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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

RUSSELL J. YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUSAN L. BAUR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5565RBL

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR

CLARIFICATION

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

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Plaintiff has not yet been granted in forma pauperis status and an

order to show cause is pending. (Dkt., # 13). There are two motions in the file which the court will

consider while the in forma pauperis issue is pending. 

On October 28th, 2005 a motion for clarification was filed with an incorrect cause number. 

That motion was filed by ANDRE BRIGHAM YOUNG. (Dkt. # 8). Andre Brigham Young is not a

plaintiff in this action and this pleading appears to be intended for a different case. The pleading will

not be considered in this action.

The second motion is a motion for clarification filed by the plaintiff in this action. (Dkt. #

12). Plaintiff asks for clarification that defendant Baur will not represent defendant Miller. (Dkt. #

Case 3:05-cv-05565-RBL-KLS Document 15 Filed 02/01/06 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

12).

Normally a court will not consider motions until preliminary issues such as the plaintiff’s

filing status are concluded. The motion for clarification does not raise either a legal or factual issue

for determination by this court and is therefore DENIED.

The clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to the Plaintiff and remove docket entries 8

and 12 from the court’s calendar.

DATED this 1st day of February, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05565-RBL-KLS Document 15 Filed 02/01/06 Page 2 of 2
From: chmills@brookings.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:25:05 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,

Cindy Halbersma

Brookings, SD 57006
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bridgette Smith, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 210]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered January 28, 1994, convicting her of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of whether the People proved her intent to commit a burglary beyond a reasonable doubt *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court properly permitted testimony concerning prior criminal acts committed by the defendant as it helped establish the element of intent for burglary in the second degree *(see, People v Figueroa,*195 AD2d 477; *People v Vargas,*215 AD2d 415). In addition, the probative value of the evidence outweighed its potential for prejudice to the defendant *(see, People v Alvino,*71 NY2d 233).

*547The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Miller, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.
No. 63329.

protests 107153-K, etc. (New York).

#### Park & Tilford Import Corp. *v.*United States,

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 *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: caralsti@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:44:58 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,

Carol Ralstin

Kokomo, IN 46901
From: TrudyJarosek@Yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:17:00 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,

Trudy Jarosek

Ellsworth, WI 54011
STAll UaM 

A 

IN UU,NC ~ 

This certifies that 

CERTIFICl TE OF INSURANCE 

[8] STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Bloomington, Illinois 

0 STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Bloomington, Illinois 

0 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Aurora, Ontario 

0 STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Winter Haven, Florida 

0 STATE FARM LLOYDS, Dallas, Texas 

insures the following policyholder for the coverages indicated below: 

Policyholder 

Address of policyholder 

Location of operations 

Description of operations 

Steve Fincher DBA Steve Fincher Photography 

6240 N Pinnacle Drive Spa1 tanburg, SC 29303-6716 

same 

Photogr a phy 

I The policies listed below have been issued to the policyholder for he policy periods shown. The insurance described in these policies is subject 

to all the terms, exclusions, and conditions of those policies. The li"7its of liability shown may have been reduced by any paid claims. 

_[POLICY _PERIOD LIMITS OF LIABILITY 

POLICY NUMBER TYPE OF INSURANCE Effectiye Date : Expiration Date (at beginning of policy period) 

Comprehensive ' BODILY INJURY AND 

' 99- EP-2484-6 Business Liability 04/11 2015 : 04/11/2016 PROPERTY DAMAGE ·----------------------------- ---------------------------- --------- --------~-------- -- -- This insurance includes: [8] Products - Completed Operations 

[8] Contractual Liability Each Occurrence $ 1, 000 , 000 

[8] Personal Injury 

0 Advertising Injury General Aggregate $ 2,000 , 000 

[8] Med Pay 5000 

0 Products - Completed $ 2 , 000 , 000 

0 Operations Aggregate 

r oLICY PERIOD BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE 

EXCESS LIABILITY Effectiye Date : Expiration Date (Combined Single Limit) 

0 Umbrella ' Each Occurrence $ 

0 Other ' Aggregate $ ' 

OLICY PERIOD Part I - Workers Compensation - Statutory 

Effecti e Date ; Expiration Date 

Workers' Compensation ' Part II - Employers Liability 

and Employers Liability ' Each Accident $ 

Disease - Each Employee $ 

' Disease - Policy Limit $ 

POLICY PERIOD LIMITS OF LIABILITY 

POLICY NUMBER TYPE OF INSURANCE Effective Date ; Expiration Date (at beginning of policy period) 

: 

: 

' 

THE CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE IS NOT A CONTRACT OF INSURANCE AND NEITHER AFFIRMATIVELY NOR NEGATIVELY 

AMENDS, EXTENDS OR ALTERS THE COVERAGE APPROVED BY ANY POLICY DESCRIBED HEREIN. 

