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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:49:29 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,

mary Eekhoff

Flagstaff, AZ 86001
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

1

 Petitioner previously sought to be transferred due to retaliation (Doc. #12) and sought

release pending consideration of his habeas petition. (Doc. #13). While he now seeks an order

vacating his probation, instead of granting his outright release, the distinction is not significant

because vacating petitioner’s probation would essentially require the same finding by the court

as granting his release. See Land v. Deeds, 878 F.2d 318, 319 (9th Cir. 1989). 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTIONS

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

DION K. HUMPHREY, )

)

Petitioner, ) CASE NO. C05-1866-JCC-JPD

)

v. )

)

DOUG WADDINGTON, ) ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

) MOTION FOR TRANSFER AND 

) MOTION TO VACATE PROBATION 

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

Petitioner is a Washington state prisoner who has a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pending before the court. Petitioner has recently filed two motions: one seeking a transfer to

another prison due to retaliation that petitioner alleges he is facing at his current prison (Doc.

#19), and one seeking to vacate his term of probation while the court considers his habeas

petition. (Doc. #22). Respondent has filed a response to the first motion. (Doc. #20). Based

upon a review of petitioner’s motions, respondent’s response, and the balance of the record, the

court hereby finds and ORDERS as follows: 

(1) Petitioner’s two motions seek the same relief that he previously sought and which

the court denied.1

 See Doc. #14. Accordingly, his two recent motions should be construed as

motions for reconsideration of the court’s prior Order. 

So construed, the motions are both untimely and devoid of any new argument or facts

Case 2:05-cv-01866-JCC Document 24 Filed 03/03/06 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 DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTIONS

PAGE 2

that would warrant changing the court’s previous Order. See Local Rule CR 7(h). Therefore,

the motions (Doc. #19, #22) are DENIED. 

(2) The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to petitioner, to counsel for respondent,

and to the Honorable John C. Coughenour.

DATED this 3rd day of March, 2006.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01866-JCC Document 24 Filed 03/03/06 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Henry Woods, United States District Judge for the Easter n 1 District of Arkansas. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-1300

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Gary Don Freeman, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: August 18, 1997 Filed: August 22, 1997

___________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Follow ing multiple drug transactions with an undercover state polic e investigator, Gary Don Freeman pleaded guilty to eight counts of distributing cocaine base and one count of possessing cocaine base with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The distr ict court sentenced him to 124 months imprisonment

1 and4 years supervised release. On appeal Freeman attacks his sentence and alleges that the government engaged in sentence manipulation because the undercover-2-

in vestigator, Willie Robinson, entered into repeated transactions with him an d re quested powder cocaine be made into crack cocaine. Robinson testified at th e sentencing hearing that he made repeated purchases in an effort to reach Fre eman's drug source, and except for

his final purchase, he had always requested and received crack cocaine from Freeman. Robinson also testified that he succeeded in reachin g Freeman's source, against whom cases were pending. Afterr eviewing the record, we find no merit in Freeman's challenge to hi s sente nce. See United States v. Turner , 93 F.3d 1422, 1423 (8th Cir. 1996) (pe r curiam); Unit

ed States v. Shephard , 4 F.3d 647, 649 (8th Cir. 1993); United States v. Calva , 979 F.2d 119, 123 (8th Cir. 1992). The judgment of the district court i s affirmed.
A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Case 2:05-cr-00174-RSL Document 49 Filed 06/15/23 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:05-cr-00174-RSL Document 49 Filed 06/15/23 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:05-cr-00174-RSL Document 49 Filed 06/15/23 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:05-cr-00174-RSL Document 49 Filed 06/15/23 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:05-cr-00174-RSL Document 49 Filed 06/15/23 Page 5 of 5
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (File No. 333-160155 and File No. 333-153805) on Forms S-8 of our reports, dated March 12, 2010, relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statementsand internal control over financial reporting of Home Bancorp, Inc., which appear in Home Bancorp, Inc’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009. 

/s/ Porter Keadle Moore LLP 

Atlanta, Georgia 

March 15, 2010
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 SEATTLE

OSSIE LEE SLAUGHTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

KING COUNTY CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY/RJC (DAJD) MEDICAL

CLINIC, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C05-1693-JCC

ORDER

The Court, having reviewed the Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint, Plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary injunctive relief, the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable James P.

Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge, and the remaining record, does hereby find and Order

as follows:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Plaintiff’s’ motion preliminary injunctive relief (Dkt. # 62) is DENIED;

(3) The matter is DISMISSED without prejudice; 

(4) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff, to counsel for

Defendants, and to the Honorable James P. Donohue.

DATED this 16th day of June, 2008.AJOHN C. COUGHENOUR

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01693-JCC Document 70 Filed 06/16/08 Page 1 of 1
No. 59739.

#### Wood, Niebuhr & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 253030-K (New York).

*359Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The record disclosed that the reduced rate of duty made applicable by the collector was on the assumption that the involved merchandise was withdrawn from warehouse on July 14, 1951. It appeared, however, that the merchandise was withdrawn from warehouse on August 14, 1951, at which time the proper rate of duty applicable to the merchandise in question was the rate claimed herein. On the record presented, the claim of the plaintiS was sustained.
Exhibit 23.1

LOGO

Commerce & Finance Law Offices

6F NCI Tower, A12 Jianguomenwai Avenue,

Chaoyang District, Beijing, PRC; Postcode: 100022

Tel:(8610) 65693399 Fax: (8610) 65693838, 65693836, 65693837, 65693839

E-mail Add : beijing@tongshang.com Website: www.tongshang.com.cn

April 26, 2010

7 Days
Group Holdings Limited

10F, 705 GuangzhouDaDaoNan Road

Guangzhou, Guangdong 510290

Peoples
Republic of China

RE: 7 Days Group Holdings Limited

Dear Sirs/Madams,

We have acted as legal
advisors as to the laws of the Peoples Republic of China to 7 Days Group Holdings Limited, a company incorporated in Cayman Islands (the Company), in connection with the filing by the Company with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission of an annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009.

We hereby consent to the use
and reference of our name under Item 3.D, Risk FactorsRisks Related to Doing Business in China and elsewhere in the Form 20-F.

In giving this consent, we do not admit that we are within the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended.

Yours sincerely,

/s/ Commerce & Finance Law Offices

Commerce & Finance Law Offices
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frans Sital, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 332]

—Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County *785(Demarest, J.), rendered November 15,. 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), and burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court, also rendered November 15, 1993, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Tomei, J.), upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous adjudication as a youthful offender.

Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence, which consisted of the defendant’s fingerprints on the door-plate, closet, and dresser of the victims’ apartment, where the victims, two women, were found bound and gagged with duct tape and shot in the back of the head, was legally insufficient to establish his guilt, is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*GPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. "Fingerprint evidence, although circumstantial in nature, is sufficient proof if it leads to a conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and excludes every hypothesis of innocence” *(People v Murray,*168 AD2d 573; *see also, People v Minore,*110 AD2d 661; *People v Sparacino,*150 AD2d 814; *People v Vasquez,*131 AD2d 523; *People v Talley,*110 AD2d 792; *People v Pena,*99 AD2d 846; *People v Bullard,*59 AD2d 786). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*GPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s contention regarding the jury charge is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, any error was harmless.

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
Blueprint






 





 


 

 


 


First
Amendment to Employment Agreement between Kim R. Tsuchimoto
(“Executive”) and Monopar Therapeutics Inc.
(“Company”) dated November 1, 2017. The following
amendments are made effective March 1, 2018. All other unrevised
sections remain in full force.

 


 


2.1 Position and Duties, Executive will
devote Executive’s best efforts and 50% of Executive’s
business time and attention (except for vacation periods and
reasonable periods of illness or other incapacities permitted by
the Company’s general employment policies or as otherwise set
forth in this Agreement) to the business of the
Company.

 


 

 


3.1 Base Salary, Executive shall receive
for services to be rendered hereunder an annual base salary of
$137,500 representing 50% of full-time.


 


3.3 Standard Company Benefits, Executive
shall be entitled to all benefits offered by the Company so long as
Executive devotes 50% or more time to the business of the Company.
In lieu of benefits, Executive shall be reimbursed up to $1,800 per
month for out-of-pocket expenses for medical, dental and vision
benefits until such time the Company has benefit plans in place.
Based upon 50% service, Executive shall be entitled each year to
two (2) weeks leave for vacation at full pay, provided, that the
maximum amount Executive may have accrued at any point in time is
two (2) weeks (meaning that once Executive has accrued two (2)
weeks, Executive will not accrue any additional vacation time until
she takes vacation and falls below the two (2) week accrual
cap).

