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

FIRST ASSISTANT

CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER

1201 FRANKLIN, SUITE 600

HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-1901

DEVON ANDERSON

DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

August 18, 2015 

Mr. Abel Acosta, Clerk 

Court of Criminal Appeals 

P.O. Box 12308 – Capitol Station 

Austin, TX 78711 

RE: JOSE VASQUEZ v. THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Case No.: PD-0078-15

Trial Court No.: 1333231

Dear Mr. Acosta: 

I plan to present oral argument in the above case in Austin on Wednesday, September 16, 2015

at 9:00 AM. 

A copy of this notice is being sent to the attorney of record. 

 Sincerely, 

 /s/ Eric Kugler 

 ERIC KUGLER 

 Assistant District Attorney 

 Harris County, Texas 

 (713) 755-5826

/vl 

cc: Mark C. Kratovil

 Assistant Public Defender

 1201 Franklin, 13th Floor 

 Houston, TX 77002 

PD-0078-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 8/18/2015 2:28:41 PM

Accepted 8/18/2015 2:33:48 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
SERVED NOVEMBER 2, 2010 '-FPARTMENT OF 

^ :^ANSPORW!0N 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION '. •(•;: I OPERATIONS 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC iOiO NOV - 3 A R: 30 

IN THE MATTER OF 

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CPlOSWOOl 1 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS NO. FAA-2010-0978 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2009SW270058) has been assigned to 

Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. 

Coirajie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative La: 

Attachment - Service List 
mw 

FAA Docket No. CPlOSWOOl 1 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1»00' 

ONE COPY 

Thomas Newton Boiling, Respondent's Counsel 

Managing Attorney, Regulatory Affairs 

Continental Airlines, Inc., Respondent 

1600 Smith Street, 15* Floor HQSLG 

Houston, TX 77002 

TEL: 713-324-5131 

FAX: 713-324-5160 

Tim Duff, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of Regional Counsel, ASW-7 

Southwest Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2601 l^ea<*am Blvd. 

Ft. Worth, TX 76193-0007 

TEL 817-222-5099 

FAX 817-222-5945/5092 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building, Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202- 366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2Wl6(lN(), Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
H. Res. 667 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 20, 2007. 

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are 

hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES: Mr. Langevin. 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY: Mr. Pascrell. 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: Ms. Richardson (to rank immediately after Mr. McNerney). 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS: Mr. Higgins and Ms. 

Hirono. 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE: Ms. Richardson. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
From: minarick@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:53:49 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,

Mitch Minarick

Savoy, IL 61874
No. 60220.

protest 208488-K (New York).

#### Heinsheimer Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise on the invoice covered by entry No. 800825 do not simulate any natural flower in their physical characteristics and appearances and that said items have been produced by subjecting fibers of ramie to various processing steps, which result in a completed article of commerce in chief value of ramie, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained as to the merchandise covered by said entry No. 800825.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 479 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 479

   To amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for 
   enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
                            Representatives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 12, 2007

  Mr. Boehner (for himself, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Putnam, Mr. McCotter, Ms. 
Granger, Mr. Carter, Mr. Cole of Oklahoma, Mr. Dreier, and Mr. Cantor) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                                on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   To amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for 
   enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
                            Representatives.

    Resolved,  That clause 9(c) of Rule XXI is amended to read as 
follows:
            ``(c) As disposition of a point of order under paragraph 
        (a), the Chair shall put the question of consideration with 
        respect to the bill, joint resolution, or conference report, or 
        amendment described in paragraph (a)(3). The question of 
        consideration shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the Member 
        initiating the point of order and for 10 minutes by an 
        opponent, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening 
        motion except one that the House adjourn.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 66541.

#### Joseph H. Brown & Son *v.*United States,

protests 59/31672, etc. (El Paso).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of horsemeat similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 66197, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

IN R E: AM ER IC AN APPAR E L, INC ., 2014 De rivative Share holde r Litiga tion, PETER KR AVITZ, a s Truste e for and on be ha lf of AAI Litiga

tion Trust, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. DOV C HAR

NEY, ET AL. , De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-56258 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-05230-M W F
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M ic h a e l W . Fitz ge ra ld, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 29, 2017 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED
AUG 31 2017 M O LLYC. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).B e fore : WARDLAW and B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s, a nd ILLSTON, *** Distric t Judge
. Litiga

tion Truste e Pe te r Kra vitza ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r of dism issa l unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e dure 41(b) for fa ilure to prose c ute or
c om ply with a c ourt orde r. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in dism issing the c a se unde r R u le 41(b). Se e Yourish v

. C al. Amplifier , 191 F.3d 983 (9th C ir. 1999); Fe rdik

v . Bonze le t , 963 F.2d 1258 (9th C ir. 1992). On this re c ord, the re le va nt fa c tors we igh in fa

vor of dism issa l an d

the distric t c ourt wa s not
re quire d to issue a

c le ar warning or a

tte m pt le ss dra stic a lte rna t ive s be fore dism issing the a c tion without pre judic e . AFFIRM E D.

