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

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

DOROTHY O. ATKINS, 

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR &

INDUSTRIES,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-1858L

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff Dorothy Atkins, who is

proceeding pro se, has filed her complaint, titled as a “Notice of Removal,” against the

Department of Labor and Industries. Plaintiff seeks “review of all findings of facts and

conclusions of law made adverse to her by” several state courts. It appears from plaintiff’s

submission that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s lawsuit for two

reasons. 

 First, plaintiff brings this lawsuit against the Department of Labor and Industries, which

is an agency of the State of Washington. In general, lawsuits in federal court against

Washington State and its agencies are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Plaintiff does not

allege that the agency has waived its immunity or consented to the suit.

Second, plaintiff is seeking appellate review of adverse state court rulings that became

Case 2:05-cv-01858-RSL Document 2 Filed 11/16/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE- 2

final before she filed this action. The Supreme Court has held that federal courts do not have

subject matter jurisdiction to hear those claims. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus.

Corp., 125 S. Ct. 1517 (2005) (applying the Rooker-Feldman doctrine). Instead, jurisdiction

over those appeals is vested with the United States Supreme Court.

Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to SHOW CAUSE, within thirty days of the date of this

order, why her complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The

Clerk of the Court is directed to place this order to show cause on the Court’s calendar for

December 27, 2005.

DATED this 16th day of November, 2005.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01858-RSL Document 2 Filed 11/16/05 Page 2 of 2
# Publicatieblad C 122A/16 a

| | ISSN 1977-0995 |
| --- | --- |
| Publicatieblad
  van de Europese Unie | C 122A |
| | |
| Uitgave in de Nederlandse taal | Mededelingen en bekendmakingen | 58e jaargang16 april 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0995

Publicatieblad

van de Europese Unie

C 122A

Uitgave in de Nederlandse taal

Mededelingen en bekendmakingen

58e jaargang16 april 2015

---

| Nummer | Inhoud | Bladzijde |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Rectificaties |
| 2015/C 122A/01 | Rectificatie van de aankondiging van de algemeen vergelijkende onderzoeken — Administrateurs (AD 5/AD 7) gespecialiseerd in juridisch onderzoek: EPSO/AD/295/15 — Juristen met een Bulgaarse juridische opleiding (BG), EPSO/AD/296/15 — Juristen met een Duitse juridische opleiding (DE), EPSO/AD/297/15 — Juristen met een Kroatische juridische opleiding (HR), EPSO/AD/298/15 — Juristen met een Ierse juridische opleiding (IE), EPSO/AD/299/15 — Juristen met een Litouwse juridische opleiding (LT), EPSO/AD/300/15 — Juristen met een Slowaakse juridische opleiding (SK) — ( PB C 68 A van 26.2.2015 ) | 1 |

Nummer

Inhoud

Bladzijde

Rectificaties

2015/C 122A/01

Rectificatie van de aankondiging van de algemeen vergelijkende onderzoeken — Administrateurs (AD 5/AD 7) gespecialiseerd in juridisch onderzoek: EPSO/AD/295/15 — Juristen met een Bulgaarse juridische opleiding (BG), EPSO/AD/296/15 — Juristen met een Duitse juridische opleiding (DE), EPSO/AD/297/15 — Juristen met een Kroatische juridische opleiding (HR), EPSO/AD/298/15 — Juristen met een Ierse juridische opleiding (IE), EPSO/AD/299/15 — Juristen met een Litouwse juridische opleiding (LT), EPSO/AD/300/15 — Juristen met een Slowaakse juridische opleiding (SK) — ( PB C 68 A van 26.2.2015 )

( PB C 68 A van 26.2.2015 )

1

---

| NL | |
| --- | --- |

NL

---

Rectificaties

| 16.4.2015 | NL | Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie | CA 122/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2015

NL

Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie

CA 122/1

---

Rectificatie van de aankondiging van de algemeen vergelijkende onderzoeken — Administrateurs (AD 5/AD 7) gespecialiseerd in juridisch onderzoek: EPSO/AD/295/15 — Juristen met een Bulgaarse juridische opleiding (BG), EPSO/AD/296/15 — Juristen met een Duitse juridische opleiding (DE), EPSO/AD/297/15 — Juristen met een Kroatische juridische opleiding (HR), EPSO/AD/298/15 — Juristen met een Ierse juridische opleiding (IE), EPSO/AD/299/15 — Juristen met een Litouwse juridische opleiding (LT), EPSO/AD/300/15 — Juristen met een Slowaakse juridische opleiding (SK)

(
  Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie C 68 A van 26 februari 2015
  )

(2015/C 122 A/01)

Bladzijde 2, titel I, punt 3:

in plaats van:

„Uiterste datum (validering inbegrepen): 31 maart 2015 om 12 uur (’s middags), Belgische tijd.”,

te lezen:

„Uiterste datum (validering inbegrepen): 9 april 2015 om 12 uur (’s middags), Belgische tijd.”.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 801 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 147
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 801

                          [Report No. 110-432]

 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3688) to implement the 
             United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 6, 2007

    Ms. Matsui, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3688) to implement the 
             United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3688) to implement the 
United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. All points of order 
against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under 
clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
points of order against provisions of the bill are waived. The bill 
shall be debatable for three hours, with 45 minutes in favor of the 
bill controlled by Representative Rangel of New York or his designee, 
45 minutes in favor of the bill controlled by Representative McCrery of 
Louisiana or his designee, 45 minutes in opposition to the bill 
controlled by Representative Michaud of Maine or his designee, and 45 
minutes in opposition to the bill controlled by the Minority Leader or 
his designee. Pursuant to section 151(f)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974, 
the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to 
final passage without intervening motion.
    Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 3688 pursuant to this 
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the 
Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as 
may be designated by the Speaker.
                                                 House Calendar No. 147

