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

House Calendar No. 122 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 677 

[Report No. 110–348] 

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 52) making 

continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 

Ms. SLAUGHTER, 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 joint resolution (H.J. Res. 

52) making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 

2008, 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 joint reso3 lution (H.J. Res. 52) making continuing appropriations 

4 for the fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes. All points 

5 of order against the joint resolution and against its consid6 eration are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 

7 10 of rule XXI. The joint resolution shall be considered 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

HRES 677 RH 

1 as read. The previous question shall be considered as or2 dered on the joint resolution to final passage without in3 tervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 

4 divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking mi5 nority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and 

6 (2) one motion to recommit. 

7 SEC. 2. During consideration of House Joint Resolu8 tion 52 pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the 

9 operation of the previous question, the Chair may post10 pone further consideration of the joint resolution to such 

11 time as may be designated by the Speaker. 

12 SEC. 3. House Resolution 659 is laid upon the table. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 122 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 677 

[Report No. 110

–348] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution 

for the fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes. (H.J. Res. 52) making continuing appropriations 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenneth Myers, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 27]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered March 1, 1994, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal mischief in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. However, to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must overcome the strong presumption that defense counsel rendered effective assistance (see, *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137; *People v Cuesta,*177 AD2d 639; *People v Douglas,*178 AD2d 651). After a review of the record in its entirety and without giving undue significance to retrospective analysis, we are satisfied that the defendant received the effective assistance of counsel *(see, People v Mercedes,*182 AD2d 778; *People v Green,*160 AD2d 726).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find that they do not require reversal. Miller, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.
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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

MYFREEMEDICINE.COM, LLC, et al.,

 Defendant(s).

 Case No. C05-1607P

 MINUTE ORDER

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

Pechman:

At the request of counsel, an extension of time to file the joint status report is granted. The

report will be due on December 22, 2006. All other FRCP 26-related dates are adjusted

accordingly. Failure to adhere to these deadlines may result in sanctions, up to and including

dismissal of this action.

Filed this 13th day of December, 2005.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

By /s Mary Duett

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:05-cv-01607-MJP Document 15 Filed 12/13/05 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We have issued our reports dated February 24, 2010 and August 6, 2010, with respect to the financial statements included in Amendment
No. 1 to the Annual Report of Digimarc Corporation on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2009. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Digimarc Corporation on
Form 10 (File No. 001-34108, effective October 16, 2008) and Form S-8 (File No. 333-154524, effective October 20, 2008).



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/    GRANT THORNTON LLP
|                         
|Portland, Oregon         
|August 6, 2010
From: jack.weiland@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:18:24 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

John Weiland

Minneapolis, MN 55417
1The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-2050

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District Court of Minnesota.

Jose Sanchez-Pacheco, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: April 6, 2000

 Filed: April 10, 2000

___________

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jose Sanchez-Pacheco challenges the sentence imposed by the District

Court1after he pleaded guilty to being found in the United States without the Attorney

General’s consent after having been convicted of an aggravated felony and deported,

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2) (Supp. IV 1998). His counsel filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the 16-level

enhancement to Sanchez-Pacheco’s base offense level under U.S. Sentencing
-2-

Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) (1998) was unwarranted. Although we granted

Sanchez-Pacheco permission to file a pro se supplemental brief, he has not done so.

As part of his plea agreement, Sanchez-Pacheco stipulated to the 16-level

enhancement, and he does not challenge the validity of the plea agreement or seek to

withdraw from it. Thus, we conclude that he may not challenge this application of the

Guidelines on appeal. See United States v. Barrett, 173 F.3d 682, 684 (8th Cir. 1999).

Having reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
From: dbunting@uno.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:36:08 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Dana Bunting

Pearl River, LA 70452
* Harlington Wood, Jr., C ircuit Judge of the Seventh Circuit,

sitting by designation.

** Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 99-20556 con. w/ No. 99-20808

KATHERINE S. YOUNGBLOOD, Individually and on behalf of Youngblood & Associates PLLC, formerly known

as Youngblood & White PLLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA; MARY J. MILLER,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(H-98-CV-1794)

September 13, 2000

Before WOOD * , DAVIS and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: **2

After review ing the record, considering the briefs of the

parties and argument of counsel and, with the single exception

described below, we are persuaded that the district court committed

no error.

