alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: lapperson778@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:32:16 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,

Laura Apperson

Zanesville, OH 43701
No. 63894.

protests 59/3234, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### D. N. & E. Walter & Co. and Perryman, Mojoiner et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of valances similar in all material respects to those the subject of *D. N. & E. Walter & Co. et al.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 26, C.D. 2098), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 58282.

protest 216673-K (New York).

#### Indian Sales Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of speedometers and parts thereof, in chief value of metal, designed and intended for use only on motorcycles, similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of *Industrial Operations, Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 82, C. D. 1500), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Case No. *6,652.*

#### HOBOKEN LAND & IMP. CO. v. The SUNSWICK.

[N. Y. Times.

Jan. 7, 1863.]

District Court, S. D. New York.

Capsizing of Vessel — Improper Loading — Re-covert for Loss.

[The owner of the cargo may recover for a loss caused by the capsizing of the vessel due solely to improper loading.]

Mr. Morton, for libelants.

Mr. Sauxay, for respondents.

This was an action brought [by the Hobo-ken Land & Improvement Company against the lighter Sunswick and John Reed, master] to recover the value of some railroad iron, alleged to have been shipped on the lighter at Brooklyn, to be carried to Hacken-sack, N. J., and lost on the passage. The respondents set up as a defence that one Lem-mon, the agent of the libelants, hired the lighter of her owner for the purpose of themselves carrying the iron, and they alone were responsible for the loss.

Before SHIPMAN, District Judge.

HELD

BY THE COURT:

That on the evidence the contract on which the libel is founded, was one which bound the respondents to carry the iron safely, limited only by the absence of any responsibility for any difficulty that might arise in navigating the Hackensack river. That the libelants’ agent was not the sailing-master of the lighter, and took no responsibility about her ' sailing. Reed, her master, employed and paid a tug for towing the lighter up the stream. The boat turned over from having too much weight on deck, and this loading the libelants had nothing to do with; and she was overset not in the Hackensack, nor in consequence of any difficulty arising out of bad pilotage, but in New York harbor, and solely from the improper way in which she was laden. Decree for libelants, with a reference to compute the damages.
#### Mark Anthony FARQUHAR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JONES, Warden, Defendant, and William S. Cain, M.D., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-17032.

D.C. No. CV-02-05712-OWW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2005.*

Decided July 13, 2005.

Mark Anthony Farquhar, Vacaville, CA, pro se.

James E. Flynn, Deputy Atty. Gen., Office of the California Attorney General, Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, Defendantr-Appellant.

*540Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

William S. Cain, M.D., a doctor at Avenal State Prison where appellee Mark Farquhar was incarcerated, appeals the district court’s denial of his motions for summary judgment and reconsideration in Farquhar’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.

Cain did not raise the issue of qualified immunity in his motion for summary judgment and we therefore lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s determination that the parties’ evidence presents genuine issues of material fact. *See Lee v. Gregory,*363 F.3d 931, 932 (9th Cir.2004) (district court’s denial of summary judgment is not appealable unless the ground for the motion is qualified immunity). Although Cain asserted in his objections to the magistrate judge’s report recommending denial of the summary judgment motion that he was entitled to qualified immunity, the district court properly declined to address this issue when it adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. *See Greenhow v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,*863 F.2d 633, 638-39 (9th Cir.1988) (district court properly ruled that issues raised for the first time in objections to magistrate’s report had been waived), *overruled on other grounds, United States v. Hardesty,*977 F.2d 1347, 1348 (9th Cir.1992).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Cain’s motion for reconsideration, which raised the qualified immunity issue, because Cain did not show new evidence, legal error or a change in the law. *See Carroll v. Nakatani,*342 F.3d 934, 940, 945 (9th Cir.2003). Moreover, the district court properly determined that *Saucier v. Katz,*533 U.S. 194, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), did not modify the well-established standards for a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment claim based on lack of access to medical treatment.

Cain’s motion to attach an appendix to the record is denied.

DISMISSED in part, AFFIRMED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                          30,502
<SECURITIES>                                        24
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,146
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,169
<INVENTORY>                                     16,198
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,002
<PP&E>                                          23,689
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,444
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  89,305
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,759
<BONDS>                                          1,601
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,787
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,652
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    89,305
<SALES>                                         21,874
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,874
<CGS>                                           14,199
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,199
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,549
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  95
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    967
<INCOME-TAX>                                       338
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                629
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       629
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7193
DAVID A. DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL J. DAVIS, Parole Chairman; RICHARD A. LANHAM, Commissioner of Corrections; THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; THOMAS PASSARO, Facility Administrator; DAYENA CORCORAN, Acting Supervisor, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge; Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA-95-870-S) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 23, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.David A. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his action which was styled as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition, but construed by the district court as a civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Davis v. Davis , No. CA-95-870-S (D. Md. July 18, 1995). 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
**Exhibit 32.1**  

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER**  

**Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**  

     Pursuantto Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of IC Places, Inc., or the Company, hereby certifies, tohis knowledge, that: 

     (i)the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal yearended December 31, 2011, or the Report, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and 

     (ii)the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

|  August 30, 2012 | By   | /s/ Steven  Samblis                                                             |   |
|-----------------------|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                  |           | Steven Samblis                                                                  |   |
|                  |           | Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman  (Principal executive officer)  |   |
|                  |

 

     Theforegoing certification is being furnished with the Company’s Annual Report onForm 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350.It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to be incorporated by referenceinto any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof,regardless of any general information language in such filing. 

 

 

----
No. 60584.

#### O. K. Simson Co. *v.*United States,

protests 271883-K, 271120-K, and 273101-K (New York).

*442Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with, stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef stew the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *The Crosse & Blackwell Co.*(42 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 579), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 66594.

