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 ORDER -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MARVIN LLOYD FLOWERS-ROSCOE,

Petitioner,

v.

RICHARD MORGAN,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5643FDB

 ORDER ADOPTING

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION 

The Court having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Hon. Karen L.

Strombom United States Magistrate Judge, objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the

remaining record, the Court concludes that Petitioner’s objections are merely a recharacterization of

his earlier response to the Magistrate Judge’s order to show cause. Therefore, the Court does

hereby find and Order:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) The petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons set forth in

the Report and Recommendation.

(3) The clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Petitioner, and to the Hon. Karen

L. Strombom.

DATED this 23rd day of January 2006. 

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05643-FDB Document 8 Filed 01/23/06 Page 1 of 1
Draft Proposal CB-28 

This concept has been developed by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) as a possible code

change proposal to the Commercial provisions of the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code

(IECC).   Interested parties are asked to submit any and all comments on DOE's initial concepts and draft

code change proposals. For instructions on submitting comments, visit:

www.energycodes.gov/development/commercial/codes/iecc/concepts/

Chiller “Listed/Labeled” Compared to “Certified” (CB-28) 

Objective:  Clarify the code provisions covering positive displacement chilling packages on the issue of

“listed” and “labeled” equipment compared to “certified.”

Suggested Code Change Proposal

Revise Section C403.2.3.2 as follows:  

C403.2.3.2. Positive displacement (air- and water cooled) chilling packages. Equipment with a 

leaving fluid temperature of higher than 320

F, shall meet the requirements of Table C403.2.3(7) when 

listed and labeled as being tested or certified with water at standard rating conditions, in accordance with 

the referenced test procedure. 

Reason:  The requirement for equipment with a leaving fluid temperature of 320

F was an error and the

requirement should apply to equipment with leaving fluid temperature greater than 320

F. The term

“certified” is not defined but generally refers to some level of approval by a recognized and approved

third party.  The inclusion of the defined terms listed and labeled provide what is intended and some

basis for compliance verification by the code community and direction for designers and specifiers in

documenting compliance.    

Cost Impact:   There is no cost impact associated with this proposed change.
RE: Questions on PNM's revised cost estimate for the SJGS SCR project
	Norem, Nancy 
	to:
	Joe Kordzi
	11/04/2010 04:17 PM
	Cc:
	"Gannon, Maureen", "Fischer, Diane M.", "Lucas, Kyle J.", "McGuffey, 
Mack", "Alvidrez, Richard (Miller)"
	Show Details



History:	This message has been replied to and forwarded.




Joe,
 
Attached [AI E-23 101104b] is the response to questions raised in your first email of 
November 1, 2010.
 
Nancy
 
 

From: Kordzi.Joe@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Kordzi.Joe@epamail.epa.gov] 
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 7:55 AM
To: Norem, Nancy; Gannon, Maureen
Subject: Questions on PNM's revised cost estimate for the SJGS SCR project

Nancy, 

Your cost revision caused a few additional questions.  Again, please 
respond piecemeal if a delay is anticipated in addressing any question. 
1.  The revised costs include a correction to the air heater modifications 
for Units 3 and 4, which were inadvertently double counted in prior 
estimates.  The record so far does not contain the vendor quote on which 
the that the air heater costs are based, or any other support.  In 
response to our previous request, B&V responded that the information is 
not in the public record.  As these costs are large, we need the 
supporting vendor proposal for the air heater modifications. 
2.  We cannot confirm B&V's costs for electrical equipment.  The original 
cost estimate includes $484,000 per unit for an "electrical system 
upgrade."  We cannot confirm this cost, using the SJRPP proposals that 
were provided or the cost excerpt in the OAQPS Commentary, Appx. B, 
Section 4.11: Electrical Upgrades.  Please provide a calculation cited to 
specific pages/line items of the supplied quotes and identify each item 
that is included.   
3.  You have added a new cost item, entitled "auxiliary electric system 
requirements," amounting to $6,400,000 for each of Units 1 and 2 and 
$8,350,000 for each of Units 3 and 4.  These additions are based on 
"minimum" load changes totalling 25,594 kw.  An SCR typically uses about 
0.3% of a plant's electric output.  In the original B&V cost estimate, the 
annual auxiliary and ID fan power was calculated assuming 4,881 kW, which 
is equal to about 0.3% of the plant output.  We do not understand the 
basis for ascribing 100% of the cost for upgrading auxiliary electrical 
equipment to support increases in load that are five times greater than 
the demand of the SCR alone.  We feel that if any of these costs are 
warranted, they should be proportioned among the various Consent Decree 
modifications.  To make this calculation, we will need a list of the 
Consent Decree modifications, the cost of each project, and the load 
change for each. 
Regards,

Joe

" ... and miles to go before I sleep."
-- Robert Frost
Order entered May 29, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00251-CR

VICTOR JOEL SUAREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-71456-K

ORDER

The Court GRANTS the State’s May 22, 2014 second motion for extension of time to 

file the State’s brief.

We ORDER the Clerk of the Court to file the brief tendered as of the date of this order.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
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 TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS E. DUNIGAN,

Defendant.

CASE NO. CR05-5823RBL

MINUTE ORDER

NOW, on this 26TH day of January, 2007, the Court directs the Clerk to enter the following

Minute Order:

The Court directs the CJA Administrator to Appoint Independent Counsel for the express

purpose of advising Mr. Dunigan on the issue of conflict with his present counsel, Roger

Hunko. 

Briefing, if any, will be filed by Government and Defense Counsel not later than 2/5/2007

after which the court will issue its decision.

