alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Anthony D. HARRIS, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND; Jon P. Galley, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 01-6719.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 21, 2001.

Decided July 5, 2001.

Anthony D. Harris, Sr., pro se. Celia Anderson Davis, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, for appellees.

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Anthony D. Harris, Sr. seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See Harris v. Attorney General MD,*No. CA-00-3750-WMN (D.Md. Apr. 17, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
From: judy@thomasjeffersoncenter.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:09:01 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 Goad

Midvale, UT 84047
From: hebutz@columbia-center.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:05:06 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,

Howard Butz

Rainier, OR 97048
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 DENYING MOTION 

FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

CLAUDIA YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAL. NEDERLAND N.V., HOLLAND

AMERICA LINE N.V. and CHUKKA

CARIBBEAN ADVENTURES, LTD., S.A.,

Defendants.

No. C05-1523L

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

This matter comes before the Court on the “Motion of Plaintiff Claudia Young for an

Order to Begin Expedited Discovery Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26” (Dkt. # 12). Young sought

the expedited discovery in order to oppose certain defendants’ motion to dismiss, which this

Court has denied. For this reason, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for

expedited discovery is DENIED as moot.

DATED this 25th day of January, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01523-RSL Document 29 Filed 01/25/06 Page 1 of 1
# Úřední věstník C 122A/16.

| | ISSN 1977-0863 |
| --- | --- |
| Úřední věstník
  Evropské unie | C 122A |
| | |
| České vydání | Informace a oznámení | Svazek 5816. dubna 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0863

Úřední věstník

Evropské unie

C 122A

České vydání

Informace a oznámení

Svazek 5816. dubna 2015

---

| Oznámeníč. | Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Opravy |
| 2015/C 122A/01 | Oprava oznámení o otevřených výběrových řízeních – Administrátoři (AD 5/AD 7) Specialisté v oblasti právního výzkumu: EPSO/AD/295/15 – Právníci specializovaní na bulharské právo (BG), EPSO/AD/296/15 – Právníci specializovaní na německé právo (DE), EPSO/AD/297/15 – Právníci specializovaní na chorvatské právo (HR), EPSO/AD/298/15 – Právníci specializovaní na irské právo (IE), EPSO/AD/299/15 – Právníci specializovaní na litevské právo (LT), EPSO/AD/300/15 – Právníci specializovaní na slovenské právo (SK) — ( Úř. věst. C 68 A ze dne 26.2.2015 ) | 1 |

Oznámeníč.

Obsah

Strana

Opravy

2015/C 122A/01

Oprava oznámení o otevřených výběrových řízeních – Administrátoři (AD 5/AD 7) Specialisté v oblasti právního výzkumu: EPSO/AD/295/15 – Právníci specializovaní na bulharské právo (BG), EPSO/AD/296/15 – Právníci specializovaní na německé právo (DE), EPSO/AD/297/15 – Právníci specializovaní na chorvatské právo (HR), EPSO/AD/298/15 – Právníci specializovaní na irské právo (IE), EPSO/AD/299/15 – Právníci specializovaní na litevské právo (LT), EPSO/AD/300/15 – Právníci specializovaní na slovenské právo (SK) — ( Úř. věst. C 68 A ze dne 26.2.2015 )

( Úř. věst. C 68 A ze dne 26.2.2015 )

1

---

| CS | |
| --- | --- |

CS

---

Opravy

| 16.4.2015 | CS | Úřední věstník Evropské unie | CA 122/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2015

CS

Úřední věstník Evropské unie

CA 122/1

---

Oprava oznámení o otevřených výběrových řízeních – Administrátoři (AD 5/AD 7) Specialisté v oblasti právního výzkumu: EPSO/AD/295/15 – Právníci specializovaní na bulharské právo (BG), EPSO/AD/296/15 – Právníci specializovaní na německé právo (DE), EPSO/AD/297/15 – Právníci specializovaní na chorvatské právo (HR), EPSO/AD/298/15 – Právníci specializovaní na irské právo (IE), EPSO/AD/299/15 – Právníci specializovaní na litevské právo (LT), EPSO/AD/300/15 – Právníci specializovaní na slovenské právo (SK)

(
  Úřední věstník Evropské unie C 68 A ze dne 26. února 2015
  )

(2015/C 122 A/01)

Strana 2, oddíl I, bod 3:

místo:

„Lhůta (včetně potvrzení): 31. března 2015 do 12 hod. (poledne) bruselského času.“,

má být:

„Lhůta (včetně potvrzení): 9. dubna 2015 do 12 hod. (poledne) bruselského času.“

---
From: lorrainerichard@century.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:50:09 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,

Lorraine Richard

Lady Lake, FL 32159
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 20, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40590

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICKY D. RYALLS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-78-12

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Ricky D. Ryalls has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Ryalls has not

filed a response. Our independent review of the record and

counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
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 GRANTING MOTION

FOR AN EXTENSION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MICHAEL ADAM ASSENBERG, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

ANACORTES HOUSING AUTHORITY,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-1836L

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR AN EXTENSION

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time

to respond to defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. #25). Plaintiffs’

opposition to the motion was due on March 13, 2006. They did not file an opposition on

that date. Instead, they filed this motion on March 10, 2006 requesting an extension until

April 24, 2006 to file their opposition.

