alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
'· . . ... \ .. \ 

. No. _·______ _ 

J3 \ROd--0-11 .. :,1: a.J e.,b~\1-· J ""-1Le!'!J' k- . \)I ~J_.~G±J~j ~-.,~~- - · · . _· · ~:5_J5'~S_j_~~~s-A_Vlii!kL . . . . 

~o-HM Frx- Lil.Ailft lo ~~ k_W.f"t'+~2JVl~cl~AMvi2,____ ' . 

• • _ 'I a Tb.e.Jd_gJ'l_~bk__]lAcJ~-a£ gf\~cl.fou-1-1:::._.----.:-· . ___ _ 

~ . 'D " 1 '71-=-L.,·J. ~A_·. Ann\' - · .. W~o -. Qi.M,i.S,J>'LO w_ _I?La.,_•-:-'-~-C)lll-~-. -~---,---:l-~-ttf-J- .LC~4i:t-- . ""'-=---~ 

P";l~ ~ ,_P-\(]L_i£,~ D-~&Lfnf--~~ 'WolAl ~ sb.JtV_{i~wlo~-~-

I8 · . ·· A--~~Li-~+ ~s_a.__· [.e,l o~~ DE~~ ~vtv,t+-takt __ . 

. · __j·V\ ~SJz-JJ.lo_,_j--=-J~-~:1 ~ &CA.A-~E~~}_Oj! ·., h, . 

·~.LA d,'Lt't:~t I .lu.Vevt; Le._~vtld:<1_~j=E£/,'ct1~t- hPt.~ · vt±fervte~to­

_(l~e___~_CJ-1 ~-Vl~ . ~e L~c~i)_atA.S_f-v_L___C1Y-1 o~±:·- o r- L-~ C}{t~ (-·-· · 

