alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(R.D. 11527)

#### Globe International of Calif., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 32584.

(Decided May 23, 1968)

*Glad, & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*Edwin L. TVeisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for reappraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs nos. 2 and 3.

> *8745. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
From: jrrswrs@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:37:08 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,

Jerry Sowers

Atchison, KS 66002
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 471 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 30, 2007.
Whereas on June 6, 2007, in Anaheim, California, the Anaheim Ducks won the 
        National Hockey League Stanley Cup, with a 6-2 victory over the Ottawa 
        Senators in the decisive fifth game of the championship series;
Whereas the Ottawa Senators proved worthy opponents and should be congratulated 
        for a hard-fought Stanley Cup series;
Whereas the Ducks' win marked their first Stanley Cup title in franchise 
        history;
Whereas the Ducks' win marked the first National Hockey League sports 
        championship won by a team from the State of California;
Whereas owners Henry and Susan Samueli and general manager Brian Burke have 
        created a model franchise, assembling a team that rose from an unstable 
        past to the pinnacle of its sport today;
Whereas the Ducks were ably led by head coach Randy Carlyle, and assistant 
        coaches Newell Brown and Dave Farrish;
Whereas Ducks team members Francois Beauchemin, Ilya Bryzgalov, Sebastien Caron, 
        Ryan Carter, Joe DiPenta, Ryan Getzlaf, Jean-Sebastien Giquere, Mark 
        Hartigan, Kent Huskins, Chris Kunitz, Ric Jackman, Todd Marchant, Brad 
        May, Andy McDonald, Drew Miller, Travis Moen, Joe Motzko, Scott 
        Niedermayer, Rob Niedermayer, Sean O'Donnell, Samuel Pahlsson, George 
        Parros, Dustin Penner, Corey Perry, Chris Pronger, Aaron Rome, Teemu 
        Selanne, Ryan Shannon, and Shawn Thorton, are all worthy of praise and 
        admiration for their contributions to the resilient championship team;
Whereas Scott Niedermayer, the Ducks' team captain and a 33-year old veteran, 
        was awarded the Conn Smythe Trophy as the most valuable player of the 
        National Hockey League post-season;
Whereas the Anaheim Ducks introduced a new future for the National Hockey 
        League, creating new fans of the sport's high level of athleticism and 
        competition;
Whereas the entire Ducks organization has contributed considerably to the 
        community it represents, generously donating time and resources to a 
        variety of charitable and educational programs for children throughout 
        the State of California; and
Whereas Anaheim, and all of California, are proud of the accomplishment and 
        dedication of the Anaheim Ducks organization and fans: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives congratulates the National 
Hockey League Champions, the Anaheim Ducks, on their victory in the 2007 Stanley 
Cup Finals.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Before the First Division,

April 20, 1966

No. P66/36.

protests 62/4520, etc. (New York).

No. P66/37.

protest 64/3511 (Seattle).

No. P66/38.

protest 64/12080, etc. (New York).

#### Weather-Rite Sportswear Co., Inc., *v.*United States, Irving Raincoat Co., Inc. *v.*United States, Rettrain Imports, Inc. *v.*United States,

Nichols, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of articles of synthetic rubber similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Weather-Rite Sportswear Co., Inc.*(52 CCPA 7, C.A.D. 848), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. P66/230. —

#### Arnart Imports, Inc., et al. *v.*United States, protests 65/10711, etc. (New York).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “E” covered by the foregoing protests consist of plaques similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Arnart*Imports, *Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 187, C.D. 2531), and that the items of merchandise marked “W” covered by the foregoing protests consist of statuary, sculptures, and/or copies, replicas, or reproductions thereof, valued at not less than $2.50 each, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Wm. S. Pitoaim Corp.*v. *United States*(39 CCPA 15, C.A.D. 458), the claims of the plaintiffs were sustained.
From: jepry@bellsouth.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:48:08 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,

John E. Prybyla

Cullman, AL 35055
#### In re: Lorraine Althea WELLS, Debtor. Lorraine Althea Wells, Appellant, v. Linda J. Chu, Appellee.

No. 00-55251.

BAP No. CC-99-01477-BKM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.*

Decided June 25, 2001.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and RONALD M. GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Lorraine Althea Wells appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order dismissing her appeal for failing to comply with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the BAP Rules. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion the BAP decision dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with non-jurisdictional bankruptcy procedural requirements. *See Sierra Switchboard Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.,*789 F.2d 705, 706-07 (9th Cir.1986). We affirm for the reasons stated in the BAP’s order dismissing the appeal filed January 19, 2000.

Creditor Jack Scace’s motion to file an amicus curiae brief is denied.

*545Wells’ “Jury Demand No Oral Argument” motion filed October 4, 2000 is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MONTE C. HOISINGTON,

Petitioner,

v.

HENRY RICHARDS,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5642RBL

ORDER ADOPTING

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

 The Court, having reviewed petitioner’s motion, the respondent’s response to the motion,

the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold, objections to the Report and

Recommendation, if any, and the remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

(3) Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner, counsel for respondent,

and to the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold.

DATED this 10th day of April, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05642-RBL Document 18 Filed 04/10/06 Page 1 of 1
From: cunningham.jackie1@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:04:23 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,

Jackie Cunningham

Paducah, KY 42003
From: skinsure@windstream.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:19:22 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,

sonya kassouf

Cleveland, GA 30528
December 7, 1965

No. 69682.

#### Williams Clarke Co. and The Hy-Glow Company *v.*United States

protest 65/4430(A).

Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing granted.
Before the First Division,

April 19, 1965

No. 69248.

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

protest 60/19518 (San Francisco).

*397Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of miniature motors similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 66961, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 188 (Friday, September 29, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 67258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21420]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED


Procurement List; Deletions

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled.

ACTION: Deletions from the Procurement List.

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

SUMMARY: This action deletes a product from the Procurement List that 
was furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or 
have other severe disabilities.

DATES: Date deleted from the Procurement List: October 29, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled, 355 E Street SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 
785-6404, or email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#17545a43525172734572705756757e7b7e636e58797239707861"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="97d4dac3d2d1f2f3c5f2f0d7d6f5fefbfee3eed8f9f2b9f0f8e1">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Deletions

    On 8/25/2023, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind 
or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the 
Procurement List. This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 
(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3.
    After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee 
has determined that the product(s) listed below are no longer suitable 
for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 
41 CFR 51-2.4.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors 
considered for this certification were:
    1. The action will not result in additional reporting, 
recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
    2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish 
the product(s) to the Government.
    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would 
accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 
8501-8506) in connection with the product(s) deleted from the 
Procurement List.

End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following product(s) are deleted from the 
Procurement List:

Product(s)

NSN(s)--Product Name(s):
    7210-00-266-9740--Cot Insect Net Protector, Olive Green
Contracting Activity: DLA TROOP SUPPORT, PHILADELPHIA, PA

Michael R. Jurkowski,
Acting Director, Business Operations.
[FR Doc. 2023-21420 Filed 9-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Michael Rastelli et al., Respondents, v Barbara Gassman, Also Known as Barbara K. Rastelli, et al., Respondents, and Dewey Perone et al., Appellants.

[633 NYS2d 973]

—Appeal by the defendants Dewey Perone, Margaret Panarello, Ralph Arbia, Ruth Breimoen, Gracie A. Trapani, and Angela Casería from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Smith, J.), dated October 5, 1994.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Smith at the Supreme Court. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.
From: callthatguy@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:27:54 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,

guy hansford

Dyersburg, TN 38024