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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

EUCLARE LUMBY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C05-5741KLS

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. #1) is GRANTED. Plaintiff does not

appear to have funds available to afford the $250.00 filing fee.

The clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel of record and to issue the Summonses.

DATED this 5th day of December, 2005.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05741-RBL Document 2 Filed 12/05/05 Page 1 of 1
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-00085 Conference Calendar

__________________ TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE CO., Plaintiff-Petitioners,
versus HOUSTON CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., Defendant-Respondents.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. CA-94-1443
- - - - - - - - - - June 27, 1995 Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Tennessee Gas Pipeline's petition for interlocutory appeal is DISMISSED as moot. Although "[f]ailure to file an application for permission to appeal from an interlocutory order . . . within the ten-day period prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Rule 5(a), Fed. R. App. P., is a jurisdictional defect that deprives the appellate court of power to entertain the appeal," the parties can request that the district court re-enter the order as certified. Aparicio v. Swan Lake , 643 F.2d 1109, 1111 (5th Cir.No. 95-00085 -2- 1981). A new ten-day period is triggered by such re-entry. See id.at 1111-13. In May, TGP requested that the district court re-enter its order as certified while this appeal was still pending. The district court did so on May 26, 1995. Thereafter, TGP again petitioned this court for interlocutory appeal, which the Clerk's office docketed as a separate appeal under docket number 95- 00122. Accordingly, TGP's earlier petition for interlocutory appeal is moot in light of their timely appeal under docket number 95-00122. DISMISSED.
| JAMES STAFFORD |   |                                   |
|----------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|           |   |                                   |
|           |   | James Stafford, Inc.                   |
|           |   | Chartered Accountants                  |
|           |   | Suite 350 – 1111 Melville Street |
|           |   | Vancouver, British Columbia            |
|           |   | Canada V6E 3V6                         |
|           |   | Telephone +1 604 669 0711              |
|           |   | Facsimile +1 604 669 0754              |

|                    |   | /s/ James Stafford    |
|-------------------------|--------|-----------------------|
| Vancouver, Canada  |   | Chartered Accountants |
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

         <ARTICLE>                 5
                
         <S>                       <C>
         <PERIOD-TYPE>             3-MO
         <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  FEB-28-1999
         <PERIOD-END>                    AUGUST-31-1998
         <CASH>                                3,455,426
         <SECURITIES>                                  0
         <RECEIVABLES>                       266,788,166
         <ALLOWANCES>                          7,571,000
         <INVENTORY>                             848,999
         <CURRENT-ASSETS>                    247,954,009
         <PP&E>                                2,859,082
         <DEPRECIATION>                        1,222,456
         <TOTAL-ASSETS>                      267,060,324
         <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               211,684,611
         <BONDS>                                       0
         <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
         <PREFERRED>                                   0
         <COMMON>                             22,571,361
         <OTHER-SE>                           26,154,397
         [TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY]      267,060,324
         <SALES>                              62,752,069
         <TOTAL-REVENUES>                     69,397,418
         <CGS>                                59,175,585
         <TOTAL-COST>                         59,175,585
         <OTHER-EXPENSES>                      2,076,067
         <LOSS-PROVISION>                      1,245,358
         <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    3,372,244
         <INCOME-PRETAX>                       3,529,083
         <INCOME-TAX>                          1,253,000
         <INCOME-CONTINUING>                   2,276,083
         <DISCONTINUED>                                0
         <EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
         <CHANGES>                                     0
         <NET INCOME>                          2,276,083
         <EPS-PRIMARY>                              0.44
         <EPS-DILUTED>                              0.42
                 
         
</TABLE>
No. 59256.

protests 223475-K and 225206-K (San Francisco).

#### Zado Goldenberg & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of so-called silk squares 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 plaintiff was sustained.
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.

CALVIN WAYNE BUCKLAND,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5025 RBL

Case No. CR94-5073 JET

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Defendant’s Motion Pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, and having considered that defendant has

notified this Court that his request to file a second or successive motion has been denied by the United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, it is hereby

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DISMISSED.

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

pro se.

Dated this 11th day of April, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05025-RBL Document 4 Filed 04/11/06 Page 1 of 1
From: rusty@iamedgewood.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:37:56 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Rusty Grant

West Monroe, LA 71291
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 – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

KHAU THANH LE,

Defendant.

CASE NO. CR06-0027C

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Khau Thanh Le’s agreed motion to continue

the trial date in this matter. (Dkt. No. 30.) The Court having reviewed the stipulated motion papers, the

Court finds that a failure to grant the requested continuance as to Defendant Le would deny him

reasonable time for effective preparation for a scheduled settlement conference and trial, taking into

account the exercise of due diligence, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). 

The Court also finds that the ends of justice will be served by continuing the trial date as to

Defendant Le, and that a continuance is necessary to ensure effective preparation, and that these factors

outweigh the best interests of the public in a more speedy trial, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.

§ 3161(h)(8)(A).

Case 2:06-cr-00027-JCC Document 32 Filed 04/18/06 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

For these reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant Le’s motion and ORDERS that the trial

date as to Defendant Le be continued from May 3, 2006, to June 12, 2006. All other pretrial deadlines

remain unchanged. 

The Court further ORDERS that the time between the former trial date and the new trial date be

excludable time under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A). 

