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

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

ROGER WHEELER,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5764FDB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. This matter comes before the court on plaintiff’s filing of an

application to proceed in forma pauperis and a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

To file a petition and initiate legal proceedings, petitioner must pay a filing fee of $5.00 or file a proper

application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

On November 23, 2005, the clerk received plaintiff’s complaint and application to proceed in forma

pauperis. (Dkt. #1). Local Rule CR 3(b) provides in relevant part:

At the time application is made under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 or other applicable acts of

Congress, for leave to commence any civil action or to file any petition or motion without

being required to prepay fees and costs or give security for them, each petitioner, movant

or plaintiff shall:

(1) Complete the in forma pauperis affidavit approved for use in this district; and

(2) File a written consent that the recovery, if any, in the action, to such amount as

the court may direct, shall be paid to the clerk who may pay therefrom all unpaid fees and

costs taxed against the plaintiff, and to his attorney the amount which the court allows or

approves as compensation for the attorney’s services.

Case 3:05-cv-05764-FDB Document 3 Filed 01/12/06 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

On November 25, 2005, the clerk sent a letter to petitioner, directing him to provide a copy of his prison trust

account statement and the written consent required by Local Rule CR 3(b)(2) by December 27, 2005. (Dkt. #2). 

While it appears petitioner has provided a copy of his prison trust account statement, to date he has not

provided a copy of the required written consent. 

Accordingly, this court orders the following:

(1) Plaintiff shall seek to cure this deficiency by filing no later than February 12, 2006, a copy

of the written consent required by Local Rule CR3(b)(2). 

Failure to cure this deficiency by the above date shall be deemed a failure to properly

prosecute this matter and the court will recommend dismissal of this matter.

(2) The clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff. 

DATED this 12th day of January, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05764-FDB Document 3 Filed 01/12/06 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Allon Messenberg, the President, Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer, Secretary and Director of OMA Enterprises Corp., certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







OMA ENTERPRISES CORP.Date:  March 25, 2010
By:
/s/ Allon Messenberg


Name:
Allon Messenberg


Title:
President, Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer, and Secretary(Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raymond Johnson, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 486]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered August 26,1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf, People v Gonzalez,*47 *535NY2d 606). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 28, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-31325

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

BRANDON O. SMITH,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

No. 3:05-CR-145-ALL

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Having entered a conditional guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and marihuana, carrying a firearm during and in relation
No. 06-31325

2

to a drug trafficking offense, and possession of a firearm by a felon, Brandon

Smith appeals the denial of a motion to suppress evidence seized during an inventory search of his vehicle. Smith’s vehicle was impounded and inventoried

when he was unable to provide proof of insurance following a valid traffic stop.

We see no error in the district court’s implicit finding that the vehicle inventory occurred before Smith’s arrest and the discovery of contraband on his

person. See United States v. Casteneda, 951 F.2d 44, 48 (5th Cir. 1992). We

agree with the district courtthatthe impoundment of Smith’s vehicle was proper

under Louisiana law and that the procedure used to inventory the vehicle was

acceptable. See Fields v. State, 714 So. 2d 1244, 1250-56 (La. 1998); United

States v. Lage, 183 F.3d 374, 380 (5th Cir. 1999). We likewise agree that the relevant issue is the good-faith nature ofthe search rather than the exactness with

which non-incriminating items were documented. See United States v. Outlaw,

319 F.3d 701, 704 (5th Cir. 2003). 

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Hall, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 105]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bonnie Wittner, J.), rendered March 30, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, 5 to 10 years, and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

In this case where the prosecutor relied primarily upon a single eyewitness, defendant’s guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Rodriguez,*167 AD2d 326, *Iv denied*78 NY2d 957). The victim, who was robbed at gunpoint, positively identified defendant at a lineup and in court. Any inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony and discrepancies between his testimony and that of another employee, who did not actually witness the robbery and were minor, were fully ex*279plored on cross-examination *(People v Castro,*174 AD2d 378, *Iv denied*78 NY2d 1074). We find no basis to disturb the jury’s determination *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495).

While defendant raises the unpreserved claim that he was not permitted to refer in summation to the victim’s alleged "misidentification” of the codefendant, there was no evidence of such misidentification.

Defendant also complains that the detective in this case was permitted to explain that she was assigned this case from another detective. This, however, merely provided background information useful to the jury in explaining how the detective came to work on the case *(see, People v Casanova,*160 AD2d 394, 395, *Iv denied*76 NY2d 786). While the detective also stated that she had spoken with members of Manhattan Central Robbery before she was assigned this case, such testimony was stricken from the record and, in any event, did not imply that defendant committed any other robberies.

The prosecutor’s comment in summation, that the detective had a job to do and that she did it, did not amount to improper bolstering but rather was a fair response to an implied attack by the defense upon the integrity of the lineup conducted by the detective *(see, People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396, 399).

We have considered defendant’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.
IV 

House Calendar No. 138 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 764 

[Report No. 110–404] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 505) to express the policy 

of the United States regarding the United States relationship with Native 

Hawaiians and to provide a process for the recognition by the United 

States of the Native Hawaiian governing entity. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 22, 2007 

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, 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. 505) to express 

the policy of the United States regarding the United 

States relationship with Native Hawaiians and to provide 

a process for the recognition by the United States of 

the Native Hawaiian governing entity. 

