alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 724 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

October 17, 2007. 

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 2095) to amend title 49, United States Code, 

to prevent railroad fatalities, injuries, and hazardous materials releases, to authorize the Federal Railroad Safety Administration, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 

bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under 

clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined 

to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After 

general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 

under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as 

an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the fiveminute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute rec-
2 

•HRES 724 EH 

ommended by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in the bill. The committee amendment 

in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 

points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising under 

clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 

XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the 

nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 

in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 

resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 

order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 

designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be 

debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided 

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not 

be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 

Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 

amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 

or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the 

bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 

bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 

adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the 

House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 

Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be consid-
3 

•HRES 724 EH 

ered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 

passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 2095 

pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 

the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the 

Speaker. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-31351 Conference Calendar

GARY POCHE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus STATE OF LOUISIANA; ORLEANS PARISH DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; HARRY F. CONNICK, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CV-1364-D

-------------------- October 26, 2001 Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Gary Poche, Louisiana inmate number 120409, appeals the district court's judgment dismissing his civil rights complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). Poche argues that he should have been provided with a free copy of his criminal records under the state public records law. This argument does not involve a constitutional question. "Under ordinary circumstances . . . an indigent does not have a federally-protected right to a free copy of his transcript or other court records merely to search forNo. 00-31351 -2- possible error in order to file a petition for collateral relief at some future date." Colbert v. Beto , 439 F.2d 1130, 1131 (5th Cir. 1971). Although Poche mentions the denial-of-due-process and denial-of-access-to-the-courts claims he raised in the district court, Poche has not briefed either of those claims on appeal. Issues which are not briefed on appeal are waived. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Poche also argues that District Attorney Connick is not immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. The district court did not consider whether District Attorney Connick is immune from suit in determining that Poche had failed to state a cognizable constitutional claim. Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The dismissal of the instant appeal as frivolous and the dismissal of the complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim by the district court each count as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Poche now has two strikes. See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). We caution Poche that once he accumulates three strikes, he will not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
H. Res. 703 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

October 4, 2007. 

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3648) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude discharges of indebtedness on principal residences from 

gross income, and for other purposes. All points of order 

against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the 

nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 

Ways and Means now printed in the bill, modified by the 

amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 

accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. 

The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points 

of order against provisions of the bill, as amended, are 

waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 

on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening 

motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
2 

•HRES 703 EH 

the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to 

recommit with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 3648 pursuant to 

this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 

question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 

bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
From: rdaraujo@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:49:37 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,

Rick Araujo

Weirsdale, FL 32195
Case No. 9,544a.

#### MILES v. ROSE.

[Hempst 37.] 1

Superior Court, Territory of Arkansas.

April, 1826.

PLEADING AT LAW — NON-ASSDMPSIT—-PaTMENT— Replication — Issue Made — Appeal—Error.

1. A judgment in assumpsit will be reversed if the cause is tried without replication to good pleas in bar, such as non-assumpsit and payment.

2. Until replication, the jury could not be sworn to try the issue, for in fact there is no issue between the parties to be tried.

Appeal from Chicot circuit court

Before JOHNSON and SCOTT, JJ.

1

 [Reported by Samuel H. Hempstead, Esq.]

OPINION OF THE COURT. This was an action of trespass on the case, on promises, brought by [Enoch] Rose against [Benjamin L.] Miles, to which the latter pleaded non-assumpsit and payment Without making an issue, or replying, or noticing these pleas, Rose proceeded, a jury was sworn, the cause tried, and a judgment rendered in his favor, from which Miles has appealed to this court The pleas of Miles were a good bar to the action until avoided, traversed, or denied by replications; and without which a jury could not be sworn to try the issue, for in fact there was no issue made up between the parties. This error is too manifest to require reasoning from the court, and was doubtless the result of inattention on the part of Rose. Re-, versed.
Case 3:06-cv-05017-RBL Document 12 Filed 12/11/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-05017-RBL Document 12 Filed 12/11/06 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit
32.1**
 
 
 
 **CERTIFICATION
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 Quarterly Report of Outback Steakhouse, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, A. William Allen,
III, Chief Executive 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:
 
 (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:  May
      9, 2005
    
    
    /s/
      A. William Allen, IIIA.
      William Allen, IIIChief
      Executive Officer
No. 68455.

protests 58/10322, etc. (San Francisco).

