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

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 1

U.S. v. Timoteo; CR06-5048FDB

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.

ISRAEL TIMOTEO,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR06-5048FDB

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

DATE 

Based on the stipulated motion of the parties to continue the trial date, and the

Defendant’s Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights, the Court makes the following findings of

fact and conclusions of law:

1. The ends of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best

interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A). 

2. Proceeding to trial absent adequate time for the defense to prepare would

result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(B)(I). 

3. The defense needs additional time to explore issues of some complexity,

including all relevant issues and defenses applicable to the case, which would make it

unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for trial itself

within the time limits established by the Speedy Trial Act and currently set for this case. 

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B(ii). 

Case 3:06-cr-05048-FDB Document 24 Filed 05/19/06 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

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 2

U.S. v. Timoteo; CR06-5048FDB

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

4. Taking into account the exercise of due diligence, a continuance is necessary

to allow the defendant the reasonable time for effective preparation of his defense. 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). 

NOW, THEREFORE,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date is continued from June 5, 2006 to

July 31, 2006, at 9:00 am. The resulting period of delay from June 5, 2006, up to and

including the new trial date of July 31, 2006, is hereby excluded for speedy trial

purposes under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) and (B).

Pre-trial conference shall be on July 21, 2006, at 1:30 pm.

DONE this 19th day of May, 2006. 

A

FRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented By:

/s/ Colin A. Fieman /s/ Tessa Gorman 

Colin A. Fieman Tessa Gorman 

Attorney for Defendant Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:06-cr-05048-FDB Document 24 Filed 05/19/06 Page 2 of 2
From: pattesonl@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:06:35 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,

Luther Patteson

Lenexa, KS 66220
,

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

and

NORTHEAST NUCLEAR

ENERGY COMPANY

TRADING AGREEMENT AND

ORDER NO. 8107 MODIFICATION

TRADING AGREEMENT A. D ORDER MODIFICATION

In the maner of a Trading Agreement and Order between the Commissioner of Environmental

Prmection ("Commissioner") and Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (UNNECO").

WHEREAS, the Commissioner and NNECO, having agreed to the terms and conditions set

fonh in Trading Agreement and Order No. 8107 issued on OelOber 13, 1995, do now, by mutual

agreement, modify paragraphs C.1., c.1.e., C.6. and C.12. as follows;

1. Change the second date specified in paragraph C.l. from May 1, 1999 to

May 1,2003.

2. Replace paragraph C.l.e. as follows: No later than March 1. 1999 and on :-'1arch I,

thereafter until 2004, include with its annual emissions report to the Commissioner,

the fuel consumed and approved ERCs used monthly for the pre\'ious calendar

year.

3. Change the date specified in paragraph C.6. from May 1, 1999 to May 1,2003.

4. Change the date specified in paragraph C.12. from May 1, J999 to

May 1,2003.

All other terms and conditions of Trading Agreement and Order No. 8107 issued by the

Commissioner acting under Sections 22a-6, 22a-171, 22a-174, 22a-176, 22a-177 and 22a-l78 of

the Connecticut General Statutes shall remain in effect.

Inilia1S:~ (Printc4 on Rc~)'~lc4 Papcr)

79 El:n SUCCI • Hmfor4. CT 06106·5127

Imp :1I4e p.stal C.'1.us

All EqIJQ/ OppOrlll1lily Employer
NORTHEAST NUCLEAR

ENERGY COMPANY

2 TRADING AGREEMENT

AND ORDER NO. 8107

MODIFICATION

1999.

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company hereby consents to the entry of this modification to the

Trading Agreement and Order without further notice.

Northeast NU~y Company

Signature: ~. -------J

Type Name: Frank c. Rothen

Type Title: Vice President--Nuclear Work Services

Date: April 22,1999

Entered as a modification of an Order of the Commissioner of Environmental Protection numbered

8107this --==--'--- ;Z 9 dayof 4~fI

A ur 1. Rocque, Jr.

ommlSSlOner

TOWN OF WATERFORD

LAND RECORDS

MAILED CERTIFIED MAIL,

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Certified Document No.
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

ROGER M. WHEELER,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5764 FDB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 

 AND RECOMMENDATION 

 AND DISMISSING PETITION 

 WITH PREJUDICE

The Magistrate Judge recommends that this petition for habeas corpus relief be dismissed with

prejudice for failure to cure deficiencies or show cause why the petition should not be dismissed . As

detailed by the Magistrate Judge, Petitioner was informed that the petition was not filed under the

appropriate statute, that he had failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that he had failed to name a

proper respondent. Petitioner failed to avail himself of the opportunity to cure the deficiencies or show

cause why this matter should not be dismissed.

