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

KPS.1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 

XYBEC SOLUTIONS, INC., a British ) 

Columbia corporation, ) Cause No. CV-05-5726RBL 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) ORDER OF DEFAULT 

 ) 

v. ) 

 ) 

MOBILE WORKFORCE, INC., a ) 

Washington corporation; MOBILE WORK- ) 

FORCE, INC., a Delaware corporation and ) 

DAVID WEIR, a Washington resident, ) 

 ) NOTE FOR MOTION DATE: 1/19/06 

 Defendants. ) NOTED FOR HEARING: 

____________________________________) Thursday, January 19, 2006 

 THIS MATTER is regularly before the Clerk of this Court on Plaintiff’s Motion. The 

Clerk finds that each defendant was served with the Summons and Complaint on December 6, 

2005, that more than 20 have elapsed since date of service, and that each defendant is 

accordingly in default. An Order of Default is thus entered against each defendant herein. 

 DATED this 31st day of January, 2006. 

 

 BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk 

 By: JEAN BORING 

 Deputy Clerk 

 United States District Court 

 Western District of Washington 

Presented by: 

SULLIVAN & THORESON 

by:_____Kevin P. Sullivan_________________ 

 Kevin P. Sullivan 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

WSBA #11987 

Case 3:05-cv-05726-RBL Document 9 Filed 02/01/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT MAY 4, 1997 AND THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MAY 4, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                         915,572
<SECURITIES>                                 6,200,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,745,411
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (180,400)
<INVENTORY>                                 19,490,680
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            42,948,880
<PP&E>                                      66,747,817
<DEPRECIATION>                            (20,752,562)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              89,119,518
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,327,792
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        76,921
<OTHER-SE>                                  74,144,825
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                89,119,518
<SALES>                                     32,791,946
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            32,791,946
<CGS>                                       26,400,843
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               28,860,004
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              55,750
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,957,186
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,495,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,462,186
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,462,186
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32
        

</TABLE>
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsCharacterization of Multilayer Piezoelectric Actuators for Use in Active Isolation MountsActive mounts are desirable for isolating spacecraft science instruments from on-board vibrational sources such as motors and release mechanisms. Such active isolation mounts typically employ multilayer piezoelectric actuators to cancel these vibrational disturbances. The actuators selected for spacecraft systems must consume minimal power while exhibiting displacements of 5 to 10 micron under load. This report describes a study that compares the power consumption, displacement, and load characteristics of four commercially available multilayer piezoelectric actuators. The results of this study indicate that commercially available actuators exist that meet or exceed the design requirements used in spacecraft isolation mounts.Document ID19970012690Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsWise, Stephanie A.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Hooker, Matthew W.*(Science and Technology Corp. Hampton, VA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMarch 1, 1997Subject CategorySolid-State PhysicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:4742NASA-TM-4742L-17567Accession Number97N16916Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 233-01-01-03Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970012690.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
From: criglerlady@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:46:29 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,

Colleen Crigler

Florence, KY 41042
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           Jan-31-1999     
<PERIOD-START>                              Feb-01-1998     
<PERIOD-END>                                Jul-31-1998     
<CASH>                                        4,754,245          
<SECURITIES>                                  2,372,136          
<RECEIVABLES>                                 1,532,935          
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0          
<INVENTORY>                                   1,341,602          
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                404,096          
<PP&E>                                        3,090,525          
<DEPRECIATION>                                2,264,948          
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               11,667,099          
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         1,252,107          
<BONDS>                                               0          
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0          
<PREFERRED>                                           0          
<COMMON>                                          4,891          
<OTHER-SE>                                   10,678,465          
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 11,667,099          
<SALES>                                       3,732,792          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              3,732,792          
<CGS>                                         1,099,979          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 1,099,979          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                991,641          
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0          
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3,384          
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 860,796          
<INCOME-TAX>                                    261,780          
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             577,856          
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0          
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0          
<CHANGES>                                             0          
<NET-INCOME>                                    577,856          
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0.12       
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.12       
                                                                
                                             

</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

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

ISRAEL TIMOTEO,

 Defendant.

Case No. CR05-5415

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)

 ( X ) 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.

 January 4, 2006.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cr-05048-FDB Document 8 Filed 01/04/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                         599,506
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,690,938
<ALLOWANCES>                                   310,258
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,396,587
<PP&E>                                       1,978,312
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,647,716
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,255,377
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,233,653
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,952
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,772
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,255,377
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,549,878
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  959,002
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               730,894
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                14,272
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,183
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (143,517)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (143,517)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (143,517)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.18)
        

</TABLE>
Before the Second Division,

December 22, 1964

No. 68968.

