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

NORTHWEST ADMINISTRATORS, INC.,

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 vs. 

CRESCENT TRUCK LINES, INC.,

 Defendant.

 C06-194 RSL

 MINUTE ORDER

 REASSIGNING CASE

Pursuant to the Amended General Order entered by the Chief Judge on

November 3, 2004, this action has been reassigned to the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United

States District Judge. 

All future documents filed in this case must bear the cause number C06-194 RSL and bear

the Judge’s name in the upper right hand corner of the document.

Dated this 29th day of March, 2006

BRUCE RIFKIN

Clerk of Court

by: /s/ PETER H. VOELKER

 Peter H. Voelker, Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00194-RSL Document 8 Filed 03/29/06 Page 1 of 1
No. P66/280. —

No. P66/281. —

No. P66/282. —

No. P66/283. —

#### Weather-Rite Sportswear, Inc. *v.*United States, protest 60/17029 (Los Angeles). Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., and Weather-Rite Sportswear et al. *v.*United States, protests 60/26776, etc. (Portland, Oreg.). Weather-Rite Sportswear Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protests 63/10942, etc. (Los Angeles). Weather-Rite Sportswear Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protests 64/16997, etc. (New York).

Nichols, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of articles of synthetic rubber similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Weather-Rite Sportswear Co., Inc.*(52 CCPA 7, C.A.D. 848), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case No. 9,646.

#### The MILETUS.

[5 Blatchf. 335.] 1

Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

July 14, 1866.2

Carriers — Peril or Sea — Vermin—Brin or Lading-Stevedores — Costs.

1. Damages occasioned by vermin, on board of a ship, to a cargo, in the course of a voyage, are not the result of a peril of the sea, or of any ’ of the dangers or accidents of navigation, within an exception to that effect in a bill of lading, but are damages for which the ship and its owner are liable, as insurers of the safe conveyance of the cargo.'

[Cited in The Isabella, Case No. 7,099; The Carlotta, Id. 2,413.]

2. Where, under a special clause in a charter party, stevedores selected as agents of the shippers of a cargo, discharge it, the vessel is not liable for damages done to the cargo by such stevedores in discharging it.

[Cited in The T. A. Goddard, 12 Fed. 184; The Boskenna Bay. 22 Fed. 666; Guerard, v. Tlie Lovspring, 42 Fed. 860.]

3. Where both parties appealed, in admiralty, and the decree below was affirmed, no costs of this court were awarded to either party.

[Appeal from the district court of the United States for the Southern district of New York.]

This was a libel in rem, filed in the district court, against the ship Miletus, by Fletcher Westray and others, owners of a cargo of tea, shipped by that vessel from Amoy, China, to New York, to .recover damages to such cargo. Both parties appealed to this court from the decree of the district court. [Case No. 17,461.]

Joseph H. Choate, for libellants.

George T. Curtis, for claimant

1

 [Reported by Hon. Samuel Blatchford. District Judge, and here reprinted by permission.]

2

 [Affirming Case No. 17,461.]

NELSON, Circuit Justice.

I concur with the court below, that the damages caused by the destruction of the labels on the coverings of the chest of tea were occasioned by cockroaches. These vermin eat off and deface the paper labels pasted on the outside of the mats which enclose the boxes, which injury embarrasses the assortment and delivery of *289the article to the consignees, and depreciates the market value of the same.

I also concur in the opinion, that the rule must be regarded as settled,- in this court, that damages occasioned by vermin, on board of a ship, to a cargo, in the course of a voyage, are not the result of a peril of the sea, or of any of the dangers or accidents of navigation, within an exception to that effect in a bill of lading, but are damages for which the ship and its owner are liable, as insurers of' the safe conveyance of the cargo. Hazard’s Adm’r v. New England Marine Ins. Co., 8 Pet. [33 U. S.] 557.

I also agree, that the stevedores who discharged the ship at New York, under the special clause in the charter party, were the agents of the shippers, and that the vessel was not liable for the damages done to the packages by those parties. They were selected by the agent of the shippers, in pursuance of the authority contained in the charter party. As both parties have appealed, the decree below is affirmed, without costs to either party in this court
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00047-CV

BBVA Compass Investment 

Solutions, Inc., Doris G. Silva, Karen 

L. McRoberts, Mario Ramos, and 

David S. Neel, Jr.

v.