flv r ,· t- o f:_Hft~~~-CuLetA->_tli. o-:J_)_OkJ· · . 
I 

__ kz±_4_;_~C{LL£1 ~VlltUS-~ ~- low-,t- bF Ctt i·~,'V\A (_j£f~~L1 __ 

~-_Qn__/_Q::2_3- ~~-~J ckn,~ Ov'1 U,~-/4 WR-~~-~~'Jv-~-oL 

JkJ + w l

1

W!.. r v'\ ili ~ ~ l r_9i5~h'L~ ~~ t- Ct u_~t~-b __ _ 

~~~~~---~-~~ku,_s_b ___ ~+lA-{~1.-

• · 4ue-, 1~ ""!~k_.__pecf+._d r 6J.,_,, J"JA~HUZ- ou.~oJl~-~~~-

bJ~ ~L:ttJ ~~fl~tm ~~l/{l!'il ~etS_~tt S!M~LI::b-~ _ 

_ __Q_bu~_tez6JA±J_1>Y'v5-~-Qt~,~~ ht-z~-~-cL-b,u[~-~-.~£t~uPv~ 

h ot::,_ilo_fL~ flt/~'1 {)1¥_lRw__!_ .. _.·. ________ _ 

-:r~ LtA-w 

~ -~~_at_~-~\Z[t'_L~11_f_&_ Wrt'+ of HFt~~~(D4tJt) __ _ 

-~L~e_ f Vvu.s CA C&J&S:b'--·hd:\_ov\P.. \ ~t_-l:o~ce:{e._s5._jn_~\.LG: t:t& 

. ' ~ L t Ot s ot S-hi= Ltm r~ (' Z%-"LtL-t-b_b~Le.-- ct ill ot EP lttA -hitt ~_t,-Tv~'----

tvr;..r Of ~~--C.Oc£us_·\A.LI}b_~_J,.;)-fr{L-t C~-­

Ottw~~J-(1l_._CJ.uk_LLJ Su,~ J t-f13-~;; _ _(Ji·_\~._'0J_q_l ~~'. 

\;J ~ V\{{f S V-~-Ecg__s_t& i ~ uel~fL~ Gee )'\1\~rttt l_DJj wn-L+ __C_i ___ M 

~hf'ee, ,_t\1Lild-3_u! . 7237 -175_L[pjt__._Ci'l1W1. A:ee d-:oo~l--

-------------------------

. l:~ ~I CA-~flt' Utvt±..K~~-H(.AJJ¥-~:~;>-11=----._ --·- 11oVto<""C1b~ U2_Vv(t t-SS-~ Ot/l. ~ ±io-~-LJTz~ Lo_v._Ct-__ ~--

-DtcLef2t~A~_k_e_~-ktfZ(LL~b~od ~ wv1't- o_L}J_C<t~-~-&~--

_S~~~~vt~_Ow:\_~·LI\__ -r- v~~- -- -~~~---'2L~~~ ___________ _ 
·' 

.; • 'I ·.,:. • 

------.... -... -. -~~~fe_d-_6-JJ~ S;..,bV~-I,~_,-

-------------'~'"· _____ ~~~ ' 

----------~~-~~~1-~#)~q~~ ------~L~~~n& ______ __ -------------'-l--"--"l 0----4.-3!1 Hw~ '1G-__ -~-------'-_: __;___ ... __ B_a~·v.,:-:LC0-x-~/_1l{'d:~ 

( ·J_ f/\, . f) It -tk L~~ ~· · t_~ ~--~---~U:b~~----h__t_-~1-~ ~JI\iJ l~eA.=---------

_{j;~~l--~[J_;:llij-~U-tcl£tihMJ. WV\6 ~Zl eJ . · fn_J~~·~-----' _ 

· ----c:;w=t or C,..r; Mi 11. ·'d A£~ ls,_~--------­

-~v, o, P-o~--\~~_2___<b_r~-e.-~l stG'"· 

___ lhAsl-\_n_,_-Le,~s_]_<(7__i_\ ______ -_____ _ 

C)Vl @C_l[J? ,- t )V\ctl'ch ~n) 1 ~ o l5: ______ _ I 

.~ --------------------
#### Salim Esmail, Appellant, v State University of New York Health Science Center at Brooklyn, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 117]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Stecher, J.), entered November 1, 1994, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent medical school’s determination dismissing petitioner as a student, granted respondent’s cross motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record contains ample basis for a finding that respondent relied on appropriate academic criteria in dismissing petitioner, that petitioner’s academic performance was deficient as measured by respondent’s standards, and that no procedural irregularities affected respondent’s determination. Absent a showing of such irregularities, we defer to respondent’s academic judgment *(see, Matter of Susan M. v New York Law School,*76 NY2d 241), and like the IAS Court, take particular note of concerns that guide a medical school’s decision whether or not to graduate a student.

Petitioner’s discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Vocational Rehabilitation Act, advanced on the basis that as a drug addict he is entitled to protection, are premature since petitioner never complied with the administrative rules for commencing such challenges *(see, Pap-pas v Bethesda Hosp. Assn.,*861 F Supp 616, 622), and in any event without merit. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Asch, Williams and Tom, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 521 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 23, 2007.
Whereas Lake Placid, New York, was the site of the 1932 and 1980 Winter Olympic 
        Games;
Whereas Lake Placid is the only site in North America to have hosted the Winter 
        Olympic Games more than once;
Whereas the 1980 Winter Olympic Games featured one of the greatest triumphs in 
        sports history with the men's United States hockey team victory over the 
        Soviet team in the ``Miracle on Ice'';
Whereas Lake Placid, New York, has a population of under 2,700 residents, yet 
        welcomes over 2.2 million visitors each year;
Whereas the residents of Lake Placid were wonderful ambassadors of the United 
        States for the 1,324 Olympic athletes that participated in the 1932 and 
        1980 Winter Olympic Games;
Whereas the residents of Lake Placid take great pride in their place in Olympic 
        history;
Whereas Lake Placid and the towns of North Elba and Wilmington have world class 
        sports facilities that serve as an excellent training location for 
        athletes and sports enthusiasts;
Whereas Lake Placid is the home of one of the three U.S. Olympic Committee's 
        national training centers;
Whereas Lake Placid continues to successfully host international sports 
        competitions on a regular basis; and
Whereas 2007 marks the 75th anniversary of the 1932 Winter Olympic Games: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) congratulates the Village of Lake Placid, New York, as it 
        celebrates its 75th anniversary of hosting the 1932 Winter Olympic 
        Games;
            (2) encourages all Americans to visit the state-of-the-art Olympic 
        facilities in Lake Placid;
            (3) recognizes Lake Placid's important place in Olympic history; and
            (4) encourages the United States Olympic Committee to select Lake 
        Placid to represent the United States in a future bid for the Olympic 
        and Paralympic Winter Games.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 363 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                           May 2, 2007.
    Resolved,  That clause 15 of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended to read as follows:
    ``15. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a Member, Delegate, or 
Resident Commissioner may not use personal funds, official funds, or campaign 
funds for a flight on an aircraft.
    ``(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply if--
            ``(1) the aircraft is operated by an air carrier or commercial 
        operator certificated by the Federal Aviation Administration and the 
        flight is required to be conducted under air carrier safety rules, or, 
        in the case of travel which is abroad, by an air carrier or commercial 
        operator certificated by an appropriate foreign civil aviation authority 
        and the flight is required to be conducted under air carrier safety 
        rules;
            ``(2) the aircraft is owned or leased by a Member, Delegate, 
        Resident Commissioner or his or her family member (including an aircraft 
        owned by an entity that is not a public corporation in which the Member, 
        Delegate, Resident Commissioner or his or her family member has an 
        ownership interest, provided that such Member, Delegate, or Resident 
        Commissioner does not use the aircraft any more than the Member, 
        Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or family member's proportionate share 
        of ownership allows);
            ``(3) the flight consists of the personal use of an aircraft by a 
        Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner that is supplied by an 
        individual on the basis of personal friendship; or
            ``(4) the aircraft is operated by an entity of the Federal 
        government or an entity of the government of any State.
    ``(c) In this clause--
            ``(1) the term `campaign funds' includes funds of any political 
        committee under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, without 
        regard to whether the committee is an authorized committee of the 
        Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner involved under such Act;
            ``(2) the term `family member' means an individual who is related to 
        the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, as father, mother, son, 
        daughter, brother, sister, husband, wife, father-in-law, or mother-in-
        law; and
            ``(3) the term `on the basis of personal friendship' has the same 
        meaning as in clause 5 of rule XXV and shall be determined as under 
        clause 5(a)(3)(D)(ii) of rule XXV.''.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
No. 270, Misc.

#### Case *v.*New York.

Court of Appeals of New York. Certiorari denied.
No. 60196.

protests 195636-K, etc. (Boston).

#### W. N. Proctor Company *v.*United States,

*348Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Angora rabbit hair similar in all material respects to that the subject of *W. N. Proctor Company*v. *United States*(35 Cust. Ct. 89, C. D. 1727), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

TEDDY ORIBELLO,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 05-489 M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offense charged:

Count 1: Computer Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (a)(4);

Count 2: Aggravated Identity Theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A..

Date of Detention Hearing: October 18, 2005.

The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and

based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth, finds

the following: 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) The defendant poses as substantial risk of flight. Defendant has two warrants

outstanding for failures to appear on forgery charges. 

(2) At the time of his arrest, the defendant had two drivers’ licenses which bore his

photograph but which also had different names from his real name. 

(3) Defendant has no stable employment history and is a native and citizen of the 

Philippines with recent travel to the country.

Case 2:05-mj-00489-JPD Document 10 Filed 10/18/05 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

(4) Defendant also poses a risk of danger to the community. Serious issues of abuse

of controlled substances are present. In addition, on the day after he was arrested and released

on bond for state charges similar to those that are the subject of the pending federal charges,

there was access to an alleged victim’s account which could be traced to the defendant. 

(5) There appear to be no conditions or combination of conditions that will 

reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance at future Court hearings or the safety of the

community. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the extent

practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with

counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which defendant

is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose

of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United States

Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 18th day of October, 2005.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-mj-00489-JPD Document 10 Filed 10/18/05 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Peter Liu, hereby 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 on Form 10-K of Amico Games Corp. for the year ended August 31, 2010 (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 Amico Games Corp.






Dated: November 29, 2010




/s/Peter Liu


Peter Liu
 President, Chief Executive Officer
 (Principal Executive Officer)
 Amico Games Corp.


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Amico Games Corp. and will be retained by Amico Games Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
From: Mary Santomauro

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:17:12 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 Santomauro
Stagecoach, Nevada
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

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 1

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JAMES P. DONOHUE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TIMOTHY DELAUGHTER,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Nos. CR05-5754

CR05-5710

ORDER GRANTING 

STIPULATED MOTION TO

CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 

Upon the stipulation of the parties to continue the trial date in the abovecaptioned case, the Court finds that such a continuance would serve the ends of justice

and outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial;

therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date be continued to April 13, 2006. The

period of delay resulting from this continuance from March 6 to April 13, 2006, is

hereby excluded for speedy trial purposes under 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(A) and (B).

DONE this 8th day of February, 2006.AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge

Presented By:

/s/________________________________ /s/_____________________________

Colin A. Fieman Captain Glen Templeton 

Attorney for Defendant Special Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:05-cr-05710-JKA Document 8 Filed 02/08/06 Page 1 of 1
From: bddjham@frontiernet.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:32:35 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,

Dot Hammers

Wayland, NY 14572
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 21

- 00250

- CR

MONTE RODNEY SCALES JR.

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 36th District Court of San Patricio County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. S

- 17

- 3011CR

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having co nsidered this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and rendered . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and RE NDERS judgment in
accordanc e with it s opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. November 10, 2022
Before the First Division,

October 16, 1968

No. P68/437.

protests 66/8527, etc. (New York).

#### Hi Test Twist Drill Works, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Watson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of plastic cases or containers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *MarmaxTradimg Corp. v. United States*(58 Cust. Ct. 255, C.D. 2955), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: judy.rvn4fun@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:28:51 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,

Judy Scott

Chula Vista, CA 91913