alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES JEAN FEDERSPIEL, III.

Defendant.

 

Case No. CR05-5827RBL

 

INITIAL ORDER RE: ALLEGATIONS

OF VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS

OF SUPERVISION BY UNITED

STATES PROBATION OFFICE

THIS MATTER comes on for hearing on the Petition of the United States Probation Office

alleging that the defendant has violated the conditions of supervision.

The plaintiff appears through Special/Assistant US Attorney, DAVID JENNINGS:

The defendant appears personally and represented by counsel, LINDA SULLIVAN:

The U.S. Probation Office has filed a petition alleging violations of the terms and conditions of

supervision; the defendant has been advised of the allegation(s) and maximum potential sanction if

substantiated; and the court finding probable cause with regard to the alleged violation(s); 

The matter is scheduled for hearing before the Honorable RONALD B. LEIGHTON: 

Date: NOVEMBER 23, 2012 

Time: 9:30 A.M.

( ) Defendant is released pending the above scheduled hearing.

( X ) Defendant is ordered detained for failing to show that he/she will not flee or pose a danger to any

other person or the community pursuant to CrR 32.1(a)(1), and CrR 46(c), to be delivered as ordered

by the court for further proceedings. 

The clerks shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to counsel for the

defendant, the United States Marshal and to the United States Probation Office. This Order is entered

without prejudice to review.

November 14, 2012.

AJ. Richard Creatura

United States Magistrate Judge
September 6, 1961

No. 66039.

#### Random House, Inc., and Milton Snedeker Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 58/5932.

Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing granted.
C

astleCreek

Wilderness

HellsCanyon

Wilderness

Lake

Pleasant

Regional

Park

PEORIA

WICKENBURG

Yarnell

Hassayampa

RiverCanyon

Wilderness

CastleCreek

Wilderness

BureauofLandManagement

PhoenixDistrictOffice

Phoenix,AZ

October2009

Note:TheBureauofLandManagement(BLM)

conductslanduseplanningonlyintheareasadministered

byBLM.BLMhasnoplanningauthorityunderthe

municipalorcountyplanninglegislationoftheState

ofArizona.

NowarrantyismadebyBLMfortheuseofthismap

forpurposesnotintendedbyBLM,ortotheaccuracy,

reliabilityorcompletenessoftheinformationshown.

SpatialinformationmaynotmeetNationalMapAccuracy

standards.Thisinformationmaybeupdatedwithout

notification.

Note:LandStatuslegendlocatedonMap1

Map15b

Bradshaw-Harquahala

PlanningArea

RouteNetworkfor

HassayampaArea

00.91.82.73.6M

iles

BLMWilderness

USFSWilderness

Interstate

MajorRoad

MajorRiver,StreamsorWash

Highway

BradshawHarquahala

PlanningArea

ExistingRouteType

Primary

Secondary

SingleTrack

Tertiary

ManagementUnit

YavapaiCounty

MaricopaCounty
No. 59261.

protests 255745-K and 256427-K (New York).

#### Benj. Wolf Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

*231Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption prior to June 6, 1951, at 35 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1210, as modified by T. D. 51802; and (2) the items entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on and after June 6, 1951, at 32)4 percent under said paragraph, as modified by T. D. 52739.
December 11, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Managements System

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Exemption Request Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act

 Amendment to Document ID: FAA-2015-3860-0001

Dear FAA/FSS representative,

It is in the public interest to grant this request for several reasons. The video and photos from 

the UAS are used to promote a product or service of a business, bring new perspective to a 

video project, and showcase real estate properties in an innovative way. The UAS is 

becoming a vital asset to video productions by adding a new, unique vantage point. Since a 

small UAS is much more accessible and easier to operate than a helicopter, they can replace 

helicopters for many video applications. Using a small UAS in place of a helicopter when 

possible substantially reduces risk of injury to persons or damage to property, especially if 

operation is in a confined area. Aerial views of properties can be beneficial to the real estate 

market by bringing potential buyers to local communities.

