alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER ON MOTION FOR PRETRIAL

DISCLOSURE OF CO-CONSPIRATOR

HEARSAY EVIDENCE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

RAJINDER JOHAL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. CR05-334RSL

ORDER ON MOTION FOR PRETRIAL

DISCLOSURE OF CO-CONSPIRATOR

HEARSAY EVIDENCE

This matter comes before the Court on “Defendant Johal’s Motion for Pretrial Disclosure

of Co-conspirator Hearsay Evidence” (Dkt. # 133). The Court has considered this motion and

the government’s response, and it is clear that the government has already complied and

recognizes its continuing obligation in this area. See Fed. R. Evid. 801. In light of this

agreement, defendant’s motion is DENIED AS MOOT.

DATED this 24th day of May, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cr-00334-RSL Document 154 Filed 05/25/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 62805.

#### Greenville Mills, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/5478 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1998
<CASH>                                          21,123
<SECURITIES>                                    15,643
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,003
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,832
<INVENTORY>                                     16,547
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                80,933
<PP&E>                                          32,692
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 109,206
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,621
<BONDS>                                          1,411
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        56,244
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,759
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   109,206
<SALES>                                        125,174
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               125,174
<CGS>                                           65,592
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   68,486
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,340
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  49
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,993
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,723
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,270
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,270
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.30
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Joseph Whiting, Petitioner, v Village of Old Brookville Police Department et al., Respondents.

[632 NYS2d 629]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Old Brookville Board of Police Commissioners, dated December 1, 1993, which, *inter alia,*after a hearing, confirmed the report and recommendation of a Hearing Officer finding the petitioner guilty of violating the Rules and Regulations of the Old Brookville Police Department, and dismissed him from his position as a police officer in that department.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

"It is well settled that judicial review of a determination rendered by an administrative body after a hearing is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence upon the entire record” *(Matter of Liuzzo v State of N.Y. Dept, of Motor Vehicles Appeals Bd.,*209 AD2d 618; *see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 180). "Substantial evidence 'means such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact’ ” *(Matter of Boyd v Constantine,*81 NY2d 189, 196, citing *300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, supra).*In addition, the decision of a Hearing Officer to credit the testimony of witnesses is largely unreviewable by the courts, who are disadvantaged in such matters because their review is confined to the printed record *(see, Matter of Hall v Del Castillo,*174 AD2d 743; *see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward,*70 NY2d 436). Here, the Board’s determination was supported by substantial evidence.

The penalty of dismissal is not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness *(see, Matter of Boyd v Constantine,*81 NY2d 189, *supra; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.
No. 65193.

#### W. R. Zanes & Company *v.*United States,

protest 274719-K (Galveston).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *The Best Foods, Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 163, C.A.D. 751), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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.

MANUEL PEREZ PEREZ, 

 Defendant.

Case No. 05-5171M

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)

 ( x ) 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.

 September 22, 2005.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cr-05748-RBL Document 17 Filed 09/22/05 Page 1 of 1
July 11, 1957

No. 61047.

protest 188742-K.

#### Aris Gloves, Inc. *v.*United States,

C. D. 1854. Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied by Oliver, C. J., and Wilson, J. Mollison, J., dissented, believing that the rehearing should be granted.
Exhibit 32.1
 
 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 Business Marketing Services, Inc. on Form 10-K for the twelve month period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Hans Pandeya, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company and also acting in the capacity as the Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 /s/ Hans PandeyaHans PandeyaChief Executive Officer and PresidentJnauary 9, 2012/s/ Hans PandeyaHans PandeyaPrincipal Financial OfficerJanuary 9, 2012
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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DAVID KING and RHONDA KING,

Husband and Wife,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KALAMA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 402, 

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:05-cv-05675-KLS

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO REMAND

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [Dkt. #10]. 28 U.S.C. § 1331

grants the District Courts original jurisdiction in all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or

treaties of the United States. Furthermore, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) provides that cases in which the District

Courts have original jurisdiction based upon a right arising under the Constitution shall be removable. 

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges, among other matters, that the Defendants infringed upon his First Amendment

rights guaranteed by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Defendant’s

Notice of Removal, p. 2 ¶ 4 [Dkt. #1]. Consequently, this Court has original federal question jurisdiction

in this matter, and the case was appropriately removed from Cowlitz County Superior Court to federal

court.

Case 3:05-cv-05675-RBL Document 22 Filed 12/08/05 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

ORDER 2

The Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is DENIED. 

DATED this 8th day of December, 2005.

A

RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05675-RBL Document 22 Filed 12/08/05 Page 2 of 2
From: Otjewel@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:01:37 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,

Julie Hellman

Las Cruces, NM 88011
From: soul7ejm@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:32:19 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,

Emil Milano

Shirley, NY 11967
May 20,2015 

The Honoraple John Kerry 

Secretary of State 

U.S. Department of State 

2201 C Street NW 

Washington, DC 20520 

The Honorable Anthony Foxx 

Secretary of Transportation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

The Honorable Penny S. Pritzker 

Secretary of Commerce 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

1401 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20230 I 

* 

SAN 

ANTONIO LH: f 1' . '" ''" 111:1\I("J. 

* 

Dear Secretary Kerry, Secretary Foxx and Secretary Pritzker: 

As executive director of the San Antonio Convention & Visitors Bureau, I &versee a travel 

destination that ranks as one of the most popular and vibrant in the world. Located between the 

major airport hubs of Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston, San Antonio is a natural lure for world 

travelers drawn by the city's celebrated culture, history and attractions. 

With that in mind, over the past several years we have worked hard to position our region as not 

just a domestic convention and leisure travel hub, but as that global travel destination welcoming 

over one million international visitors from 60 countries annually. We see a growth opportunity 

in the international segment, and indeed forecasts show a marked increase ahead in international 

travel to the United States and Texas. 

This is why we are in favor of making every type oftravel experience easier for those flying to 

San Antonio and elsewhere. The policy of Open Skies does just that. Those agreements have 

increased the numbers of flights to all regions of the United States, leading to more airline 

competition, access to new and growing markets and lower fares. 

We support anything that is good for travelers, the travel industry and the entire U.S. economy. 

To be sure, if we are to effectively compete in the market for global travelers, preserving those 

policies that grow that market is vital. 

SAN ANTO NIO CONVENT IO N & VISITOH S BUREA U 

203 S. ST. MARY'S STR EET I SUITE 200 I SAN ANTON IO, TX 78205 I T: (21 0) 207-6700 I 800·447·3372 I YISITSANUTONIO.COM 
( 

San Antonio competes aggressively with other destinations, nationally and internationally. That 

competition, of course, is healthy. We believe that more competition in all aspects of the travel 

landscape is good for consumers and good for the growth of our industry, producing a better, 

more attractive travel product and encouraging more travelers to come here. 

That same spirit also applies to competition in international aviation. It's why we believe 

existing Open Skies agreements and any policies that make the travel experience smoother, 

should be preserved and expanded. 

Sincerely, 

Casandra 

~~~ Matej , . ~ - J 

Executive Director 

SAH ANTONIO CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU
From: patrice@ndsupernet.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:24:42 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,

Patrice Hartman

Regent, ND 58650
From: mschneller@charter.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:38:44 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,

Michael Schneller

Saint Charles, MO 63304