The parties agree that the record reflects that the costs

incurred by appellees were $27,645.77 instead of $30,000. The

judgment of the district court is MODIFIED to award appellee the

sum of $27,645.77 in costs instead of $30,000 awarded by the

district court. The judgment of the district court is in all other

respects affirmed.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
From: tugboat56@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:04:06 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,

Cheryl Woolley

Houston, TX 77088
Case No. 6,446.

#### HEYER et al. v. WILSON.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 369.) 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

April Term, 1823.

Marshal — Negligence — Capias ad Responden-dum — Amercement.

1. If the marshal upon a capias ad responden-dum be amerced debt and costs nisi, the defendant may, on or before the next term, give bail and exonerate the marshal.

2. If the bill of exchange, which was the original cause of action be lost, it is sufficient (in order to amerce the marshal in the whole amount of debt and costs, for not bringing in the defendant arrested upon a capias ad re-spondendum.) to tender to the marshal an as*91signment of the right of action upon the bill, and that assignment may be made by the attorney and agent of the plaintiff.

[This was a suit by Heyer and Bremner against David Wilson.] The late marshal (Boyd) had been amerced damages and costs, for not bringing in the defendant whom he had arrested upon a capias ad responden-dum. Notice having been served upon K. Wallach, the administrator of the late marshal, to show cause why the judgment should not be final,

Mr. Wallach showed for cause that no tender had been made of the original cause of action, (an accepted bill of exchange.)

*■ Mr. Dunlop, for plaintiffs,

produced the affidavit of Mr. Brent, the clerk of this court, showing that the original bill which had been filed in the suit against one Hyatt, had been sought for, but could not be found, and an assignment of the right of action signed by Mr. Key and .Mr. Dunlop, attorneys and agents of the plaintiffs. Whereupon the court, at the last term, ordered the judgment to be entered against the administrator of the late marshal for the full amount of debt and costs, “nisi,” the second day of the (then) next term (that is, the present term), according to the Maryland act of 1794, c. 54, § 2, for not bringing in the body of the defendant according to the tenor of the marshal’s return.

Upon the second day of the present term, Mr. Swann, for defendant, offered bail for the defendant, Wilson.

Mr. Dunlop, for plaintiffs,

objected that it was now too late.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Granch, Chief Judge.]

But THE COURT

(nem. con.) permitted the bail to be given, and ordered the judgment to be rescinded.
EX-4.1





 Exhibit 4.1 
  





 
 CHC Ceridian HCM Holding Inc. INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS CUSIP This
Certifies that is the owner of FULLY-PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK, $0.01 PAR VALUE, OF Ceridian HCM Holding Inc. transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof, in person or by duly authorized attorney, upon
surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid until countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar. Witness the facsimile signatures of the Corporation’s duly authorized officers. Dated:
SECRETARY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AMERICAN COUNTERSIGNED STOCK AND TRANSFER REGISTERED: TRUST& COMPANY, LLC (Brooklyn, NY) BY: TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE ABnote North America PROOF OF: MARCH 16, 2018 711 ARMSTRONG LANE,
COLUMBIA, TN 38401 CERIDIAN HCM HOLDING INC. (931) 388-3003 WO - 18000118 FACE OPERATOR: DKS SALES: HOLLY GRONER 931-490-7660 REV. 2 COLORS SELECTED FOR PRINTING: INTAGLIO PRINTS IN SC-7 DARK BLUE. LOGO PRINTS IN PMS 2935 BLUE. PLEASE INITIAL THE
APPROPRIATE SELECTION FOR THIS PROOF: OK AS IS OK WITH CHANGES MAKE CHANGES AND SEND ANOTHER PROOF 












 



