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

1

 Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address dated May 10, 2006, and requested a forty-five day

stay of all of his cases because he had been moved to the King County Jail and apparently lacked the

resources necessary to pursue this litigation. The undersigned has therefore postponed consideration

of the matters pending in MC05-5029.

ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_________________________________ )

RICHARD ROY SCOTT, ) No. MC05-5029

)

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) ORDER PERMITTING CASE TO PROCEED

)

KING COUNTY, )

)

Defendant. )

_________________________________ )

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On April 5, 2005, the United

States District Court judges who sit in Tacoma entered an order dismissing a number of

plaintiff’s causes of action and barring future litigation unless plaintiff provides a signed

affidavit, along with the proposed complaint, “verifying under penalty of perjury that none of the

issues raised in the proposed complaint have been litigated in the past by the plaintiff.” On June

1, 2006, the Clerk of Court received a complaint, a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, a

written consent for payment of costs, and a declaration signed by Mr. Scott. Dkt. # 66. These

documents are now before the undersigned for review pursuant to the terms of the bar order.1

 

Plaintiff asserts a § 1983 claim and pendent state law claims challenging the

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 72 Filed 06/26/06 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

ORDER -2-

procedures used to enforce a finding of contempt against plaintiff in April and May 2006. In

particular, plaintiff objects to the enforcement of a contempt finding while an appeal was

pending and the lack of procedures to lift the contempt if and when plaintiff complied with the

Superior Court’s order. 

The undersigned finds that the issues raised in the above-captioned matter have not

been previously litigated by plaintiff and may proceed subject to the other requirements imposed

by the “Order Adopting Report and Recommendation,” dated April 5, 2005. The Clerk of Court

shall docket this order in MC05-5029 and open a new cause of action containing all documents

related to plaintiff’s June 1, 2006, submission (Dkt. # 66). 

DATED this 26th day of June, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik,

Chief Judge, United States District Court 

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 72 Filed 06/26/06 Page 2 of 2
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 SINOCOM PHARMACUETICAL, INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2009 (the "Report"), I, Tuck Wing PANG, 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:  1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.    By: /s/ Tuck Wing PANG, Chief Financial Officer  Date: September 29, 2010
From: dwiechman@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:02:25 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,

Dennis Wiechman

Roanoke, TX 76262
# Certificate of Training Presented to 

# David L evy

For the successful completion of the 

### DARTDRONES

Drone Industry 1 01, Basic Training and Advanced

### ~**~ns** Courses

.

# ~~ 21 November 2015 hr i s Costel l o Date Ch i ef Right Offi ce r 

# DART DR 

# 0 N E S 

# --.-= •**~** FAA E xempt C o mpany 

### ----d£b-- 333 Exempt i on # 11625
No. 59238.

protests 207563-K, etc. (New York).

#### C. J. Scarf *&*Novelty Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Foed, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of articles of silk 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS, CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS, AND CONDENSED
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          75,538
<SECURITIES>                                   264,486
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,818
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               392,739
<PP&E>                                          26,301
<DEPRECIATION>                                (22,312)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 406,602
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           61,496
<BONDS>                                        300,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,131
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   406,602
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                72,891
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                93,782
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,284
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,659)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,659)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,659)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.33)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.33)
<FN>
<F1>For Purposes of this Exhibit, Primary means Basic.
</FN>


</TABLE>
January 27, 1960

No. 63757.

Suits 4985/4986.

#### United States *v.*Steinberg Bros.; and Steinberg Bros. *v.*United States, respectively.

C.D. 2030 affirmed December 7, 1959. C.A.D. 727.
No. 59740.

