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

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

STACY CHARLES COMER,

Defendant.

Case No. CR05-5747 RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Defendant Comer’s Motion for an

Order Requiring the Government to Produce Complaining Witness [Dkt. #59].

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

Defendant Stacy Charles Comer is charged by way of a Superseding Indictment along with two codefendants with Retaliating Against a Witness in Violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1513(b)(2) and 2. Comer has

moved for an order requiring the government to produce the complaining witness, Curtis Wild, for an interview

by his counsel. According to the motion and the government’s response, Mr. Wild was initially agreeable to

being interviewed, however, he has since changed his position based upon his contact with a co-defendant’s

investigator and now declines to be interviewed by the defense. Witnesses have the right to refuse to be

interviewed, United States v. Black, 767 F.2d 1334, 1337-38 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 954 (1977), and

so long as the government has not interfered with the defendant’s access to the witness, this Court may not

order the witness to consent to a defense interview. Id. It is therefore

Case 3:05-cr-05747-RBL Document 61 Filed 02/21/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 2

ORDERED that Defendant Comer’s Motion for an Order Requiring the Government to Produce

Complaining Witness [Dkt. #59] is DENIED.

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

pro se.

Dated this 21st day of February, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cr-05747-RBL Document 61 Filed 02/21/06 Page 2 of 2
From: dbo413@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:42:44 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,

Donald Okerson

Manasquan, NJ 08736
----

|   | 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      Mediware. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  Dated:  October      28, 2008 | /s/    | T. Kelly Mann                |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|                                          |   | T.      Kelly Mann           |
|                                          |   | Chief      Executive Officer |
|                                          |   |                         |   |
| Dated:  October      28, 2008       | /s/    | Mark B. Williams             |   |
|                                          |   | Mark      B. Williams        |
|                                          |   | Chief      FinancialOfficer  |

----
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 W.D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARTHUR JUSTIN LAKES,

Defendant.

Case No. CR05-422RSM

INITIAL ORDER RE:

ALLEGATIONS OF

VIOLATION OF

CONDITIONS OF

SUPERVISION

THIS MATTER comes on for an initial hearing on the Petition of the United States Pretrial

Services Office alleging that the defendant has violated the conditions of supervision.

The plaintiff appears through Assistant United States Attorney, BARBARA SIEVERS;

The defendant appears personally and represented by counsel, ROBERT GOLDSMITH;

The U.S. Pretrial Services Office has filed a petition alleging violations of the terms and

conditions of defendants appearance bond; the defendant has been advised of the allegation(s).

The court finds probable cause with regard to the allegation(s) and schedules a hearing on the

 petition to be held at the time and date below set forth before Judge MONICA J. BENTON.

Date of hearing: MAY 8th, 2006

Time of hearing: 10:00 a.m.

 IT IS ORDERED that the defendant:

( ) Be released on an appearance bond, subject to the terms and conditions set forth thereon.

( x ) Be detained for failing to show that he/she will not flee or pose a danger to any other person

 or the community pursuant to CrR 32.1(a)(1), and CrR 46(c), to be delivered as ordered by

 the court for further proceedings.

The clerks shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to counsel for the

defendant, the United States Marshal and to the United States Probation Office and/or Pretrial Services

Office.

May 4, 2006.

_/s/ J. Kelley Arnold ______________ J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cr-00422-RSM Document 27 Filed 05/04/06 Page 1 of 1
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 85 (Monday, May 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 25289]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10251]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

[Public Notice EIB-2015-0008]

Application for Final Commitment for a Long-Term Loan or 
Financial Guarantee in Excess of $100 Million: AP088734XX

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the United States.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This Notice is to inform the public, in accordance with 
Section 3(c)(10) of the Charter of the Export-Import Bank of the United 
States (``Ex-Im Bank''), that Ex-Im Bank has received an application 
for final commitment for a long-term loan or financial guarantee in 
excess of $100 million (as calculated in accordance with Section 
3(c)(10) of the Charter). Comments received within the comment period 
specified below will be presented to the Ex-Im Bank Board of Directors 
prior to final action on this Transaction. Comments received will be 
made available to the public.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 23, 2015 to be 
assured of consideration before final consideration of the transaction 
by the Board of Directors of Ex-Im Bank.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted through Regulations.gov at 
WWW.REGULATIONS.GOV. To submit a comment, enter EIB-2015-0008 under the 
heading ``Enter Keyword or ID'' and select Search. Follow the 
instructions provided at the Submit a Comment screen. Please include 
your name, company name (if any) and EIB-2015-0008 on any attached 
document.
    Reference: AP088734XX.
    Purpose and Use:
    Brief description of the purpose of the transaction: To support the 
export of U.S.-manufactured commercial aircraft to Luxembourg.
    Brief non-proprietary description of the anticipated use of the 
items being exported: To be used for air cargo services globally. To 
the extent that Ex-Im Bank is reasonably aware, the items being 
exported are not expected to produce exports or provide services in 
competition with the exportation of goods or provision of services by a 
United States industry.
    Parties:
    Principal Suppliers: The Boeing Company.
    Obligor: Cargolux Airlines International S.A.
    Guarantor(s): N/A.
    Description of Items Being Exported: Boeing 747 aircraft.
    Information on Decision: Information on the final decision for this 
transaction will be available in the ``Summary Minutes of Meetings of 
Board of Directors'' on http://exim.gov/newsandevents/boardmeetings/board/.
    Confidential Information: Please note that this notice does not 
include confidential or proprietary business information; information 
which, if disclosed, would violate the Trade Secrets Act; or 
information which would jeopardize jobs in the United States by 
supplying information that competitors could use to compete with 
companies in the United States.

