alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

ALLAH,

Petitioner,

v.

DOUG WADDINGTON,

Respondent.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C05-1480-MJP-MAT

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is a federal habeas action which was initiated by petitioner in August 2005 with the

filing of a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a series of supporting documents which appeared

to present a challenge to petitioner’s 2001 state court conviction. This Court reviewed the

documents and found that they did not clearly provide all of the information required by the

Court’s prescribed forms. The Court also found that petitioner’s documents did not clearly

identify the claims petitioner intended to raise in these proceedings. Thus, on October 18, 2005,

this Court issued an Order directing petitioner to file a § 2254 petition on the forms provided by

the Clerk and reminding petitioner that state remedies must first be exhausted as to all issues raised

in a federal habeas petition.

Case 2:05-cv-01480-MJP Document 10 Filed 12/21/05 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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAGE -2

On November 9, 2005, petitioner filed a document entitled “Refusal for Fraud FRCP 9(b)”

in which he appears challenge this Court’s October 18 Order on the grounds that the parties were

identified in the caption of the Order using all capital letters. On November 23, 2005, petitioner

filed a document entitled “Judgement on Habeas Corpus As a Matter of Law/And Order of

Release” in which he identifies a series of attached exhibits which he apparently believes entitle him

to release from custody.

The documents submitted by petitioner do not make clear the precise nature of petitioner’s

claims nor do they demonstrate that any intended claims have been exhausted in the state courts.

Accordingly, this Court recommends that petitioner’s federal habeas petition be dismissed, without

prejudice, for failure to identify any cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. A proposed order

accompanies this Report and Recommendation.

DATED this 20th day of December 

A

, 2005.

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01480-MJP Document 10 Filed 12/21/05 Page 2 of 2
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 8/12/96 TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JAMES B. KIMBALL, Defendant-Appellant.. No. 96-3108 (D.C. No. 93-10063-01) (D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, KELLY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. **
Mr. Kimball, appearing pro se, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis and appeal the district court’s denial of his motion for a new trial. Because Mr. Kimball is a prisoner and his motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees was filed June 13, 1996, he is required to pay an initial partial filing fee and subsequent installments in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The “Statement of Institutional Account”- 2 -

contained in Mr. Kimball’s motion certifies that Mr. Kimball has 72 cents in drawable funds and his financial declaration reveals no other assets. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) provides that a prisoner may not be prohibited from appealing a criminal judgment because he “has no assets and no means to pay the initial partial filing fee.” On this basis, we grant Mr. Kimball’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Mr. Kimball’s conviction for bank robbery was affirmed on appeal. See United States v. Kimball , 73 F.3d 269 (10th Cir. 1995). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial. See United States v. Page , 828 F.2d 1476, 1478 (10th Cir.), cert. denied , 484 U.S. 989 (1987). The inmate’s statement advanced by Mr. Kimball in support of his motion for a new trial is not exculpatory, nor would it probably have produced an acquittal. See United States v. Chatman , 994 F.2d 1510, 1518 (10th Cir.), cert denied , 114 S. Ct. 230 (1993). AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 1354

In re: KEVIN HOLLAND

,

Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 1:16

- cv

- 06000 )

Submitted : April 25, 2017 Decided: April 28, 2017

Before MOTZ

, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Kevin Holland , Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Kevin Holland petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has

unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition . He seeks an order from

this court directing the district court to act. We find the present record does not reveal

und ue delay in the district court. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court an d

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
From: donna_lou@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:18:24 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,

Donna Loyd

Dallas, TX 75248
From: dmwaz@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:27:22 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,

David Wasmund

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
From: pj7andme@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:49:15 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Pam Nicolay

Kewanee, IL 61443
No. 59206.

protest 177330-K (Seattle).

#### Close and Stewart *v.*United States,

*209Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

September 3, 1959

No. 63322.

protest 58/16944 (New York).

#### W. A. Lee Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the article in question is chiefly used for agricultural purposes and that it is not specified by name in any of the dutiable provisions of the tariff act or in any modification thereof, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 31.2

 

Section 302 Certification of Chief FinancialOfficer

 

I, G. Reed Petersen, certify that:

 

1.   I have reviewed this annual report onForm 10-K of Sears Oil and Gas Corporation.

 

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances   under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period coveredby this report;

 

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations  and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.   The registrant's other certifying officersand I; are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

 

    a)   designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its

    consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this

    report is being prepared;

 

    b)   evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to

    the filing date of this report (the  "Evaluation Date");and

 

    c)   presented inthis report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on

    our evaluation as of the EvaluationDate;

 

5.   The registrant's other certifying officersand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant'sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

    a)   all significant  deficienciesin the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material

    weaknesses in internal controls;and

 

    b)   any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internalcontrols.

 

 6.   Theregistrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this report whether or not there were significant changes in  internalcontrols or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,including any corrective actions with regard to significant efficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

 

Date: February 13, 2013

 

 

/s/ G. Reed Petersen

----------------------------------

G. Reed Petersen

Chief Financial Officer
From: rich@fi360.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:38:35 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,

J. Richard Lynch

Pittsburgh, PA 15241
From: rcardie@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:53:18 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,

Robert Cardie

Springfield, PA 19064
CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (SM)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

 

Registration No.  333-97047

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  242				Trade Date: 1/9/03
(To Prospectus Supplement dated August 15, 2002 & 

  Prospectus dated August 8,2002)					Issue Date:  1/14/03
The Date of this Pricing Supplement January 9, 2003
SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

  CUSIP									Date and terms of redemption or

     or	Stated				             Interest			repayment (including any

Common	Interest		  Price to	 Discounts &         Payment	Survivors		applicable regular or special

  Code	Rate (1)	Maturity	Public (2)	Commissions       Frequency	  Option	Yes/No	record dates)

14911QLB5  3.00%	1/15/07	     100%	        0.85%                Monthly	     YES	    NO	

Principal						1st Payment	Day	

Amount		Proceeds		Dealer		      Date		Count

$1,313,000.00	$1,301,839.50	ABN AMRO Inc.	   2/15/03		30/360	
 

Original Issue Discount Note:					Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes	  X   No						N/A

 

 
- The interest rates on the PowerNotes (SM) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (SM) offered prior to the effective date of the change.   Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $36.166 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (SM) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (SM) will be made under the Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated August 8, 2002.
- Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
Exhibit 32.1



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 Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of Green Technology Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2012 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul Watson, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



(1)    
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(2)    
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



Date: August 14, 2012



| | By: | /s/ Paul Watson                                        
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------
| |     | Paul Watson                                            
| |     | Chief Executive Officer                                
| |     | (Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer)