alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER DISMISSING § 1983 ACTION

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

EDWARD R. WHITTINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

NORM MALENG, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C05-1899-RSL-MAT

ORDER DISMISSING § 1983 ACTION

The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Mary Alice

Theiler, United States Magistrate Judge, any objections thereto, and the balance of the record,

does hereby ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.

(2) The complaint and this § 1983 action are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

(3) This dismissal shall count as a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-01899-RSL Document 14 Filed 01/23/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER DISMISSING § 1983 ACTION

PAGE -2

(4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff and to Judge Theiler.

DATED this 23rd day of January, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01899-RSL Document 14 Filed 01/23/06 Page 2 of 2
| Exhibit 32.2 |
|--------------|

|   | 1. | The Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ ANTHONY J. GALICI                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Anthony J. Galici                                     |
| Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary |
| April 8, 2010                                    |
Before the Second Division,

April 23, 1969

No. P69/118.

protest 65/20876(B) (New York).

#### Engis Equipment Company *v.*United States,

Newman, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of X-ray apparatus similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Tice &*Lynch, *Inc.*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 516, C.D. 2862), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
SHERMAN CO

 WASCO CO 

GRANT CO

BAKER CO 

WASHINGTON 

OREGON 

PA

C I F I C

O

C

E

A

N 

Boardman

Heppner

Junction

Maryhill Arlington

Rufus

Biggs

Cecil

Wasco

Morgan

Ione Olex

Moro

Lexington

Grass

Valley

Heppner La Grande

Condon Ruggs

Kent

Hardman

Ukiah

Mayville

Shaniko

Fossil Dale

Clarno Antelope

Spray Service Monument Creek

Sumpter Kimberly Kimberly Hamilton

Long Creek Richmond

Fox

Beech Creek Austin

Mitchell Bates

Prairie City Dayville

Mount John

Vernon Day Unity

Canyon City

Prineville

Logdell

Post

Paulina

Seneca

Izee

Suplee Silvies

UMITILLA COUNION CO

MO COUNTY RROW

GRANT COUNTY 

 WASCO COUNTY 

JEFFERSON COUNTY 

WHEELER COUNTY 

CROOK COUNTY 

Deschutes River 

River
 

Rive
r
 

Columbia
 

kFor

Fork 

South 

John 

North 

Fork 

Middle 

North 

Fork 

John 

Day 

Rive

Day 

r 

10 0 10 20 Miles 

10 0 10 20 Kilometers 

N
 

W E
 

S
 

OREGON Astoria 

30 

26 101	 Pendleton Portland 84 The Tillamook Dalles 

197	 395 84 5	 97 

Salem 26 Baker

John Day Basin John Day Basin City Newport Albany Madras Planning Planning

26 Area

20 John 

Prineville Day 26 

Eugene Florence Bend Prineville Vale 

District 20 395 

Coos Bay Burns
 

Roseburg
 

5 

395 95 97 

Grants Pass 

101 Medford Klamath 

Falls Lakeview 199 

112 

GRANT COUNTY
 

HARNEY COUNTY
 

LEGEND

Planning Area Boundary 

Existing Visual Resource Management 

on BLM Administered Land

 Class 1: Highest Scenic Value


 Class 2


 Class 3


 Class 4: Lowest Scenic Value
 

Common to All Action Alternatives 

Visual Resource Management 

on BLM Administered Land

Class 1: Highest Scenic Value

 Class 2

 Class 3

 Class 4: Lowest Scenic Value 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

PRINEVILLE DISTRICT 

John Day Basin
 

Resource Management Plan
 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement
 

2008 

Map 8: Visual Resource Management 

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. M07-09-01:9-8-08 

Millican

Brothers

84 

74 

19 

97 

206 

206 244 

97 

293 

218 

218 19 

207 395 

402 

207 19 

7 

395 26 

26 

26 26 

380 

27 

395 

20 

63
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 188 (Friday, September 29, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 67271]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21504]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 10489-000]


City of River Falls Municipal Utilities; Notice of Authorization 
for Continued Project Operation

    The license for the River Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 10489 was 
issued for a period ending August 31, 2023.
    Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires the 
Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year-to-
year an annual license to the then licensee(s) under the terms and 
conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the 
project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other 
applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived 
the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on section 9(b) 
of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth 
at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an 
application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to 
operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the 
license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the 
Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project 
has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be 
required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations 
until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or 
otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 10489 is issued to 
the City of River Falls Municipal Utilities for a period effective 
September 1, 2023, through August 31, 2024, or until the issuance of a 
new license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, 
whichever comes first. If issuance of a new license (or other 
disposition) does not take place on or before August 31, 2024, notice 
is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license 
under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is renewed automatically without 
further order or notice by the Commission, unless the Commission orders 
otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that the City of River Falls Municipal Utilities is 
authorized to continue operation of the River Falls Hydroelectric 
Project under the terms and conditions of the prior license until the 
issuance of a subsequent license for the project or other disposition 
under the FPA, whichever comes first.

    Dated: September 25, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-21504 Filed 9-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
No. 68149.

#### Carson M. Simon & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 63/7320 and 63/7321 (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

An examination of the official papers disclosing that the protests were not filed within the 60-day period provided by section 514, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1514), the protests were dismissed as untimely.
From: charles.h.taylor@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:08:48 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,

Chuck Taylor

Germantown, TN 38139
July 2, 1953

No. 57416.

Suit 4706.

