alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: whgragert@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:13:33 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,

Walter Gragert

Rocky Ford, CO 81067
No. 63827.

protests 972693-G, etc. (New York).

#### J. & J. Distributing Co. 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 *349*Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1156), thé claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
ELEVATION, IN FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL ELEVATION, IN FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL

ELEVATION, IN FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

BULLETIN 1000 PLATE 11

HOLE 12
180 HOLE 8 HOLE 9 HOLE 10 HOLE 11
= —— . —TN
l f N
sa | ees ae
ne | —
1100. \y
Galena dolomite
1075
NN S
a '"
‘
Decorah oration \ an
\
—
1028 — _ — $$
Tovo  Plttcate formation Ts
ZING, IN PARTS PER MILLION ara EERGac lL _
_—— SJ
to00 = — 1000 2600 “0 “¥00-—$§
1000 72600 1000 72000 ZING, IN PARTS PER MILLION ZING, IN PARTS PER MILLION umye Mit mambo s
975 1000
ZING, IN PARTS PER MILLION
BEA ONS HOLE 8 HOLE 9 HOLE 10 HOLE 11 HOLE 12 rote
Sou! .
1125. —
1100
Galena dolomite
NN x)
\ Galena dotomite
1075 \
\
10501 -/>{}-——_—__—__— 41 N
Decorah formation hep 2
1028-1 |4¥—
Co Quimbys ill membar
1000 “Plattevile formation '—B bo
LEAD, IN PARTS PER MILLION LEAD, IN PARTS PER MILLION -——|_I oesre ten +4
101 |__——— Boo a
Ly sabe 00 Rs LEAD, IN PARTS PER MILLION LEAD, IN PARTS PER MILLION Gi i pgmgg@
LEAD, IN PARTS PER MILLION LEAD, IN PARTS PER MILLION Platteville formation ——
1000
“7s LEAD, IN PARTS PER MILLION
a HOLE 12
1150 HOLE 7 HOLE 8 HOLE 9 HOLE 10 HoLe 11
ae nn wt \‘“ _
S Soll r 7
a 7 ——_TF
1125 LI —
N
1 \’
1100} \Y = N
Galena dolornte
N \
i \ Galena dolomite
.
N
1080} Hy = \Y |
N Decorah formation LU 5 a
\ \\a ly _—
Fn Se a —
1 CS Fy yrs tl member = \ —L I
Plattovile formation r) ib tf
‘RON, IN PERCENT 7 ARON, IN vercent |} WV 2 ee x Decorah formation
— NN _ ~
TD —? rr er >
$ 6} To IRON, IN PERCENT IRON, IN PERCENT ill member ————__ N
Platteville formation a
IRON, IN PERCENT IRON, IN PERCENT ae NI ;
10
978 IRON, IN PERCENT
oO 90 150 225 390 450 690 FEET

CROSS SECTIONS THROUGH DRILL HOLES 7-13 SHOWING ZINC, LEAD, AND IRON CONCENTRATIONS IN ROCKS AT CROW BRANCH

869614 O—56 (In pocket) No.
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #18205 and #18206; TENNESSEE Disaster Number TN-00151]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Tennessee dated 09/27/2023. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         08/14/2023 through 08/15/2023.
 DATES: Issued on 09/27/2023. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         11/27/2023. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         06/27/2024.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties*: Monroe. *Contiguous Counties*: Tennessee: Blount, Loudon, McMinn, Polk. North Carolina: Cherokee, Graham. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere
5.000Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere
8.000Businesses Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere
2.375Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.375*For Economic Injury:*Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.375
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 18205 6 and for economic injury is 18206 0. The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are North Carolina, Tennessee. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Isabella Guzman, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2023-21748 Filed 10-2-23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
(Reap. Dec. 11029)

#### Elof Hansson, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 7014-H.

(Decided June 22, 1965)

*Sharp & Bogan*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, 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, ID 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 (See. 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 The Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement 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.

> 5. 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 *528the 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS, STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS, AND STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE
NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          15,671
<SECURITIES>                                    65,200
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,952
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                98,937
<PP&E>                                          25,325
<DEPRECIATION>                                (19,830)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 104,432
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,262
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      69,141
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   104,432
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,775
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                50,866
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 578
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,322)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,322)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,322)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.51)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.51)
<FN>
<F1>For the Purpose of this Exhibit, Primary means Basic.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Case Ho. 6,513.

#### HINDLEY v. The WELLINGTON.

[21 Int. Rev. Rec. 14.]

Circuit Court, N. D. Ohio.

Dec. 24, 1874.

Appeal in Admiralty — Decree pro Forma— Hearing.

