alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IV 

House Calendar No. 116 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 659 

[Report No. 110–332] 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 

consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 

Mr. ARCURI, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with 

respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported 

from the Committee on Rules. 

1 Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule 

2 XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the 

3 Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to 

4 the House is waived with respect to any resolution re5 ported on the legislative day of September 19, 2007, pro6 viding for consideration of a bill to amend the Federal 

7 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to revise and extend the 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
2 

HRES 659 RH 

1 user-fee programs for prescription drugs and for medical 

2 devices, to enhance the postmarket authorities of the Food 

3 and Drug Administration with respect to the safety of 

4 drugs, and for other purposes. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS

cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 116 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 659 

[Report No. 110

–332] 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 

tions reported from the Committee on Rules. with respect to consideration of certain resoluSEPTEMBER 18, 2007 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with BILLS
No. 61562.

#### Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Inc., and Roberts Reilly & Sons et al. *v.*United States,

protests 261587-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Jasper cameos the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 60566, the merchandise was held classifiable as articles of stoneware, tableware, kitchenware, or table or kitchen utensils, within the class *454of such, merchandise in paragraph 211, as modified, *infra,*dutiable as follows: (1) The merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption prior to September 10, 1955, valued at $3 or more but not more than $10 per dozen, at 10 cents per dozen pieces and 35 percent ad valorem under paragraph 211, as modified either by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52373), supplemented by 'Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52476), or by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52857); (2) the merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on and after September 10, 1955, valued at $3 or more but not more than $10 per dozen, at 10 cents per dozen pieces and 30 percent ad valorem under said paragraph, as modified by the Japanese Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 53865), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 53877); and (3) the merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on and after July 6, 1951, valued at more than $10 per dozen, at 5 cents per dozen pieces and 25 percent ad valorem under said paragraph, as modified by T. D. 52739.
Exhibit 15.2

March 16, 2009

China Distance Education Holdings Limited (the Company)

18th Floor, Xueyuan International Tower

1 Zhichun Road, Haidian District

Beijing 100083, Peoples Republic of China

Ladies and
Gentlemen:

We have acted as legal advisors as to the laws of the Peoples Republic of China to the Company in connection with the filing by the
Company with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission of an annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2008 and any amendments thereto (the Annual Report).

We hereby consent to the use and reference to our name and our opinions and views in the Annual Report. We further consent to the filing of this letter as an exhibit to
the Annual Report.

In giving such consent, we do not thereby admit that we come within the category of persons whose consent is required under
Section 7 of the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the regulations promulgated thereunder.



|                        
|------------------------
|Sincerely yours,        
|                        
|/s/ Jingtian & Gongcheng
|Jingtian & Gongcheng
From: dornce@fuse.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:20:50 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,

Patricia Dorn

Cincinnati, OH 45243
No. 66533.

#### Gastmeyer Hinsch, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 61/14384 (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of prepared or preserved pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct 36, C.D. 2100), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

October 2, 1967

No. P67/332.

#### Irving W. Rice Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protests 66/58482(B), etc. (New York).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of finished glass *891atomizer bases; that the merchandise in its imported condition possesses no independent function and is solely used when attached to and assembled with other substantial components thereby comprising a complete atomizer; and following the principles set forth in *William*Adams, *Inc.*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 429, C.D. 2670), 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

VINCENT DANIEL HOPPER,

Plaintiff,

v.

LORETTA MARTIN et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5085RBL

ORDER ADOPTING

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

 The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff’s Response to the order to show cause, the Report and

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold, objections to the report and

recommendation, if any, and the remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) The court considers plaintiff’s response as a notice of dismissal pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41 (a). This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff must

still pay the filing fee in this case.

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, and to the Hon.J. Kelley

Arnold.