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 801

                          [Report No. 110-432]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3688) to implement the 
             United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            November 6, 2007

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
From: gfalcone5@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:08:12 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,

Gloria Falcone

Bolivar, MO 65613
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1169

GWOR FENG GUO, Petitioner,
v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: September 19, 2008 Decided: October 9, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. June Zhou, LAW OFFICES OF JUNE ZHOU, LLC, Deerfield Beach, Florida, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Brianne Whelan Cohen, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* We find that only the Board’s denial of Guo’s “motion for reinstatement” is properly before this court as he failed to petition this court for review of the Board’s previous orders. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2000) (setting forth thirty-day appeal period); Stone v. INS , 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995) (holding that appeal period is “jurisdictional in nature and must be construed with strict fidelity to [its] terms”). 2 PER CURIAM: Gwor Feng Guo, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his “motion for reinstatement.” * We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Guo’s motion as untimely. See8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2008) (setting forth standard of review). Further, to the extent that Guo claims that the Board should have exercised its sua sponte authority to reopen or reconsider, we lack jurisdiction to review this claim. See Lenis v. United States Att’y Gen. , 525 F.3d 1291, 1292-93 (11th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
No. 65213.

#### K. & L. Distributors *v.*United States,

protests 136048-K and 136049-K (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 13568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05205]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

48 CFR Parts 204 and 252

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Technical 
Amendments

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense 
(DoD).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: DoD is making technical amendments to the Defense Federal 
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to provide needed editorial 
changes.

DATES: Effective March 11, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Manuel Quinones, Defense 
Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), Room 3B855, 
3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060. Telephone 571-372-
6088; facsimile 571-372-6094.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    This final rule amends the DFARS as follows:
    1. Update the link for DoDAAC queries at 204.7003(a)(1).
    2. Remove erroneous text at 204.7403(c).
    3. Correct typographical error at 252.204-7004.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 204 and 252

    Government procurement.

Manuel Quinones,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

    Therefore, 48 CFR parts 204 and 252 are amended as follows:

0
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 204 and 252 continues to 
read as follows:

    Authority:  41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

PART 204--ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

204.7003  [Amended]

0
2. Section 204.7003, paragraph (a)(1), is amended by removing ``https://day2k1.daas.dla.mil/daasinq/ and adding ``https://
www2.transactionservices.dla.mil/edaasinq/'' in its place.

204.7403  [Amended]

0
3. Section 204.7403, paragraph (c), is amended by removing ``, that 
involve litigation support services and do not include the clause at 
252.204-7014, Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Information by 
Litigation Support Contractors''.

PART 252--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

252.204-7004  [Amended]

0
4. Section 252.204-7004 is amended by--
0
a. Removing the clause date ``(MAY 2013)'' and adding ``(FEB 2014)'' in 
its place.
0
b. Removing, in paragraph (a), the word ``clause'' and adding the word 
``provision'' in its place.

[FR Doc. 2014-05205 Filed 3-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
Case 3:05-cr-05802-JPD Document 11 Filed 03/27/06 Page 1 of 1
H. Res. 658 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 24, 2007. 

Whereas, on June 26, 1934, President Franklin Roosevelt 

signed into law the Federal Credit Union Act, thus enabling credit unions to be organized throughout the United 

States under the charters approved by the Federal Government; 

Whereas Federal credit unions were chartered as uniquely 

democratic economic organizations, founded on the principle that persons of good character and all backgrounds, 

including those of modest means, joining together in cooperative spirit and action, can promote thrift, create a 

source of credit for productive purposes, and build a better standard of living for themselves; 

Whereas Federal credit unions have consistently met those 

purposes and exemplified the traditional American values 

of thrift, self-help, and volunteerism, carving out a special place for themselves among the Nation’s financial institutions; 

Whereas Federal credit unions operate with the credo ‘‘Not 

for profit, not for charity—but for service’’ and have consistently reflected this philosophical tradition and the cooperative spirit of ‘‘people helping people’’ that gave birth 

to the Federal Credit Union Act; 
2 

•HRES 658 EH 

Whereas there are over 5,000 Federal credit unions in the 

United States serving nearly 50,000,000 Americans in all 

50 States; and 

Whereas September 2007 has been designated as Federal 

Credit Union Month: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) supports the goals and ideals of Federal Credit 

Union Month; and 

(2) recognizes the importance of Federal credit 

unions to the economy, and their critical mission in serving those of modest means. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                 5

<S>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  FEB-28-2001
<PERIOD-END>                       MAY-31-2000
<CASH>                                                142,000
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     294,438,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                       12,300,000
<INVENTORY>                                           782,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  262,869,000
<PP&E>                                              2,877,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                      1,638,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    291,951,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             211,723,000
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                           23,087,000
<OTHER-SE>                                         38,677,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      291,951,000
<SALES>                                           149,750,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  155,802,000
<CGS>                                             142,123,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     142,123,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    3,110,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    2,761,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  2,838,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     4,970,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                        1,845,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 3,125,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                        3,125,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                              0.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.57



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7809

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ARLUCIUS LAMONT ALFORD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CR-01-57; CA-03-2844) Submitted: August 18, 2006 Decided: September 1, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arlucius Lamont Alford, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Arlucius Lamont Alford seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Alford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 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
From: sellhigh@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:13:35 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,

Paul Hill

Springboro, OH 45066
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 6, 2013*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**F.228 Total Miscellaneous Financial Claims** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 6, 2012*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**L.106 Rest of the World** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|