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 DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO COREY WEICK 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CAMERON PIERCE and PATRICIA

PIERCE, husband and wife; KAREN KIRBY,

a single woman; MARY J. RAY, a single

woman, GREGORY SHERMAN and

PAULA SHERMAN, husband and wife,

MICHAEL LEPAGE and GERTRUDE

LEPAGE, husband and wife; on behalf of

themselves and a class of similarly situated

individuals,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NOVASTAR MORTGAGE, INC., a foreign

corporation,,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C05-5835RJB

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES

TECUM TO COREY WEICK

This matter comes before the Court on the defendant’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces

Tecum to Corey Weick (Dkt. 42). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and

in opposition to the motion and the file herein.

I. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

On July 26, 2006, plainitffs’ counsel issued a subpoena duces tecum directed to Corey

Weick and requiring him to appear and produce certain documents on August 3, 2006. Dkt. 43,

Exh. A at 5. On August 2, 2006, NovaStar moved to quash the subpoena on the grounds that it

did not receive proper notice or time to respond, that fees and a mileage allowance were not

tendered concurrently with service, and that service of the subpoena was improper. The passage

Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 58 Filed 08/16/06 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 DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO COREY WEICK 2

of time has rendered this motion moot, and the motion appears to violate the Court’s July 17,

2006, order. See Dkt. 30. The Court is hopeful that the parties will work together to resolve the

underlying issue as suggested in the plaintiffs’ response and the defendant’s reply. See Dkt. 45-1

at 3.

II. ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that the defendant’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum to Corey

Weick (Dkt. 42) is DENIED.

The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel

of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

DATED this 16th day of August, 2006.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05835-RJB Document 58 Filed 08/16/06 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 8,829.

#### In re McINTYRE.

[See Case No. 8.823.]
Case 2:06-cv-00001-MJP Document 55 Filed 03/19/07 Page 1 of 1
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In the Matter of: 

Facility Solutions, Inc. 

Respondent 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0047 

Case No. 2012NE700128 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

--------------------------------------------~/ Roy J. Transit 

rovtransit@ comcasl. net 

Attorney for Respondent: Facility Solutions, Inc. 

P.O. BOX 1578 

Royal Oak, MT 48068-1578 

586-491-6822 

Fax: 248-564-0940 

Brian K. Kha11 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

2300 East Devon Ave., AGL-7H 

Des Plains, fllinois 60018 

847-294-7652 

Fax: 847-294-7498 

RECEIVED 

MAR 18 201~ 

HE.AiRING DOCKET 

________________________________________________ ! 

RESPONDENT'S 

WITHDRAWAL OF REQUEST FOR HEARING 

Now comes Facility Solutions, Inc., by and through their attorney, Roy J. Transit and 

hereby withdraw their request for hearing before the U.S. Department oC Transportation, Office 

of Hearings, for the reason that the Respondent and the Federal Aviation Administration have 
resolved the above captioned controversy and that there is no longer a need for a hearing. The 

Respondent therefore requests that the matter be dismissed. 

Respectfully submitted, 

~~;·················· ·········~~ Roy J.,·T ansit 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

A copy of this: Respondent's Withdrawal of Request for Hearing was served upon, 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 2059 l 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbm Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 

By Federal Express Courier, and upon the following: 

Judge J. E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Oflicc of Hearing, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

On March 13, 2014, by US Mail, postage prepaid, by the undersigned. 

Brian K. Khan 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

2300 East Devon Ave., AGL-7H 

Des Plains, Illinois 60018 

Dated: March l 3, 2014
No. 60543.

#### Chas. Kurz Co. *v.*United States,

protest 276880-K (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

The protest was dismissed.
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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

v.

ROLF GERHARD EVANS,

Defendant. 

 NO. CR05-5841FDB 

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon

Defendant’s Objection to Proposed Language in Order of Dismissal, and the

Government’s Reply to Defendant’s Objection to Language in Order to

Dismiss. 

The Defendant’s Objection seeks an order of dismissal excluding

the following language:

Case 3:05-cr-05841-FDB Document 21 Filed 01/27/06 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 - 2

 “This Order of Dismissal is not intended to serve as a release of

any civil liability on the part of the defendant Evans, or his estate.”

 In its reply, the Government proposes a new order which retains the

language objected to by defendant, and which seeks dismissal without

prejudice. This Court construes Defendant’s objection, and the Government’s

request, as Motions for Reconsideration of this Court’s Order entered on

January 20, 2006. 

Having considered the Defendant’s Objection, the Government’s Reply,

and the entirety of the records and file herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the

parties’ motions are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send uncertified copies of this

Order to all counsel of record.