#### Impecco, Ltd. *v.*United States,

protests 278339-K, etc. (New *York).*

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fishing reels with two spools similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Charles Garcia & Co., Inc.*(48 C.C.P.A. 140, C.A.D. 780), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 63417.

protests 260575-K, etc. (New York).

#### F. C. Gerlach & Co. and Lacy Falk et al. *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., et al.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 145, C.D. 2078), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 67634.

#### R. Greenspan & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 58/19304 (New York).

*277Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of picnic sets similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 66580, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### In re Charles Anthony BENNETT, Petitioner.

No. 01-6547.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 21, 2001.

Decided July 5, 2001.

Charles Anthony Bennett, petitioner pro se.

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

PER CURIAM.

Charles A. Bennett has filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this court to compel the district court to issue a decision on his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). The granting of a writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used in extraordinary circumstances. *In re Beard,*811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987). A petitioner must show that he has a clear right to the relief sought, that the respondent has a clear duty to perform the act requested by petitioner, and that there is no other adequate remedy available. *In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*869 F.2d 135, 138 (2nd Cir.1989). Bennett has failed to make the requisite showing for such extraordinary relief. Our review of the district court docket sheet discloses that there has been no undue delay in considering Bennett’s § 2255 motion. Nevertheless, we urge the district court to act with reasonable promptness on Bennett’s motion, which was filed on March 3, 2000. Accordingly, although we grant Bennett’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice to his filing another mandamus petition if the district court does not act expeditiously. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 6-2 Filed 09/17/08 Page 1 of 1
# Official Journal C 230A/23 S

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 230A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4923 September 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 230A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4923 September 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Notices |
| | European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions |
| 2006/C 230A/1 | Notice of open competition: head of information and communication technology — Reference: EF/TA/05/08 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Notices

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

2006/C 230A/1

Notice of open competition: head of information and communication technology — Reference: EF/TA/05/08

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
No. P66/327.

#### Coast Oil Co. and Judson Sheldon Int’l Corp. et al. *v.*United States, protests 61/23118, etc. (San Francisco).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of charcoal briquettes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *A. L. Farnsworth*v. *United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 62, C.D. 2389), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel GONZALEZ-RANGEL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 99-10513.

D.C. No. CR-00-00566-EHC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 9, 2001.*

Decided July 19, 2001.

*729Before KOZINSKI, T.G. NELSON and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Joel Gonzalez-Rangel appeals the 42-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Gonzalez-Rangel’s counsel submitted a brief stating that he found no issues for review. GonzalezRangel has not filed a supplemental pro se brief. Because Gonzalezr-Rangel waived his right to appeal his sentence, we lack jurisdiction and dismiss.

Because our independent review of the record indicates that the plea agreement, including the waiver of the right to appeal, was entered knowingly and voluntarily, *United States v. Nguyen,*235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000) (waiver of right to appeal is dispositive if knowing and voluntary), we enforce the waiver, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and dismiss the appeal.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Before the Second Division,

September 20,1961

No, 66080.

#### Frank Kraus and National Carloading Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/27924, etc. (New *York).*

Opinion by

Bao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of paper needle holders the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 63099, the claim of the plaintiffs 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 DISMISSING § 2255 ACTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

IVAN CASARES ANDRADE, )

a/k/a Jose Velasquez Trujillo, )

)

Petitioner, ) CASE NO. C06-550-JCC

)

v. )

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ORDER DISMISSING § 2255 ACTION 

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

The Court, having reviewed petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, the Report and

Recommendation of Monica J. Benton, United States Magistrate Judge, and the remaining record,

does hereby find and Order:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.

(2) Petitioner’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and this action, are DISMISSED.

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner and to Judge Benton.

DATED this 14th day of July, 2006. AUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00550-JCC Document 5 Filed 07/14/06 Page 1 of 1
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 DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

RICHARD A. HEILPRIN, )

) CASE NO: C05-786RSM

Plaintiff, )

)

)

 vs. ) 

) MINUTE ORDER

)

JAMES TREMBLAY and JANE DOE )

TREMBLAY, and their marital community )

composed thereof; and INSURANCE )

CORPORATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, )

CANADA, )

)

Defendants. )

__________________________________________)

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

Ricardo S. Martinez, United States District Judge:

A scheduling conference in this matter is set for Wednesday, July 6, 2005, at 1:30

p.m., United States Courthouse, 700 Stewart Street, Seattle, Washington, 13th Floor

Courtroom. 

DATED this 27th day of June, 2005.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

By_/s/ Laurie Cuaresma_______

 Deputy Clerk

Case 2:05-cv-00786-JPD Document 10 Filed 06/27/05 Page 1 of 1
August 20, 1958

No. 62320.

#### Camera Specialty Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 314620-K (A).

Abstract 62138. (Initial No. 315411-K.) Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
# Official Journal L 161/2006

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 161 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 4914 June 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 161

English edition

Legislation

Volume 4914 June 2006

---

| Contents | | I   Acts whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on certain fluorinated greenhouse gases
   (1) | 1 |
| | * | Directive 2006/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 relating to emissions from air conditioning systems in motor vehicles and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC
   (1) | 12 |

Contents

I   Acts whose publication is obligatory

page

*

Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on certain fluorinated greenhouse gases
   (1)

1

*

Directive 2006/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 relating to emissions from air conditioning systems in motor vehicles and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC
   (1)

12

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
No. 67189.

protest 59/17238 (New York).

#### The Curtiss Candy Co. *v.*United States,

*300Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the principles herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc*(34 C.C.P.A. 112, C.A.D. 351) and that the 40 bags of peanuts, weighing 3,934 pounds, reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty is not assessable upon the 40 bags of peanuts, which were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. *The*protest was sustained to this extent.