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

ANDRE J. CLAYBORN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5304RBL

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. This matter comes before the court on plaintiff’s filing of an

application to proceed in forma pauperis and a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To file a

complaint and initiate legal proceedings plaintiff must pay a filing fee of $250.00 or file a proper

application to proceed in forma pauperis.

On May 2, 2005, the clerk received plaintiff’s complaint. (Dkt. #1). On May 4, 2005, the clerk sent

plaintiff a letter informing him that he must pay the $250.00 filing fee or file a proper application to

proceed in forma pauperis by no later than June 3, 2005. (Dkt. #2). 

To date, plaintiff has not payed the filing fee or filed a proper application to proceed in forma

pauperis. Plaintiff has filed several other documents in which he claims his legal mail has been tampered with

and he is being denied access to legal resources. (Dkt. #3, #4 and #5). However, the fact that plaintiff has been

able to submit these documents indicates that he still has adequate access to legal materials and to the court. 

Case 3:05-cv-05304-RBL Document 6 Filed 06/14/05 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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

Accordingly, this court orders the following:

(1) Plaintiff shall seek to cure the deficiencies noted above by filing no later than July 14,

2005, either the $250.00 court filing fee or a properly completed application to proceed in

forma pauperis. 

Failure to cure these deficiencies by the above date shall be deemed a failure to

properly prosecute this matter and the court will recommend dismissal of this matter.

(2) The clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff along with the appropriate in

forma pauperis application form.

DATED this 14th day of June, 2005.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05304-RBL Document 6 Filed 06/14/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit












Exhibit 10.2






	
			
	 
	 
	 

	TO:
	Tim White
	 

	 
	 
	 

	FROM:
	Ray Oppel, Chairman of the Compensation Committee (the “Committee”)
	 

	 
	 
	 

	DATE:
	March 21, 2018
	 

	 
	 
	 

	RE:
	Notice of Approved 2018 Compensation (“Notice”)
	 

	 
	 
	 






Reference is made to that certain employment agreement (the “Employment Agreement”), effective January 1, 2017, concerning the employment and compensation of C. Timothy White, the Company’s Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary (“Executive”). 
Base Salary Adjustment
As provided in the Employment Agreement, the Executive’s base salary is subject to annual review and may, in the Committee’s discretion, be increased without the Executive’s consent.  With respect to the Executive, the Committee has reviewed Executive’s base salary and concluded that it is appropriate to increase Executive’s base salary for the Company’s 2018 fiscal year to $550,000.
*    *    *    *    *
Except as specifically expressed in this Notice, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. To the extent there is any contradiction or inconsistency between the terms of this Notice and the terms of the Employment Agreement, the terms and intended effect of this Notice shall control.




COMPENSATION COMMITTEE
	
				
	/s/ Ray Oppel
	 
	 

	By:
	Ray Oppel
	 
	 

	 
	Chairman of the Compensation Committee
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	/s/ C. Timothy White
	 
	March 21, 2018

	Executive
	 
	Date
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

VINCENT DANIEL HOPPER A.K.A.

ANTOLIN ANDREW MARKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL MELENDEZ,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5680RBL

ORDER 

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

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

only remaining defendant is Michael Melendez. The remaining claims address the constitutionality of the

telephone system available for plaintiff. All other defendants and all other claims were dismissed at

summary judgment. See, (Dkt. # 129 and 132).

Mr. Marks now litigates under a sanction as a result of improper filings. As part of that sanction

documents filed by Mr. Marks are submitted under seal for court review. Mr. Marks has filed two

documents since the court’s last order (Dkt. # 177 and 178). Document 177 complains of access to library

services. This action is stayed and Plaintiff does not need to access those services at this time. The

document is UNSEALED but no further court action will be taken on this filing. Document 178 is a reply

Case 3:05-cv-05680-RBL Document 179 Filed 09/28/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

to the defendants response to a court order. Mr. Marks pleading is ordered UNSEALED.

The clerk’s office is directed to send copies of this letter to plaintiff and to counsel for defendants.

