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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 49 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 49

  Authorizing use of the Capitol Grounds for ``America Recycles Day'' 
                      national kick-off campaign.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 31, 1997

   Mr. Levin (for himself and Mr. Jeffords) submitted the following 
     concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Authorizing use of the Capitol Grounds for ``America Recycles Day'' 
                      national kick-off campaign.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 

SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR AMERICA RECYCLES DAY NATIONAL 
              KICK-OFF CAMPAIGN.

    The ``America Recycles Day'' campaign and its agents may sponsor a 
public event on the Capitol Grounds on September 30, 1997, or on such 
date as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President 
pro tempore of the Senate may jointly designate.

SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

    (a) In General.--The event authorized under section 1 shall be free 
to the public and arranged so as not to interfere with the needs of 
Congress, under conditions to be prescribed by the Architect of the 
Capitol and the Capitol Police.
    (b) Expenses and Liabilities.--``America Recycles Day'' and its 
agents shall assume full responsibility for all expenses and 
liabilities incident to all activities associated with the event.

SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS.

    (a) Structures and Equipment.--Subject to the approval of the 
Architect of the Capitol, ``America Recycles Day'' and its agents are 
authorized to erect on the Capitol Grounds any stage, tent, sound 
amplification devices, and other related structures and equipment 
required for the event authorized under section 1.
    (b) Additional Arrangements.--The Architect of the Capitol and the 
Capitol Police Board are authorized to make any other reasonable 
arrangements as may be required to plan for or administer the event.
                                 <all>
```
1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required
to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Principal
Life Income Fundings Trust 2008-047 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, do
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;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is
included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.
    
    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this
report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing
agreement(s) in all material respects; and5.
    
    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.
   /s/ Dwight N. Soethout

Dwight N. SoethoutVice President  Principal Life Insurance Company
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-8 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 1 of 21

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 13 Att. 7

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-8 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 2 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-8 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 3 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-8 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 4 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-8 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 5 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-8 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 6 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-8 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 7 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-8 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 8 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-8 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 9 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-8 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 10 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-8 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 11 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-8 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 12 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-8 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 13 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-8 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 14 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-8 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 15 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-8 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 16 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-8 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 17 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-8 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 18 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-8 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 19 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-8 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 20 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 13-8 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 21 of 21
No. P66/53.

protests 58/8624,etc. (New York).

#### Everbest Jewelry Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “A” covered by the foregoing protests consist of bicycle horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Sherwin*International, *Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 466, Abstract 69382), and that the items of merchandise marked “B” covered by the foregoing protests consist of bicycle horns similar in *905all material respects to those the subject of *G. Joannou Cycle Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 172, C.D. 2253), the claims of the plaintiffs were sustained.
H. Res. 637 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 7, 2007. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany 

the bill (H.R. 2669) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to 

section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008. All points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The conference 

report shall be considered as read. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
No. 67606.

#### Lyons Transport *v.*United States,

protest 61/4458-11799 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of nylon tennis strings similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 61832, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 62816.

#### Roberts, Reilly & Sons *v.*United States,

protest 320091-K (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of outerwear, wholly or in chief value of cotton having a staple of less than 1)4 inches in length, it was held that the additional duty assessed under paragraph 924, as modified, *supra,*was improper. The protest was sustained accordingly.
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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

ROBERT WARD GARRISON,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5837FDB

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

This Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

(Dkt. # 7). The court has just ordered service on eight named defendants. Pending before the court

are a number of motions filed by plaintiff. Plaintiff asks the court for an extension of time to respond

to defendant’s answer. (Dkt. # 3 and 9). A response to an answer is not a pleading under the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the motion is DENIED. 

Plaintiff’s next motion asks the court to order the penitentiary to copy and mail his amended

complaints. (Dkt. # 11). The court has received multiple copies of the 97 page amended complaint. 

It does not appear any inunction is needed at this time. The motion is DENIED as moot.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff.

DATED this 2nd day of March 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05837-FDB Document 14 Filed 03/02/06 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 75 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 1 of 9

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 75

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 75 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 75 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 75 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 75 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 75 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 75 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 75 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 75 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 9 of 9
No. 61585.

#### Louis Santana and Rietmann Pilcer Co. *v.*United States,

protests 166050-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 57760.

protests 203310-K and 214083-K (New York).

#### B. Westergaard & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of herring, prepared or preserved in any manner, packed in airtight containers weighing with their contents not more than 15 pounds each, without added oil or oil and other substances, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### Roger Carl BERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James HUNT; Mrs. Williams; Ms. Cambell; Ms. Smith, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-6581.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 21, 2001.

Decided July 5, 2001.

