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 ORDER VACATING ORDER

TO SHOW CAUSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MARLENA SZYMASZEK, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-1968RSL

ORDER VACATING ORDER

TO SHOW CAUSE

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On October 13, 2006, plaintiff

filed a motion for partial summary judgment that, taken as a whole, exceeded 50 pages in

length. (Dkt. #27). On October 23, 2006, the Court issued an order to show cause why

she should not be sanctioned for failure to comply with the Court’s prior instructions. 

The order to show cause (Dkt. #29) is now vacated in light of the receipt of the courtesy

copy and plaintiff’s response to the order. 

DATED this 25th day of October, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01968-RSL Document 31 Filed 10/25/06 Page 1 of 1
July 15, 1957

No. 61070.

protests 252936-K and 252937-K.

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

C. D. 1874. Motion of Government for rehearing denied.
No. 57004.

protest 37104-K (Los Angeles).

#### San Angelo Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: camikjmj@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:28:07 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,

Camille Adams

Kapolei, HI 96707
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           7,011
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   74,397
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,465
<INVENTORY>                                     80,527
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               164,733
<PP&E>                                         133,476
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,556
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 296,452
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,340
<BONDS>                                         97,363
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                     145,474
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   296,452
<SALES>                                        146,769
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               146,769
<CGS>                                          112,479
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  144,392
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,088
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    753
<INCOME-TAX>                                       297
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                456
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       456
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04
        

</TABLE>
No. 66047.

#### James S. Baker Import Co. and National Carloading Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 59/9815, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of crowbars similar in all material respects to those the subject of *National Carloading Corp. et al.*v. *United States*(48 C.C.P.A. 70, C.A.D. 767), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: lb4651@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:13:51 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,

Lisa Back

Onsted, MI 49265
|   | (1)  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and                                |
|--------|-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (2)  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company. |

| Date:  December 23, 2013       | By:    | /s/ Jo Webber      |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                                                                   |   | Jo Webber               |   |
|                                                                   |   | Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                                                   |   |                    |   |

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

Chambers of

James P. Donohue

United States Magistrate Judge

700 Stewart Street

U.S. Courthouse

Seattle, WA 98101

(206) 370-8940

[SECOND AMENDED COVER LETTER]

September 20, 2005

Mr. Kenneth Jensen

No. 841533

Washington State Penitentiary

1313 North 13th Avenue

Walla Walla, Washington 99362

Mr. Paul Douglas Weisser

Attorney General’s Office

Criminal Justice Division

P.O. Box 40116

Olympia, Washington 98504-0116

Re: Kenneth Jensen v. Richard Morgan

No. C05-0807-TSZ-JPD

Dear Mr. Jensen and Mr. Weisser:

Enclosed is a copy of my Report and Recommendation, proposed order, and proposed

judgment in the above-captioned case. The originals have been filed electronically with the Clerk.

This Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order. Any notice of appeal should not be

filed until the District Judge enters judgment in this case.

Objections to the recommendation should be filed with the Clerk (not mailed directly to

Judge’s chambers) and served on opposing parties within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this

letter. Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal any order by the

District Court adopting this report and recommendation. In accordance with our local rules, you

should note your objections for consideration on the Judge's motion calendar for the third Friday after

they are filed. If no timely objections are filed, the matter will be ready for consideration by the

District Judge on October 14, 2005.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Very truly yours,

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

JPD/bf

Encls.

cc: The Hon. Thomas S. Zilly

Case 2:05-cv-00807-TSZ Document 25 Filed 09/22/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 63330.

protests 110195-K, etc. (New York).

#### Park & Tilford Import Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion 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 *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: panheadz_rock@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:47:40 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,

Karisa Berens

North Lawrence, OH 44666
aeti-ex1042_47.htm





 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 10.42

November 13, 2017

 

Dear Neal:

 

This will confirm that in the event the American Electric Technologies, Inc. stockholders do not approve the amendment of the 2007 Employee Stock Incentive Plan, thereby voiding the Restricted Stock Unit Award for 200,000 Restricted Stock Units dated August 22, 2017 granted to you for oversight services to the Board, the Company will provide you equivalent value upon vesting of each RSU in accordance with its terms.

