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 ORD ON NOTICE OF RMVL - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

GERBER,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

FIRST HORIZON HOME LOANS

CORPORATION, 

Defendant(s).

NO. C05-1554P

 STANDING ORDER REQUIRING 

 SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION 

 REGARDING REMOVAL

 

Upon removal of the action and for good cause, the court orders the removing defendant or

defendants within seven (7) days of the date of this order to serve and file a submission providing the

following information:

1. Have all defendants served at the time of removal joined in the removal? Provide a full

explanation if all defendants served at the time of removal did not join in the notice of

removal.

2. On what date was the first defendant served? On what date was the notice of removal

filed? Provide a full explanation if the notice of removal was dated more than thirty

(30) days after the first defendant was served.

3. If the action has been removed on grounds of diversity jurisdiction, is any defendant

served at the time of removal a citizen of the forum state?

4. If the action has been removed on grounds of diversity jurisdiction, state the citizenship

of all named plaintiffs and all named defendants (including the citizenship of all

members or partners in any non-corporate party), if such states of citizenship were not

set forth in the notice of removal.

5. If the action has been removed on grounds of diversity jurisdiction, state the amount of

damages in controversy.

Case 2:05-cv-01554-RSL Document 6 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 1 of 2

Gerber v. First Horizon Home Loans Corporation Doc. 6

Dockets.Justia.com
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 ORD ON NOTICE OF RMVL - 2

If the plaintiff has a response to defendants’ submission, such response, if any, shall be filed

and served within seven (7) days of the date of defendants’ submission. Any motion to remand the

action to state court based on any procedural defects in the removal must be filed thirty (30) days after

removal or sooner. See 28 U.S.C. §1447(c).

The clerk is directed to send copies of this order to all counsel of record.

Dated: September 13, 2005

AMarsha J. Pechman

U.S. District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01554-RSL Document 6 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          21,178
<SECURITIES>                                     1,500
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,308
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     13,117
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,981
<PP&E>                                           4,882
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  56,902
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,169
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           142
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,591
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    56,902
<SALES>                                         82,744
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                82,744
<CGS>                                           73,827
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,827
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,910
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (5,431)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (5,431)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (5,431)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.39)
        

</TABLE>
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

 AHMET CHABUK

 ATTORNEY AT LAW 

 11663 IVY LANE

NOTICE OF APPEAL SILVERDALE, WA 98383

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

BULENT ERTUR,

Plaintiff,

vs.

 CAROL EDWARD, et al,

Defendants.

NO. CO 5-1532 JLR

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is hereby given that BULENT ERTUR, the plaintiff in the above named

case, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from

the final judgment dated March 22, 2007 in this action and the Order Denying Motion

for Reconsideration dated April 17, 2007.

Dated this May 16, 2007

 /s/ 

Ahmet Chabuk (WSB #22543)

Attorney for Bulent Ertur

11663 Ivy Lane

Silverdale, Wa 98383

(360) 692-0854

Case 2:05-cv-01532-JLR Document 57 Filed 05/16/07 Page 1 of 1
### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ANTONIO COLBERT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL ) ruCHARDCORDRAY, ) ) Defendant. ) Civil Action No.



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED FEB _. 8 2011 Clerk. U.S. District &Bankruptcy Courts torthe District of Columbia 

# 11 

# OJlf1

This matter is before the Court upon consideration ofplaintiff's application to proceed 

### in formapauperis and his 

### prose complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed. Plaintiff, who currentlyresides in the District ofColumbia, alleges that he has "been kidnapped bythe State ofOhio," a matter which "the state has kept ... consealed [sic]." CompI. at 2. That plaintiffwas "putinjail for telling the truth ... is one ofa hundred reasons [he is] sueing [the defendant]." 

### ld. In addition to damages of$100 million, plaintiffdemands that "[t]his matter ... go to President Obama's desk." 

### Id. In

### Neitzke v. 

### Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), the Supreme Court states that the trial court has the authority to dismiss not onlyclaims based on an indisputablymeritless legal theory, but also claims whose factual contentions are clearlybaseless. Claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios fall into the category ofcases whose factual contentions are clearlybaseless. 

### ld. at 328. The trial court has the discretion to decide whether a complaint is frivolous, and such finding is appropriate when the facts alleged are irrational orwholly incredible. 

