alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: scrantonrm@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:13:47 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,

Richard Scranton

Miamisburg, OH 45342
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of L.W. and L.W., Children

Appellate case number: 01-18-01025-CV

Trial court case number: 2017-03500J

Trial court: 313th District Court of Harris County

Appellee, the Department of Family and Protective Services, has filed an unopposed 

first motion for extension of time to file its brief. The motion is granted. Appellee’s brief 

is due to be filed with this Court no later than Monday, March 18, 2019. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 28.4(a), 38.6(d).

This appeal involves the termination of the parent-child relationship. Accordingly, 

this Court is required to bring the appeal to final disposition within 180 days of November 

12, 2018, the date the notice of appeal was filed, so far as reasonably possible. See TEX.

R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2, reprinted in TEX. GOV’T. CODE ANN., tit. 2, subtit. F app.

Accordingly, no further extensions will be granted.

The case remains set for submission on Tuesday, March 19, 2019.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Justice Julie Countiss____

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __March 7, 2019____
Exhibit 15.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement No. 333-157129 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 25, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements of China Distance Education Holdings Limited, its subsidiaries and its variable
interest entity (collectively, the Group) (which report includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the retrospective application of the authoritative pronouncement issued by Financial Accounting Standards Board regarding
noncontrolling interests) and the effectiveness of the Groups internal control over financial reporting, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of China Distance Education Holdings Limited for the year ended September 30, 2010.



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd,  
|Beijing, the Peoples Republic of China
|                                       
|March 25, 2011
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 TAXATION OF COSTS -- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

PAUL S. CLOER and PAMELA K. CLOER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS

INTERNATIONAL UNION, GERALYN A.

LUTTY, BRADFORD LAGO, WENDY

THOMPSON and CYNTHIA E. BELL,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-1526JLR

TAXATION OF COSTS

Having considered briefs in support of, and in opposition to, the cost bill herein, costs in the cause

indicated above are hereby taxed against PLAINTIFFS , and on behalf of DEFENDANTS in the amount

of $8,360.80 as follows:

Requested Disallowed Allowed

I. DEPOSITION COSTS $7,692.85 0 $7,692.85

Clerk allowed all costs incurred for depositions actually used by either party in support of or in

opposition to motion for summary judgment. 

II. PRINTING COSTS $406.95 0 $406.95

Costs were allowed for printing of materials submitted to court.

III. WITNESS FEES $399.98 $359.98 $40.00

Expert fees are not taxable. Only statutory witness fee was allowed.

IV. COPY COSTS $439.72 $263.72 $176.00

Case 2:05-cv-01526-JLR Document 105 Filed 04/03/07 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

Requested Disallowed Allowed

TAXATION OF COSTS -- 2

Copying charges associated with obtaining discovery materials are not taxable. Clerk allowed 40% of

requested total. This represents clerk’s estimate of materials actually submitted to court.

V. DOCKET FEES $45.00 0 $45.00

VI. TRAVEL & MEDIATION $1,109.63 $1,109.63 0

Costs for attorney travel and payment of mediator are not taxable.

Dated this 3rd day of APRIL, 2007 .

A

Bruce Rifkin

Clerk, U.S. District Court

Case 2:05-cv-01526-JLR Document 105 Filed 04/03/07 Page 2 of 2
Before Judge Maletz,

February 19, 1969

No. R69/2.

reappraisements R62/5783, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Chadwick-Miller Importers, Inc. (Elder), et al. *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise, facts, and issues are the same in all material respects as those involved in *United States*v. *Chadwick-Miller*Importers, *Inc., et al.*(54 CCPA 93, C.A.D. 914), the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the sundry and novelty items here involved and that such values are the invoice unit ex-factory prices, net packed.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF 

DEFENDANTS IDES AND SIGNOR - 1 

No. C-05-5656 JKA 

8756.1\wilkinson\p\dismiss ides & signor prop'd order 

Hon. J. Kelley Arnold 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 

JAMES Q. WILKINSON, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ELDON VAIL, et al., 

 Defendants. 

No. C05-5656 JKA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANTS 

JOHN IDES AND ROBERT SIGNOR 

 Based on the Stipulated Motion for Dismissal Without Prejudice of Defendants John Ides 

and Robert Signor [Dkt.47, it is hereby 

 ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants John Ides and Robert Signor are 

hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, each party to bear its own attorney fees and 

costs. 

 DONE IN OPEN COURT this 23rd day of January, 2007. 

