alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00272-CV

Lorrie G. HALE,

Appellant

v.

Brian E. HALE,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CI-14517

Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 18, 2008

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

This is an appeal from a judgment granting a petition for bill of review, vacating a prior

judgment and ordering a new trial. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

In November 2003, Lorrie Hale sued Brian Hale to enforce an out-of-state divorce decree.

On December 22, 2003, the trial court signed a default judgment against Brian in the enforcement

action. Brian subsequently filed a petition for bill of review in the trial court, seeking to vacate the
04-08-00272-CV

-2-

default judgment. On January 24, 2008, the trial court granted the petition for bill of review. In its

judgment, the trial court vacated the prior default judgment and ordered a new trial on the issue of

child support. Lorrie later filed this appeal. 

After Lorrie perfected her appeal, Brian filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of

jurisdiction. Relying on Jordan v. Jordan, 907 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. 1995), Brian contends that the

January 24, 2008 judgment is interlocutory and not appealable. We agree.

The January 24, 2008 judgment set aside the court’s prior judgment but did not dispose of

the merits of the case; therefore, the January 24, 2008 judgment is not a final, appealable judgment.

See id. at 472 (“A bill of review which sets aside a prior judgment but does not dispose of the case

on the merits is interlocutory and not appealable.”); see also In re B.F.A., No. 04-04-00835-CV,

2005 WL 154258, *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.). Brian’s motion to

dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM
No. 69694.

#### W. Kay Co., Inc. et al. v. United States,

protests 59/2658, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “B” consist of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *W. Kay Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 130, *519C.D. 2484), and that the items marked “A” consist of cups and saucers the same as those the subject of *United States*v. *The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. a/c United China & Glass Company*(47 CCPA 1, C.A.D. 719), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: gigihorner@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:45:25 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,

Jo Horner

Moscow, TN 38057
Appendixes 51

1,100

1,150

1,100

1,100

1,050

1,100

1,100

1,100

1,050

1,050

1,050

1,050

1,100

1,100

1,100

1,050

1,100

1,100

1,100

1,100

1,100

1,100

1,100

1,100

1,150

1,150

1,100

1,100

1,100

1,100

1,100

1,100

1,100

1,150

1,150

1,100

1,100

1,100

1,100

1,150

Spyglass Rd

N Portland Ave

NW 164th Ter

Home Coming Dr

Daybright Dr

Saint Andrews Ter

Arrowhead Ter

Downsview Ln

Western Vista Dr

Deep Wood Creek Dr

Old Olive Way

Dalea Dr

Wileman Way

Pony Rd

Pinehurst Rd

Apple Valley Dr

Fossil Creek Ln

NW 143rd St

Inverness Ave

NW 130th St

Remington Way

Burlingame Ave

Lone Oak Dr

Green

Valley Dr

N Meridian Ave

W Memorial Rd

Lake Hefner Pkwy

NW 164th St

NW 150th St

NW 122nd St

W John Kilpatrick Tpke

Oakcliff Rd

NW 144th St

NW 158th St

Deerfield Ct

Deerfield Cir

Tamarisk

Dr

Sky Run Dr

Wisteria Dr

Arrowhead Dr

Pulchella Dr

Rank ni Rd

McAuley Blvd

Gaillardia Blvd

Gaillardia Ln

St Andrews Dr

Val Verde Dr Old

Farm Rd

Gaillardia Dr

Gaillard Dr

Martin

Park Deer Creek

Elementary

School

Laser Spine

Institute

Mercy

Hospital

Oklahoma

Heart

Hospital

Oklahoma

City Police

Department John Marshall

High School

74

Northwest

Oklahoma City

Sludge Lagoon

Spring Creek

Dry Creek

Bluff Creek

laf15-CSSH00-0684_app10_1

45,307

73,618

72,553

71,305

446,56

007,76

119,66

64,475

56,067

54,780

57,082

483,64

58,301

53,694

149,16

63,268

108,84

654,25

60,877

50,010 613,15

00:25

00:25

00:40

00:50

00:55

01:20

01:40

EXPLANATION

75 percent PMF inundation area

Sunny-day inundation area

Unmodeled inundation area

Topographic contour

Index

Intermediate

Modeled bridge with time to peak stage

Model cross section with index number

Point of interest

Park

97°37'0"

97°36'30"

97°36'0"

97°35'30"

35°35'30" 35°36'0" 35°36'30" 35°37'0" 35°37'30" 35°38'0"

Study

area

Base from Oklahoma State Plane North Projection, North American Datum, 1983.