SO ORDERED this 18th day of April, 2006.AUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00027-JCC Document 32 Filed 04/18/06 Page 2 of 2
# rAA -2DIO-OI'1Lj
Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has thisproposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted 

### Date Response National Business Aircraft Association Eli CoUi 

### VI'IOB 

# - "lzglCR Regional Airline Association Dave Lottercr 

## 1-1/'1~O;: 

# -- ~1z-5 o-q A.ircraftOwners &Pilots Association Robert Hackman 

### z!l~/o8 

# -- "'1-'i1m ATA Craig Fabiall 

### 1-/"'1H



# -- 4/,'0-';'" ATA 1\1lopez 

## 1-/M"'I '1/u(lOq 

# - 09/29/06
211(b) Toxicology Research Group Gasoline TBA VC:
Sister Chromatid Exchange

Reviewer Checklist

1 Comments Action/Response Page

EPA

No comments

Peer Reviewer

– Goldsworthy This study was properly conducted and scientifically sound. The positive control fulfilled the requirements for a valid test. The report correctly concludes the G

TBA was negative for the induction of SCEs in male and female rat peripheral lymphocytes.

E ditorial comments include suggesting that the Summary Section note that the positive control fulfilled the requirements for a valid test. Noted

Added to the Summary

OK

Peer Reviewer

– Schlesinger The data presented support the conclusion. Noted

p.ll. As the Dunnett test is a post hoc test, the investigators should indicate which primary statistical test was used to determine whether there were, in fact, any overall

inter

- group differences in response. The last sentence in

the "Evaluation of Test Results"
section is somewhat unclear, and seems to indicate a large degree of potential subjectivity

in evaluation of results. Not revised since this is the professional judgment of the PI

OK

211(b) Research Group Reviewer p. 11, Evaluation of Test Results, 1st paragraph: Revise sentences addressing statistics to include the

one

- tailed Dunnett’s test and trend test requested by EPA. Revised

OK p. 1186

p. 12, Results and Discussion: 4 th paragraph, 8 th

sentence: Revise sentence on use of Dunnett’s test

to include one

- tail and trend analysis. Revised

OK p. 1187

211(b) Research Group QA/QC Reviewer Satellite Report, Sister Chromatid Exchange Assay, Page 6: The last two entries indicate the experimental start and completion dates for SCE. Since the GLPs have specific definitions for “experimental

start date” and it does not mean slide
evaluation, ma ybe another term would be Not revised211(b) Toxicology Research Group Gasoline TBA VC:
Sister Chromatid Exchange

Reviewer Checklist

2 Comments Action/Response Page

better.

Satellite Report, Sister Chromatid Exchange Assay, Page 2: The positive control exceptions were taken out. They should have remained in the compliance

statement. They have been added back into

the document Ok p. 1177
Exhibit 32.2





OFFICER'S CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C 1350)








The undersigned Jeffrey A. Beunier, the Chief Financial Officer of Recovery Energy, Inc., (the "Corporation"), in connection with the Corporation's Yearly Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), does hereby represent, warrant and certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, that, to the best of his knowledge:





1.
The Report is in full compliance with reporting requirements of Section 13(a) 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 operation of the Corporation.





By: /s/Jeffrey A. Beunier


Jeffrey A. Beunier


Chief Financial Officer





March 31, 2011
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. *Jorge*ROCHA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50089.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

Joseph H Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Philip J. Lynch, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jorge Rocha-Garcia raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
From: pfcgregg@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:18:23 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,

Gregg Perkins

Polson, MT 59860
No. 64555.

#### Blue Grass Liquor Company et al. *v.*United States,

protests 988437-G/11652, etc. (New Orleans).

*276Opinion by

Richardson, 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. *R. C. Williams*& *Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Atistin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *Unites States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7893

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOSE ELMER DIAZ D'CAMPO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Falcon B. Hawkins, Chief District

Judge. (CR-90-232, CA-96-123-2-11)

Submitted: May 15, 1997 Decided: May 28, 1997

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jose Elmer Diaz D'Campo, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bickerton,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his

motion for reconsideration of an earlier order granting his motion

for a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

(1994). Appellant seeks a greater reduction in sentence. We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. United States v. Diaz D'Campo, Nos. CR-90-232;

CA-96-123-2-11 (D.S.C. Nov. 19, 1996). Additionally, we deny the

Appellee's motion to dismiss. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
H. Res. 699 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

October 2, 2007. 

Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is 

hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr. McCarthy of 

California. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
**Exhibit
      10.1**





Richard
      J. Kurtz


Nine
      Duck
      Pond Road


Alpine,
      New Jersey 07632




March
      20,
      2006








LaPolla
      Industries, Inc.


15402
      Vantage Parkway East


Suite
      322


Houston,
      Texas 77032


Attention:
      Michael T. Adams, CEO




Re:
            LaPolla
                Industries, Inc. (the “Company”)


Working
      Capital Commitment





Gentlemen:





This
      is
      in response to your request that I provide an assurance as to funding of One
      Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000) to be used as working capital
      to facilitate growth and expansion for the Company, as and when such funds
      are
      deemed required by management. I hereby confirm that I so commit to provide
      during fiscal 2006, upon the request of management, One Million Five Hundred
      Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000) in cash funds for use as working capital by the
      Company. I understand that such funding will take the form of a demand loan
      bearing 6% interest per annum. This commitment will either be satisfied from
      personal funds, or, I will cause the funds to be otherwise provided by an
      appropriate lending institution.





I
      have
      been further advised and understand that the aforesaid commitment and obligation
      will be superseded in the event and to the extent that the Company is
      independently funded by a third party source in an amount of at least One
      Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000), either privately or
      institutionally, during fiscal 2006. In such event, I or the lending institution
      utilized by me, to the extent any funds have been loaned pursuant to the above
      commitment, shall be promptly repaid.




Very
                Truly Yours,/s/
                Richard J. KurtzRichard
                J. Kurtz
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 174-11 Filed 09/20/04 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 174-11 Filed 09/20/04 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 174-11 Filed 09/20/04 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 174-11 Filed 09/20/04 Page 4 of 4