alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PROTECTION ORDER, 

RE: MEDICAL RECORDS - 1 

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

 Attorney at Law 

Wm. Michael Hanbey, PS

 P.O. Box 2575 Olympia, WA 98507

360 / 570-1636 • Fax 360 / 943-2430

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT TACOMA 

 The Honorable J. Kelley Arnold 

STANLEY WILLMS, and JOYCEWILLMS, 

a marital community, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

 

GEORGIA-PACIFIC, Inc., 

 Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. C05-5754JKA 

AGREED PROTECTION 

ORDER, RE; MEDICAL 

RECORDS 

 THE COURT, upon Agreement of the Petitioner, Stanley Willms, by and through 

her attorney of record, Michael Hanbey, with the Defendants being represented by Jim A. 

Harmony, Assistant Attorney General, having reviewed the files and records in this matter, and 

having determined that discovery pursuant to statute and court rule may proceed, NOW 

THEREFORE 

 ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES that: 

1. The health care records of the Plaintiff, Stanley Willms shall be produced to 

counsel for the Defendants after Defendants comply with the Uniform Health Care Act, Chapter 

70.02. RCW, requirements; 

2. The discovery of the health care records of the Plaintiff, Stanley Willms, 

Case 3:05-cv-05754-JKA Document 14 Filed 08/23/06 Page 1 of 2
PROTECTION ORDER, 

RE: MEDICAL RECORDS - 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

 Attorney at Law 

Wm. Michael Hanbey, PS

 P.O. Box 2575 Olympia, WA 98507

360 / 570-1636 • Fax 360 / 943-2430

obtained by Counsel for the Defendant may be shared with and reviewed by the Defendant and/or 

their representatives, but any records related to health care received by the Plaintiff Stanley Willms 

IS and the SAME SHALL BE PROTECTED from delivery, transferal or dissemination in any 

physical or electronic form to the Defendant and/or their representatives (except experts hired by 

counsel for the Defendant); PROVIDED, the Defendant and/or their representatives may, in 

assisting legal counsel at deposition or in a court proceeding, review or have contact with copies of 

the health care records. 

3. Counsel for Defendant IS and the SAME SHALL BE PROHIBITED FROM 

delivering, transferring or disseminating copies of the health care records of the Plaintiff, Stanley 

Willms, to any person who is not a member of the staff of legal counsel for Defendant or an expert 

engaged to review, analyze or testify about the health care records of the Plaintiff, Stanley Willms 

unless there is further order of the court. 

DATED the 23rd day of August, 2006. 

 /s/ J. Kelley Arnold__________________ 

 U.S. Magistrate Judge 

 

Presented by: Approved as to Form and Content; 

 Notice of Presentation Waived: 

_________________________________ _____________________________________ 

Michael Hanbey, WSB# 7829 Kristin L. Bremer, OSB # 03274 

Attorney for Plaintiffs Attorney for Defendant 

Case 3:05-cv-05754-JKA Document 14 Filed 08/23/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 66 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      January 18, 2007.
    Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6) to reduce our Nation's dependency on 
foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, 
promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, and 
creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in 
alternative energy, and for other purposes. All points of order against the bill 
and against its consideration are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 
10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as read. The previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening 
motion except: (1) three hours of debate, with 60 minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means, 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, 30 minutes equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Agriculture, and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science and Technology; 
and (2) one motion to recommit.
    Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 6 pursuant to this resolution, 
notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone 
further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6245

JAMES EDWARD BLUNT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN, NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-95-1715-AM)

Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 7, 1996

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Edward Blunt, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr.,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to

appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate.We dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. Blunt v. Warden, No. CA-95-1715-AM

(E.D. Va. Feb. 1, 1996). 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.

DISMISSED
### Mineralogic classification of uranium-vanadium deposits of the Colorado Plateau

By: Theodore BotinellyAlice D. Weeks

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1074A

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
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

SHAWN J. CRUZE,

Petitioner,

v.

DOUG WADDINGTON,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5744FDB

ORDER FOR SERVICE AND

RETURN, § 2254 PETITION

(l) The clerk shall arrange for service by certified mail upon respondent and the Attorney

General for the State of Washington, copies of the Amended Petition, all documents in support thereof,

and the Notice of Initial Assignment and Consent Procedure and Consent to Proceed before a United

States Magistrate Judge. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States. The Clerk shall

assemble the necessary documents to effect service. In addition, the Clerk shall send petitioner a copy of

this Order, along with a copy of the Court’s General Order regarding pro se litigation. 

