alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Walter CLINE; William Hagler, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Arthur BINDER, in his official capacity and individually as Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, North Carolina; Morris Bedsole, in his official capacity as former Sheriff of Cumberland County and individually; Jimmy Henley; John Doe, in their official capacities and individually; Cumberland County, North Carolina, and the Office of the Sheriff of Cumberland County, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-1123.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2001.

Decided July 19, 2001.

Walter Cline, William Hagler, pro se. Douglas Edward Canders, Cumberland County Attorney’s Office, Fayetteville, NC, for appellees.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Walter Cline and William Hagler appeal the district court’s order denying their motion to reconsider under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) in their civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Cline v. Binder,*No. CA-96-811-5 BO (E.D.N.C. Dec. 21, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court *209and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 22, 2014.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 22, 2014

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15D0185. IKE BONNIE v. WYNNDOWNE TOWNHOMES HOMEOWNERS

ASSOCIATION, INC..

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this

order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

1316944
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

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

HARRY VERN FOX,

Plaintiff,

v.

HENRY RICHARDS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5063 RBL/KLS

ORDER RE-NOTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

DISMISS

This civil rights action has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to

dismiss. (Dkt. # 18). This motion was originally noted for consideration on December 8, 2006, but was

stayed, along with all other activity in the case, pending Plaintiff’s appeal of this Court’s order denying his

motion for the appointment of counsel. (Dkt. # 21). The District Court denied Plaintiff’s appeal on

January 22, 2007 (Dkt. # 23), and this case may proceed forward. The Court finds that the motion to

dismiss should now be re-noted to allow the Plaintiff an appropriate amount of time to file a response.

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court shall re-note Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 18) for

February 23, 2007. Plaintiff’s response shall be filed and served not later than 4:30 p.m. on the Monday

immediately preceding the Friday appointed for consideration of the motion. If Plaintiff fails to timely file

and serve a response to the motion, the court may deem any opposition to be without merit, pursuant to

Local Rule CR 7(b)(4). Defendants may file, not later than 4:30 p.m. on the Thursday immediately

Case 3:06-cv-05063-RBL Document 24 Filed 01/24/07 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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

preceding the Friday designated for consideration of the motion, a response Plaintiff’s opposing brief, if

any. 

DATED this 23rd day of January, 2007.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05063-RBL Document 24 Filed 01/24/07 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                            5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM
ITEC ATTRACTIONS, INC. FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                        JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                        0
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            53,761
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                              80,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        488,338
<PP&E>                                                7,961,178
<DEPRECIATION>                                        2,001,843
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        7,343,191
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   856,268
<BONDS>                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                  7,938
<OTHER-SE>                                            2,759,660
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          7,343,191
<SALES>                                               2,545,418
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      2,549,740
<CGS>                                                 1,920,344
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         2,939,173
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      156,278
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (545,711)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (545,711)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (545,711)
<EPS-BASIC>                                               (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (0.07)


</TABLE>
No. 68179.

#### A. H. Gutbrod Co. *v.*United States,

protest 62/13890 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise described on the invoice as :

> Pruning Shears 118/19cm

> Pruning Shears 137/17em

> dto. 124/23cm AF

> Pruning Shear 242 new model sample

> consists of pruning shears, valued over $1.75 per dozen, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**Exhibit 32.2**

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Northern Technologies InternationalCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Matthew C. Wolsfeld, Chief Financial Officer andCorporate Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, tothe best of my knowledge and belief:

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

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

|                                                                                                               |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                                                               |   |
| Matthew   C. Wolsfeld, CPA                                                                                    |   |
| Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary (principal financial officerand principal accounting officer) |   |

Circle Pines, Minnesota
Case 2:06-cv-00186-MAT Document 44 Filed 03/09/07 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00186-MAT Document 44 Filed 03/09/07 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00186-MAT Document 44 Filed 03/09/07 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00186-MAT Document 44 Filed 03/09/07 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00186-MAT Document 44 Filed 03/09/07 Page 5 of 5
No. 59230.

protests 228293-K, etc. (New York).

#### National Carloading Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the issues and facts herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as not landed, not found,' or as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as not landed, not found, or as manifested, not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
No. 68964.

#### Brechner Bros. *v.*United States,

protest 64/18563 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of telescopes, not chiefly used for the amusement of children, and valued not over $2 each, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: JKMunger@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:36:57 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,

Julie Munger

North Port, FL 34288
Before the Second Division,

May 4, 1967

No. P67/141.

