alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 67515.

#### Spiegel Bros. Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 62/11697 (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of crowbars similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *National Carloadmg Corp. et al.*(48 CCPA 70, C.A.D. 767), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: hi_its_me_scott@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:18:37 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,

Jarrod Smith

Boaz, AL 35957
From: lenkight@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:44:42 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,

Leonard Kight

Columbus, MS 39701
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 *




In
connection with the Annual Report of Bethesda C0801, Inc., (the “Company”), on
Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) pursuant to the
requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63
of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C.§ 1350), David M. McNamee,
the President, principal executive officer and principal financial officer of
the Company, hereby certifies that, to the best of my knowledge:




1. The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and




2. The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the period
covered by the Periodic Report.





Date:
      October 11, 2010
              By:
              /s/ David M. McNameeDavid
      M. McNameePresident
      (Principal Executive Officer
                and
      Principal Financial Officer)




* This
certification accompanies the Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before
or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation
language contained in such filing.
From: jimgoergen444@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:33:10 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,

Jim Goergen

Corunna, MI 48817
From: stuvstad@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:08:53 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). In

addition, this increases medical costs for all, and forces those who have an objection to abortioninducing drugs to pay for these services for others.

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,

Kjell Stuvstad

Sandy, UT 84092
No. 620.

#### Laing *v.*Virginia.

*Alex N. Apostolou*for petitioner.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           8,320
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  134,271
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               195,363
<PP&E>                                       1,645,891
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,351,650
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          104,112
<BONDS>                                      1,425,581
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,843
<OTHER-SE>                                     761,150
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,351,650
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               320,551
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  228,049
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,844
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              64,260
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,398
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,615
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,783
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,783
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        

</TABLE>
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.

MOISES GALLARDO BARRAGAN,

 Defendant.

Case No. 05-5171M

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:

 (X ) 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 22, 2005.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-mj-05171-JKA Document 15 Filed 09/22/05 Page 1 of 1
##### 



Exhibit 32 WRITTEN STATEMENT
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 The undersigned, Greg H. Weaver, the Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer of Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. (the Company), and
Carl W. Womack, the Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, hereby certify that:  (i)
    
    the Quarterly Report of the Company, on Form
10-Q for the period ended May 1, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company. Dated:  May 19, 2004
    /s/  Greg H. WeaverGreg H. WeaverChairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. Dated: May 19, 2004
    /s/  Carl W. WomackCarl W. WomackSenior Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
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 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MAXINE BROWN, a single person,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT

OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5635 FDB

ORDER DENYING STATE

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

CHANGE CASE SCHEDULE AND

GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL

DISCLOSURE OF VIDEOTAPE

This matter comes before the Court on motion of State of Washington Department of Social

and Health Services to change the case schedule and compel production of the videotape of the

independent medical examination conducted on Plaintiff Maxine Brown by Defendant’s expert Dr.

Brian Grant.

After reviewing all materials submitted by the parties and relied upon for authority, the Court

is fully informed and hereby ORDERS:

(1) Defendant’s Motion to Change Case Schedule [Dkt # 33] is DENIED

(2) Defendant’s Motion to compel production of videotape of the Independent Medical

Examination conducted on Plaintiff Maxine Brown by Defendant’s expert Dr. Brian

Case 3:05-cv-05635-FDB Document 43 Filed 10/02/06 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 ORDER - 2

Grant [Dkt #33] is GRANTED, and a copy of the videotape shall be provided to the

Defendant no later than 5 days after entry of this Order. 

DATED this 2nd day of October, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05635-FDB Document 43 Filed 10/02/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 66041.

Suit 5059.

#### United States *v.*C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, N.Y.

O.D. 2194 reversed April 14, 1961. C.A.D. 770.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Frank T. Smith, Jr., certify that:     1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Remington Oil and GasCorporation;     2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;     3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;     4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and     5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:November 1, 2005        /s/ Frank T. Smith, Jr.  Frank T. Smith, Jr. *Senior Vice President/Finance(Principal Financial Officer)*
From: melanie4@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:39:09 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,

melanie cisler

Phoenix, AZ 85020