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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the WESTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

EDWARD T. GRAHAM,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

CINGULAR WIRELESS LLC,

 Defendant.

 C05-1810 JPD

 

 MINUTE ORDER

The above referenced case has been initially assigned to the Honorable James P.

Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge, subject to the consent of the parties pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1)(C).

On November 1, 2005, notice of the parties rights with regard to consenting to

the case being assigned to Magistrate Judge Donohue for all purposes was filed by the

Clerk of Court. The parties were advised they had until December 13, 2005, to consent,

if they wished. By Order dated December 2, 2005 (dkt #7), the date to advise the Court

of consent or reassignment was extended to January 3, 2006.

In the interim, a Motion to Dismiss has been filed and noted for January 6, 2006. 

Accordingly, the date by which the Clerk is to be informed whether the individual

parties are consenting to have this matter heard by the Honorable James P. Donohue,

U.S. Magistrate Judge, is hereby reset to Thursday, December 22, 2005. Should the

Case 2:05-cv-01810-JLR Document 13 Filed 12/12/05 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

parties decide earlier than December 22nd to consent or decline, deputy clerk Peter H.

Voelker may be notified at (206) 30-8422, or by fax at (206) 370-8425. The decision

regarding to consent or to decline is not to be filed electronically or forwarded in any

form to the chambers of Judge Donohue.

 In the event the parties (or any party) choose not to consent, the case will be

reassigned to a District Judge.

Dated this 12th day of December 2005

Bruce Rifkin

Clerk of Court

by: /s/ PETER H. VOELKER Peter H. Voelker, Deputy Clerk

Case 2:05-cv-01810-JLR Document 13 Filed 12/12/05 Page 2 of 2
#### Anna M. Dean, Appellant, v. William Milne, Executor, etc., Respondent.

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Macomber, J.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 4346** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. ERIC ANDRE FIELDS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington
. Robert B. Jones, Jr., Magistrate Judge . ( 7:11

- cr - 00125

- F

- 4 )

Submitted : October 3, 2013 Decided: October 21, 2013

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

D ismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Eric Andre Fields, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Eric A ndre Fields appeals the district court ’s pretrial detention order in his criminal case. The issue of pretrial detention is moot after a conviction. See Murphy v.
Hunt , 455 U.S. 478, 481

- 82 (1982) ( finding , in civil action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief related to denial of
pr etrial bail, that civil plaintiff’s “claim to pretrial bail was moot once he was convicted ”). Because Fields was convicted l ong before this appeal was docketed , we lack jurisdiction to address his challenge to his pretrial detention. Fields also moves , pro se, for release pending the resolution of his appeal of the underlying criminal judgment , pending in No. 12

- 4724. A defendant seeking release pending appeal must first move for such relief in the district court.
See United States v. Hochevar , 214 F.3 d 342, 343

- 44 (2d Cir. 2000) (citing Fed. R. App. P. 9 ) ; 4th Cir. R. 9(b) . Because Fields has not moved in the district court for release pending appeal , we deny the motion
. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We also deny Fields’ motion for release pending appeal, without prejudice to his ability to file such a motion in the district court . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the3 materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
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 DENYING MOTION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

THOMAS A. WEBER, 

Plaintiff,

v.

TIME WARNER, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-1706L

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO AMEND

THEIR RULE 26 DISCLOSURES

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “motion for order that defendants

amend Rule 26 initial disclosures for joining undisclosed indispensable parties under Rule 19.” 

(Dkt. #120). Plaintiff moves the Court for an order requiring the defendants to amend their

initial disclosures.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(A), any motion to compel Rule 26(a) disclosures

“must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer

with the party not making the disclosure in an effort to secure the disclosure without court

action.” Similarly, Local Rule 37(a)(2)(A) provides, “A good faith effort to confer with a party

or a person not making a disclosure or discovery requires a face-to-face meeting or a telephonic

conference. If the court finds that counsel for any party, or a party proceeding pro se, willfully

refuses to confer, fails to confer in good faith, or fails to respond on a timely basis to a request to

Case 2:05-cv-01706-RSL Document 123 Filed 02/14/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER DENYING MOTION - 2

confer, the court may take action as stated in GR 3 of these rules.”

Plaintiff has not stated that he conferred or attempted to confer with defendants’ counsel

prior to filing this motion. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. (Dkt. #120). Plaintiff may

refile the motion if he complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and Local Rule 37, and if the good faith

conferences do not resolve this dispute.

DATED this 14th day of February, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01706-RSL Document 123 Filed 02/14/06 Page 2 of 2
From: hkanspach@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:50:37 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 Anspach

Palmyra, PA 17078
From: jgentle@franciscan.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:24:09 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,

Judith Marie Gentle

Pittsburgh, PA 15234
From: h2omerv@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:33:16 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Merv DIRKSE

Roseville, CA 95747
#### UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Donald H. RUMSFELD, Secretary of Defense, Appellee.

No. 00-1337.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 6, 2001.

Before RADER, SCHALL, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard, and considered it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 4, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

130859 Michael F. Cavanagh 130860 Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. MONIKA MAZUMDER, Personal Stephen J. Markman, Representative of the Estate of Justices Deepika S. Mazumd er, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 130859, 130860 COA: 261331; 261333 Washtenaw CC: 04-001101-NM UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN REGENTS, ROBERT A. KOEPKE, PH.D., RAJIV TANDON, M.D., SATOSHI MINOSHIMA, M.D., WASHTENAW COUNTY COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH, JOSEPH YAROCH, M.D., MOONSON R. ELLIOTT ENINSCHE, B.A., R.S.W., C.S.M., and RICHARD PFOUTZ, M.S.W., C. S.W., MOHAMED AZIZ, M.D., and STEPHAN F. TAYLOR, M.D., Defendants,

and

SRINIBAS MAHAPATRA, M.D., Defendant-Appellant.

