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

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERTO LOPEZ-ANDRADE,

 Defendant.

Case No. 05-5242M

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 ( ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

 ( ) 

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( X ) Defendant’s lack of community ties and resources..

 ( X ) Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal,

without prejudice to review..

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 December 29, 2005.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cr-05914-JKA Document 7 Filed 12/29/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 59250.

protests 192105-K, etc. (New York).

#### I. J. Nethe & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Fobd, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### Michael Bonacci et al., Respondents, v Randy Pelikan et al., Appellants.

[632 NYS2d 608]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated January 6,1995, which, in effect, denied their motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction *(see,*CPLR 3211 [a] [8]) and directed that both defendants were to be deposed in Pennsylvania to determine whether either of the defendants was employed in New York at the time of the accident.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants’ motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The injured plaintiffs were involved in an automobile accident in New Jersey with a vehicle operated by the defendant Randy Pelikan and owned by the defendant Ernest Pelikan. The plaintiffs thereafter commenced the instant action against the defendants in the Supreme Court, Kings County. The defendants were residents of Pennsylvania. Service of the summons and complaint was purportedly made upon the defendants pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 253.

Since the accident occurred in New Jersey, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 253 is inapplicable *(see, Torres v Torres,*603 F Supp 440; *Cosgrove v Weierman,*3 AD2d 940). Since no other service was made, and the plaintiffs failed to establish any other jurisdictional basis over the defendants, the motion to dismiss should have been granted. Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
No. 59257.

protests 224018-K, etc. (New York).

#### Breton Looms Co., Inc., and N. M. Albert Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

*230Opinion by

Foed, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise -consists of articles of wearing apparel in chief value of silk similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585). the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### Priscilla M. POPE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-5106.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 6, 2001.

Before NEWMAN, GAJARSA, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

' Priscilla M. Pope appeals the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims1 dismissing her takings claim as beyond the court’s jurisdiction and as barred by the doctrine of *res judicata.*We *affirm.*

Ms. Pope seeks to overturn the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts, which she argues acted illegally, and that the bankruptcy court’s illegal action constitutes a taking for which she is due compensation under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The Court of Federal Claims observed that a taking can occur only when the government acts legally, and actions that are alleged to be illegal are not takings. The court noted that the decision of the bankruptcy court is now final and can not be re-litigated.

Decisions of a bankruptcy court must be appealed to the district court for the district in which the bankruptcy court sits, and from there to the court of appeals for the regional circuit. This is the only path of appeal from a bankruptcy court. *See Celotex Corp. v. Edwards,*514 U.S. 300, 313, 115 S.Ct. 1493, 131 L.Ed.2d 403 (1995) (“If dissatisfied with the Bankruptcy Court’s ultimate decision, respondents can appeal ‘to the district court for the judicial district in which the bankruptcy judge is serving,’ *see*28 U.S.C. § 158(a), and then to the Court of Appeals for the [regional] Circuit, *see*§ 158(d)”). Collateral attack on the decision of a bankruptcy court is not available. *Id.*

The Court of Federal Claims correctly dismissed Ms. Pope’s complaint.

1

. *Pope v. United States,*No. 99-957C (Fed. Cl. June 12, 2000)
ENB FINANCIAL CORP



Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of ENB Financial
Corp (the "Corporation") for the year ended December 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), I, Scott E. Lied, Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer), of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as added by 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. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Corporation as of and for the period covered by the Report.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







|Date:  March 29, 2017 | By: | /s/  Scott E. Lied           
|--------------------- | --- | -----------------------------
|                      |     | Scott E. Lied, CPA           
|                      |     | Treasurer                    
|                      |     | (Principal Financial Officer)



135
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We have issued our reports dated February 24, 2010 and June 20, 2008, with respect to the financial statements and internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Digimarc Corporation on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2009, the period from August 2, 2008 to December 31, 2008 and for the year ended December 31, 2007. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statementof Digimarc Corporation on Form 10 (File No. 001-34108, effective October 16, 2008) and Form S-8 (File No. 333-154524, effective October 20, 2008). 