### Denton v. 

### Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). The Court deems the instant complaint frivolous, andaccordingly, dismisses this action under 28 U.S.c. § 1915(a)(2)(B)(i). An 

### Order consistent with this Memorap1nionis ·ssued separately. 

# .... /<
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Selectedpapers and presentations presented at MODSIM World 2010 conference & expo**
 
Parts: One | Two
 
SuDoc Number:NAS 1.55:2011-217069/PT.1-2
Item Number:0830-H-10 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000924669
 
July 24, 2018
From: judy46818@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:46:07 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,

Judy Glenn

Fort Wayne, IN 46818
----

| (1) | the      Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2009, filed with      the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on xxxxxxxxx (“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 the operations of      Imperial Resources, Inc. as of, and for, the periods presented in the      Report. |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
March 27, 1998

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
450 Fifth Street, N. W.
Judiciary Plaza
Washington, DC. 20549

Re:  United Gold & Government Fund, Inc.
     Post-Effective Amendment No. 21

Dear Sir or Madam:

In connection with the filing of the above-referenced Post-Effective Amendment,
I hereby represent that the Amendment does not contain disclosures which would
render it ineligible to become effective pursuant to paragraph (b) of Rule 485.

Yours truly,



Sharon K. Pappas
General Counsel

SKP:fr
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Osteotech, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard W. Bauer,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.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.


                                        /S/ Richard W. Bauer
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Richard W. Bauer
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        (Principal Executive Officer)
                                        August 4, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or any
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
From: swcupps@live.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:40:55 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,

Steven cupps

Minneapolis, MN 55433
Exhibit 32.2

# Certification Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350,As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of InfoTech USA, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Robert Patterson, Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Director of the Company,
certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | /s/ J. Robert Patterson
| | -----------------------

| | J. Robert Patterson
                                                     Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and
                                                     Director
                                                     InfoTech USA, Inc.
                                                     February 13, 2004
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Manuel Rijo, Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 4]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered on or about December 9, 1993, which, upon reargument, granted defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence, unanimously affirmed.

Suppression was properly granted as the evidence seized was the fruit of an unjustified stop. The testimony of the People’s only witness at the suppression hearing clearly established that the traffic violation for which the cab in which defendant was a passenger was stopped was merely a pretext to investigate defendant on an unrelated matter. In particular, we note the failure of the police officers to check on the cab’s license plate or to issue its driver a summons *(see, People v Laws,*213 AD2d 226, *Iv denied*85 NY2d 975). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
From: robert.samuels@tyson.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:14:33 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,

Robert Samuels

Hope, AR 71801
No. 68948.

#### S. F. Pellas & Co. and P. *W.*Bellingall, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 64/11198, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of soluble or instant coffee (containing no admixture of sugar, cereal, or other additive), a product of Nicaragua, entered or withdrawn from warehouse prior to August 31, 1963, the effective date of the Tariff Schedules of the United States; that the protests were pending for decision by this *331court on June 30, 1964, the date of enactment of Public Law 88-337; and that within 120 days after the date of enactment a request was filed with the collector of customs for reliquidation and classification of the merchandise free of duty under said Public Law, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. P68/507.

protests 64/3353 and 64/3354 (Cleveland).

#### Henry A. Wess, Inc. *v.*United States,

*671Maletz, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of scientific instruments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *The Bendix Corporation*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 184, C.D. 2759), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. P69/65.

protest 58/16150 (San Francisco).

#### G. Joannou Cycle Co. *v.*United States, *1073Sumitomo Shoji N.Y., Inc. *v.*United States,

No. P69/66.

protests 60/4233, 60/20159, and 60/22270 (Los Angeles).

Newman, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of *S. Hiller & Co. et al.*v. *United States*(59 Cust. Ct. 79, C.D. 3082), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
---

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

The undersigned, Mirosław Kranik, the Chief Executive
Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of SUNSET SUITS HOLDINGS, INC. (the
Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

1. The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2009 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement
this 15th day of April, 2010.

/s/
Mirosław Kranik Mirosław Kranik
Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer(Principal
Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Sunset Suits Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by
Sunset Suits Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
No. 60503.

#### L. E. McCullough & Company *v.*United States,

protests 179103-K, etc. (St. Louis).

*413Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the

merchandise consists of fiberglas insulation, containing a small percentage of synthetic resin, similar in all material respects to that the subject of *L. E. McCullough & Company*v. *United States*(36 Cust. Ct. 127, C. D. 1763), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.