alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before ti-ie Second Division,

August 31, 1966

No. P66/211. —

#### Davies, Turner & Company *v.*United States, protest 60/31241 (Philadelphia).

*807FoRD, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of mechanical apparatus, or parts thereof in chief value of metal, dedicated for use therewith, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *F. B. Vandegrift & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 212, Abstract 67453), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
May 8, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DIAMOND RENEE GUILLORY, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00326-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The 

record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the 

appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
No, 68125.

#### Marion Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/22785, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chord organs and parts thereof similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Excelsior Accordions, Inc.*v. *United States*(48 Cust. Ct. 148, C.D. 2328), 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

MINUTE ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

GEORGE HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

AIR TRANSPORT DISTRICT 143

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE

WORKERS, LOCAL LODGE 1040

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE

WORKERS,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C05-1824JLR

MINUTE ORDER

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

James L. Robart:

The court has received Plaintiff’s complaint in this action. It alleges

discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Washington Law Against Discrimination

(“WLAD”). Plaintiff is proceeding without a lawyer in this matter. The court has

reviewed the complaint and finds that it states no basis for this court’s jurisdiction. For

that reason, the court DISMISSES the action without prejudice.

In civil disputes where the United States or its agencies are not parties, this court

has jurisdiction in two types of cases. First, it has “federal question” jurisdiction over

any action that “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28

Case 2:05-cv-01824-JLR Document 2 Filed 11/14/05 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

27

28

MINUTE ORDER - 2

U.S.C. § 1331. Second, it has “diversity” jurisdiction over civil actions where the

plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than every defendant, and the amount in

controversy in the action exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

Plaintiff’s complaint states no basis for jurisdiction. The court cannot exercise

federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiff’s claims arise under Washington law

(specifically the WLAD), not under the laws of the United States. The court cannot

exercise diversity jurisdiction because Plaintiff admits that he and the trade union

Defendants are citizens of Washington. 

The court is obliged to scrutinize actions before it to determine if it has jurisdiction

over the subject matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). For the reasons stated above, the court

lacks jurisdiction over this action, and therefore DISMISSES this action without prejudice

to Plaintiff filing a new action that properly invokes this court’s subject matter

jurisdiction. 

Filed and entered this 14th day of November, 2005.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

s/Mary Duett

By

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:05-cv-01824-JLR Document 2 Filed 11/14/05 Page 2 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

DARRYL WILLIAM YOUNG, )

)

Petitioner, ) CASE NO. C05-1746-RSL-MJB

)

v. )

)

ROB MCKENNA, et al., ) ORDER DISMISSING § 2254 PETITION

) 

Respondents. )

____________________________________)

The Court, having reviewed petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, respondents’

motion to dismiss, petitioner’s motion to strike the motion to dismiss, respondents’ response to the

motion to strike, the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Monica J. Benton, United States

Magistrate Judge, any objections thereto, and the balance of the record, does hereby ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.

(2) Respondents’ motion to dismiss (Doc. #12) is GRANTED. Petitioner’s petition (Doc.

#8) is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). 

(3) Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. #13) is DENIED as moot.

(4) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to petitioner, to counsel for

respondent, and to Judge Benton.

DATED this 6th day of March, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01746-RSL Document 18 Filed 03/06/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,138
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      153
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,487
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,782
<PP&E>                                           7,134
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,636
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,339
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            56
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,264
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,636
<SALES>                                         15,047
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,047
<CGS>                                            8,083
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,151
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,813
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,146
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,667
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,667
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .28
        

</TABLE>
From: cswartz@lucketts.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:34:58 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,

Caroline Swartz

Lovettsville, VA 20180
From: jimmad21@optimum.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:49:37 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 Faye

Central Islip, NY 11722
Order entered June 14, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00462

- CV

DON HARRIS, ET AL. , Appellant s

V.

TERRY KNUTSON, ET AL. , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 162 nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 18

- 16333



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellants’ June 12, 2019 unopposed motion for an extension of time

to file their brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to July 3, 2019

.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                CERTIFICATION Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 December 31, 2005
(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. Dunn
                     -------------------
                            Daniel C. Dunn
                            Vice President, Chief Financial Officer & Secretary
February 6, 2006
Before the Third Division,

February 23, 1956

No. 59735.