___________________ _________________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 23, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the

case of Mullins v St. Joseph Mercy Hospital (Docket No. 131879) is pending on appeal

before this Court and that the decision in th at case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that the app lication be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case.

l0328 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 4, 2007

Clerk
From: trinidadwind@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:51:00 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,

jack weaver

Redding, CA 96002
# Den Europæiske Unions C 122A/16.

| | ISSN 1977-0871 |
| --- | --- |
| Den Europæiske Unions
  Tidende | C 122A |
| | |
| Dansk udgave | Meddelelser og oplysninger | 58. årgang16. april 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0871

Den Europæiske Unions

Tidende

C 122A

Dansk udgave

Meddelelser og oplysninger

58. årgang16. april 2015

---

| Informationsnummer | Indhold | Side |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Berigtigelser |
| 2015/C 122A/01 | Berigtigelse til meddelelse om almindelige udvælgelsesprøver — Administratorer (AD 5/AD 7) med speciale i juridisk forskning — EPSO/AD/295/15 — Jurister med en bulgarsk (BG) juridisk uddannelse — EPSO/AD/296/15 — Jurister med en tysk (DE) juridisk uddannelse — EPSO/AD/297/15 — Jurister med en kroatisk (HR) juridisk uddannelse — EPSO/AD/298/15 — Jurister med en irsk (IE) juridisk uddannelse — EPSO/AD/299/15 — Jurister med en litauisk (LT) juridisk uddannelse — EPSO/AD/300/15 — Jurister med en slovakisk (SK) juridisk uddannelse — ( EUT C 68 A af 26.2.2015 ) | 1 |

Informationsnummer

Indhold

Side

Berigtigelser

2015/C 122A/01

Berigtigelse til meddelelse om almindelige udvælgelsesprøver — Administratorer (AD 5/AD 7) med speciale i juridisk forskning — EPSO/AD/295/15 — Jurister med en bulgarsk (BG) juridisk uddannelse — EPSO/AD/296/15 — Jurister med en tysk (DE) juridisk uddannelse — EPSO/AD/297/15 — Jurister med en kroatisk (HR) juridisk uddannelse — EPSO/AD/298/15 — Jurister med en irsk (IE) juridisk uddannelse — EPSO/AD/299/15 — Jurister med en litauisk (LT) juridisk uddannelse — EPSO/AD/300/15 — Jurister med en slovakisk (SK) juridisk uddannelse — ( EUT C 68 A af 26.2.2015 )

( EUT C 68 A af 26.2.2015 )

1

---

| DA | |
| --- | --- |

DA

---

Berigtigelser

| 16.4.2015 | DA | Den Europæiske Unions Tidende | CA 122/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2015

DA

Den Europæiske Unions Tidende

CA 122/1

---

Berigtigelse til meddelelse om almindelige udvælgelsesprøver — Administratorer (AD 5/AD 7) med speciale i juridisk forskning — EPSO/AD/295/15 — Jurister med en bulgarsk (BG) juridisk uddannelse — EPSO/AD/296/15 — Jurister med en tysk (DE) juridisk uddannelse — EPSO/AD/297/15 — Jurister med en kroatisk (HR) juridisk uddannelse — EPSO/AD/298/15 — Jurister med en irsk (IE) juridisk uddannelse — EPSO/AD/299/15 — Jurister med en litauisk (LT) juridisk uddannelse — EPSO/AD/300/15 — Jurister med en slovakisk (SK) juridisk uddannelse

(
  Den Europæiske Unions Tidende C 68 A af 26. februar 2015
  )

(2015/C 122 A/01)

Side 2, afsnit I, punkt 3:

I stedet for:

»Frist (inklusive validering): den 31. marts 2015, kl. 12.00 (middag), Bruxelles-tid.«

læses:

»Frist (inklusive validering): den 9. april 2015, kl. 12.00 (middag), Bruxelles-tid.«

---
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 Annual Report of GMS Capital Corp., (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George Metrakos, 
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, That to the best of my
knowledge:
  (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.
   GMS
CAPITAL CORP.
 By:
      /s/ George MetrakosGeorge
      MetrakosPrincipal
      Financial OfficerFebruary 8,
      2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             242
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      655
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       3642
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  5713
<PP&E>                                            8317
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   15779
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             5197
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            56
<OTHER-SE>                                        6541
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     15779
<SALES>                                           4227
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  4227
<CGS>                                             2105
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2882
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (760)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (324)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (436)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (436)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)
H. Res. 409

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 17, 2007.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany 

the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 21) setting forth the 

congressional budget for the United States Government for 

fiscal year 2008 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 and 2009 through 2012. All points 

of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered 

as read. The conference report shall be debatable for one 

hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 

ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. 

Attest:

Clerk.
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 OF DISMISSAL 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

 

STEPHEN ADAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

HOLLAND AMERICA, WESTOURS, 

INC. et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C05-1557JLR

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The court having been notified of the settlement of this matter and it appearing that no

issue remains for the court’s determination,

IT IS ORDERED that this action and all claims asserted herein are DISMISSED with

prejudice and without costs to any party.

In the event settlement is not perfected, any party may move to reopen the case,

provided such motion is filed within 60 days of the date of this order. Any trial date and

pretrial dates previously set are hereby VACATED. 

DATED this 31st day of July, 2006.

A JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01557-JLR Document 11 Filed 07/31/06 Page 1 of 1