To obtain a Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) continuance, plaintiffs must make “‘(a) a timely

application which (b) specifically identifies (c) relevant information, (d) where there is

some basis for believing that the information sought actually exists.’” See Employers

Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 Pension Trust Fund v. Clorox Co., 353 F.3d 1125, 1129

(9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n v. Bankcard Holders of Am., 784 F.2d

Case 2:05-cv-01836-RSL Document 34 Filed 03/22/06 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 GRANTING MOTION

FOR AN EXTENSION - 2

1472, 1475 (9th Cir. 1986)). The burden is on the party seeking additional discovery to

proffer sufficient facts to show that the evidence sought exists, and that it would prevent

summary judgment. Id. at 1129-1130.

Plaintiffs request an extension because their pro bono counsel, appointed on

January 24, 2006, needs additional time to obtain “information from Dr. Horesh in order

to show that Mr. Assenberg meets Washington’s statutory requirements for the medical

use of marijuana and in order to show the basis for a medical necessity for Mr. Assenberg

to use marijuana.” Declaration of Lonnie Davis (Dkt. #26) at p. 3. Plaintiffs have

identified the information they hope to elicit from Dr. Horesh and have explained that

they seek to use the information to show that plaintiffs’ use of marijuana was for medical

purposes. Although defendant’s arguments are well taken regarding whether the

information plaintiffs seek is relevant, the Court grants the motion because plaintiffs’ pro

bono counsel was appointed recently and because the Court prefers to resolve issues on

the merits whenever possible.

Plaintiffs must file their responsive memorandum by April 24, 2006. The Clerk of

the Court is directed to renote defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #18) for

April 28, 2006.

DATED this 22nd day of March, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01836-RSL Document 34 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 2
02/2G/2010 10:5G FAX 2024335142 

32/25/2010 07:22 8162293771 

FAA * DMS 

FAA ACE 7 

@l002/002 

PA6E 02/02 

IS-I TRANS 

HOLDING S 

i;:;pTc;-T^.-.-?ORWiON 

David J J\. Hayes m , Vice Presldenc & General Counsel 

CERTIFIED MAIL 

RETURNED RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Februarys, 2010 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite #2014 

800 Independence Ave, SW. 

Wasliington, DC 20591 

Re: FAA Case #2008CE030045 VD Gear Pins 

iH 

tPib^b OOD^ /j?0/O -0(^S 

REQUEST FOR HEARING 

GoJet Airlines LLC by and though counsel hereby requests a Hearing in reference to 

tl^ie Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty in FAA Case #2008CE030045. 

GoJet Airlines l_LC believes the hearing will take approximately two days and 

requests the hearing to be held in St. Louis, MO. 

David J. A. Haye ^ E< 

Vice-President & General Counsel 

Trans States Holdings, Inc. 

l1495Navaid Road 

Bridgeton, MO 63044 

314-222-4316(0) 

314-222^311 (F) 

dhaves(g>transst^tes.net 

Attorney for Respondent, GoJet Airlines LLC 

CC: David Kessler, Attorney FAA Central Region >/ 

11495 Navaid Road Brfdgeton, Missouri 63044 

314.222.4315 office, 314.222.4311 fax, dhay€S(S>tran5States.net
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 471 

Congratulating the National Hockey League Champions, the Anaheim Ducks, 

on their victory in the 2007 Stanley Cup Finals. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 7, 2007 

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California (for herself, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of 

California, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. CAMPBELL of California, 

and Mr. CALVERT) submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating the National Hockey League Champions, the 

Anaheim Ducks, on their victory in the 2007 Stanley 

Cup Finals. 

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; 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HRES 471 IH 

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•HRES 471 IH 

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 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives con2 gratulates the National Hockey League Champions, the 

3 Anaheim Ducks, on their victory in the 2007 Stanley Cup 

4 Finals. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PAUL M. LUCORE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee 

for the Certificate Holders of the Lmt 2006-9 

Trust; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., 

Defendant.

No. 20-56056 

D.C. No. 3:18-cv-02382-L-MDD 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2022**

Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 19 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 20-56056 

Paul M. Lucore appeals from the district court’s order denying his second 

motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

affirm.

In his opening brief, Lucore fails to challenge the district court’s order 

denying his second motion for reconsideration, and he has therefore waived any 

such challenge. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n 

appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); 

see also Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not 

manufacture arguments for an appellant . . . .”).

We do not consider Lucore’s contentions regarding the merits of the district 

court’s order dismissing his action or the district court’s order denying his first 

motion for reconsideration, because Lucore filed the notice of appeal on October 9, 

2020, more than 30 days after the entry of the district court’s order denying his

first motion for reconsideration. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal 

must be filed within 30 days of judgment); Stephanie-Cardona LLC v. Smith’s 

Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., 476 F.3d 701, 703 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A timely notice of 

appeal is a non-waivable jurisdictional requirement.”); Swimmer v. IRS, 811 F.2d 

1343, 1344-45 (9th Cir. 1987), abrogated on other grounds by Briones v. Riviera 

Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379 (9th Cir. 1997) (filing of the second motion for 
 3 20-56056 

reconsideration does not toll the time to appeal the underlying judgment). 

AFFIRMED.
Before the First Division,

October 5, 1966

No. P66/242. —

#### Panation Trade Co. et al. *v.*United States, protests 64/11676, etc. (New York).

Oliver, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of “piano wire rosary bracelets” similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Devon Trading Company*v. *United States*(48 Cust. Ct. 451, Abstract 66761) and *The J. Orlando Co.,*Inc., *et al.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 115, C.D. 2114), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 66035.

#### B. Altman & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/13226, etc. (New York).

*301Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of candlesticks similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Mottahedeh Creations, Ltd., et al.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 9, C.D. 2095), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.