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

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

LISA MERK, 

 Respondent.

Case No. CR05-5697

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

 FOR RECONSIDERATION

 

THIS MATTER comes before the court on Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider Sentence. The court

has reviewed the motion, the files and records herein including but not limited to the correspondence dated

January 18, 2006 from the defendant to the court (Doc.# 15).

Local Rule CR 7(e) provides as follows:

(1) Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny 

such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling 

or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to 

its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.

(3) No response to a motion for reconsideration shall be filed unless requested by the court.

. . . . . .

In this instance there is no claim or showing of a manifest error in the court’s sentence. No response

is requested.

Defendant’s motion for Reconsideration is Denied.

January 30, 2006

_/s/ J. Kelley Arnold_____ J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cr-05697-JKA Document 16 Filed 01/30/06 Page 1 of 1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EVERETT LEE GHOLSTON,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.

RON BARNES, Warden,

Respondent

- Appellee. No. 16

- 55428

D.C. No. 5:13

- cv

- 00283

- DDP

- JC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 6, 2018 **
Pasadena, California

Before: HAWKINS, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Everett Lee Gho lston, a California state prison er , challenges the denial of his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. Reviewing the denial of his petition de novo,

Stanley v. Cullen , 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir. 2011), we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

AUG 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 55428

Gholston first contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance

by failing to object to the exclusion of a witness statement on due process grounds

and failing to call two witnesses to testify that they did not see Gholston with a gun

during one of the shootings giving rise to his underlying conviction.

Gholston’s petition is subject to the Antiterrorism and Effec tive Death Penalty

Act of 1996 ; therefore, our review of this ineffective assistance claim is “doubly

deferential.” See Knowles v. Mirzayance , 556 U.S. 111

, 123 (2009). The excluded

statement and omitted testim ony on which Gholston relies were not fully

exculpatory and, for the most part, simply indicate d the witnesses did not see

Gholston with a gun because they were running away from the shooting. The

California Court of Appeal ’ s determination that Gholston failed to establish

prejudice due to the equivocal nature of this evidence compared to the weight of

evidence at trial was not an unreasonable application of the Strickland v

.

Washington

, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), standard. See Harrington v. Richter , 562 U.S.

86, 10 2 (2011)

.

Gholston also contends that the California Court of Appeal’s rejection of his

challenge under Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79 (1986), was based on an

unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). The California

Court of Appeal undertook a comparative juror analysis and evaluated the totality of

the circumstances when considering Gholston’s c ontention that the State3 16

- 55428

impermissib ly exercised peremptory challenges to strike prospective jurors E.H. and

P.B. on the basis of their race. Although reasonable minds certainly could doubt the

veracity of the prosecutor’s explanations for the challenges at issue, we cannot say

that , on this record, the state court “had no permissible alternative but to reject the

prosecutor’s race

- neutral justifications and conclude [Gholston] had shown a Batson

violation.” See Rice v. Collins , 546 U.S. 333, 341 (2006).

AFFIRMED.
From: jashton@sio.midco.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Rescind this mandate

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:09:18 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,

Judy Ashton

Sioux Falls, SD 57105
#### Edith L. King, Respondent, *v.*Joseph P. Bissell, Appellant.

*King*v. *Bissell,*146 App. Div. 880, affirmed.

(Submitted December 20, 1912;

decided January 21, 1913.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 26, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court in an action to recover upon a promissory note.

*Franklin Bien*for appellant.

*John G. Jackson*and *Howard Taylor*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase and Collin, JJ.
Before the First Division,

November 19, 1968

No. P68/492.

protests 67/49033, etc. (New York).

#### S. S. Kresge Company *v.*United States,

WatsoN, J.

In accordance with, stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of artificial flowers hi chief value of plastic, assembled in the same manner as the plastic artificial flowers in *Armbee Corporation et al.*v. *United States*(60 Cust. Ct. 105, C.D. 3278) and *Zunold Trading Corporation et al.*v. *United States*(60 Cust. Ct. 112, C.D. 3279), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: hcstanford@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:06:36 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,

Herman Stanford

Poplarville, MS 39470
<EX-32>
                                                    Exhibit 32
       CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
         SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Calloway's Nursery,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March
31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003,
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 consolidated
          financial condition and results of operations of the
          Company.

                                   Dated:    May 13, 2004

                                   CALLOWAY'S NURSERY, INC.

                                   /s/ James C. Estill
                                   James C. Estill
                                   Chief Executive Officer

                                   /s/ Daniel G. Reynolds
                                   Daniel G. Reynolds
                                   Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 of Sportsco, Inc. (the Company) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in such report.  Very truly yours,   /s/ Donson BrooksChief Executive Officer/s/ Donson BrooksChief Financial OfficerDated: March 31, 2009   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Sportsco, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**
**Exhibit 12.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) AS ADOPTED**

**UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

I, Alexandre Wagner Malfitani, certify that: 

 
1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Azul S.A.(the “company”); and 

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

Dated: July 18, 2019 

 

By:
 
/s/Alexandre Wagner Malfitani
 
 
Name: 
Alexandre Wagner Malfitani
Title: 
Chief Financial Officer
**
No. 68066.

#### Royal Cathay Trading Co. and W. J. Byrnes & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 60/28022 (San Francisco).

*239Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of brass lotus bowls similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Wing On Co. et al.*v. *United, States*(47 Cust. Ct. 122 C.D. 2291), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: dalehartmann@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:47:28 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,

Dale Hartmann

Orange, CA 92867
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

JD CHARLES MCMANUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

HENRY RICHARDS, 

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5564 FDB

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS

The Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant’s motion to dismiss this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil

rights action be granted. As detailed by the Magistrate Judge, after providing Plaintiff two extensions to

file a response to the motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff’s allegations remain vague and conclusory and fail to

show how any defendant has personally denied Plaintiff of a right or privilege secured by the Constitution

or laws of the United States. 

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

Judge J. Kelley Arnold, and the remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim [Dkt. #10] is GRANTED; and

Plaintiff’s claims and causes of action are DISMISSED;

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

Arnold.

DATED this 16th day of June, 2006.AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05564-FDB Document 19 Filed 06/16/06 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

ORDER DENYING 

MOTION TO STRIKE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

RAJINDER JOHAL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. CR05-334L

ORDER DENYING 

MOTION TO STRIKE

This matter comes before the Court on defendant Maninder Singh Khatkar’s “Motion to

Strike Government’s Request for Notice of Intended Alibi Defense - Rule 12.1” (Dkt. # 43). 

Defendant’s motion to strike is DENIED. Defendant’s response to the government’s request

should be within the spirit of the rule as to an alibi defense, to wit: whether there will be an alibi

defense as to the overt acts enumerated in the government’s request of February 6, 2006. The

Court rejects defendant’s contention that, under these facts, the government is misusing Rule

12.1 as a “broad discovery device.”

DATED this 15th day of March, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cr-00334-RSL Document 90 Filed 03/15/06 Page 1 of 1
From: c7w6c2200@charter.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:55:53 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 Cox

Eau Claire, WI 54701
From: maryfranceshayes@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:39:22 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,

Mary Hayes

Loganville, GA 30052