DATED this 28 day of September, 2007.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate 

Case 3:05-cv-05680-RBL Document 179 Filed 09/28/07 Page 2 of 2
From: sammietatelaster@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:28:04 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,

Sammie Laster

Madison, AL 35757
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 11.2

                   SOFTWARE SPECTRUM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
           COMPUTATION OF FULLY-DILUTED EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
                                  (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Three Months Ended                          Six Months Ended
                                             -------------------------------         -----------------------------------
                                              October 31,      September 30,           October 31,         September 30,
                                                 1997              1996                   1997                1996
                                             -----------       -------------         --------------        -------------

<S>                                          <C>               <C>                   <C>                   <C>
Net income (loss)                            $   628,000       $    (533,000)        $    1,169,000        $    (789,000)
                                             ===========       =============         ==============        =============

Shares as adjusted:
     Average number of shares
        outstanding                            4,331,338           4,288,277              4,331,810            4,275,903
     Incremental shares from
        outstanding stock options
        as determined under the
        treasury stock method,
        using the higher  of ending
        or average market price                   56,693                  --  (*)            35,168                   -- (*)
                                             -----------       -------------         --------------        -------------

Shares as adjusted                             4,388,031           4,288,277              4,366,978            4,275,903
                                             ===========       =============         ==============        =============

Fully-diluted earnings (loss)
     per share                               $      0.14       $       (0.12)        $         0.27        $       (0.18)
                                             ===========       =============         ==============        =============
</TABLE>


(*) No incremental shares from outstanding stock options are included, as they
    would be anti-dilutive.
| (1) | the      Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2009, filed with      the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8,      2009 (“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 the operations of Qele      Resources Inc. as of, and for, the periods presented in the      Report. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
#### In the Matter of Wilberto R., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 15]

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Gloria Sosa-Lintner, J.), entered July 22,1994, which adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for 18 months, following a fact-finding determination that respondent committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Respondent’s motion to suppress the gun found in his vest pocket was properly denied. The evidence showed that police officers, responding to a radio report of a man with a gun, arrived at the location two minutes after the call and observed a man wearing clothes very similar to those described over the radio. When one of the officers approached the man, the officer noticed that his vest pocket was drooping, indicating a heavy object that the officer believed

*333could have been a gun. The officer then conducted a "pat-down” of respondent’s clothing and found the gun. Observation of the sagging pocket made it reasonable to believe that defendant was armed, and justified a protective frisk *(see, Matter of Jose R.,*214 AD2d 367; *People v Yates,*176 AD2d 442, *Iv denied*79 NY2d 834). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ross and Tom, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of CEO 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 Ambac Financial Group, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2010, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), David W. Wallis, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

(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.



|       |  |                                      
|------ |  | -------------------------------------
|       |  | /s/ David W. Wallis                  
|Name:  |  | David W. Wallis                      
|Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|Date:  |  | August 9, 2010
No. 190,

No. 268,

No. 396,

October Term, 1961.

October Term, 1961.

October Term, 1961.

#### United States *v.*Davis et al., Davis et al. *v.*United States, Rudolph et ux. *v.*United States,

370 U. S. 65;

370 U. S. 65; and

370 U. S. 269. Petitions for rehearing denied.

Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of these applications.
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 TACOMA

SUZANNE CAREY,

Plaintiff,

v.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION, SEATTLE FIELD OFFICE;

VALERIE JOHNSON, RODERICK

USTANIK,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5720FDB

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS,

DOCKET NUMBERS 11, 12, 13, and 22

Among other things, Plaintiff alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act

associated with her termination from employment and asserts failures of the EEOC in the handling of

her case. Plaintiff, who has been allowed to proceed in forma pauperis has filed several motions. 

First, Plaintiff moved to correct names as follows: Change “Equal Opportunity Employment

Commission” on her Complaint to “Equal Employment Opportunity Commission”; and change her

name from Suzanne Doe to Suzanne Carey. There is no opposition to this motion and it will be

granted. 

Second, she moved for counsel from the pro bono screening committee on March 17, 2006,

and this matter was referred to the panel for consideration. The pro bono screening committee

Case 3:05-cv-05720-FDB Document 27 Filed 05/22/06 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

advised the Court of its decision by letter received May 16, 2006, and the Court now hereby denies

appointment of counsel. 

