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

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

RONALD DEAN FINLEY,

 Defendant.

Case No. CR05-5220M

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.

 ( X ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

 ( ) 

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

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

 ( ) Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

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

 ( X ) History of non-compliance with Washington State Department of Corrections.

 ( ) 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.

 November 30, 2005.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-mj-05220-JKA Document 4 Filed 11/30/05 Page 1 of 1
### Open Literature Review Screen Chemical Name: Atrazine 

### CAS No: 1912-24-9 

### Citation: Bouldin, J. 

### L., 1. 

### L. Farris, M. T. Moore, S. Smith, Jr., W. W. Stephens, and C. M. Cooper. (2005). "Evaluated fate and effects ofatrazine and lambda-cyhalothrin in vegetated and unvegetated microcosms." Environmental Toxicology 20(5): 487-498.

(1'11

### ~IID i1't;2btIO

## <;-) Date ofScreen: October 8, 2009 

### Rationale for Not Conducting aFull Open Literature Review Summary: Endpoints specific for aquatic plants are notprovided. Vegetation was an independent/controlled variable, butthe study endpoints were water quality parameters and acute toxicity ofthe waterto fathead minnow, water flea, and midge. 

### Primary Reviewer: SaraH. Hendrix, M.S., Subcontracting Scientist, Cambridge Environmental Inc. 

### Secondary Reviewer: Teri Myers, Senior Scientist, Cambridge Environmental Inc.



# \11111111. 2087832
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code),each of the undersigned officers of Special Devices, Incorporated (the “Company”)does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q/Afor the quarterly period ended August 1, 2004 (the “Report”) that:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| Date: February  2,  2005 | /s/ THOMAS W. CRESANTE                                                          |
|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                          | Director,  President and Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer) |
| Date: February 2, 2005   | /s/  JAMES E. REEDER                                                            |
|                          | Vice President  Finance  (Principal Financial Officer)                          |

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solelypursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed aspart of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

----
EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 March 31, 2003 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)
                                               May 12, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to and will be retained by Osteotech, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of Remington Oil and Gas
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, James A. Watt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec.1350, as adopted pursuant to sec.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.

     This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, and not for any other purpose.

                                                   /s/ JAMES A. WATT
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                      James A. Watt
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer

November 6, 2003

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Remington Oil and Gas Corporation and will be retained by
Remington Oil and Gas Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                                   5
<LEGEND>
     Amounts restated to reflect reversal of discontinued
     operations presentation of wagering systems segment.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                                            1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                    JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                      JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                                  3,063
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          27,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                            3,309
<INVENTORY>                                            28,845
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       68,921
<PP&E>                                                153,178
<DEPRECIATION>                                         70,399
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        182,036
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  71,201
<BONDS>                                                26,632
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                19
<COMMON>                                                  107
<OTHER-SE>                                             87,371
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           87,497
<SALES>                                                18,615
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       89,950
<CGS>                                                  11,077
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          53,834
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        8,235
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          189
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      2,176
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (3,709)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             (666)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (3,043)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         4,014
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                              971
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             .08
        


</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 19

- 00807

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.M.T. , a Child

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019

- PA

- 00140 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

BEFORE THE EN BANC COURT

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date and the panel’s opinion dated July 1, 2020, the trial court’s order terminating the parent

- child relationship between W .S. and J.M.T. is REVERSED and judgment is RE NDERED denying the Department’s petition to terminate the

parent

- child relationship between W.S. and J.M.T.

SIGNED December 23, 2020

.

________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
No. 67106.

protest 62/5686 (Galveston).

#### Benckiser, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of sodium phosphate (brifisol 410) similar in all material respects to that the subject of *George A. Abood Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 1, C.D. 2270), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2219

BRAD D. RAY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PRINCE GEORGE’S COMMUNITY COLLEGE; RONALD

WILLIAMS, President; PAUL MAZZEI,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-03-

2915-8-RWT)

Submitted: October 31, 2005 Decided: December 12, 2005

Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frederic M. Brandes, Timonium, Maryland, for Appellant. V. Daniel

Palumbo, Fort Washington, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Brad D. Ray appeals the district court’s order dismissing

his amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The record does not

contain a transcript of the July 19, 2004 hearing on the motion to

dismiss the amended complaint. Despite repeated requests beginning

in April 2005, neither Ray nor his counsel has either obtained a

transcript or filed a motion for a transcript at government

expense. An appellant has the burden of including in the record on

appeal a transcript of all parts of the proceedings material to the

issues raised on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); 4th Cir. R.

10(c). An appellant proceeding on appeal in forma pauperis is

entitled to transcripts at government expense only in certain

circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2000). By failing to produce

a transcript or apply to qualify for the production of a transcript

at government expense, Ray has waived review of the issues on

appeal that depend upon the transcript to show error. See

Powell v. Estelle, 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir. 1992); Keller v.

Prince George’s County, 827 F.2d 952, 954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987). As

no error appears on the record before us, we affirm the district

court’s order. We grant Ray’s counsel’s motion to withdraw. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 28, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 128882 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, 46 TH CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, Justices Plaintiff, Counter-Defendant, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 128882 COA: 254181 Crawford CC: 02-005951-CZ COUNTY OF CRAWFO RD and CRAWFORD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Defendants, Counter-Plaintiffs, Third-Party Plaintiffs, and

COUNTY OF KALKASKA, Third-Party Plaintiff, Counter-Defendant, and

COUNTY OF OTSEGO, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee, and

COHL STOKER TOSKEY & MCGLINCHEY PC, Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 3, 2005 judgment of the Court of App eals is considered, and it appeari ng to this Co urt that the
case of 46 th Circuit Trial Cour t v Crawford County (Docket No. 128878) is pending on appeal before this Court and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leav e to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the d ecision in that case.

d1220 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 28, 2005

Clerk
| Skip to Content*Release Date:*Release dates | Codedtables | Historical dataCurrentrelease | Screen reader | PDF (450KB)**Flow of Funds Summary Statistics** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
From: bejoyful@hutchtel.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:03:56 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,

Edythe Gravley

Darwin, MN 55324
From: kevmarfec@live.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:23:06 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,

Mary Fechtelkotter

Rapid City, SD 57701
From: Grandmabutziew@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:33:20 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,

Gerri Westmark

Dubuque, IA 52003
No. 65147.

#### S. L. Jones & Company *v.*United States,

protests 272474-K, 277634-K, and 282197-K (San Francisco).

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.