Aerial photography from U.S. Department of Agriculture (2013).

Highways from Oklahoma Department of Transportation (2014).

Incorporated areas, railroads, and roads from U.S. Census Bureau (2014).

Topographic contours at 10-foot intervals from City of Oklahoma City (2004),

 City of Norman (2007), Intermap Technologies (2014), and U.S. Geological Survey (2014).

Unmodeled inundataion areas (hachured) are assumed to be inundated below the modeled

 flood elevation at the place where they join the modeled inundation area. Actual areas inundated

 will depend on the particular failure mechanism and preexisting flood conditions and may differ

 from the areas shown on the maps. For this reason, isolated inundation areas (those

 disconnected from the main inundation area) were included on the inundation maps. 

N

0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 MILES

0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 KILOMETERS

Appendix 10–1. Inundated areas for the 75-percent probable maximum flood (PMF) and sunny-day Northwest Oklahoma City Sludge Lagoon dam-breach model scenarios and time to peak stage for the 75-percent probable maximum flood.
From: Mary.wyman@ATt.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:49:00 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. 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,

Mary Wyman

Monument, CO 80132
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Machine Learning.                    

*Date:*                         October 27, 2023.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Kimberly Firth, Ph.D., National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7702,                         *firthkm@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 26, 2023.

Miguelina Perez, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-21594 Filed 9-29-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Before the Second Division,

April 14, 1969

No. P69/93.

protests 67/55590, etc. (New York).

#### Pitney-Bowes, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of embossing machines similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Pitney-*Bowes, *Inc.*v. *United States*(59 Cust. Ct. 181, C.D. 3116), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
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

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MICHAEL DENNIS MATHEWS,

 Petitioner,

v.

DOUG WADDINGTON,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5670 RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Petitioner’s Letter/Motion for

Reconsideration [Dkt. #22].

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court rules as follows:

This is a habeas corpus case. Petitioner seeks reconsideration of this Court’s Order [Dkt. #21]

adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation dismissing this case with prejudice. “Motions

for reconsideration are disfavored.” Cr 7(h), Local Rules W.D. Wash. They will not be granted absent “a

showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have

been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id. Here, petitioner has not shown

any error nor has he raised any new facts or legal authority, and as such, the Letter/Motion for Reconsideration

[Dkt. #22] is DENIED.

Case 3:05-cv-05670-RBL Document 23 Filed 07/05/06 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

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing

pro se.

Dated this 5th day of July, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05670-RBL Document 23 Filed 07/05/06 Page 2 of 2
No. P66/258. —

#### National Silver Co. *v.*United States, protest 63/137 (San Francisco).

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of knives similar *816in all material respects to those the subject of *National Carloading Corp.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 178, C.D. 2529), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 63833.

protests 89360-K, etc. (New York).

#### McKesson & Robbins, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 68460.

protests 63/554, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Calif. Floral Mfg. Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of rice paper similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Floral Arts Studios et al.*v. *United States*(49 Cust. Ct. 43, C.D. 2359), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: learncde@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:42:24 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,

Luisa Acosta

La Feria, TX 78559
#### Jeffrey A. PLEASANT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 05-6809.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 18, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 26, 2005.

Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant pro se. Amy L. Marshall, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey A. Pleasant seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s * order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and denying his motion for discovery. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pleasant has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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*

*

 The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (2000).
From: mikeh0128@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:16:08 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,

MICHAEL HOMCHICK

Lake Elsinore, CA 92530