alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

NICHOLAS S. ROY,

Plaintiff,

v.

VICTORIA BARSHAW, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5296FDB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 

 AND RECOMMENDATION 

 AND GRANTING

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff asserted retaliation claims, among others, which the Magistrate Judge recommends be

dismissed on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment for reasons elaborated in the Report and

Recommendation. Plaintiff filed objections, to which Defendants filed a response. Plaintiff’s objections do

not persuade the Court that the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusions is flawed.

 The Court, having reviewed plaintiff's complaint, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge J. Kelley Arnold, objections to the report and recommendation, and the remaining record, does

hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss are GRANTED;

(3) Plaintiff’s causes of action are DISMISSED; and plaintiff’s pending motions, if any, are

denied as being moot;

(4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff and to the Hon. J. Kelley

Arnold

DATED this 7th day of November 

A

2007.

FRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05296-FDB Document 68 Filed 11/08/07 Page 1 of 1
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 175

To designate the week of May 3, 1998, as ‘‘National Correctional Officers

and Employees Week’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 9, 1998

Mr. ROBB (for himself, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. BRYAN, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr.

D’AMATO, Mr. FORD, Mr. HELMS, Mr. KENNEDY, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.

ROCKEFELLER, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. TORRICELLI, Mr. WARNER, Mr.

CLELAND, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. FEINGOLD,

Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr.

MURKOWSKI, Mr. GRAMM, Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Ms.

LANDRIEU, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. GREGG, Mr. SPECTER,

Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. DODD,

Mr. GLENN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. WELLSTONE, Mr. ALLARD, Mr.

BREAUX, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr.

DORGAN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Mr. GORTON, Mr. HAGEL, Mr.

HATCH, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. KYL, Mr. KOHL, Mr.

LEVIN, Mr. LOTT, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. MCCONNELL, Ms. MOSELEYBRAUN, Mr. REID, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SMITH of New

Hampshire, Mr. SMITH of Oregon, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. THOMPSON, Mr.

WYDEN, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. KERRY, and Mr. BYRD) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on

the Judiciary

APRIL 30, 1998

Reported by Mr. HATCH, without amendment

MAY 1, 1998

Considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To designate the week of May 3, 1998, as ‘‘National

Correctional Officers and Employees Week’’.
2

SRES 175 ATS

Whereas the operation of correctional facilities represents a

crucial component of our criminal justice system;

Whereas correctional personnel play a vital role in protecting

the rights of the public to be safeguarded from criminal

activity;

Whereas correctional personnel are responsible for the care,

custody, and dignity of the human beings charged to

their care; and

Whereas correctional personnel work under demanding circumstances and face danger in their daily work lives:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate designates the week of May

2 3, 1998, as ‘‘National Correctional Officers and Employ3 ees Week’’. The President is authorized and requested to

4 issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United

5 States to observe such week with appropriate ceremonies

6 and activities.

Æ
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 50742 No. 18

- 50743 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

− Appellee ,

v ersus
LUIS OSCAR URIAS

- CRUZ , Defendant

− Appellant

.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas No. 4:11

- CR

- 295

- 1 No. 4: 17

- CR

- 263

- 1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender ( “ FPD ” ) appointed to represent Luis Urias

-

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 16, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-50742 Document: 00515036471 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/16/2019No. 18

- 50742 No. 18

- 50743

2 Cruz has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief per Anders v. Cali

fornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Urias

- Cruz has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant parts of the records.
These consolidated appeals involve the revocation of a term of supervised release and a new conviction for possession of mari h uana with intent to distrib

ute. In a ccordance with United States v. Garcia , 483 F.3d 289, 291 (5th Cir. 2007), the Anders brief states that Urias

- Cruz wishes to appeal his revocation sentence only and not the revocation of supervised release. Although the FPD has included a copy of a docume nt signed by Urias

- Cruz, that document does
not make clear wh at it is that Urias

- Cruz intends to appeal

. Nevertheless, based on our independent review of the transcripts and the rest of the record , we conclude that no nonfrivolous issue for our review is presented by either of the consolidated appeals. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. Consequently, b ecause w e concur with the FPD ’s assessment that neither appeal present s a nonfrivolous issue , the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeals are DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-50742 Document: 00515036471 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/16/2019
From: videorh@localnet.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:36:24 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,

Diane Hart

Crawfordsville, IN 47933
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 2, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00104-CR

NO. 14-14-00105-CR

NO. 14-14-00106-CR

GEORGE WILHELM VOGEL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 359th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 13-04-04450 CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant appeals his convictions for three counts of aggravated sexual 

assault of a child. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he 

concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the 

requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a 

professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable 
2

grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1978).

