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

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

STACY CHARLES COMER,

 Defendant.

Case No. 05-5167M

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)

 ( ) 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 is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

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

 (X) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

 ( ) 

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant’s lack of sufficient ties to the community.

 ( ) Immigration and Naturalization Service detainer.

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

 (X) Failures to appear for past court proceedings and comply with court orders.

 (X) Defendant has an outstanding warrant from Department of Corrections.

 

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.

< 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.

 October 11, 2005.

___s/ Karen L. Strombom 

Karen L Strombom, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-mj-05167-KLS Document 18 Filed 10/11/05 Page 1 of 1
From: franknmerge@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:47:00 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

francis eggers

Tampa, FL 33604
From: mulkeys2001@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:41:43 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,

Edward Mulkey

Pearce, AZ 85625
From: cathyawenz@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:23:39 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,

Cathy Wenz

Saint Paul, MN 55118
Appendix J – Comment

J.LA-1

LOCAL AGENCIES/GOVERNMENTS LA1 Douglas County Board of CommissionLA1-1 The comment period was not extended. 

IND3-1.
#### Naeem Shakir SALIM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. SHERRILL, Chaplain; Virginia Beach Correctional Center; The City of Virginia Beach, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-6312.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 21, 2001.

Decided June 29, 2001.

*115Naeem Shakir Salim, pro se.

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Naeem Salim seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West 2000) action without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court noted that Salim stated in his complaint that he had not appealed the denial of his grievance. *See*42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(a) (West Supp.2000). In his notice of appeal to this court, Salim indicated that he was “refiling” his § 1983 action with “proof positive” that his administrative remedies had been exhausted, and he attached several copies of grievance forms. Further, Salim alleges that there is no appeal process available through the correctional center’s grievance procedure. If Salim wishes to proceed with his action, however, the proper course of action is for him to refile his action in the district court with evidence that he has exhausted all available administrative remedies. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Salim’s § 1983 action. 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.*
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00118-CR

JOSE GONZALO FERMAN

A/K/A JOSE GONZALEZ FERMAN

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4 OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Jose Gonzalo Ferman a/k/a Jose Gonzalez Ferman attempts to 

appeal from his conviction for driving while intoxicated with a child passenger. 

See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.045 (West 2011). Ferman pleaded guilty 

pursuant to a plea bargain, and in accordance with the plea bargain, the trial 

court sentenced him to two years’ confinement in state jail. The trial court’s 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

certification of his right to appeal states that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the 

defendant has NO right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).

On March 31, 2014, we notified Ferman that this appeal could be 

dismissed based on the trial court’s certification unless he or any party desiring to 

continue the appeal filed a response on or before April 10, 2014, showing 

grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f). No 

response has been filed.

In accordance with the trial court’s certification, we therefore dismiss this 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: May 15, 2014
From: md_fox@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:45:59 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,

Mike and Kim Fox

Tulsa, OK 74147
```

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 188 (Friday, September 29, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 67331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21361]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIHAI75N93023R00003: Pre-clinical 
Models of Infectious Diseases-Task Area D.
    Date: October 30, 2023.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G74, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Hailey Petersen Weerts, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G74, 
Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 669-5931, [email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 25, 2023.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-21361 Filed 9-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
From: blackandgoldpony@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:21:06 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,

Edyce Rivet

Robeline, LA 71469
From: shrnmurfy@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:24:21 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,

Sharon Murphy

Buffalo, NY 14223
1

Troutman, Jake (FAA)

From: Troutman, Jake (FAA)

Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 9:04 AM

To: 'XOinnovation@gmail.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional Information - XO Innovations

Tracking Tracking: Recipient Read

'XOinnovation@gmail.com'

Pappas, Rob (FAA)

Hightower, Gerald CTR (FAA) Read: 7/14/2015 9:05 AM

Dear Mr. Amaya:  

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA‐2015‐

0344).  This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.  

•   A safety case is required for nighttime operations by Order 8900.1, Volume 16, Chapter 5, Section 3, Paragraph 16‐5‐

3‐7I.  The required components of a safety case and safety case format may be found in Order 8900.1, Volume 16,

Chapter 7, Section 1, Paragraph 16‐7‐1‐3.  required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1.  If you wish for us

to proceed without safety case and remove nighttime operations from your proposed operation please inform of us of

your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non‐proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any

proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e‐mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov.  If you want us

to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 7/29/2015.  If we do not

receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.  

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267‐9521.  

Sincerely,

Jake J Troutman

Program Analyst | Rulemaking

FAA Office of Aviation Safety

Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

202‐267‐9521
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 ON MOTION FOR PRETRIAL

DISCLOSURE OF TESTIMONY &

EVIDENCE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

RAJINDER JOHAL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. CR05-334RSL

ORDER ON MOTION FOR PRETRIAL

DISCLOSURE OF TESTIMONY &

EVIDENCE

This matter comes before the Court on “Defendant Johal’s Motion for Pretrial Disclosure

of Testimony & Evidence” (Dkt. # 134). The Court has considered this motion and the

government’s response, and it is clear that the government understands its disclosure

responsibilities in this area. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 16. In light of this agreement, defendant’s

motion is DENIED AS MOOT.

DATED this 24th day of May, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cr-00334-RSL Document 155 Filed 05/25/06 Page 1 of 1