 /s/ J. Kelley Arnold

 Hon. J. Kelley Arnold 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

/ / / 

Case 3:05-cv-05656-JKA Document 53 Filed 01/23/07 Page 1 of 2
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF 

DEFENDANTS IDES AND SIGNOR - 2 

No. C-05-5656 JKA 

8756.1\wilkinson\p\dismiss ides & signor prop'd order 

Presented by: 

MacDONALD HOAGUE & BAYLESS 

By 

 Jesse Wing, WSBA No. 27751 

 Jay S. Brown, WSBA No. 19835 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Approved as to form; Notice of Presentation Waived: 

ROB McKENNA 

Attorney General of Washington 

By 

 Allison Stanhope, WSBA No. 30486 

 Sara J. Olson, WSBA No. 33003 

 Assistant Attorneys General 

JACKSON & WALLACE LLP 

By 

 Matthew Wojcik, WSBA No. 27918 

 Attorneys for Defendant Ellis 

Case 3:05-cv-05656-JKA Document 53 Filed 01/23/07 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

July 8, 1954

No. 58256.

protests 166280-K and 167529-K (New York).

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

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of filling machines and parts the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Yardley of London, Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 37, C. D. 1495), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                            8975
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             100
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,300
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     17,935
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          20,222
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            19,754
<LOANS>                                         59,764
<ALLOWANCE>                                        423
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  96,584
<DEPOSITS>                                      87,520
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                690
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,993
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,381
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  96,584
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,211
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  841
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   197
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,249
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,805
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,812
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,437
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       56
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,630
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,054
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         733
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       733
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .73
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.49
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,793
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   372
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       10
<RECOVERIES>                                         5
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  423
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               423
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
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:*                         Microbiology, Infectious Diseases and AIDS Initial Review Group; Microbiology and Infectious Diseases B Research Study Section Microbiology and Infectious Diseases B Research Study Section.                    

*Date:*                         November 1-2, 2023.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Mario Cerritelli, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9834, Rockville, MD 20892, 240-669-5199,                         *cerritem@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 28, 2023.

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-21816 Filed 10-2-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Before the Third Division,

April 22, 1969

No. P69/117.

protests 61/5871, etc. (New York).

#### Arnart Imports, Inc. *v.*United States,

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that tlie merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of plaques similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Arnart Imports, Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 187, C.D. 2531), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 813 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 153
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 813

                          [Report No. 110-440]

 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the 
bill (H.R. 1429) to reauthorize the Head Start Act, to improve program 
           quality, to expand access, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 9, 2007

    Ms. Castor, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the 
bill (H.R. 1429) to reauthorize the Head Start Act, to improve program 
           quality, to expand access, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 
1429) to reauthorize the Head Start Act, to improve program quality, to 
expand access, and for other purposes. All points of order against the 
conference report and against its consideration are waived. The 
conference report shall be considered as read.
                                                 House Calendar No. 153

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 813

                          [Report No. 110-440]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the 
bill (H.R. 1429) to reauthorize the Head Start Act, to improve program 
           quality, to expand access, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            November 9, 2007

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
Jfourtl) Court of

Antonio,

November 25, 2014

No. 04-14-00197-CR

The State of Texas,

Appellant

v.

Robert Romo,

Appellee

Trial Court Case No. 414481

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the record and briefs in this appeal and has determined that oral

argument will not significantly aid it in determining the legal and factual issues presented in the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 39.8. Therefore, all requests for oral argument are denied, and the

cause is advanced for ON BRIEFS submission on January 7, 2015, to the following panel:

Justice Angelini, Justice Barnard, and Justice Martinez. All parties will be notified of the

Court's decision in this appeal in accordance with Tex. R. App. P. 48.

Either party may file motion requesting the Court to reconsider its determination that

oral argument will not significantly aid the Court in determining the legal and factual issues

presented in the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 39.8. Such motion should be filed within ten (10)

days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED on November 25, 2014.

Karen Angelini^stice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, have hereunto set my hand and a/fixed the seal o/the said court on this November 25, 2014.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6670

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DOUGLAS WALTER CHILDS,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge. (1:95-cr-00020-MR-1)

Submitted: January 19, 2011 Decided: February 22, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Douglas Walter Childs, Appellant Pro Se. Jerry Wayne Miller, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Douglas Walter Childs appeals the district court’s 

order denying Childs’ motion for reconsideration of the district 

court’s order denying his petition for a writ of error coram 

nobis and motion for appointment of counsel. We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. 

Childs, No. 1:95-cr-00020-MR-1 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 13, 2010). 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
No. 59779.

#### K. Ginsburg, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 212537-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of Abstract 59105, the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked with the letter “A” at 10 percent under the provision in paragraph 1528, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52836), for imitation semiprecious stones, faceted, and (2) the items marked with the letter “B” at 30 percent under the provision in said paragraph, as modified by T. D. 51802, supplemented by T. D. 51898, for imitation semiprecious stones, not faceted.
No. 62291.

#### Quon Quon Company and Castelazo & Associates, a/c David Chow & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 316910-K and 321664-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of iron pictures the same as those the subject of *Marshall Field & Co.*v. *United States*(45 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 676), the items entered prior to July 1, 1956, were held dutiable at 22J4 percent under the provision in paragraph 397, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 51802), for metal articles, not specially provided for. The items entered on and after said date were held dutiable at 21 percent under said paragraph, as modified by the Sixth Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 54108).