Edward Brooks and Geneva Brooks

§

§

§

§

§

From the 236th District Court

of Tarrant County (236-260857-12)

February 12, 2015

Opinion by Justice Gardner

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there was 

error in the trial court’s “Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings and Compel 

Arbitration.” It is ordered that said order of the trial court is reversed and the case is 

remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

It is further ordered that Appellees Edward Brooks and Geneva Brooks shall pay all of 

the costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By __/s/ Anne Gardner________________

 Justice Anne Gardner
From: adwootton@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:54:31 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,

Adam Wootton

Ravenswood, WV 26164
### MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-08-00272-CV

Lorrie G. HALE , Appellant

v. Brian E. HALE , Appellee From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2007-CI-14517 Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Delivered and Filed: June 18, 2008 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION This is an appeal from a judgment granting a petition for bill of review, vacating a prior judgment and ordering a new trial. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction. In November 2003, Lorrie Hale sued Brian Hale to enforce an out-of-state divorce decree. On December 22, 2003, the trial court signed a default judgment against Brian in the enforcement action. Brian subsequently filed a petition for bill of review in the trial court, seeking to vacate the04-08-00272-CV

-2- default judgment. On January 24, 2008, the trial cour t granted the petition for bill of review. In its judgment, the trial court vacated the prior defau lt judgment and ordered a new trial on the issue of child support. Lorrie later filed this appeal. After Lorrie perfected her app eal, Brian filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Relying on Jordan v. Jordan , 907 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. 1995), Brian contends that the January 24, 2008 judgment is interlocutory and not appealable. We agree. The January 24, 2008 judgment set aside the court’s prior judgment but did not dispose of the merits of the case; therefore, the January 24, 2008 judgment is not a final, appealable judgment. See id . at 472 (“A bill of review which sets aside a prior judgment but does not dispose of the case on the merits is interlocutory and not appealable.”); see also In re B.F.A. , No. 04-04-00835-CV, 2005 WL 154258, *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.). Brian’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 1:02 PM

To: 'me@stphntylr.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov'

Subject: Petition for Exemption: Stephen J. Tyler (FAA-2015-0738)

May 28, 2015 

Dear Mr. Tyler: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-0738). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. 

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by 

Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and 

remove closed-set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the 

requested response date listed below. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e-mail to 

333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information 

described above by June 11, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without 

notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels 

Program Analyst 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
(Reap. Dec. 11042)

#### Miny Corporation *v.*United States

Entry No. 12790.

(Decided July 19, 1965)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*John*TV. *Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Nichols, Judge:

When this case was called for trial, there was no appearance on the part of the plaintiff, and it was submitted on the basis of a letter filed by the plaintiff.

The merchandise is described as methylene chloride and was imported from Italy on November 6, 1963. It was entered at $128 per metric ton and appraised at $134.20 per metric ton, net, packed. Subsequent to appraisement, plaintiff submitted to customs officials copies of correspondence with its supplier which indicated, that for the year 1963, the price had been reduced from $134.20 to $128 per metric ton. Even if such correspondence be deemed in evidence, it does not establish that the price was the price at which the merchandise was freely sold to all purchasers at wholesale or that it was a price fairly reflecting the market value at which the merchandise was freely sold in the ordinary course of trade to selected purchasers at wholesale. On the record before me, the appraised value must be sustained. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit
32.2





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
SK Shasta Acquisition Corp. 1 (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended April 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kurt Pichler, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
my 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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Kurt PichlerKurt
      Pichler
                Principal
      Financial Officer
                July
      21, 2009
Specs

Size and Weight
Frame

Diagonal Wheelbase 800mm

Frame Arm Length 350mm

Frame Arm Weight

(Including Motor, ESC, Propeller ) 356g

Center Frame Diameter 240mm

Center Frame Weight 550g

Landing Gear Size 460mm(Length)×425mm(Width)×320mm(Height)

 (Top width: 155mm)

