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

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:54:41 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,

Steve Wiemeyer

La Vista, NE 68128
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. 

LARRY ALBERT,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05-514M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offenses charged:

Count 1: Possession of Five or More Fraudulent Identification Documents in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(3).

Count 2: Social Security Number Fraud in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B).

Count 3: Possession of a Fraudulent Identification Document in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1028(a)(6).

Date of Detention Hearing: October 31, 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:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

Defendant has stipulated to detention and has reserved the right to contest his continued

detention upon his appearance in court in the District of New Mexico if this case is transferred,

or before this Court if this case is not transferred and there are new facts or circumstances that

should be considered.

Case 2:05-mj-00514-MAT Document 8 Filed 11/01/05 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

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 1st day of November, 2005.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-mj-00514-MAT Document 8 Filed 11/01/05 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

January 7, 1954

No. 57754.

protests 189326-K, 189327-K, and 191588-K (New York).

#### Carr Brothers, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *Geo. Wm.*Rueff, *Inc.*(41 C. C. P. A. 95, C. A. D. 535), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
S. Con. Res. 68 Agreed to November 13, 1997

One Hundred Fifth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of

Thursday, November 13, 1997, or Friday, November 14, 1997, on

a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by the

Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned sine die, or

until noon on the second day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, and that

when the Senate adjourns on Thursday, November 13, 1997, or

Friday, November 14, 1997, on a motion offered pursuant to this

concurrent resolution by the Majority Leader or his designee, it

stand adjourned sine die, or until noon on the second day after

Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this

concurrent resolution.

SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader

of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority

Leader of the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall

notify the Members of the House and Senate, respectively, to

reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall

warrant it.

SEC. 3. The Congress declares that clause 5 of rule III of

the Rules of the House of Representatives and the order of the

Senate of January 7, 1997, authorize for the duration of the One

Hundred Fifth Congress the Clerk of the House of Representatives

and the Secretary of the Senate, respectively, to receive messages

from the President during periods when the House and Senate

are not in session and thereby preserve until adjournment sine

die of the final regular session of the One Hundred Fifth Congress

the constitutional prerogative of the House and Senate to reconsider

vetoed measures in light of the objections of the President, since

the availability of the Clerk and the Secretary during any earlier

adjournment of either House during the current Congress does

not prevent the return by the President of any bill presented to

him for approval.
S. Con. Res. 68—2

SEC. 4. The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall inform

the President of the United States of the adoption of this concurrent

resolution.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
Exhibit 32

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

The
undersigned certify that:

(1) The
accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010,
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 accompanying Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

|                      |                                        | 
|--------------------- | -------------------------------------- | 
|Date: August
 9, 2010 | /s/ Scott F.
 Drill                    | 
|                      | Scott F.
 Drill                       
|                      | President
 and Chief Executive Officer
|                      | (principal
 executive officer)        
|                      |                                        | 
|                      |                                        | 
|                      |                                        | 
|                      |                                        | 
|Date: August
 9, 2010 | /s/ Justin
 W. Shireman                | 
|                      | Justin W.
 Shireman                   
|                      | Vice
 President, Finance and          
|                      | Chief
 Financial Officer              
|                      | (principal
 financial officer)        

22

---
Exhibit 32   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) AND SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 (a) and (b))  I, S. Emerson Lybbert, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of TGFIN Holdings, Inc. (the Company) certify that: (1) the quarterly report of TGFIN Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the Quarterly Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d); and (2) the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   By:  /s/ S. Emerson Lybbert Name: S. Emerson Lybbert Title: Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)  Date: October 20, 2009   PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) AND SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 (a) and (b)  I, S. Emerson Lybbert, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of TGFIN Holdings, Inc. (the Company) certify that: (1) the quarterly report of TGFIN Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the Quarterly Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d); and (2) the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    By: /s/ S. Emerson Lybbert Name: S. Emerson Lybbert Title: Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)  Date: October 20, 2009
[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: Boundaries,areas, geographic centers, and altitudes of the United States and the several states:with a brief record of important changes in their territory and government**
 
Report | Plates: 0506
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:817
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000960986
 
August 21, 2018
IN THE

SAN ANTONIO,

F APPEALS

r

ABELARDO G. GONZALEZ 1622682

APPELLANT / PROSE

VS.