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP 

Portland, Oregon 

February 24, 2010
From: bwise5@mokancomm.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:10:19 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,

Brenda Wise

, 66071-5579
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

RONALD L. BASKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIAN M. AGAR,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5743FDB

ORDER ADOPTING

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff sues a Washington State tort claims analyst for denial of his claim and the way he

was treated. The Magistrate Judge recommends that this cause of action be dismissed as there is no

right to a tort claims process, denial of a claim is prerequisite to filing a state tort action, and there is

no constitutional issue. Plaintiff responds with a Motion requesting appointment of a guardian ad

litem, stating he is permanently and totally disabled pursuant to the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Plaintiff also filed a “rebuttal” to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation stating that a

law library clerk advised him that “tort would reject his claim, & that he should seek other remedies.” 

Plaintiff’s submissions fail to address the main reason for the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation –

that Plaintiff has presented no constitutional issue. ACCORDINGLY, 

 The Court, having reviewed Plaintiffs’ complaint, the Report and Recommendation of

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom, objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the

remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

Case 3:05-cv-05743-FDB Document 13 Filed 04/21/06 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

Page - 2

(2) This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for the reasons outlined in the

Report and Recommendation. This complaint fails to state a claim. This dismissal

counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (g).

(3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Guardian [Dkt. # 11] is DENIED. 

(3) Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel for plaintiff, and to the Hon.

Karen L. Strombom.

DATED this 20th day of April 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05743-FDB Document 13 Filed 04/21/06 Page 2 of 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Agustin CRUZ-AGUILAR, also known as Emilio Avitio-Henes, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-40801.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

*323James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Molly E. Odom, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Agustín Cruz-Aguilar appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction of illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). The district court sentenced him to 63 months of imprisonment, two years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.

For the first time on appeal, Cruz-Aguilar argues that, under *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), this court must vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing because the mandatory guideline regime was in place at the time of his sentencing. An unpreserved challenge to the application of the formerly mandatory sentencing guidelines is reviewed for plain error. *United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d 728, 733 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(July 25, 2005) (No. 05-5556).

The district court’s application of the guidelines in their mandatory form constituted error that is “plain” for purposes of satisfying the first two prongs of the plain error analysis. *Id.*Cruz-Aguilar also bears the burden of demonstrating “that the sentencing judge — sentencing under an advisory scheme rather than a mandatory one — would have reached a significantly different result.” *See United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 521 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). Cruz-Aguilar has not made such a showing.

Cruz-Aguilar also argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because it does not require the fact of a prior felony or aggravated-felony conviction to be charged in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. As Cruz-Aguilar concedes, this argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), and *Almendarez-Torres*was not overruled by *Apprendi. See United States v. Sarmiento-Funes,*374 F.3d 336, 346 (5th Cir.2004). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
From: lbrodgers87@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:27:51 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 Rodgers

Dallas, GA 30132
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javon MOORE, a.k.a. Foot, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-16638

Non-Argument Calendar.

D.C. Docket No. 04-80100-CR-WPD.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Aug. 16, 2005.

Brenda G. Bryn, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Peter *884Birch, Federal Public Defender, West Palm Beach, FL, Kathleen M. Williams, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before BIRCH, BARKETT and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Javon Antwan Moore pled guilty to one count of distributing crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), and one count of possessing firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and carrying those firearms during and in relation to that drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), and was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment. Brenda G. Bryn, appointed counsel for Moore in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Moore’s conviction and resulting sentence are AFFIRMED.
;~

fJ~I(. ',~

~:

.~

·f

-,

.

4

•.f

,.','

.~

Revision Authorization Application

to

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

---"'""'-----.............................~-! ...........................-----.....................-,

State of Oregon's

Hazardous Waste Management Program

(Corrective Action)

. • I 1-'

::~il::lll~![::::·~:·j:ll!·!!)!.I!·!.!I-l:~i\\:j::~::t:\:\1i~i:~:l '.:' . "::::~~

Department of Environmental Quality

July 28, 1995

1.0-

I'·r. .-- ...'-'-'---"-.~- ....-,.::. ...-.~.- ",:-:---.-'.
• Revision Authorization Authorization Application for

Corrective Action

Table of Contents

Cover Letter from DEQ Director

•••

•

Part I.

Part II.

Part III.

Part IV.

Part V.

Corrective Action Program Description

Attorney General's Statement

Memorandum of Agreement

RCRA Revision Checklists

Milestone Agreement and Milestone Completion