#### Judson Sheldon Division National Carloading Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 230865-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that if the affidavit of American manufacture, attached to the entry papers, had been filed prior to the liquidation of the entry or the expiration of the collector’s review period, the certificate of exportation would have been waived and the entry liquidated free of duty under paragraph 1615, *supra.*On the record presented, and following Abstracts 47521, 53865, and 57731, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: dobsons2@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:00:55 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,

Stephen Dobson

Grapevine, TX 76051
##### 



Exhibit 12.1
 NII HOLDINGS, INC.
STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS
TO FIXED CHARGES
(dollars in thousands)
 Three Months EndedJune 30,2007
    
    2006Income from continuing operations before income tax
    
    $
    126,170
    
    
    $
    98,125Add:Fixed charges
    
    
    40,598
    
    
    
    32,463Amortization of capitalized interest
    
    
    1,343
    
    
    
    932Less:Interest capitalized
    
    
    1,484
    
    
    
    4,305Equity in (losses) gains of unconsolidated affiliates
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Losses attributable to minority interests
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Earnings as adjusted
    
    $
    166,627
    
    
    $
    127,215Fixed charges:Interest expense on indebtedness (including
amortization of
debt expense and discount)
    
    $
    29,653
    
    
    $
    21,032Interest capitalized
    
    
    1,484
    
    
    
    4,305Portion of rent expense representative of interest (30%)
    
    
    9,461
    
    
    
    7,126Fixed charges
    
    $
    40,598
    
    
    $
    32,463Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    4.10
    
    
    
    3.92Deficiency of earnings to cover fixed charges
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    
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 MINUTE ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

MYFREEMEDICINE.COM, LLC, et al.,

Defendant(s).

NO. C05-1607P 

MINUTE ORDER

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

Pechman:

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff FTC’s Motion to Expedite Consideration of Plaintiff’s

Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 33) and Amended Motion to Allow Untimely Filing of Plaintiff’s Motion

to Compel (Dkt. No. 32), filed on September 27, 2006.

This district has abolished motions to shorten time (LR 6(e)) and on that basis Plaintiff’s

motion for expedited consideration will be STRICKEN. Motions for relief from a deadline or limit

imposed by court order are to be noted seven judicial days from their date of filing (LR 7(d)2(A)) and

on that basis Plaintiff’s motion to allow untimely filing of a discovery motion will be re-noted for

October 6, 2006.

If the Court grants Plaintiff permission to bring its untimely discovery motion, it would be

noted on the third Friday following its filing date, which would be October 13, 2006. Plaintiff also has

Case 2:05-cv-01607-MJP Document 35 Filed 09/27/06 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 MINUTE ORDER

the option to utilize the joint CR 37 submission procedure which would permit same-day ruling on the

unified pleading.

Filed this 27th day of September, 2006.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

By /s Mary Duett

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:05-cv-01607-MJP Document 35 Filed 09/27/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 69249.

#### R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 61/18334 (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass paperweights similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 64185, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 174-7 Filed 09/20/04 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 174-7 Filed 09/20/04 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 174-7 Filed 09/20/04 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 174-7 Filed 09/20/04 Page 4 of 4
No. 58213.

protests 165042-K, etc. (San Francisco).

#### Pacific Dry Goods Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the articles involved are the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 57716, the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption prior to May 30, 1950, at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 412, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 51802), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 51898); and (2) the items entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on and after May 30, 1950, at 16% percent under said paragraph, as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52373), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52476).
From: wirtz.family@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:04:35 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,

Mary Lou Wirtz

Pewaukee, WI 53072
#### James GRAHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry ABRAHAMS, in his individual and official capacity; Betty Lancent, Lieutenant, in her individual and official capacity; Pamela Johnson, of Dillon County Jail, in her individual and official capacity; Michael W. Moore, in his individual and official capacity; Lauren Bessinger, in her individual and official capacity; Phoebe Johnson, of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, in her individual and official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-6368.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 21, 2001.

Decided June 29, 2001.

*117James Graham, pro se.

David Leon Morrison, James Miller Davis, Jr., Davidson, Morrison *&*Lindemann, P.A., Columbia, SC, for appellees.

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

James Graham appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) complaint. Graham’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Graham that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Graham failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); *Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Graham has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.*