(2) Within forty-five (45) days after such service, respondent(s) shall file and serve an answer in

accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District Courts. As part of

such answer, respondent(s) should state whether petitioner has exhausted available state remedies, whether

an evidentiary hearing is necessary, and whether there is any issue of abuse or delay under Rule 9. 

Respondent shall not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer without first showing cause as to why

an answer is inadequate. Respondent(s) shall file the answer with the Clerk of the Court and serve a copy

of the answer upon petitioner.

Case 3:05-cv-05744-FDB Document 8 Filed 01/25/06 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

Page - 2

(3) The answer will be treated in accordance with Local Rule CR 7. Accordingly, upon receipt

of the answer the Clerk will note the matter for consideration on the fourth Friday after the answer is filed,

petitioner may file and serve a response not later than on the Monday immediately preceding the Friday

appointed for consideration of the matter, and respondent my file and serve a reply brief not later than on

the Thursday immediately preceding the Friday designated for consideration of the matter.

DATED this 25th day of January, 2006.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05744-FDB Document 8 Filed 01/25/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 65212.

#### The Louis Hilfer Company et al. *v.*United States,

protests 83252-K, etc. (St. Louis).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 32.1
                                  ------------



                      CEO AND CFO 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 of ITEC Attractions, Inc. (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"), I, Paul M.
Bluto, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.

/s/  Paul M. Bluto
------------------
Paul M. Bluto
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
May 12, 2004
Before the Second Division,

October 24, 1962

No. 67141.

protests 60/2434 and 60/2435 (Boston).

#### Rice Barton Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of articles similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 66225, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 65164.

#### Barian Shpg. Co., Inc. and Cycle Associates, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/7463, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case No. 12,935.

#### SLACUM v. SIMMS et al.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 242.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

June Term, 1805.2

Insolvency — Discharge—Fraud.

An insolvent, who obtains a warrant of discharge by fraud, is not discharged in due course of law.

Debt [by Slacum] against [Jesse Simms and. Peter Wise, Jr.] the principal and surety on a prison-bounds bond; plea, covenants performed; replication, did not keep in the bounds, but departed without being discharged in due course of law; rejoinder, discharged in due course of law; and issue thereon.

C. Lee, for defendant,

contended that a warrant of discharge by the magistrates is conclusive evidence that Simms was discharged in due course of law, and is as much a discharge of the bond, as it would be to the sheriff, if the prisoner was in actual custody. In an action for an escape, the warrant of discharge would be conclusive evidence. There is no difference between that case and an action on the prison-bounds bond.

Mr. Swann, contra.

The issue is, whether Simms was discharged in due course of law. It does not follow that the surety is discharged because the sheriff is discharged. The sheriff is indemnified, because the act of assembly expressly makes the warrant an indemnification. The surety is not discharged unless the principal is discharged. But Simms would not be protected against this bond if his discharge was obtained by fraud.

2

 [Reversed in 8 Cranch (7 U. S.) 300.]

THE COURT

was of opinion

(PITZHUGH, Circuit Judge, absent)

that the warrant of discharge is not conclusive evidence that Simms was discharged in due course of law.

Mr. Jones, for defendants, then prayed an instruction to the jury, that if they should be of opinion, from the evidence, that the warrant of discharge was obtained by the fraud of Simms alone, without the participation of the magistrates, or of the defendant, Wise, (the surety,) the warrant was not void so as to enable the plaintiff to recover against the defendant, Wise, in this action. Which instruction THE COURT refused to give; but instructed them that such fraud, if proved, would render the warrant void, and therefore the issue could not be supported on the part of the defendants.

Bill of exceptions taken. Verdict for plaintiff, $1600.

Reversed by the supreme court, 3 Cranch [7 U. S.] 300.
#### Bernard L. SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George M. GALAZA, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 04-55483.

D.C. No. CV-00-11374-LGB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 7, 2005.

Decided Aug. 24, 2005.

