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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:06:09 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,

Debra Smith

Sanger, CA 93657
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 -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MICHAEL DUANE BENJAMIN,

Petitioner,

v.

B.G. COMPTON,

Respondent.

NO. C05-1630Z

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on petitioner’s application for a certificate of

appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. A certificate of appealability may issue where

“the applicant has made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Court concludes for the reasons stated in Magistrate Judge

Donohue’s Report and Recommendation, docket no. 5, and the Order of January 18, 2006,

docket no. 8, that petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of a denial of a

constitutional right. Accordingly, petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability,

docket no. 14, is hereby DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 27th day of April, 2006.

AThomas S. Zilly

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01630-TSZ Document 15 Filed 04/27/06 Page 1 of 1
Before the Third Division,

May 5, 1965

No. 69291.

#### McKesson & Robbins, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 64/5453 (New York.

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 CCPA 112, C.A.D. 351) ; that the cases reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer; and that the applicable regulations have now been complied with. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained to the extent that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon the cases of merchandise, which were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found.
Case 3:05-cr-05823-RBL Document 156 Filed 01/18/07 Page 1 of 1
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2016-4878 Directorate Identifier: 2016-CE-001-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

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

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

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

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Research and re 

identify engine type 

plate if needed

1.0 $ 85.00 $ 85.00 65 $5,525.00

Modify installation 

to indicate a 

Maximum Coolant 

Temperature Limit

1.0 $ 85.00 $ 85.00 65 $5,525.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $11,050

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

Replace a single 

engine cylinder 

head

1.5 $ 127.50 $2,500 $2,627.50

$ 0.00 $ 0.00
$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

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

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): The Oncondition costs were taken from AD 2013-17-04 for accomplishing the replacement of the 

previous, similar engine cylinder head.

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

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

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: This AD only affects 65 US registered aircraft.

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

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

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

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM MEDIWARE'S
QUARTERLY REPORT TO SHAREHOLDERS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                            3,810
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     6,812
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1,031
<INVENTORY>                                         189
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 12,137
<PP&E>                                            2,042
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2,836
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   28,684
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            12,098
<BONDS>                                              74
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                            701
<OTHER-SE>                                       15,811
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     28,684
<SALES>                                          20,347
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 20,347
<CGS>                                             7,408
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    21,068
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    447
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   42
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (683)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (273)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (410)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (443)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (.06)



</TABLE>
*Pursuant to 5

th 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.

1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

___________________________

No. 01-60141

___________________________

FIRST TENNESSEE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

TRUSTMARK NATIONAL BANK,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Mississippi

(3:99-CV-859)

 ___________________________________________________

August 8, 2001

Before DAVIS, JONES and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

We affirm the judgment of the district court essentially for

the reasons stated in its October 6, 2000 Memorandum Opinion and

Order. For reasons given in that opinion, the district court

correctly granted Trustmark’s supplemental motion for judgment on

the pleadings. Moreover, the district court did not abuse its

discretion by denying First Tennessee’s motion to alter or amend

the final judgment. In its first amended complaint, First

Tennessee did not allege a conversion claim that was independent of
2

the Mississippi Uniform Commercial Code and the security agreement.

We also conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in

refusing to allow First Tennessee to amend its complaint following

the district court’s entry of judgment with prejudice.

Thus, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Multi-Component Application.                    

*Date:*                         October 25, 2023.                    

*Time:*                         1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dario Dieguez, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institute on Aging, Scientific Review Branch, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue (2W218), Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-3101,                         *dario.dieguez@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 22, 2023.

Miguelina Perez, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-21155 Filed 9-27-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
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

[Proposed] Order Granting Motion JUDITH M. MANDEL

to Continue Trial Date Attorney at Law524 Tacoma Ave So

Tacoma, WA 98402 1 (253)272-5640

JUDGE: LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) NO. CR06-5058RBL Plaintiff, ))

) vs. )) ORDER 

) GRANTING MOTION TO FELIX ADEOKUN, ) CONTINUE TRIAL DATE )

) (U.S. v. NEAL, et al) Defendant. ) )

Upon the motion of the defendant, Felix Adeokun, to continue the trial in the above-captioned case,

and based upon the facts set forth in the motion, which are hereby adopted as findings of the Court and

incorporated by reference, the Court finds that such a continuance would serve the ends of justice and outweigh

the best interests of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial; therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date be continued to May 30, 2006. The period of delay

resulting from this continuance from April 10, 2006, to the new trial date of May 30, 2006 is hereby excluded

for speedy trial purposes under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) and (B) for the purpose of computing the time

limitations imposed by the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161-3174.

ACCORDINGLY:

The Jury Trial is CONTINUED to MAY 30, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. 

The Pretrial Conference is rescheduled for MAY 24, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.

The Motions Cutoff date is extended to MAY 1, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of March, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

/s/ 

Judith M. Mandel, WSBA#8677

Attorney for Felix Adeokun

Case 3:06-cr-05058-RBL Document 35 Filed 03/24/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 57750.

protests 92081-K, etc. (New York).

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

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures composed wholly or in chief value of papier máché the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 56975, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION OF THE 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 of American Energy Fields, Inc., (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, David P. Lieberman, Acting Chief Financial Officer 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, 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.
 
 Date: July 12, 2010
 
 /s/ David P. LiebermanDavid P. Lieberman

Acting Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 1 

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 

SMITH McKENZIE 

ROTHWELL & BARLOW, P.S. 

