alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Bobby Williams, Appellant, v Board of Parole for New York State et al., Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 182]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Board of Parole dated July 21, 1993, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner parole, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Leavitt, J.), entered May 25, 1994, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

*754Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Board of Parole’s consideration of the District Attorney’s negative recommendation concerning the petitioner’s request for parole was not a denial of the petitioner’s due process rights (which do not attach to parole hearings), contrary to law, or a violation of a positive statutory requirement *(see, Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole,*50 NY2d 69; *Matter of Briguglio v New York State Bd. of Parole,*24 NY2d 21; *People ex rel. Grimmick v McGreevy,*141 AD2d 989; *Matter of Lynch v New York State Div. of Parole,*82 AD2d 1012; Executive Law § 259-i [5]). Accordingly, the determination of the Board of Parole is beyond judicial review *(see,*Correction Law § 212; *Matter of Briguglio v New York State Bd. of Parole, supra).*

We have considered the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.
No. 59283.

protests 230385-K, etc. (San Francisco).

#### City of Hankow Tassel Co. and Joseph A. Paredes & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of so-called silk squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: Tom May

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:28:44 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Tom May
St. Charles, Missouri
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-176-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CFO PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Form 10-Q of Bion Environmental Technologies, Inc., a company duly formed under the laws of Colorado (the "Company"), for the period ended March 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Mark A. Smith, President (Executive Chairman) and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and  Accounting Officer) of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, 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. 

May 7, 2014

/s/ Mark A. Smith

Mark A. Smith

President, Executive Chairman and 

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)

   

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Bion Environmental Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Bion Environmental Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. P67/328.

#### B.P.M. International, Ltd. *v.*United States, protests 65/9225 and 65/11126 (New York).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of magnetic earphones similar in all material respects to those the subject of Motorola, *Inc., and International Expediters, Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 303, Abstract 69019), 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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE

UNDER SEAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

PAUL FOSTER,

Defendants.

Case No. CR06-041L

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE

UNDER SEAL

This matter comes before the Court on the Government’s “Motion to File Under Seal

Government’s Motion For Reconsideration of Court’s Order to Sever Defendant Foster.” (Dkt.

#368). The Government does not believe the motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #369) needs to

be sealed, but has sought to file it under seal in an abundance of caution. The Court agrees

with the Government that there is no longer a need for the motion for reconsideration (Dkt.

#369) to be sealed. The Government’s motion is therefore DENIED.

DATED this 5th day of January, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 395 Filed 01/05/07 Page 1 of 1
No. 63884.

protests 58/6293, etc. (New York).

#### Dalton Cooper, Inc., and H. W. Robinson & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that involved in *Dalton Cooper, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(41 Cust. Ct. 271, C.D. 2051), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.

Donlon, J.,

dissented for the reasons set forth in her dissenting opinion in C.D. 2051, *supra.*
H. Res. 826 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 5, 2007. 

Whereas in the past two months, nooses have been found in 

a North Carolina high school, a Home Depot in New Jersey, a Louisiana school playground, the campus of the 

University of Maryland, a Columbia University professor’s office door and a factory in Houston, Texas; 

Whereas the Southern Poverty Law Center has recorded between 40 and 50 suspected hate crimes involving nooses 

since September; 

Whereas since 2001, the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission has filed more than 30 lawsuits that involve 

the displaying of nooses in places of employment; 

Whereas nooses are reviled by many Americans as racist symbols of lynchings that were once all too common; 

Whereas according to Tuskegee Institute, more than 4,700 

people were lynched between 1882 and 1959 in a campaign of terror led by the Ku Klux Klan; 

Whereas the number of dead lynching victims in the United 

States exceeds the amount of people killed in the horrible 

attack on Pearl Harbor (2,333 dead) and Hurricane 

Katrina (1,836 dead) combined; and 

Whereas African-Americans, as well as Italians, Jews, and 

Mexicans, have comprised the vast majority of lynching 
2 

•HRES 826 EH 

victims and only when we erase the terrible symbols of 

the past can we finally begin to move forward: Now, 

therefore, be it 

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that— 

(1) the hanging of nooses is a horrible act when 

used for the purpose of intimidation and which under 

certain circumstances can be criminal; 

(2) this conduct should be investigated thoroughly 

by Federal authorities; and 

(3) any criminal violations should be vigorously 

prosecuted. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 2, 2019

t0624 

# Order

Clerk July 2, 2019

158175

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 158175

COA: 339846

Kalkaska CC: 16

- 003931

- FC

CARLTON JAMES RAPOZA, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 7, 2018

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             178
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,962
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,021
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,671
<PP&E>                                          20,226
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,177
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,671
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,910
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            4,604
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,046
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,671
<SALES>                                         70,763
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                70,763
<CGS>                                           64,221
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   64,221
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   455
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 256
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,831
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,449
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,382
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,382
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.45
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000875296
<NAME> WINNERS ALL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          628,043
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     55,035
<COMMON>                                       144,717
<OTHER-SE>                                   (827,795)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               201,682
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (201,682)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (201,682)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (201,682)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1
                                  ------------


                      CEO AND CFO 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 ITEC Attractions, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul M.
Bluto, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of  operations of the
Company.


/s/  Paul M. Bluto
------------------
Paul M. Bluto
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
August 12, 2004
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

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CHARLES FRANK LOWERY,

 Petitioner,

v.

DARREN SWENSEN,

Respondent.

Case No. C06-5112 RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Petitioner’s Motion for a Certificate

of Appealability [Dkt. #26].

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court rules as follows:

For the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Dkt. #19], this Court

declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability because the Petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing

pro se.

Dated this 21st day of September, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05112-RBL Document 30 Filed 09/21/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.1


CERTIFICATION


OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


RULE 13A-14(A) / 15D-14(A)


I, David C. Nocifora, certify that:


|   |                                                                                       
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of CTPartners Executive Search Inc.;

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;




/s/ David C. Nocifora


David C. Nocifora





Date: April 30, 2015    Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)
(Reap. Dec. 10547)

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 1790; 1853.

(Decided June 24, 1963)

*Stein & Shostah*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Donlon, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the appeal for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases, consists of Christmas tree light sets, exported from Japan; and that, at the time of exportation thereof to the United States, the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the invoice unit values net packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the merchandise the subject of this stipulation is not included in the list of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521, as provided for in Sec. 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, and that said merchandise is subject to appraisement under See. 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeal for re-appraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases may be deemed submitted for a decision on the foregoing stipulation.

Accepting this stipulation as an agreed statement of facts, I find and hold that export value, as defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 70 Stat. 943, is the proper basis for the determination of the values of the Christmas tree light sets, described on the invoices covered by the entries in this appeal for reappraisement, and that such values *298are the invoiced unit values, net, packed, as shown on the invoices, which are included in the official papers filed with the court in this suit.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Geologicreconnaissance in the Matanuska and Talkeetna basins, Alaska**
 
Report | Plates: OneTwo
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:327
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000957811
 
July 26, 2018