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 ORDER – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS TURNER,

Defendant.

CASE NO. CR05-355C

ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on the Stipulated Motion to Continue Trial Date (Dkt.

No. 27), and the Court having considered the papers filed by the parties, together with the balance of the

records and files herein, this Court now finds as follows:

The current pretrial motions due date is December 1, 2005 and the current trial date is February 6,

2006. New counsel was appointed after David Marshall withdrew as Defendant’s counsel in November,

2005. New counsel Suzanne Lee Elliot is active in plea negotiations with the Government, and additional

time is needed to further explore settlement options in this case and possibly eliminate the need for a trial. 

A denial of the requested extensions would unreasonably deny Defendant reasonable time to consult with

counsel. Further, Defendant has filed a speedy trial waiver through June 1, 2006 indicating his agreement

with a continuance. (Dkt. No. 29.) The proposed continuance of the trial does not appear to prejudice

Case 2:05-cr-00355-JCC Document 30 Filed 01/24/06 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 ORDER – 2

any party. The Court finds that failure to grant the requested continuance likely would result in a

miscarriage of justice. The Court further finds that the interests of the public and the Defendant in a

speedy trial in this case are outweighed by the ends of justice, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(A). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the pre-trial motions cut-off date shall be extended

to February 27, 2006, with a new trial date of May 1, 2006. The time between the date of this Order and

the new trial date shall be excludable time under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(A). 

SO ORDERED this 24th day of January, 2006.

A

John C. Coughenour

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cr-00355-JCC Document 30 Filed 01/24/06 Page 2 of 2
From: foxbororoad-ladue@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:01:16 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,

Glen Elmore

Saint Louis, MO 63141
From: cwamsley@woh.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:31:34 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,

Charles Wamsley

Dayton, OH 45458
(R.D. 11528)

#### Globe International of Calif., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 2095.

(Decided May 23, 1968)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*Edwin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon- the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPUEATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> *8753. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as 'amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for reappraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
H. Res. 549 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

October 17, 2007. 

Whereas the United States has a maritime border that exceeds 95,000 miles; 

Whereas the Department of Homeland Security has begun to 

focus greater attention on potential security threats from 

small vessels and the importance of increasing maritime 

domain awareness; 

Whereas the Coast Guard currently conducts a maritime 

homeland security public awareness program called 

America’s Waterway Watch program; 

Whereas America’s Waterway Watch is a public outreach 

program to encourage America’s 70,000,000 boaters and 

others who live, work, or engage in recreational activities 

around America’s waterways to maintain a heightened 

sense of awareness in the maritime domain and report 

suspicious and unusual activities to the Coast Guard National Response Center and other appropriate law enforcement agencies; 

Whereas America’s Waterway Watch program educates the 

public on what suspicious activity is and provides a tollfree telephone number, (877) 24–WATCH, for the public 

to report such activity to prevent terrorism and other 

criminal acts; 
2 

•HRES 549 EH 

Whereas the Coast Guard promotes this program by distributing educational materials, boat decals, posters, and reporting forms to recreational boaters, marine dealers, 

marinas, and other businesses located near waterways; 

Whereas America’s Waterway Watch program acts as a force 

multiplier for the Coast Guard and local law enforcement 

and builds on local and regional security programs; 

Whereas the Department of Homeland Security conducted a 

National Small Vessel Security Summit on June 19 and 

June 20, 2007, to educate small vessel operators and 

other stakeholders on current security risks and initiate 

dialogue on possible solutions to mitigate gaps in United 

States maritime domain awareness; and 

Whereas, during the National Small Vessel Security Summit, 

participants highlighted America’s Waterway Watch program and recognized its importance to increasing maritime domain awareness: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) recognizes the importance of increasing maritime domain awareness; 