 


 


Pursuant to section
6.1(a) Other Activities, Exhibit
A


 


25% of
full-time employment with no benefits at Mercaptor Discoveries Inc.
as Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, Treasurer and
Co-Founder


 


Minimal
time, as needed, at DNAcheckup as a volunteer Chief Financial
Officer, Secretary and Treasurer

 


 


Requested
by:


 


/s/ Kim
R. Tsuchimoto

 


February 26,
2018



Kim R.
Tsuchimoto                                                                            

Date






 

 


 


Approved
by:


 


/s/
Chandler D. Robinson



                                                                          

March 1,
2018






 



Chandler D.
Robinson                                                                            

Date






Monopar
Therapeutics Inc.

 


Co-Founder, Chief
Executive Officer and Director
Order entered July 22, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 13 - 01537 - CV MARSHA JERRY AND JAS ON CHAMBERS, Appellant V. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee On Appeal from the 422nd Judicial District Court Ka ufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 88069 - 422 

### O RDER W e DENY appellants’ July 21, 2014 motion seeking permission to file supplemental brief
. /s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

BRYAN SUHOSKEY,

Petitioner

v.

LANKENAU HOSPITAL, LANKENAU 

HEART GROUP AND SCOTT M. 

GOLDMAN, M.D.,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 613 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of April, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED


ACCOUNTANTS AND ADVISORS


PCAOB REGISTERED

















CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We consent to the use, in the statement on Form 10K of Hotel Management Systems Inc, of our report dated July 22, 2009 on our audit of the financial statements of Hotel Management Systems Inc as of April 30, 2009 and 2008, and the related statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the year ended April 30, 2009
and since inception on April 15, 2008 and since inception on April 15, 2008  through April 30, 2009, and the reference to us under the caption “Experts.”







/s/ Moore & Associates, Chartered


Moore & Associates Chartered


Las Vegas, Nevada


July 28, 2009











6490 West Desert Inn Rd, Las Vegas, NV 89146 (702)253-7499 Fax (702)253-7501
IV 

House Calendar No. 73 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 465 

[Report No. 110–180] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 65) to provide for the recognition 

of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 6, 2007 

Mr. ARCURI, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 65) to provide 

for the recognition of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution 

2 it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3 65) to provide for the recognition of the Lumbee Tribe 

4 of North Carolina, and for other purposes. All points of 

5 order against consideration of the bill are waived except 

6 those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The 

7 amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

HRES 465 RH 

1 the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the 

2 bill, modified by the amendment printed in the report of 

3 the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, 

4 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall 

5 be considered as read. All points of order against the bill, 

6 as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 

7 considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final pas8 sage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 

9 debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 

10 ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural 

11 Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit with or with12 out instructions. 

13 SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 65 pursuant 

14 to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the 

15 previous question, the Chair may postpone further consid16 eration of the bill to such time as may be designated by 

17 the Speaker. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 73 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 465 

[Report No. 110

–180] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 65) to 

of North Carolina, and for other purposes. provide for the recognition of the Lumbee Tribe 

JUNE 6, 2007 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
From: sjreeder59@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:44:29 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,

Susan Reeder

Menomonie, WI 54751
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

MINUTE ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

GERALD LEE ALEXANDER,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

STATE OF MAINE, et al.,

 Defendants.

CASE NO. C05-1617JLR

MINUTE ORDER

The following minute order is made by the direction of the court, the Honorable

James L. Robart:

Previously, the court directed the clerk to send Waivers of Service to certain

Defendants in this matter (Dkt. # 20). The court, however, does not have an address for

Defendants Mr. Ruffner and Mr. Mohonie and thus, requests Plaintiff to provide it with

the last known address for both individuals. Failure to do so in a timely manner may

result in a dismissal of the action against Mr. Ruffner and Mr. Mohonie. Fed. R. Civ. P.

4(m). 

Filed and entered this 28th day of December, 2005.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

 s/Mary Duett

By Deputy Clerk

Case 2:05-cv-01617-JLR Document 21 Filed 12/28/05 Page 1 of 1
July 6, 1953

No. 57421.

#### Burroughs-Wellcome & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 196544-K (A) and 196781-K (B).

Protests abandoned May 28, 1953. (Not published.) Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
No. P66/17.

protests 60/29264, etc. (New York).

#### G. Joannou Cycle Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of air horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Sherwin*International, *Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 466, Abstract 69382), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.