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

MINUTE ORDER – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

ÖSSUR HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BELLACURE, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C05-1552JLR

MINUTE ORDER

The following minute order is made by the direction of the court, the Honorable

James L. Robart:

The court held oral argument regarding the parties’ motions in limine (Dkt. ##

116, 194, 195, 197). The court issued rulings on the motions for the reasons stated on the

record. The court further memorializes its rulings below.

The court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ motion to exclude

the expert testimony of Thomas Smegal (Dkt. # 116). The court denies the motion

without prejudice to allow the parties to raise objections at trial. 

The court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ omnibus motion in

limine (Dkt. # 194). Specifically, the court (1) grants Plaintiffs’ request to exclude the

parties’ insurance coverage, (2) denies without prejudice Plaintiff’s request to exclude

testimonial reference to Mr. Cannon’s business venture prior to joining Bellacure, but

Case 2:05-cv-01552-JLR Document 225 Filed 08/30/06 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

MINUTE ORDER – 2

grants Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude witness David Gardner’s testimony, (3) denies

without prejudice Plaintiffs’ request to exclude the relative financial status of the parties,

(4) grants Plaintiffs’ request to exclude litigation costs, (5) grants Plaintiffs’ request to

exclude settlement offers, (6) denies without prejudice Plaintiffs’ request that counsel

refrain from expressing personal opinions as to the validity of any claims, (7) denies

without prejudice Plaintiffs’ request that counsel refrain from asking the jurors from

placing themselves in the position of Defendants, (8) grants Plaintiffs’ request to exclude

reference to its past intellectual property litigation, (9) denies without prejudice Plaintiffs’

request to exclude reference to its lay-offs or closure of the Bothell facility, (10) grants

Plaintiffs’ request to exclude information regarding this or any other motions in limine,

(11) grants Plaintiffs’ request to exclude exhibits from display to jury until admitted into

evidence, (12) grants Plaintiffs’ request that the parties exchange notice of witnesses 24

hours in advance.

The court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ motion to exclude

the expert testimony of Douglas Kidder (Dkt. # 197). The court further orders Plaintiffs

to submit Mr. Kidder’s updated report to Defendants by September 8, 2006. 

Lastly, the court CONTINUES its ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the

expert testimony of Lee Rawls (Dkt. # 195) in order for the court to consider the issue at

an upcoming Daubert hearing. 

Filed and entered this 30th day of August, 2006.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

s/Mary Duett

By

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:05-cv-01552-JLR Document 225 Filed 08/30/06 Page 2 of 2
From: dmvigil@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:09:52 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,

Dennis Vigil

Brentwood, CA 94513
EX-10.12



 Exhibit 10.12 

SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS 

Independent non-employee directors of Mastech Digital, Inc. (the “Company”) will receive an
annual retainer fee of $48,000 in 2018, other than the Chair of the Audit Committee who will receive an annual retainer fee of $52,000 in 2018. In addition, independent non-employee directors of the
Company are eligible to participate in the Company’s Stock Incentive Plan, as amended (the “Stock Incentive Plan”). On January 30, 2018, our independent non-employee directors each
received a restricted share grant under the Stock Incentive Plan of 4,230 restricted shares, which shares vest over a three-year period.
 Non-independent directors of the Company will not receive any compensation for their service as directors of the Company.

All of the Company’s directors are reimbursed for reasonable travel expenses incurred in connection with attending Board of Directors and
committee meetings.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Indian Affairs

          - [234A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice publishes the approval of the Eighth Amendment to the Tribal-State Compact between the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe and the State of Washington.

# DATES:

The Amendment takes effect on September 27, 2023.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701*et seq.,*                     the Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the                     **Federal Register**                     notice of approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III gaming activities on Indian lands. As required by 25 CFR 293.4, all compacts and amendments are subject to review and approval by the Secretary. The Amendment authorizes the Tribe to offer Electronic Table Games at the Tribe's class III gaming facilities, establishes limitations on wagers, credit, gaming stations, and player terminals, and increases contributions to problem gaming resources. Additionally, the Amendment compels the Tribe to establish education and awareness programs for problem gaming and makes minor adjustments to accepted forms of payment, allows the Tribal Court jurisdiction to hear civil disputes arising from the conduct of gaming, and allows the Tribe to increase its maximum wagers and purchase prices                           ( print page 66501)                        to match an increase in prices in the Washington State Lottery.                

Bryan Newland,

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 2023-20969 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
##### 



Third Amendment to Tissue Recovery Agreement between Osteotech, Inc. and
Community Blood Center d/b/a Community Tissue Services
 Community Blood Center, Osteotech,
Inc.
 RECITALS
    1.
    
    Section 1.1.1(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended to add CTS will provide to
OTI ****** recovered with Bone Tissue ****** provided by CTS to OTI.2.
    
    Exhibit C, Tissue Reimbursement Fee Schedule, is hereby
amended to add a fee of $*** for ****** provided to OTI.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 Osteotech, Inc.
    
    
    
    Community Blood Center
d/b/a Community Tissue ServicesBy:
    
    
    
    /s/ Sam Owusu-Akyaw
    
    
    
    By:
    
    
    
    /s/ Julia M. BeldenName:
    
    Sam Owusu-Akyaw
    
    
    
    
    
    Name:
    
    Julia M. BeldenTitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer
    
    








    
    
    
    Title:
    
    Chief Financial Officer
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

COREY P. CLAIRMONT,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 05-482 M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offense charged: 

Possession of an Unregistered Firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (d).