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised 

of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford 

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant received the 

record on July 30, 2014, and received two extensions of time to file a pro se 

response. As of this date, pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the 

appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error 

in the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders

brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds 

for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices McCally, Brown, and Wise.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
No. 51787.

#### Snake King *v.*United States,

protest 122200-K (Laredo).

Oliver,

Presiding Judge:

When this case first appeared on the calendar at the port of Laredo, Tex., on March 22, 1946, Government counsel moved to dismiss the protest on the ground that it was not signed by a proper party and on the further ground that the protest was untimely. This motion was denied in an interlocutory order issued on January 30, 1947 (18 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1041), and the case was continued to the next Laredo docket for hearing upon the merits. When the case was again called for trial, there was no appearance either by or on behalf of the plaintiff and the protest was ordered submitted for decision.

The merchandise in this suit, imported from Mexico and entered at the port of Brownsville, Tex., is described on the consular invoice as military insignia, gold-plated, in chief value of copper. It was classified by the collector under paragraph 1527 (c) (2), Tariff Act of 1930, as military ornaments valued above 20 cents per dozen pieces, designed to be worn on apparel or carried on or about or attached to the person, composed wholly or in chief value of metal other than gold or platinum, and assessed with duty at a compound rate equivalent to 110 percent ad valorem, plus 3 cents per pound under section 3425, Internal Revenue Code. The assessment under the Internal Revenue Code, however, is not in issue.

While plaintiff in his protest does not set forth distinctly and specifically the paragraph of the tariff act under which claim is made, or the rate of duty claimed, it would seem to appear that the reason for his objection to the exaction of the collector is his allegation that the merchandise in issue is military insignia as distinguished from military ornaments. In this connection, both this court and our appellate court have held on a number of occasions that military insignia is *94not classifiable under the tariff provision for “military ornaments.” *United States*v. *Gaunt & Sons et al.,*15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 94, T. D. 42183, and *United States*v. *Horstmann Co.,*15 id. 116, T. D. 42190.

However, plaintiff not having appeared either in person or by counsel when the case was again called for trial and there being no evidence in this record to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the classification by the collector, the protest is therefore dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 64646.

#### Verona Dyestuffs *v.*United States,

protests 59/27219, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is a product chiefly used as an assistant in preparing or finishing textiles, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating
to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 (b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and
 (c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 (b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: March 31, 2009
    /s/ Donna T. GuerraDonna T. GuerraSenior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTIONS 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTS OF 2002








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 Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of AmeriResource Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, on the date hereof (the “Report), the undersigned, Delmar Janovec, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 18 U.S.C., Section 1350, 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.






Dated: September 9, 2009


/s/ Delmar A. Janovec
 Delmar A. Janovec
 Chief Financial Officer
# Official Journal C 406A/8 Oc

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 406A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 648 October 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 406A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 648 October 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | Corrigenda |
| 2021/C 406 A/01 | Corrigendum to the call for expressions of interest — Financial Auditors — Junior Professionals Programme — Temporary staff (grade AD 6) ( OJ C 400 A, 4.10.2021 ) | 1 |

Contents

page

Corrigenda

2021/C 406 A/01

Corrigendum to the call for expressions of interest — Financial Auditors — Junior Professionals Programme — Temporary staff (grade AD 6) ( OJ C 400 A, 4.10.2021 )

( OJ C 400 A, 4.10.2021 )

1

---

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

EN
Exhibit 32.2

10-K Exhibit 32.2: Certifications 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 of iShares® Silver Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Geoffrey D. Flynn, Chief Financial Officer of BlackRock Asset Management International Inc., the Sponsor of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result
of operations of the Trust.

Date: February 26, 2010



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/    Geoffrey D. Flynn     
|Geoffrey D. Flynn *          
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(Principal financial officer)





|* | The Registrant is a trust and Mr. Flynn is signing in his capacity as an officer of BlackRock Asset Management International Inc., the Sponsor of the Registrant.
|- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 1

The taxes were actually paid by Atkins as a “responsible person” for taxpayer Aquatic Ventures, a

distinction not relevant to the resolution of this case. 

