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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 637 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 109
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 637

                          [Report No. 110-320]

 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the 
bill (H.R. 2669) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 
    of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 6, 2007

    Ms. Sutton, 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 conference report to accompany the 
bill (H.R. 2669) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 
    of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 
2669) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008. All points of 
order against the conference report and against its consideration are 
waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.
                                                 House Calendar No. 109

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 637

                          [Report No. 110-320]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the 
bill (H.R. 2669) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 
    of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 6, 2007

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
From: jchappine@bestenrollments.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:46:36 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,

Joseph Chappine

Sicklerville, NJ 08081
No. P69/95.

protests 63/21321, etc. (Boston).

No. P69/96.

protest 64/1527 (Philadelphia).

#### T. D. Downing Company *v.*United States, John A. Steer Co. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of turret punch press and parts thereof similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of *T. D. Downing Co.*v. *United Stales*(60 Cust. Ct. 345, C.D. 3386), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<PAGE>   1



EXHIBIT 11

                                  SPARTA, INC.

                  EXHIBIT TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
                  --------------------------------------------
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                        ---------------------------------


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31
                                                         1997             1996
                                                     -----------      -----------
<S>                                                  <C>              <C>        
PRIMARY

Net income from Operations .....................     $   825,000      $   684,000
Interest and accretion .........................        (330,000)        (219,000)
                                                     -----------      -----------
Net income (Note 1) ............................     $   495,000      $   465,000
                                                     ===========      ===========
Average shares outstanding .....................        5,64,288        5,980,247
Dilutive stock options - based on the treasury
  stock method using the average established
  price
                                                     -----------      -----------
     Total .....................................       5,664,288        5,980,247
                                                     -----------      -----------
Per share amounts ..............................     $      0.09      $      0.08
                                                     ===========      ===========

FULLY DILUTED

Net income from Operations .....................     $   825,000      $   684,000
Interest and accretion .........................        (330,000)        (219,000)
                                                     -----------      -----------
Net income (Note 1) ............................     $   495,000      $   465,000
                                                     ===========      ===========
Average shares outstanding .....................       5,664,288        5,980,247
Dilutive stock options - based on the treasury
  stock method using the quarter end or exercise
  date established price if higher than the
  average established price
                                                     -----------      -----------
     Total .....................................       5,664,288        5,980,247
                                                     -----------      -----------
Per share amounts ..............................     $      0.09      $      0.08
                                                     ===========      ===========
</TABLE>





Note 1 - Net income has been adjusted for interest expense (net of tax)
         resulting from the assumption that a portion of the proceeds received
         under option exercise has been used to retire debt.
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 to Continue Trial - 1

Shedeger, et al

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 ) CR05-403RSM

 )

 ) ORDER TO

PAUL EMILE SHEDEGER and ) CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

ERICH KREPPENHOFER, )

)

 Defendants. ) )

ORDER

 The Court having reviewed the records and files herein and considered the parties’

stipulation motion, makes the following findings and enters the following order:

1. Additional time is necessary for the government and defendants to fully explore

information provided by defendants and complete negotiations or prepare for trial. The parties

believe if granted additional time, a settlement may be reached with all or most of the defendants. 

2. The ends of justice outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a

speedy trial. That failure to grant a continuance based upon the government’s and defendants’

need to resolve outstanding issues and the need to prepare the matter for trial would result in a

miscarriage of justice. 

3. Defendants must sign and file a written waiver of speedy trial which will be filed with

the Court no later than January 10, 2006. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date for defendants Paul Shedeger and Erich

Kreppenhofer is continued from January 17, 2006 to February 6, 2006.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section

3161(h), the period of time from the current trial date to the new trial date, for both defendants, is 

Case 2:05-cr-00403-RSM Document 27 Filed 01/10/06 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 to Continue Trial - 2

Shedeger, et al

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

excluded in the computation of time under the Speedy Trial Act as this is a reasonable period of

delay. 

DONE this _9_ day of January, 2006.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

 /s Patricia C. Lally 

PATRICIA C. LALLY

Assistant United States Attorney

WA Bar # 28910

United States Attorney’s Office

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, WA 98101

Telephone: (206) 553-2619

Fax: (206) 553-0755

E-mail: patricia.lally@usdoj.gov

Case 2:05-cr-00403-RSM Document 27 Filed 01/10/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the First Division,

September 19, 1960

No. 64533.

#### W. C. Sullivan & Company *v.*United States,

protests 220617-K/5026, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beads similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *S. H. Kress & Co.*(46 C.C.P.A. 135, C.A.D. 716), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: conten339@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:49:15 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 Riley

, 21702-2947
#### In re: James W. KEENAN, Debtor, James W. Keenan; et al., Appellants, v. Keenan/Watkins Pier Development; et al., Appellees.

No. 03-56198.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 8, 2005.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

Samy S. Henein, Esq., Suppa, Trucchi & Henein, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Debt- or/Appellants.

Robert C. Wright, Esq., Wright & L’Estrange, San Diego, CA, James A. Testa, Esq., Testa & Associates, LLP, San Marcos, CA, for Appellees.