Third, Plaintiff moves for an extension of time for proper service upon the United States

Attorney and the U.S. Attorney General. The docket indicates service of process made thereafter on

certain parties and the appearance of counsel for Defendants. This motion now appears to be moot

as of March 27, 2006, as such it will be stricken from the Court’s calendar. 

Fourth, Plaintiff moves that the undersigned judge decide whether to proceed with this case

or recuse himself, noting her previous case before this Court. The undersigned finds no reason to

recuse himself in this matter , and treating Plaintiff’s document as a motion to recuse, hereby denies

the motion. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for More Definite Statement To Correct Names [Dkt. # 11] is

GRANTED and heretofore the caption shall show Plaintiff’s name as Suzanne Carey

and Defendant Equal Opportunity Employment Commission is changed to Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission; 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for More Definite Statement For Appointment of Counsel by ProBono Screening Committee [Dkt. # 12] is DENIED;

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Properly Serve Documents to U. S.

Attorney et al. [Dkt. # 13] is STRICKEN from the Court’s calendar as MOOT;

4. Plaintiff’s Motion for More Definite Statement for The Hon. Judge Burgess to Either

Recuse or Affirm [Dkt. # 22] is treated as a Motion for Recusal and is DENIED. 

DATED this 22nd day of May, 2006.AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05720-FDB Document 27 Filed 05/22/06 Page 2 of 2
No. P69/119.

protest 63/3660 (New York).

#### Fabius & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Newman, *J.*

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “A”, covered by the foregoing protest, consist of inner tubes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Seedman International Corp. et al.*v. *United States*(60 Cust. Ct. 127, C.D. 3285) and that the items of merchandise marked “B” consist of synthetic rubber rimstrips in part of carbon, not dedicated to use with bicycles, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: duaneellis@rocketmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:41:16 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,

Duane Ellis

Mount Pleasant, MI 48858
NOTICE OF RENOTED MOTION (05-CV-1912-MJP) - 1 of 2 JOSEPH ANDREW HYLKEMA 2442 NW Market St. #327 

Seattle, WA 98107 

(206) 202-4530 

email: joe@wa-state-resident.com

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

JOSEPH ANDREW HYLKEMA, 

a single man, 

Plaintiff

v. 

RENTON COLLECTIONS, INC., a 

Washington corporation, and 

MICHAEL BLAIR AND JANE DOE 

BLAIR and the marital community 

thereof,

Defendants

No. 05-CV-1912-MJP

NOTICE OF RENOTED MOTION

TO: CLERK OF THE COURT

 AND TO: ALL PARTIES OF RECORD

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss 

Defendants’ First Counterclaim, currently noted for hearing on 

February 3, 2006, is hereby RENOTED for hearing on February 10, 

2006. 

DATED: February 2, 2006

/S/Joseph A. Hylkema

JOSEPH ANDREW HYLKEMA

WSBA: N/A

Plaintiff pro se

Hon. Marsha J. Pechman

Case 2:05-cv-01912-MJP Document 9 Filed 02/02/06 Page 1 of 2
NOTICE OF RENOTED MOTION (05-CV-1912-MJP) - 2 of 2 JOSEPH ANDREW HYLKEMA 2442 NW Market St. #327 

Seattle, WA 98107 

(206) 202-4530 

email: joe@wa-state-resident.com

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 2, 2006, I electronically 

filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF 

system which will send notification to the following: N/A. I 

further certify that on the same date, I sent a hard copy of the 

foregoing via first class mail with postage prepaid to 

Defendants’ counsel Wendy Retacco at 30640 Pacific Hwy S. Ste. 

C-1, Federal Way, WA 98003, her address of record. 

DATED: February 2, 2006

/S/Joseph A. Hylkema

JOSEPH ANDREW HYLKEMA

WSBA: N/A

Plaintiff pro se

Case 2:05-cv-01912-MJP Document 9 Filed 02/02/06 Page 2 of 2
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
134121 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 134121 COA: 273296 Wayne CC: 91-013675 KEITH DESHAWN GUTHRIE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 25, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s0917 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 24, 2007

Clerk