DATED this 17th day of May, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05085-RBL Document 13 Filed 05/17/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           6,476
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             100
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                10,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     13,835
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          18,792
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            18,823
<LOANS>                                         51,867
<ALLOWANCE>                                        385
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  91,950
<DEPOSITS>                                      83,260
<SHORT-TERM>                                       707
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                  0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,993
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,990
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  91,950
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,241
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  246
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   138
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 1,625
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 570
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 570
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,055
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       30
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    923
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    207
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         144
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       144
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.40
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    229
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   378
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        5
<RECOVERIES>                                         5
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  387
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               387
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 774 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      October 25, 2007.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3963) to amend title XXI of the Social 
Security Act to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, 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 bill shall be 
considered as read. All points of order against provisions of the bill are 
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to 
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
divided among and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce and the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit.
    Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 3963 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.
```
<PAGE>




                                                                   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 Alkermes, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Richard F. Pops, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James M. Frates,
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, to
my knowledge that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.



/s/ Richard F. Pops
---------------------------
Richard F. Pops
Chief Executive Officer


/s/ James M. Frates
---------------------------
James M. Frates
Chief Financial Officer
Before the Second Division,

April 15, 1963

No. 67598.

#### Reynolds Fasteners, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 287674-K (New York).

*265Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic filaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Empire Brushes, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 145, C.D. 2078), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: rosesasaki@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:01:48 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,

Rose Sasaki

Ellensburg, WA 98926
Before the First Division,

April 27, 1967

No. P67/126.

#### A & A Trading Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 66/14923 (New York).

Oliver, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of electric motors similar in all material respects to those the subject of *James Q. Wiley Co., a/c Ungar Electric Tools, Inc.*v. *United States*(49 Cust. Ct. 199, Abstract 66961), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BOOKER T. WASHINGTON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

THE RITZ CARLTON HOTEL

COMPANY, LLC,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 10-56831

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-08261-UADUTY

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Audrey B. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 19, 2011** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Booker T. Washington appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying

his request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in his Title VII action. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the determination that a

FILED

JAN 10 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-56831

complaint lacks arguable substance in law or fact, and for an abuse of discretion

the denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank &

Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987). We reverse and remand.

The district court concluded that Washington’s proposed complaint was

frivolous or without merit because Washington had alleged the same claim against

the same defendant in an earlier action that was dismissed with prejudice. 

However, a review of the record shows that in this action, Washington alleged a

claim based on a retaliatory termination, while the prior action focused on alleged

discrimination during Washington’s employment. Accordingly, we reverse and

remand to the district court for further proceedings.

Washington’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Washington shall bear his own costs on appeal.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
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 Northern Technologies International Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending February 28, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, G. Patrick Lynch, President and 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
  (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.
 
 G. Patrick. Lynch

President and Chief Executive Officer

(principal executive officer)
 
 Circle Pines, Minnesota
 April 13, 2011
Case 2:06-cv-00149-RSM Document 1 Filed 01/30/06 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00149-RSM Document 1 Filed 01/30/06 Page 2 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00149-RSM Document 1 Filed 01/30/06 Page 3 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00149-RSM Document 1 Filed 01/30/06 Page 4 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00149-RSM Document 1 Filed 01/30/06 Page 5 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00149-RSM Document 1 Filed 01/30/06 Page 6 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00149-RSM Document 1 Filed 01/30/06 Page 7 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00149-RSM Document 1 Filed 01/30/06 Page 8 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00149-RSM Document 1 Filed 01/30/06 Page 9 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00149-RSM Document 1 Filed 01/30/06 Page 10 of 11
Case 2:06-cv-00149-RSM Document 1 Filed 01/30/06 Page 11 of 11
No. 61583.

#### S. H. Pomerance Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 304079-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J..

In accordance'with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of table lighters similar in all material respects to those the subject of'Abstract 59275, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7455

CHARLES BENNIE HUNT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOE FREEMAN BRITT; J. TOWNSEND,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CA-98-562-5-CT-BO)

Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 11, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Bennie Hunt, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Bennie Hunt appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint

and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Hunt v. Britt, No. CA-98-562-5-CT-BO (E.D.N.C. Aug. 14

& Sept. 15, 1998). 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