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

TROY DEIMERLY,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVE JOHNSON, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5002 RBL/KLS

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

This civil rights action has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L.

Strombom pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. Before the Court is

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. # 57). Having reviewed the motion and

Plaintiff’s supporting memorandum, the Court finds, for the reasons stated below, that the motion

should be denied.

There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Although the court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), can request counsel to represent a party proceeding

in forma pauperis, the court may do so only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon,

789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984);

Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980). A finding of exceptional circumstances requires

an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Wilborn, 789 F.2d

at 1331.

Case 3:06-cv-05002-RBL Document 59 Filed 11/09/06 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 - 2

Plaintiff has demonstrated an adequate ability to articulate his claims pro se and has not

demonstrated that the issues involved in this case are complex or that he has had any difficulties in

expressing them. Although Plaintiff claims that he suffers from severe mental illness, Plaintiff has not

presented the Court with evidence that Plaintiff is presently suffering from any conditions that will

prevent him from presenting his claims. Indeed, Plaintiff has brought forth his claims in a clear and

organized manner. While Plaintiff may not have vast resources or legal training, he meets the

threshold for a pro se litigant and the Court finds that counsel is unnecessary in this case. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. # 57) is DENIED.

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants.

DATED this 9th day of November, 2006. 

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05002-RBL Document 59 Filed 11/09/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 741 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      October 16, 2007.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the 
resolution (H. Res. 734) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives 
regarding the withholding of information relating to corruption in Iraq. The 
resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption without intervening 
motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour of debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; and (2) one motion to recommit 
which may not contain instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
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 Propell Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Edward Bernstein, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 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/ Edward Bernstein Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) April 13, 2011
H. Res. 57

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 23, 2007.

Whereas Illinois State University marks its sesquicentennial 

with a year-long celebration, beginning with Founder’s 

Day on February 15, 2007; 

Whereas Illinois State Normal University was founded by 

Jesse W. Fell in 1857 as Illinois’ first public university 

and was established as a teacher education institution; 

Whereas Abraham Lincoln, then an attorney, drafted the 

bond that guaranteed that the citizens of Bloomington, 

Illinois, would fulfill pledges to finance the University; 

Whereas more than 2,000 staff members provide outstanding 

support to the educational mission of Illinois State University; and 

Whereas Illinois State University has more than 165,000 

alumni living around the world: Now, therefore, be it 
2

•HRES 57 EH 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives congratulates Illinois State University as it celebrates its sesquicentennial. 

Attest:

Clerk.
Exhibit 10(a)





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 


 


We consent to the incorporation by reference
in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 266 to Registration Statement No. 33-26305 on Form N-1A of our report dated November 21, 2012,
relating to the financial statements and financial highlights of BlackRock All-Cap Energy & Resources Portfolio, BlackRock
Energy & Resources Portfolio, and BlackRock World Gold Fund, each a series of BlackRock Funds, appearing in the Annual Report
on Form N-CSR of BlackRock Funds for the year ended September 30, 2012, and to the references to us under the headings “Financial
Highlights” and “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in the Prospectuses and “Financial Statements”
in the Statement of Additional Information, which are part of such Registration Statement.


	 
	/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
	 
	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
 January 24, 2013
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

H. STANLEY GASS et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALBERT F SCHLOTFELDT, et al.,

Defendants.

No. C05 5602RBL

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR RECUSAL

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Stanley Gass’ Motion for Recusal [Dkt. #19]. Mr. Gass

alleges that the court is biased against him as evidenced by its “disparagement, denunciation and

condemnation” of Mr. Gass, and its stated admiration for Hon. Robert Bryan, prior to a hearing in another

matter, on December 17, 2003. The Motion is not supported by an affidavit, a transcript, or by the facts. 

The court did not make any “pre-hearing” remarks to Mr. Gass on that occasion, nor does it do so to any

litigant. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any 

proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The judge shall also disqualify

himself in circumstances where the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal 

knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)-(b)(1).

There is no factual basis for concluding that this court’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned

in this matter. Therefore, it is Ordered that the undersigned Judge DECLINES to recuse voluntarily. 

Mr. Gass’ Motion for Recusal [Dkt. # 19] is REFERRED to Chief Judge Robert Lasnik under

Case 3:05-cv-05602-RBL Document 25 Filed 02/24/06 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 2

Local Rule GR 8(c) for decision.