Thanks for your consideration,

Patrick Sean McCurry
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132034 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132034 

 COA: 260310 

Oakland CC: 2004-198331-FH 

LAMARIO ANTONE BROWN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 20, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0523 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 30, 2007 

 Clerk
From: vdubfive@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:29:03 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,

Matthew VanWieren

Jacksonville, FL 32222
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

RONALD L. BASKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIAN AEUR,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5743FDB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. This matter comes before the court on plaintiff’s filing of an

application to proceed in forma pauperis and a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To file a

complaint and initiate legal proceedings plaintiff must pay a filing fee of $250.00 or file a proper

application to proceed in forma pauperis.

On November 11, 2005, the clerk received plaintiff’s complaint. (Dkt. #1). That same day, the

clerk sent plaintiff a letter informing her that he must either pay the $250.00 court filing fee or submit a

proper application to proceed in forma pauperis by December 16, 2005, or this matter could be subject to

dismissal. (Dkt. #2). On December 2, 2005, the clerk received an in forma pauperis application from

plaintiff. Plaintiff, however, did not submit the written consent required by Local Rule CR 3(b), which

Case 3:05-cv-05743-FDB Document 5 Filed 01/12/06 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

provides in relevant part:

At the time application is made under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 or other applicable acts of

Congress, for leave to commence any civil action or to file any petition or motion without

being required to prepay fees and costs or give security for them, each petitioner, movant

or plaintiff shall:

(1) Complete the in forma pauperis affidavit approved for use in this district; and

(2) File a written consent that the recovery, if any, in the action, to such amount as

the court may direct, shall be paid to the clerk who may pay therefrom all unpaid fees and

costs taxed against the plaintiff, and to his attorney the amount which the court allows or

approves as compensation for the attorney’s services.

Accordingly, this court orders the following:

(1) Plaintiff shall seek to cure this deficiency by filing no later than February 12, 2006, a copy

of the written consent required by Local Rule CR 3(b)(2). 

Failure to cure this deficiency by the above date shall be deemed a failure to properly

prosecute this matter and the court will recommend dismissal of this matter.

(2) The clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff along with the appropriate

written consent form.

DATED this 12th day of January, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05743-FDB Document 5 Filed 01/12/06 Page 2 of 2
#### Mario BALLARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. P. TRUE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-7582.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 21, 2001.

Decided June 27, 2001.

Mario Ballard, pro se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for appellee.

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Mario Ballard seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *Ballard v. True,*No. CA-00-264-3 (E.D.Va. Oct 24, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be*99fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER CONTINUING MOTIONS DEADLINE 

AND TRIAL DATE - Page 1

COHEN & IARIA

National Bldg., Ste. 302

1008 Western Avenue

Seattle, Washington 98104

206-624-9694

The Hon. Marsha Pechman

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

TONY L. TABUBA et al. 

 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CAUSE NO. CR 05-0182 P

ORDER CONTINUING MOTIONS

DEADLINE AND TRIAL DATE

The Court, having reviewed the records and files herein and considered the stipulation

of the Government and the defendant Keith Sims, makes the following findings and enters the

following order:

1. Additional time is necessary for the Government and defendants to complete

plea negotiations or prepare for trial.

2. The ends of justice outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants

in a speedy trial.. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date for defendants Tony Tabuba, Keith

Sims, Yvette Bailey, Dolly Cooper and Mark Carillo is continued from July 18, 2005 to

September 6, 2005, with a motions deadline of July 28, 2005;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section

3161(h), the period of time from the current trial date to the new trial date, for all defendants,

is excluded in the computation of time under the Speedy Trial Act as this is a reasonable period

Case 2:05-cr-00182-MJP Document 82 Filed 06/29/05 Page 1 of 3
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 CONTINUING MOTIONS DEADLINE 

AND TRIAL DATE - Page 2

COHEN & IARIA

National Bldg., Ste. 302

1008 Western Avenue

Seattle, Washington 98104

206-624-9694

of delay;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT counsel for all Defendants file a speedy trial

waiver through September 9, 2005.

