alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lavelle AULTMAN, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent—Appellee.

Nos. 05-6219, 05-6744.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 18, 2005.

Decided Aug. 24, 2005.

Lavelle Aultman, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Lavelle Aultman, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion to amend and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Aultman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Aultman’s motions for certificate of appealability, expansion of certificate of appealability, and leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
No. 59251.

protests 204567-K and 222797-K (Los Angeles).

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

Opinion by

Fobd, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### Nathaniel SIMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T. JEZIORSKI, correctional sergeant, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 00-0210.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

July 11, 2001.

*61Nathaniel Sims, New York, NY, pro se.

Mary Goslin, Esq., Special Assistant Attorney General, Buffalo, NY, for appellee.

Present WALKER, Chief Judges, CABRANES and STRAUB, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-appellant Nathaniel Sims appeals a June 9, 2000 district court judgment following a jury verdict in favor of defendant-appellee Timothy Jeziorski. In his complaint, which was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Sims alleged that Jeziorski, a correctional officer at Wende Correctional Facility where Sims was incarcerated, violated his constitutional rights when Jeziorski and three other correctional officers entered Sims’s cell during an emergency lock-down to confiscate a cigarette fighter and, in the process of doing so, purportedly assaulted Sims.

Sims’s principal argument on appeal is that the district court abused its discretion in permitting the defendant to introduce, pursuant to Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, evidence concerning a fire Sims admits having set the week prior to the incident in question. Rule 404(b) permits the introduction of evidence of other acts to prove “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident,” Fed.R.Evid. 404(b), “or any purpose other than to show a defendant’s criminal propensity.” *United States v. Pitre,*960 F.2d 1112, 1118 (2d Cir.1992).

We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence of the earlier fire. The evidence was properly admitted for the limited purpose of establishing Jeziorski’s basis — i.e., state of mind — in seeking to retrieve the fighter from Sims during the emergency lock-down: to ensure that Sims did not set a fire to add to the confusion of the lock-down.

We have carefully considered the remaining contentions Sims raised on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
No. P69/106.

protest 67/82227 (New York).

#### E. Mishan & Sons *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of batteries, classified as entireties with flashlight-cigarette lighters, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Torch Mfg.*Co., *Inc.*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 521, C.D. 2863), wherein said batteries were held to be separately dutiable and that no separate value for each of said items had been returned by the appraiser, the protest was dismissed and the matter remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement to determine the separate value of the flashlights and batteries in the mamier provided by law (28 U.S.C., section 2636(d)).
From: ahbarber1@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:56:04 PM

We are 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 we ask you to expand conscience protections

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

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

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

We 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 us 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,

Anse & Mrs. Linda Barber

Brandon, MS 39042
#### Gursharanjit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-73933.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted July 15, 2005.

Decided Aug. 11, 2005.

Inna Lipkin, Esq., Law Offices of Kuldip Singh Dhariwal, Fremont, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., Donald A. Couvillon, Esq., Richard M. Evans, Esq., Thomas Fatouros, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Gursharanjit Singh, a Sikh and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of *641Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) summary affirmation of the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b), and we grant the petition and remand.

Although the IJ failed to make an express credibility finding, he concluded that “respondent’s testimony ... had some inherent ambiguities in it that leave the Court unable to discern what exactly might be the contours of the experiences that he asserts underlie his claim.” Because credibility was central to the IJ’s decision to deny Singh’s petition for asylum, we remand to the BIA, pursuant to *INS v. Ventura, 537*U.S. 12, 16-17, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002), with the instruction that the BIA remand to the IJ for an explicit credibility determination supported by “a specific, cogent reason for any stated disbelief.” *Osorio v. INS,*99 F.3d 928, 931 (9th Cir.1996) (quoting *Hartooni v. INS,*21 F.3d 336, 342 (9th Cir.1994)).

PETITION GRANTED; REMANDED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
From: mthorn10@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: HHS mandated insurance coverage

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:45:54 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. The contraceptives covered by this mandate are not limited to those drugs

or devices which prevent conception. Rather, the list also includes abortifacients. It is unconscionable

to force insurance companies to pay for abortifacients because the costs will be passed on to the

insured, the majority of whom believe abortion to be immoral.

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,

Matthew Thornton

Memphis, TN 38119
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                18 U.S.C.ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Osteotech, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard W. Bauer,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

      (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.


                                                /S/ Richard W. Bauer
                                                ------------------------------
                                                Richard W. Bauer
                                                Chief Executive Officer
                                                (Principal Executive Officer)
                                                November 5, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or any
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, 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.
No. P66/23.

protests 65/4936, etc. (New York).

#### Durst Industries, Inc. *v.*United States,

Kao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of rotary lawn *898sprinklers or metal parts thereof dedicated for use therewith similar in all material respects to those the subject of *The Durst Mfg. Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(50 CCPA 56, C.A.D. 820), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

GEORGE WEGERS, et al.,

 Defendants.

CR05-231JCC

MINUTE ORDER RE:

 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

THIS matter came before United States Magistrate Judge, J. Kelley Arnold, pursuant to an order

of reference from the Honorable John C. Coughenour referring certain defendants named in the above

captioned cause for a settlement conference.

Those defendants referred for the date of December 14, 2005, were: Darrell Morris, Michael

Pleich, Walter Bail, and Vincent Reeves. The United States appeared through Assistant United States

Attorneys Ye-Ting Woo and Todd Greenberg. Defendants Morris, Pleich, and Bail appeared with

counsel. Defendant Reeves did not appear personally, but appeared through counsel and was available by

telephone.

Defendants Morris and Pleich entered into plea agreements which were reduced to writing

and presented to the Honorable Ronald B. Leighton.

Defendant Bail and his attorney remain in discussion with the United States Attorney,

though no final resolution was entered into this date, Magistrate Judge Arnold remains available

to work with the parties.

Defendant Reeves was not personally present and was unable to reach resolution with the

government. This court is interested in continuing to assist the parties if both parties request the

court’s assistance.

Entered this 14th day of December at the direction of U.S. Magistrate Judge, J. Kelley Arnold by Deputy

lerk, /s/Kelly Miller.

Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 789 Filed 12/14/05 Page 1 of 1
From: bnpsam55@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:52:47 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,

William Samuel

Colorado Springs, CO 80921
From: cvilleweavers@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:23:07 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,

Dawn Weaver

Charlottesville, VA 22901
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                 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 on Form 10-K of First National Lincoln
Corporation (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
of the undersigned, certifies, to the best knowledge and belief of the
signatory, 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 the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.


/s/ F. Stephen Ward
-----------------------------------
F. Stephen Ward
Treasurer & Chief Financial Officer

Date: March 26, 2003
From: chris.processmaster@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:00:49 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,

Chris Tolleson

Jacksonville, FL 32207
Exhibit
32.2



CERTIFICATION
OF DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO

18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that this periodic report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this periodic
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Rangeford Resources, Inc..



Date:
January 22, 2019



|By: | /s/
    Thomas E. Lindholm      | 
|--- | ------------------------------- | 
|    | Thomas
    E. Lindholm          | 
|    | Principal
    Financial Officer |