DATED this 27th day of January, 2006.

A

FRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cr-05841-FDB Document 21 Filed 01/27/06 Page 2 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

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 1

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JAMES P. DONOHUE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TIMOTHY DELAUGHTER,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Nos. CR05-5754

CR05-5710

ORDER GRANTING 

STIPULATED MOTION TO

CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 

Upon the stipulation of the parties to continue the trial date in the abovecaptioned case, the Court finds that such a continuance would serve the ends of justice

and outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial;

therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date be continued to April 13, 2006. The

period of delay resulting from this continuance from March 6 to April 13, 2006, is

hereby excluded for speedy trial purposes under 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(A) and (B).

DONE this 8th day of February, 2006.AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge

Presented By:

/s/________________________________ /s/_____________________________

Colin A. Fieman Captain Glen Templeton 

Attorney for Defendant Special Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:05-cr-05754-MAT Document 10 Filed 02/08/06 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 496 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 19, 2007.
    Resolved,  That the following named Member be, and is hereby, elected to the 
following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
     Committee on Energy and Commerce: Mr. Gillmor, to rank after Mr. Stearns.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201500051

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

VICTOR A. HURTADO

Sergeant (E-5), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Colonel James K. Carberry, USMC.

Convening Authority: Commander, U.S. Marine Corps Forces 

Command, Norfolk,VA.

Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Major C.G. Blosser, 

USMC.

For Appellant: Lieutenant R. Andrew Austria, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 12 January 2017

_________________________

Before PALMER, CAMPBELL, and HUTCHISON, Appellate Military 

Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening 

authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

For the Court

R.H. TRIDL

Clerk of Court
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Thegranites of Maine**
 
Report | Plate
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:313
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000957749
 
July 26, 2018
##### 



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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of SPARTA, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ended September 28, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David E. Schreiman,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, in my capacity as an officer
of the Company pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                                                                                
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in the
financial statements included in the report.

November 11, 2003

/s/ David E. Schreiman
David E. Schreiman
Chief Financial Officer

- 23 -
ACCEPTED 12-14-00367-CR TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 3/3/2015 10:37:59 AM CATHY LUSK CLERK
From: kayhsmith@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:13:05 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,

Kay Smith

Stillwater, OK 74075
### Filed 12/6/18 by Clerk of Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2018 ND 248 Indiana Nordin Sorlie, Plaintiff and Appellant
v. Michael John Sorlie, Defendant and Appellee
No. 20180071 Appeal from the District Court of Sargent County, Southeast Jud icial District, the Honorable Bradley A. Cruff, Judge. AFFIRMED. Per Curiam. Erica L. Chisholm , Wahpeton, ND, for plaintiff and appellant. Tracey R. Lindberg , Breckenridge, MN, for defendant and appellee.Sorlie v. Sorlie No. 20180071
Per Curiam. [¶1] Indiana Sorlie appealed from a district court judgment awarding Michael Sorlie primary residential responsibility of their minor child. Indian a Sorlie argues the district court erred in applying the best interest factors and in awarding primary residential responsibility to Michael Sorlie instead of to her, or, in the alternative, not awarding equal residential responsibility to the parties. This Court reviews a district court’s decision on primary residential responsibility under th e clearly erroneous standard. Rebenitsch v. Rebenitsch , 2018 ND 48, ¶ 4 , 907 N.W.2d 41. Indiana Sorlie did not request equal residential responsibility from the district court. We conclude the court’s findings on the best interest factors and its award of primary residential responsibility of the child to Michael Sorlie were not clearly erroneous. Follman v. Follman , 2017 ND 58, ¶ 1 , 891 N.W.2d 778. We summarily affirm the judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2)
. [¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J. Jerod E. Tufte Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jon J. Jensen

1
AMENDMENT
NO. 1 TO


EARLY
ACCESS AGREEMENT


 


This
First Amendment to the Early Access Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated 20th May 2016, by and between Hemispherx Biopharma,
Inc. (“HEMISPHERX”), and Impatients N.V. (“IMPATIENTS”), who are each a “Party” and together
the “Parties” to the Agreement, is entered into as of December 13, 2106 (the “Amendment No. 1 Effective Date”).


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS,
HEMISPHERX and IMPATIENTS are Parties to and Early Access Agreement for HEMISPHERX’S Product, Ampligen (rintatolimod);


 


WHEREAS,
the Parties wish to amend the Agreement as set forth below;


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree as follows:


 


Definitions
and References. Except as set forth herein, capitalized terms not otherwise defined or amended in the Amendment shall have the
meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement. References to Articles or Sections are the same with all of their subparts as they
appear in the Agreement.


