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 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

HARLEY SCHRAM,

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT FRAKES,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5623RJB

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

NOTED FOR:

February 17th, 2006

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY CONCLUSION

This 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief has been referred to the undersigned

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) and local Rules MJR 3 and 4. Petitioner has filed

a motion to withdraw his petition without prejudice. (Dkt. # 14). 

FACTS

Petitioner seeks to exhaust his claims in state court.

DISCUSSION

Exhaustion of State Remedies.

In order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement, petitioner’s claims must have been fairly

presented to the state's highest court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v.

Case 3:05-cv-05623-RJB Document 15 Filed 01/24/06 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 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 2

Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985). No claim in this petition was presented to Washington

State’s highest court as a violation of a federal constitutional right. A federal habeas petitioner must

provide the state courts with a fair opportunity to correct alleged violations of prisoners' federal

rights. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S.364, 115 S.Ct. 887, 888 (1995). It is not enough that all the facts

necessary to support the federal claim were before the state courts or that a somewhat similar state

law claim was made. Id, citing Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (1971) and Anderson v. Harless, 459

U.S. 4 (1982). Petitioner’s claims are currently in state court. Thus, the claims in this petition are

unexhausted. A federal court faced with an unexhausted petition dismisses the petition, without

prejudice, so that the petitioner has an opportunity to exhaust the claims in state court. Rose v,

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982). Petitioner should be given that opportunity.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing discussion, the Court should DISMISS the petition WITHOUT

PREJUDICE. A proposed order accompanies this report and recommendation.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal rules of Civil Procedure, the

parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report to file written objections. See also Fed.

R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of

appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule

72(b), the clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on February 17th, 2006, as noted in

the caption. 

DATED this 23rd day of January, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05623-RJB Document 15 Filed 01/24/06 Page 2 of 2
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 479 

To amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 12, 2007 

Mr. BOEHNER (for himself, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. PUTNAM, Mr. MCCOTTER, Ms. 

GRANGER, Mr. CARTER, Mr. COLE of Oklahoma, Mr. DREIER, and Mr. 

CANTOR) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

To amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

provide for enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the 

Rules of the House of Representatives. 

1 Resolved, That clause 9(c) of Rule XXI is amended 

2 to read as follows: 

3 ‘‘(c) As disposition of a point of order under 

4 paragraph (a), the Chair shall put the question of 

5 consideration with respect to the bill, joint resolu6 tion, or conference report, or amendment described 

7 in paragraph (a)(3). The question of consideration 

8 shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the Member 
2 

•HRES 479 IH 

1 initiating the point of order and for 10 minutes by 

2 an opponent, but shall otherwise be decided without 

3 intervening motion except one that the House ad4 journ.’’. 

Æ
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________

WALTER WOJTCZAK , Plaintiff

- Appellant
,

v. UNITED STATES , Defendant

- Appellee

.

__________________________ 2013

- 5025

__________________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in case no. 12

- CV

- 0449, Judge Margaret M. Sweeney

.

__________________________ ON MOTION

__________________________ O R D E R Upon consideration of Walter Wojtczak’s motion to withdraw his appeal, I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The motion is granted and the appeal is di smissed

. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs. Case: 13-5025 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 02/28/2013WALTER WOJTCZAK V

. US 2

F OR T HE C OURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk

s 26 I s sued A s A M andate : February 28, 2013 Case: 13-5025 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 02/28/2013
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 594 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        August 1, 2007.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3162) to amend titles XVIII, XIX, and XXI 
of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the children's health insurance 
program, to improve beneficiary protections under the Medicare, Medicaid, and 
the CHIP program, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 
of rule XXI. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment 
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, 
shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as 
read. All points of order against provisions of the bill, as amended, are 
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of 
debate, with one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and one hour equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
    Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 3162 pursuant to this resolution, 
notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone 
further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the 
Speaker.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
A

g

u

a

F r i a

R i v

e r

Tonto National Forest

Bradshaw-Harquahala

Planning Area

BLACK CANYON CITY

Cordes

Junction

Bureau of Land Management

Phoenix District Office

Phoenix, AZ

October 2009

Note: Land Status legend located

on Map 1

Note: The Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) conducts land use planning only

in the areas administered by BLM. BLM

has no planning authority under the

municipal or county planning legislation

of the State of Arizona.