#### British Auto Parts, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the mer-

chandise consists of hand-operated windshield washers, which are mechanical contrivances having movable parts for utilizing, applying, or modifying energy *321or force or for the transmission of motion, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
TEXT FOR RFI E

- MAIL

Dear Mr. Oleske

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA−2015

− 3233 )

. This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Your petition references the material listed below , however the material was not submitted for the record. Please provide a copy of the following referenced materials:

o Moti on Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM)

Please submit the additional information (non

- proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov

. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 12/7/15 . I f we do not receive th e information

, we will close the dock et without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267

- 4549

.

Sincerely,

/S/
Michael J. Cameron Program Analyst
#### In re W. Harry MANDEVILLE, Larry K. Truesdale, and Howard Tennent

No. 01-1384.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: June 26, 2001.

ON MOTION

MICHEL, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office moves to remand this case for further proceedings. The Director states that W. Harry Mandeville et al. consent.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
From: tj@jamesotw.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:14:52 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,

Thomas James

Monroe, NC 28110
##### Table of Contents

 

 

**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION**

**Washington, D.C. 20549**

**FORM 20-F**

(Mark One) 

 

**OR**

 

**For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011**

**OR**

 

**for the transition period from              to            **

 

**Date of event requiring this shell company report**

**Commission file number 333-154474**

**GRIFOLS, S.A.**

**(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)**

**Kingdom of Spain**

**(Jurisdiction of incorporation)**

**Avinguda de la Generalitat, 152-158**

**Parc de Negocis Can Sant Joan**

**Sant Cugat del Vallès 08174**

**Barcelona, Spain**

**(address of principal executive offices)**

**David Ian Bell**

**General Counsel**

**Grifols Inc.**

**2410 Lillyvale Ave**

**Los Angeles, CA 90032-3514**

**(Name, Telephone, E-mail and/or Facsimile number and Address of Company Contact Person)**

Securities registered or to be registered, pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act.
From: cris.provins@carefusion.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:15:56 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,

Cris Provins

San Bernardino, CA 92407
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 Continuing Trial Date /SLOAN— 1

CR05-378JLR

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

Judge Robart 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) NO. CR05-378JLR

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE

)

AARON JERMAINE SLOAN, ) 

)

Defendant. ) 

_________________________________)

ORDER

The Court having reviewed the records and files herein and considered the

parties joint request to continue the trial date, enters the following order:

1. On June 8, 2006, for the first time, the defendant requested his attorney to

assert an insanity defense to all of the charges. The defendant has a history of mental

issues and counsel will need time to explore this defense. 

2. The defendant understands that more time will be needed to explore the

insanity defense and agrees to the continuance.

3. This Court finds that the ends of justice outweigh the best interest of the

public and the defendant in a speedy trial. That failure to grant a continuance based

upon the change of circumstances would result in a miscarriage of justice in that the

government would not have adequate time to explore the insanity defense and

effectively prepare the matter for trial taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

. 

Case 2:05-cr-00378-MJP Document 38 Filed 06/09/06 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 Continuing Trial Date /SLOAN— 2

CR05-378JLR

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date is continued from June 18, 2006

until July 31, 2006.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Title 18, United States Code,

Section 3161(h), the period of time from the date of this order to the new trial date is

excluded in the computation of time under the Speedy Trial Act.

 DONE this 9th day of June, 2006.

A 

JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Presented by:

s/Bruce F. Miyake 

BRUCE F. MIYAKE

Assistant United States Attorney

s/ per telephonic approval 

ALISON CHINN HOLCOMB

Attorney for Aaron J. Sloan

Case 2:05-cr-00378-MJP Document 38 Filed 06/09/06 Page 2 of 2