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

August 19, 1959

No. 63301.

protest 58/4177 (Charleston).

#### Trans Atlantic Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of butt hinges, imported with wood screws of steel, the hinges measuring 3 inches by 3 inches or 3% inches by 3% inches, being packed 2 hinges and 12 screws to a box (12 screws for each pair of hinges), and the hinges, size 4 inches by 4 inches, being packed 2 hinges and 16 screws to a box (16 screws for each pair of hinges), of the same kind in all material respects as the merchandise the subject of *Trans Atlantic Company*v. *United States*(35 Cust. Ct. 1, C.D. 1712). Upon the agreed statement of facts and following the cited author*324ity, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained, the value of the screws being held as follows, as stipulated by counsel:

> Unit value U.S. dollars Screw size per 1,000 screws

> % #8 or % #8 $1. 21

> 1 #9 $1.48

> 1 #10 $1. 64

which values were included in the value of the screws and hinges, as invoiced and appraised.
Before the Third Division,

February 28, 1961

No. 65206.

#### Richter Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 288038-K, etc. (New York).

*354Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bread similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nordic Baking & Importing Co., Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 78, C.A.D. 733), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 64596.

#### Air Clearance Association, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/33993 (New York).

Opinion hy

Oliver, O. J.

The protest was dismissed.
No. 67157.

protests 58/25492, etc. (Galveston).

#### Leslie B. Canion *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 57753.

protest 213755-K (New York).

#### Ajax Findings Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

An examination of the official papers failing to disclose any reason for disturbing the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
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 Annual Report ofLife Nutrition Products, Inc.(theCompany) on Form 10-K for the period endedDecember 31, 2008as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (theReport), I, Michael M. Salerno, Chief Executive Officer and 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, 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 ofthe Company.

|Date: April 14, 2009 | Signature: /s/ Michael M. Salerno
Name: Michael M. Salerno
Chief Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer & Principal Accounting Officer
|-------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

VALORIE HANDY

, §

§

Defendant Below, § No. 74 , 2017

Appellant, §

§ Court Below: Superior Court

v. § of the State of Delaware

§

STATE OF DELAWARE, § Cr. ID No. 1507011730

§

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: March 21 , 2018

Decided: March 22 , 2018

Before STRINE , Chief Justice; V ALIHURA and SEITZ

, Justices

.

O R D E R

In this case, Valorie Handy argues that the Superior Court abused its

discretion in addressing the admissibility of certain expert testimony; failing to give

an appropriate Lolly instruction; 1 and failing to remedy what she contends were

improper arguments made by the State in rebutt al during closing arguments

. We

have reviewed the record carefully and find that the Superior Court acted within its

discretion as to all these issues ; that contrary to Handy’s contention, the State’s

argument in rebuttal was not improper given the eviden tiary record and the context

in which she made her defense ; and that the Superior Court had earlier acted to focus

1 Lolly v. State , 611 A.2d 956, 962 n.6 (Del. 1992) (suggesting language to be used for a jury

instruction about missing evidence).2

closing arguments to ensure that the jury understood that the burden of proof was

squarely on the State to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt

. We therefore

AFFIRM the Superior Court on the basis of its pe rtinent rulings on the record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Reginald Tyson, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 664]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lipp, J.), rendered December 10, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The issue of the legal sufficiency of the evidence is not preserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Loughlin,*76 NY2d 804; *People v Johnson,*70 NY2d 819; *People v Tucker,*55 NY2d 1). However, the resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant contends that his acquittal of the robbery and burglary charges negated his alleged intention to use or threaten to use unlawfully the knife which was recovered from his person, and that the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree was thereby repugnant. We disagree. The charges of which the defendant was acquitted, robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and burglary in the first degree, each have elements not contained in the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree *(see,*Penal Law § 160.15 [3]; § 160.10 [1]; § 140.30 [3]; § 265.01 [2]). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.
From: p.rumin@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:24:04 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,

Petra Rumin

Big Bear City, CA 92314
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 658 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 24, 2007.
Whereas, on June 26, 1934, President Franklin Roosevelt signed into law the 
        Federal Credit Union Act, thus enabling credit unions to be organized 
        throughout the United States under the charters approved by the Federal 
        Government;
Whereas Federal credit unions were chartered as uniquely democratic economic 
        organizations, founded on the principle that persons of good character 
        and all backgrounds, including those of modest means, joining together 
        in cooperative spirit and action, can promote thrift, create a source of 
        credit for productive purposes, and build a better standard of living 
        for themselves;
Whereas Federal credit unions have consistently met those purposes and 
        exemplified the traditional American values of thrift, self-help, and 
        volunteerism, carving out a special place for themselves among the 
        Nation's financial institutions;
Whereas Federal credit unions operate with the credo ``Not for profit, not for 
        charity--but for service'' and have consistently reflected this 
        philosophical tradition and the cooperative spirit of ``people helping 
        people'' that gave birth to the Federal Credit Union Act;
Whereas there are over 5,000 Federal credit unions in the United States serving 
        nearly 50,000,000 Americans in all 50 States; and
Whereas September 2007 has been designated as Federal Credit Union Month: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of Federal Credit Union Month; and
            (2) recognizes the importance of Federal credit unions to the 
        economy, and their critical mission in serving those of modest means.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Before the Second Division,

October 23, 1962

No. 67139.

protest 60/17621 (New York).

