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

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

JOSE DOLORES CANO,

 Defendant.

Case No. 06-5024M

DETENTION ORDER

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

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

other person and the community.

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

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

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

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Safety Reasons:

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

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

 ( ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

 ( ) 

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

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

 (X ) Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

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

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Order of Detention

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

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

without prejudice to review..

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

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

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

 February 8, 2006.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cr-05129-FDB Document 9 Filed 02/08/06 Page 1 of 1
NEWMAN & NEWMAN,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610

Seattle, Washington 98104

(206) 274-2800

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 19th day of June, 2007, I electronically 

filed the foregoing DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS;

DECLARATION OF ERIC P. BLANK IN SUPPORT OF MOTION; DECLARATION OF

SPENCER D. FREEMAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION; DECLARATION OF JESSICA

EAVES MATHEWS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION; DECLARATION OF SETH

WILKINSON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION; DECLARATION OF DEREK NEWMAN IN

SUPPORT OF MOTION; DECLARATION OF STEVEN M. HAYES IN SUPPORT OF

MOTION; PROPOSED ORDER, AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE with the Clerk of the

Court using the ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following:

Via Notice of Electronic Filing to:

Robert Siegel, Esq.

i.Justice Law, P.C.

Email: bob@ijusticelaw.com

Douglas McKinley, Esq.

 Email: doug@mckinleylaw.com

 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States and the State of

Washington that the forgoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on June 

19th, 2007, at Seattle, Washington.

________________________

Diana Au

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 127-3 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 1 of 1

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 127 Att. 2

Dockets.Justia.com
EXHIBIT 31.1








CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION





I, Weiliang Liu, certify that:





1. I have reviewed the report on Form 10-K of China Ceetop.com, Inc.





2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;





3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and I have:





a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;





b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under my supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;





c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and





d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.





5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and





b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.





(Registrant)
CHINA CEETOP.COM, INC.By:
/s/  Weiliang LiuWeiliang Liu, CEODate:   April 13, 2011

April 13, 2011
No. 59778.

#### Kline & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 142479-K (New York).

*379Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of reptile skins similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Fleming-Joffe, Ltd.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 56, C. D. 1263), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### In the Matter of Joshua L., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 77]

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Judith Sheindlin, J.), entered on or about July 9, 1994, which adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent following a fact-finding determina*257tion that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of murder in the second degree, and placed him restrictively for a period of 5 years, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The hearing court properly found that respondent was not in custody until after he made incriminating statements. The evidence showed that when four plainclothes detectives came to respondent’s house, his mother, unaccompanied by the detectives, woke him up. Respondent’s father told him to get dressed and go to the police station. Respondent and his father then rode together to the police station in the back seat of a police car and were taken to a designated juvenile room, where neither was ever handcuffed, restrained or searched. Respondent was never separated from a parent *(see, People v Yukl,*25 NY2d 585, *cert denied*400 US 851). In addition, respondent’s waiver of his *Miranda*rights was properly found to be knowing and intelligent upon evidence that he was of at least average intelligence, able to give clear and polysyllabic responses, and that all questioning took place in a designated youth room in the presence of respondent’s father *(Matter of James W.,*130 AD2d 753).

Moreover, prior to respondent’s first statement, both he and his father were read the *Miranda*warnings in Spanish and English; after each question, respondent and his father were asked if they understood, to which they replied in the affirmative; and respondent and his father signed the *Miranda*worksheet. Respondent’s second statement was admissible by virtue of the prior warnings, since he and his father never left the precinct, the second interview was conducted within a reasonable time of the first, and they were reminded that they had previously been read the *Miranda*rights *(see, People v Williams,*137 AD2d 568, *Iv denied*71 NY2d 1035). The third, videotaped, statement was given after respondent was again advised, in full, of his *Miranda*rights. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.
1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required
to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Principal
Life Income Fundings Trust 2008-062 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, do
not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is
included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.
    
    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this
report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing
agreement(s) in all material respects; and5.
    
    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.
   /s/ Dwight N. Soethout

Dwight N. SoethoutVice President  Principal Life Insurance Company
No. 68972.

#### Engis Equipment Company *v.*United States,

protests 63/8322-13466, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of diamond files, not over 2% inches in length, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *J. E. Barnard & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(52 Cust. Ct. 56, C.D. 2436), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 61085.

protest 288547-K (Baltimore).