Date of Detention Hearing: October 18, 2005. 

The Court conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). Based upon

the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth, the Court finds that

no condition or combination of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the

appearance of defendant as required.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) The defendant is a risk of flight. The defendant has 3 previous failures to appear.

In addition, the defendant was placed in escape status for a state violation. He has an unstable

employment status and substance abuse problems. 

Case 2:05-cr-00404-RSL Document 10 Filed 10/18/05 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

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

(2) Defendant also poses a risk of danger to the community. He was arrested for the

current firearms violation while on state supervision. In addition, he has substance abuse

problems. 

(3) No conditions or combination of conditions are apparent that will reasonably

assure the defendant’s appearance at future Court hearings or the safety of the community..

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the extent

practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with

counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which defendant

is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose

of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United States

Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 18th day of October, 2005.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cr-00404-RSL Document 10 Filed 10/18/05 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

February 25, 1959

No. 62775.

#### Austin Motor Co., Ltd., *v.*United States,

protest 323812-K (New York).

*288Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of speedometers similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of *Industrial Operations, Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 82, C.D. *1500),*except that the speedometers in the cited case were designed and intended for use as parts of motorcycles whereas those at bar are intended for use as parts of automobiles, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit
23.1




CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




Aurios
Inc.:





As
independent registered certified public accountants, we hereby consent to the
reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the Registration Statement
on Form S-1, Amendment No. 3 (the "Registration Statement") of Aurios Inc. (the
"Company") and to the incorporation in the Registration Statement of our report
dated March 29, 2010, included in the Company’s Financial Statements for the
years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008.





/s/
Semple, Marchal & Cooper, LLP


Phoenix,
Arizona


March 29,
2010
From: wnoel1@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:59:35 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,

WILLIAM NOEL

Orange, MA 01364
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1629 

HENDRA WIJAYA,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A79-349-295)

Submitted: February 23, 2005 Decided: March 17, 2005

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony M. Briggs, Jr., Springfield, Virginia, for Petitioner.

Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Carl H. McIntyre,

Jr., Senior Litigation Counsel, John L. Davis, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

Wijaya raises no claims concerning the Board’s treatment of

his Convention Against Torture claim with this court. Therefore,

we deem the claim abandoned. See United States v. Al-Hamdi, 356

F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th Cir. 2004); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,

178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Hendra Wijaya, a native and citizen of Indonesia,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

under the Convention Against Torture.* 

In his petition for review, Wijaya contends that he

established his eligibility for asylum relief. The record reveals,

however, that the Board found Wijaya’s asylum application untimely.

8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2000). We conclude that we lack

jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(a)(3) (2000). See Zaidi v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 678, 680-81

(7th Cir. 2004) (collecting cases). Given this jurisdictional bar,

we cannot review the underlying merits of Wijaya’s asylum claim. 

While we lack jurisdiction to consider the denial of

Wijaya’s asylum claim, we can review denial of his request for

withholding of removal, which is not subject to the one-year time

limit on asylum claims. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a) (2004). “To

qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that he

faces a clear probability of persecution because of his race,

religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
- 3 -

political opinion.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 n.13 (4th Cir.

2002) (citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)). Based on

our review of the record, we find that Wijaya has failed to meet

this standard.

We deny Wijaya’s petition for review. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victoriano CRUZ-CASTAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-41718.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern Dis*369triet of Texas, Houston, TX, Mark Michael Dowd, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Brownsville, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Molly E. Odom, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Victoriano Cruz-Castan (“Cruz”) appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.** He argues, for the first time on appeal, that the district court erred in sentencing him under a mandatory sentencing guidelines scheme, citing *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). He acknowledges that the argument is reviewed for plain error but contends that plain error should not apply because any objection would have been futile *pre-Booker;*alternatively, he asserts that he does not have to demonstrate any effect on his substantial rights because the error is structural and because prejudice should be presumed.

Plain error is the correct standard of review. *See United States v. Malveaux,*411 F.3d 558, 561 n. 9 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(July 11, 2005) (No. 05-5297). The district court committed error that is plain when it sentenced Cruz under a mandatory sentencing guidelines regime. *See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d 728, 733 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(July 25, 2005) (No. 05-5556); *United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d*597, 600 (5th Cir.2005). Cruz, however, fails to meet his burden of showing that the district court’s error affected his substantial rights. *See Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d at 733-34; *United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 521 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517); *see also United States v. Bringier,*405 F.3d 310, 317 n. 4 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(July 26, 2005) (No. 05-5535). His argument that *Mares*and *Bringier*were wrongly decided is unavailing. *See United States v. Ruff,*984 F.2d 635, 640 (5th Cir.1993).

As he concedes, Cruz’s argument that the sentencing provisions in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) are unconstitutional is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). *See Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000); *United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000).

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

**

 Cruz does not appeal the revocation of his supervised release or the sentence imposed following revocation based on this offense.
From: nancyfarquhar@frontier.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:44:09 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,

Nancy Farquhar

Fremont, IN 46737