Before: WARDLAW and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and FITZGERALD,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable James M. Fitzgerald, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

James W. and Judy M. Keenan appeal from a final decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit affirming the decision of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d), and we dismiss the case.

Beyond the constitutional minimum of standing, we require as a prudential matter that a party assert its own legal interests as the real party in interest. *See Dunmore v. United States,*358 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir.2004). Appellants’ Complaint demonstrates that they assert injuries to the bankruptcy estate, not to an interest that they held at the time of the suit. Therefore, the bankruptcy estate was the real party in interest at the time of the suit, and Appellants lacked prudential standing when they filed their action. *Id.*Furthermore, nothing in the record indicates that the bankruptcy trustee abandoned the claims asserted by Appellants, *see Sierra Switchboard Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.,*789 F.2d 705, 709-10 (9th Cir.1986), and Appellants have not argued that there was a difficulty or a mistake in determining who was the proper party to bring suit. *See United States**677*v. CMA, Inc.,*890 F.2d 1070, 1074-75 (9th Cir.1989). *But cf. Dunmore,*358 F.3d at 1112-13.

DISMISSED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Before Chief Judge Rao,

September 19, 1968

No. R68/33.

reappraisements R61/10239, etc. (Boston).

No. R68/34.

reappraisements R63/7729, etc. (Boston).

#### Chadwick Miller Importers, Inc. *v.*United States, Chadwick-Miller Importers, Inc. *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise, facts, and issues are the same in all material respects as those involved in *United States*v. *Chadwick-Miller*Importers, *Inc., et al*(54 CCPA 93, C.A.D. 914), the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the sundry and novelty items here involved and that such values are the invoice unit ex-factory prices, net packed.
EXHIBIT 21.1
================================================================================


SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

     NEMA Properties,  LLC, ("NEMA") is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Registrant.
NEMA is  organized  under the laws of the State of Nevada and is doing  business
under the name NEMA Properties, LLC.

     Amen Minerals,  L.P., is owned 99% by NEMA as the sole limited  partner and
1% by Amen Properties, Inc., as the sole general partner, and is organized under
the laws of the State of Delaware and the Limited  Partnership is doing business
under the name Amen Minerals, L.P.

     Amen Delaware, L.P. is owned 99% by NEMA as the sole limited partner and 1%
by Amen Properties,  Inc., as the sole general  partner,  and is organized under
the laws of the State of Delaware and the Limited  Partnership is doing business
under the name Amen Delaware, L.P.

     W Power and Light,  L.P. is owned 99% by NEMA as the sole  limited  partner
and 1% by Amen Properties,  Inc., as the sole general partner,  and is organized
under the laws of the State of  Delaware  and the Limited  Partnership  is doing
business under the name W Power and Light, L.P.

     Priority  Power  Management,  Ltd. is owned 99% by NEMA as the sole limited
partner and 1% by Amen  Properties,  Inc., as the sole general  partner,  and is
organized  under the laws of the State of Texas and the Limited  Partnership  is
doing business under the name W Power and Light, L.P.


                                       34
From: tim@hinesdesigns.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:16:47 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,

Tim Hines

Jacksonville, NC 28540
No. 60204.

protest 260689-K (New York).

#### New York Surplus & Jobbing Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is similar in all material respects to that involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that bale No. 13 in entry 47370 and 2 bales within the bales marked 1001/1119 in entry 25407, reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty is not assessable upon the bales of merchandise reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.
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

GORDON L. PEDERSON, pro se,

 Plaintiff,

v.

STEPHEN PFUHL - VANCOUVER

POLICE OFFICER, PAUL FISK -

VANCOUVER POLICE OFFICER, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5717 RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Defendants Clark Regional

Emergency Services Agency (“CRESA”) and Debra Butchard’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. #50].

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

Defendants CRESA and Butchard filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on June 27, 2006 and

under CR 7(d)(3), Local Rules W.D. Wash. properly noted the motion for July 21, 2006. Under this rule,

plaintiff’s opposition to the motion was due on July 17, 2006 (the Monday before the noting date). Id. The

docket reflects that plaintiff has not filed any opposition to the motion. Defendants correctly argue in their

reply memorandum [Dkt. #52] that the Court may consider plaintiff’s failure to file any opposition as an

admission that the motion has merit and may grant the motion. CR 7(b)(2), Local Rules W.D. Wash.

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. There are several other defendants named in this cause and in the event

other motions are filed, plaintiff is hereby advised of the Local Rules and his obligation to follow them. The

Court will re-note CRESA and Butchard’s Motion for Summary Judgment for August 11, 2006. Plaintiff’s

Case 3:05-cv-05717-RBL Document 55 Filed 07/24/06 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

opposition, if any, is due on August 7, 2006. Plaintiff’s failure to file any opposition to this motion will

result in the motion being granted and defendants CRESA and Butchard’s dismissal from this case.

In the event future motions are filed, the Court will not re-note the motion on its own initiative and expects

plaintiff to follow this Court’s Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

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 24th day of July, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05717-RBL Document 55 Filed 07/24/06 Page 2 of 2