Bonita Jones,
Program Analyst, Records Management.
[FR Doc. 2015-10251 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
##### 



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 on Form 10-Q of SPARTA, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ended July 4, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert C. Sepucha,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, in my capacity as an officer
of the Company 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 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 as of the dates and for the periods presented in the
financial statements included in the report. August 11, 2004 /s/ Robert C. SepuchaRobert C. SepuchaChief Executive Officer
 - 23 -
Exhibit 31.4



CERTIFICATION



I, Steven P. Ruse, certify that:



1. 	I have reviewed
this annual report on Form 10-K of Diligent Board Member Services, Inc.;



2. 	Based on my
knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report.





|Date: April 30, 2013 |  |                                                                                     
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  |                                                                                     
|                     |  | /s/ Steven P. Ruse                                                                  
|                     |  | Steven P. Ruse
        Chief Financial Officer
        (Principal Financial Officer)
From: SueG52@live.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:05:38 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,

Sue Merriner

Akron, OH 44301
| (1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Eternity Healthcare Inc. for the year ended April 30, 2011 (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 Eternity Healthcare Inc. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:  August 5, 2011 |   |                                                                                           |
|-----------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |   |                                                                                           |
|                        |   |                                                                                           |
|                        |   | /s/ Francine Salari                                                                       |   |   |
|                        |   | Francine Salari                                                                                |
|                        |   | President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, Secretary and Director |
|                        |   | (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)    |
|                        |   | Eternity Healthcare Inc.                                                                       |
No. 62783.

#### J. J. Hayes Company on behalf of the Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. *v.*United States,

protest 58/3096 (New York).

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.
Before the Third Division,

April 14, 1965

No. 69241.

#### The American Customs Brokerage Co. and The Frito Co. of Hawaii, Ltd. *v.*United States,

protest 64/20636 (Honolulu).

*394Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise, described on the invoice as “35 cases Sweet Cherry” and “94 cases Kum Chin Cherry,” are, in fact, prepared or preserved cherries, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: ellisnti@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:53:19 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,

Ellis Naegele

Naples, FL 34108
RB

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0489

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

KYLE W. NELSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 60-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time

to and including November 23, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file the 

State’s response.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 17 2020

09/17/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0489
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

STEVEN T. MILLER,

Petitioner,

v.

GARY FLEMING,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5661FDB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The petitioner in this action is seeking federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. This case 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 3 and MJR 4.

The petitioner filed this petition and on the same day moved to stay the action as he is

currently in state court litigating issues related to his conviction in a personal restraint petition. (Dkt.

# 5 and 6).

The Untied States Supreme Court has recently addressed the stay and abeyance of habeas

corpus petitions. Rhines v. Weber, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 1528. A district Court has discretion to

stay a petition, but the courts discretion has had limits placed on it by the passage of the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, AEDPA. The stay and abeyance process should only

be used when there is good cause for not exhausting the issue prior to filing the petition.

Case 3:05-cv-05661-FDB Document 7 Filed 01/09/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

Petitioner is directed to SHOW CAUSE why the court should stay this petition rather than

dismissing the petition without prejudice. A response to this order is due on or before February

17th, 2006. If petitioner fails to respond to this order or if the response shows stay and abeyance to

be improper the court will recommend this petition be dismissed without prejudice.

The Court Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to petitioner and note the

FEBRUARY 17th, 2006 date on the court’s calendar.

DATED this 9th day of January, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05661-FDB Document 7 Filed 01/09/06 Page 2 of 2
# Federal Aviation

Administration



# Memorandum

Date: July 22, 2011

Prepared by: Anne Bechdolt, AGC-220

Subject: Summary of response to National Air Car rier Association

On July 20, 2011, the FAA responded to clarifying q uestions submitted by the National Air Carrier Association (NACA). The following is a sum mary of the FAA’s response:

NACA’s questioned whether “employed by” in § 121.15 7(b)(1) means an employee of the part 119 certificate holder. The FAA stated in its resp onse that proposed section 121.1257 (b) (1) requires that the individual “be employed by the pa rt 119 certificate holder,” which means that there does not have to be a direct employer to empl oyee compensatory relationship. If there is no direct employer-employee relationship and the certi ficate holder has opted to employ the services of another entity, the requirements of § 121.1339 would have to be satisfied. In the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, the FAA has also use d the phrase “persons other than employees
of the certificate holder” to indicate when an indi vidual does not have to be an employee of the certificate holder (such as employees of another pa rt 119 certificate holder or a 142 training center).

In regard to the last question, whether the intende d meaning of the proposed language for the parenthetical entry “(domestic or flag)” in propose d § 121.1417 is the same as the definitions of “domestic operation” and “flag operation” at 14 C.F .R. §119.3, the FAA confirmed that the parenthetical refers to domestic and flag operation s as now defined in §110.2.