 


	1.	Amendment
to the Agreement: Effective as of the Amendment No. 1 Effective Date, the Agreement shall be amended as follows:


 


In
Clause 1.10 the text “and/or treatment of pancreatic cancer” shall be added to the definition of Field, such that
Clause 1.10 reads


 


“Field”
means treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome and/or the treatment of pancreatic cancer.


 


In
Exhibit 9 the text “for patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome” shall be added in the second line such that the first
paragraph reads:


 


To
the extent permitted by Applicable Law, IMPATIENTS shall use its reasonable commercial efforts to collect the following data in
relation to the EAP for patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome;


 


	2.
    	Effect
    of the Amendment. From and after the Amendment No. 1 Effective Date, all references to the Agreement shall mean the Agreement
    as amended by this Agreement. Except as expressly amended by the Amendment, all of the provisions of the original Early Access
    Program shall remain in full force and effect. 



 






    	 	1	 



     


    


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the respective Parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment as of the Amendment No. 1 Effective Date above.
The persons executing this Amendment represent and warrant that they have the full power and authority to enter into this Amendment
on behalf of the persons or entities for whom they are signing.


 


	HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA, INC. 	 
	a Delaware corporation	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Ronald
    Brus, MD	 
	Title:	CEO	 


 


	IMPATIENTS N.V.	 
	a Dutch limited liability company	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Thomas
    K. Equals	 
	Title:	Chairman
    and CEO	 


 




    	 	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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

RICHARD C. SPRUEL JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5021RJB

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN

EXTENSION OF TIME

This action, brought under 42 U.S.C. 2000, has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate

Judge pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in

forma pauperis. Before the court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 56). Plaintiff

has filed a motion asking for a 30-day extension of time to respond and the reason given for the

extension of time is plaintiff’s status as an inmate (Dkt. # 57). Defendant’s oppose the extension of

time (Dkt. # 58). Defendants note that plaintiff has sought and received extensions of time at several

junctures in this litigation.

The court has considered the pleadings. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART. 

Plaintiff is granted a two-week extension of time until April 13, 2007, to have a response to the

motion filed. Any reply defendants wish to file will be due on or before April 20, 2007.

The clerks office is directed to send copies of this order to plaintiff and counsel for

Case 3:06-cv-05021-RJB Document 59 Filed 04/03/07 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 - 2

defendants, re-note the summary judgment motion, Dkt. # 56, for April 20, 2007, and remove Dkt.

# 57 from the courts calendar.

DATED this 2 day of April, 2007.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05021-RJB Document 59 Filed 04/03/07 Page 2 of 2
No. P66/254. —

#### Ross Products, Inc. *v.*United States, protest 58/21970 (New York).

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of hose nozzles simi*815lar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Lipman's*(52 CCPA 59, C.A.D. 859), except that the component material of chief value of the merchandise herein is zinc, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         838,434
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,996
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     75,744
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,124,957
<PP&E>                                       6,377,692
<DEPRECIATION>                                 785,504
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,070,167
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          522,504
<BONDS>                                      3,900,135
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,015
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,639,513
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,070,168
<SALES>                                        965,206
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,713,777
<CGS>                                          328,617
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,500,484
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              85,465
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                134,742
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            134,742
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   134,742
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .033
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .033
        

</TABLE>
Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 120 Filed 12/03/08 Page 1 of 8
Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 120 Filed 12/03/08 Page 2 of 8
Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 120 Filed 12/03/08 Page 3 of 8
Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 120 Filed 12/03/08 Page 4 of 8
Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 120 Filed 12/03/08 Page 5 of 8
Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 120 Filed 12/03/08 Page 6 of 8
Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 120 Filed 12/03/08 Page 7 of 8
Case 2:06-cv-00045-RSM Document 120 Filed 12/03/08 Page 8 of 8
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Simha Tyk, Appellant. John E. Sweeney, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 681]

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 5, 1994, which, *inter alia,*ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.

Claimant was the president and a 50% shareholder of a wholesale clothing company. Claimant closed the company as *908the result of declining sales. The Board denied his claim for unemployment insurance benefits, finding that he was not totally unemployed because he participated in and stood to gain financially from the winding down of the business. We find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. The collection of accounts receivable to pay outstanding debts was clearly beneficial to claimant. In addition, there was evidence that during the winding down of affairs the company maintained a bank account, telephone service and a post office box, and that claimant received the mail and signed checks for corporate expenses. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant was not totally unemployed *(see, Matter of Ranee [Hudacs],*196 AD2d 930).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Her cure, Crew III and White, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.