of 2
From: kbholsten@inebraska.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:11:58 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,

Barbara Holsten

Hastings, NE 68901
From: rhuber3@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:32:29 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,

Ruth Huber

Lancaster, PA 17601
From: tommyec665@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:53:42 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,

Tommye Crosby

Norcross, GA 30093
No. 66016.

#### Lyons Transport *v.*United States,

protests 60/27787 and 60/27791.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
From: appookta@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:06:54 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,

Ruben Simon

Smyrna, SC 29743
HON. ROBERT S. LASNIK 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 ) No. CR05-334RSL 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) ORDER AUTHORIZING 

 v. ) FOREIGN TRAVEL 

 ) 

MANINDER SINGH KHATKAR, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

DEFENDANT MANINDER SINGH KHATKAR’s agreed motion to 

travel to Surrey BC Canada on August 11, 2006 and return to 

the United States on August 13, 2006 is GRANTED. 

Upon his return to the United States the defendant shall 

promptly contact his pretrial services officer. All other 

conditions of the defendant’s release shall remain in effect. 

 Dated this 10th day of August, 2006. 

 S/MARY ALICE THEILER 

 Mary Alice Theiler, 

 U. S. Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cr-00334-RSL Document 196 Filed 08/10/06 Page 1 of 1
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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MS. EFFIE LIGON,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the

Commissioner of Internal Revenue Paul R.

Shipley # 91-02526, Revenue Agent Approving

Officer/Group Manager, et. al. in concert,

Defendant.

Case No. MS05-5024FDB

ORDER 

This cause of action has been erroneously filed as a miscellaneous action. Plaintiff, therefore,

is ORDERED to pay the required fee for filing a civil action by no later than Friday, September

30, 2005 or this cause of action will be dismissed. 

DATED this 29th day of August, 2005. AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05600-RBL Document 2 Filed 08/29/05 Page 1 of 1
Before the Second Division,

October 5, 1966

No. P66/243. —

#### J. D. Richardson & Co. et al. *v.*United States, protests 62/7889, etc. (Detroit).

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests, described as “Water pump shaft assemblies,” is similar in all material respects to the merchandise *813the subject of *United States*v. *Ford Motor Company*(51 CCPA 22, C.A.D. 831), tlie 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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

RICHARD A. HIBDON,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAROLD CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5578FDB

ORDER GRANTING

STIPULATED DISMISSAL

This matter comes before the court on plaintiff’s “Stipulation for and Order of Dismissal without

Prejudice to Claims Against All Defendants,” which is approved by defendants’ attorneys (Doc. 22). The

court, having reviewed the motion and the balance of the record, finds and orders as follows.

1. The parties have evidently settled this matter and request dismissal pursuant to FRCP

41(a)(1)(ii). 

2. Plaintiff’s claims and causes of action in the above captioned matter are dismissed based on the

stipulated motion to dismiss this action without prejudice and without costs.

DATED this 6th day of March, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Recommended for Entry this

1st day of March, 2006.

/s/_J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05578-FDB-JKA Document 25 Filed 03/06/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 58669.

protests 168698-K, etc. (Ogdensburg).

#### E. Dillingham, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *E. Dillingham, Inc.*(41 C. C. P. A. 221, O. A. D. 555), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1805 as pickets was sustained.