(2) encourages those who live, work, or engage in 

recreational activities around America’s waterways to 

maintain a heightened sense of awareness in the maritime domain and report suspicious and unusual activities 

to appropriate authorities; and 
3 

•HRES 549 EH 

(3) supports the goals of America’s Waterway 

Watch program. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000874787
<NAME> COASTAL PHYSICIAN GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              [BLANK]
<PERIOD-END>                                  03-31-98
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1.0
<CASH>                                             866
<SECURITIES>                                     2,499
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,792
<ALLOWANCES>                                   [BLANK]
<INVENTORY>                                    [BLANK]
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                55,641
<PP&E>                                           9,333
<DEPRECIATION>                                 [BLANK]
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  75,581
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,252
<BONDS>                                        [BLANK]
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          [BLANK]
<PREFERRED>                                    [BLANK]
<COMMON>                                           376
<OTHER-SE>                                    (66,490)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    75,581
<SALES>                                         87,877
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                87,877
<CGS>                                          [BLANK]
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   90,536
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               [BLANK]
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               [BLANK]
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,140
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                [BLANK]
<INCOME-TAX>                                   [BLANK]
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,593)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 [BLANK]
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                [BLANK]
<CHANGES>                                      [BLANK]
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,593)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)
        

</TABLE>
From: cle31@eitzworld.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:26:47 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,

Lloyd Eitzen

Visalia, CA 93278
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 174-8 Filed 09/20/04 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 174-8 Filed 09/20/04 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 9,515.

#### In re MEYER.

*[2*N. B. R. 422 (Quarto, 137); 11 Chi. Leg. News. 210.]

District Court, S. D. New York.

Feb. 22, 1869.

Bankruptcy — Fraudulent Assignment — Payments Made — Accounting Therefor.

Bankrupt made a fraudulent assignment to S. The attorney of S. was attorney for the bankrupt, and also for one P., a creditor. Payments were made to S. and to P. by said attorney, out of proceeds of assigned property. *Meld,*that the assignment was void, and that S., P., and the attorney should account to the assignee for the property and proceeds thereof.

[Cited in Curran v. Hunger, Case No. 3.487.]

[Cited in Mathews v. Rices, 80 Me. 107. 13 Atl. 49; Washburn v. Huntington, 78 Cal. 576, 21 Pac. 306.]

[In the matter of Edward Meyer, a bankrupt.]

F. C. Bowman, assignee in bankruptcy, in person.

Stevens & Reymert, for defendants.

1

 [Reprinted from 2 N. B. R. 422 (Quarto 137), by permission.]

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

The assignment from the bankrupt to Salmons was made in fraud of the bankrupt act [of 1867, 14 Stat. 517]; it was not made in the usual and ordinary course of business of the bankrupt, and that fact is made, by the thirty-fifth section of the act, prima facie evidence of fraud. Besides, it clearly appears from the evidence that the bankrupt was insolvent when he made the assignment, and that Salmons then had reasonable cause to believe him to be insolvent, and that he was contemplating going into bankruptcy, and that a fraud on the act was intended by the transaction. All the consideration Salmons has paid for the assigned property has been paid out of the collections of the debts assigned. The attorney for Pretorius knew the mala fides of the whole transaction before he paid any money over to Pretorius, and the latter is chargeable with all the knowledge which his attorney had. The same person was also attorney for Salmons and for the bankrupt. Any money which Salmons or his attorney has paid to the bankrupt or Pretorius, and any money which Salmons himself has received, and any money which the attorney has retained out of the collections or proceeds of the assigned property, must- be paid over to the assignee in bankruptcy by Salmons. The bankrupt and Pretorius and the attorney must further be held liable to account to the assignee in bankruptcy for what they severally have received or retained out of such proceeds. The assignment to Salmons must be set aside as void, and he and his attorney must transfer and deliver to the assignee in bankruptcy all the assigned property which has not been realized or collected, or which still remains unconverted into money, and all evidences thereof and the temporary injunction heretofore granted must be made perpetual. Salmons must also pay the costs of this suit
From: hunterhillfriends@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:14:35 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,

Jeff Bartolet

Greensboro, NC 27407
From: staceybs2003@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:26:48 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,

Stacey Schwartz

Ansonia, CT 06401