#### Samuel Shapiro & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that each item should be 3 ounces, instead of 9% ounces, as returned, it was held that the merchandise, base parts of lemon slicers, are dutiable at 25 cents per pound and 20 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1539 (b), as modified, *supra,*on the basis of a weight of 3 ounces for each item.
No. 65239.

#### Du-Caire Import Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/18361, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of Abstract 59105, the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked with the letter “B” at 10 percent under the provision in paragraph 1528, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 52836), for imitation semiprecious stones, faceted, and (2) the items marked with the letter “O” at 30 percent under the provision in said paragraph, as modified by T.D. 51802, supplemented by T.D. 51898, for imitation semiprecious stones, not faceted.
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 STRIKING MOTION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

KAMKAIDO CRAB, 

Plaintiff,

v.

NEREIDA INTERNATIONAL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-0166L

ORDER STRIKING PENDING

DISCOVERY MOTION

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion for Discovery Under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1782.” (Dkt. #2). Plaintiff moves the Court for an order allowing it to obtain discovery from

entities in this judicial district to aid in a proceeding in Russia.

There is no evidence in the record that plaintiff served its complaint or its motion for

discovery on the defendants. The complaint was filed on January 31, 2006 and the motion was

filed on February 2, 2006. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require service of both the

complaint and the motion, and those rules apply to this case. 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) states in

relevant part:

The district court of the district in which a person resides or is found may order him to

give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing for use in a

proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal, including criminal investigations

conducted before formal accusation. . . . To the extent that the order does not prescribe

otherwise, the testimony or statement shall be taken, and the document or other thing

produced, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 2:06-cv-00166-RSL Document 5 Filed 02/15/06 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 ORDER STRIKING MOTION - 2

See also Bayer AG v. Betachem, Inc., 173 F.3d 188, 191 (3rd Cir. 1999) (explaining that “the

reference in § 1782 to the Federal Rules suggests that under ordinary circumstances the

standards for discovery under those rules should also apply when discovery is sought under the

statute”) (internal citation and quotation omitted).

Accordingly, because plaintiff has not served the complaint or the motion, the motion is

STRICKEN. (Dkt. #2). Plaintiff may refile the motion after it complies with the rules for

service in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules.

DATED this 15th day of February, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00166-RSL Document 5 Filed 02/15/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 64597.

#### Wolf Greenspan & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/28387 (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of valances similar in all material respects to those the subject of *D. N. & E. Walter*& *Co. et al.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 26, C.D. 2098), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: williamjlakes@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:27:57 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,

william j lakes

Big Sandy, TX 75755
No. 63882.

protests 141425-K, etc. (Cleveland).

#### Pilgrim Distributing Corp. (Transferee) et al. *v.*United States,

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 plaintiffs was sustained.
---

|Coded Tables | 
|------------ | 



|These data are released whenever there are code changes.                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Complete file (2 MB PDF)Cover page and table of contents (330 KB PDF)
Summary tables (90 KB PDF)
Flows tables (530 KB PDF)
Level tables (505 KB PDF)
Balance sheet tables (70 KB PDF)
Supplementary tables (80 KB PDF)
Integrated macroeconomic accounts table (290 KB PDF)

|These files are available in Acrobat (PDF 3) format only.Obtaining the free Acrobat Reader from the Adobe Web Site
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Release dates | 
Announcements | 
Coded tables | Historical data | About| Technical Q&AsCurrent release | 
Screen reader |  
PDF (2 MB) | 
Data Download Program (DDP)

Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: June 6, 2013
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 25, 2013*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**F.225 Life Insurance Reserves** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
From: asatman@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:02:50 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 <a

href="http://lwken.com/click/?s=63452&c=149579" style="color:#006600;font-weight:bold;textdecoration:underline;background:none;padding:0;margin:0;">health insurance</a> 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

<a href="http://lwken.com/click/?s=63452&c=149579" style="color:#006600;font-weight:bold;textdecoration:underline;background:none;padding:0;margin:0;">health insurance</a>.

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 Curiel

Santa Ana, CA 92701
Before the Second Division,

May 10, 1965

No. 69302.

#### Doris Trading Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 59/26174 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The motion was granted and the protest was dismissed.
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 79 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 1 of 2

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 79

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 79 Filed 01/02/2007 Page 2 of 2