alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ORDER-1 

No. CR 05-05704-FDB

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT TACOMA 

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

 

BRAYDON MIRABACK, and 

ZACHARY MIRABACK, 

 Defendants. 

CASE NO. CR 05-05704-FDB 

ORDER 

This matter has come before the Court on an agreed motion by both defendants 

and the Government for an extension of time in which to file pre-trial motions. 

Having considered the papers filed by the parties, the records and files herein, and the 

motion for continuance of pre-trial motions date, the Court hereby makes the 

following findings: 

1. The Court finds that a failure to grant the requested extension of time 

for the filing of pre-trial motions would deny counsel the reasonable 

time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the 
ORDER -2 

No. CR 05-05704-FDB

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 

exercise of due diligence; and the requested extension of time is 

necessary to insure the effective trial preparation by the parties. 

It is therefore ORDERED that the time within which pre-trial motions must be filed in 

this case be extended to November 10, 2005. 

SO ORDERED this 17th day of October, 2005 

 /s/ Franklin D Burgess _

 FRANKLIN D BURGESS 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
|               | (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 financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |

|  Date:      November 14, 2008                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |                      |                     | /s/ A. William Allen,III     |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|------------------------------|
|                                                              |                      |      | A.      William Allen, III   |
|                                                         |                      |      | Chief      Executive Officer |
Before Chief Judge Rao,

October 17, 1968

No. R68/39.

reappraisements R64/20399, etc. (New York).

#### Shalom Baby Wear, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues and facts are the same in all material respects as those in *Shalom*Baby-Wear, *Ino.*v. *United States*(54 Oust. Ct. 526, Reap. Dec. 10905), the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1.956, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the cotton and ramie articles of wearing apparel in issue and that such value was the appraised value, less the buying commission, as stated on the invoices.
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

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

ZACHARY MIRABACK,

 Defendant.

Case No. 05-5174M

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( X ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( X ) Defendant has violated prior orders on probation.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 ( X ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

leged quantity of drugs involved and sophistication of activity. (X ) 

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( X ) Defendant’s lack of community ties and resources..

 ( X) Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal,

without prejudice to review..

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 September 27, 2005.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cr-05704-FDB Document 18 Filed 09/27/05 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Gooden, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 57]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (McKay, J.), rendered March 29, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

*684Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

During the second round of voir dire, defense counsel objected to the prosecution’s use of peremptory challenges against black jurors. The court indicated that it did not see a pattern forming, but offered to allow the prosecutor to "volunteer his reasons, at least for today and * * * any comments about [the peremptory challenges exercised] yesterday”. The prosecutor then volunteered his race-neutral reasons for the challenges. Notwithstanding the parties’ argument over whether a prima facie case was established, the issue was rendered academic because the "prosecutor has offered a[n] * * * explanation for the peremptory challenges and the trial court has ruled on the ultimate question of [purposeful] discrimination” *(Hernandez v New York,*500 US 352, 359). Thus, the issue before this Court is whether the defendant met his burden of proving that the peremptory challenges were racially motivated.

The second step of the *Batson*analysis requires only that the non-moving party offer a race-neutral explanation. That requirement " 'does not demand an explanation that is persuasive, or even plausible. "At this step of the inquiry, the issue is the facial validity of the prosecutor’s explanation. Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor’s explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral” ’ ” *(People v Allen,*86 NY2d 101, 110, quoting *Purkett v Elem,*514 US —, —, 131 L Ed 2d 834, 839, quoting *Hernandez v New York, supra,*at 360). Once the explanations are offered, the burden then shifts back to the moving party to prove that the facially valid explanations were pretextual (see, *People v Allen, supra; People v Hernandez, supra,*at 364-365). The only indication of dissatisfaction by the defense was its request for a mistrial or a resumption of the voir dire with the court’s attention drawn to the prosecution’s future challenges. No specific objections were taken with respect to the race-neutral explanations offered by the prosecution. Accordingly, the defense failed to meet its burden.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
Filed Pursuant To Rule 433, Registration No. 333-217029








Dated Monday, June 10, 2019





POWERNOTES Issued by CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION.