#### Fairfield Wool Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 176460-K and 227059-K (Bridgeport).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of wool flocks the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Walker Services*v. *United States*(24 Cust. Ct. 190, C. D. 1230), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
### Fw: Interagency revisions to EPA proposed Biogenic emissions language Raj Rao to: Pam Long 08/10/2010 01:05 PM

Raj Rao, P.E. Group Leader, NSRG OAQPS/AQPD(MD- C504-03) 109 TW Alexander Drive RTP, NC 27709 919-541-5344 919-541-5509 fax Note: Positions or views expressed here do not represent official EPA policy. Interagency deliberative and Confidential. ----- Forwarded by Raj Rao/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/10/2010 01:05 PM -----

From: "Kymn, Christine J." <Christine

_ J.

_ Kymn@omb.eop.gov> To: Raj Rao/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 08/03/2010 06:01 PM Subject: RE: Interagency revisions to EPA proposed Biogenic emissions language

-----Original Message----- From: Rao.Raj@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Rao.Raj@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 2:57 PM To: Kymn, Christine J. Subject: Re: Interagency revisions to EPA proposed Biogenic emissions language Hi Christine, Thanks for these comments. We are reviewing and considering the edits and will get back to you asap. raj Raj Rao, P.E. Group Leader, NSRG OAQPS/AQPD(MD- C504-03) 109 TW Alexander Drive RTP, NC 27709 919-541-5344 919-541-5509 fax Note: Positions or views expressed here do not represent official EPA policy. Interagency deliberative and Confidential.

From: "Kymn, Christine J." <Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov> To: Raj Rao/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lisa Sutton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Anna Wood/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 08/03/2010 12:03 PM Subject: Interagency revisions to EPA proposed Biogenic emissionslanguage

Raj, Lisa, Anna, Greetings. Attached please find proposed edits to EPA’s suggested biogenic GHG language. Let’s chat sometime today about these if possible. Thanks, Christine 202.395.4638(See attached file: Interagency edits1_Proposed language, biogenic GHG sources, EPA NPRMs, Actions to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits under the PSD Program to Sources of GHG Emissions.docx)(See attached file: Interagency edits2_Proposed language, biogenic GHG sources, EPA NPRMs, Actions to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits under the PSD Program to Sources of GHG Emissions.docx)

Interagency edits3_Proposed language, biogenic GHG sources, EPA NPRMs, Actions to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits under the P
#### Bartholomess ROBICHAUX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Burl CAIN; James Felder; David Bonnett; Mark Portacci; Clay Williams; Jerry A. Estes; Dora Rabalais; Anthony Tarver, Dr., Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 04-31125, 05-30022

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 18, 2005.

Bartholomess Robichaux, Angola, LA, pro se.

Leonard Bruce Dodd, Angola, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Bartholomess Robichaux, Louisiana prisoner #91571, challenges the district court’s denial of his application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the district court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment, grant of summary judgment to the defendants, and dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various prison officials alleging that inade*392quate ventilation in the prison harmed him by aggravating his asthma. Robichaux is effectively challenging the district court’s certification that he should not be granted IFP status because his appeal is not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

Robichaux was not entitled to summary judgment in his favor because he did not show the absence of evidence to support the defendants’ case. *See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,*477 U.S. 317, 322-27, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Nor did Robichaux satisfy his summary-judgment burden of showing the existence of a genuine factual dispute material to the issue of prison conditions such that the defendants’ summary-judgment motion should have been denied. Fed.R.CivP. 56(c); *Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,*477 U.S. 242, 250; 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Because there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the district court’s determination that Robichaux’s appeal was not taken in good faith was correct. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983).

Because Robichaux has failed to show that he has a nonfrivolous issue for appeal, we uphold the district court’s order certifying that the appeal is not taken in good faith. Robichaux’s request for IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EX-35.1
(logo) AURORA LOAN SERVICES


Depositor:       Structured Asset Securities Corporation
                 Attention: Contract Finance LMT 2007-1
                 745 Seventh Avenue, 13th Floor
                 New York, New York 10019

Master Servicer: Aurora Loan Services LLC
                 Michele Olds
                 10350 Park Meadows Drive
                 Littleton, CO 80124

Trustee:         Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
                 Attention: Kimberly J. Wiggins/LMT 2007-1
                 9062 Old Annapolis Road
                 Columbia, MD 21045

Subject:         Annual Officer's Certification
Fiscal Year:     2008
Investor Code:   F98
Investor Name:   LMT 2007-1


I, Thomas L. Wind, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Aurora Loan
Services LLC (the "Servicer"), do certify the following for the Calendar Year
2008:

1. A review of the activities of the Servicer for the calendar year ended
December 31, 2008 (the reporting period) and of its performance under the
Agreement for such period has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material aspects throughout
such reporting period.