No warranty is made by BLM for the use

of this map for purposes not intended by

BLM, or to the accuracy, reliability or

completeness of the information shown.

Spatial information may not meet National

Map Accuracy Standards. This information

may be updated without notification.

Map 3

Agua Fria

National Monument

Pronghorn Fawning Habitat

& Movement Corridors

0 1 2

Miles

Interstate

Highway

Agua Fria

National Monument

Planning Area

Major Road

Minor Road

Major River, Streams or

Wash

Biological

Resource Allocations

Pronghorn Movement

Corridor (WHA)

Pronghorn Fawning

Habitat (WHA)
### Supreme Court ofthe United States Office ofthe Clerk 

### Washington, DC 20543-0001 Scott S. Harris Clerk ofthe Court November 6, 2Q1C (202)479-3011
Clerk Court ofCriminal Appeals ofTexas 

# NOT 10 20^5 P.O. Box 12308 Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711 

# AbelAcosta.GterK Re: Michael Lynn Bradden v. Texas No. 15-6830 (Your No. WR-44,402-07, WR-44,402-08)
Dear Clerk: The petition for a writ ofcertiorari in the above entitled case was filed on June 9, 2015 and placed on the docket November 6, 2015 as No. 15-6830. Sincerely, Scott £LHarris, Clerk 

# 1 Jacob C. Travers Case Analyst
/ / w
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  April 29, 2014 | By:    | /s/ Joseph Dwyer   |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                            |   | Joseph Dwyer            |   |
|                            |   | Chief Financial Officer |   |

----
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

WIVES AND MOTHERS OF PRISONERS

OF THE STATE,

Plaintiff,

v.

WALTER WEINBERG, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5657RJB

ORDER DENYING

MOTION 

This matter comes before the court on a Motion for Reconsideration Appointment of Attorney and

Clarification. Dkt. 8. The court has considered the relevant documents and the remainder of the file herein.

On November 29, 2005, the court denied a request to reassign this case, denied the application to

proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the case on the basis that Richard Roy Scott may not prosecute

this action on behalf of a corporation. Dkt. 6. The order further provided that the court would entertain

no further motions or requests in this case. Id. Judgment was entered on December 2, 2005. Dkt. 7.

On December 9, 2005, a document was filed, apparently signed by Mr. Scott, requesting (1)

reconsideration of the court’s November 29, 2005 order; (2) appointment of an attorney to represent the

corporation; and (3) clarification. Dkt. 8. 

In requesting reconsideration, Mr. Scott stated that the court should have appointed an attorney to

represent the corporation, rather than dismiss the case. This contention is without merit, and does not

provide a sufficient basis for reconsideration of the court’s November 29, 2005 order. See Local Rule CR

7(h). Further, clarification of the court’s order is not warranted; this motion shows that Mr. Scott clearly

Case 3:05-cv-05657-RJB Document 10 Filed 12/13/05 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

understood the basis for the court’s order dismissing the case. Finally, this case is closed, and the court

stated in its order that it would not entertain further motions or requests. The motion for appointment of

counsel should therefore be denied pursuant to the explicit instructions of the court in its November 29,

2005 order. 

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration Appointment of Attorney and Clarification (Dkt.

8) is DENIED.

The Clerk is directed 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 13th day of December, 2005.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:05-cv-05657-RJB Document 10 Filed 12/13/05 Page 2 of 2
H. Res. 593 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 17, 2007. 

