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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:46:13 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,

Barbara Cavanagh

Bernardsville, NJ 07924
From: mkl521@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:06:06 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,

Mary Lavenburg

Kansas City, MO 64118
Before the First Division,

June 8, 1966

No. P66/78.

protest 325852-K(B) (New York).

No. P66/79.

protest 65/5399 (New York).

No. P66/80.

protest 65/7994 (New York).

No. P66/81.

protests 65/11332 and 65/11749 (New York).

#### Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States, Kurt S. Adler, Inc. *v.*United States, Souvenirs, Inc. *v.*United States, Paul E. Sernau, Inc. *v.*United States,

Oliver, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of plastic paperweights similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Ace Importing Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 226, Abstract 67488), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
**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**

|               | (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:                  August 9, 2006                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |                      |                     | /s/                A. William Allen, III |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|                                                              |                      |      | A.                William Allen, III     |
|                                                         |                      |      | Chief                Executive Officer   |
18U.S.C. Section 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of GreatWalll Builders Ltd., (the "Company")onForm 10-K/A for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date here of(the "report"), I, Tian Jia, Chief Executive Officer/ Chief Financial Officer/Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2) The information contained in this Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

Dated this date: May 25, 2011.

 

 

/s/ Tian Jia

Tian Jia

Chief Executive Officer & Chief FinancialOfficer &

Principal Accounting Officer
#### Paul E. Murphy et al., Appellants, v Town of Liberty et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[632 NYS2d 861]

—Mercure, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Torraca, J.), entered September 2, 1994 in Sullivan County, which granted the motion of certain defendants to dismiss the complaint against them for failure to state a cause of action.

Plaintiffs own real property in the Loomis Sewer District in the Town of Liberty, Sullivan County, and in that connection pay real property taxes or special assessments. Alleging that the cost of certain planned sewer district improvements has *945far exceeded original projections, plaintiffs commenced this action to direct defendant Town Board of the Town of Liberty to declare that there exists a financial emergency and to petition the State Legislature for a declaration of such emergency. Plaintiffs also seek money damages based upon the claims, *inter alia,*that defendant Town of Liberty and certain of its former supervisors (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Town) were guilty of negligence, breach of duty, malfeasancé, nonfeasance and bad faith in failing to (1) comply with Environmental Protection Agency guidelines and regulations, thereby depriving the project of eligibility for available grant moneys, (2) assign a clerk of the works, (3) have changes and plans approved by the Department of Environmental Conservation, (4) maintain proper documentation, and (5) keep affected taxpayers apprised of the progress of the project and its increased cost. In lieu of an answer, the Town moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Supreme Court granted the motion and plaintiffs now appeal.

We affirm. Fundamentally, "no action lies against a municipal officer in any case for misconduct or delinquency, however gross, in the performance of judicial or quasi-judicial duties, and however erroneous or wrong it may be, or however malicious even the motive which produced it” (25 NY Jur 2d, Counties, Towns and Municipal Corporations, § 384, at 515; *see, Mon v City of New York,*78 NY2d 309; *Tarter v State of New York,*68 NY2d 511; *Tango v Tulevech,*61 NY2d 34; *East Riv. GasLight Co. v Donnelly,*93 NY 557; *Rottkamp v Young,*21 AD2d 373, 375, *affd*15 NY2d 831). We are not persuaded by the argument that, notwithstanding the foregoing, the Town’s failure to make the necessary applications for available State and Federal financial assistance was a fundamentally ministerial act for which there is no immunity. Without a doubt, the Town was not obligated to blindly adhere to its original plan. Rather, it retained discretion over the mode of financing of the project *(see,*Town Law § 198 [1]) and was authorized to change its plans at any time during the course of the project *(see, Office Park Corp. v County of Onondaga,*64 AD2d 252, 258, *affd*48 NY2d 765).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them lacking in merit.

Cardona, P. J., White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

SIGI GBADEBO,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05-612-M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offense charged: False Statement in Application for Passport, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542.

Date of Detention Hearing: December 21, 2005

The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and

based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth, finds

that no condition or combination of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure

the appearance of defendant as required.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) The Pretrial Services Report of December 21, 2005, reveals that defendant is a

native and citizen of Nigeria and that he has substantial family ties residing in Nigeria and Uganda.

(2) Defendant’s family moved back to Nigeria once this investigation began.

(3) The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement has filed a detainer against

the defendant.

Case 2:06-cr-00009-JCC Document 6 Filed 12/21/05 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

(4) The defendant has relatively minimal ties to this community. 

(5) There appear to be no conditions or combination of conditions that will reasonably

assure the defendant’s appearance at future Court hearings.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the extent

practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with

counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which defendant is

confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose of

an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United States

Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 21st day of December, 2005.

s/ James P. Donohue 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00009-JCC Document 6 Filed 12/21/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 61573.