#### Kaiser Reismann Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion 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.,*and Wood *Niebuhr & Co.*v. *Unites States*(42 Cust. Ct. 145, C.D. 2078), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
May 20, 1965

No. 69314.

Appeal 5166.

#### Kurt Orban Company, Inc. *v.*United States.

A.R.D. 163 reversed February 11, 1965. C.A.D. 851.
Exhibit 32.1

                     CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND 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
quarter ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Mark A. Smith, President (Chief
Executive Officer) and Interim Chief Financial Officer (Principal 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.



February 12, 2009                      /s/ Mark A. Smith
                                       Mark A. Smith
                                       Chief Executive Officer and
                                       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. 60213.

Suit 4862.

#### United States *v.*Burroughs-Wellcome Co., Inc.

C. D. 1738 affirmed June 20, 1956. C. A. D. 621.
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 TACOMA

NORAMEX LLC, dba KORIMPEKS PULP

AND PAPER, a Washington limited liability

company,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN PAPER RECYCLING CORP.,

an Illinois corporation,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5588FDB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OF REMAND AND DISMISSING

CAUSE OF ACTION

The Court Granted Defendant American Paper Recycling Corp.’s (APR) Motion to Dismiss

for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction [Dkt. # 19] and remanded the matter to Clark County Superior

Court. APR moved for reconsideration of the remand portion of the order arguing there is limited

authority to remand a matter according to the plain language of Section 1441(c) and 1447(c). 

Buchner v. FDIC, 981 F.2d 816, 819-20 (5th Cir. 1993). In a removed case, the appropriate remedy

for lack of personal jurisdiction is dismissal, not remand. Amins v. Life Support Med. Equip. Corp.,

373 F. Supp. 654, 656 (E.D.N.Y. 1974). Plaintiff Noramex responds that as to the issue of the issue

of remand, it would be appropriate for this Court to dismiss this case without prejudice in order that

it may be refiled in a Court of competent jurisdiction. 

Case 3:05-cv-05588-FDB Document 25 Filed 11/17/05 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

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider that part of the court’s order at Dkt. #19, which

ordered remand rather than dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED,

and 

2. This cause of action is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of personal

jurisdiction. 

3. That part of the court’s Order (Dkt. 19) at page 4, lines 3-5 (“Rather than dismiss,

however, because this matter was removed from state court, this matter will be

remanded to the Clark County Superior Court for appropriate action.”) shall be and is

stricken. At page 4, line 8, a period shall be inserted following the word “Defendant,”

and the remainder of page 4, line 8 through page 4, line 9 (“,and REMANDING this

cause of action to Clark County Superior Court for appropriate action.”) shall be and

is stricken. 

DATED this 16th day of November, 2005.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05588-FDB Document 25 Filed 11/17/05 Page 2 of 2
From: mduffy001@earthlink.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:41:15 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,

Mark Duffy

Pompano Beach, FL 33064
No. 68427. protest 63/4023 (New York).

#### Devon Tape Corporation *v.*United States,

*311Opinion by

Oilvbb, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plain transparent vinyl tape, coated on one side with an adhesive, similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 67888, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 261 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        March 22, 2007.
    Resolved,  That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1591) making emergency supplemental 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, 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 amendment printed in 
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All 
points of order against the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage without 
intervening motion except: (1) four hours of debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 1591 pursuant to this resolution, 
notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone 
further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1090
In Re: MICHAEL KENNEDY, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-98-947-BR) Submitted: April 29, 1999 Decided: May 5, 1999 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Kennedy, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Michael Kennedy petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to rule on his Motion to Expedite Proceedings or in the Alternative for Bond Pending Adjudication of Habeas Petition. The district court denied this motion on February 5, 1999. We accordingly deny the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the mandamus petition as moot. We deny the motion to consolidate and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 99.1


                         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTON 906
                     OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bion Environmental Technologies,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial
Officer of the Company certifies, that to the best of his knowledge, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, as amended, except that the
financial statements included herein have not been reviewed by the Company's
auditors (see Part II, Item 5); 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/ Mark A. Smith
---------------------------------
Mark A. Smith
Chief Executive Officer and
Interim Chief Financial Officer
May 1, 2003



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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 upon request.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 9, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00771

- CV

Gail GILLETTE,

Appellant

v.

Stephen GRAVES

, Appellee

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI03140

Honorable Richard Price, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellee ’ s Motion for Extension of Time to File Rehearing and En Banc is

GRANTED. T im e is ext ended to January 4, 2020.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

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

court on this 9th day of December, 2019

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court