DATED this 23rd day of February, 2006

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05602-RBL Document 25 Filed 02/24/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 599 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        August 2, 2007.
    Resolved, That during further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3161) making 
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and 
for other purposes, the bill shall be considered as read. No further debate on 
any pending amendment shall be in order. A further period of general debate 
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 30 minutes equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations. The amendments printed in part A of the report of the Committee 
on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted in the 
House and in the Committee of the Whole. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 
XVIII, no further amendment shall be in order except those printed in part B of 
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered 
only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 
be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived 
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of 
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
bill, as amended, to the House with such further amendments as may have been 
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion 
to recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2.  After a motion that the Committee rise has been rejected on a 
legislative day, the Chair may entertain another such motion on that day only if 
offered by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or the Majority 
Leader or designee. After a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill 
(as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII) has been rejected, the Chair may not 
entertain another such motion during further consideration of the bill.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration
 AGENCY: Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
 ACTION: Notice of supplemental award.
 SUMMARY: For fiscal year 2023, HRSA will provide additional supplemental funds for the Emergency Medical Services for Children Innovation and Improvement Center to continue to provide assistance to a Pediatric Mental Health Care Access (PMHCA) award recipient so that they can improve access to PMHCA program activities in emergency departments.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren Ramos, Director, Division of Maternal and Child Health Workforce Development, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, at 
                        *LRamos@hrsa.gov*
                         and (301)443-6091.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  *Intended Recipient of the Award:*
                     The University of Texas at Austin, the sole recipient of HRSA-20-037 *Amount of Non-Competitive Award:*
                     One award for $1,000,000. *Project Period:*
                     September 30, 2023, to September 29, 2024. *CFDA Number:*
                     93.110. *Award Instrument:*
                     Supplement. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 254c-19 section 330M of the Public Health Service Act as amended by section 11005 of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (Pub. L. 117-159))
                    ( print page 67316) Table 1—Recipients and Award Amounts
Grant No.
Award recipient name
City, state
Award amountU07MC37471
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX
$1,000,000
 *Justification:*
                     In fiscal year 2022, Congress provided additional funding for the PMHCA program and expanded the allowable activities for PMHCA programs to include support for hospital emergency departments to address the growing behavioral health needs among children and adolescents. This supplemental funding to the existing Emergency Medical Services for Children Innovation and Improvement Center recipient will support continued expansion of PMHCA programs in providing training and tele-consult support to providers in emergency departments and other settings, consistent with the additional authority enacted by Congress. Carole Johnson, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2023-21510 Filed 9-28-23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
From: gmac5999@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:30:34 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,

Gail McCurry

Signal Mountain, TN 37377
Exhibit 32.2

Statement





Pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officer of Luxemburg Bancshares, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that to the knowledge of the undersigned:



(1)

the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.





Dated:  May 11, 2005





/s/ Sheri Knope

Sheri L. Knope

Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Luxemburg Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by Luxemburg Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.  This statement accompanies the periodic report to which it relates and shall not be deemed as filed as part of the report or otherwise for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
No. 64549.

#### Border Brokerage Co. *v.*United States,

protests 58/2127, 58/10123, and 59/8932 (Seattle).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bread similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nordic Baking & Importing Co., Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 78, C.A.D. 733) the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>   1

EXHIBIT 11

                                  SPARTA, INC.

                  EXHIBIT TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
                  --------------------------------------------
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                        ---------------------------------

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                      THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30    NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30
                                      --------------------------------  -------------------------------
                                           1998             1997             1998            1997
                                      ---------------- ---------------  --------------- ---------------
<S>                                  <C>               <C>              <C>             <C>
 BASIC EPS

   Net income                              $1,087,000      $1,158,000       $3,382,000      $3,217,000
   Less accretion                                  --        (296,000)        (678,000)       (871,000)
                                      ---------------- ---------------  --------------- ---------------
                                           $1,087,000      $  862,000       $2,704,000      $2,346,000
                                      ================ ===============  =============== ===============

 Shares outstanding                         5,533,959       5,664,288        5,587,676       5,597,940

 Per share amounts                         $     0.20      $     0.15       $     0.48      $     0.42
                                      ================ ===============  =============== ===============

 DILUTIVE EFFECT

   Net income                              $1,087,000      $1,158,000       $3,382,000      $3,217,000
   Less accretion                                  --        (296,000)        (678,000)       (871,000)
                                      ---------------- ---------------  --------------- ---------------
                                           $1,087,000      $  862,000       $2,704,000      $2,346,000

