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

Page 1 of 3 

C:\DOCUME~1\gburnopp\LOCALS~1\Temp\notesFFF692\Final Stipulation and Judgment.doc 

THE HONORABLE MARY ALICE THEILER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 

LOCALS 302 AND 612 OF THE 

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF 

OPERATING ENGINEERS 

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY HEALTH 

AND SECURITY FUND; LOCALS 302 

AND 612 OF THE INTERNATIONAL 

UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERSEMPLOYERS CONSTRUCTION 

INDUSTRY RETIREMENT FUND; 

WESTERN WASHINGTON OPERATING 

ENGINEERS-EMPLOYERS TRAINING 

TRUST FUND; and LOCAL 302 

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF 

OPERATING ENGINEERS, 

 Plaintiffs 

 v. 

GASTON BROS. EXCAVATING, INC., a 

Washington corporation 

 Defendant. 

NO. C05-1679-MAT 

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR ENTRY 

OF JUDGMENT 

THE PARTIES above named, through their attorneys, Reid, Pedersen, McCarthy & 

Ballew, L.L.P., attorneys for Plaintiffs, and Short, Cressman & Burgess, PLLC, attorneys for 

Defendant, Gaston Bros. Excavating, Inc. (“Gaston”) hereby stipulate to enter Judgment in 

the above-referenced action. 

Case 2:05-cv-01679-MAT Document 14 Filed 09/14/06 Page 1 of 3
JUDGMENT 

Page 2 of 3 

C:\DOCUME~1\gburnopp\LOCALS~1\Temp\notesFFF692\Final Stipulation and Judgment.doc 

DATED this 11th day of September, 2006. 

REID, PEDERSEN, McCARTHY & BALLEW, L.L.P.

 

 

s/Todd A. Lyon 

Russell J. Reid, WSBA #2560 

Todd A. Lyon, WSBA #30387 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

DATED this 5th day of September, 2006. 

SHORT, CRESSMAN & BURGESS, PLLC 

 

s/Janet Kim Lin 

John P. Ahlers, WSBA No. 13070 

Janet Kim Lin, WSBA No. 34015 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Case 2:05-cv-01679-MAT Document 14 Filed 09/14/06 Page 2 of 3
JUDGMENT 

Page 3 of 3 

C:\DOCUME~1\gburnopp\LOCALS~1\Temp\notesFFF692\Final Stipulation and Judgment.doc 

ORDER FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 

Based on the foregoing Stipulation of Plaintiffs and Defendant, it is hereby 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiffs be and hereby are awarded 

judgment against Defendant in the amounts hereinafter listed, which amounts are due the 

Plaintiffs by Defendant for a total of $83,000.00, together with interest accruing thereupon at 

the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum on the declining balance until fully paid. In 

addition, Plaintiffs are entitled to their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in any action to 

execute upon the instant judgment. 

JUDGMENT ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2006. 

s/ Mary Alice Theiler 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Presented for Entry by: 

s/Todd A. Lyon__________________ 

Russell J. Reid, WSBA #2560 

Todd A. Lyon, WSBA #30387 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Case 2:05-cv-01679-MAT Document 14 Filed 09/14/06 Page 3 of 3
From: richard91459@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:23:36 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,

Richard Olson

, 68105-2098
From: jpray7@frontiernet.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:03:55 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,

Joseph Ray

Adams, MN 55909
No. 61020.

protests 261157-K, etc. (New York).

#### Morris Shoenthal, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

*355Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hoods the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *United States*v. *Accurate Millinery Co., Roberts, Reilly & Sons, et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 229, C. A. D. 599), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: dsdenself@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:48:12 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,

Dennis Selfridge

Mitchell, SD 57301
MEMORANDUM Subject: Summary of Stakeholder Meeting including a Discussion on Ozone NAAQS Proposal From: Martha Keating To: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0699 Date: February 18, 2015 On February 13, 2015, staff members from the U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, met with representatives from the Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA) and representatives from the Advanced Engine Systems Institue (AESI). The EPA staff fielded general questions pertaining to the Agency’s November 25, 2015, proposed revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. There were no meeting materials.

The attendees were as follows: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Alison Eyth Karen Wesson Robin Langdon Heather Simon Scott Jenkins

Stakeholder Attendees Greg Garr - Umicore Rasto Brezny – Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA) Joseph Kubsh - MECA Chris Miller – Advanced Engine Systems Institute (AESI) David Cetola - Johnson Matthey Catalysts Paul Busch – NGK Automotive Ceramics
RIDDELL SPORTS INC.                                   EXHIBIT 11
             STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          Three Months Ended Sept. 30,     Nine Months Ended Sept. 30,
                                          ---------------------------      ---------------------------
                                             1996            1995             1996            1995
                                          -----------     -----------      -----------     -----------
<S>                                       <C>             <C>              <C>             <C>
Primary earnings per share:
-----------------------------------
  Weighted average common shares
  outstanding during period                8,067,985       8,067,985        8,067,985       8,067,985

  Common shares equivalents of dilutive
   stock options based on treasury
   stock method using average market
   price for  quarter                        500,278               0          479,530               0
                                          -----------     -----------      -----------     -----------
  Average common shares and equivalents    8,568,263       8,067,985        8,547,515       8,067,985
                                          ===========     ===========      ===========     ===========
  Net income for the period                 $965,117        $802,640       $4,133,933      $3,303,575
                                          ===========     ===========      ===========     ===========
  Per share amount                             $0.11           $0.10            $0.48           $0.41
                                          ===========     ===========      ===========     ===========