Retractable Landing Gear Weight(Including Battery Tray) 1050g

Flight Parameters

Takeoff Weight 6.0Kg ~ 8.0Kg

Total Weight 3.7Kg

Power Battery LiPo (6S、10000mAh~15000mAh、15C(Min))

Max Power Consumption 3000W

Hover Power Consumption 800W(@ Takeoff Weight 6.7Kg)

Hover Time Max: 20 min

 (@15000mAh&6.7Kg Takeoff Weight)

Motor

Stator Size 41×14mm

KV 400rpm/V

Max Power 500W

Weight(With Cooling Fan) 158g

ESC

Current 40A OPTO

Voltage 6S LiPo

Signal Frequency 30Hz ~ 450Hz

Drive PWM Frequency 8KHz

Weight(With Radiators) 35g
Foldable Propeller(1552)

Material Engineering plastic

Size 15×5.2 inch

Weight 13g
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-15,158-40

IN RE LAWRENCE EDWARD THOMPSON, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 1703989 IN THE 228TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file an application for a writ of mandamus under this

Court’s original jurisdiction. He contends, among other things, that he filed a motion to recuse

Respondent, the Judge of the 228th District Court, and that Respondent has not responded to his

motion.

Rule of Civil Procedure 18a applies to habeas proceedings before trial judges. Ex parte

Sinegar, 324 S.W.3d 578 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Regardless of whether a motion complies with

Rule 18a, within three business days after a motion to recuse is filed, a trial judge must either sign

and file an order of recusal or sign and file an order referring the motion to the regional presiding

judge. TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(f)(1). Respondent shall file a response stating whether Relator has filed
2

a motion to recuse in the trial court and, if so, whetherRespondent has complied with Rule 18a(f)(1).

This motion for leave to file will be held. Respondent shall complywith this order within thirty days

from the date of this order.

Filed: November 17, 2021

Do not publish
H. Res. 82

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 29, 2007.

Whereas on January 2, 2007, the University of Louisville 

Cardinals football team defeated the Wake Forest Demon 

Deacons 24–13 at Dolphin Stadium in Miami, Florida, to 

win the Orange Bowl; 

Whereas the Cardinals victory marked the climax of a 12–1 

season, which yielded the most wins in the program’s history, a Big East Championship, and the school’s first 

Bowl Championship Series victory; 

Whereas junior quarterback Brian Brohm was named the 

most valuable player of the game after completing 24 of 

34 passes for 311 yards, and junior wide receiver Harry 

Douglas tied an Orange Bowl record with 10 catches totaling 165 receiving yards and finished the season with 

a school record 1,265 receiving yards; 

Whereas the Cardinals offensive line provided protection and 

momentum throughout the season and was a major factor in the team’s 457 yards of offense in the Orange 

Bowl; 

Whereas the relentless defense of the Cardinals played a vital 

role in the Orange Bowl victory; 

Whereas the Cardinals defense was led by senior cornerback 

William Gay, who broke up 2 passes late in the game and 
2

•HRES 82 EH 

extinguished the final hope of the Demon Deacons with 

an interception; 

Whereas the success of the Cardinals is due in no small part 

to the dedication of Coach Bobby Petrino and his staff, 

as well as the Cardinals coaches of the last 2 decades, 

who led a magnificent ascent begun by Coach Howard 

Schnellenberger; 

Whereas Cardinals fans, who stuck with the program through 

darker times, now have the team they deserve; 

Whereas the University of Louisville has achieved a formidable football program, which is consistently among the 

strongest in college football; and 

Whereas the exceptional group of young men who comprised 

the 2006 Cardinals should be publicly recognized as the 

greatest football team in the history of the University of 

Louisville: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) commends the University of Louisville Cardinals 

football team for their victory in the 2007 Orange Bowl; 

(2) recognizes the achievements of the players, 

Coach Bobby Petrino and his staff, Director of Athletics 

Tom Jurich, and President James Ramsey at the University of Louisville for the hard work and dedication 

that led to the Cardinals Orange Bowl victory; and 

(3) directs the Clerk of the House of Representatives to transmit a copy of this resolution to the director 
3

•HRES 82 EH 

of athletics at the University of Louisville for appropriate display. 

