alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter

Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 03-1375

JOHN TOOLIN,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

STEVE WHITE, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. George Z. Singal, U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Boudin, Chief Judge,

Selya and Lipez, Circuit Judges.

John Toolin on brief pro se.

March 18, 2004
1Toolin is currently incarcerated, apparently for an unrelated

case.

-2-

Per Curiam. Pro se plaintiff-appellant John Toolin, a

prisoner, appeals from the district court's sua sponte dismissal of

his civil rights complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). We

review the dismissal of Toolin's complaint de novo, accepting all

of the well-pleaded factual allegations as true and drawing all

reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Calhoun v.

DeTella, 319 F.3d 936, 939 (7th Cir. 2003); see Soto-Negron v.

Taber Partners I, 339 F.3d 35, 38 (1st Cir. 2003). We have

reviewed Toolin's brief and the record on appeal. We affirm the

dismissal of Toolin's complaint, but on a basis different from the

district court.

In his complaint, Toolin alleges that he was deprived of

additional, discretionary "administrative days" which would have

shortened the length of his sentence.1 The district court said

that Toolin's claims are not cognizable under Heck v. Humphrey, 512

U.S. 477 (1994), because they would imply the invalidity of the

sentence--a position supported by Heck's extension in Edwards v.

Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997), to cover disciplinary determinations

that affect the length of a sentence.

There is some division of views as to whether the Heck

and Edwards bar applies after release of the prisoner, when habeas

is no longer available. But Toolin does not argue this point and
-3-

we see no reason to address it since, in any event, the complaint

does not allege deprivation of a constitutional right. The

materials that Toolin has himself submitted show that the credits

sought were discretionary and, in the absence of a specific

unconstitutional motive, there is no due process violation. Cf.

Olsen v. Correiro, 189 F.3d 52, 66 n.16 (1st Cir. 1999) (noting

that, to prevail in § 1983 suit, plaintiff must establish that

defendants deprived him of constitutional right). 

The judgment of the district court is summarily affirmed

on this alternative basis. See 1st Cir. R. 27(c).
Before the First Division,

August 11, 1955

No. 59247.

protest 230664-K (New York).

#### Manca, Inc. *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 protest was dismissed, and the matter was 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)).
Exhibit 10(a)


 


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 


We
consent to the incorporation by reference in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 269 to Registration Statement No. 33-26305
on Form N-1A of our report dated November 21, 2012, relating to the financial statements and financial highlights of BlackRock
Managed Volatility Portfolio (formerly BlackRock Asset Allocation Portfolio),
a series of BlackRock Funds, appearing in the Annual Report on
Form N-CSR of BlackRock Funds for the year ended September 30, 2012, and to the references to us under the headings “Financial
Highlights” and “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in the Prospectuses and “Financial Statements”
in the Statement of Additional Information, which are part of such Registration Statement.


	 
	/s/ Deloitte
    & Touche LLP
	 
	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

January 24, 2013
From: prossi@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:16:04 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,

Philip Rossi

Lake Oswego, OR 97034
EXHIBIT 15





ACCOUNTANT’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT





To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of Mediware Information Systems, Inc.:





We have reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim financial information of Mediware Information Systems, Inc. for the three-month period ended September 30, 2010 and 2009, as indicated in our report dated November 1, 2010; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.





We are aware that Mediware Information Systems, Inc. has incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-07591, 333-83016, 333-119503, 333-123496 and 333-130576, its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, which includes our report dated November 1, 2010 covering the unaudited interim financial information contained therein. Pursuant to Rule 436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Act”), that report is not considered a part of the registration statement prepared or certified by our firm or a report prepared or certified by our firm within the meaning of Section 7 and 11 of the Act. It should be noted that we have not performed any procedures subsequent to November 1, 2010.





EisnerAmper LLP


New York, New York


November 1, 2010
Before the Second Division,

February 28, 1961

No. 66509.

#### C. J. Tower & Sons of Niagara, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/19014 (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of nickel-bearing materials similar in all material respects *356to those the subject of *F. W. Myers & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 90, C.D. 2239), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: rharke@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:28:36 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,

Raleigh Harke

, 28215-8717
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 December 31, 2008 (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 & SecretaryFebruary
      9, 2009
From: dkayben@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:19:40 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

David Benson

Olney, IL 62450
No. 69256.

