alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case *No. 12,923.*

#### SKIDMORE v. The POLLY.

[Anth. N. P. 200.]

District Court, D. New York.

Sept. 1808.

ADMlRAI/rr— JCBtBDIOTIOX Showx bv 1 jibei..

The admiralty court will entertain a libel! where there is an apparent jurisdiction on the-face of it, and no opposition.

This was a libel on a bottomry bond, executed to the. libellant by one of the part owners of the sloop Polly. The libel set forth,, that on the 1st day of April, 1808, at the city,, and in the district of New York, A. B., owner of one-half of said sloop, &c., in consideration of a certain sum of money, paid to liinn by the libellant, executed to the libellant a certain bottomry bond, by which it was= agreed, that the libellant should bear the hazard and adventure of the said sum oq the one-half of said sloop, &c., during the space-of two calendar months; and also set forth,, that the said sloop was engaged in the North) or Hudson river trade.

*W.*C. Mulligan, for libellant,

having read’ the libel, and no. claimant appearing,

THE: COURT

suggested a doubt whether this was; a case of admiralty jurisdiction, Hudson river being infra corpus comitatus, and the case-was, therefore, laid over. Vide 2 Wils. 264; [Montgomery v. Henry] 1 Dall. [1 U. S.] 50.

At another day, however, THE COURT de-*299c-ided, without argument, that as there was an apparent jurisdiction on the face of the libel, and as no one appeared in opposition, they would take cognizance of the case, and thereupon decreed a sale.
From: Pamhast@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:11:32 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,

Pam Hastings

Woodbridge, VA 22193
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 02-1356

___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff - Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Southern District of Iowa. * Greg Allen Johnson, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendant - Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 11, 2002 Filed: August 16, 2002

___________ Before WOLLMAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Greg Allen Johnson appeals his conviction for conspiring to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and 846. We affirm. The superseding indictment charged Johnson with participating in a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine from July 1997 to September 2000. At trial, the government presented testimony by numerous witnesses that Johnson was engaged in distributing methamphetamine during this entire period, though his suppliers and customers varied over time. Focusing on the change of suppliers that occurred when1 The HONORABLE HAROLD D. VIETOR, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. -2- Johnson’s initial supplier was arrested in August 1998, Johnson argues that the evidence at trial established the existence of multiple conspiracies, a fatal variance in the government’s proof. We disagree. “[T]he fact that there may have been multiple sources of [methamphetamine] does not create multiple conspiracies, and the evidence here supports the view that those charged in this case were members of a single conspiracy, even though there may have been other drug conspiracies in the community.” United States v. Cabbell , 35 F.3d 1255, 1262 (8th Cir. 1994). In addition, a claim of fatal variance requires proof of prejudice, and “it is difficult to see how the defendant was prejudiced given that he was the sole defendant on trial and was . . . implicated in any other conspiracy the evidence could prove.” United States v. Lopez-Arce , 267 F.3d 775, 781 (8th Cir. 2001). Johnson further argues that the district court 1erred in giving the multiple conspiracy instruction approved by this court in United States v. Adipietro , 983 F.2d 1468, 1475 (8th Cir. 1993), rather than a longer instruction requested by the defense. This contention is without merit. “If the evidence supports a single conspiracy, the failure to give a multiple conspiracy instruction is not reversible error.” United States v. Roach , 164 F.3d 403, 412 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 528 U.S. 845 (1999). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA- 2ot -AI.M.- o~q-f\:1) Directorate Identifier: -AD 

ffyou make changes to the values in the table below. you must ensure the totals update accordingly. ff 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) 

Do (include cost (labor+ u.s. for U.S. Fleet not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Revise AFM 1.0 $0 43 

The known number of products in compliance: 0 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $3,655 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ 

On-Condition Costs: ~ 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and closeup) 

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): 
Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a " significant regulatory action"? ~ 

YES* D NO rg] 

*Explanation: Cumulative cost per airplane type does not go over US$1 00,000,000.00. AD will not 

restrict airworthiness. 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? -

YES* D NO rg] 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. -

YES D NO rg] 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? ~ 

YES* D NO rg] 

*Explanation:
EX-34.6
(logo) PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
350 S. Grand Ave.
Los Angeles CA 90071
Telephone (213) 356 6000
Facsimile (813) 637 4444
www.pwc.com


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


To the Board of Directors
Newport Management Corporation:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing
Criteria, that Newport Management Corporation (the Company) complied with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(4)(xi) of the Securities and
Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the pools of loans which Aurora Loan
Services, LLC acted as the servicer pursuant to the applicable transaction
agreements, underlying publicly and/or privately-issued residential
mortgage-backed securities that were issued on or after January 1, 2006, on
which escrow payments were disbursed in 2008 (the Platform), as of December 31,
2008 and for the year then ended. The Company has determined that the remainder
of the servicing criteria is not applicable to the activities it performs with
respect to the Platform as of and for the year ended December 31, 2008. Schedule
A to management's assertion identifies the individual asset-backed transactions
and securities defined by management as constituting the Platform. Management is
responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our
examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected
asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of
selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether
the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected
activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures
were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by
the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not
designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred
prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or
amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this
report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our
opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's
compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2008 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
February 26, 2009
From: chaplainmerrell@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:31:41 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,

Merrell Wheeler

Fort Wayne, IN 46807
No. 66546.