The foregoing Minute Order entered by s/Jean Boring ,

 Deputy Clerk, BY DIRECTION OF THE HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON, UNITED

STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Case 3:05-cr-05823-RBL Document 180 Filed 01/26/07 Page 1 of 1
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Preliminaryreport on petroleum in Alaska**
 
Report | Plates: 04080910
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:719
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000957927
 
July 26, 2018
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Orofino Gold Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending May 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Martin, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of
February 9, 2010.


/s/ John Martin
------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
No. 65192.

#### Catz American Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 273985-K(C) (New York).

*351Opinion 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.
From: dbollant@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:01:03 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,

Dorothy Bollant

Madison, WI 53713
United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

JENNIFER STRANGE AND MAGEN MORRIS, 

Plaintiffs, 

v.

LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTERS OF WASHINGTON,

INC., et al.,

Defendants. 

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

CASE NUMBER: C06-45RSM

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury

has rendered its verdict.

 X Decision by Court. This action came to consideration before the Court. The issues have been considered

and a decision has been rendered.

THE COURT HAS ORDERED THAT plaintiffs shall be awarded a total of $583,930 in attorneys’ fees

and $47,218.02 in expenses. 

Dated this 1 day of June 2010.

BRUCE RIFKIN 

Clerk

/s/ Rhonda Stiles

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 455 Filed 06/01/10 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Hurd, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 871]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Thorp, J.), rendered January 6, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, the defendant’s plea of guilty is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The defendant was informed by the court during his plea allocution that the maximum sentence for robbery in the first degree is 25 years imprisonment. This statement was incorrect since, the defendant, as a juvenile offender, could not have received such a sentence *(see,*Penal Law § 70.05 [2] [c]). Although this issue is unpreserved for appellate review, because of the misleading effect of the court’s statement, we reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction, reverse the judgment, and vacate the defendant’s plea of guilty *(see, People v Gotte,*125 AD2d 331; *see also, People v Camacho,*102 AD2d 728).

In light of our determination, we do not reach the defendant’s contention that the court should have inquired into whether the defendant had a defense to the crime to which he pleaded guilty *(see generally, People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662).

In order to avoid an error on remittitur, we note that the sentencing court erred by directing the defendant to pay a mandatory surcharge and a crime victim’s assistance fee *(see,*Penal Law § 60.00 [2]; *People v McFadden,*205 AD2d 560). Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
Before the Third Division,

February 13, 1958

No. 61559.

#### K. Kalustyan Orient Expert Trading Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 303908-K (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

On motion of defendant, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution and nonappearance.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

VINCENT DANIEL HOPPER A.K.A.

ANTOLIN ANDREW MARKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE MYERS RECREATIONAL

COACH NORTHWEST DETENTION

CENTER et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5680RBL

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This Bivens action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28

U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrates' Rules MJR 1, MJR 3, and MJR 4. The

only remaining defendant is Michael Melendez, the federal officer in charge of the facility. He is sued in his

official capacity. The only remaining issue is the constitutionality of the telephone system at the facility

where plaintiff is housed. 

Pending before the court is defendant’s motion for summary Judgement (Dkt. # 141). Two issues

have not been adequately briefed, or the briefing is inconsistent. The court requires more information. The

court needs to learn from the parties the following information:

1. Has the fifteen digit calling restriction been removed from the system entirely, or only from

Case 3:05-cv-05680-RBL Document 166 Filed 08/20/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

certain numbers? If the answer is only from certain numbers, what numbers?

2. When a detainee is allowed to make a call in the intake area what steps are taken to assure

the telephone call to counsel or consulates remains confidential? The court needs to know

the procedure in place and mechanics or physical lay out of the intake area. 

A response from both parties will be due September 14, 2007. This document will be no more than

ten pages long. Either party may file a reply to the other party’s response. The reply will raise no new

issues and will again be limited to ten pages. The reply will be due on or before September 21, 2007. The

court will consider the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, (Dkt. # 141), at that time. In all other

respects this action remains STAYED.

The clerk’s office is directed to send a copy of this order to plaintiff and counsel for defendants. the

due dates for the responses and replies. 

DATED this 20 day of August, 2007.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05680-RBL Document 166 Filed 08/20/07 Page 2 of 2
H. Res. 704 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

October 4, 2007. 

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3246) to amend title 40, United States Code, to provide a 

comprehensive regional approach to economic and infrastructure development in the most severely economically distressed 

regions in the Nation. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 

9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure now printed in the bill, modified by the 

amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 

accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. 

The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points 

of order against provisions of the bill, as amended, are 

waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 

on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening 

motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
2 

•HRES 704 EH 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; and (2) 

one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 3246 pursuant to 

this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 

question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 

bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
IV 

House Calendar No. 105 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 614 

[Report No. 110–299] 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 

consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 3, 2007 

Mr. MCGOVERN, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with 

respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported 

from the Committee on Rules. 

1 Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule 

2 XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the 

3 Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to 

4 the House is waived with respect to any resolution re5 ported on the legislative day of Saturday, August 4, 2007, 

6 Sunday, August 5, 2007, or Monday, August 6, 2007, pro7 viding for consideration of any of the following measures: 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

HRES 614 RH 

1 (1) The bill (H.R. 3222) making appropriations 

2 for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year 

3 ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes. 

4 (2) A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence 

5 Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for 

6 authorizing certain electronic surveillance. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 105 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 614 

[Report No. 110

–299] 

RESOLUTION 

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 

tions reported from the Committee on Rules. with respect to consideration of certain resoluAUGUST 3, 2007 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
From: hingst101@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:00:12 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,

Aaron Goodman

Castle Rock, CO 80109
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas July 21, 2021 No. 04-21-00169-CV IN THE INTEREST OF I.I.T., J.J.T., AND R.A.T., III, CHILDREN From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020PA00154 Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R The Appellant's Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The appellant's brief is due on or before July 26, 2021.

_________________________________ Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 21st day of July, 2021.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court