The Court, having reviewed the petition for habeas corpus, the Report and Recommendation of

Judge Karen L. Strombom, United States Magistrate Judge, and the remaining record, does hereby find

and Order:

(1) the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) petitioner's federal habeas petition is DISMISSED with prejudice; and

Case 3:05-cv-05764-FDB Document 10 Filed 06/08/06 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

Page - 2

(3) the Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner and to Magistrate Judge

Karen L. Strombom.

DATED this 8th day of June, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05764-FDB Document 10 Filed 06/08/06 Page 2 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

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DONALD COLE BURCHETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHLEEN T. JOHNSON,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5660FDB

ORDER ADOPTING

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

 The Court, having reviewed Plaintiffs’ complaint, the Report and Recommendation of

Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, and the

remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons outlined in

the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff may not proceed with a civil rights action

if a ruling in his favor would imply his current confinement is unlawful.

(3) Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, and to the Hon. J. Kelley

Arnold.

DATED this 23rd day of February 2006

A.

FRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05660-FDB Document 8 Filed 02/24/06 Page 1 of 1
From: jgilbert@ticmn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:54:55 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,

Jim Gilbertsen

Elk River, MN 55330
From: edie@bcsig.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:32:42 PM

Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to strongly request 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. I request that the definition also allow for individual conscience protection

as well -- since the effect is that the cost of these "free" services will be shifted to plan participants

through higher premiums both to employees in employer sponsored plans, and to individuals in the

individual insurance market. 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 ? especially those that take the

life of a human being. 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,

Aric Edie

Las Vegas, NV 89119
Before the Second Division,

May 9, 1967

No. P67/145.

#### Vera Lou Importers, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/2278, etc. (El Paso).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of blocked or trimmed palm leaf harvest hats similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Bailey-Mora Co., Inc., a/c Vera Lou, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 55, C.D. 2508), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.

(Note: The following protests were decided by a special second division consisting of Bao, Ford, and Landis, Judges.)
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 542 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 542

 Expressing the unconditional support of the House of Representatives 
                 for the members of the National Guard.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 12, 2007

 Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida submitted the following resolution; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the unconditional support of the House of Representatives 
                 for the members of the National Guard.

Whereas the National Guard has made tremendous contributions in support of 
        United States military operations around the world;
Whereas, between September 11, 2001, and March 31, 2007, 235,703 members of the 
        National Guard have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan;
Whereas members of the National Guard typically leave other employment to serve 
        on active duty in the Armed Forces;
Whereas the National Guard has responded admirably in times of domestic 
        emergencies to lead rescue and recovery efforts; and
Whereas many members of the National Guard have made the ultimate sacrifice, 
        giving their lives in service to the United States: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives--
            (1) unconditionally supports the members of the National 
        Guard;
            (2) recognizes the tremendous sacrifices made by members of 
        the National Guard on behalf of the United States;
            (3) will do everything in its power to ensure that the 
        National Guard receives the resources it needs; and
            (4) will support the families of members of the National 
        Guard who have died while serving on active duty.
                                 <all>
```
From: durine.soli@carolina.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:12:56 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,

Durine Soli

Mount Holly, NC 28120
From: bobd1830@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:43:45 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,

Bob Davis

Gilbert, AZ 85298
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.1


Execution Version



MARKIT GROUP LIMITED
SECOND AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
PURSUANT TO THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT 1996


Amendment dated as of January 24, 2017 (this “Amendment”) to the Contract of Employment dated as of July 1, 2014 (the “Current Agreement”) between Markit Group Limited (the “Company”) and Lance Uggla (“Executive”), as amended as of March 19, 2016.


W I T N E S S E T H


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive have agreed to amend the terms and conditions of the continued employment of Executive by the Company.


NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby by acknowledged by each of the parties, the Company and Executive hereby agree as follows:


		
	1.
	AMENDMENTS 



(a)    Clause 2.3 and clause 9.1.4 of the Current Agreement are hereby deleted in their entirety.


(b)    Clause 2.4 of the Current Agreement is hereby renumbered as clause 2.3, and all other references to clause 2.4 in the Current Agreement will be read to refer to clause 2.3.




		
	2.
	EFFECTIVENESS OF AMENDMENT




This Amendment will become effective as of December 1, 2016.


***********


[Remainder of Page Left Intentionally Blank]




















In witness whereof this amendment has been signed as a deed and delivered on the date written below. 


	
				
	Signed as a deed by:
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	/s/ Lance Uggla
	 
	1/24/2017
	 

	Lance Uggla
	 
	Date
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	In the presence of:
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	/s/ Tamara Juhnov
	 
	1/24/2017
	 

	Name / Signature
	 
	Date
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	Signed on behalf of Markit Group Limited by:
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	/s/ Chris McLoughlin
	 
	1/24/2017
	 

	Name / Signature
	 
	Date