alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Pam Atkinson and Thomas J. Atkinson, Respondents, —<br><br>against<br><br>John O'Toole, Doing Business as Black Ice Paving, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Law Office of Christopher J. Cassar, P.C., Christopher J. Cassar, Esq., for appellant.Darrin Berger, Esq., for respondents.</p><p>Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Third District (C. Stephen Hackeling, J.), entered June 16, 2014. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $6,715.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover for allegedly defective paving work that defendant John O'Toole, doing business as Black Ice Paving, had performed on plaintiffs' driveway. During a nonjury trial, defense counsel made an oral application to preclude plaintiffs' expert from testifying about the condition of the driveway on the ground that plaintiffs had prevented defendant's expert from examining the driveway. The court reserved decision, and the trial proceeded with the testimony of plaintiffs' expert. At the close of the trial, the District Court, in finding in favor of plaintiffs based on a breach of warranty, implicitly denied defendant's application to preclude the testimony of plaintiffs' expert. A judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the principal sum of $6,715 was entered on June 16, 2014.</p><p>Contrary to defendant's sole argument on appeal, we find that the District Court did not err in denying defendant's application to preclude the testimony of plaintiffs' expert, as defendant <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>failed to establish that the drastic remedy of preclusion was appropriate. The record establishes that plaintiffs had acquiesced to an inspection of their driveway on February 18, 2014 and that, due to a snowfall on that date, defendant's expert was unable to inspect the driveway. The record is devoid of proof that any subsequent specific request had been made by defendant to inspect the driveway, which request plaintiffs had refused.</p><p>Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.</p><p>Iannacci, J.P., Tolbert and Brands, JJ., concur.</p><br><br>ENTER:<p>Paul Kenny</p><br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: March 31, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
From: drsinpa@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:59:48 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 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,

Danielle Merritt-Sunseri

Raleigh, NC 27609
Before the Third Division,

January 21, 1958

No. 61486.

#### Biddle Purchasing Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 302899-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the principles herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, not landed, not found, were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, or as not landed, not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
H. Res. 368 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 3, 2007. 

Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is 

hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION: Mr. Davis of 

Alabama. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
From: rwluu@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:59:31 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,

roger luurtsema

Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Volume II - Sections 4.5 - 4.13 and 5

Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P.

Docket No. CP07-444-000

Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, L.P.

Docket No. CP07-441-000

FERC/EIS 0223 F

May 2009

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Office of Energy Projects

Washington, DC 20426

Cooperating Agencies

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region

Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Portland District

US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10

US Department of Homeland Security Coast Guard, Portland

US Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

US Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office

US Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Basin Area Office

US Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office

Douglas County, Oregon
Jordan Cove Energy and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project

Final Environmental Impact Statement - Volume II

Docket Nos.

 CP07-441-000

CP07-444-000 May 2009 FERC/EIS 0223 F
Sample Id P5018 P5018 P5018 5018Medel P5018 P5018 P5018 5018Medel MW P5018 P5018 P5018 50

area% area% area% area% normal normal normal normal Ai/Mi Ai/Mi Ai/Mi A

amine 1.036 1.100 1.078 1.071 1.426 1.507 1.488 1.474 217 0.0066 0.0070 0.0069 0

amine+1EO 1.065 1.126 1.111 1.101 1.466 1.543 1.534 1.514 261 0.0056 0.0059 0.0059 0amine+2EO 0.774 0.784 0.782 0.780 1.065 1.074 1.080 1.073 305 0.0035 0.0035 0.0035 0amine+3EO 1.092 1.093 1.109 1.098 1.503 1.498 1.531 1.511 349 0.0043 0.0043 0.0044 0amine+4EO 1.548 1.543 1.542 1.544 2.131 2.114 2.129 2.125 393 0.0054 0.0054 0.0054 0amine+5EO 2.036 2.082 2.078 2.065 2.802 2.853 2.869 2.841 437 0.0064 0.0065 0.0066 0amine+6EO 2.729 2.736 2.705 2.723 3.756 3.749 3.735 3.747 481 0.0078 0.0078 0.0078 0amine+7EO 3.341 3.308 3.301 3.317 4.599 4.533 4.557 4.563 525 0.0088 0.0086 0.0087 0amine+8EO 4.114 3.966 4.024 4.035 5.663 5.435 5.556 5.551 569 0.0100 0.0096 0.0098 0amine+9EO 4.727 4.732 4.768 4.742 6.506 6.484 6.583 6.524 613 0.0106 0.0106 0.0107 0

amine+10EO 5.371 5.334 5.284 5.330 7.393 7.309 7.295 7.332 657 0.0113 0.0111 0.0111 0

amine +11EO 5.571 5.570 5.569 5.570 7.668 7.633 7.689 7.663 701 0.0109 0.0109 0.0110 0

amine+12EO 5.579 5.682 5.562 5.608 7.679 7.786 7.679 7.715 745 0.0103 0.0105 0.0103 0

