alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 1

Cause No: C05-5677 JKA

LAW, LYMAN, DANIEL,

KAMERRER & BOGDANOVICH, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW

2674 RW JOHNSON RD., TUMWATER, WA 98512

PO BOX 11880, OLYMPIA, WA 98508-1880

(360) 754-3480 FAX: (360) 357-3511

The Honorable J. Kelley Arnold

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JACKLYNN SHORT, 

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFERSON COUNTY, et al,

Defendants.

NO. C05-5677 JKA

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

OF DISMISSAL

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between plaintiff and

defendants, acting by and through their respective attorneys, that the above-entitled

action may be dismissed with prejudice and without attorneys' fees and costs to any

party, this matter having been fully settled and compromised among the parties.

/s/ Guy Bogdanovich

 11-14-06 ________________________________ Date Guy Bogdanovich, WSBA No. 14777

Attorney for Defendants

/s/ Stan Glisson

 11-14-06 ________________________________ Date Stan Glisson, WSBA No. 28323

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 3:05-cv-05677-JKA Document 22 Filed 11/22/06 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 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 2

Cause No: C05-5677 JKA

LAW, LYMAN, DANIEL,

KAMERRER & BOGDANOVICH, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW

2674 RW JOHNSON RD., TUMWATER, WA 98512

PO BOX 11880, OLYMPIA, WA 98508-1880

(360) 754-3480 FAX: (360) 357-3511

ORDER

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on the foregoing stipulation, it is

hereby

ORDERED that the above-entitled action shall be and the same is hereby

DISMISSED with prejudice and without attorneys' fees and costs to any party.

DATED this 22nd day of November, 2006.

_/s/ J. Kelley Arnold_______________ U.S. Magistrate Judge

Presented by:

LAW, LYMAN, DANIEL,

KAMERRER & BOGDANOVICH, P.S.

/s/ Guy Bogdanovich _________________________________

Guy Bogdanovich, WSBA m 14777

Attorney for Defendants

P.O. Box 11880

Olympia, WA 98508-1880

Telephone: (360) 754-3480

Fax: (360) 357-3511

email: gbogdanovich@lldkb.com

Approved for entry:

Glisson & Witt, PLLC

/s/ Stan Glisson ______________________________________

Stan Glisson, WSBA No. 28323

Attorney for Plaintiff

400 Warren Ave., Suite 415

Bremerton, WA 98337

Telephone: (360) 782-9000

Fax: (360) 782-9003

email: stan@glissonwitt.com

Case 3:05-cv-05677-JKA Document 22 Filed 11/22/06 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF

CURTIS W. MEWBOURNE / CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

OF MEWBOURNE
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

I, Curtis W. Mewbourne, Chief Executive Officer of Mewbourne Development Corporation, Managing General Partner of Mewbourne Energy Partners
08-A, L.P. (the Registrant), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-K, for the annual period ended December 31, 2009 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Report) by the Registrant fully complies with the requirements of that section.

I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



/s/ Curtis W. MewbourneName:

Curtis W. MewbourneDate:

March 31, 2010
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 23, 2012

t0416 

# Order

April 23, 2012

144335

WOLVERINE ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 144335 COA: 299988 Ingham CC: 10-000179-CK CITY OF LESLIE, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 17, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
From: Mary Stuhr

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:17:49 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

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

the Affordable Care Act.

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

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

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

make ends meet is an outrage. 

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

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

enjoyed.

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

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

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

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

United States.

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

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

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

defund the abortion giant. 

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

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Mary Stuhr
Addison, Illinois
From: Lorrie Parker

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:04:06 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

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

the Affordable Care Act.

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

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

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

make ends meet is an outrage. 

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

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

enjoyed.

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

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

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

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

United States.

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

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

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

defund the abortion giant. 

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

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Lorrie Parker
Lexington, Kentucky
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE OPTEL,
INC. SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 1998 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                          18,388
<SECURITIES>                                   111,154
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,742
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,302)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         203,778
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (22,053)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 505,171
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        487,011
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            26
<OTHER-SE>                                     (13,688)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   505,171
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,891
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,419
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,026
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (34,027)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (34,027)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (34,027)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (13.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (5.81)
        

</TABLE>
No. 68132.

#### Amerex Trading Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 60/18823 and 60/21163 (New York).

Opinion by

Kao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of needle envelopes and following the principles set forth in Abstract 63099, the claim of the plaintiff 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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

 

PEPSICO, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

MR. YIN & MR. YANG, LLC, et al.,

 Defendant(s).

 Case No. C05-1628P

 MINUTE ORDER

The following minute order is made by the direction of the court, the Honorable Marsha J.

Pechman:

At the request of counsel, an extension of time to file the joint status report is granted. The

report will be due on January 15, 2006. All other FRCP 26-related dates are adjusted accordingly.

Failure to adhere to these deadlines may result in sanctions, up to and including dismissal of this

action.