[Appeal from the district court of the United States for the Northern district of Ohio.]

[This was a libel in admiralty by William Hindley against the schooner Wellington.]

It appearing in this case that no trial upon the merits was had in the court below, but a decree having been entered pro forma, it was held, that the circuit court would not hear and determine an appeal in admiralty where no hearing below was had, it being in admiralty cases an appellate court, not a court of original jurisdiction. By consent of parties, case remanded to district court for hearing.

Willey, Terrell & Sherman, J. E. Cary, and J. F. Weh, for libellant.

Estep & Burke, for respondent.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 7, 2013*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**F.126 Real Estate Investment Trusts REITs** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
From: charlcon@fairpoint.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:58:32 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,

Charles Condello

Fryeburg, ME 04037
No. 68084.

#### Rice Bayersdorfer Co. *v.*United States,

protests 62/12960, etc. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass balls similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Joseph Markovits, Inc.*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 151, C.D. 2216), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7687

RONNELL A. GREGORY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department

of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District

Judge. (CA-04-292)

Submitted: February 4, 2005 Decided: February 22, 2005

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronnell A. Gregory, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ronnell A. Gregory seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude on

the reasoning of the district court that Gregory has not made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See

Gregory v. Johnson, No. CA-04-292 (E.D. Va. Sept. 28, 2004).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                18 U.S.C.ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Osteotech, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael J. Jeffries,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.

                                         /S/Michael J. Jeffries
                                         -------------------------------------
                                         Michael J. Jeffries
                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                         (Principal Financial Officer and
                                         Chief Accounting Officer)
                                         May 7, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to and will be retained by Osteotech, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 69285.

#### Paul E. Sernau, Inc., and Souvenirs, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 64/21302 and 64/21342 (New York).

Opinion by

Nichols, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plastic paperweights similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 67488, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NOS. 2-09-007-CR

2-09-008-CR

BENITO T. MENDEZ JR. APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 297 DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TH

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered appellant’s “Motion To Dismiss Appeal.” The motion

complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a). No decision of this court having been delivered before we received

this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and GARDNER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: February 19, 2009
No. 62808.

#### Haroco Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/3748 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
Exhibit 13.1









Certification of Principal
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Suresh Venkatesan, the Chief Executive Officer of POET Technologies Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certify, that, to my knowledge:



1. The Annual Report on Form 20-F
for the year ended 2017 (the "Report") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



The foregoing certification is provided solely for
purposes of complying with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended to be used or relied
upon for any other purpose.







|Date: April 27, 2018 
|---------------------
|                     
|                     
|/s/ Suresh Venkatesan
|Name:                
|Title:
No. 62260.

#### Francis H. Leggett & Company *v.*United States,

protest 317257-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE CERTAIN CASE 

SCHEDULE DEADLINES - 1 

CV 5-1817 

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 

 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 

P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846 

(206) 292-1144 

HONORABLE MARY ALICE THEILER 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 

 

 

JOHN KURTZ, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

 

CAPGEMINI AMERICA, INC., GCI 

COMMUNICATION CORP., and GCI 

COMMUNICATION SERVICES, INC., 

 

 Defendants. 

 

 

 

NO. C05-1817-MAT 

 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S STIPULATED MOTION TO 

CONTINUE CERTAIN CASE SCHEDULE 

DEADLINES 

 

 The Court, having considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Certain Case 

Schedule Deadlines, and the balance of the Court's record and file in this action, does 

hereby ORDER that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue Certain Case Schedule Deadlines is 

GRANTED. 

 The following deadlines in the Court’s initial scheduling order are continued as 

follows: 

Case 2:05-cv-01817-JLR Document 8 Filed 12/01/05 Page 1 of 2
 

 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE CERTAIN CASE 

SCHEDULE DEADLINES - 2 

CV 5-1817 

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 

 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4200 

P.O. Box 21846/Seattle, WA 98111-3846 

(206) 292-1144 

 

 Rule 26(f ) Conference: January 9, 2006 

 Initial Disclosures: January 16, 2006 

 Joint Status Report: January 23, 2006 

 DATED this 1st day of December , 2005. 

 

s/ Mary Alice Theiler 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Presented by: 

HELSELL FETTERMAN LLP 

 

/s/ Bradley H. Bagshaw_______ 

WSBA #11729 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

 

 

Agreed to: 

 

SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT 

 

 

/s/ Stephanie Berntsen____________ 

WSBA #33072 

Attorney for Defendant Capgemini America, Inc. 

Case 2:05-cv-01817-JLR Document 8 Filed 12/01/05 Page 2 of 2