 
 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were
written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM – as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT– Custodian TEN ENT – as tenants by the entireties (Cust) (Minor) JT TEN – as joint tenants with right under Uniform
Gifts to Minors of survivorship and not as Act tenants in common (State) Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. For value received, hereby sell, assign and transfer unto PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE Shares of the common stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint Attorney to transfer
the said stock on the books of the within-named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated, NOTICE: THE THE NAME SIGNATURE AS WRITTEN TO THISUPON ASSIGNMENT THE FACE MUST OF THE CORRESPOND CERTIFICATE, WITH IN ANY EVERY
CHANGE PARTICULAR, WHATEVER. WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR SIGNATURE(S) GUARANTEED: THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH
MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15. ABnote North America PROOF OF: MARCH 8, 2018 711 ARMSTRONG LANE, COLUMBIA, TN 38401 CERIDIAN HCM HOLDING
INC. (931) 388-3003 WO—18000118 BACK OPERATOR: DKS SALES: HOLLY GRONER 931-490-7660 REV. 1 PLEASE INITIAL THE APPROPRIATE
SELECTION FOR THIS PROOF: OK AS IS OK WITH CHANGES MAKE CHANGES AND SEND ANOTHER PROOF
129 STAT. 472 PUBLIC LAW 114–44—AUG. 6, 2015 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 1482: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 161 (2015): 

July 14, considered and passed Senate. 

July 27, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 114–44 

114th Congress 

An Act 

To improve and reauthorize provisions relating to the application of the antitrust 

laws to the award of need-based educational aid. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Need-Based Educational Aid 

Act of 2015’’. 

SEC. 2. EXTENSION RELATING TO THE APPLICATION OF THE 

ANTRITRUST LAWS TO THE AWARD OF NEED-BASED EDUCATIONAL AID. 

Section 568 of the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 

(15 U.S.C. 1 note) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)— 

(A) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘or’’ after the semicolon; 

(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘; or’’ and inserting 

a period at the end; and 

(C) by striking paragraph (4); and 

(2) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘2015’’ and inserting 

‘‘2022’’. 

Approved August 6, 2015. 

Need-Based 

Educational Aid 

Act of 2015. 

15 USC 1 note. 

Aug. 6, 2015 

[S. 1482] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
Before the Third Division,

October 24, 1962

No. 67142.

protests 59/14675, etc. (San Francisco).

#### Gump’s, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of stone lanterns similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Otagiri Mercantile Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(44 Cust. Ct. 184, C.D. 2173), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

RUDOLPH PERRY,

Petitioner,

v.

PIERCE COUNTY SUPERIOR

COURT,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5301RJB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

PETITION SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED

The petitioner in this action is seeking federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. This case has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C.

§§ 636 (b) (1) (A) and 636 (b) (1) (B) and Local Magistrates’ Rules MJR 3 and MJR 4.

Petitioner seeks to challenge convictions and a sentence out of the Pierce County Superior

Court. (Dkt. # 1). It appears he was sentenced to three years confinement on December 6th, 2002. 

(Dkt. # 1). He names the state superior court as a respondent and indicates he appealed his

conviction to the state court of appeals. He does not show he sought review in the state supreme

court and he does not name a proper respondent.

In order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement, petitioner’s claims must have been fairly

presented to the state's highest court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v.

Case 3:05-cv-05301-RJB Document 5 Filed 05/11/05 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

Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985). No claim in this petition appears to have been

presented to the states highest court. A federal habeas petitioner must provide the state courts with

a fair opportunity to correct alleged violations of prisoners' federal rights. Duncan v. Henry, ---

U.S. ---, 115 S.Ct. 887, 888 (1995). It is not enough that all the facts necessary to support the

federal claim were before the state courts or that a somewhat similar state law claim was made. Id,

citing Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (1971) and Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4 (1982). Thus,

the claims appear unexhausted.

2. Petitioner does not name the superintendent of the facility where he is currently housed. 

Section 2243 indicates that writs are to be directed “to the person having custody of the person

detained”. This person typically is the superintendent of the facility in which the petitioner is

incarcerated. Failure to name the petitioner's custodian deprives federal courts of personal

jurisdiction. Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). 

3. Accordingly, petitioner shall show cause why this petition should not be dismissed. A

response is due by June 10th, 2005. If petitioner fails to file a response or the response shows the

petition cannot go forward the court will enter a report and recommendation that the petition be

dismissed.

4. The Court Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to petitioner.

DATED this 11th day of May, 2005.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05301-RJB Document 5 Filed 05/11/05 Page 2 of 2