Jonathan D. Libby, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Ana R. Duarte, Gary A. Lieberman, Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before WARDLAW and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and FITZGERALD,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable James M. Fitzgerald, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM**

California state prisoner Bernard L. Smith appeals the district court’s order *690denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Smith contends that the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges violated the Equal Protection Clause, and that the district court erred in finding that Smith failed to prove purposeful discrimination on the part of the prosecutor. The district court’s decision to grant or deny a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition is reviewed de novo. *See Leavitt v. Arave,*371 F.3d 663 (9th Cir.2004). Additionally, the district court’s findings of fact as to the racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges are reviewed for clear error. *See United States v. Annigoni,*96 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir.1996). Because the state trial court applied the incorrect legal standard enunciated in *People v. Wheeler,*22 Cal.3d 258, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748 (1978), the district court correctly reviewed de novo the question of whether Smith made a prima facie showing of a *Batson*violation. *Johnson v. California,*- U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 2410, 2419, 162 L.Ed.2d 129 (2005). The district court also did not commit clear error in finding that the reasons the prosecutor gave for striking the jurors were not a pretext for discrimination.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 68112]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21842]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Public Availability of Fiscal Year 2021 Service Contract 
Inventory

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is publishing 
this notice to advise the public of the availability of CFTC's Fiscal 
Year 2021 Service Contract Inventory.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding the service 
contract inventory should be directed to Livia Bykov, Procurement 
Analyst, at 202-418-5103 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a5c9c7dccecad3e5c6c3d1c68bc2cad3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4f232d362420390f2c293b2c61282039">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section 743 of division C 
of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010, Public Law 111-117, 123 
Stat. 3034, CFTC is publishing this notice to advise the public of the 
availability of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Service Contract Inventory. 
CFTC has posted its inventory documents on the agency website at the 
following link: https://www.cftc.gov/About/CFTCReports/index.htm.
    This inventory provides information on service contracts above the 
Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), as determined by the base 
and all options value, that were awarded in FY 2021. CFTC's service 
contract inventory data is included in the government-wide inventory, 
which can be filtered to display the CFTC-specific data. A link to the 
government-wide inventory is included in the posting on the CFTC 
website, or it can be accessed directly at https://www.acquisition.gov/service-contract-inventory.
    The inventory documents posted on the CFTC website also include the 
CFTC FY 2020 Service Contract Inventory Analysis (dated February 15, 
2022). This report provides information about the Product Service Codes 
that the CFTC analyzed from the 2020 inventory.

    Dated: September 28, 2023.
Christopher Kirkpatrick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2023-21842 Filed 10-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 56777.

#### Flaig’s Hunters Lodge *v.*United States,

petition 6865-R (Pittsburgh).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It appeared from the record herein that, before filing

the instant entry, the broker submitted to the appraiser a submission sheet requesting information as to value. The appraiser returned same, stating that he had no current information, and the broker thereupon made entry at the invoice value of $80 each, which apparently represented export value. It further appeared that the broker intended to enter the merchandise at its proper value, to wit, *340a foreign value of 1,680 Austrian schillings per unit, plus an American turnover tax of 3.4 percent, plus $10 in American currency, for packing. At the time of entry, the broker knew that said foreign value represented the proper value of the importation, but inadvertently he entered at the export value. Counsel for the Government stated that the petition was investigated by special agents in Philadelphia and that no information was developed during the investigation indicating any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States. Upon a full consideration of the entire record, it was held that there was no intent to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
No. 59776.

#### Gelatin Products Company *v.*United States,

protest 114197-K (Detroit).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of halibut-liver oil the same in all material respects as that the subject of *D. C. Andrews & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(72 Treas. Dec. 383, T. D. 49190), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 68953.

#### Lanston Monotype Division *v.*United States,

protest 63/8449 (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Foed, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of monophoto machines or parts thereof similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Lanston Industries, Inc.*v. *United States*(49 CCPA 123, C.A.D. 807), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 65200.

#### J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/4095-11218, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the, plaintiffs was sustained.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 20, 2012*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**L.112 Banks in U.S.-Affiliated Areas 1** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
No. 63364.

protests 58/22295, etc. (New York).

#### Louis J. Solomon et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Moliison, J.

The protests were dismissed.
July 14, 1955

No. 59227.

Suit 4820.

#### C. J. Tower & Sons *v.*United States.

C. D. 1595 reversed March 30, 1955. C. A. D. 589.
Before the Second Division,

December 22, 1965

No. 69710.

#### Schick X-Ray Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 64/11459 and 64/22731 (New York).

*524Opinion by

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of injectors or parts thereof, dedicated for use therewith, in chief value of metal, not laboratory apparatus, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Schick X-Ray Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(49 Cust. Ct. 38, C.D. 2358), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.