#### Robert H. Fraser *v.*United States,

protest 304142-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
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

ORDER -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

INVESTOR COMMUNICATIONS

INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and

PAUL SHIPLEY, REVENUE AGENT,

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

 Respondents.

No. C05-1959Z

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the United States’ (Respondent) Motion to

Dismiss, docket no. 4. In accordance with 26 U.S.C. § 7609(b)(2)(A), Investor

Communications International, Inc. (Petitioner) properly filed its Amended Petition to Quash

Summons, docket no. 3, with the Court. However, Petitioner failed to follow the

requirements of 26 U.S.C. § 7609(b)(2)(B) because it did not properly serve the United

States. 

Because 26 U.S.C. § 7609 contains a waiver of the United States’ immunity against

suit, such waivers must be strictly and narrowly construed. See United States v. Sherwood,

313 U.S. 584, 590 (1941). As such, failure to serve the United States deprives the Court of

jurisdiction as the United States has only waived its sovereign immunity for the 20 day

period subsequent to the date of issuing the Secretary’s notice. See 26 U.S.C. §

Case 2:05-cv-01959-TSZ Document 7 Filed 12/13/05 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

ORDER -2-

7609(b)(2)(B); Maikranz v. United States, 612 F. Supp. 590, 591 (S.D. Ind. 1985); Dorsey v.

United States, 618 F. Supp. 471 (D.Md. 1985); see also Yocum v. United States, 586 F.

Supp. 317, 318 (N.D. Ind. 1984) (“Strict construction of statutes that waive sovereign

immunity extends to the statutory time limitations contained therein.”). Petitioner admittedly

failed to properly serve the United States Attorney for the Western District of Washington

and the Attorney General of the United States in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 as

directed by the Secretary’s notice that accompanied the copy of summons. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Petitioner’s failure to follow the Secretary's

directions deprives the Court of subject matter jurisdiction to hear its claim. Therefore,

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, docket no. 4, is GRANTED, and Petitioner’s Amended

Petition to Quash Summons, docket no. 3, is DISMISSED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 13th day of December, 2005.

AThomas S. Zilly

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01959-TSZ Document 7 Filed 12/13/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 64575.

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

protests 59/21322 and 59/25171 (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fish similar in all material respects to the fish blocks the subject of *The Lee Herrmann Co., a/c The Coldwater Seafood Corp*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 49, C.D. 2101), 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

The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Petitioner, 

 vs. 

RODNEY ROLLNESS, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. CR 06-041 RSL 

ORDER GRANTING EXENTION OF 

TIME TO REPLY REGARDING 

COMPASSIONATE RELEASE 

MOTION 

The Court, having reviewed the Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Reply in Mr. 

Rollness’ request for sentence reduction, IT IS ORDERED that the motion be granted. The reply 

brief shall be filed on or before September 1, 2021 and the matter noted for September 3, 2021. 

DATED this 25th day of August, 2021. 

A

Robert S. Lasnik 

United States District Judge

Presented by: 

/s/ Anna M. Tolin 

Anna M. Tolin 

Tolin Law Firm 

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 1091 Filed 08/25/21 Page 1 of 1
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 7, 2018

No. 04-18-00904-CR

Hollis Robert BLEDSOE,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR9715W

Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, Hollis Robert Bledsoe pled nolo contendere to 

being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to four years of imprisonment and a 

fine of $1,500.00 in accordance with the terms of his plea-bargain agreement. On October 24, 

2018, the trial court signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that this “is a 

plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). 

After Bledsoe filed a notice of appeal, the trial court clerk sent copies of the certification and 

notice of appeal to this court. See id. 25.2(e). The clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s 

Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification, has been filed. See id. 25.2(d). 

“In a plea bargain case ... a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised 

by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial court’s permission 

to appeal.” Id. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record, which contains a written plea bargain, establishes 

the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the 

prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See id. The clerk’s record does not include a written 

motion filed and ruled upon before trial; nor does it indicate that the trial court gave its 

permission to appeal. See id. The trial court’s certification, therefore, appears to accurately 

reflect that this is a plea-bargain case and that Bledsoe does not have a right to appeal. We must 

dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been 

made part of the record.” Id. 25.2(d). 

This appeal will be dismissed pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), 

unless an amended trial court certification showing that Bledsoe has the right to appeal is made 
part of the appellate record by January 7, 2019. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; Daniels v. 

State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, order).

We ORDER all appellate deadlines be suspended until further order of the court.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 7th day of December, 2018.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
No. 69687.

#### National Silver Co. *v.*United States,

protests 62/12985, etc. (San Diego).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise 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 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

MINUTE ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

SCOTT ABERNATHY,

Plaintiff,

v.

VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER,

Defendant.

No. C06-01

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

April 5, 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 17th day of April, 2006.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

By: /s Mary Duett

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00001-MJP Document 20 Filed 04/17/06 Page 1 of 1