#### Mahana Importing Co. *v.*United States,

protest 63/18481 (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of ballet dancing figures on jewelry boxes similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 66652, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.1







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K
(the “Report”) of Green Stream Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2022, the undersigned
James C. DiPrima, the Principal Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies 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 the undersigned’s 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 results of
    operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Dated: August 15, 2022 | /s/ __James C. DiPrima_________________________                                         
|---------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       | Name: James C. DiPrima
Title: Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Director
|                       | (Principal Executive, Accounting and Financial Officer)
#### MONTANA ORE PURCHASING CO. et al. v. BUTTE & BOSTON CONSOL. MIN. CO.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

October 20, 1903.)

No. *10041,006.

Petition for writ of supersedeas directed to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Montana to stay execution of decree; etc. John J. McHatton and James M. Denny, for petitioner. Crittenden Thornton, for respondent. No opinion. Petition denied.
O 

 ||(ISO-C17H35)- C-OH + NH3 (ISO-C17H35)- C-N + 2H20

Isooctadecanoic acid

CAS 30399-84-9

Ammonia

CAS 7664-41-7

Isooctadecanenitrile

Isolated intermediate

CAS 84924-24-3
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

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

CRISTOBAL CARDENAS-AVILA,

 Defendant.

Case No. CR05-5678

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( X ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 ( ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

 ( ) 

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant’s lack of community ties and resources..

 ( X ) Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal,

without prejudice to review..

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 September 19, 2005.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cr-05678-FDB Document 20 Filed 09/19/05 Page 1 of 1
1

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for

the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation.

 2The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, Chief Judge, United States

District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

___________

No. 96-3109

___________

Moore Business Forms, Inc., *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Glenda K. Wilson; Michael D. *

Wilson, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellants. *

___________

 Submitted: December 12, 1996

 Filed: December 30, 1996 ___________

Before BOWMAN and HEANEY, Circuit Judges, and STROM,1 District

Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Defendants Glenda K. Wilson and Michael D. Wilson appeal from

an order of the District Court2 granting a preliminary injunction

in favor of plaintiff Moore Business Forms, Inc. The order enjoins

defendants from violating restrictive covenants in their employment

agreements. The District Court determined that a preliminary

injunction prohibiting defendants from selling business forms and

related products was warranted as to several key accounts, but not

as to other less significant accounts.

We have read all of the materials submitted by the parties and

have considered their arguments. We conclude that the order of the
-2-

District Court is solidly grounded in the law of Iowa, which

governs the validity and enforceability of the restrictive

covenants at issue in this case, and that the court, having

carefully considered the Dataphase factors, see Dataphase Systems,

Inc. v. C L Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981) (en

banc), did not abuse its discretion in entering a preliminary

injunction in favor of Moore. Because an opinion by this Court

would add nothing of substance to the District Court's analysis of

the case, we affirm without further discussion on the basis of that

court's thorough and well-reasoned opinion. 

The Wilsons argue that Moore should be required to give

security. The District Court is directed to consider the matter

and to exercise its discretion as to whether Moore should be

required to post bond.

AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
CROWN BANK


 








 



6600
FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 125


EDINA. MINNESOTA 55435


 


 


MODIFICATION/AMENDMENT





 


ProUroCare Medical, Inc


Loan #4060026


 


 


 


January 23, 2013


 


The above referenced loan originally dated January 11, 2006
in the original amount of $1,200,000.00, which may have been amended and restated from time to time is further modified and/or
amended as follows:


 


 


The maturity date has been
changed to February 15, 2013.


 


All other terms and conditions of this note remain the same.
By signing below, you agree with the modifications and/or amendments outlined above.


  


 


	Crown Bank	 	ProUroCare Medical, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	/s/ Kevin Howk	 	/s/Richard B. Thon
	Kevin Howk	 	Richard Thon, CFO
	President	 	 
	 	 	 


 





952-285-5800 (PHONE) 952-285-5900 (FAX)
CROWN-BANK.COM
From: boadwabr@mi.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:57:16 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,

Bryan Boadway

, 48152-3005