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

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

JOSE SAGRERO GALLARDO,

 Defendant.

Case No. 05-5171M

DETENTION ORDER

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

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

other person and the community.

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

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

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

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Safety Reasons:

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

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

 ( ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

 ( ) 

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

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

 (X ) Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

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

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Order of Detention

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

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

without prejudice to review..

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

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

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

 September 22, 2005.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cr-05748-RBL Document 16 Filed 09/22/05 Page 1 of 1
From: lizarattmi@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:56:52 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,

Florence Ratcliffe

North Little Rock, AR 72190
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Frederick Anthony CARGILL, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-7037.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 18, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 26, 2005.

Frederick Anthony Cargill, Appellant pro se. Lawrence Patrick Auld, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WTDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Frederick Cargill seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr.,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on June 18, 2004. Cargill filed a request for certificate of appealability on June 6, 2005. Because Cargill failed to file a timely notice of appeal, and because he did not obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny his motion for certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with *238oral 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*
EX-10.5.a



 Exhibit 10.5(a) 

June 1, 2017 
 Graham
Capital Management, L.P. 
 Rock Ledge Financial Center 

40 Highland Avenue 
 Rowayton,
CT 06853 
 Attention: Mr. Paul Sedlack 
  

	 	Re:	 Management Agreement Renewals 



Dear Mr. Sedlack: 
 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. 
  

	 	•	 	 Diversified 2000 Futures Fund L.P. 



	 	•	 	 Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P. 



	 	•	 	 CMF Graham Capital Master Fund L.P. 



	 	•	 	 Managed Futures Custom Solutions Fund LP 



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

	
	GRAHAM CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P.
	
	 By: /s/ Paul Sedlack

	 Print Name: Paul Sedlack


 PE/tr
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the Annual Report of Sync2 Networks Corp, a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Warren Gilbert, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his knowledge:





(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.






By:
/s/ Warren GilbertName:
Warren GilbertTitle:
President, Chief Executive Officer/Principal Financial OfficerDate:
February 14, 2014





[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sync2 Networks Corp and will be retained by Sync2 Networks Corp and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
From: millerdj@cal.berkeley.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:22:09 PM

Thank you for ensuring that contraception and other female medical services related to reproduction will

be free of charge.

I hope you ignore most of the other comments in this thread, which are from folks who want to impose

their limited worldview on everyone else.

Sincerely,

David Miller

San Diego, CA 92116
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-25-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-25-1999
<CASH>                                           1,610
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  229,129
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (23,982)
<INVENTORY>                                    318,724
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               553,482
<PP&E>                                         357,379
<DEPRECIATION>                                (70,619)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,982,254
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          875,044
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (151,859)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,982,254
<SALES>                                      6,310,571
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,310,571
<CGS>                                        5,749,515
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,749,515
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               648,854
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,761
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              67,094
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (176,654)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,287
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (177,941)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (177,941)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Case 2:02-cv-01683-TSZ-MAT Document 17-6 Filed 08/14/03 Page 1 of 1
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SPARTA, 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 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; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 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 registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 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; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ David E. Schreiman
 -27-
Exhibit 32.1   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 Annual Report of Propell Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Edward Bernstein, President and Chief Executive Officer  of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 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.   /s/ Edward Bernstein President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) April 13, 2011
No. 65181.

#### Marco Brush Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 308705-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic filaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Umpire Brushes, Inc.,*and *Wood Niebuhr & Co.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 145, C.D. 2078), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 10.4


 


March 20, 2018


 


Golden Metropolis International Limited


229 Changjiang East Road, Xinwu District, Wuxi


Jiangsu Province, People’s Republic of China 214142


+86 0510-85407636


 


Board Candidate – Peiling Cheng


Re: Offer to Join the Board of Directors of Golden
Metropolis International Limited


Dear Peiling Cheng:


I am pleased to extend you an offer to join the Board of Directors
(the “Board”) of Golden Metropolis International Limited (“Golden Metropolis”). Your appointment
to the Board is subject to the approval of Golden Metropolis International Limited Board of Directors, and the following outlines
certain of your responsibilities as a member of the Board, which responsibilities will commence at the Board meeting held as soon
thereafter as Board of Director approval is obtained:


Generally: You shall have all responsibilities of a Director
of the Company imposed by the British Virgin Islands or applicable law, the Certificate of Incorporation, as may be amended from
time to time, and Bylaws, as may be amended from time to time, of Golden Metropolis International Limited These responsibilities
shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following:


		1.	Role: Audit Committee Chairperson & Independent Director



		2.	Attendance: Use best efforts to attend scheduled meetings of the Board;



		3.	Act as a Fiduciary: Represent the shareholders and the interests of Golden Metropolis International Limited as a fiduciary;



		4.	Participation: Participate as a full voting member of the Board in setting overall objectives, approving plans and programs
of operation, formulating general policies, offering advice and counsel, serving on Board Committees, and reviewing management
performance.



As a member of the Board, you agree to execute an acknowledgement
in the form attached hereto. In addition, upon your joining the Board, Golden Metropolis International Limited will enter into
a customary indemnification agreement with you.


In consideration for your joining the Board, the Company will
grant cash compensation of $25,000 USD annually, paid in arrears, along with appropriate D&O insurance coverage.


I trust that this offer is satisfactory to you and look forward
to you joining the Company as a member of the Board. Please indicate your acceptance of this offer by signing below and returning
one copy of this offer to me by March 27, 2018. By signing below, you acknowledge that you have read this agreement and fully understand
the nature and effect of it and the terms contained herein and that the said terms are fair and reasonable and correctly set out
your understanding and intention.


Mr. Peiling Cheng, I look forward to having you on board with
Golden Metropolis International Limited and trust your relationship with Golden Metropolis International Limited will be challenging
and exciting.


Yours very truly,


 


	/s/ Minpei Zha	 



Mr. Minpei Zha


President and Chief Executive Officer


Golden Metropolis International Limited


I, Peiling Cheng, accept the offer as stated above.


 


	Signature:	 	
        /s/ Peiling Cheng

	Date: March 20, 2018
From: markb@dynamicconsulting.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:00:56 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,

Mark Bonkiewicz

Omaha, NE 68137
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Region 1 

June 16,2015 

Anne Gobin 

5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 

Boston, MA 02109-3912 

Department of Energy and Environmental Protection 

Bureau of Air Management 

79 Elm Street 

Hartford, CT 06106-5127 

Dear Ms. Gobin: 

On June 15, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revision from the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. 

The SIP revision was submitted to meet the Clean Air Act § 11 O(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) infrastructure 

requirements for the 2008 ozone standard. This SIP is also referred to as the "transport" SIP 

and/or the "good neighbor" SIP. The Clean Air Act requires states to address emissions that 

significantly contribute to nonattainment or maintenance of the ozone standard in downwind 

states. 

EPA finds that Connecticut's SIP revision is administratively and technically complete, i:e., it 

meets the completeness criteria outlined in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V. 

Richard Burkhart is the principal contact for this rulemaking. If you or your staff have any 

questions on this rulemaking, please contact him at 617-918-1664. 

Sincerely, 

Ken Moraff, Director 

Office of Ecosystem Protection 

cc: Paul Bodner, CT DEEP 

Paul Farrell, CT DEEP