500 UNION STREET, SUITE 700 

SEATTLE, WA 98101 

 (206) 224-9900 5000 055 gj111911 11/10/05 

Mark E. Smith 

Smith McKenzie Rothwell 

 & Barlow, P.S. 

500 Union Street, Ste. 700 

Seattle, WA 98101 

206-224-9900 

marks@smrblaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CEMENT ) 

MASONS & PLASTERERS HEALTH AND ) MS NO. 05-75 

WELFARE TRUST, et al., ) NO. C04-1512C 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) ORDER TO 

 ) SHOW CAUSE 

 v. ) 

 ) 

GBC INC. CONTRACTORS, Contractor’ s ) 

Registration No. GBCINC*044JR, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. )

 The Plaintiffs, through their attorneys, having filed a Motion and Declaration for an 

Order directing Anthony R. Grose of GBC Inc. Contractors to appear and show cause, if any 

he may have, why he should not be adjudged in contempt of this Court for his failure to 

comply with the Order dated April 29, 2005, requiring Answers to Written Interrogatories 

within 30 days from the date of service, 

Case 2:05-mc-00075-JPD Document 4 Filed 11/14/05 Page 1 of 2
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 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 

SMITH McKENZIE 

ROTHWELL & BARLOW, P.S. 

500 UNION STREET, SUITE 700 

SEATTLE, WA 98101 

 (206) 224-9900 5000 055 gj111911 11/10/05 

 NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ordered that ANTHONY R. GROSE be and hereby 

is required to appear before the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge, U. S. District Court, 

Room Number 12A, 700 Stewart Street, Seattle, Washington 98101 on the 13th day of 

January 2006, at 10:00 a.m., to show cause if any there may be, why he should not be 

adjudged in contempt of Court for his failure to comply with the aforementioned Order 

requiring him to answer written interrogatories. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the said Defendant shall pay Plaintiffs reasonable 

expenses incurred in obtaining this Order, including a reasonable attorney’ s fee in the sum of 

$140, which is to be paid within ten (10) days from the date of this Order. 

 DATED at Seattle, Washington this 10th day of November, 2005. 

 /s/ JAMES P. DONOHUE 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Presented by: 

 

Mark E. Smith, WSBA #30924 

SMITH McKENZIE ROTHWELL 

 & BARLOW, P.S. 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Case 2:05-mc-00075-JPD Document 4 Filed 11/14/05 Page 2 of 2
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOR GE L. R

UB IO, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. R USH C ARD; THE B ANC ORP B ANK, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-16795 D.C . No. 1:13-c v-01470-AW IGSA M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Anthony W . Ishii, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 22, 2015 ** B e fore : HAW K INS, GR AB ER , a nd W . FLETC H ER , C irc uit Judge s . C a lifornia c ivil de ta ine e Jorge L. R

ubio a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismi ssing his ac t ion a lle g ing fe de ra l a nd sta te la w c la i m s a

rising out of de fe n da

nt s’ a lle ge d re fusa l to disburse funds from

a pre -pa id de bit c ard. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Barre n v . 

# F IL ED JUL 02 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th C ir. 1998) (orde r) (dism issa l unde r 28

U.S.C . § 1915(e )(2)(B )(ii)). W e m ay a ffirm on a ny ground supporte d

by the re c o rd. Thompson v . Paul , 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th C ir. 2008). W e a ffirm . Dism issa l of R

ubio’ s sta t e la w c la im s wa s not a

n a buse of disc re t ion in the a bse nc e of a

ny c ogniz a ble fe d e ra l c la im s. Se e28 U.S.C . § 1367(c )(3) (a distric t c ourt m ay de c line to e xe rc ise supple m e nta l jurisdic tion ove r state la w c la im s upon the d ism issa l of the fe de ra l c la im s); se ealso 28 U.S.C . § 1332(a) (se tting forth re quire m e nts for fe de ra l dive rsity jurisdic tion); Pac hinge r v . MGM Grand Hote lLas Ve gas, Inc . , 802 F.2d 362, 364 (9th C ir. 1986) (e xpla ining thele ga l c e rta inty sta nda rd for the am o unt-in-c ontrove rsy re quire m e nt); c f. Zhang v . Supe rior C

ourt , 304 P.3d 163, 167 (C a l . 2013) (unde r C a lifornia ’ s Unfa i r C om p e tition La

w, a priva te pla intiff’ s re lie f is ge ne ra lly lim ite d to injunc tive re lie f a nd re stitution). W e do not c onside r R

ubio’ s fe de ra l c la im s be c a use R u bio did not pre se nt any disc e rnible argum e nts in his ope ning brie f re ga

rding thedism issa l of his fe de ra l c l a i m s. Se e N

e v . De p’t of C orr. v . Gre e ne , 648 F.3d 1014, 1020 (9th C ir. 2011) (pro se a

ppe lla nt wa ive d issuenot supporte d by argum e nt in ope ning brie f). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in dism issing R u bio’ s a c tion without le ave to a

m e nd be c a

use am e ndm e nt would ha ve be e n futile . Se eLope

z v . Smith , 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th C ir. 2000) (e n ba nc ) (sta nda rd of re vie w). 2 1 4 - 1 6 7 9 5AFFIRM E D.

3 1 4 - 1 6 7 9 5