alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER DENYING STIPULATION FOR THIRD

EXTENSION OF BRIEFING SCHEDULE

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

JANE LABORDE,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner

of Social Security

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C05-0829-RSM-MAT

ORDER DENYING STIPULATION

FOR THIRD EXTENSION OF

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

At the behest of defendant, the parties have filed a third stipulation for extension of time

for filing defendant’s brief and plaintiff’s reply brief. No motion accompanies the stipulation, as

the defendant apparently believes that nothing further is necessary to effectuate the new deadlines.

The defendant is mistaken.

The parties were granted an extension of time within which to file briefs on September 20,

2005. A second extension of time was requested on October 14, 2005. A limited extension of

time was granted, allowing the government to file its response brief on December 5, 2005. The

parties were told that no further extensions of time would be allowed absent exceptional

circumstances, and were directed to file a request for stay of the proceedings if the missing page

Case 2:05-cv-00829-RSM Document 22 Filed 12/07/05 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER DENYING STIPULATION FOR THIRD

EXTENSION OF BRIEFING SCHEDULE

PAGE -2

from the Administrative Record prevented adequate briefing.

The defendant gives no reason for the extension of time, which was filed on the day the

brief was due.

The defendant is denied an extension of time to file its response brief.

DATED this 7th day of December , 2005.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-00829-RSM Document 22 Filed 12/07/05 Page 2 of 2
From: veritypendragon@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:40:37 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,

JH Wetenkamp

Rochester, MN 55901
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 TAXATION OF COSTS -- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

THE CITY OF RENTON, a Washington

Municipal corporation and THE WASHINGTON

CITIES INSURANCE AUTHORITY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY

(USA), a foreign corporation doing business in

Washington; LEXINGTON INSURANCE

COMPANY (UK), a foreign corporation doing

business in Washington; and DOES 1 - 100,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-203RSM

TAXATION OF COSTS

Costs in the above-entitled cause are hereby taxed against PLAINTIFF CITY OF RENTON and

on behalf of DEFENDANTS in the unopposed amount of $5,017.97.

Entered this 17th day of OCTOBER , 2007 .

A

Bruce Rifkin

Clerk, U.S. District Court

Case 2:06-cv-00203-RSM Document 120 Filed 10/17/07 Page 1 of 1
February 28, 1961

No. 65226.

Suit 5027.

#### Ross Products, Inc. *v.*United States.

C.D. 2124 affirmed November 3, 1960. C.A.D. 752.
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CLYDE MCKNIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALICE PAYNE,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5254RJB-KLS

ORDER DISMISSING

COMPLAINT

 The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge

Karen L. Strombom, and the remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) This case is DISMISSED without prejudice; 

(3) The Clerk is directed to terminate this action pursuant to Local Rule CR 41(a); and

(4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff and the Honorable Karen L.

Strombom.

DATED this 4th day of May, 2007.

AROBERT J. BRYAN

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05254-RJB Document 53 Filed 05/04/07 Page 1 of 1
#### Braun Equipment Company, Inc., Plaintiff, v Meli Borelli Associates et al., Defendants, Credit Suisse, Defendant and Interpleading Plaintiff-Respondent. Greene Mechanical Corp. et al., Interpleaded Defendants-Appellants, et al., Interpleaded Defendant. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[632 NYS2d 549]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered February 3, 1995, which granted defendant and interpleading plaintiff Credit Suisse’s motion to stay arbitration demanded by interpleaded defendant Greene Mechanical Corp., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The prime contract at bar (the "Construction Management Agreement”) expressly precludes third-party privity. The subcontract (the "Plumbing Contract”) has language incorporating the prime contract’s terms by reference. Accordingly, the subcontractor is not in privity with the tenant (who acts as an owner for present purposes), and the subcontractor’s recourse is against the prime contractor only *(see, Alvord & Swift v Muller Constr. Co.,*46 NY2d 276, 280). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Kupferman, Williams and Tom, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(m)


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Calloway's Nursery, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby 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 consolidated financial condition
                  and results of operations of the Company.


                                        Dated:  May 8, 2003

                                        CALLOWAY'S NURSERY, INC.