Filed this 23rd day of November, 2005.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

By /s Mary Duett

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:05-cv-01628-MJP Document 9 Filed 11/23/05 Page 1 of 1
From: travelingpugh@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:22:22 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,

Donald Pughh

Carrollton, TX 75006
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2009 of Teen Glow Makeup, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I, Pamela Hutchinson, Chairman, President and Chief 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 Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2. The information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

 

 

Date: November 23, 2009

 

/s/ Pamela Hutchinson

Pamela Hutchinson 

President, Secretary Treasurer, Principal Executive Officer, 

Principal Financial Officer and Director
H. Res. 578 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

April 29, 2008. 

Whereas watermelon production constitutes an important sector of the agricultural industry of the United States; 

Whereas, according to the January 2006 statistics compiled 

by the National Agricultural Statistics Service of the 

United States Department of Agriculture, the United 

States produces 4,200,000,000 pounds of watermelon annually; 

Whereas watermelon is grown in 49 States, is purchased and 

consumed in all 50 States, and is exported to Canada; 

Whereas evidence indicates that eating 2.5 to 5 cups of fruits 

and vegetables daily as part of a healthy diet will improve 

health and protect against diseases such as cancer, high 

blood pressure, stroke, and heart disease; 

Whereas proper diet and nutrition are important factors in 

preventing diseases such as childhood obesity and diabetes; 

Whereas watermelon has no fat or cholesterol and is an excellent source of the vitamins A, B6, and C, fiber, and potassium, which are vital to good health and disease prevention; 

Whereas watermelon is also an excellent source of lycopene; 
2 

•HRES 578 EH 

Whereas lycopene, an antioxidant found only in a few red 

plant foods, has been shown to reduce the risk of certain 

cancers; 

Whereas watermelon is a heart-healthy food that has qualified for the heart-check mark from the American Heart 

Association; 

Whereas watermelon has been a nutritious summer favorite 

from generation to generation; 

Whereas it is important to educate citizens of the United 

States regarding the health benefits of watermelon and 

other fruits and vegetables; and 

Whereas July would be an appropriate month to establish as 

National Watermelon Month: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that there should be established a National Watermelon Month to recognize the health benefits of watermelon 

and the importance of watermelon to the agriculture industry 

of the United States. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
SMITH COUNTY COURTHOUSE

100 N. BROADWAY 4th Floor

TYLER, TEXAS 75702

 April Allison Sikes, First Assistant

D. Matt Bingham

Criminal District Attorney

Smith County

TELEPHONE: (903) 535-0520

TELECOPIER: (903) 590-1719

Jennifer Barfield, Office Manager

Michael J. West. Appellate Chief

 

Ms. Pam Estes, Clerk

12th Court of Appeals

1517 W Front St., Ste. 354

Tyler, TX 75701

November 4, 2015

RE: Roper v. State, Cause Nos. 12-15-00215-CR, 12-15-00217-CR, 12-15-00218-CR

Dear Ms. Lusk:

The State acknowledges receipt of the brief filed by Appellant’s counsel pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in the above-listed cause(s). The brief

presents no claims of error; therefore, the State has no points to which to respond. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.2(a)(2). The State will not file any further response unless the Court

decides that the appeal is not frivolous and orders one. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744;

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978).

Respectfully submitted,

D. MATT BINGHAM

Criminal District Attorney

Smith County, Texas

_______________________

Michael J. West

Assistant Criminal District Attorney

SBOT# 21203300

/s/ Michael J. West

ACCEPTED

12-15-00217-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

11/4/2015 10:03:37 AM

Pam Estes

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 11/4/2015 10:03:37 AM PAM ESTES Clerk
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the State’s acknowledgment of filing of an Anders

brief was served by electronic filing on November 4, 2015, on Mr. Austin Jackson,

Attorney at Law, 112 East Line, Ste. 310, Tyler, Texas 75702.

_________________________

Michael J. West

Assistant Criminal District Attorney

SBOT# 21203300

100 N. Broadway, 4th Fl.

Tyler, Texas 75702

(903) 590-1720

(903) 590-1719 (fax)

mwest@smith-county.com

/s/ Michael J. West
No. 59198.

protest 231770-K (San Francisco).

#### Robinson Distributing Co. and Hoyt, Shepston & Sciaroni *v.*United States,

*207Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the linoleum the subject of *United States*v. *Pacific Overseas Co., W. J. Byrnes & Co.*(42 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 559), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 68444.

protest 60/16597 (Los Angeles).

#### Porter Pipe & Supply Co. *v.*United States,

*318Opinion by

Bao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of oakum the same in all material respects as that the subject of *General Twine Corp.*v. *United, States*(42 Cust. Ct. 121, C.D. 2075), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the First Division,

December 17, 1964

No. 68957.

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

protest 63/13028 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the articles of merchandise, designated on the invoice as “10 Micro Camera Attachments CAFAM,” are not essential for the operation of optical instruments, can be used with items other than optical instruments, and that they are, in fact, parts of cameras, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: mbstadt@dtango.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:43:59 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,

Marilyn Stadtmueller

, 64064-1332