alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 6, 2013*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**F.6 Distribution of Gross Domestic Product 1** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
No. 66070.

#### Ross Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 61/1907 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of ornamental glass novelties similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 62984, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Maps

# World and Regional Maps

Filter Categories

Filter

Africa (NGA)

jpg [887 kB]

Africa Satellite (NGA)

jpg [78.9 kB]

Algeria (NGA)

jpg [638 kB]

Algeria (NGA)

jpg [77.7 kB]

Angola (NGA)

jpg [1.01 MB]

Angola (NGA)

jpg [432 kB]

Benin (NGA)

jpg [1.71 MB]

Benin (NGA)

jpg [180 kB]

Botswana (NGA)

jpg [860 kB]

Previous PagePage **01** of 16Next Page
From: revkev@prayerhouseag.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:21:50 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,

Kevin Robinson

Kenosha, WI 53143
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

MINUTE ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MENCHU,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN DYNASTY F/T, et al.,

Defendant.

No. C06-154

MINUTE ORDER

The following minute order is made by the direction of the court, the Honorable Marsha J.

Pechman:

The parties have not complied with the order directing that a joint status report be filed by

July 17, 2006. The time for filing the report is hereby extended to ten days from the date of this

order. If the report is not filed by that time, sanctions may be ordered. Sanctions may include

dismissal of the action without prejudice.

Filed this 24th day of July, 2006.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

By: /s Mary Duett

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00154-MJP Document 8 Filed 07/24/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 61053.

protests 293715-K, etc. (New York).

#### Keuffel & Esser Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the boxes the subject of Abstract 59557, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 58702.

protest 215510-K (New York).

#### Coro, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is similar in all material respects to that involved in *United States*v. *Washington State Liquor Control Board*(34 C. C. P. A. 118, C. A. D. 352) and that the merchandise, consisting of 118)3 dozen necklets out of case HL 251, was not in fact imported. In accordance with stipulation and following the decision cited, as well as that in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351), it was held that duty is not assessable upon the 118)3 dozen necklets missing from case HL 251. The protest was sustained to this extent.
No. 57756.

protest 196704-K (New York).

#### Eelsingh & Lugtigheid *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial, one of the owners of the plaintiff testified that the shipment had been received more than a year and a half ago and that no notice was received of a discrepancy in weight. The importer was unable to supply any additional facts as to the proper weight except to say that it was bought, paid for, and sold upon the basis of 780 pounds. Counsel for the Government moved in evidence the collector’s letter, the surveyor’s special report, and all the official papers in the case. The surveyor reported that 5 cases were weighed in one truckload on a Government electric platform scale; that the gross weight was 1,030; and that, as the actual tare could not be ascertained on the pier, the invoice tare of 234 pounds was applied in accordance with the regulations, which left a total net weight of 796 pounds. In view of such report, the collector affirmed his action. Inasmuch as the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action was not overcome, the court was constrained to overrule the protest.
#### Vonnie Ray BULLARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William R. BARKER, Superintendent, Sampson County Prison Unit, Clinton, NC; Michael Easley, Attorney General of North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 99-7219.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 21, 2001.

Decided July 3, 2001.

*135Susan Hubbard Pollitt, North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, Inc., Raleigh, NC, for appellant. Clarence Joe Del-Forge, III, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, for appellees.

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Vonnie Ray Bullard appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. We therefore deny a certificate of probable cause and dismiss in part, and affirm in part on the reasoning of the district court. *See Bullard v. Barker,*No. CA-96-370-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Aug. 2, 2000). 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.

*AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.*
No. P66/312. —

#### Lefton Pacific, Inc., and W. J. Byrnes *v.*United States, protest 64/16806 (Los Angeles).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. a/c United China and Glass Company*(47 CCPA 1, C.A.D. 719), 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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DARLENE CHERRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5031 RJB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT

MATTER JURISDICTION

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)

for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Dkt. 7. The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support

of this motion and the record. No opposing briefs were filed in this matter.

This dispute arises out of injuries suffered by Plaintiff while she was a crew member onboard the

SS Cape Intrepid, a ship operated by the United States through a contracted agent. According to

Plaintiff’s Complaint, on or about November 29, 2004, Plaintiff was injured while acting within the scope

of her duties while the SS Cape Intrepid was in navigable waters. Dkt. 1(1) at 2. Plaintiff alleges that her

injuries were the proximate cause of Defendant’s negligence, failure to provide a reasonably safe work

environment, and the unseaworthiness of the vessel. Id. On January 18, 2006, Plaintiff filed this action

in federal court. 

On April 7, 2006, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. 7. Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust her

Case 3:06-cv-05031-RJB Document 10 Filed 05/15/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

administrative remedies prior to filing her suit, as required by 50 App. U.S.C. § 1291(a). In support of

its motion to dismiss, Defendant provides an affidavit from the Chief of the Division of Marine Insurance,

Maritime Division, United States Department of Transportation, stating that its office has no record of

Plaintiff ever filing a claim in this matter. Dkt. 8. Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant’s motion,

which is now ripe.

After a careful review of the record, it appears that Plaintiff has not exhausted her administrative

remedies in this matter, and the case should be dismissed without prejudice.

 Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for Lack of Subject

Matter Jurisdiction (Dkt. 7) is hereby GRANTED without prejudice.