                                        /s/ James C. Estill
                                        --------------------------------
                                        James C. Estill
                                        Chief Executive Officer

                                        /s/ Daniel G. Reynolds
                                        --------------------------------
                                        Daniel G. Reynolds
                                        Chief Financial Officer
| (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of all the Company. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | GARY D. ALEXANDER                                      |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Gary D. Alexander                                      |   |
|   | Chief Executive and Chief  Financial Officer |   |
|   | March 29, 2010                                    |   |
|   |                                                   |   |

|                                              |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |

----
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

ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

ROBERT I. GOODSTEIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY

OF THE NORTHWEST, et al.,

Defendants.

No. C02-1669 MJP

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Counsel having notified the Court of settlement of this case, and it appearing that no issue

remains for the Court's determination, 

IT IS ORDERED that this action and all claims asserted herein are DISMISSED with

prejudice and without costs to any party. 

In the event that settlement is not perfected, any party may move to reopen the case within 30

days of the date of this order. Any trial date and pretrial dates previously set are hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of June, 2008. 

A

Marsha J. Pechman

U.S. District Judge

Case 2:02-cv-01669-MJP Document 99 Filed 06/23/08 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2  Certification of the Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In connection with the periodic report of IBI Acquisitions, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Dean Sessions, the Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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/ Dean SessionsPrincipal Financial Officer Date: August 30, 2010
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 GRANTING MOTION

TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL MOTIONS DEADLINE 1 

CR05-5761FDB

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

 JUDGE FRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CORY HAMILTON,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR05-5761FDB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

CONTINUE PRETRIAL MOTIONS

DEADLINE

Upon motion of the defendant to continue the pretrial motions due date, the Court

finds that such a continuance would serve the ends of justice; therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the pretrial motions due date in this matter be

continued to November 24, 2005. 

DONE this 16th day of November, 2005.

A

FRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

___________________________ ____________________________

Colin A. Fieman Gregory Gruber

Assistant Federal Public Defender Assistant United States Attorney 

Case 3:05-cr-05761-BHS Document 18 Filed 11/16/05 Page 1 of 1
Case No. 7,670.

#### KELLY v. HARDING et al.

[5 Blatchf. 502.] 1

Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

Oct. 15, 1867.

Jurisdiction— Citizenship or Parties — Neither ClTIZEX WHERE SUIT BROUGHT — HOW CITIZENSHIP must Appear.

1. This court has no jurisdiction of a suit where one party is a citizen of Georgia and the other party is a citizen of Massachusetts.

2. The jurisdiction of this court must appear affirmatively by the record, and the want of jurisdiction need not be pleaded.

3. This court has no jurisdiction whatever over controversies between parties, all of whom, plaintiffs as well as defendants, are citizens of states other than that in which the suit is brought.

[This was a bill in equity by John J. Kelly against David J. Harding and Ziba Nicker-son, as administrators, etc., of John Payne, deceased.]

1

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

SHIPMAN, District Judge.

The plaintiff, in his declaration, alleges, that he is a citizen of the state of Georgia, and that the defendants are citizens of the state of Massachusetts. This allegation excludes the jurisdiction of this court. The fact that a plea to the jurisdiction was not put in by the defendant, instead of a plea, to the merits, does not help the case. One of the parties must be a citizen of the state where the suit is brought, and there must be a positive averment of that fact on the record. But, instead of that, the-averment is exactly the reverse, and in advance shows that the court is without authority to try the cause. It is hardly necessary to say, that this is not like a case where the court has jurisdiction over the parties, after the service of process on the defendant, or a case where, though no service has been made on the defendant, he comes in and submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court, thus waiving a provision of the statute enacted for his protection. This court has no jurisdiction whatever over controversies between parties, all of whom, plaintiffs as well as defendants, are citizens-of states other than that in which the suit is brought. This suit is therefore coram non judice, and a judgment upon its merits would be a nullity. Let an order be entered dismissing the suit for want of jurisdiction, without costs.
## COURT OF APPEALS SECO ND DISTRICT OF T EXAS FORT WORTH

