alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

PETER DOUGLAS LOCKWOOD,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CR05-463M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offense charged:

Armed Bank Robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d).

Date of Detention Hearing: 10/4/05

The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and

based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth, finds

the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) In the Pretrial Services Report of October 4, 2005, a substantial number of

criminal violations are cited. A criminal record check reflects that the defendant has been

charged with previous assault charges. In addition, in this case he is being charged as an active

participant in a particularly violent offense.

Case 2:05-cr-00367-JCC Document 9 Filed 10/05/05 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

(2) Defendant is homeless and unemployed. In addition, he is addicted to

methamphetamine and is a crack cocaine user.

(3) Defendant has a history of prior failures to appear in Court.

(4) Defendant is viewed as a risk of danger due to the nature of the charges, his

substance-abuse addiction, and his criminal history.

(5) There appear to be no conditions or combination of conditions that will

reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance at future Court hearings.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the extent

practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with

counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which defendant

is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose

of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United States

Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 5th day of October, 2005.AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cr-00367-JCC Document 9 Filed 10/05/05 Page 2 of 2
From: kincade4@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:49:09 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Katherine Kincade

Flagstaff, AZ 86004
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 54
          - [WC Docket No. 21-450; FCC 23-62; FR ID 173798]

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is correcting a final rule that appeared in the                         **Federal Register**                         on September 1, 2023. The document issued a final rule to establish the enhanced discounts available for monthly broadband services provided in high-cost areas by participants in the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP).                    

# DATES:

Effective October 2, 2023.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        For further information, please contact, Travis Hahn, Attorney Advisor, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at                         *Travis.Hahn@fcc.gov*                         or 202-418-7400.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Correction

                    In FR Doc. 2023-18621, appearing on page 60347 in the                     **Federal Register**                     of Friday, September 1, 2023, the following corrections are made:                

§ 54.1814

1. On Page 60355, in the third column, in part 54, in paragraph (b), “(2)” is corrected to read as “(3)”. 

Federal Communications Commission.

Marlene Dortch,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2023-21292 Filed 9-29-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
### Docket No. FAA**- 2014**  **- 0531** 

**Contacts.** With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted **Date** Response **National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti**  7/10/14 **Regional Airline Association** 7 /10/14 **Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman**  7/10/14 **Airlines for America Robert Ireland**  7/10/14
(R.D. 11534)

#### Park Benziger Export Corp. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 11427; 11553.

(Decided May 28, 1968)

*Stitt, Hemmendmger & DaiUels*for the plaintiff.

*Edwin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Watson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into between counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as follows:

> *8831. The merchandise which is the subject of the above-captioned re-appraisement appeals consists of tennis shoes imported in 1961 under Entry Nos. 11427 (R 63 2082) and 11553 (R 63 2083) through the Port of San Francisco.

> 2. The merchandise was returned by the Appraiser as having soles wholly or in chief value of india rubber or substitutes for rubber, dutiable upon the American selling price as defined in Section 402(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, under the authority of the Presidential Proclamation set forth in 63 Treas. Dec. 232, T.D. 46158; and was assessed at $2.65 per pair less 2%, net packed and $2.00 per pair, net packed, depending on the type of upper.

> 3. The material of chief value of the soles was high styrene resin, which was not rubber or a substitute for rubber and does not fall within the purview of the Presidential Proclamation set forth in 63 Treas. Dec. 232, T.D. 46158, and is, therefore, not subject to appraisement on the basis of American Selling Price.

> 4. Said footwear is not identified in the Final List, published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54521, effective February 27th, 1958.

> 5. On or about the date of exportation, such or similar footwear was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, at the invoice unit ex-factory prices plus packing charges plus items marked inland freight and other charges, as noted on the invoice, said prices including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States.

