alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                       |        |                                       |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|                                       |   |                                       |   |
| Date: April      15, 2010   | By:    | /s/ Mark      Alsentzer               |   |
|                                       |   | Mark      Alsentzer                        |   |
|                                       |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                       |   |                                       |   |

----
No. 69299.

#### Louis Marx & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 64/19034, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Nichols, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of miniature motors similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 66961, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
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

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

FRANCESCA HARON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CSC NARDONE, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5003 RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court sua sponte.

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court rules as follows:

On March 31, 2006 this Court entered an Order [Dkt. #6] which denied plaintiff’s request to proceed

in forma pauperis and directed the plaintiff to pay the filing fee within 30 days or face dismissal. The docket

reflects that this Court’s Order was returned as undeliverable and further reflects that plaintiff has not paid the

filing fee. Plaintiff has a duty to keep this Court informed of her current address. See CR 10(f), Local Rules

W.D. Wash. The docket reflects that plaintiff has not done so. Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing

pro se.

Dated this 12th day of May, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05003-RBL Document 8 Filed 05/12/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 99-40877 -1-

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-40877 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CHRIS LESLIE BOLIVAR, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC Nos. 1:96-CV-530 1:93-CR-41-ALL

-------------------- February 16, 2000 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Chris Leslie Bolivar moves this court for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion wherein he challenged his guilty-plea conviction for using a telephone to facilitate the distribution of cocaine base. He argues that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to review undercover tapes made by government agents prior to advising him to plead guilty and by failing to advise him of the sentencing disparity betweenNo. 99-40877 -2- powdered cocaine and cocaine base prior to advising him to plead guilty. Bolivar’s request for a COA will be granted only upon a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” § 2253(c)(2). Because he has made no such showing, Bolivar’s motion is denied.
COA DENIED.
Before the First Division,

September 14, 1967

No. P67/305.

#### Aimcee Wholesale Corp. and W. *J.*Byrnes & Co. *of*N.Y., Inc., et al. *v.*United States, protests 63/7815, etc. (New York).

Beckworth, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of light sets *885similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Gallagher & Ascher Company*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 348, C.D. 2813), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: threatne@bellsouth.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:18:52 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,

N E Threat

Rex, GA 30273
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 Legend Mining Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 results of operations of the Company.








Date:  July 13, 2011





/s/ Tao Chen


Tao Chen, Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial Officer)
EX-10.3(b)


 Exhibit 10.3(b) 

June 1, 2017 
 Willowbridge
Associates Inc. 
 101 Morgan Lane - Suite 180 

Plainsboro, N.J. 08536 

Attention: Mr. Steve R. Crane 
  

	 	Re:	 Management Agreement Renewals 



Dear Mr. Crane: 
 We are
writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which reference is made below (the “Management Agreement”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreement through June 30, 2018 and all other
provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged. 
  

	 	•	 	 Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P. 



 

	 	•	 	 CMF Willowbridge Master Fund L.P. 



 

	 	•	 	 Orion Futures Fund L.P. 



 

	 	•	 	 Ceres Tactical Macro L.P. 



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

	
	 WILLOWBRIDGE ASSOCIATES INC.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Steven R. Crane

		
	 Print Name:
	 	 Steven R. Crane

		
	 PE/tr
REPLY TO ATTENTION OF

### ~\- 

### OST- 

# I**~'ll..-** 

# J1lel

DEPARTMENT oF THE ARMY ::· f 1 

## AFlHv1ENT OF INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT COMMAN.0.)

..··.,**\.IC~P.[)J'T,~·~~** ..)j\i HEADQUARTERS, UNITED STATES ARMY GARRISON,**FORT'(JS0hf11!1~~** ;,.**~** ,,..., 32o MANSCEN LooP, suiTE 120