#### The Hipage Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 62/19839 (Norfolk).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues involved herein are the same in all material respects as those involved in *United States (Lansen-Naeve Corp. a/c Albert Klingelhofer,*Party-in-Interest) v. *Simon Saw & Steel Company*(51 CCPA 33, C.A.D. 834), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed December 22, 2022 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-01089-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF I.O. AND R.O., CHILDREN 

On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-09013 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Pedersen, III 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

This appeal from the trial court’s August 13, 2021 order in suit to modify 

parent-child relationship was filed October 13, 2022. Because the appeal was filed 

well-beyond any timeframe allowed under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, 

which governs the time for filing notices of appeal in civil cases, we questioned our 

jurisdiction over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1 (providing timeframes for 

perfecting civil appeal ranging from twenty days from date judgment is signed to six 

months from date judgment is signed); Brashear v. Victoria Gardens of McKinney, 

L.L.C., 302 S.W.3d. 542, 545 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (op. on reh’g) 

(timely filing of notice of appeal is jurisdictional); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3 

(allowing for fifteen day extension to file notice of appeal). 
 –2– 

In jurisdictional briefing filed at our request, appellant does not dispute the 

appeal was filed outside the periods established by rule 26.1, but he maintains we 

have jurisdiction because the order is void—it was signed outside the trial court’s 

plenary power, ten years after the original order concerning the parent-child 

relationship was rendered—and a void order can be challenged at any time. The trial 

court, however, acquired and retained continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over matters 

concerning the parent-child relationship when it rendered the original order, and it 

had the authority to exercise its jurisdiction to modify that order. See TEX. FAM.

CODE ANN. §§ 155.01-155.003. Regardless, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over an 

untimely appeal. Accordingly, because the appeal was not timely filed, we dismiss 

the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). 

221089F.P05 

 

/Robert D. Burns, III/

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE INTEREST OF I.O. AND 

R.O., CHILDREN 

No. 05-22-01089-CV 

 On Appeal from the 255th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-09013. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns, Justices Molberg and 

Pedersen, III participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

 We ORDER that appellee Ronda Do recover her costs, if any, of this appeal 

from appellant Jorge Olivas, Jr. 

Judgment entered December 22, 2022.
No. 62225.

#### Baar & Beards, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 282676-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk articles of wearing apparel 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.
No. 57425.

#### C. J. Tower & Sons *v.*United States,

protest 136639-K (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

An examination of the official papers failing to disclose any reason for disturbing the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
EXHIBIT
      15











CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








To
      the
      Board of Directors and Shareholders of


Mediware
      Information Systems, Inc.





We
      have
      reviewed, in accordance with standards established by the Public Company
      Accounting Oversight Board (United States) the unaudited interim condensed
      consolidated financial statements of Mediware Information Systems, Inc. and
      subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007 and for the three and six month periods
      ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 as indicated in our review report dated January
      30, 2008.  Because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no
      opinion on those financial statements.





We
      are
      aware that our review report, which is included in your Quarterly Report on
      Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2007, is incorporated by
      reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-07591,
      No. 333-83016, No. 333-119503, No. 333-123496 and No.
      333-130576).





We
      are
      also aware that our review report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the
      Securities Act of 1933 (the “Act”), is not considered a part of the Registration
      Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
      certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the
      Act and the accountants’ Section 11 liability does not extend to such
      report.








Eisner
      LLP


New
      York,
      New York


January
      30, 2008
| For      the Period: 5/5/2009 to 5/11/2009 |
|--------------------------------------------|

| Coupon | Interest                           | Maturity | Callable | Survivor'sOption | Price1 | Yield2 | Moody's | S&P | CUSIP     |
|--------|------------------------------------|----------|----------|------------------|--------|--------|---------|---------|-----------|
| 3.900% | Semi-Annual(†††) | 5/15/11  | NO       | YES§        | 100.00 | 3.900% | A2      | A       | 14912HPD6 |
| 4.750% | Semi-Annual(†††) | 5/15/13  | NO       | YES§        | 100.00 | 4.750% | A2      | A       | 14912HPE4 |
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

SCHAWN J. CRUZE,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5744FDB

ORDER REFUSING TO SERVE

PETITION AND DIRECTION

TO SHOW CAUSE

The Court, having reviewed the § 2254 petition filed in this case, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court will not order a response to the petition because petitioner has failed to name a

proper respondent.

Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases in the United States District Court states:

(a) Applicants in present custody. If the applicant is presently in custody pursuant to

the state judgment in question, the application shall be in the form of a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus in which the state officer having custody of the applicant shall be named as

respondent.

Accordingly, a petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him

or her as the respondent to the petition. This person typically is the warden of the facility in which the

petitioner is incarcerated. Failure to name the petitioner's custodian deprives federal courts of personal

jurisdiction. Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994)(citations omitted). In

this case, petitioner has named the State of Washington as respondent. The State is not a proper

respondent in a habeas corpus petition.

(2) Petitioner must show cause why his petition should not be dismissed and he is granted

Case 3:05-cv-05744-FDB Document 5 Filed 12/02/05 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

Page - 2

leave to amend the petition to name a proper respondent to be filed with the clerk not later then

December 30, 2005.

(3) If petitioner fails to timely file an amended petition naming a proper respondent, the petition

will be subject to dismissal.

(6) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner.

DATED this 1st day of December, 2005.

_/s/ J. Kelley Arnold_______ J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:05-cv-05744-FDB Document 5 Filed 12/02/05 Page 2 of 2