N O

. 2

- 0 9

- 3 2 1

- C V

S H E R E K H A N L A M A R E V A N S A / K / A A P P E L L A N T S H O N E V A N S V

. T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S S T A T E

- - - - - - - - - - - - F R O M T H E 2 9 7 T H D I S T R I C T C O U R T O F T A R R A N T C O U N T Y

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

### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 1

- - - - - - - - - - - - S h e r e k h a n L a m a r E v a n s a / k / a S h o n E v a n s f i l e d a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l f r o m a J u l y 2 8 , 2 0 0 9 “ I n t e r l o c u t o r y D e f a u l t J u d g m e n t

. ” I t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a s n o t s i g n e d a f i n a l j u d g m e n t o r a p p e a l a b l e i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r
. O n S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 9 , w e n o t i f i e d A p p e l l a n t t h a t u n l e s s h e o r a n y o t h e r p a r t y d e s i r i n g t o c o n t i n u e t h e a p p e a l f i l e d a r e s p o n s e b y O c t o b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 9 , s h o w i n g

1

 S e e T e x
. R

. A p p
. P

. 4 7

. 4

.g r o u n d s f o r c o n t i n u i n g t h e a p p e a l , w e w o u l d d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l

. A p p e l l a n t d i d

n o t f i l e a r e s p o n s e , a n d w e h a v e n o t r e c e i v e d a r e s p o n s e f r o m a n y o t h e r p a r t y
. A p a r t y m a y a p p e a l o n l y f r o m a f i n a l j u d g m e n t o r a n i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r

s p e c i f i c a l l y m a d e a p p e a l a b l e b y s t a t u t e o r r u l e
. L e h m a n n v
. H a r - C o n C o r p
. , 3 9 S

. W

. 3 d 1 9 1 , 1 9 5 & n
. 1 2 ( T e x
. 2 0 0 1 ) ; s e e , e
. g
. , T e x
. C i v
. P r a c
. & R e m
. C o d e A n n
. § 5 1

. 0 1 4 (

V e r n o n S u p p
. 2 0 0 9 ) ( l i s t i n g a p p e a l a b l e i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r s )

. B e c a u s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a s n o t s i g n e d a f i n a l j u d g m e n t o r a p p e a l a b l e i n t e r l o c u t o r

y o r d e r , w e d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l f o r w a n t o f j u r i s d i c t i o n
. S e e T e x
. R

. A p p
. P

. 4 2

. 3 ( a ) , 4 3

. 2 ( f )

. P E R C U R I A M P A N E L : G A R D N E R , W A L K E R , a n d M C C O Y , J J

. D E L I V E R E D : D e c e m b e r 3 , 2 0 0 9

2
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           7,243
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             100
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,600
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     17,509
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          22,230
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            21,853
<LOANS>                                         53,693
<ALLOWANCE>                                        397
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  90,684
<DEPOSITS>                                      82,296
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                680
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,993
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,715
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  90,684
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,206
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  282
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   106
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 1,594
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 556
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 556
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,038
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      -12
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    903
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    250
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         199
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       199
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.40
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                       229
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   378
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        5
<RECOVERIES>                                         6
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  397
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               397
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
No. 67160.

protests 61/13295, etc. (Mobile).

#### Cajo Trading, Inc. (Page & Jones) *v.*United States

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Order filed February 11, 2014. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00032-CV

____________

HENRY SIMPSON, Appellant

V.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 412th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 67239I

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed February 5, 2014. Our review has determined 

that a relevant item has been omitted from the clerk's record. See Tex. R. App. P.

34.5(c). The record does not contain the judgment being appealed.

The Brazoria County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s 

record on or before March 11, 2014, containing the judgment being appealed.
If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is 

directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement 

that the omitted item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 20 ,

2017.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 17 -00198- CV

CHRISTOPHER A. BRYAN AND MARIANNE MCBRIDE, Appellants
V. CHARLES ANDERSON AND C N C INDUSTRIES, LLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 11th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2015-51605

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N This is an appeal from a judgment signed March 1, 2017. On July 10, 2017, appellants filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Busby.
(R.D. 11505)

#### International Seaway Trading Corp. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 20295; 25344.

(Decided March 28, 1968)

*Sharretts, Paley, Garter & Blauvelt (Donald Paley*o£ counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Edwin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General *(Glenn E. Harris,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Maletz, Judge:

When these two appeals for reappraisement were called for hearing plaintiff offered no testimony and submitted the cases upon the records.

An examination of the records in the appeals before the court discloses nothing which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper values of the imports are the values returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.