Attest:

Clerk.
Before the Third Division,

September 5, 1956

No. 60231.

protests 161586-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### American National Mercantile Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of sazae similar in all material respects to the commodity involved in *Pacific Mutual Sales Co.*v. *United States*(36 Cust. Ct. 100, C. D. 1758), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

September 21, 1960

No. 64579.

#### Douglas M. Homs & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/5070, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of scales similar in all material respects to those involved in Abstract 63285, the claims of the plaintiffs were sustained as follows: The material entered on or after June 6, 1951, was- held dutiable at 13% percent ad valorem under paragraph 372, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52739) ; that entered on or after June 30, 1956, at 13 percent under said paragraph, as modified by the Sixth Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 54108) ; and that entered on or after June 30, 1957, at 12 percent, as modified by T.D. 54108.
#### In re HENVIS.

(Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

October 28, 1903.)

No. 28.

1. Contempt—Alleged Violation of Injunction—Trial of Question of Infringement of Patent.

Where, in a proceeding for contempt against a defendant for infringing a patent in violation of the court’s injunction, the question whether the article sold by defendant is an infringement is in dispute and doubtful, it will not be determined on ex parte affidavits, but only after a regular and orderly hearing.

Proceeding for Contempt.

Albert B. Weimer, for petition for order for contempt.

A. T. Johnson and A. B. Stoughton, for respondent.

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge.

Whether or not the respondent, Henvis, is again infringing the complainant’s patents, is a question that I am not willing to decide upon the affidavits before me. In substance, the dispute arising upon the ex parte evidence resembles the ordinary controversy where infringement is alleged by a bill in equity and is denied by the answer. The validity of the complainant’s patents has been conclusively determined by the decree already made, and, upon a former proceeding for contempt, one form of ventilator that the respondent sold since the entry of the decree has been adjudged to infringe. The kind of ventilator that is now under consideration, however, differs in some respects from the kind that has already been before the court, and is averred to conform strictly to the device of an expired patent that is much earlier than the patent of the complainant. If this be true, the respondent is not guilty of contempt, but I do not think that the evidence in support of this averment is of a quality on which I ought to act. There should be a regular, orderly hearing, with an opportunity for cross-examination upon a subject of so much importance.

Accordingly, Jos. C. Fraley is hereby appointed examiner and master to hear evidence on the question whether the ventilator now being made by the respondent infringes the ventilator of the complainant, and to report the testimony and his findings of fact and of law to the court at his early convenience.
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

ORD ON DEF’S

MTNS IN LIM - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

ABERNATHY,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER,

Defendant(s).

NO. C06-01P

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

The above-entitled Court, having received and reviewed:

1. Defendant Valley Medical Center’s Motions in Limine

and all exhibits and declarations attached thereto, makes the following ruling:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following evidence will be excluded:

1. Any medical bills, insurance bills, wage information, other claims for special damages,

or any claim of lasting physical injury, infection, or other bodily harm outside of the

pain and suffering claimed for the morning of January 3, 2005;

2. Any inappropriate rebuttal testimony;

3. Any references by counsel to personal stories or anecdotes;

4. Any references to prior lawsuits against Defendant.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that will exchange a list of witnesses, in the order that they will

be called at trial, by no later than March 1, 2007; and that the list of all witnesses to be called during a

trial day will be provided to opposing counsel the night preceding the trial day.

Case 2:06-cv-00001-MJP Document 51 Filed 01/22/07 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

ORD ON DEF’S

MTNS IN LIM - 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

1. The parties will offer no evidence, argument, exhibits, testimony or any other statement

before the jury regarding any subject matter addressed in this Order which has been

excluded by the Court;

2. The attorneys are instructed to inform all o their witnesses regarding the scope of this

Order; and

3. Any attorney who believes that evidence excluded by this Order has become admissible,

due to testimony that has been elicited at trial, shall raise any argument regarding the

admissibility of such evidence with the Court, outside the presence of the jury.

The clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to all counsel of record.

Dated: January __22_, 2007

AMarsha J. Pechman

U.S. District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00001-MJP Document 51 Filed 01/22/07 Page 2 of 2