* * * The Honora

ble Susa n Illston, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion. 2
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Northern Technologies InternationalCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending May 31,2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Matthew C. Wolsfeld, Chief Financial Officer andCorporate Secretary of the Company, 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 and belief:

 

(1)                                                        The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                                        The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|                                                                 |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Matthew  C. Wolsfeld, CPA                                       |   |
| Chief  Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary                |   |
| (principal  financial officer and principal accounting officer) |   |
|                                                            |   |
| Circle  Pines, Minnesota                                        |   |
| July 15,  2010                                             |   |

 

----
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 Quarterly Report of Northern Technologies International Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Matthew C. Wolsfeld, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 and belief:

| | (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.

|                        | Message                                                                                   
|----------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |                                                                                           
|                        | Matthew C. Wolsfeld, CPA                                                                  
|                        | Chief   Financial Officer (principal financial officer and principal accounting   officer)
|                        |                                                                                           
|Lino Lakes,   Minnesota |                                                                                           
|July 15, 2005           |
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.

MICHAEL JORDAN,

 Defendant.

Case No. 05-5197M

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:

 ( X) Crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3156

 ( X ) Maximum Sentence of Death or Life Imprisonment

 ( ) 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:

 ( X ) Serious Nature of Offense; Allegations in Complaint regarding defendant’s associates and life style..

 ( ) 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 recent AWOL status with the United States Army.

 ( ) 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.

 October 31, 2005.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cr-05823-RBL Document 7 Filed 10/31/05 Page 1 of 1
Before the Second Division,

December 5, 1963

No. 68154,

#### Goldie Enterprises et al. *v.*United States,

protests 62/19821, etc. (Los Angeles).

*279Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of electrical mixing machines similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 65798, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 69670.

#### Selectile Company, Inc., and Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., of L.A. et al *v.*United States,

protests 61/2332(C), etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Nichols, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of polished marble slabs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Selectile Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 30, C.D. 2504), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-1

APPLICANTS A1 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline A1-1 The final EIS has been revised as approp

revised information provided in this filinthe final EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-2

A1 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (contin
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-3

A1 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (contin
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-4

A2 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline 

A2-1 The final EIS has been revised as approprevised information provided in this and the followappropriate sections of the final EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-5

A2 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (contin
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-6

A2 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (contin
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-7

A2 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (contin
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-8

A2 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (contin
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-9

A2 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (contin
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-10

A2 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (contin
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-11

A2 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (contin
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-12

A2 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (contin
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-13

A2 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (contin
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-14

A2 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (contin
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-15

A2 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (contin
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-16

A2 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (contin
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-17

A2 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (contin
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-18

A2 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (contin
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-19

A2 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (contin
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-20

A2 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (contin
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-21

A2 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (contin
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-22

A2 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline (contin
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-23

A3 Dickstein Shapiro LLP 

A3-1 The final EIS has been revised as approprevised information provided in this and the followappropriate sections of the final EIS. 
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-24

A3 Dickstein Shapiro LLP (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-25

A3 Dickstein Shapiro LLP (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-26

A3 Dickstein Shapiro LLP (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-27

A3 Dickstein Shapiro LLP (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-28

A3 Dickstein Shapiro LLP (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-29

A3 Dickstein Shapiro LLP (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-30

A3 Dickstein Shapiro LLP (continued) 
Appendix J – Comment

J.A-31

A3 Dickstein Shapiro LLP (continued)
No. 60547.

#### Judson-Sheldon Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 114185-K/181 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fish viscera oil similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(42 C. C. P. A. 190, C. A. D. 592), 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

MINUTE ORDER – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

GUY ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

PACIFIC COAST MARITIME, INC., et

al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C06-134JLR

MINUTE ORDER

The following minute order is made by the direction of the court, the Honorable

James L. Robart:

The court has received the parties’ stipulation to continue certain case management

deadlines (Dkt. # 21). The court DENIES the stipulation. If the parties wish to enter a

new stipulation to continue case management deadlines, they must do so in compliance

with this order.

The court enters orders setting trial dates and related dates to provide a reasonable

schedule for the resolution of disputes. That schedule generally provides approximately

90 days between the deadline for filing dispositive motions and the trial date. With

dispositive motions due 90 days before trial, they will generally be ripe for consideration

one month later. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. CR 7(d)(3). The court’s calendar

generally permits it to enter a decision on dispositive motions within 30 days. See Local

Rules W.D. Wash. CR 7(b)(5). In order to permit the parties to consider the court’s

Case 2:06-cv-00134-JLR Document 22 Filed 08/07/06 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

MINUTE ORDER – 2

decision on dispositive motions and plan for trial or an alternative resolution, the court

generally requires at least 30 days between the court’s decision and the trial date. For

these reasons, the court will rarely set the deadline for dispositive motions less than 90

days before the trial date. 

The court will deny any stipulation that does not provide a compelling reason to

abandon these case management principles. Thus, if the parties seek to modify case

management deadlines in a manner inconsistent with this order, they must provide the

court with a compelling reason for doing so. If appropriate, the parties may consent to a

shortened schedule for briefing dispositive motions, but they must explicitly state the

shortened schedule in their stipulation.

When entering a stipulation to change a case management deadline, the parties

must explicitly state the effect that the change will have on all subsequent case

management deadlines, if any. The stipulation must expressly request a specific new date

for each subsequent deadline.

Finally, the court notes that the parties represent that Plaintiff is participating in a

weight loss program, and that his success in this program will impact whether he needs

back surgery. The court directs the parties to telephone the court’s law clerk to arrange a

telephone conference to discuss whether awaiting the results of the weight loss program

will necessitate a delay in the trial of this matter.

Filed and entered this 7th day of August, 2006.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

s/Mary Duett

By

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00134-JLR Document 22 Filed 08/07/06 Page 2 of 2