#### Ashear Bros., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 66/1010, etc. (New York).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of silk handkerchiefs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Ashear Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 238, C.D. 2582), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the    
Osteotech, Inc. and Subsidiaries Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 1997
and the  Condensed  Consolidated  Statement of  Operations  for the three months
ended March 31, 1997 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such
financial statements.                                                        
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1997               
<PERIOD-END>                       MAR-31-1997               
<CASH>                              $9,084,000               
<SECURITIES>                           987,000               
<RECEIVABLES>                        6,772,000               
<ALLOWANCES>                           157,000               
<INVENTORY>                            808,000               
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    21,050,000               
<PP&E>                              16,176,000               
<DEPRECIATION>                       8,057,000               
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      32,528,000               
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                7,579,000               
<BONDS>                                671,000               
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0               
<PREFERRED>                                  0               
<COMMON>                                79,000               
<OTHER-SE>                          23,936,000               
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        32,528,000               
<SALES>                                606,000               
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    10,084,000               
<CGS>                                  452,000               
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        8,606,000               
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             0               
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0               
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      48,000               
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      1,570,000               
<INCOME-TAX>                           738,000               
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    832,000               
<DISCONTINUED>                               0               
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0               
<CHANGES>                                    0               
<NET-INCOME>                           832,000               
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              .10               
<EPS-DILUTED>                              .10               
                                


</TABLE>
From: bdeatoneqh@wavecable.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:36:57 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,

Diane Eaton

Grapeview, WA 98546
No. P67/125.

#### Sprouse & Reitz & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 64/3088, etc. (Los Angeles).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *W. Kay Com*pany, *Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 130, C.D. 2484), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: vtrdat@whidbey.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:23:51 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Robert Turner

Clinton, WA 98236
H. Res. 740 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

October 29, 2007. 

Whereas, on September 29, 2007, an estimated 1,000 heavily-armed rebels in Darfur overran a small base in 

Haskanita, Darfur, Sudan, occupied by the African 

Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS), brutally killing 10 

peacekeepers—seven Nigerian soldiers and three other 

unarmed military observers and civilian police officers 

from Mali, Senegal, and Botswana—and wounding seven 

other peacekeepers, with 50 peacekeepers still missing; 

Whereas, in an assault described by the African Union commander as ‘‘deliberate and sustained’’, the rebel group 

broke into the AMIS base in 30 vehicles with heavy artillery and mortars and battled for hours until AMIS forces 

ran out of ammunition; 

Whereas the attacks were the worst attacks on AMIS peacekeepers since the deployment of the peacekeepers to 

Sudan in July 2004; 

Whereas the United Nations Security Council condemned the 

‘‘murderous attack’’ on AMIS peacekeepers and demanded that ‘‘no effort be spared’’ to identify and bring 

to justice the perpetrators of the attacks; 

Whereas, in the aftermath of the attacks, the Government of 

Sudan secured the area reportedly to facilitate the evacu-
2 

•HRES 740 EH 

ation of AMIS peacekeepers, but later was accused of 

burning Haskanita to the ground, driving more than 

15,000 civilians into the wilderness or neighboring towns; 

Whereas the attacks have been openly condemned by the 

United States Government, the African Union, the international community, and civilized people everywhere; and 

Whereas the Government of Sudan has not publicly spoken 

out against or condemned the attacks: Now, therefore, be 

it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) condemns in the strongest terms the attacks on 

African Union peacekeepers that occurred in Haskanita, 

Darfur, Sudan, on September 29, 2007; 

(2) expresses its condolences to the people and Governments of Nigeria, Mali, Senegal, and Botswana, the 

families and friends of those individuals who were killed 

or missing in the attacks, and expresses its sympathies 

to those individuals who have been injured; 

(3) expresses the solidarity of the people and Government of the United States with the African Union 

and the African Union peacekeepers as they recover 

from these cowardly and inhuman attacks; 

(4) expresses its readiness to support efforts to 

bring to justice those individuals responsible for the attacks and efforts to detect, pursue, disrupt, and dismantle the networks that plan and carry out such attacks; 
3 

•HRES 740 EH 

(5) expresses its support for the people of Darfur, 

Sudan, in their continued struggle against extremism 

and violence and support for their efforts to secure a 

permanent peace, justice, and return to their restored 

villages and homes; and 

(6) encourage all parties involved in the conflict to 

commit to negotiate a final and binding peace agreement 

at the peace talks scheduled for October 27, 2007, in 

Tripoli, Libya. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350   In connection with the Annual Report of IC Places, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven Samblis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to my knowledge that:  (i)  the accompanying Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Act); and  (ii)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  IC PLACES, INC.  /s/:  Steven Samblis STEVEN SAMBLIS, Chief Executive Officer  March 31, 2010