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.

GEORGE WEGERS, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. CR05-0231C

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Gerald Raschka’s motion in limine to exclude

statements by certain of his co-defendants (Dkt. No. 538). Having considered the papers submitted for

and against motion in light of the complete record in this case, and finding oral argument unnecessary, the

Court DENIES Defendant’s motion as premature.

Raschka is one of twenty-eight defendants in this prosecution, and is named in two of the thirtysix counts in the First Superseding Indictment (“FSI”). With eight other co-defendants, he is charged in

Count 12 as a co-conspirator in the Bandidos organization’s conspiracy to traffic in stolen vehicles and

vehicle parts. (FSI 22–23.) He is also one of six co-conspirators charged in Count 14 with possession

of, and intent to sell, a motorcycle with the VIN obliterated, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2321(a). 

Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 654 Filed 11/17/05 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 ORDER – 2

(Id. 24–25.) Count 14 is one of four offenses allegedly committed in furtherance of the larger conspiracy

in Count 12. (Id. 24–26.)

Based on the number of distinct conspiracies alleged in the FSI, Raschka requests an order

excluding from trial all statements made by those co-defendants not charged in Counts 12 through 16. 

(See Def.’s Mot. 2.) He concedes that “it is unknown which defendants will go to trial and which

statements of coconspirators will be offered by the government,” but argues nonetheless that a pretrial

order is required. (Def.’s Reply 6–7.) The government responds that Raschka’s motion is premature

based on current plea negotiations with a number of defendants and its intent to produce a second

superseding indictment in early December. (Pl.’s Opp’n 12.)

The Court agrees that Raschka’s motion is premature given the fluid state of affairs in this case,

which may soon encompass a different universe of defendants and charges. He has not alleged that any

prejudice will result if he simply renews his motion closer to trial when the full range of evidence is better

understood by all parties. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant Raschka’s motion without

prejudice. 

SO ORDERED this 17th day of November, 2005.

A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cr-00231-JCC Document 654 Filed 11/17/05 Page 2 of 2
From: jbrown96@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:51:03 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

James Brown

Royse City, TX 75189
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66472-66473]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21012]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4720-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]


Vermont; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

[[Page 66473]]


ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Vermont (FEMA-4720-DR), dated July 14, 2023, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued July 21, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Vermont is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration 
of July 14, 2023.

    Bennington County for debris removal [Category A] and permanent 
work [Categories C-G] (already designated for emergency protective 
measures [Category B], including direct federal assistance, under 
the Public Assistance program).
    Orange and Washington Counties for debris removal [Category A] 
and permanent work [Categories C-G] (already designated for 
Individual Assistance and emergency protective measures [Category 
B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance 
program).
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-21012 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
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

VINCENT DANIEL HOPPER,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL MELENDEZ,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5680RBL

ORDER STAYING ACTION EXCEPT

AS NOTED BELOW

This Bivens action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title

28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrates' Rules MJR 1, MJR 3, and MJR

4. Bivens v Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The only remaining

defendant is Michael Melendez. On May 24, 2007, defendant Melendez moved for summary

judgment on the only remaining issue in this case, the constitutionality of the telephone system

provided to plaintiff (Dkt. # 141). Defendant’s motion was filed one day before the motion cut off

date.

Since the filing of that motion plaintiff has filed four motions and a number of other pleadings

(Dkt. # 144 to 155). Several of plaintiff’s motions must be addressed before the court issues a

Report and Recommendation on defendant’s motion for summary judgement.

The court now orders this action is STAYED. The parties will file no further pleadings

Case 3:05-cv-05680-RBL Document 156 Filed 07/06/07 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

27

28 ORDER

except defendants may file a reply to plaintiff’s response to the motion for summary judgment. 

Plaintiff filed a late response (Dkt # 152, 155). Plaintiff states the responses are the same document

in different fonts. Initial review of the document confirms plaintiff’s statement.

Defendant will be given until July 27, 2007, to file a reply. Defendant’s motion for summary

judgment is re-noted by the court for July 27, 2007, on the court’s own motion.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order, to plaintiff and counsel for defendants and

re-note defendant’s motion for summary judgment for July 27, 2007.

DATED this 6 day of July 2007. 

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:05-cv-05680-RBL Document 156 Filed 07/06/07 Page 2 of 2
From: dawood@wowway.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:59:52 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,

Amy Wood

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068
Exhibit








Director Compensation Policy




On October 1, 2015 the Compensation Committee of Caladrius Biosciences, Inc. (the “Company”), after consultation with the Board, adopted the Board of Directors Compensation Plan (the “Board of Directors Compensation Plan”), for all non-employee Board members which policy was amended by the Board on May 16, 2017 and December 4, 2017, and currently provides that:


		
	•
	each Board member shall be authorized to receive an annual cash compensation retainer of $40,000 for his or her service as a Board member;


		
	•
	the Lead Director shall be authorized to receive an additional annual cash compensation retainer of $10,000 for his or her service as the Lead Director;


		
	•
	the Non-executive Chair shall be authorized to receive an additional annual cash compensation retainer of $30,000 for his or her service as the Non-executive Chair;


		
	•
	each member of the Company’s Audit Committee shall be entitled to receive annual cash compensation of $8,000 for his or her service on such committee;


		
	•
	each member of the Company’s Compensation Committee shall be entitled to receive annual cash compensation of $6,000 for his or her service on such committee;


		
	•
	each member of the Company’s Nominating and Governance Committee shall be entitled to receive annual cash compensation of $4,500 for his or her service on such committee;


		
	•
	each member of the Company’s Science and Technology Committee shall be entitled to receive annual cash compensation of $4,500 for his or her service on such committee;


		
	•
	the Audit Committee Chair shall be authorized to receive annual cash compensation of $18,000 for his or her service as the Chair;


		
	•
	the Compensation Committee Chair shall be authorized to receive annual cash compensation of $12,000 for his or her service as the Chair;


		
	•
	the Nominating and Governance Committee Chair shall be authorized to receive annual cash compensation of $9,000 for his or her service as the Chair;


		
	•
	the Science and Technology Committee Chair shall be authorized to receive annual cash compensation of $9,000 for his or her service as the Chair;


		
	•
	each member of the Board shall receive annually on the second Monday in January a grant of restricted stock with a black scholes value of $30,000 with the number of shares to be issued on the grant date calculated based on the average closing price of the common stock of the Company during the 30 day period of October 15 through November 15 prior to the grant date, vesting at one year from the grant date; and


		
	•
	each newly appointed Board member shall receive an initial grant of restricted stock with a black scholes value of $60,000 with the number of shares to be issued on the grant date calculated based on the grant date fair value with one-third vesting annually on each of the first, second and third anniversaries of the grant date.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Orbit/FR, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the three months ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dave
Lubbe, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

August 13, 2004

/s/ Dave Lubbe
------------------------
Dave Lubbe
Chief Financial Officer

                                       21
No. 58236.

protests 186578-K, etc. (New York).

#### Alltransport, Inc., and Asam Mfg. Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of speedometers and parts thereof similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of *Industrial Operations, Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 82, C. D. 1500), except that the speedometers and parts thereof in the cited case were designed and intended for use as parts of motorcycles whereas those at bar are intended for use as parts of automobiles, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: kengutbrod@frontier.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:50:55 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,

Kenneth Gutbrod

,
From: rosanne.i.brown@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:42:32 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,

Rosanne Brown

Fairborn, OH 45324
From: kennedy.lindajoy@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:50:47 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,

Linda Kennedy

Herriman, UT 84096