Name and Address of Certificate Holder 

558-994 a.6 Printed in U.S.A. Rev. 05-09-2006 

If any of the described policies are canceled before 

their expiration date, State Farm will try to mail a 

written notice to the certificate holder 3 0 days before 

nation. If however, we fail to mail such notice, 

ligation or liability will be imposed State Farm 

g t or re esen ives. 

Agent Name 

Telephone Number 864-585-7999 

Agent's Code Stamp 

Agent Code 40 1969 

AFO Code F897
Befobe the Third Division,

August 30, 1956

No. 60202.

protest 246785-K (New York).

#### Theodore B. Smith Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are similar to those involved in Abstract 53865, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: menewton6@q.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:29:42 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,

Trish Newton

Aurora, CO 80016
No. 61475.

#### Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 301998-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
From: karenallison@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:27:48 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.

Life is something to be protected and valued, not prevented and destroyed. Most doctors will agree that

the birth control pill, as a back-up should ovulation occur, will prevent the implantation of the fetus.

Therefore, the birth control pill causes abortions. Ella and Plan B most definitely abortions. From a

medical, scientific, and religious standpoint, life starts at conception. Therefore, abortion is murder. So

what you are telling me is that now we are going to make the murder of these unborn children even

more prevalent by offering these drugs for free! And to top it off, me and millions of other conscientious

objectors will be paying for it with our higher insurance premiums! UNBELIEVABLE!

Look, if someone really doesn't want to have a baby, they can (1) not have sex or (2) buy a cheap

package of condoms. There is absolutely no reason that we need to be giving these drugs away like

they're candy. This is just not right. I beg of you to place a higher value on life. And to stick to your

promises of lowering insurance premiums rather than raising them.

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,

Karen Bishop

Sincerely,

Karen Bishop

Nine Mile Falls, WA 99026
Before the First Division,

January 31, 1958

No. 61514.

#### Meadows Wye & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 297313-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

The protests were dismissed.
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: March 19, 2015 105705 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RORY R. WILLIAMS,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: January 20, 2015

Before: Garry, J.P., Rose, Lynch and Clark, JJ.

__________

Richard E. Cantwell, Plattsburgh, for appellant.

Glenn MacNeill, Acting District Attorney, Malone, for

respondent.

__________

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin

County (Main Jr., J.), rendered January 8, 2013, convicting

defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale

of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled

substance in the third degree in satisfaction of an amended

indictment charging him and his wife with various crimes. Under

the terms of the plea agreement that was approved by County

Court, he was to be sentenced as a second felony offender to the

minimum of six years in prison. County Court further advised

defendant that his sentence would include a period of postrelease

supervision, but did not specify the length. Thereafter, County

Court sentenced defendant to the agreed-upon prison term and

imposed a three-year period of postrelease supervision. 

Defendant appeals.
-2- 105705 

Defendant's sole challenge is to County Court's imposition

of a three-year period of postrelease supervision, which he

contends is an abuse of discretion and is also harsh and

excessive. We disagree. Given that no particular period of

postrelease supervision was included in the plea agreement,

County Court retained the discretion to determine the length of

the term and did not violate the sentencing commitment by

selecting the maximum of three years. Notably, the record

reveals that defendant has a lengthy criminal record, is a prior

parole violator and could have been sentenced to a much lengthier

prison term if convicted of the charges contained in the amended

indictment. In view of this, and given that defendant was

sentenced to the minimum term of imprisonment, we find no

extraordinary circumstances nor any abuse of discretion

warranting modification of the period of postrelease supervision

(see People v Foulkes, 117 AD3d 1176, 1177-1178 [2014], lv denied

24 NY3d 1084 [2014]; People v Watson, 115 AD3d 1016, 1017 [2014],

lv denied 24 NY3d 965 [2014]).

Garry, J.P., Rose, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
Before the First Division,

December 14, 1964

No. 68941.

#### Topflight Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 59/4566 and 59/21005 (New York).

*328Opinion by

Oliver, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plain transparent vinyl tape similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 67888, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: thekoopfamily@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:11:55 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,

James Koop

Ackley, IA 50601