Fully diluted earnings per share:
-----------------------------------
  Weighted average common shares           8,067,985       8,067,985        8,067,985       8,067,985
  outstanding during period

  Common shares equivalents of dilutive
   stock options based on treasury
   stock method using quarter ending
   market price which is higher than
   average market price                      565,962               0          548,407               0
                                          -----------     -----------      -----------     -----------
  Average common shares and equivalents    8,633,947       8,067,985        8,616,392       8,067,985
                                          ===========     ===========      ===========     ===========
  Net income for the period                 $965,117        $802,640       $4,133,933      $3,303,575
                                          ===========     ===========      ===========     ===========
  Per share amount                             $0.11           $0.10            $0.48           $0.41
                                          ===========     ===========      ===========     ===========
</TABLE>
No. 58226.

protest 222920-K (New York).

#### Robert M. Pitt Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following Abstract 57870, it was held that payment of duties is a condition precedent to the right to file protest against the payment of same. The protest was therefore dismissed.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 545 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the border 

fence dispute with Mexico. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 13, 2007 

Mr. CHABOT submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives 

regarding the border fence dispute with Mexico. 

Whereas a border located near Columbus, New Mexico, along 

the United States-Mexico border has not been questioned 

over the last 120 years; 

Whereas, in 2000, the United States constructed a much 

longer border fence along a large portion of the 

uncontested United States-Mexico border, at a cost of 

$500,000 per mile; 

Whereas, in March 2007, aerial surveys revealed that 1.5 

miles of the fence, near Columbus, New Mexico, was constructed on Mexican land; 

Whereas the United States promptly notified the Mexican 

Government of the error; 


ccoleman on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 545 IH 

Whereas the Mexican Government recently contacted the Department of State to request that the fence be removed 

as soon as possible; 

Whereas removing the fence will cost the United States Government $3,000,000; 

Whereas the United States and Mexico have had a strong bilateral relationship, particularly over the last several 

years; 

Whereas upon enactment of the North American Free Trade 

Agreement, Mexico has become the United States second 

largest trading partner; 

Whereas with the new economic relationship came greater cooperation between the United States and Mexico in the 

areas of counter-narcotics, law enforcement, and trade; 

Whereas the United States has provided more than 

$270,000,000 in aid to Mexico between 2004 and 2007, 

with more than $140,000,000 going to counter-narcotics 

and law enforcement; 

Whereas, in 1889, the International Boundary and Water 

Commission was established to apply boundary and water 

treaties between the United States and Mexico; 

Whereas the International Boundary and Water Commission 

is charged with making recommendations for the resolution of border problems; and 

Whereas the United States section of the International 

Boundary and Water Commission should work with the 

Mexican section to resolve the border dispute jointly: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that— 


ccoleman on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 545 IH 

1 (1) the United States should work with Mexico 

2 through the respective sections of the International 

3 Boundary and Water Commission to resolve the bor4 der fence dispute before assuming sole financial re5 sponsibility for removing the fence; and 

6 (2) if the Mexican Government does not respect 

7 the authority of the International Boundary and 

8 Water Commission to resolve border problems, the 

9 United States Government should reduce its foreign 

10 assistance to Mexico by the amount the United 

11 States expends to remove and reconstruct the fence 

12 on United States territory. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
From: burkj@mtintouch.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:43:13 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,

Jason Burkholder

Big Timber, MT 59011
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 380 

Resolution commending Idaho on winning the bid to host the 2009 Special 

Olympics World Winter Games. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2007 

Mr. SALI (for himself and Mr. SIMPSON) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Resolution commending Idaho on winning the bid to host 

the 2009 Special Olympics World Winter Games. 

Whereas Special Olympics is an international nonprofit organization that promotes personal development through 

sports training and competition; 

Whereas Special Olympics advances the understanding of intellectual disabilities through participation and fellowship 

in the Nation and around the World; 

Whereas Special Olympics serves more than 2,500,000 individuals with intellectual disabilities around the globe; 

Whereas Special Olympics offers more than 205 programs in 

over 165 countries; 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 380 IH 

Whereas Special Olympics offers 30 Olympic-type summer 

and winter sports to both children and adults with intellectual disabilities; 

Whereas Boise, Idaho won the International bid to host the 

2009 Special Olympics World Winter Games to be held 

during February 6–13, 2009; 

Whereas thousands of athletes are expected to compete in 7 

winter sports in the 2009 Special Olympics World Winter 

Games; and 

Whereas the 2009 Special Olympics World Winter Games will 

be the largest multi-sport event ever held in the State of 

Idaho: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) applauds the goals and principles of Special 

3 Olympics; 

4 (2) salutes the athletes, coaches, family mem5 bers, friends, and volunteers that make Special 

6 Olympics World Winter Games possible; 

7 (3) congratulates the State of Idaho as the host 

8 for the 2009 Special Olympics World Winter Games; 

9 and 

10 (4) supports the 2009 Special Olympic World 

11 Winter Games and the goals of the Special Olympics 

12 to enrich the lives of people with intellectual disabil13 ities through sports. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
From: eric gross

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:38:48 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

eric gross
orland park, Illinois