... ,,; ,c 1 .,. rcr'i:'1 

### Ur·J,) FORT LEONARD WOOD, MO 65473-8929**2~!!**

## z 

## 2: 24

Directorate ofLogistics, Transportation Office 28 September 2012

Dear MrMuldoon, Thank you for the opportunity to comment onthe proposals for an airline service for the Ft Leonard Wood community from Forney Field. After an intense study ofall oftheproposals received, a decision has been made based onthe best overall value to the customers who are our men and women in uniform and their families. Although there was comparable information for the companies that submitted proposals, based on ourreview ofthe proposals and hearing proposals submitted by Air Choice One and Cape Air, Ft Leonard Wood recommends the proposal submitted by Air Choice One for an initial 2 year period, with the optionto extend to 4 years. Air Choice One's proposal offers interline eticketing bytravel agencies and internet portals. They also have code share baggage agreements withmore than 65 partner airlines worldwide. Air Choice One has larger, more comfortable and newer aircraft, along with offering lower basic prices. Their prices offered will be almost halfofwhat Cape Air currently charges, thereby saving the government and civilian travelers up to 50% oftheir current cost for traveling to and from StLouis. Cape Airs' limitation in their capability to only move 8 personnel is discouraging with the fact that they ensured us changes in the future ifwe showed them our interest and gave them our support. We have seen no new features orpromises for changes for no sooner than 2 more years. The local community continues to support the company ofCape Air because oftheir past-proven capabilities. Ft Leonard Wood feels that Air Choice One has proven themselves in other communities. They have also gone out and acquired the capabilities that were limiting them from meeting ourrequests during the last EAS bid and offer to provide our community a less expensive means oftravel to and from St Louis, thereby saving our customers and the government valuable money at a time offinancial budget impacts. Onbehalfofthe Ft Leonard Wood Installation, I want to thankyou for your continued support and the opportunity to provide input concerning the implementation ofthe new contract for airline service for our local community. Please feel free to contactme at (573) 596-0614, should you require any further information.

Darlene F. Battle Chief, Transportation Division
From: truaxpdb@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:51:11 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,

Dale Shiffer

Eau Claire, WI 54703
From: fleemaes@mac.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:43:48 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,

Frederick Maes

Denver, CO 80223
Before the First Division,

July 7, 1952

No. 56784.

#### Paramount Import Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 141765-K, etc. (New York).

*342Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the

merchandise consists of pear-shaped glass articles similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Brier Manufacturing Co.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 68, C. A. D. 465), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
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 Quarterly Report of Integrated Circuit Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 2, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Justine F. Lien, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Justine F. Lien    
|Justine F. Lien        
|Chief Financial Officer
|November 12, 2004
Exhibit 32.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO 18 W.S.C. SECTION 1350 as adopted and
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002,

The undersigned Chief Executive Officer and acting Principal Financial Officer,
or persons fulfilling similar functions, each certify:

(i)  That the financial information included in this Annual Report fairly
     presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
     operations of the Company as of June 30, 2009 and for the periods presented
     in the report; and

(ii) That the Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections
     13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities exchange Act of 1934


Date: October 12, 2010         By: /s/ Helen Siwak
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                               Title: CEO and acting Principal Financial Officer
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

HARRY VERN FOX

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

DR. HENRY RICHARDS

CASE NUMBER: C06-5063RBL/KLS

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried

and the jury has rendered its verdict.

 XX Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been

tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

 IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation; and

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. #13) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

 August 7, 2007 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Date Clerk

 s/CM Gonzalez 

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:06-cv-05063-RBL Document 62 Filed 08/07/07 Page 1 of 1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices 

# Order

March 3, 2020

159744

- 5

MICHAEL J. LONG, Personal Representative of

the ESTATE OF MICHAEL KNUDSEN,

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant

- Appellee,

v SC: 159744

COA: 341412

Grand Traverse CC:

GEOFFREY FIEGER and FIEGER LAW PC, 2016

- 031437

- NM

Defendants/Counterplaintiffs/

Third

- Party Plaintiffs/Appellants,

and

RICHARD M. GOODMAN, GOODMAN

KALAHAR, DEAN A. ROBB, and

DEAN ROBB LAW FIRM,

Third

- Party Defendants/Appellees.

_________________________________________/

ZACHARY ALLEN KOTT

- MILLARD,

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant

- Appellee,

v SC: 159745

COA: 341414

Grand Traverse CC:

GEOFFREY FIEGER and FIEGER LAW PC, 2016

- 031442

- NM

Defendants/Counterplaintiffs/

Third

- Party Plaintiffs/Appellants,

and

RICHARD M. GOODMAN, GOODMAN

KALAHAR, DEAN A. ROBB, and

DEAN ROBB LAW FIRM,

Third

- Party Defendants/Appellees.

_________________________________________/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 3, 2020

a0224 2

Clerk On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 5, 2019

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.
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 DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD ALLEN FABEL, 

RODNEY ROLLNESS, 

JOSHUA BINDER, 

RICKY JENKS, and

PAUL FOSTER

Defendants.

Case No. CR06-041L

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

This matter comes before the Court on the Government’s “Motion for Reconsideration of

Court’s Order to Sever Defendant Paul Foster” (Dkt. #369). On November 29, 2006, the Court

granted defendant Foster’s motion for severance (Dkt. #307). The Government now asks the

Court to reconsider that order.

“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny such motions

in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or

legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable

diligence.” Local Rule CrR 12(c)(11)(A). While the Government has forcefully argued its

position that severance is not justified in this situation, it has not put forward any new facts or

legal authority that were not before the Court on Foster’s original motion. Nor has it

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 453 Filed 01/30/07 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

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION 1

-2-

demonstrated “manifest error” in the Court’s prior ruling. As such, the Government’s motion for

reconsideration (Dkt. #369) is DENIED.

DATED this 30th day of January, 2007

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 453 Filed 01/30/07 Page 2 of 2