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

DON HAMRICK, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

ALAN GOTTLIEB, et al., 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. C05-1505RSM

 ORDER 

Plaintiff Don Hamrick, appearing pro se, has presented this complaint for defamation and

“violation of state and federal antitrust laws” without payment of the filing fee, asserting that pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1916 he need not do so because he is a seaman. The cited section states,

In all courts of the United States, seamen may institute and prosecute suits and appeals 

in their own names and for their own benefit for wages or salvage or the enforcement of 

laws enacted for their health or safety without prepaying fees or costs or furnishing security

therefore.

28 U.S.C. 1916. The complaint here, which appears to be a civil rights suit based on the Second

Amendment, does not fall within the reach of this statute, regardless of plaintiff’s status as a merchant

mariner. He may not invoke this section to avoid payment of the filing fee. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED:

(1) This action shall proceed only upon payment of the filing fee. If no fee is paid within twenty

days of the date of this Order, the Clerk shall terminate the case from the court’s docket.

Case 2:05-cv-01505-RSM Document 2 Filed 11/04/05 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 - 2

(2) Plaintiff’s motion to appoint the United States to effect service upon defendants is DENIED.

DATED this 4th day of November, 2005.

 

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-01505-RSM Document 2 Filed 11/04/05 Page 2 of 2
From: linelle@kmtel.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:06:48 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,

Linelle Kelley

Inman, NE 68742
No. 57424.

#### Freedman & Slater, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 201146-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hair of the vicuna in the grease, not scoured, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 32.01   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of Media Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bryant D. Cragun, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (1)        The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)        The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.     /s/ Bryant D. Cragun By: Bryant D. Cragun Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  Dated: May 2, 2011  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
 2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.
 By:
    
    
    
    /s/ Sean P. McGrathName:
    
    
    
    Sean P. McGrathTitle:
    
    
    
    Chief Financial Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
    
    
    
    March 30, 2011
H. Res. 566 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 25, 2007. 

Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is 

hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY: Mr. Broun of 

Georgia. 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: Mr. Broun 

of Georgia. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
From: lindafiveseven@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:45:51 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,

Linda Singer

Saint Louis, MO 63109
#### Bank of New York, as Testamentary Trustee of a Trust Created by Joseph S. Stevens, Deceased, Appellant, v Colnaghi USA, Ltd., Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 18]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered on or about June 21, 1994, which, in an action seeking to recover the diminished value of artwork bailed by plaintiff to defendant art gallery, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record indicates that artwork loaned by plaintiff to defendant gallery for exhibition was stolen from defendant’s premises. The burglars obtained entry through an unalarmed skylight *(see, Colnaghi, U.S.A. v Jewelers Protection Servs.,*81 NY2d 821). Several years later, the artwork was recovered in damaged condition. Plaintiff, who sues for breach of bailment and seeks damages for the diminished value of the artwork and the cost of repairs, must prove that the theft was caused by defendant’s lack of reasonable care in safeguarding the artwork *(Sun Yau Ko v Lincoln Sav. Bank,*99 AD2d 943, *affd*62 NY2d 938). Summary judgment as to that issue was properly denied plaintiff, since, as the IAS Court found, issues of fact exist as to whether it was reasonable for defendant to rely on the expertise of the security alarm company that installed its alarm system instead of specifically requesting and checking whether the skylight was alarmed, and to store the artwork in a nonreinforced panel room *(see, Voorhis v Consolidated Rail Corp.,*60 NY2d 878). Plaintiff’s conclusory assertion, improperly raised for the first time on appeal, that the security alarm company was defendant’s agent, such that the negligence of the former should be imputed to the latter, is without merit. There is no evidence that defendant had control over the company’s installation of the alarm system, directed that no *328alarm be placed on the skylight, or even knew that the skylight had not been alarmed. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that defendant was not entitled to delegate, or improperly delegated, the alarm system installation to the security company *(see, Del Signore v Pyramid Sec. Servs.,*147 AD2d 759). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Asch, Williams and Tom, JJ.
H. Res. 611 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

August 3, 2007. 

