alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the Third Division,

May 6, 1965

No. 69294.

#### Bloomingdale Bros. (a div. of Fed. Dept. Stores, Inc.) *v.*United States,

protest 64/18641 (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of earthenware similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Justin Tharaud & Son, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(44 Cust. Ct. 216, C.D. 2177), and *United States*v. *M. & D. Miller, Inc.*(41 CCPA 226, C.A.D. 556), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: egranstedt@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:46:39 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,

Erik Granstedt

Princeton, NJ 08540
Date 2/25/11 Page of



### POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT Summary Page

Chemical ID: P-11-0106 Reviewer: Bevington

Endpoints-Assessed Table

Endpoints/Assessment Cycles 1 Releases Assessed in NCEM2? Reasons for not assessing releases

No XB Testing Required No Hazard Concern No Releases Release Below Acute Threshold 5 Release Below Chronic Threshold 5 Other

Ingestion Surface water Ground water (landfill) Consumer Use: DtD 2 Inhalation Air: incineration (stack) Air: fugitive Consumer Use: CEM 3 Dermal Consumer Use: CEM Eco Surface water: ADR conc and/or PDM 4
Consumer Use: DtD

1 Assessment cycles are endpoint concentrations and dose calculations within the NCEM2 model.
2 Down-the-Drain
3 Consumer Exposure Model
4 Probabilistic Dilution Model
5 The threshold values for assessing endpoints are 1 mg/day for acute doses and 1 mg/year for chronic doses.

EAB DROP: Release information for this compound does not meet criteria for preparation of an exposure assessment in the Exposure Assessment Branch = s (EAB) Initial Review Exposure Report (this report).
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STATEWIDE AN EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER - 1 

CV-05-01627JLR 

Jackson Lewis LLP 

One Union Square 

600 University Street, Suite 2900 

Seattle, Washington 98101 

(206) 405-0404 

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

Honorable James L. Robart 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 

COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

STATEWIDE, INC., 

 Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Cause No.: CV05-01627JLR 

ORDER GRANTING STATEWIDE 

AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

ANSWER 

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing stipulation of the parties (Dkt. # 6), it is hereby ORDERED

that the attached Stipulation for Extension of Time for Statewide to File an Answer is hereby 

GRANTED. Defendant Statewide has until Monday, November 7, 2005, to file its answer. 

DATED this 25th day of October, 2005. 

AJAMES L. ROBART 

United States District Judge 

 

Case 2:05-cv-01627-JLR Document 7 Filed 10/25/05 Page 1 of 2
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STATEWIDE AN EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER - 2 

CV-05-01627JLR 

Jackson Lewis LLP 

One Union Square 

600 University Street, Suite 2900 

Seattle, Washington 98101 

(206) 405-0404 

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

Presented by: 

JACKSON LEWIS LLP 

By /s/ Laurene E. Somerville 

Barry Alan Johnsrud, WSBA #21952 

E-mail: johnsrudb@jacksonlewis.com

Laurene E. Somerville, WSBA #26345 

E-mail: somervillel@jacksonlewis.com

Jackson Lewis LLP 

600 University Street, Suite 2900 

Seattle, WA 98101 

Telephone: (206) 405-0404 

Fax: (206) 405-4450 

 Attorneys for Defendant Statewide, Inc. 

Approved as to form; Notice of presentation waived: 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 

By: /s/ per electronic approval of Wes Katahira 

on 10/24/05 by Laurene E. Somerville 

A. LUIS LUCERO, JR. JAMES L. LEE 

Regional Attorney Deputy General Counsel 

 

JOHN F. STANLEY GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS 

Acting Supervisory Trial Attorney Associate General Counsel 

WSBA #15418 

WESLEY KATAHIRA 

Senior Trial Attorney 

ISBA # 6188026 

Seattle District Office Office of the General Counsel 

909 First Avenue, Suite 400 1801 "L" Street, N.W. 

Seattle, Washington 98104 Washington, D.C. 20507 

Telephone (206) 220-6918 

E-mail: Wesley.Katahira@EEOC.gov 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

Case 2:05-cv-01627-JLR Document 7 Filed 10/25/05 Page 2 of 2
From: mkcan@mac.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:57:20 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,

Heidi Leatherwood

Loveland, CO 80537
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                              7
<CIK>                                         0001037559                   
<NAME>                     American Public Holdings, Inc.
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 MAR-31-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                                   0
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                         34,302,143
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                           34,302,143
<EQUITIES>                                             0
<MORTGAGE>                                       913,951
<REAL-ESTATE>                                    714,240
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                37,416,381
<CASH>                                         1,030,088
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                     0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         9,830,134
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                52,289,429
<POLICY-LOSSES>                               34,387,465
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                              865,100
<POLICY-OTHER>                                   906,079
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                            408,514
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                          52,347
<OTHER-SE>                                    15,669,924
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  52,289,429
<PREMIUMS>                                     7,554,827
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              628,758
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                75,568
<OTHER-INCOME>                                     7,324
<BENEFITS>                                     5,273,296
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      738,202
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           1,686,583
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  568,396
<INCOME-TAX>                                     224,918
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              343,478
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     343,478
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                         0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                    0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                      0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                     0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                       0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                        0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                                0
        


</TABLE>
From: carbill27@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:56:02 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,

Carol Hogan

Ashburn, VA 20147
H. Res. 789 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 14, 2008. 

