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

Olex

Arlington

Blalock

GILLIAM COUNTYMORROW COUNTY

SHERMAN CO

GILLIAM CO

WASHINGTON

OREGON

206

206

19

74

19

19

84

84

Columbia

River

John

Day

River

3 0 3 6 Kilometers

3 0 3 6 Miles

W

N

E

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 14A: Alternative 3 Travel Management and Off Highway

Vehicle Designations - Lower John Day

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.

Transportation

 Interim Road

 Open Road Seasonally

 Closed Road - Stream Function

 Closed Road

 Interstate

 State Highway

 County Road

 Private Road, Closed to public

 use or unknown

Off Highway Vehicle Designation

 Closed- Motorized Use Off Roads

 Probhibited

 Limited- Motorized Vehicle Use

 Limited to Designated Roads

 and Trails, Seasonally,

 or by Type of Vehicle

LEGEND

Road Density Prescription

 Zero Miles per Square Mile

 Two Miles per Square Mile

Planning Area Boundary

Administered Land

 Bureau of Land Management

 Other Federal

 State

 Private or Other

* Note: Access to some areas listed as open may

 require landowner permission to cross private lands

206

84

19

OREGON

Prineville 

District John Day Basin

Planning Area

Map Area

M07-09-01:9-5-08

T

4

S

T

3

S

T

2

S

T

1

S

T

1

N

T

2

N

T

3

N

T

5

S

T

4

S

T

3

S

T

2

S

T

1

S

T

1

N

T

2

N

T

3

N

T

5

S

R 17 E R 18 E R 19 E R 20 E R 21 E R 22 E R 23 E

R 17 E R 18 E R 19 E R 20 E R 21 E R 22 E R 23 E
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

LEXINGTON INSURANCE CO.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANDRA SWANSON, 

Defendant.

No. C05-1614MJP

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION 

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Lexington’s motion for reconsideration of the

Court’s July 24, 2007, order denying Swanson’s motion for in camera review and to compel, but

granting in part Swanson’s alternative request to exclude, granting motion to quash, and denying

Lexington’s motion for a protective order. (Dkt. No. 294.)

In this district, motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The Court will ordinarily deny

such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new

facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable

diligence. Local Civil Rule 7(h). Lexington requests that the Court “clarify” that its July 24 Order

was meant to preclude both parties from referencing the issue of coverage advice at trial. The

Court’s previous order does not need clarification. Because the prior order was clear and because

Lexington has not shown manifest error or new facts or legal authority, the motion for

reconsideration is DENIED. 

Dated: August 9th, 2007. AMarsha J. Pechman

 United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01614-MJP Document 295 Filed 08/09/07 Page 1 of 1
No. P67/262.

#### National Silver Co. *v.*United States, protest 64/3432 (San Diego).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *W. Kay Com*pany, *Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 130, C.D. 2484), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 188 (Friday, September 29, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 67326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21355]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Sensory-
Motor Neuroscience Study Section, October 12, 2023, 10:00 a.m. to 
October 13, 2023, 8:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the Federal 
Register on September 18, 2023, 88 FR 63969, Doc. No. 2023-20104.
    This meeting is being amended to change the date from October 12, 
2023-October 13, 2023, to October 12, 2023. The meeting is closed to 
the public.

    Dated: September 25, 2023.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-21355 Filed 9-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. §1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Imperial Resources, Inc. (the Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report”), I, Mike Mackey, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





July 14, 2011
By:
/s/Mike MackeyMike Mackey
Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sky Petroleum, Inc. and will be retained by Sky Petroleum, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 2:02-cv-01757-BJR Document 40 Filed 08/17/05 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit      32.1**

|   | (1)     The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2)     The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company.  |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:    |                   /s/ Konstantin Tsirulnikov                      |   |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Konstantin                TsirulnikovChief                Executive Officer |   |

----
Before the Second Division,

July 14, 1955

No. 59223.

protest 157591-K (New York).