Resolved, That— 

(1) the Officers of the House of Representatives are 

immediately directed to preserve all records, documents, 

recordings, electronic transmissions, or other material, 

regardless of form, related to the voting irregularities of 

August 2, 2007; 

(2) there is hereby established a select committee to 

investigate the voting irregularities of August 2, 2007 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘select committee’’). The 

select committee shall be comprised of 6 Members, of 

which 3 Members shall be appointed by the Speaker and 

3 by the Minority Leader. The select committee shall— 

(A) investigate the circumstances surrounding 

the record vote requested by the gentleman from 

California (Mr. Lewis) on the motion to recommit 

to H.R. 3161, including the Chair’s ruling over the 

objections of the Parliamentarian; and 
2 

•HRES 611 EH 

(B) make an interim report to the House not 

later than September 30, 2007, and a final report 

not later than September 15, 2008— 

(i) regarding the actions of any Members, 

officers, or employees of the House engaged in 

the disenfranchisement of Members in voting 

on the question; and 

(ii) recommending changes to the rules 

and procedures of the House of Representatives necessary to protect the voting rights of 

constitutionally elected Members chosen by the 

people of the United States of America; and 

(3) the select committee shall have the same powers 

to obtain testimony and documents pursuant to subpoena as authorized under clause 2(m) of rule XI. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Before the Third Division,

April 2, 1963

No. 67557.

#### The Babb Co., Inc., and Import Export Service of N.J. *v.*United States,

protest 221985-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of a “Wasp Jr. Engine” similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Import Export Service of New Jersey*and *The Babb Co.*v. *United States*(37 Cust. Ct. 54, C.D. 1798), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
U.S. Department ofTransportation Federal Aviation Administration Office ofAdjudication
U.S. Mail and FAX September20,2016 J.E. Sullivan, Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 DepartmentofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 800 Independence Ave., S.W., Suite 2W1000 Washington, D.C. 20591

Re: In the Matter ofJoseph Maridon, Sr., FDMS No. FAA-2014-0116 DearJudge Sullivan: The FAA Hearing Docket received by FAX today Respondent's Show Cause Statement Pursuant to Order of August29, 2016 andReservation of Rights. In this document, Respondent's counsel, William Ayers, Esq., questionsthe validity ofthe date-stamp affixedto the parties' JointStatusReport. Mr. Ayers asserts that the document, mailed on August 10, 2016, should have been received by the FAA Hearing Docketby August 12,2016. Preliminarily, it is thepractice ofthe FAAHearing Docketto date-stamp as received documents sent to us by U.S. Mail on the same day that the documents are delivered to our office. During the month of August, I checked the mail each day to ensure that incoming mail was date-stamped properly by office personnel, and ifno support staffwere present, I date-stamped documents myselfon the same day thatthe office receivedthem. I have checked the file ofthis case. The envelope in which the Joint Status Report was sent to the FAA Hearing Docket by U.S. Mail is postmarked August 10, 2016. (Copy attached.) The Joint Status Report was date-stamped as received on August 25, 2016. The envelope and the paper document are yellowed and have a musty smell, indicating that the envelope and the document were irradiated for security purposes before the envelope and documentwere delivered from the FAA mail room to the FAA Hearing Docket. It is not unusual for documents sent to the FAA Hearing Docket by regular mail to be delayed several days as aresultofsecurityprocedures.



# ';?;~~ Vicki S. Leemon Senior Attorney, AGC-70 Cc: DavidF. Shayne, Esq., FAA (by U.S. Mail and email) WalterAyers, Esq. (by U.S. Mail and email)U.S. Department

of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration **l~orthwest** Mountain Region

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W.

Renton, WA 98057-4099 OFFICIAL BUSINESS Penalty for Private Use $300

,-.,

I **:C.~F:.•:HTILE**

**·~ii W~i~4**  S'li30

:1JJ> ,il<,lJG ':16 lf<'l;l ·'l L Federal Aviation Administration Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000

800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20591

**:~** C.:.E: **::~** _7:, .. _ in) 1 **i!~** i i' iV111 i: :lJ-i 1!, **~** llf'1! il **!~~_,:•_,i!l.j! i;llll~l!**  **!',I~~:** 1; ll
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:25:26 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,

Cathy Sibley

Simpsonville, SC 29680
Case No. 6,609.