 Shares outstanding                         5,533,959       5,664,288        5,587,676       5,597,940
 Preferred Stock                              569,037              --               --
 Stock options                                498,315         443,713          386,009         386,250
 Deferred Stock                                68,858          48,590           68,858          48,590
                                      ---------------- ---------------  --------------- ---------------
                                            6,670,169       6,156,591        6,042,543       6,032,780

    Per share amounts                      $     0.16      $     0.14       $     0.45      $     0.39
                                      ================ ===============  =============== ===============

</TABLE>


Note: Earnings per share amounts presented for prior years have been restated in
      accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 128,
      "Earnings Per Share".
LDNR Office Of Conservation 

Status Code Description 

Well Status Code Code Description

01 PERMITTED

02 APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT INJECTION WELL

03 PERMIT EXPIRED

08 INACTIVE INJECTION WELL (COMMERCIAL OR OTHER)

09 ACTIVE- INJECTION

10 ACTIVE - PRODUCING

11 ACTIVE PRODUCING/CYCLIC INJCT

13 OPERATOR CHANGE - NO MD10RA

16 MULTIPLE COMPLETED/PA-35 WELL

17 EDUCATIONAL/SERVICE COMPANY

18 TEMPORARILY ABANDONED WELL

19 INACTIVE WELL, NO RESP. PARTY

20 PA-35 TEMPORARY INACTIVE WELL TO BE OMITTED FROM PROD.REPORT

21 RVRTD TO LANDOWNER-FRESH WATER

22 REVERTED TO SINGLE COMPLETION

23 ACT 404 ORPHAN WELL-ENG

24 RVRTD L/O-RESIDENT CONSUMPTION

25 SL-STATE JUR,BHL-FED JUR

26 ACT 404 ORPHAN WELL-INJECTION AND MINING

27 ABANDONED SWD - NOT PLUGGED

28 UNABLE TO LOCATE WELL-NO PLUGGED AND ABANDONED

29 DRY AND PLUGGED

30 PLUGGED AND ABANDONED

31 SHUT-IN DRY HOLE -FUTURE UTILITY

32 SHUT-IN DRY HOLE - NO FUTURE UTILITY

33 SHUT-IN PRODUCTIVE -FUTURE UTILITY

34 SHUT-IN PRODUCTIVE -NO FUTURE UTILITY

36 SHUT-IN WAITING ON PIPELINE

37 SHUT-IN WAITING ON MARKET

46 FORMATION STORAGE - GAS

49 OBSERVATION WELL-FORMATION GAS STORAGE

64 ACTIVE PRODUCING/ANNULAR SWD

73 WATER

74 GEOTHERMAL WELL

78 IRON ORE

80 * UNKNOWN *

82 CONVERSION TO OIL / GAS WELL

90 P&A PER INSPECTION

98 NON-WELL/ FOR UIC MANIFEST ONLY

99 SALT WATER OIL RECOVERY POINT

ZZZZZ VIRTUAL/BAD DATA

LDNR Office Of Conservation Page 1 of 1

http://sonlite.dnr.state.la.us/sundown/cart_prod/cart_con_wellstcode 12/31/2012
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 OF TRANSFER 

PAGE – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

JOSE VILLALOBOS-ARELLANO,

Petitioner,

v.

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney

General,

Respondent.

CASE NO. C05-819-RSL-MJB

ORDER OF TRANSFER TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH

CIRCUIT AS A PETITION FOR

REVIEW

The Court, having reviewed petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition (Dkt. #1), all papers

and exhibits in support and in opposition to that petition, the Report and Recommendation of the

Honorable Monica J. Benton, United States Magistrate Judge, and the remaining record, does

hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.

(2) This Court is without jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s challenge to his removal

order. Accordingly, this action is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as a Petition For Review pursuant to §

106(c) of the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231.

Case 2:05-cv-00819-RSL Document 14 Filed 08/03/05 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 OF TRANSFER 

PAGE – 2

(3) The Clerk is directed to TERMINATE this case and TRANSFER all pleadings

and related documents to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Clerk shall,

however, retain a copy of the Court’s electronic file. The Clerk is further directed

to send copies of this Order to all counsel of record, and to Judge Benton.

DATED this 3rd day of August, 2005.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-00819-RSL Document 14 Filed 08/03/05 Page 2 of 2