 

BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
#### Julio Tejada, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Milagros Reyes, et al., Respondents, v New York City Transit Authority, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 658]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated May 31, 1994, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint based on an alleged failure to serve a proper notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

In light of the prior orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 31, 1992, and September 28, 1992, respectively, which specifically held that the defendant would be prejudiced by the plaintiffs’ proposed amendment to the notice of claim to accurately reflect the time, place, and manner in which the claim arose, we conclude that the notice of claim was insufficient *(see, DAlessandro v New York City Tr. Auth.,*83 NY2d 891, 893). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to serve a proper notice of claim should have been granted. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of TheWebDigest Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven Adelstein,
President, Director, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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.

By: /s/ Steven Adelstein
------------------------
Steven Adelstein, President, Director,
Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer

April 9, 2010
From: shirleywalker44@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:42:32 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,

Shirley Walker

Noblesville, IN 46060
No. 68157.

#### United China & Glass Co. *v.*United States,

protests 62/12091 and 60/26783 (Portland, Oreg.).

*280Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Hibachis similar in all material respects to the Mini Bachis the subject of Abstract 67238, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 591 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 591

   Supporting the goals and ideals of Cambodian-American Freedom Day.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 31, 2007

Mr. Reichert (for himself, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Bishop 
  of Georgia, Mr. Linder, Mr. Terry, Mr. Wu, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mrs. 
Davis of California, and Mr. Coble) submitted the following resolution; 
 which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Supporting the goals and ideals of Cambodian-American Freedom Day.

Whereas in March 1970 approximately seven million Cambodians were living under 
        conflict between the Khmer Republic and the Kampuchean (Khmer Rouge) 
        Communist Party;
Whereas between April 1975 and January 1979, Cambodians were living under the 
        communist regime of the Khmer Rouge Communist Party which committed acts 
        of genocide, and as a result, at least two million Cambodians lost their 
        lives;
Whereas on May 23, 1975, President Gerald R. Ford signed into law the Indochina 
        Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1975 (Public Law 94-23), 
        granting Southeast Asian refugees the right to settle in the United 
        States;
Whereas the Khmer Rouge communist regime was overthrown on January 7, 1979, by 
        the communist group of the People's Republic of Kampuchea, which was 
        backed by Socialist Republic of Vietnam;
Whereas hundreds of thousands of Cambodians fled Cambodia to refugee camps 
        throughout Southeast Asia, and Cambodians made their way to communities 
        across the United States between 1975 and 1999;
Whereas according to the United States Census 2000, there are approximately 
        206,000 Cambodians currently living in the United States;
Whereas despite their tremendous loss of freedom to the communist regimes, 
        Cambodians and Cambodian-Americans have shown courage and resiliency 
        while at the same time remembering and honoring both their traditional 
        culture and traumatic past; and
Whereas it is important to recognize the positive contributions of Cambodian-
        Americans to the United States: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of Cambodian-American 
        Freedom Day;
            (2) honors and recognizes the 32nd anniversary of the 
        arrival of the first Cambodian immigrants to the United States; 
        and
            (3) recognizes the contributions Cambodian-Americans have 
        made to the United States.
                                 <all>
```
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

LONNIE CARTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH LEHMAN,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5681RBL

ORDER ADOPTING

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

 The Court, having reviewed Plaintiffs’ complaint, the Report and Recommendation of

Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, and the

remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may not challenge

the propriety or length of his sentence in a civil rights action.

(3) Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, counsel for any defendants

who have appeared, and to the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold.

DATED this 2nd day of June, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05681-RBL Document 23 Filed 06/02/06 Page 1 of 1
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-50417

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ENRIQUE GUTIERREZ-MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. DR-99-CR-680-01

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

December 14, 2000

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Enrique Gutierrez-Martinez appeals his sentence following

his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following

deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). 

Gutierrez argues that a prior felony conviction is an element of

the offense that must be alleged in the indictment rather than a

sentencing factor. Gutierrez acknowledges that his argument is

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224

(1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme

Court review in the light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S. Ct.
No. 00-50417 

-2-

2348 (2000). Gutierrez’s argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 235. See United States v. Dabeit,

___ F.3d ___ (5th Cir. Oct. 30, 2000, No. 00-10065), 2000 WL

1634264, at *4. 

 AFFIRMED.