Whereas in 1973, on the University of California, Irvine campus, chemists F. Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina 

began researching the depletion of stratospheric ozone by 

the chlorofluorocarbon gases then used worldwide as refrigerants and aerosol propellants; 

Whereas on June 28, 1974, F. Sherwood Rowland and Mario 

Molina published in the scientific journal Nature, their 

path-breaking article, ‘‘Stratospheric Sink for 

Chlorofluoromethanes: Chlorine Atom-Catalysed Destruction of Ozone’’; 

Whereas in 1976, the work of F. Sherwood Rowland and 

Mario Molina connecting chlorofluorocarbons and atmospheric ozone depletion was confirmed by the National 

Academy of Sciences; 

Whereas in 1978, the United States banned 

chlorofluorocarbons as propellants in aerosol cans; 

Whereas in 1987, because of the research of F. Sherwood 

Rowland, Mario Molina, Paul Crutzen, and many other 

scientists, the international community acted through the 

adoption of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that 

Deplete the Ozone Layer (‘‘Montreal Protocol’’); 
2 

•HRES 593 EH 

Whereas the Montreal Protocol created the Multilateral Fund 

for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol which 

provides funds to help developing countries to phase out 

the use of ozone-depleting substances; 

Whereas the Multilateral Fund for Implementation of the 

Montreal Protocol was the first financial mechanism to 

be created under an international treaty; 

Whereas the Montreal Protocol recognized that world-wide 

emissions of certain substances can significantly deplete 

and otherwise modify the ozone layer in a manner that 

is likely to result in adverse effects on human health and 

the environment; 

Whereas because of the adoption of the Montreal Protocol the 

levels of chlorofluorocarbon gases in the Earth’s atmosphere have decreased; 

Whereas on September 17, 1987, the Montreal Protocol was 

open for signatures; 

Whereas to date, 191 nations have signed the Montreal Protocol; 

Whereas F. Sherwood Rowland, Mario Molina, and Paul 

Crutzen were awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 

1995 for their work in atmospheric chemistry, particularly concerning the formation and decomposition of 

ozone; and 

Whereas September 17, 2007, marks the twentieth anniversary of the signing of the Montreal Protocol: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) congratulates scientists F. Sherwood Rowland, 

Mario Molina, and Paul Crutzen for their work in at-
3 

•HRES 593 EH 

mospheric chemistry, particularly concerning the formation and decomposition of ozone, that led to the development of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer; and 

(2) encourages the continued research of the interaction of humans and their actions with the Earth’s ecosystem. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
From: violamogle@prodigy.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:21:13 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,

Viola Ogle

Choctaw, OK 73020
Exhibit 31.1

Certification Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Edwin H. Wegman, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Director, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of BioSpecifics Technologies, Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:



a.

designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c.

disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting



5.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a.

all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other individuals who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting



Date:  August 14, 2003

/s/ Edwin H. Wegman

Cairman of the Board,

Chief Executive Officer and Director
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin Smith, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 71]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Koch, J.), rendered November 24, 1992, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (four counts), petit larceny, unauthorized use of a vehicle in the first degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he did not voluntarily waive his *Miranda*rights prior to making certain statements to the police is unpersuasive. At the suppression hearing, the prosecution established the legality of the police conduct and that the defendant voluntarily waived his rights. Thereafter, the defendant offered no evidence and, thus, failed to meet his burden of persuasion concerning his state of mind at the time of his waiver *(see, People v Love,*57 NY2d 998; *People v Billing-ton,*163 AD2d 911; *People v Chavis,*147 AD2d 582).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.
Case 3:05-cv-05306-RBL Document 176 Filed 11/09/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:05-cv-05306-RBL Document 176 Filed 11/09/06 Page 2 of 2
H. Res. 719 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

October 10, 2007. 

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3056) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the authority of the Internal Revenue Service to use private 

debt collection companies, to delay implementation of withholding taxes on government contractors, to revise the tax 

rules on expatriation, and for other purposes. All points of 

order against consideration of the bill are waived except those 

arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment 

in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee 

on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, modified by the 

amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 

accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. 

The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points 

of order against provisions of the bill, as amended, are 

waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 

on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening 

motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
2 

•HRES 719 EH 

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 

the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to 

recommit with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 3056 pursuant to 

this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 

question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 

bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Before the Third Division,

March 7, 1962

No. 66527.

#### Nicholas Lekas Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 61/14834 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.