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

April 10, 1967

No. P67/101.

#### Smith Wolff Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/28259 and 60/28260 (New York).

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the mer-; chandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of hose nozzles similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Lipman's*(52 CCPA 59, C.A.D. 859), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: ftheuerkau@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:22:53 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,

frank theuerkauf

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418
No. 68462.

protest 63/21662 (Tampa).

#### Labels Unlimited, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of rayon labels similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Bruce Duncan Co., Inc., a/c Standard Commodities Import & Export Corp.*v. *United States*(51 Cust. Ct. 27, C.D. 2409), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: mjensen@valmont.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:57:24 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,

Mitch Jensen

Elkhorn, NE 68022
Exhibit 32.2  Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of China Media Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2017, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ruijuan Hou, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Dated:  September 28, 2017  By:          /s/Ruijuan Hou Ruijuan Hou Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer
From: linajean55@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:55:19 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,

LINA RICE

Clarksville, AR 72830
From: kevafenn@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:22:20 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,

Therese Fennell

Saint Charles, IL 60174
(R.D. 11480)

#### Parsons & Whittemore, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. M-403.

(Decided January 30, 1968)

*Sharp, Bolter & Eutehison*for the plaintiff.

*Edwin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> *7713. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> _ 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
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

ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_________________________________ )

RICHARD ROY SCOTT, ) No. MC05-5029

)

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) ORDER PERMITTING CASE TO PROCEED

)

SELINA DAVIS, )

)

Defendant. )

_________________________________ )

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On April 5, 2005, the United

States District Court judges who sit in Tacoma entered an order dismissing a number of

plaintiff’s causes of action and barring future litigation unless plaintiff provides a signed

affidavit, along with the proposed complaint, “verifying under penalty of perjury that none of the

issues raised in the proposed complaint have been litigated in the past by the plaintiff.” On July

10, 2006, the Clerk of Court received a complaint, a motion to proceed without fee, a written

consent for payment of costs, and a declaration signed by Mr. Scott. Dkt. # 78 and 79. These

are now before the undersigned for review pursuant to the terms of the bar order. 

Plaintiff asserts a § 1983 claim against Selina Davis, an employee of the King

County Superior Court. Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Davis interfered with his access to the courts,

obstructed justice, and deprived him of the assistance of his attorney by refusing to provide

copies of certain documents and by preventing certain motions from being presented to the

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 81 Filed 07/25/06 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

ORDER -2-

presiding judicial officer. 

The undersigned finds that the issues raised in the above-captioned matter have not

been previously litigated by plaintiff and may proceed subject to the other requirements imposed

by the “Order Adopting Report and Recommendation,” dated April 5, 2005. The Clerk of Court

shall docket this order in MC05-5029 and open a new cause of action containing all documents

related to plaintiff’s July 10, 2006, submission (Dkt. # 78 and 79).

DATED this 25th day of July, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik,

Chief Judge, United States District Court 

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 81 Filed 07/25/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997             MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996             JUN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996             NOV-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1                       1
<CASH>                                       1,943,000               1,943,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,737,000               2,737,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (379,000)               (379,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    307,000                 307,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,944,000               4,944,000
<PP&E>                                      19,324,000              19,324,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (4,007,000)             (4,007,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,525,000              34,525,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,737,000               6,737,000
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       283,000                 283,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,525,000              34,525,000
<SALES>                                      7,369,000              16,422,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,119,000              19,654,000
<CGS>                                        6,902,000              15,145,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,962,000              19,430,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             229,000                 472,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                157,000                 224,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   157,000                 224,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01                     .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01                     .01
        


</TABLE>
Case 2:05-cr-00370-RSL Document 39 Filed 05/03/07 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:05-cr-00370-RSL Document 39 Filed 05/03/07 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:05-cr-05823-RBL Document 282 Filed 07/23/07 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:05-cr-05823-RBL Document 282 Filed 07/23/07 Page 2 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

ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_________________________________ )

RICHARD ROY SCOTT, ) No. MC05-5029

)

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) ORDER

)

SHAUNA ANDERSON, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

_________________________________ )

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On April 5, 2005, the United States

District Court judges who sit in Tacoma entered an order dismissing a number of plaintiff’s

causes of action and barring future litigation “[i]n all future cases” unless plaintiff provides a

signed affidavit, along with the proposed complaint, “verifying under penalty of perjury that

none of the issues raised in the proposed complaint have been litigated in the past by the

plaintiff.” See Dkt. #170 in Case No. C04-5147RJB (April 5, 2005 Order) at 4, ¶2. On May 26,

2007, the Court also entered a order declaring plaintiff a vexatious litigant and prohibiting him

from proceeding in forma pauperis in any future action in the United States District Court for

the Western District of Washington. See Dkt. #95 in Case No. C06-5172FDB (March 26, 2007

Order) at 15, ¶2. 

On October 17, 2007, the Clerk of Court received a complaint and a letter stating that “I

will pay the [filing] fee and do my own service.” Dkt. #111 (Complaint); Dkt. #112 (Letter).

These documents are now before the undersigned for review pursuant to the terms of the April

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 114 Filed 10/22/07 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

1

 Should plaintiff cure the deficiencies referenced above, plaintiff shall comply with terms of

the April 5, 2005 order when proceeding with this action. See April 5, 2005 Order (requiring, inter alia,

that “Plaintiff may not engage in discovery without leave of court. To obtain leave of court he must

submit written discovery to the court for prior approval” and “Plaintiff may not issue any subpoenas or

summons without prior approval of the court.”). 

ORDER -2-

5, 2005 bar order.

Based on plaintiff’s representation that he will pay the filing fee, his proposed complaint

is exempt from the Court’s March 26, 2007 order which restricts plaintiff’s in forma pauperis

status. However, plaintiff has failed to “submit a signed affidavit, along with the proposed

complaint, verifying under penalty of perjury that none of the issues raised in the proposed

complaint have been litigated in the past by plaintiff.” See April 5, 2005 Order. Therefore, the

new action submitted on October 17, 2007 (Dkt. #111), shall not be permitted to proceed until

plaintiff has provided the required affidavit and the $350.00 filing fee. The Clerk of Court shall

docket this order in MC05-5029. Neither the Clerk of Court nor defendants need take any

further action with regards to this matter.1

 

DATED this 19th day of October, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 114 Filed 10/22/07 Page 2 of 2
From: furrey99@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:06:33 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 Furrey

Indianapolis, IN 46234
Before the Second Division,

October 6, 1966

No. P66/249. —

No. P66/250. —

#### Brown Boveri Corp. and Gehrig Hoban & Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protest 324066-K (New York). Lafayette Radio Electronics Corp. *v.*United States, protest 64/4409(A) (New York).

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of meters similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *G. L. Electronics, Inc.,*Arrow Sales, Inc. (49 CCPA 111, C.A.D. 804), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.