#### Philipp Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawbence, J.

At the trial, plaintiff offered in evidence the collector’s memorandum, attached to the protest, and the record in C. D. 1543. It appeared from the last paragraph of the collector’s memorandum that the present protest was filed to secure “a refund of the withheld duties paid [in the amount of $38.76], should the protestant be successful in protest No. 7491 of 1949 [court No. 153227-K],” which protest was decided in favor of the plaintiff in *Philipp Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(31 Cust. Ct. 45, C. D. 1543). There being no disputed question of fact herein, and the contingency upon which the refund of said $38.76 was withheld having been determined in favor of the plaintiff, it was held that this protest was well taken, and the collector was directed to take action accordingly.
From: jagodsen@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:07:12 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,

Jim Clarke

Dallas, TX 75249
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          814828
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   852290
<ALLOWANCES>                                     42000
<INVENTORY>                                     846943
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2514061
<PP&E>                                         2736078
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2160428
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3607581
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1314187
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         60004
<OTHER-SE>                                     1465653
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3607581
<SALES>                                        2070208
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2070208
<CGS>                                          1348339
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1348339
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1738106
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               1016237
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               50136
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (701365)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (701365)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (701365)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
From: ea.gotlund@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:45:49 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,

Elizabeth Gotlund

Iowa City, IA 52240
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

ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

LABOR READY, INC. and IFA

NURSERIES, INC.

Defendants.

No. 3:05-cv-05671-RBL

ORDER GRANTING

MOTION OF

INTERESTED PARTY

JANICE LOWELL TO

INTERVENE AS A

PARTY PLAINTIFF 

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Intervene as a Party Plaintiff. [Dkt # 13].

An aggrieved employee has a statutory right to intervene in a civil action brought by the EEOC. 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-5(f)(1). However, a condition precedent to intervention is that the application must be timely. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). This determination is made by the district court in its discretion, and involves the

consideration of several factors, including, the progress of the litigation at the time the intervention is sought,

the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, and the prejudice other parties would suffer if intervention

were permitted. EEOC v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 675 F.2d 164, 165 (8th Cir. 1982). 

The Court concludes that these factors weigh in favor of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ Motion

to Intervene is hereby GRANTED.

Case 3:05-cv-05671-RBL Document 27 Filed 12/05/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

DATED this 5th day of December 2005.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05671-RBL Document 27 Filed 12/05/05 Page 2 of 2
Before the First Division,

November 26, 1963

No. 68133.

#### Langfelder, Homma & Carroll, Inc., and Frank P. Dow Co., Inc. v. United States,

protest 62/11336 (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise, described on the invoice as “Squirrel” and identified by No. 849/609, is not chiefly used for the amusement of children, but is a manufacture in chief value of plaster of paris,, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 60508.

#### Fred Leighton, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 264243-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

The protest was dismissed.
No. P69/92.

protests 66/23951, etc. (New York).

#### Canton-Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

Maletz, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of nodding head animals similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Wilson’s Customs*Clearance, *Inc.*v. *United States*(59 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 3061), and that said merchandise is wholly or in chief value of papier mache, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: DaveP@dc.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:18:08 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,

David Peters

Cathedral City, CA 92234
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

 ORDER

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

SILVER VALLEY PARTNERS, LLC, a

Washington Limited Liability Company;

JAMES D. CHRISTIANSON, an individual;

the JAMES D. CHRISTIANSON LIVING

TRUST, a Trust formed under the laws of the

State of Washington; STERLING

PARTNERS, LLC, a Washington Limited

Liability Company; CHRISTIANSON

FAMILY, LLC, a Washington Limited

Liability Company; SILVER VALLEY

EAGLES, LLC, a Washington Limited

Liability Company; and NONSTOP

REVENUE, LLC, a Washington Limited

Liability Company,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RAY DE MOTTE, an individual; CAROL

STEPHAN, an individual; MELANIE

FARRAND, an individual; SILVER VALLEY

CAPITAL, LLC, an Idaho Limited Liability

Company,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5590 RBL

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration. [Dkt. #24] The Court

has reviewed and considered the Motion, the cases cited. The issue has been well-briefed. 

Under Local Rule 7, Motions for Reconsideration are disfavored, and will ordinarily be denied

absent a showing of manifest error or a new factual or legal basis which could not have been raised earlier. 

Local Rule 7(h). This standard has not been met in this case, and the Court will not Reconsider its prior

Case 3:05-cv-05590-RBL Document 25 Filed 12/16/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 2

ruling [Dkt. #23]. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. #24] is DENIED. 

Dated this 16th day of December, 2005

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 3:05-cv-05590-RBL Document 25 Filed 12/16/05 Page 2 of 2
From: susankight@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:47:30 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,

Susan Kight

Mason, OH 45040