#### Davies Turner & Co. *v.*United States.

Abstract 55708 affirmed March 11, 1953. C. A. D. 517.
EX-10.1(a)



 Exhibit 10.1(a) 

June 1, 2017 
 Aspect Capital Ltd. 

10 Portman Square 
 London W1H 6AZ U.K. 

Attention: Mr. Anthony Todd, CEO 
 Re: Management
Agreement Renewals 
 Dear Mr. Todd: 

We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which reference is made below (the
“Management Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2018 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged. 

 

	 	•	 	 Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P. 



 

	 	•	 	 Diversified 2000 Futures Fund L.P. 



 

	 	•	 	 Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P. 



 

	 	•	 	 CMF Aspect Master Fund L.P. 



 

	 	•	 	 Institutional Futures Portfolio L.P 



 

	 	•	 	 Global Futures Fund Ltd 



 

	 	•	 	 MSMF Custom Solutions Fund L.P. 



Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of
Mr. Patrick T. Egan at 522 Fifth Avenue – 7th Floor, New York, NY 10036. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 212-296-6808. 

Very truly yours, 
  

			
	CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Patrick T.
Egan                                         
  

		 	 Patrick T. Egan

		 	 President and Director

	
	ASPECT CAPITAL LTD.
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Jonathan Greenwold
                                  

	
	 Print Name: Jonathan
Greenwold                           

	 PE/tr
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 SEATTLE

POTENTIALS DEVELOPMENT, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT

NETWORK, and ZH COMPUTER, INC.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C05-1888JLR

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction (Dkt. # 19) by Defendant International Assessment Network (“IAN”). 

For the reasons stated in this order, the court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Under a software license agreement (the “Agreement”) with Plaintiff Potentials

Development, Inc. (“PDI”), Defendant IAN is obligated to pay PDI a “minimum royalty

of $4,000 per month” for an exclusive license to use PDI’s licensed software, up to a

maximum aggregate of $925,000. See Compl., Ex. 1 at ¶ 3(b) (Software License

Agreement). PDI alleges that IAN has breached the Agreement by failing to make

payments and now owes $27,000 in back royalty payments. Compl. ¶ 4.1. PDI seeks

judgment against IAN for $27,000, for any royalties accruing before judgment. Compl. ¶

5.1. Importantly, PDI seeks termination of the agreement because of IAN’s alleged

Case 2:05-cv-01888-JLR Document 27 Filed 08/11/06 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 – 2

default. Id. Approximately $427,110 in remaining royalty payments remain under the

agreement, to be paid monthly as set forth in the agreement. See Pl.’s Reply at 3.

District courts have jurisdiction in civil actions where there is complete diversity

of citizenship among the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value

of $ 75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). To justify

dismissal, it must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is less than the jurisdictional

amount. Crum v. Circus Circus Enterprises, 231 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000). IAN’s

argument that PDI’s Complaint does not meet the jurisdictional amount in controversy

because it only requests $27,000 in back royalty payments is not well taken. PDI seeks to

terminate the agreement with IAN; under that agreement IAN’s remaining obligations

indisputably exceed $400,000. 

In considering the amount in controversy, the court must consider the value of the

property at issue. See Meisel v. Allstate Indem. Co, 357 F. Supp. 2d 1222, 1225 (E.D.

Cal. 2005). In this case, the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum

and Defendant’s motion to dismiss is therefore DENIED.

Dated this 11th day of August, 2006.

A JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01888-JLR Document 27 Filed 08/11/06 Page 2 of 2
From: jackrothenflue@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:15:54 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,

jack rothenflue

Kerrville, TX 78028
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Sunrise Energy Services, Inc. a Delaware
corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending
March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), David A. Melman, Principal Executive
Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of
his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 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  result of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Sunrise Energy Services, Inc., and will be retained by Sunrise
Energy Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

|                       | 
|---------------------- | 
|                       | 
|Date: December 2, 2004 | 
|                       | 
|                       | 
|                       | 
|                       | 

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6832

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TERRYONTO MCGRIER, a/k/a Rodney Jones, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-196, CA-97-1168-2) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 15, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terryonto McGrier, Appellant Pro Se. Michael O. Callaghan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Terryonto McGrier seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. McGrier , Nos. CR-93-196; CA-97-1168-2 (S.D.W. Va. May 7, 1998). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
From: albyoung@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:45:34 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,

Margaret Young

South San Francisco, CA 94080
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Humphreys, O’ Brien and Senior Judge Bumgardner

TIER 1, L.L.C. AND TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1568-15-2 PER CURIAM FEBRUARY 2, 2016 DAVID ALBERTO SANDRES-SANCHEZ

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (S. Vernon Priddy III; Stephen A. Marshall; Two Rivers Law Group, P.C., on brief), for appellants. (Bryan G. Bosta; Becker, Kell ogg & Berry, P.C., on brief), for appellee.

Tier 1, L.L.C. and Technology Insurance Comp any (appellants) appeal a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commissi on. Appellants allege the Comm ission erred in finding the evidence sufficient to prove that David Albert o Sandres-Sanchez was an employee of Tier 1, rather than an independent contr actor, when he sustained an injury by accident arising out of his employment. We have reviewed the record a nd the Commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accord ingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the Commission in its opinion. See Sandres-Sanchez v. Tier 1, L. L.C., VWC File VA02000017292 (Sept. 1, 2015). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be fore the Court and argum ent would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.UNPUBLISHED