*149Roger Carl Berry, pro se.

Mary Mercer, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, for appellees.

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit J.

PER CURIAM.

Roger Carl Berry appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) complaint. Appellant’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. *See Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.*
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

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 STEWART STREET

SUITE 5220

(206) 553-7970

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR

FILING INDICTMENT/FINLEY - 1

(05-5220M)

Magistrate Judge Arnold

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) MAGISTRATE’S 

) DOCKET NO. 05-5220M

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER GRANTING 

) STIPULATED MOTION TO

) TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE

 v. ) INDICTMENT 

)

RONALD DEAN FINLEY, )

)

Defendant. ) 

_________________________________)

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on the stipulated motion of the parties for

an order extending the time within which an indictment shall be filed, and the Court having

considered the stipulated motion of the parties, together with the balance of the records and files

herein, the Court now finds and rules as follows:

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting the requested extension for

filing the indictment outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial,

in that the defendant is cooperating in an ongoing investigation and that the parties need

additional time for the defendant to complete his cooperation prior to charges being filed.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the stipulated motion of the parties to extend the

time within which an indictment shall be filed is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the date by which the indictment shall be obtained and

filed in this case is extended from December 30, 2005, to January 30, 2006.

Case 3:06-cr-05125-RBL Document 11 Filed 12/07/05 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

27

28

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 STEWART STREET

SUITE 5220

(206) 553-7970

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR

FILING INDICTMENT/FINLEY - 2

(05-5220M)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the period of delay from November 30, 2005, through

January 30, 2006, is excludable time pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section

3161(h)(8)(A), for the purpose of computing the time limitations imposed by the Speedy Trial

Act, Title 18, United States Code, Sections 3161 through 3164.

DATED this 7th day of December, 2005.

 s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. KELLEY ARNOLD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Presented by:

s/MIKE LANG 

MIKE LANG 

Assistant United States Attorney 

s/ Colin Fieman via telephone COLIN FIEMAN

Attorney for Ronald Finley

Case 3:06-cr-05125-RBL Document 11 Filed 12/07/05 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Frances K., Respondent, v Christopher T., Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 902]

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals (1) from a per*423manent order of protection of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), entered May 20, 1993, which, *inter alia,*found him in contempt and directed him to pay a fine of $250 together with $525 in counsel fees, (2) from an order of the same court, dated May 20, 1993, which, *inter alia,*directed supervised visitation of the child of the parties, (3) as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the same court, entered May 28, 1993, which, *inter alia,*vacated the orders entered and dated May 20, 1993, respectively, and established a supervised visitation schedule, and (4) from an order of the same court, entered August 11, 1993, which directed him to pay $1,000 in counsel fees.

Ordered that the appeals from the orders entered and dated May 20, 1993, respectively, are dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, as those orders were vacated by the subsequent order of the same court, entered May 28, 1993; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered May 28, 1993, is modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting the fourth decretal paragraph thereof providing for supervised visitation when school is not in session and substituting therefor a paragraph directing that unsupervised alternate weekend visitation shall continue when school is not in session and that the transfers shall take place at the offices of the Court Appointed Special Advocate on Fridays at 3:00 p.m. and Mondays at 5:00 p.m.; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered August 11, 1993, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The determination of the court which observed the witnesses is entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record. In the present case, the record indicates, inter alia, that the father wantonly and continuously disobeyed the prior orders of the Family Court and interfered with the mother’s custodial rights, justifying a diminution of his visitation rights *(see, Matter of Gago v Acevedo,*214 AD2d 565; *Maloney v Maloney,*208 AD2d 603). However, the record lacks a substantial basis for directing that visitation should be supervised by the Court Appointed Special Advocate during the period when school is not in session. Accordingly, we have modified the order to provide for a continuation of unsupervised visitation on alternate weekends during that period.

We have examined the father’s remaining contentions and find them to be either academic or without merit. Miller, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

April 21, 2016

No. 04

- 15

- 00405

- CV

David GILLESPIE and Michael O'Brien

,

Appellants

v.

A.L. HERNDEN and Frederick R. Zlotucha,

Appellees

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 10278 Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant s ’ reply brief wa s due on April 20 , 201 6

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(c). Before the due date , Appellant s filed a n unopposed motion for extension of time to file the reply brief until May 20 , 2016 , for an extension of thirty days.
Appellant s ’ motion is GRANTED. Appellant s ’ reply brief must be filed by May 20

, 2016

. See id. R. 38.6(d). NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT S ’ REPLY BRIEF WILL BE GRANTED.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 21st day of April, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
March 13, 1956

No. 59769.

#### Lissco Trading Corp. and Rohner Gehrig & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 260325-K, etc.

Protests abandoned February 16, 1956. (Not published.) (Initial No. 256405-K.) Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing granted.
From: bpaul17@roadrunner.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:00:56 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 Paul

, 91605-2032
No. 61551.

#### Glazer Steel Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 207617-K/14174, etc. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plate steel similar in all material respects to the plate steel the subject of *Glazer Steel Corporation*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 322, C. D. 1881), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the First Division,

September 20, 1967

No. P67/310.

#### Polk’s Modelcraft Hobbies, Inc. *v.*United States, protests 60/28609, etc. (New York).

Watson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of miniature motors similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Gamble Vargish*& *Co., dba Seabury & Co.*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 448, C.D. 2834), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 99.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Osteotech, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard W. Bauer,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.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
            of the Company.


                                        /S/ Richard W. Bauer
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Richard W. Bauer
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        August 8, 2002


                                                                           E-219
Summary of Meeting with Sierra Club, Earth Justice, NPCA; August 17, 2015. Texas Regional Haze.

Please see attendee list placed in the docket. 

Litigants in the Texas Regional Haze case met with Regional Administrator Ron Curry and others from 

Region 6. They presented a powerpoint presentation highlighting three issues: 1. Grid reliability; 2. 

Appropriateness of EPA’s action; 3. Consistency of EPA’s action. They also discussed public health and 

economic benefits associated with improved air quality at Class I areas.