alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: spayne77@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:22:07 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Steve Payne

Urbandale, IA 50322
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, David E. Schreiman, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SPARTA, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and have:  a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting. November 10, 2004 /s/ David E. Schreiman
February 29, 1956

No. 59749.

#### Hoffer & Slone and H. W. Robinson & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 235461-K, etc.

Protests abandoned January 25, 1956. (Not published.) (Initial No. 214056-K.) Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing granted.
No. 68401.

protests 63/11091, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of glass paperweights and the items marked “B” consist of plastic paperweights similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstracts 64185 and 67488, respectively, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

February 14, 1961

No. 65157.

#### United China *&*Glass Co. *v.*United States,

protests 293601-K/14796, etc. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of decorative after-dinner cups and saucers the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. a/c United China & Glass Company*(47 C.C.P.A. 1, C.A.D. 719), the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (a) The items entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption prior to September 10, 1955, at 50 cents per dozen, but not less than 45 percent nor more than 70 percent ad valorem, under paragraph 212, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 51802), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 51909), and (b) all items entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on and after September 10, 1955, at 45 percent under said paragraph, as modified by the Japanese Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 53865), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 53877).
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 OF DISMISSAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

JAE SHIK CHA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-1687RSL

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff, who was proceeding pro se,

filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) motion for relief from judgment seeking to reopen his prior 28

U.S.C. § 2255 petition and vacate his sentence. After plaintiff filed his motion, the Court issued

an order that was returned as undeliverable. The government subsequently informed the Court

that plaintiff died on December 7, 2005. See Dkt. #9 (government’s response to plaintiff’s

motion and certificate of death). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is denied as moot and this case

is dismissed.

DATED this 4th day of October, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01687-RSL-MJB Document 10 Filed 10/04/06 Page 1 of 1
Before the First Division,

July 14, 1955

No. 59221.

protests 79803-K and 79804-K (Baltimore).

#### S. S. Kresge Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise marked “P” consist of figures or articles, composed wholly or in chief value of papier máché, the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 56975, the claim at 25 percent under paragraph 1403 was sustained. Other items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of articles, composed wholly or in chief value of wood, the same in all material respects (except the component material of chief value) as the merchandise involved in said Abstract 56975, were held dutiable at 33% percent under paragraph 412, as claimed.
264-14 

SAS 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF: ) FAA CASE NO. 2014-GL-70-0239 

) 

COMPASS SYSTEMS & SALES, INC. ) FDMS No. FAA-2015-2440 

) 

Respondent ) JUDGE J.E. SULLIVAN 

) 

) NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF 

) COUNSEL 

Louis P. Alexander, Jr., Esq., of Roth, Blair, Roberts, Strasfeld & Lodge, L.P.A., 

pursuant to 14 CPR 13.204, hereby enters his appearance as counsel on behalf of the 

Respondent, Compass Systems & Sales, Inc. in this matter. 

All co=unications, notices, pleadings or documents are respectfully requested to be 

forwarded as follows: 

Stuart A. Strasfeld, Esq. 

Louis P. Alexander, Jr., Esq. 

Roth, Blair, Roberts, Strasfeld & Lodge, L.P.A. 

100 East Federal Street, Suite 600 

Youngstown, Ohio 44503 

Telephone: (330) 744-5211 

Facsimile: (330) 744-3184 

Email: sstrasfeld@roth-blair.com 

lalexander@roth-blair.com 
Respectfully Submitted, ~---

~ ~~"7 / .· ~:~--" -"~z:=---c~-c~ 

Stuart A. Strasfeld, Esq. (Ohio #0012399) 

Louis P. Alexander, Jr., Esq. (Ohio #0076529) 

Roth, Blair, Roberts, Strasfeld & Lodge, L.P.A. 

100 East Federal Street, Suite 600 

Youngstown, Ohio 44503 

Telephone: (330) 744-5211 

Facsimile: (330) 744-3184 

Email: sstrasfeld@roth-blair.com 

lalexander@roth-blair.com 

Attorneys for Respondent, 

Compass Systems & Sales, Inc. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original and one copy of the foregoing Notice of 

Appearance were sent via Overnight Mail this 161

h day of December, 2015, to the following 

address for filing with the Federal Aviation Administration: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 

Washington D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

[Certification page continues] 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing Notice of 

Appearance was served upon the following via Overnight Mail this 161

h day of December, 2015. 

Brian K. Khan, Esq. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

2300 East Devon Avenue, AGL-7H 

Des Plaines, IL 60018 

Attorney for Complainant, Federal Aviation Administration 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing Notice Appearance 

was served upon the following via Overnight Mail this 16th day of December, 2015. 

Hon. J.E. Sullivan, Administrate Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

~--? -~--------~-. .., 

~ ~"'f- ~--:~~ <,.L.._ 

__ cZ::=-=--=-~~---

sTUART A. STRASFELD (Ohio #0012399) 

LOUIS P. ALEXANDER, JR. (Ohio #0076529) 

Attorneys for Respondent 

Compass Systems & Sales, Inc. 

