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

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

ELVIA GONZALEZ-RODRIGUEZ,

 Defendant.

Case No. 05-5193,M

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 ( ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

 ( ) 

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant’s lack of community ties and resources..

 ( X ) Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal,

without prejudice to review.

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 October 31, 2005.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cr-05809-RBL Document 15 Filed 10/31/05 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-29-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-28-1998
<CASH>                                           2,143
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,734
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     46,422
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,656
<PP&E>                                          37,240
<DEPRECIATION>                                (17,968)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  73,220
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,548
<BONDS>                                          2,781
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            87
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,983
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    73,220
<SALES>                                         31,787
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,787
<CGS>                                           18,190
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,190
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,458
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 711
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,599)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,199)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,199)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.72)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.72)
        

</TABLE>
No. 66512.

#### Dan Brechner & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 60/164 and 60/5003 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of miniature pocketknives similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 65737, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: bshipley@nc.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:06:04 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,

Robert Shipley

Raleigh, NC 27612
ALONZIE WIGGINS

,

Petitioner,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

,
Respondent. ___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 13

- 6114

Opinion filed July 3, 2014.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

-- Original Jurisdiction

.
Alonzie Williams, pro se , Petitioner.

Jennifer Parker, General Counsel, and Barbara Debelius, Assistant General Counsel, F lorida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits

.

PADOVANO, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ.

, CONCUR.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4716

JAMES G. HAYDEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington.

Robert J. Staker, Senior District Judge.

(CR-90-205)

Submitted: January 21, 1997

Decided: February 10, 1997

Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Hunt L. Charach, Federal Public Defender, Edward H. Weis, First

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Ray M. Shepard, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

James G. Hayden was sentenced to twenty-four months' imprisonment after a hearing to revoke his period of supervised release* following his conviction on state charges. Hayden argues that the

imposition of a separate sentence as a consequence of violating the

terms of his supervised release was multiplicious with his state sentence and a violation of his rights against double jeopardy. Finding no

error, we affirm.

Congress explicitly authorized punishment for violation of the

terms of supervised release in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (1994) (the court

may "revoke a term of supervised release, and require the defendant

to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release"). Moreover, this issue has been resolved against Hayden in United States v.

Woodrup, 86 F.3d 359 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 65

U.S.L.W. 3294 (U.S. Oct. 15, 1996) (No. 96-6025).

We therefore affirm the findings and sentence of the district court.

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

_________________________________________________________________

*Hayden was serving a period of supervised release pursuant to a prior

federal conviction when he committed the offenses in question.

 2
From: andreatom@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:30:49 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,

Norman Huff

Brighton, MI 48116
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 100 Filed 02/05/04 Page 1 of 1
112