For the Period: 6/10/2019 to 6/17/2019


CouponInterestMaturityCallableSurvivor's OptionPriceCUSIP2.000%Semi-Annual(†††)12/15/20206/15/2020 *Yes §100.0014912HVJ62.150%Semi-Annual(†††)6/15/20226/15/2020 *Yes §100.0014912HVK3





Expected Trade Date - Monday, June 17, 2019


Expected Settlement Date - Thursday, June 20, 2019





(†††) First Payment date 12/15/2019





* Callable at 100% beginning on the call date above and semi-annual thereafter with 30 days notice.





§ The limit for any individual deceased owner or beneficial interest is $200,000 per calendar year. Limit in aggregate per calendar year is 1% of outstanding principal amount of PowerNotes as of the end of the most recent fiscal year. For complete details, see the prospectus .





Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation has filed a registration statement (including prospectus) with the SEC for the offering to which this communication relates. Before you invest, you should read the prospectus in that registration statement and the other documents Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation has filed with the SEC for more complete information about Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation and this offering. You may get these documents for free by visiting EDGAR on the SEC web site at www.sec.gov. Alternatively, Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation, any underwriter or any dealer participating in the offering will arrange to send you the prospectus if you request it by calling (800) 289-6689.





Except for Notes sold to level-fee accounts, Notes offered to the public will be offered at the public offering price set forth in this Pricing Supplement. Selected dealers purchasing Notes on an agency basis for non-level fee client accounts shall purchase Notes at the public offering price. Notes purchased by the selected dealers for their own account may be purchased at the public offering price less the applicable concession. Notes purchased by the selected dealers on behalf of level-fee accounts may be sold to such accounts at the public offering price less the applicable concession, in which case, such selected dealers will not retain any portion of the sales price as compensation.





All offerings are subject to prior sale.





Under no circumstances shall this information constitute an offer to sell, nor shall there be any sale of the securities in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of such jurisdiction.
From: mquador@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:51:52 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,

Nancy Quador

Collierville, TN 38017
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

1

 The Court construes plaintiff’s filing as a motion for reconsideration, as opposed to a notice of

appeal, because plaintiff crossed-out “Notice of Appeal” in the caption and crossed-out “This appeal is

brought in good faith” in the text of the motion. 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_________________________________ )

RICHARD ROY SCOTT, ) No. MC05-5029

)

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

WILL BAILEY, )

)

Defendant. )

_________________________________ )

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration”1

 (Dkt.

#110). In his motion, plaintiff requests reconsideration of the Court’s July 23, 2007 Order

where the Court determined that plaintiff’s action submitted on March 13, 2007 (Dkt. #106)

should not proceed because it failed to comply with the terms of the Court’s April 5, 2005 and

March 26, 2007 orders. See Dkt. #170 in Case No. C04-5147RJB (April 5, 2005 Order); Dkt.

#95 in Case No. C06-5172FDB (March 26, 2007 Order). 

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored in this district and will be granted only upon

“a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority.” 

Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1). Plaintiff has failed to identify any manifest error in the Court’s prior

ruling or to produce new facts or legal authority that would change the Court’s original analysis. 

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 113 Filed 10/22/07 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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -2-

Additionally, the terms of the Court’s April 5, 2005 order provide that: “Plaintiff shall

not file a motion for reconsideration without making a specific showing that the motion meets

the criteria set forth in the local rules for filing such a motion.” See Dkt. #170 in Case No.

C04-5147RJB at 4. Plaintiff has failed to make a specific showing that he meets the criteria in

Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #110) is

DENIED.

DATED this 19th day of October, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 113 Filed 10/22/07 Page 2 of 2
From: mmcadory@mvnazarene.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:36:59 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,

Melinda McAdory

Graniteville, SC 29829
From: m4jr@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:25:56 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,

Matthew J. Jones, Jr.

Alexandria, VA 22315
From: NAPaccounts@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:56:50 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 Pepper-Zmarzly

Tijeras, NM 87059