STATE OF TEXAS

COURT OF APPEALS No. 04-15-00530-CR

Trail Court No. 2008-CRR-U00662-D1

PKOSB DOCKETING STATEMENT UNDER T.R.A.P. 32.2

(a) (1) NONE

(a) (2) APPELANT PROCEEDING PRQ-SE

Abelardo G. Gonzalez 1622682

C-T. Terrell B-3-40

1300 F.M.655

Rosharon, Texas 77583

(b) NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED ON 2015 AOG 10 AM 9:33

(c) 49 th District Court

Webb County/ Texas

Honorable Judge Jose Antoino Lopez

(d) ORDER APPEALED (Denial of Motion to Recuse)

singed on July 16. 2015

by the Honor David Peeple's

(e) N/A

(f) Offense charged / Date

AGGRAVATED ROBBERY

ENG. ORG. CRIME

12/5/2008

12/5/2008

(q) NOT GUILTY PLEA

(h) JURY TRIAL

(i) 30 years T.D-C.J. / $10,000.'"' fine

(l) THIS APPEAL IS POST TRIAL ORDER (DENIAL OF MOTION TO RECUSE)

(k) N/A

(i) NO REPORTER'S RECORD REQUESTED FOR THIS APPEAL

(m) N/A NOT FOR THIS APPEAL

(n) (1) 1/28/2010 MOTION TO PROCEED IFP on APPEAL

(2) 1/28/2010 HEARING ON MOTION TO PROCEED IFP

(3) 1/28/2010 MOTION 10 PROCEED IFP GRANTED

(4) (a%Ain?ED

Respectfully sS^

''y/ r

Abelardo G. Gdgz

C.T. Terrell B*3

1300 F-M. 655

Rosharon, Texas 77583

APPELLANT /Pro-se

3

1623582,^^
To: THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEAL'S

ATTN: CLERK OF THE COURT

FROM: Aoelardo G- Gonzalez

APPELLANT / Pro-se

RE:

DATE:

Submission of the

DOCKETING SHEETS

For Case COA No. 04-15-00529-CR Trail NoCOA No. 04-15-00531-CR Trail No.

COA No- 04-15-00530-CR Trail No.

9-01-2015

2008 CRR 0657-Dl

2008 CRR 0665-Dl

2008 cRR 0562-01

Dear: Clerk of the court

GREETING'S. Now comes A^jpellant Abelatdo Gonzalez Pro-se and submitte's

to the Clerk and court the Docketiny Sheets for the above mention cause's/ this

Docketinq Sheets are submitted timel/ on 09-01-15 under the iiiailbox rule and

are considered filed on this date, by placiny them in tne prision mailbox.

Appellant respectfully request from the clerk to file stamp the enclosed

copy of this letter and return it timely in the enclosed SASE, so Appellant

and have it for his records.

THANK YOU IN ADVANCE.

Respectruliy ;^bmitted

Abelardo G. Gonzalez 1622682

C.T. Terrell B-3-40

1300 F.M. 655

Rosharon, Texas 77583

NOTICE to the clerk Appellant address was incorrect it the letterie by the S

clerk to appellant in 04-15-00531-CR and in 04-15-00529-CR ^

s;

o

3

I

CO

CO

zo

—
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

JAMES ERNEST DICKERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROL PORTER,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5235RJB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate

Judge J. Kelley Arnold. Dkt. 6-1. The Court has reviewed the pleadings filed in support of and in

opposition to the Report and Recommendation and the remaining record.

Plaintiff filed this case on April 13, 2006. Dkt.1. On May 1, 2006, the Clerk of the Court

wrote Plaintiff and informed him of various deficiencies in his in forma pauperis application,

including his failure to complete question number 3 of the application, attach a trust account

statement or Written Consent for Payment of Costs form. Dkt. 2. On June 5, 2006, Judge Arnold

issued an Order to Show Cause why Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application should not be denied

for failure to cure the deficiencies. Dkt. 5. Plaintiff did not respond. On July 20, 2006, Judge

Arnold recommended denial in forma pauperis application due to Plaintiff’s failure to cure the

defects. On July 26, 2006, Plaintiff filed a copy of his inmate trust account statement. Dkt. 9. 

Case 3:06-cv-05235-RJB-JKA Document 10 Filed 08/21/06 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

ORDER - 2

Plaintiff has not filled the Written Consent for Payment of Costs forms or completed question

number three on his application. 

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED: 

• Plaintiff’s Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 1) is DENIED.

• Plaintiff has thirty days from the date of this order to file the $350.00 filing fee or this

matter will be dismissed without prejudice. 

• The clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Petitioner, counsel for Respondent, and

to the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold.

DATED this 21st day of August, 2006.

ARobert J Bryan

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05235-RJB-JKA Document 10 Filed 08/21/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 64614.

#### American Beverage Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 46971-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Atistin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.36
                             AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE
                          1997 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN OF
                                  AMETEK, INC.

         WHEREAS, AMETEK, Inc. (formerly known as Ametek Aerospace Products,
Inc.) (the "Company") has adopted the 1997 Stock Incentive Plan of AMETEK, Inc.
(formerly known as the 1997 Stock Incentive Plan of Ametek Aerospace Products,
Inc.) (the "Plan"); and

         WHEREAS, Section 19 of the Plan permits the Committee, as defined in
the Plan (the "Committee") to amend the Plan; and

         WHEREAS, the Committee now desires to amend the Plan in certain
respects;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

         1.       Section 5 shall be amended to read in its entirety as follows:
                  "5. Participants. All key employees of the Corporation and its
                  Affiliates shall be eligible to receive Incentive Awards under
                  the Plan. The persons to whom Incentive Awards are to be
                  offered under the Plan and the number of Shares with respect
                  to which Incentive Awards are to be granted to each such
                  person shall be determined by the Committee in its sole
                  discretion subject, however, to the terms and conditions of
                  the Plan."