#### M. S. Cowen Co. *v.*United States,

protest 272207-KS (Laredo).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *The Best Foods, Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 163, C.A.D. 751), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
California Environmental Protection Agency 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

Executive Order S-15-002 

WHEREAS, the rules identified in Enclosure A have been adopted or amended by the 

following air pollution control and air quality management districts (districts): 

Monterey Bay Unified Air Quality Management District 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

South Coast Air Quality Management District 

Ventura County Air Pollution Control District 

WHEREAS, the districts are authorized by California Health and Safety Code (H&SC) 

section 40001 to adopt and enforce the rules identified in Enclosure A; 

WHEREAS, the rules have been submitted to the Air Resources Board (ARB) for 

inclusion in the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) as reasonably available 

control measures for limiting emissions of air pollutants within the districts; 

WHEREAS, ARB has determined that these rules are necessary to meet requirements 

of the federal Clean Air Act; and 

WHEREAS, ARB is authorized by H&SC sections 39601, 39602, and 41650 through 

41652 to adopt district rules as revisions to the SIP. 

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that ARB hereby adopts the districts' rules identified in 

Enclosure A as revisions to the SIP. 

I certify, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.102(f), that the rules identified in Enclosure A were 

adopted or amended after notice and public hearings as required by 40 CFR 51.102(a) 

and 51.102(d). 

Executed in Sacramento, California, this ~` day of ~~ , 2015. 

Richard W. Core`) 

Executive Officer
EX-99.B11-ggpwopin

                       Report of Independent Accountants


To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
United Gold & Government Fund, Inc.


In our opinion, the accompanying statement of changes in net assets and the
financial highlights present fairly, in all material respects, the changes in
the net assets and financial highlights of the United Gold & Government Fund,
Inc. (the "Fund") for the year ended December 31, 1995 and for each of the nine
years in the period ended December 31, 1995, respectively, in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles.  This statement of changes in net
assets and financial highlights (hereafter referred to as "financial
statements") are the responsibility of the Fund's management; our responsibility
is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.  We
conducted our audits of these financial statements in accordance with generally
accepted auditing standards which require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of
material misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing
the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and
evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.  We believe that our
audits, which included confirmation of securities at December 31, 1995 by
correspondence with the custodian and brokers, provide a reasonable basis for
the opinion expressed above.  We have not audited the financial statements of
the United Gold & Government Fund, Inc. for the twelve-month period ended
December 31, 1996.


Price Waterhouse LLP
Kansas City, Missouri
February 8, 1996
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

MINUTE ORDER

 C05-1947 JPD

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:

Counsel has requested additional time to comply with the schedule set forth in the Order

Regarding Initial Disclosure, Joint Status Report, and Early Settlement (dkt #3). The request is

GRANTED.

The parties will now adhere to the following schedule:

Deadline for FRCP 26(f) Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January 27, 2006

Initial Disclosure Pursuant to FRCP 26(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . February 3, 2006

Combined Joint Status Report and discovery Plan

 as required by FRCP 26(f) and Local Rule CR16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . February 10, 2006

The date by which the Clerk is to be informed whether the individual parties are

consenting to have this matter heard by the Honorable James P. Donohue, U.S. Magistrate Judge, 

Case 2:05-cv-01947-JPD Document 4 Filed 12/12/05 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

MINUTE ORDER

 C05-1947 JPD

is hereby extended to the due date of the Joint Status Report. The parties may indicate in the

Joint Status Report their desire to consent to Judge Donohue, or have the case reassigned to a

district judge; should the parties decide earlier than February 10, 2006, to consent or decline,

deputy clerk Peter H. Voelker may be notified at (206) 370-8422, or by fax at (206) 370-8425. 

The decision regarding to consent or to decline is not to be filed electronically or forwarded in any

form to the chambers of Judge Donohue.

Dated this 12th day of December 2005

Bruce Rifkin

Clerk of Court

/s/ PETER H. VOELKER 

Peter H. Voelker, Deputy Clerk

Case 2:05-cv-01947-JPD Document 4 Filed 12/12/05 Page 2 of 2
From: mark.kerry@urs.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:18:56 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,

Mark Kerry

Baton Rouge, LA 70809
No. 68449.

protests 63/9611, etc. (San Francisco).

#### Louis Marx & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of “cardboard display cards and demonstrators of paper lithographically printed, over 0.020" thick, which are separate articles of commerce from the articles with which they are imported, and are not chiefly used for the amusement of children,” the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 11.1


                   SOFTWARE SPECTRUM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
               COMPUTATION OF PRIMARY EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
                                 (Unaudited)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       Three Months Ended                      Six Months Ended
                                                          September 30,                          September 30,
                                                 ----------------------------          ----------------------------
                                                    1996              1995               1996               1995
                                                 ---------         ----------          ---------         ----------
<S>                                              <C>               <C>                 <C>               <C>
Net income (loss)                                $(533,000)        $1,788,000          $(789,000)        $3,403,000
                                                 =========         ==========          =========         ==========
Shares as adjusted:
 Average number of shares
   outstanding                                   4,288,277          4,195,712          4,275,903          4,186,938
 Incremental shares
   from outstanding stock
   options as determined
   under the treasury stock
   method, using the
   average market price                               -- *             95,060               -- *             71,865

Shares as adjusted                               4,288,277          4,290,772          4,275,903          4,258,803
                                                 =========         ==========          =========         ==========
Primary earnings (loss) per share                   $ (.12)            $  .42             $ (.18)            $  .80
                                                 =========         ==========          =========         ==========
</TABLE>





* No incremental shares from outstanding stock options are included as they
  would be anti-dilutive.




                                      20