Whereas over 500,000 children in the United States are currently in foster care which is twice as many as 15 years 

ago; 

Whereas the majority of these children and youth have been 

removed from their homes because of abuse or neglect; 

Whereas foster children experience a number of unique challenges based on instability in their home and school environments; 

Whereas just over half of all foster children complete high 

school, 30 percent continue to rely on public assistance 

into adulthood and 25 percent will experience homelessness at one point in their lives; 

Whereas numerous public child welfare agencies, nonprofit 

organizations and private entities work tirelessly to recruit loving foster families and improve the lives of foster 

children; 

Whereas these groups strive to consider the best interest of 

each child and focus on keeping families together when 

possible; 

Whereas they provide invaluable resources to foster families 

as well as teachers, counselors, physicians, clergy, and 
2 

•HRES 789 EH 

others who work closely with children in the foster care 

system; 

Whereas these groups are dedicated to changing public policy 

and raising awareness related to the special needs of foster children; and 

Whereas they continue to sponsor research, develop best 

practices, and offer assistance to youth transitioning out 

of the system to ensure they receive adequate support as 

they reach adulthood: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors the 

contributions of public child welfare agencies, nonprofit organizations and private entities dedicated to finding homes for 

foster children and assisting foster families in securing the 

future success of their foster children. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 528 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 528

    Commemorating the 300th anniversary of the Town of New Milford, 
                              Connecticut.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 28, 2007

Mr. Murphy of Connecticut (for himself, Mr. Courtney, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. 
     Larson of Connecticut, and Mr. Shays) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                           Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Commemorating the 300th anniversary of the Town of New Milford, 
                              Connecticut.

Whereas New Milford is located in Litchfield County, on the western border of 
        Connecticut, in the Housatonic Valley;
Whereas the settlement of New Milford began in 1706, when John Noble, Sr., 
        purchased a portion of land known as Weantinogue;
Whereas in 1707, Noble and his daughter settled in New Milford, followed by 12 
        other families;
Whereas beginning in 1774, New Milford demonstrated its support for the 
        Revolutionary War by providing financial support to the servicemen and 
        sending 285 of its 2,700 inhabitants to battle;
Whereas New Milford was a center of Underground Railroad work in Connecticut, 
        with many of its residents offering their homes as places for slaves to 
        take refuge on their journey to freedom;
Whereas the late 1800s marked the arrival of many new industries and businesses 
        in New Milford, including the manufacturing of furniture, paints, and 
        pottery;
Whereas in 1902, New Milford's worst disaster occurred when a raging fire 
        completely destroyed the town's main business district on Bank Street;
Whereas the population of New Milford stood at 3,000 in 1880 and has grown to 
        nearly 30,000 today;
Whereas at 64 square miles, New Milford is the largest town in Connecticut; and
Whereas New Milford has been modernized through commercial and industrial 
        growth, while retaining its deep sense of history, scenic beauty, and 
        traditional New England character throughout the past 300 years: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives--
            (1) congratulates the Town of New Milford, Connecticut, on 
        the occasion of its 300th anniversary; and
            (2) honors the Town of New Milford for its significant 
        history, impressive growth, and considerable contributions to 
        the State of Connecticut and the United States.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7149

ROBERT WILLIAM LOSE, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CPS OFFICER; FELICA BACHOR, CPS Worker/DHHR Worker; CONGRESS OF THE 

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; DEPUTY OF CPS CHARSTEN, WV; MARION 

COUNTY CPS OFFICE; MORGANTOWN WV CPS OFFICE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:22-cv-00213-JPB)

Submitted: March 21, 2023 Decided: March 24, 2023

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert William Lose, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7149 Doc: 17 Filed: 03/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Lose, Jr., appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation and dismissing without prejudice Lose’s civil action challenging a state 

court custody decision pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

*

 On appeal, we confine our review 

to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Lose’s informal 

brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited 

appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 

(4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, 

our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* The district court’s order is final and appealable because the court did not give 

Lose leave to amend his complaint. See Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 796 (4th Cir. 2022).

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7149 Doc: 17 Filed: 03/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
SERVED: JULY 14,2011 

• JEPART^'/IENT OF 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION . jKANSPCRIAnON 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS OCfxEI OPERATIONS 

WASHING TON, DC 

m\ JUL iU P 2: 13 

IN THE MATTER OF 

CLOUD DANCER AVIATION 

FA A DOCKET NO. CP1OSOOOO 

(Civil Penally Proceeding) 

FDMSNO. FAA-2010-0I92 

ORDER REASSIGNING PROCEEDING 

In Ihe interest of judicial erficicncy, the above-caplioned proceeding is reassigned from 

Chief Administrative Uaw .ludge Ronnie A. Yoderto Administrative Law Judge Jeslyn E. 

Sullivan. All hiture pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be 

served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service 

List. 

SO ORDEI^b . 

Attachment - Service List 

Ronnie A. Yodcr 

Chief Administrative LawyOudi 
FAA Docket No. CPl OSOOOO 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

I'cderal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Dennis R. Haber, Respondent's Coinisel 

Dennis R. Haber, P.A. 

8925 S.W. 148 Street, Suite 200 

Miami, FL 33176 

TEL:. 305-256-3002 

FAX: 305-256-3004 

Andrea Michelle Harper, Complainanl's Counsel 

Oftlce of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

Southern Region 

Federal'Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Allanta, GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

The Honorable Jeslyn E. Sullivan, 

Adininislralivc Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room El2-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington. DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was bv U.S. Mail. I-or service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Hearing 

Docket, l-edcral Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 

2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

- 2 -
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      287833 
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              2377715 
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           3408683 
<PP&E>                                      100325 
<DEPRECIATION>                               19119 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             3933670 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      1861688 
<BONDS>                                     620000 
<COMMON>                                  21920002 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               3933670 
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           4622597 
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               371672 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            262892 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           13500 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             802208 
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         802208 
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                802208 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .06 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .06 
        

</TABLE>