#### HILTON v. BECK.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 107.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1830.

Replevin — Competency op Witness — Constable.

In replevin, the defendant, (a constable who had seized the goods of the plaintiff in execution as the goods of Harrington,) was permitted to testify for himself, upon being indemnified by the plaintiff .in the execution.

Replevin, for goods of the plaintiff [Samuel Hilton], taken by the defendant, a constable, as the goods of one Harrington, upon a fieri facias against him.

Mr. Wallach, for plaintiff.

Mr. Coxe, for defendant.

The defendant [Joseph W.] Beck, was permitted by the court to testify for himself, upon being indemnified by the plaintiff In the fieri facias.

See the case of Wise v. Bowen [Case No. 17,905], in this court, at April term, 1821, and Dixon v. Waters [Id. 3,936], at December term, 1824.
From: theswicegoods@bellsouth.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:32:26 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

Birth control is not a constitutional right and the government does not have any business forcing all

insurance policies to provide it without copay.

My husband is now underemployed at 1/3 of his previous wages and his insurance now costs twice as

much. We are barely making our mortgage payment and have used up all our savings. We cannot

afford to have even higher health care premiums to support other people's rights to have childless sex.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Cheryl Swicegood

Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082
Order entered January 2 6 , 2023

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 22
- 01036
- CV IN THE INTEREST OF L.L.V., A CHILD On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Coll in County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 416
- 56612
- 2021

O RDER This is an accelerated appeal from an order terminating appellant’s parental rights

. Appellant’s brief is currently due January 30, 2023. Before the Court is appellant’s motion for a thirty

- d ay extension of time to file his brief. We DENY the motion and caution appellant that the appeal is subject to dismissal on February 10 , 2023 should appellant’s brief not be filed

.

/Emily Miskel/ EMILY MISKEL JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1











CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Annual Report of Ultimate Products Corporation(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), I, George Vogelei, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:








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





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





Dated this 16h day of July, 2009.








/s/ George VogeleiGeorge VogeleiChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer








1
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00250

- CV

Michael E. Geiger

v.

Eric Milburn, Sherilyn Trent, Tammi

Messimer, Eddie Williams, Emilo

Barrentes, David Green, Karen

Aniston, John Rupert, and Major

Harris III §

§

§

§ From the 78th District Court

o f Wichita County (178,685

- B )

February 6, 2014

P er C uriam



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds th at

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 663 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 25, 2007.
Whereas veterans of the Spanish-American War and Philippine Insurrection, the 
        Nation's first major foreign conflicts, faced hardships to include a 
        complete lack of medical care and pensions upon discharge from the 
        service;
Whereas on September 29, 1899 the American Veterans of Foreign Service and in 
        December 1899, the National Society of the Army of the Philippines, were 
        established to advocate for the rights and benefits then denied to 
        veterans of the Spanish-American War and Philippine Insurrection;
Whereas, in subsequent years, membership in these and other veterans 
        organizations continued to grow;
Whereas these veterans organizations, recognizing their common goals and the 
        importance of unity, merged to form the present-day Veterans of Foreign 
        Wars of the United States in 1914;
Whereas membership in the Veterans of Foreign Wars continued to grow and reached 
        nearly 200,000 in 1936 when the organization received its Congressional 
        Charter;
Whereas the 2.3 million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and Ladies 
        Auxiliary remain committed to the organization's mission of ``ensuring 
        rights, remembering sacrifices, promoting patriotism, performing 
        community services, and advocating for a strong national defense'';
Whereas the organization continues this honorable mission by effectively 
        advocating for our Nation's veterans, to include helping establish the 
        present-day Department of Veterans Affairs, creating the Montgomery G.I. 
        Bill, developing the national cemetery system, and assisting combat 
        wounded veterans receive compensation for their injuries; and
Whereas the members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars celebrate the organization's 
        establishment and achievements on September 29th while carrying on the 
        vital mission of their predecessors: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports the goals and ideals of 
Veterans of Foreign Wars Day.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```