 DONE this 28th day of June 2005.

AMarsha J. Pechman

U.S. District Judge

Presented by:

 /s/Neil M. Fox_______________________

NEIL M. FOX

WSBA NO. 15277

Attorney for Keith L. Sims

Cohen & Iaria

1008 Western Ave. Suite 302

Seattle WA 98101

Telephone: 206-624-9694

Fax: 206-624-9691

e-mail: nmf@cohen-iaria.com

Case 2:05-cr-00182-MJP Document 82 Filed 06/29/05 Page 2 of 3
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 CONTINUING MOTIONS DEADLINE 

AND TRIAL DATE - Page 3

COHEN & IARIA

National Bldg., Ste. 302

1008 Western Avenue

Seattle, Washington 98104

206-624-9694

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 2nd day of June, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such

filing to attorney of record for the Plaintiff and all other parties.

 /s/Neil M. Fox 

NEIL M. FOX

WSBA NO. 15277

Attorney for Defendant

Cohen & Iaria

1008 Western Ave. Suite 302

Seattle WA 98104

Telephone: 206-624-9694

Fax: 206-624-9691

e-mail: nmf@cohen-iaria.com

Case 2:05-cr-00182-MJP Document 82 Filed 06/29/05 Page 3 of 3
From: TOFFERK@GMAIL.COM

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:28:22 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,

Kris Thompson

Grove City, OH 43123
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

05-3297

EDWARD K. TAKAKI, Petitioner,

v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Respondent.

__________ ________________ DECIDED: July 11, 2006

__________________________ Before MAYER, LOURIE, and PROST, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. Edward K. Takaki appeals the final decis ion of the Merit S ystems Protection Board, affirming his removal from his position of machinist by the Navy. Takaki v. Dep’t of the Navy , SF0752050330-I-1 (MSPB May 9, 2005). We affirm

. This court may only reverse the board’s decisi on if it was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or unlawfu l; procedurally deficient; or unsupported by substantial evidence. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c) (2000) . The board’s findings t hat Takaki was unable to perform the essential dutie s of his position, that he failed to prove that he was a “qualified” disabled person, t hat he failed to show his re moval resulted from illegaldiscrimination based on perceived disa b ility, and that the agency’s a c tion was responsibly considered and did not exceed the maxim u m reasonable action under the circumstances is supported by substantial evi dence. It is irrelevant that Takaki did some recycling work while in the position of Machinist; the relevant finding is that he could no longer perf o rm the official duties of that position, his permanent position of
record.

05-3297 2
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2013

- 0397 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2013

- NE

- 15

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

c ost (@$8 5 /h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### TAY bleed valve inspection assumed 2% failure rate of spherical bearings 10.0 $ 850.00 $153 $ 1,003.00 

### 78 $ 78,234.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.0 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00


### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 78,234 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

**On**

**- Condition Costs:** 
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost pe r Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to expl ain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### : 

### ASE Estimate based on feedback from OEM

**Executive Order 12866:**
Could the AD be considered a “signifi cant regulatory action”?
YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:**
Is the AD significant?
YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xpla in for
either a Yes or No answer.
YES NO Explanation:
**Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:**
This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only m ode of transportation?
YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 12

- 00254

- CR

Robert TAYLOR

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CR10818

Honorable Sid Harle, 1 Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED July 17, 2013.

_____________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

1 The Honorable Sid Harle, presiding judge of the 226th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas, presided over

the guilt/innocence phase of the appellant’s trial. The Honorable Dick Alcala, Senior District Judge, was assigned to

preside over the punishment phase, and he assessed and imposed punishment.