The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of

record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

DATED this 15th day of May, 2006.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05031-RJB Document 10 Filed 05/15/06 Page 2 of 2
Wdesk | Exhibit








Exhibit 10(a)(1)
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
This Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and effective as of April 3, 2018, by and between Christopher J. Murphy III (hereinafter “Executive”), and 1st Source Corporation, an Indiana corporation (hereinafter “Employer”).
WHEREAS, Executive is currently employed as the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Employer and Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Employer’s subsidiary, 1st Source Bank (“Bank”), pursuant to that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2008, and amended as of February 6, 2014 (“Employment Agreement”); and 
WHEREAS, Executive and Employer have agreed to further amend the Employment Agreement as provided below.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements contained in the Employment Agreement and this Amendment, Executive and Employer hereby agree that Section 6(b) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
“6(b).  If such termination occurs within one (1) year after a Change in Control of Employer or Bank, then as severance pay and in lieu of any further compensation for periods subsequent to the effective date of such termination, Executive shall receive, within thirty (30) days following such termination, an amount in cash equal to 2.99 times his “annualized includable compensation for the base period” (as defined in Section 280G(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”)), provided that, for purposes of such calculation, Executive’s average annual compensation shall be determined by excluding all compensation other than Executive’s annual base pay and any bonuses awarded under the Company’s bonus plans, and specifically excluding any accelerated vesting or conversion of stock awards or exercise of stock options regardless of their inclusion in the Executive’s reportable gross income.”      
As hereby modified, the Employment Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to Employment Agreement as of the day and year first written above.
1st Source Corporation
	
					
	By:
	/s/ Mark D. Schwabero
	 
	 
	/s/ Christopher J. Murphy III

	 
	Mark D. Schwabero, Chairman
	 
	 
	Christopher J. Murphy III

	 
	Executive Compensation and
	 
	 
	 

	 
	Human Resources Committee
Before the Third Division,

September 20, 1967

No. P67/311.

#### Fred Roberts and W. J. Byrnes *&*Co. et al. *v.*United States, protests 59/13275, etc. (San Francisco). United China & Glass Co. *v.*United States, protests 63/19379-16587, etc. (New Orleans).

No. P67/312.

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 Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 130, C.D. 2484), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
EXHIBIT 15








ACCOUNTANT’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT








To the Board of Directors and Shareholders


of Mediware Information Systems, Inc.:





We have reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim financial information of Mediware Information Systems, Inc. for the three and nine month periods ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, as indicated in our report dated May 2, 2011; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.





We are aware that Mediware Information Systems, Inc. has incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-07591, No. 333-83016, No. 333-119503, No. 333-123496 and No. 333-130576 its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, which includes our report dated May 2, 2011 covering the unaudited interim financial information contained therein. Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Act”), that report is not considered a part of the registration statement prepared or certified by our firm or a report prepared or certified by our firm within the meaning of Section 7 and 11 of the Act. It should be noted that we have not performed any procedures subsequent to May 2, 2011.





EisnerAmper LLP




EisnerAmper LLP


New York, New York


May 2, 2011
From: spacepoet@hawaii.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:56:53 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Debbie Piepgrass

Honolulu, HI 96815
No. 67162.

protest 61/10992 (Charleston).

#### R. B. Comar, Inc. *v.*United States,

Ford, Judge:

This case involving certain chip multicolor sunbonnets appeared originally on the court calendar on May 15, 1962, at Atlanta, Ga. At that time, the court ordered the official papers to be received in evidence and the official sample, not being available, was to be submitted to counsel for plaintiff. The case was then transferred to New York where the official sample was to be received in evidence, if both parties could so agree. In October 1962, this matter appeared on the New York docket, at which time it was indicated that a sample had been obtained, but the importer had not supplied a stipulation moving the sample into evidence and submitting his case. By letter, dated June 5,1962, Mr. W. G. Carroll requested that the ease be submitted on the sample. The court thereafter, in October 1962, ordered the case submitted on the record as made.

The merchandise herein was classified under the provisions of paragraph 1504 (b) (3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Sixth Protocol of Supplementary Concessions to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 91 Treas. Dec. 150, T.D. 54108, and assessed with duty at the rate of $2.28 per dozen and 11% per centum ad valorem. By protest, plaintiff herein claims said merchandise is properly dutiable as bonnets, hats, and hoods, chief value chip, at the rate of 12% per centum ad valorem, apparently under paragraph 1504(b) (1), as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 86 *283Treas. Dec. 121, T.D. 62739 and T.D. 52857, or as chip manufactures at 25 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1537 (a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Protocol of Terms of Accession by Japan to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 90 Treas. Dec. 234, T.D. 53865 and T.D. 53877.

After an examination of the official papers, we find no reason to disturb the classification of the collector herein, which is presumptively correct.

The protest is, accordingly, overruled. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU NE 24, 2014

NO. 03

- 13

- 00701

- CR

Johnny Ferris aka Johnny Wayne Ferris , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 51ST DISTRICT COURT OF T OM GREEN COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON A ND ROSE

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction en tered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment of conviction . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of

conviction

. Becau se appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudicati on of costs

is made.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6717

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TOMEL K. LUCAS, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-78, CA-01-2-7) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tomel K. Lucas, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Tomel Kareem Lucas seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Lucas , Nos. CR-94-78; CA01-2-7 (W.D. Va. Apr. 17, 2001). 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
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Geologyof the Berners Bay region, Alaska**
 
Report | Plates: 0102
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:446
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000959408
 
August 6, 2018