amine+13 EO 5.446 5.461 5.471 5.459 7.496 7.483 7.553 7.511 789 0.0095 0.0095 0.0096 0amine+14 EO 5.037 5.063 5.045 5.048 6.933 6.938 6.965 6.945 833 0.0083 0.0083 0.0084 0amine+15 EO 4.914 4.985 4.907 4.935 6.764 6.831 6.775 6.790 877 0.0077 0.0078 0.0077 0amine+16 EO 4.346 4.364 4.312 4.341 5.982 5.980 5.953 5.972 921 0.0065 0.0065 0.0065 0amine+17 EO 3.923 3.940 3.918 3.927 5.400 5.399 5.409 5.403 965 0.0056 0.0056 0.0056 0amine+18 EO 3.375 3.475 3.398 3.416 4.645 4.762 4.691 4.700 1009 0.0046 0.0047 0.0047 0amine+19 EO 2.809 2.790 2.761 2.787 3.866 3.823 3.812 3.834 1053 0.0037 0.0036 0.0036 0

amine+20EO 2.102 2.062 2.040 2.068 2.893 2.826 2.816 2.845 1097 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026 0amine+21EO 1.073 1.046 0.926 1.015 1.477 1.433 1.278 1.396 1141 0.0013 0.0013 0.0011 0amine+22EO 0.430 0.471 0.434 0.445 0.592 0.645 0.599 0.612 1185 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0amine+23EO 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.261 0.293 0.360 0.422 0.359 1229 0.0002 0.0003 0.0003 0

72.651 72.976 72.431 72.686 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000

Mn 657 656 655 

<500 14 14 14 14

<1000 91 91 91 91
February 28 , 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

SANDRA SMITH , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 01094

- CV V.

HOUSTON HOUSING AUTH ORITY

- IRVINTON VILLAGE , Appellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on December 3, 2012. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by r eason of this appeal be paid by appellant, Sandra Smith.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
From: derrthum@lasalle.pvt.k12.ia.us

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:34:48 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,

Deb Errthum

Holy Cross, IA 52053
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 2, 2019

t0624

Order 

Clerk

July 2, 2019

158175

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 158175

COA: 339846 

Kalkaska CC: 16-003931-FC

CARLTON JAMES RAPOZA, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 7, 2018 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
From: dollie_Cat@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:30:17 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,

Catherine Dahl

San Mateo, CA 94401
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report On Form
10-K/A of EcoEmissions Solutions, Inc. for the Year Ended February 28, 2010, I,
Thomas L. Crom, Chief Financial Officer of EcoEmissions Solutions, Inc. hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

|1. | Such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the Year ended
      February 28, 2010, 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 such Annual Report on Form
      10-K/A for the Year Ended February 28, 2010, fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      EcoEmissions Solutions, Inc.

By:        /s/Thomas L. Crom
            
Thomas Crom
            
Chief Financial Officer

Dated: June 17, 2010

---
No. 68441.

protests 60/ 923 (A), etc. (New York).

#### Polk’s Model Craft Hobbies, Inc. *v.*United States,

*317Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel tbat the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Polk’s Model Craft Hobbies, Inc., et al.*(47 CCPA 137, C.A.D. 746), the items marked “A,” stipulated to consist of HO gauge railroad accessories, were held dutiable at the appropriate rate, depending upon the date of entry, under the provision in paragraph 397, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 51802), or by the Sixth Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 54108), for manufactures in chief value of base metal or under said paragraph, as modified, *supra,*by similitude under paragraph 1559, as amended. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of locomotives or other electrical articles, were held dutiable at 13% percent under the provision in paragraph 353, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52739), for metal articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, as claimed.
ORDER FOR SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY FOR 

DEFENDANT - 1 

Gabriel I. Banfi 

Attorney at Law 

Plaza Center 

10900 NE 8th Street, Suite 1115 

Bellevue, Washington 98004 

(425) 454-7721 

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

Honorable Franklin D. Burgess 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT TACOMA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

DIONICIO ZURITA-RIOS, 

 Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

NO.: CR05-5695FDB 

ORDER FOR SUBTITUTION OF 

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT 

 

 ORDER

 Having reviewed the Notice of Withdrawal and Substitution of Attorney 

for Defendant Dionicio Zurita-Rios together with the records in this matter, 

IT IS HEREBY ordered that Russell Leonard is allowed to withdraw and Gabriel 

I. Banfi is allowed to substitute effective immediately as the Attorney of 

Record for the above referenced defendant. 

Dated this 3rd day of October, 2005. 

 __/s/ Franklin D Burgess _______ 

 Honorable Franklin D. Burgess 

Case 3:05-cr-05695-FDB Document 18 Filed 10/03/05 Page 1 of 2
ORDER FOR SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY FOR 

DEFENDANT - 2 

Gabriel I. Banfi 

Attorney at Law 

Plaza Center 

10900 NE 8th Street, Suite 1115 

Bellevue, Washington 98004 

(425) 454-7721 

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

Respectfully submitted, 

S/ Gabriel I. Banfi

Gabriel I. Banfi 

WSBA No. 17810 

Law Office of Gabriel I. Banfi 

10900 NE 8th Street, Suite 1115 

Bellevue, WA 98004 

Telephone (425) 454-7721 

FAX (425) 688-0788 

GBANFILAW@yahoo.com

Case 3:05-cr-05695-FDB Document 18 Filed 10/03/05 Page 2 of 2
Before the First Division,

September 6, 1961

No. 66031.

#### M. Zwiebel *v.*United States,

protest 60/27141 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise, described as “30 grs 5841 Wooden Block Set,” consists of building blocks or bricks, valued at more than 8- cents per pound, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: ronhuffy@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Contraceptives

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:29:54 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,

Ron Hoffman

Powder Springs, GA 30127