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

ORDER FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

NO. C05-5608 

WEBB LAW FIRM

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

225 106TH AVENUE NORTH EAST

BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004

TEL. 425.454.3800

THE HONORABLE JUDGE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CHRISTINE STEPHENS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DONOBI, INC., a Washington

Corporation, and DONOBI, INC., a

Nevada Corporation,

Defendants.

NO. C05-5608 (RBL)

ORDER FOR ENTRY

OF CONFESSED JUDGMENT 

This matter having come on for consideration by motion of Christine and Anton

Stephens for entry of the Judgment confessed by DONOBI, INC., a Washington

Case 3:05-cv-05608-RBL Document 32 Filed 03/17/08 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

ORDER FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

NO. C05-5608 

WEBB LAW FIRM

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

225 106TH AVENUE NORTH EAST

BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004

TEL. 425.454.3800

Corporation and DONOBI, INC., a Nevada Corporation in favor of Christine and Anton

Stephens in the principal amount of $200,000.00. The court having considered the

matter and related submissions and the Declaration of Gordon C. Webb, and being

otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby 

ORDERED that the confessed Judgment is hereby entered against DONOBI,

INC., a Washington Corporation and DONOBI, INC., a Nevada Corporation in the

principal amount of $200,000.00 in favor of Christine and Anton Stephens. The Clerk of

the Court is directed to file the confessed Judgment via ECF. 

DONE this 17th day of March, 2008.

A

RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented By:

 s/GORDON WEBB

By______________________________

GORDON WEBB, WSBA #22777

JAMES B. PARSONS, WSBA #12539

Case 3:05-cv-05608-RBL Document 32 Filed 03/17/08 Page 2 of 2
From: sciotodalepastor@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:33:36 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,

Aaron Reed

Portsmouth, OH 45662
From: abc123pcj@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:02:33 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,

Philip Jones

Lebanon, OR 97355
From: mmckellop@carolina.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:49:29 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,

Mike McKellop

Matthews, NC 28105
No. 68432.

protests 63/10586 and 63/10298 (Los Angeles).

#### The American Import Co. and Quon Quon Company *v.*United States,

Opinión by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel, that the merchandise consists of glass balls with chenille or foil stems similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Joseph Markovits, Inc.*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 151, C.D. 2216), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 245 Filed 01/07/05 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 245 Filed 01/07/05 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 245 Filed 01/07/05 Page 3 of 3
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6574

MICHAEL R. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDDIE L. PEARSON, Chief Warden; JANE DOE CLINCKSCALES; RUFUS FLEMING, Regional Director, Defendants - Appellants, and GIVENS, Records Office Manager; HOUSTON SHIFLETT, Unit Manager; AVON QUIERO; JANE DOE STEM, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-02-219-2) Submitted: October 29, 2004 Decided: January 28, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.- 2 - Noelle Leigh Shaw-Bell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Michael R. Johnson, Appellee Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Appellants have filed an appeal of the district court’s order denying their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. It is well established that a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity is an appealable final decision within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment. Renn v. Garrison , 100 F.3d 344, 349 (4th Cir. 1996) (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth , 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985)). We review the district court’s denial of a defense of qualified immunity de novo. Hodge v. Jones , 31 F.3d 157, 163 (4th Cir. 1994). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeJohnson v. Pearson , No. CA-02-219-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 2, 2004). We deny Johnson’s motions for sanctions and to dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute. We express no view as to whether Johnson will ultimately be able to establish the objective and subjective elements of his ETS claim. 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. AFFIRMED
From: lrrykrk@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:51:51 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

THE FOLLOWING CLEARLY EXPRESSES MY PERSONAL FEELINGS! LKK

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,

Larry Kirk

Berryville, AR 72616
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with this Annual Report of Forbes Energy Services Ltd.filed on Form 10-K (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John E. Crisp, Chief Executive Officer and President ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, 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 represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: March 31, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
BOX ENERGY CORPORATION'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED
MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000874992
<NAME> BOX ENERGY CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           9,640
<SECURITIES>                                    31,220
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,137
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,564
<PP&E>                                         194,601
<DEPRECIATION>                                 121,592
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 138,919
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,821
<BONDS>                                         55,077
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,803
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,218
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   138,919
<SALES>                                         16,034
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,227
<CGS>                                           10,520
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,222
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,225
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,780
<INCOME-TAX>                                       973
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,807
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,807
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
        

</TABLE>
#### John ROSENSTEEL; John Poorman Plaintiffs-Appellants v. GENERAL EXTRUSIONS, INC.; United Steelworkers of America Defendants-Appellees

No. 00-3373.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 7, 2001.

Before RALPH B. GUY, JR., BOGGS, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.

*280This cause having come on to be heard upon the record, the briefs and the oral argument of the parties, and upon due consideration thereof,

The court finds that no prejudicial error intervened in the judgment and proceedings in the district court, and it is therefore ORDERED that said judgment be and it hereby is affirmed.
Fork

3 

R 26 E R 27 E R 28 E R 29 E R 30 E R 31 E 

T T 4 4 S S 

T 

5 

S 

T 

6 

S 

T 

7 

S 

T 

8 

S 

T 

9 

S 

T 

10 

S 

R 26 E R 27 E R 28 E R 29 E R 30 E R 31 E 

OREGON

Prineville 

District John Day Basin

Planning Area 

Map Area 

Fork

John

Day

River

Middle

North

T 

5 

S 

T 

6 

S 

T 

7 

S 

T 

8 

S 

T 

9 

S 

T 

10 

S 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

PRINEVILLE DISTRICT 

John Day Basin
 

Resource Management Plan
 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement
 2008 

Map 2: North Fork John Day Acquired Lands

 Oregon Land Exchange Act 2000 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from various sources. This information may not 

meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without 

notification. M07-09-01_3-5-08 

244 

207 

MORROW COUNTY
 UMITILLA COUNTY


395 

 UMATILLA

 NATIONAL

 FOREST
 

MORROW COUNTY 

GRANT COUNTY 

402 

N 

W E 

S 

Ukiah 

Dale 

Monument 

Hamilton Long Creek 

395 

0 3 6 Miles 

3 0 3 6 Kilometers 

395 

402 

LEGEND

BLM Land Prior to Act Planning Area Boundary 

BLM Lands-Acquisition Administered Land

 Authorized by Oregon Land Forest Service Exchange Act of 2000
 

State


 Private or Other
From: bloughs@charter.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:44:54 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,

Carl Blough

Eureka, MO 63025
From: billmeadows45@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:20:03 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,

Bill Meadows

Lakeland, FL 33810