63

Austin

Rufus

Biggs

Boardman

Arlington

Wasco

Moro

Cecil

Olex

Grass

Valley

Ione

Lexington

Kent

Heppner

Condon

Shaniko

Mayville

Hardman

Antelope

Fossil

La Grande

Ukiah

Dale

Spray

Monument

Kimberly Hamilton

Mitchell

Long Creek

Fox

Prineville

Sumpter

Dayville

Bates

Mount

Vernon

Post

Prairie City

John

Day

Canyon City

Unity

Paulina

Izee

Seneca

Brothers

Silvies

Heppner

Junction

Clarno

Service

Creek

Richmond

Beech Creek

Logdell

Suplee

Millican

Morgan

Ruggs

Maryhill

Austin

Rufus

Biggs

Boardman

Arlington

Wasco

Moro

Cecil

Olex

Grass

Valley

Ione

Lexington

Kent

Heppner

Condon

Shaniko

Mayville

Hardman

Antelope

Fossil

La Grande

Ukiah

Dale

Spray

Monument

Kimberly Hamilton

Mitchell

Long Creek

Fox

Prineville

Sumpter

Dayville

Bates

Mount

Vernon

Post

Prairie City

John

Day

Canyon City

Unity

Paulina

Izee

Seneca

Brothers

Silvies

Heppner

Junction

Clarno

Service

Creek

Richmond

Beech Creek

Logdell

Suplee

Millican

Morgan

Ruggs

Maryhill

 WASCO COUNTY

JEFFERSON COUNTY

WHEELER COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

MORROW CO

GRANT CO

UMITILLA COUNION CO

GRANT CO

BAKER CO

GRANT COUNTY

HARNEY COUNTY

WASHINGTON

OREGON

84

395

395

395

26

26

26

26

20

97

97

207

244

402

380

207

218

218

293

206

206

19

19

27

19

74

7

River

Columbia

John

Day

River

John

Fork

Fork

Middle

North

Fork

Day

River

South

North

Fork

Deschutes River

10 0 10 20 Kilometers

10 0 10 20 Miles

W

N

E

S

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

PRINEVILLE DISTRICT

John Day Basin

Resource Management Plan

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2008

Map 16: Land Tenure - Common to All Action Alternatives

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, 

reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other 

data. Original data were compiled from various sources. This information may not 

meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated without notification.

Proposed Land Tenure

 Zone 1: Classified for Retention

 Zone 2: Classified for Retention

 with Option to Exchange

 Zone 3: Classified for Disposal

 

Eligible for Federal Lands Transaction 

 Facilitation Act

Zoning Acquisition

LEGEND

Planning Area Boundary

Administered Land

 Bureau of Land Management

 Forest Service

 John Day Fossil Beds

 National Monument

 Other Federal

 State

 Private or Other

OREGON

84

84 5

5

101

101

395

395

395

199

26

26

26

20

97 197

97

20

95

26

30

Coos Bay

Florence

Newport

Portland The

Dalles

Albany

Bend

Salem

Tillamook

Eugene

Madras

Roseburg

Medford

Lakeview

Burns

Vale

Pendleton

Baker

City

Klamath

Falls

Grants Pass

Astoria

PA

C I F I C

O

C

E

A

N

Prineville 

District

John Day Basin

Planning

Area

John Day Basin

Planning

Prineville

John

Day

M07-09-01:3-4-08
From: frankieangelman@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:29:25 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,

Frank Angelini

Racine, WI 53403
From: damaradley@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:39:04 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,

Marilyn Radley

Bakersfield, CA 93308
#### Miriam Josefina ESTRADA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 99-70831.

INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 9, 2001.*

Decided July 11, 2001.

Before HUG, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Miriam Estrada (“Estrada”) entered the United States on January 12, 1990. She was served with an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) on November 11, 1995, and conceded deportability at a hearing before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) on April 22, 1996. On March 11, 1997, the IJ denied Estrada’s application for suspension of deportation because the IJ believed that she was statutorily ineligible for such relief under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), enacted on September 30, 1996. In particular, the IJ ruled that, under IIRIRA’s “stop-time rule,” *see*INA § 240A(d)(l), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(l), Es*661trada had not accrued seven years of continuous physical presence in the United States before being served with an OSC. Estrada appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed the IJ’s decision on June 17,1999.

In *Astrero v. INS,*104 F.3d 264 (9th Cir.1996), we held that the stop-time rule was not effective until the general effective date of IIRIRA on April 1, 1997. Therefore, when the IJ in this case applied the stop-time rule to Estrada on March 11, 1997, he subjected her to the rule before its effective date. Following *Guadalupe-Cruz v. INS,*240 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir.2001), we therefore grant the petition for review, reverse the decision of the BIA, and remand with instructions to remand to the IJ. If Estrada chooses to pursue her application for suspension of deportation before the IJ, the IJ shall, in determining whether she is eligible for suspension of deportation, (1) apply the law as it existed on March 11, 1997, and (2) consider the current facts and Estrada’s current circumstances.

PETITION GRANTED, REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.