alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the Third Division,

August 28, 1967

No. P67/279.

No. P67/280.

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., a/c Ucagco, Inc., et al. *v.*United States, protests 245591-K, etc. (San Francisco). United China & Glass Co. *v.*United States, protests 64/2966-16613,etc. (New Orleans).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “T” covered by the foregoing protests 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, C.D. 2484) and that the items of merchandise marked “D” covered by the foregoing protests consist of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. a/c United China*& *Class Company*(47 CCPA 1, C.A.D. 719), the claims of the plaintiffs were sustained.
From: jennoelc@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:46:03 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,

Jennifer Clark

Rocklin, CA 95765
From: ftw43@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:08:29 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,

Florence Wise

Spring, TX 77386
## 506th 

# Judicial District Court Albert M. McCaig, Jr., Judge

www.Court506.com

May 5, 2015
Court ofCriminal Appeals P.O. Box 12308 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 

# RECEIVED**i~l** COIJRT**o~ r~tt:A!M~~-** **~PPE.'.LS** 

### MAY 07 2015 

## Ab@ll

## Acosta,Cferk

Re: Writs Number 08-09-12976D through 08-09-12986D Criminal Trial CourtNumber 08-09-12976 Ex Parte William Andrew Allen Clerk: Court Coordinator Susie Schubert CourtReporter Robyn S. Wiley

Grimes County Waller County 836 Austin Street, Suite 307

Hempstead, Texas 77445 Fax: 979.826.9149 Ofc: 979.921.0921

I am the trial courtjudge 

### inthereferencedmatter. The cases were originally heard by the 155 1 h Judicial District Court. By Legislative act (Section 24.254, Government Code), effective January 1, 2014, the 506th Judicial District Courttook over all cases pending in the 155th Judicial District Court. The Applicant, Mr. William AndrewAllen, has made numerous filings withthe trial court pertaining to his 11.07 Writ applications, many of which have had to do with his contention that the 506th court does not have jurisdiction ofhis cases. I have personally written to inform Mr. Allen ofthe effect ofthe change ofcourts. Mr. Allen's frequent and continuous supplementation and filings has required both this court and the Waller County District Clerk, to provide eleven separate supplements to the several 11.07 Applications each time Mr. Allen files new allegations. This has become labor andresource intensive, consumes valuable time, and, to date, does not appear to have provided any substantial new information to your court. · I am requesting the Honorable Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to declare Mr. WilliamAndrewAllen a vexatious litigant, and to deny him further access to the courts until his current applications for 11.07 reliefhave been ruled on by your court.



### AMMI c: Waller County District Clerk Mr. William Andrew Allen

# ks(!(~cC Judge, Presiding

Mr. Elton Mathis, Waller County District Attorney
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

Dated this 4th day of May , 2006

/S/ PETER H. VOELKER 

 Deputy Clerk

MINUTE ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the WESTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

TRIPLE STAR, LLC,

 Plaintiff,

)

)

)

vs. )

) C05-1947 JPD

RICHARD REINKE,

 Defendant.

)

)

) MINUTE ORDER

The following Minute Order is made at the direction of the Court, the Honorable 

James P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge:

The following modifications are hereby made to the Order Setting Trial and Related Dates

(dkt # 17):

— The Final Pretrial Conference is hereby re-set to Thursday, January 18, 2007 at

1:30pm. The conference will be conducted chambers, 12th floor, U.S. Courthouse.

— Jury Trial will commence on Tuesday, January 30, 2007, at 9:00am, in Courtroom

12A, U.S. Courthouse.

All other deadlines remain as dictated in the Order.

Case 2:05-cv-01947-JPD Document 18 Filed 05/04/06 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

Dated this 4th day of May , 2006

/S/ PETER H. VOELKER 

 Deputy Clerk

MINUTE ORDER

Case 2:05-cv-01947-JPD Document 18 Filed 05/04/06 Page 2 of 2
From: keith.hampton@ge.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:42:27 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,

Keith Hampton

Arden, NC 28704
Before Judge Watson,

November 7, 1968

No. R68/40.

reappraisements R68/10251 and R68/11477 (New York).

