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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the WESTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

DO SUNG UHM, et al.,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

HUMANA, INC.,

 Defendant.

 C06-185 MJB

 

 MINUTE ORDER

The above referenced case has been initially assigned to the Honorable Monica J.

Benton, United States Magistrate Judge, subject to the consent of the parties pursuant to

28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1)(C).

On February 7, 2006, notice of the parties rights with regard to consenting to the

case being assigned to Magistrate Judge Benton for all purposes was filed by the Clerk

of Court. The parties were advised they had until March 21, 2006, to consent, if they

wished.

In the interim, a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim has been filed and

noted for March 31, 2006. Accordingly, pending dates are adjusted as follows:

Case 2:06-cv-00185-RSM Document 10 Filed 03/08/06 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

Consent to Assignment to Magistrate Judge Benton March 14, 2006

Pending Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim April 7, 2006

In the event the parties (or any party) choose not to consent, the case will be

reassigned to a District Judge.

Dated this 8th day of March, 2006

Bruce Rifkin

Clerk of Court

by: /s/ PETER H. VOELKER Peter H. Voelker, Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00185-RSM Document 10 Filed 03/08/06 Page 2 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 DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

 

DARNELL MCGARY,

Plaintiff,

v.

TIM BROWN, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5108RJB 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s various motions for injunctive relief, Dkts. 1-3, 3-1, and

8, the related record, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Karen L.

Strombom finding that Petitioner has failed to show that he is entitled to temporary and permanent

injunctive relief, Dkt. 9. Petitioner did not file objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Court

hereby adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and orders that Plaintiff’s Motion

for Temporary and Permanent Injun (sic) Pending Current Suit, Dkt. 1-3, Motion to Amend TRO

Permanent Injunctive Relief on Merits, Dkt. 3-1, and Motion to Amend TRO Permanent Injunctive Relief

on Merits, Dkt. 8-1, be DENIED. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Petitioner,

Respondent’s counsel, and Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom. 

Dated this 15th day of May, 2006.

ARobert J. Bryan

U.S. District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05108-RJB Document 11 Filed 05/15/06 Page 1 of 1
March 19, 1957

No. 60576.

Suit 4865.

#### United States *v.*Colonial Commerce Co., Ltd., and P. John Hanrahan, Inc.

C. D. 1734 reversed November 30, 1956. C. A. D. 629.
No. 62275.

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

protest 266123-K (Boston).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of nonferrous metal scrap composed in chief value of nonferrous metals, more particularly described as tungsten rod scrap pieces, which are secondhand and fit only to be remanufactured. Upon the agreed facts, it was held that the merchandise comes within the provisions of Public Law 869, *supra,*as extended, and is entitled to free entry.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donnell Lamont BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50146

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 17, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Donna F. Coltharp, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Donnell Lamont Brown raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. *350§ 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
From: cdlmadams9114@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:13:51 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,

Lillie Adams

Riverside, CA 92504
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Orofino Gold Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending May 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Martin, Chief
Executive 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of
February 9, 2010.


/s/ John Martin
---------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

March 23, 2016

t0316 

# Order

Clerk March 23, 2016

152266

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 152266

COA: 327690

Oakland CC: 2014

- 251021

- FH

TERRENCE PATRICK HOBBS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 9, 2015 order of

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, becaus e we are not persuaded that

the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 10, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00661

- CV

STATE FARM COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF TEXAS

, Appellant

v.

Andrew Wayne BOCK

, Appellee

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI19802

Honorable Cynthia Marie Chapa, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The court reporter’s second request fo r an extension of time to file the reporter’s record is

GRANTED. The reporter’s record is due on or before January 17, 2020

.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS W HEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 10th day of January, 2020

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz

, Clerk of Court
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

ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

RICHARD K. MCDONALD,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C05-1827 RSM

ORDER

The Court, having reviewed the entire record, including the administrative record, the

memoranda of the parties, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

Judge Monica J. Benton, finds and orders as follows. It is therefore ORDERED: 

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) The Court REVERSES and REMANDS the decision of the Commissioner of

Social Security for further administrative proceedings.

DATED this 1st day of December, 2006.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-01827-RSM Document 19 Filed 12/01/06 Page 1 of 1
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                           Washington, D.C.  20549


                                 Form 10-QSB/A
                                Amendment No. 1


(Mark One)

[X] QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
    EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED March 31, 2002

OR

[ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
    EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 OR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM _______ TO _______



                           Commission file number 0-19333



                        Bion Environmental Technologies, Inc.
              ------------------------------------------------------
              (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


                    Colorado                           84-1176672
            ----------------------------------------------------------
           (State or other jurisdiction of         (I.R.S. Employer
            incorporation or organization)          Identification No.)


             18 East 50th Street 10th Floor N.Y., N.Y.         10022
            -----------------------------------------------------------
            (Address of principal executive offices)         (Zip Code)


                                  (212) 758-6622
              ----------------------------------------------------
              (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)


Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to
such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes X   No___


The number of shares outstanding of registrant's classes of common stock, as
of May 14, 2002: Common Stock, No Par Value, 52,834,649.  This includes
19,000,000 shares held by a majority-owned subsidiary of the registrant.


Transitional Small Business Disclosure Format (Check one): Yes ___ No  X


<PAGE>
                               EXPLANATORY NOTE

     This amendment is being filed to change the information concerning the
number of shares outstanding on the cover page.  No other changes are being
made in this amendment.






                                  SIGNATURE

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Company has duly caused this amendment to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunder duly authorized.


                              Bion Environmental Technologies, Inc.