Date: December 16, 2015
#### Derrick HOLMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF BASTROP; et al., Defendants, City of Bastrop; Ray Sebrun, Individually and in His Official Capacity as a Police Officer with the Bastrop City Police Department, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-30902.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided July 28, 2005.

Roger S. Bernstein, Radlauer & Bernstein, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Robert McCullen Baldwin, D. Brian Allen, Hudson, Potts & Bernstein, Monroe, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.

*316Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Derrick Holmes appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendants based on qualified immunity on his claim of excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We review the district court’s order de novo. *Cousin v. Small,*325 F.3d 627, 637 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*540 U.S. 826, 124 S.Ct. 181, 157 L.Ed.2d 48 (2003).

Holmes, who was suspected of possessing narcotics, attempted to flee from Officer Sebrun by jumping on a train. He alleged that Officer Sebrun used excessive force by grabbing him to prevent his escape and causing him to fall beneath the train, which severed both of his legs. After a review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not err by concluding that Officer Sebrun acted objectively reasonably. *See Graham v. Connor,*490 U.S. 386, 396-97, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989); *Gutierrez v. City of San Antonio,*139 F.3d 441, 447 (5th Cir.1998). The district court was not bound by the opinion of Holmes’s expert on the issue of reasonableness. *See Williams v. Bramer,*180 F.3d 699, 703 (5th Cir.1999); *Gutierrez,*139 F.3d at 447. Holmes has not demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to Sebrun’s alleged impairment due to testing positive for using Valium as he fails to present more than a scintilla of evidence. *See Little v. Liquid Air Corp.,*37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir.1994)(en banc). The district court also did not erroneously grant summary judgment on Holmes’s state-law negligence claims because Sebrun’s conduct was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. *See Kyle v. City of New Orleans,*353 So.2d 969, 972-73 (La.1977).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Searched for **http://www.firescience.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.firescience.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
EXHIBIT 21.0

Ortep of New Jersey, Inc. - New Jersey

Ortep of Pennsylvania, Inc. - Pennsylvania

Ortep of Connecticut, Inc. - Connecticut

Petro/Crystal Corp. - New York

Maxwhale Corp. - Minnesota

Petro, Inc. - Delaware

Public Fuel Services Co., Inc. - New York

CBW Realty Corp. of Connecticut - Connecticut

Marex Corporation - Maryland

Ocennet Fuel Oil Corp. - Connecticut

A.P. Woodson Co., Inc. - District of Columbia

Star Gas Corporation - Delaware

Silgas, Inc. - Indiana

Star Gas Holdings - Delaware
Exhibit 35.1

Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.

This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant
to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 21, 2008 (the Agreement) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust
2008-A-F (the Trust), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by AmeriCredit Corp., AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the
Servicer) and AFS Sensub Corp. in connection therewith. The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.

The undersigned certifies that I am the Executive Vice President, Controller of the Servicer. I further certify as follows:



| | 1. | I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from May 21, 2008 through December 31, 2008, and its
performance under the Agreement.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge,
there has been no default in the fulfillment of any such obligation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     |  |                                      |  |  |  |  |  |                      
|------------------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------ |  |  |  |  |  | ---------------------
|AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. |  |                                      |  | 
|                                     |  |                                      |  | 
|By:                                  |  | /s/ James Fehleison                  |  |  |  |  |  | Dated: March 26, 2009
|                                     |  | James Fehleison                      |  |  |  |  |  |                      
|                                     |  | Executive Vice President, Controller |  |  |  |  |  |
From: viclewis3943@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: viclewis3943@att.net

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:48:02 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,

Victor Lewis

, 32773-4767
#### James Vernon TIEUEL, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; Jerry Keller, Sheriff; Officer John Doe # 1; Officer John Doe # 2; Officer John Doe # 3; Does 1-10, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-15488.

D.C. No. CR-97-00423-JBR/RJJ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 11, 2001.

Decided June 28, 2001.

*587Before HILL,* GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable James C. Hill, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff James Tieuel appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment. Because the district court did not grant summary judgment on all claims, its order is not final and appealable. Consequently, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

“Tt is axiomatic that orders granting partial summary judgment, because they do not dispose of all claims, are not final appealable orders under section 1291.’ ” *Dannenberg v. Software Toolworks Inc.*., 16 F.3d 1073, 1074 (9th Cir.1994) (quoting *Cheng v. Comm’r,*878 F.2d 306, 309 (9th Cir.1989)). Here, the district court granted only partial summary judgment. Defendants did not seek summary judgment on, and the district court did not reference, Tieuel’s claims under the First Amendment or his claims under Nevada state law. In addition, it is unclear whether the district court intended to dismiss Tieuel’s claims against the John Doe officers in their individual capacities; those parties are barely mentioned in Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and are not addressed in their individual capacities in the district court’s order. Therefore, because not all of Tieuel’s claims were the subject of final adjudication, we are without jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             147,848
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      263,021
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   488,131
<PP&E>                                             436,716
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,084,311
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              460,947
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             8,178
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,510,244
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,084,311
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   431,711
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   400,202
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3,299
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          0
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        28,210
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0.004
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.003




</TABLE>