#### Dana Perfumes Corp. *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Gehrig Hoban &*Co., *Inc.*v. *United, States*(57 Cust. Ct. 727, A.R.D. 210), the court found and held that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402a(f), Tariff Act of 1980, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the “Canoe” cologne here involved and that such value per bottle of the involved merchandise is as stated in schedule “B,” said schedule “B” being attached to and made a part of the decision, plus the pro rata share of the cost of packing as indicated on the invoices.
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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

AUSTIN A. WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-1900-MJP-JPD

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

In November 2005, plaintiff Austin Wilson presented to this Court for filing a civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 together with an application to proceed with this action in forma

pauperis. Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that each of the named defendants had deprived him of

his liberty and his property without a warrant. Plaintiff identified the following individuals as

defendants in this action: Christine Gregoire, Governor of the State of Washington; John Campbell,

an Officer with the Washington Department of Corrections; George Appel, a Snohomish County

Prosecuting Attorney; and, Gerald Knight and Linda Krese, Snohomish County Superior Court

Judges. Plaintiff also identified two unnamed “arresting officers,” an unnamed “arresting city

marshal,” and an “unknown D.O.C. officer” as defendants.

On January 23, 2006, plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was

granted and his complaint was filed. (See Dkt. Nos. 5 and 6.) On the same date, this Court issued an

Case 2:05-cv-01900-MJP Document 9 Filed 03/15/06 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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE - 2

Order declining to serve plaintiff’s complaint and granting him leave to amend. Plaintiff was advised

therein that his complaint was defective because (1) his allegations were conclusory and therefore

insufficient to state a cause of action under § 1983, (2) his claims lacked sufficient specificity to

allow the Court to determine whether they were even cognizable under § 1983, and (3) three of the

named defendants were entitled to immunity in this § 1983 action. 

Plaintiff was granted thirty days within which to submit an amended complaint curing the

specified deficiencies, and was advised that his failure to timely submit an amended complaint would

result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted. To date, plaintiff has filed no amended complaint.

When a complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be

granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief, the Court may

dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service of process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

Because plaintiff failed to amend his complaint to adequately allege a cause of action under § 1983,

this Court recommends that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B). A proposed order accompanies this Report and Recommendation. 

DATED this 15th day of March, 2006.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01900-MJP Document 9 Filed 03/15/06 Page 2 of 2
RAI Jets LLC 29 OCT 2012

1 Airport Rd Sturgis, MI 49091 RAI Jets, LLC certificate # 7RJA529M RAI Jets, LLC siteseeing 91 ID # RIFJ1234 1 Airport Rd Sturgis, MI 49091 269
- 651
- 2821 269
- 651
- 9164 fax brian r@flyrai.com Seeking relief from 14 CFR part 120, 120.117 and 120.225 by combining both above certificates to one drug testing program. The com bination to one drug testing program will have no effect on safety do to the fact that the same pilots and m echanics are on the work for RAI Jets, LLC. and are enrolled in its drug testing program. RAI Jets, LLC 7RJA529M has an active drug testing program there is no need for the same people to be tested twice by requiring RAI Jets Site seeing 91 ID#RIFJ1234 to have a separate program. Respectfully, Brian Riley Chief Pilot RAI Jets LLC 800 247 2834
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 328 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        April 23, 2007.
    Resolved, That the House has heard with profound sorrow of the death of the 
Honorable Juanita Millender-McDonald, a Representative from the State of 
California.
    Resolved, That a committee of such Members of the House as the Speaker may 
designate, together with such Members of the Senate as may be joined, be 
appointed to attend the funeral.
    Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House be authorized and directed 
to take such steps as may be necessary for carrying out the provisions of these 
resolutions and that the necessary expenses in connection therewith be paid out 
of applicable accounts of the House.
    Resolved, That the Clerk communicate these resolutions to the Senate and 
transmit a copy thereof to the family of the deceased.
    Resolved, That when the House adjourns today, it adjourn as a further mark 
of respect to the memory of the deceased.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
From: majeresj@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

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

Jack Majeres

Dell Rapids, SD 57022
From: molly.evans@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:53:29 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,

Molly Evans

Redfield, SD 57469
From: cwmagsig@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:35:59 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 Magsig

, 37072-8458
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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

RONALD AND DEBORAH KEAL,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5737RJB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER

The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge J. Kelley

Arnold (Dkt. 169) and the remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 158) is

DENIED.

(3) The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all

counsel of record, to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address,

and to the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold.

DATED this 16th day of October, 2006.

ARobert J Bryan

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05737-RJB-JKA Document 179 Filed 10/16/06 Page 1 of 1