         2.       The provisions of this Amendment No. 2 shall be effective as
                  of May 11, 1999.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Committee has caused this Amendment No. 2 to be
executed by a duly authorized officer of the Company, and its corporate seal to
be affixed, as of the 11th day of May, 1999.



                                         AMETEK, Inc.

                                         By: /s/ John J. Molinelli
                                             -----------------------------
ATTEST:
/s/ Donna F. Winquist
----------------------
(SEAL)
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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JUAN VALENCIA-LOPEZ,

Defendant.

CASE NO. CR06-50C

MINUTE ORDER

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C. 

Coughenour, United States District Judge:

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Valencia-Lopez’s Motion to Continue Deadline

for Pretrial Motions (Dkt. No. 41). The prior deadline for pretrial motions was December 15, 2006. The

Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s Motion. Pretrial motions shall be submitted by January 15, 2007.

DATED this 18th day of December, 2006.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk of Court

By /s/ C. Ledesma 

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cr-00050-JCC Document 43 Filed 12/18/06 Page 1 of 1
MEMO

TO:    US EPA. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

FROM:    Dr Garth Tayler. Chairman, BIA MACT Task Force

SUBJECT:   NATION BRICK RESEARCH CENTER INVESTS IN A DMA‐80 DIRECT MERCURY ANALYZER

DATE:     06/29/2015

BACKGROUND

In the deliberations that have taken place between the EPA and the BIA on the proposed Brick MACT

rule, mercury emissions from the brick manufacturing process has been in question for some time. The

EPA has proposed extremely low numeric limits for mercury that the industry believes cannot be met. In

addition to this, there is no evidence that APCD technology exists that the industry can use.   The BIA has

pointed out to the EPA that the source of any potential mercury emission, albeit extremely low, is from

the clay raw materials used in the brick manufacturing process. The BIA has commented that the most

practical and fair MACT ruling at this stage for the clay brick industry would be for the EPA to defer the

application of a numeric standard for mercury emission in the MACT rule until more emissions data and

knowledge is obtained on nature of the mercury, potential mercury emissions and the suited achievable

technology needed to reduce emissions, if deemed a requirement. The suggestion has also been put

forward to apply work practices in the MACT rule, which will enable the industry to gather a substantial

amount of knowledge and data on the nature of the mercury and on how to control potential emissions.

DMA‐80 DIRECT MERCURY ANALYZER

In order to gain more knowledge and understanding of the mercury quantities in the brick industry raw

materials and to try to relate this data to potential emissions, the industry, through its research facility,

The National Brick Research Center (NBRC), has acquired, at great expense, a DMA‐80 Direct Mercury

Analyzer.

The industry’s commitment in purchasing this instrument will enable the BIA to conduct extensive

analyses of the brick making raw materials.  The application of EPA test method 7473 will be carried out

to create an extensive data base. With knowledge of volume flow, moisture contents and PM levels,

using methods 1, 4 and 5, the industry will attempt to correlate the mercury contents found in the

materials with tested stack emissions. Further analysis of the species of the mercury in question will also

be carried out over the forthcoming years, with a view to establishing a clear understanding of the best

way to control mercury emissions, should this be required.  

It is only by the accumulation of valid scientific information of this kind that will enable the EPA, working

with the BIA, to develop a MACT rule that is both achievable, as well as beneficial to the environment

and mankind.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 5, 2019

No. 04-19-00403-CV

THE TEXAS BRANDON CORPORATION, INC. and Ronald R. Wilson,

Appellants

v.

EOG RESOURCES, INC., and Fred Levine,

Appellees

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16-03-00066-CVK

Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding

ORDER

By order dated November 19, 2019, this appeal was abated to the trial court to conduct a 

hearing to determine whether a reporter’s record was taken at a September 20, 2018 hearing in 

the underlying cause. On December 4, 2019, a supplemental clerk’s record was filed containing 

the trial court’s findings that no record was requested or taken, the court reporter was excused 

from the courtroom during the hearing, and no objection was made to the court reporter’s 

departure. It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal is REINSTATED on the docket of the 

court. The appellate record is complete. Appellant’s brief must be filed no later than January 6, 

2020.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 5th day of December, 2019.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
Before the Second Division,

February 3, 1955

No. 58740.

protest 221927-K (San Francisco).

#### E. W. Smith and Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, 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.
No. 57778.

protest 208251-K (New York).

#### Ciba Pharmaceutical Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise in question is not obtained, derived, or manufactured, in whole or in part, from any of the products mentioned by name in either paragraph 27 or 1651, and that it is a medicinal preparation, has therapeutic properties, is chiefly used for medicinal purposes, and is not a drug of animal or vegetable origin, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.