> 6. The instant appeal for reappraisement may be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold export value as that value is defined in section 402 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the invoice unit ex-factory prices, plus packing charges, plus items marked inland freight and other charges as noted on the invoices.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
### M a r c h 7 M ee t

i ng

Roge r K ohn t

o: Da v i d J en k i ns 02 / 15 / 2012 12 : 28 PM

C c: S H ill

Da v e,

I 'm r e s pond i ng t

o y ou r m o s t r

e c en t v o i c e m a il m e ss age t o Amy Z i m p f

e r r eque s t i ng a m ee t

i ng

. W ed

M a rc h 7 a t 11 : 00 wo rks f o r e v e ry one he r

e

, i n c l ud i ng Amy

. Doe s t ha t wo rk f

o r y ou and y ou r t

ea m ? A nd

I ' ll a ss u m e t

h i s i s a f a c e t o f a c e m ee t

i ng un l e ss y ou t

e ll m e o t he r w i s e.

T han k y ou.

Roge r K ohn

U SEPA Reg i on 9

- A i r D i v i s i on (A I R

- 3)

75 Haw t ho r ne S t r eet

S an F r an c i sc o

, C A 94105

- 3901

415

- 972

- 3973

k ohn

. r oge r @ epa
Searched for **http://smokefree.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://smokefree.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Osteotech, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael J. Jeffries,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.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 results of operations of
      the Company.


                                        /S/ Michael J. Jeffries
                                        Michael J. Jeffries
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        (Principal Financial Officer and
                                        Chief Accounting Officer)
                                        August 4, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or any
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 99.2



                            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 on Form 10-Q of SPARTA, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David E. Schreiman,
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:

      (3) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (4) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company as of and for the periods covered by the report.




/s/ David E. Schreiman


David E. Schreiman
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2002



                                      -14-
From: anne.miller@threenotchemc.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:55:36 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,

Anne Miller

Donalsonville, GA 39845
No. P67/72.

#### P. W. Bellingall, Inc., and Fred C. English & Assoc. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 63/163, etc. (San Francisco).

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protects consists of hanging paper similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Victor England Agencies, Inc.*v. *United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 83, C.D. 2394), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: actingdancestar@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:00:50 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,

Joslynn Hernandez

Seymour, CT 06483
#### SULLIVAN v. MILLIKEN.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

November 23, 1903.)

No. 1,229.

In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Florida.

John H. Jones and Thomas H. Watts, for plaintiff in error. William A. Blount and A. C. Blount, Jr., for defendant in error.

Before PARDEE, McCORMICK, and SHELBY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Since the argument of this case we have carefully examined the record and briefs, and we have come to the conclusion that no reversible error is shown by the record. The judgment of the Circuit ■Court, therefore, is affirmed.
Before the Second Division,

October 14, 1968

No. P68/431.

protest 63/22548 (New York).

No. P68/432.

protests 64/404-7, etc. (New York).

No. P68/433.

protests 64/17391, etc. (New York).

#### Fabius & Co., Inc. *v.*United States, Seedman International Corp. *v.*United States, Andrew Fisher Cycle Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Kao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of inner tubes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Seedman International Corp. et al.*v. *United States*(60 Cust. Ct. 127, C.D. 3285), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the annual report of American Power Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended September 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Johannes Petersen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ Johannes PetersenJohannes PetersenChief Financial Officer
 
 Date:  June 21, 2012
No. 64563.

#### Gallagher & Ascher Co. *v.*United States,

protest 59/23736-11011 (Chicago).

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.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350





The
undersigned officer of ALLIED HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the Company’s fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2009 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.





/s/
      Daniel C. DunnDaniel
      C. DunnVice
      President, Chief Financial Officer &
  Secretary


February
8, 2010
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Pedro Vargas, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 50]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County *631(Greenberg, J.), rendered November 16,1993, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court did not improperly close the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover police officer. The officer testified at the closure hearing that he feared for his safety if he testified in open court because his "lost subjects” from undercover operations could identify him and because he had received threats and expected to return to the area where the defendant was arrested. These facts meet the requirements for closure under *People v Martinez*(82 NY2d 436, 442) *(see, People v Mitchell,*209 AD2d 444; *People v Skinner,*204 AD2d 664).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Sullivan, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Krausman, JJ., concur.