Certified by: AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC

By /s/ Thomas L. Wind
Name:  Thomas L. Wind
Title: Managing Director
From: cherylrenfro@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:30:09 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,

Cheryl Renfro

Sallisaw, OK 74955
No. 61066.

protest 293674-K (New York).

#### Gary Valenti *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

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

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JAMES WILLIS WALTENBURG,

 Petitioner,

v.

DOUG WADDINGTON,

Respondent..

Case No. C05-5767RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Petitioner’s Notice of Appeal

[Dkt. #20]. 

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court rules as follows:

For the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Dkt. #16], this Court

declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability because petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing

pro se.

Dated this 30th day of November, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05767-RBL Document 24 Filed 11/30/06 Page 1 of 1
129 STAT. 436 PUBLIC LAW 114–37—JULY 20, 2015 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 179: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 161 (2015): 

May 11, considered and passed Senate. 

July 13, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 114–37 

114th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 14 3rd 

Avenue, NW, in Chisholm, Minnesota, as the ‘‘James L. Oberstar Memorial Post 

Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. JAMES L. OBERSTAR MEMORIAL POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 14 3rd Avenue, NW, in Chisholm, Minnesota, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘James L. Oberstar Memorial 

Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘James L. Oberstar Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

Approved July 20, 2015. 

July 20, 2015 

[S. 179] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
No. 62252.

#### Arthur J. Humphreys et al. *v.*United States,

protests 291277-K, etc. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of 2-piece lumber similar in all material respects to that the subject of *B. A. McKenzie & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 52, C. D. 1903), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case 3:05-cv-05675-RBL Document 136 Filed 12/11/06 Page 1 of 6
Case 3:05-cv-05675-RBL Document 136 Filed 12/11/06 Page 2 of 6
Case 3:05-cv-05675-RBL Document 136 Filed 12/11/06 Page 3 of 6
Case 3:05-cv-05675-RBL Document 136 Filed 12/11/06 Page 4 of 6
Case 3:05-cv-05675-RBL Document 136 Filed 12/11/06 Page 5 of 6
Case 3:05-cv-05675-RBL Document 136 Filed 12/11/06 Page 6 of 6
From: shadeofjade@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:08:33 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,

Jeannine Knotts-Brown

Harlan, IN 46743
EX-10.5(d)



 Exhibit 10.5(d) 

June 1, 2017 
 Campbell & Company, L.P.

 2850 Quarry Lake Drive 
 Baltimore, MD 21209 

Attn: Mr. Tom Lloyd 

Re: Management Agreement Renewals 

Dear Mr. Lloyd: 
 We are
writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which reference is made below (the “Management Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2018 and all other
provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged. 
  

	 	•	 	 Potomac Futures Fund L.P. 



	 	•	 	 CMF Campbell Master Fund L.P. 



Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of
Mr. Patrick T. Egan at 522 Fifth Avenue – 7th Floor, New York, NY 10036. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 212-296-6808. 

Very truly yours, 
  

			
	CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
		
	By:	 	/s/ Patrick T.
Egan                                         
   
		 	 Patrick T. Egan

		 	 President and Director



			
	
	CAMPBELL & COMPANY, L.P.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Heidi L. Kaiser     /s/ Gregory T. Donovan
		
	Print Name:	 	Heidi L. Kaiser         Gregory T. Donovan      
		
	PE/tr