 ORDER

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

PETER ATKINS, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5162 RBL

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

This matter is before the Court on Defendant United States’ Motion to Dismiss. [Dkt. #10]. At issue

is Plaintiff’s claim for administrative refund of taxes paid toward his1

 obligations under 11 U.S.C. §6672, for

tax periods ending December 31, 1994, March 31, 1995, June 30, 1995, September 30, 1995, and December

31, 1995. Plaintiff paid approximately $42, 000 toward those obligations in December 1999. Mr. Atkins made

a claim for an administrative refund of that amount in December, 2004. That claim was denied and he filed

this suit on March 28, 2006. 

The United States argues that this court does not have subject matter over Plaintiff’s claim because his

claim for administrative relief was filed more than three years after the subject tax return(s) were filed and more

than two years after the tax was paid – the time limit prescribed in 11 U.S.C. §6511(a). Plaintiff ‘s claim

plainly does not fall within these time frames.

Case 3:06-cv-05162-RBL Document 16 Filed 01/03/07 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

Page - 2

Plaintiff apparently argues that because he made subsequent payments of penalties pursuant to an

agreement with the IRS (in 2005, while the administrative claim was pending) this court should consider his

request timely. The logic of this argument is not clear, and no authority is provided for the proposition that

a late claim can be resurrected by the payment of a subsequent amount. Furthermore, if and to the extent

Plaintiff also seeks a refund of these latter amounts, that claim is barred by his failure to file an administrative

claim for those amounts. 

The United States’ Motion [Dkt. #10] is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE. 

DATED this 3rd day of January, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05162-RBL Document 16 Filed 01/03/07 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

November 26, 1962

No. 67209.

protest 59/16288 (New York).

#### Amity Fabrics, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cotton cloth similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *D. H. Grant & Co., Inc.*(47 CCPA 20, C.A.D. 723), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Andrew Hayden - Member

AirOcean Aviation, LLC 120 Church St Yalesville CT 06492

June 1 st , 2012

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 Washington, DC 20590

RE: Exemption Request Part 135 / Part 91 Drug and A lcohol Prevention Programs

To Whom it May Concern:

Please accept this letter as request for an exempti on from the requirement to maintain two drug and alcohol misuse prevention programs under 14 CFR Parts 135 and 91. We are a small Part 135 Air Carrier Certificate holder (Certificate Num ber 6AOA132M) and also offer helicopter tours under FAR 91.147. We operate four aircraft, o ne under Part 135 and three under Part 91. We have a total of five pilots and three maintenanc e personnel of which several serve under both operations.

The current requirement results in the possibility of individuals being randomly selected for testing for both operations at the same time. Maint aining two separate programs increases the expense to the company resulting in financial hards hip. Granting our request will not adversely affect the safety of our operation as all personnel in safety sensitive positions will remain part of a testing program as required by both FAR Part 1 35 and FAR Part 91.

One of our company Members, Pavel Bortnovskiy, acts as our DER and we utilize a third party consortium to directly oversee the drug and alcohol prevention programs ensuring compliance with regulations. This provides, in our opinion, th e ability to manage all personnel under one testing program. We believe we will still meet the intended goals of the drug and alcohol prevention and monitoring for the Federal Aviation Administration.

In addition we are aware that such exemptions have been granted to other similar operations. Reference: Solid Edge Aviation, LLC / Exemption num ber 9703 / Document ID FAA-2007- 0181-0001.If you need any further information or have any que stions please feel free to contact me at any

of the following:

• Office: 203-294-8800

• Fax: 203-294-8804

• e-mail: andrew.hayden@airocean.com

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look f orward to your response.

Sincerely,

Andrew Hayden Member
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1195

JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DANIEL PAYSEUR; WACHOVIA BANK & TRUST COMPANY; FIRST CHARTER 

BANK; BANK OF AMERICA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

Chief District Judge. (5:10-cv-00011-FL)

Submitted: April 27, 2010 Decided: May 19, 2010

Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Robert Demos, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Robert Demos, Jr., appeals the district court’s 

order dismissing this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) 

(2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Demos v. Payseur, No. 5:10-cv-00011-FL (E.D.N.C. Jan. 

19, 2010). 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.

DISMISSED