                              By: /s/ David Fuller
                                  ------------------------------------
                                  David Fuller, Authorized Officer and
                                  Principal Accounting Officer


Dated:   May 22, 2002
























                                   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 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

G. MICHAEL STRAUSS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DONNA HAMILTON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5772 FDB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

The magistrate Judge recommends that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be

granted and Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action be dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff has filed objections asserting numerous procedural and substantive defects in the

proceedings. The Court has reviewed these objections and finds them to be unsubstantiated or

without merit.

The Court, having reviewed Plaintiffs’ complaint, the Report and Recommendation of

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and Order denying the

same, objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the remaining record, does hereby find and

ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Dkt. # 16] is GRANTED and plaintiff’s

complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and

Case 3:05-cv-05772-FDB Document 29 Filed 06/13/06 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 ORDER - 2

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, counsel for defendants

and to the Hon. Karen L. Strombom.

DATED this 13th day of June, 2006

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05772-FDB Document 29 Filed 06/13/06 Page 2 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

1

 There is a discrepancy as to the spelling of this Defendant’s name. The Court employs

the spelling of Defendant Foulkes’s counsel.

ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DARREL W. VANDERGRIFF,

Plaintiff,

v.

LYNNE DELANO, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C06-5062BHS

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT BARNES’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AND

DEFENDANT FOULKES’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Barnes’s Motion for Summary

Judgment and Defendant Foulkes’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 136). The Court has

considered the pleadings filed in support of the motion, Plaintiff’s failure to respond, and

the remainder of the file and hereby grants the motion for the reasons stated herein.

I. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

On July 1, 2008, Jennifer Barnes and John Doe Foulkes1

 filed a joint motion

seeking summary judgment and dismissal, respectively. Dkt. 136. On the same day,

Plaintiff notified the Court of his change of address. Dkt. 137. The joint motion was

served on Plaintiff at his most recent address. Dkt. 136 at 11. Nevertheless, Plaintiff has

failed to respond to the motion, and the Court deems such failure an admission that the

motion has merit. See Local Rule CR 7(b)(2). 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER - 2

II. ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that Defendant Barnes’s Motion for Summary Judgment and

Defendant Foulkes’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 136) is GRANTED.

DATED this 29th day of July, 2008.

A 

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE

United States District Judge
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

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

(206) 553-1100

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL - 1

(David Kalachik; C05-01942JLR(MJB))

 JUDGE JAMES L. ROBART

MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONICA J. BENTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

DAVID KALACHIK,

A # 71-281-743

Petitioner,

v.

ALBERTO GONZALES, Attorney

General; MICHAEL CHERTOFF,

Secretary of Department of Homeland

Security; A. NEIL CLARK, Field Office

Director, Seattle Field Office, Bureau of

Immigration and Customs Enforcement;

WARDEN of Immigration Detention

Facility; and the Bureau of Immigration

and Customs Enforcement,

Respondents. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. C05-01942JLR(MJB)

ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR

DISMISSAL

THE PARTIES having stipulated and agreed that this habeas corpus proceeding has

become moot and may be dismissed without prejudice,

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to all counsel of record.

DATED this 22nd day of February, 2006.

s/James L. Robart

__________________________

JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01942-JLR-MJB Document 17 Filed 02/22/06 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

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

(206) 553-1100

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL - 2

(David Kalachik; C05-01942JLR(MJB))

Recommended for Entry 

this 22nd day of February, 2006.

 /s/Monica J. Benton 

MONICA J. BENTON

United States Magistrate Judge

Presented by:

s/ Jay W. Stansell, WSBA No. 18752

Attorney for David Kalachik

Federal Public Defender

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle WA 98101

206/553-1100 voice

206/553-0120 facsimile

Jay_Stansell@fd.org

JOHN McKAY

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

 s/ Darwin P. Roberts 

Darwin P. Roberts, WSBA # 32539

Assistant United States Attorney

United States Attorney’s Office

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

Telephone: (206) 553-7970

Fax: (206) 553-4067

E-mail: darwin.roberts@usdoj.gov

Attorney for Respondents

Case 2:05-cv-01942-JLR-MJB Document 17 Filed 02/22/06 Page 2 of 2
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-40414 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. WALTER MAURICIO GONZALEZ-DONIS, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:11-CR-2032-1
Before KING, CLEMENT, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Walter Mauricio Gonzalez-Donis h a s m o v e d for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v . C alifornia , 386 U.S. 7 38 (1967), a nd United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gonzalez-Donis has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Gonzalez-Donis’s response. We c o ncur with c ounsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D February 19, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R
. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R
. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-40414 Document: 00512147017 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2013No. 12-40414

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to w i thdraw i s G RANTED, counsel is excused from f

urther responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS D ISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R

. 42.2.

2 Case: 12-40414 Document: 00512147017 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2013
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

CERTIFICATE REGARDING GOOD

FAITH OF APPEAL 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

CHARLES O’CAIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

RENTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

USCA No. 06-36065

DC No. C06-0035RSL

 

CERTIFICATE REGARDING 

GOOD FAITH OF APPEAL 

This matter comes before the Court for a determination under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(3), which provides: “An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the

trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” An appeal that is

frivolous or otherwise without merit is not taken in good faith. 

The Court is of the opinion that plaintiff’s appeal has been filed in good faith, and

it is so certified.

DATED this 19th day of January, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00035-RSL Document 55 Filed 01/19/07 Page 1 of 1
From: kids7@together.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:46:30 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,

Ernest Choquette

North Troy, VT 05859