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution 

2 it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3 505) to express the policy of the United States regarding 

4 the United States relationship with Native Hawaiians and 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 764 RH 

1 to provide a process for the recognition by the United 

2 States of the Native Hawaiian governing entity. All points 

3 of order against consideration of the bill are waived except 

4 those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill 

5 shall be considered as read. All points of order against 

6 provisions of the bill are waived. The previous question 

7 shall be considered as ordered on the bill, and any amend8 ment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion 

9 except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and con10 trolled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 

11 the Committee on Natural Resources; (2) the amendment 

12 printed in the report of the Committee on Rules, if offered 

13 by Representative Flake of Arizona or his designee, which 

14 shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 

15 (except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI) 

16 or demand for division of the question, shall be considered 

17 as read, and shall be separately debatable for ten minutes 

18 equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 

19 opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 

20 instructions. 

21 SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 505 pursuant 

22 to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the 

23 previous question, the Chair may postpone further consid24 eration of the bill to such time as may be designated by 

25 the Speaker. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 138 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 764 

[Report No. 110

–404] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 505) 

waiian governing entity. ognition by the United States of the Native HaHawaiians and to provide a process for the recing the United States relationship with Native to express the policy of the United States regardOCTOBER 22, 2007 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
No. 64595.

#### Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/6940 (A) (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, O. J.

The protest was dismissed.
44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the WESTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

vs. NOTICE OF CONTINUED

 HEARING

DONALD BERTRAM HOFF

CR06-4 TSZ

/XXX/TAKE NOTICE that a proceeding in this case has been continued to the place, date, and time set below:

Place:

700 Stewart Street

 Seattle, Washington

Room No.

Courtroom 12B (east) 

Date & Time:

Monday, 1 May 2006 @ 2:00pm

Type of Proceeding: INITIAL BOND REVOCATION HEARING (continued from 4-12-06 )

 

Before: United States Magistrate Judge James P. Donohue

Bruce Rifkin

Clerk of Court

/s/ Peter H. Voelker

April 11, 2006 Peter H Voelker, Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cr-00004-TSZ Document 27 Filed 04/11/06 Page 1 of 1
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

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING STIP.

TO CONT. TRIAL DATE/BROWN

CR05-0395JLR - 1 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

Judge James L. Robart

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) NO. CR05-395JLR

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER GRANTING 

v. ) STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

)

CALVIN JOSEPH BROWN, )

)

Defendant. ) )

THE COURT having considered the stipulation of the parties, the records and files

herein, including, but not limited to the defendant’s agreement to extend the time for trial, 

hereby makes the following findings of fact:

1. The Court finds that a failure to grant the continuance would deny counsel

the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise

of due diligence, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii).

2. The Court further finds that the ends of justice will be served by ordering a

continuance in this case and that a continuance is necessary to insure effective trial

preparation and that these factors outweigh the bests interests of the public in a more

speedy trial within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the trial date be continued from January 10,

2006, to February 27, 2006. 

Case 2:05-cr-00395-JLR Document 19 Filed 01/03/06 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 (PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING STIP.

TO CONT. TRIAL DATE/BROWN

CR05-0395JLR - 2 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the period of time from January 3, 2006, up to

and including the new proposed trial date of February 27, 2006, shall be excludable time

pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161, et. seq. 

DONE this 3rd day of January, 2006. 

s/James L. Robart

 

JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Court Judge

Presented by:

s/ C. Andrew Colasurdo C. ANDREW COLASURDO

Special Assistant United States Attorney

WA Bar #27449

United States Attorney’s Office

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, WA 98101-1271

Telephone: (206) 553-4075

Fax: (206) 553-0755

E-mail: Andy.Colasurdo@usdoj.gov

s/ Suzanne Lee Elliott (per telephonic approval) 

SUZANNE LEE ELLIOTT

Attorney for Calvin Joseph Brown

Case 2:05-cr-00395-JLR Document 19 Filed 01/03/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 2.6




AGREEMENT




Reference is made to the Registration Rights Agreement dated August 11, 2008 (the “Registration Rights Agreement”) by and among Kerry Propper, Steve Urbach, Jonas Grossman, Jianghan Huang, Dr. Richard D. Propper, Paula Beharry, Daniel Beharry, Li Zhang, Li Gong, Dr. Jianjun Shi, Xiaosong Zhong, Michael Walas, Mark Brewer and Ryan Hallman (collectively, the “Existing Shareholders”) and Chardan 2008 China Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) and to the Warrant Sale Agreement (the “Warrant Sale Agreement”) dated January 15, 2010 by and among the Company, certain of the Existing Shareholders and the Law Offices of David J. Stern, PA, Professional Title and Abstract Company Of Florida, Inc., and Default Servicing, Inc. (the “Stern Entities”).  Pursuant to the Warrant Sale Agreement, the Company will issue a certain number of its ordinary shares to certain of the Existing Shareholders (the “Additional Shares”).




The Company, for good and valuable consideration in connection with the transactions related to the consummation of a business combination by the Company with the Stern Entities, acknowledges and agrees that, with respect to the Additional Shares, the applicable Existing Shareholders will be able to exercise such registration rights with respect to the Additional Shares as if the Additional Shares were originally included in the Registration Rights Agreement as Registrable Securities.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the execution of this Agreement is undertaken as of January 15, 2010.






CHARDAN 2008 CHINA ACQUISITION CORP.By:
/s/ Kerry PropperName:  Kerry PropperTitle:  Chief Executive Officer
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Geochemicalrelations of zinc-bearing peat to the Lockport dolomite, Orleans County, NewYork**
 
Report | Plates: OneTwoThree
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:1000-D
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000959365
 
July 31, 2018
From: moonbeenh@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:54:45 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,

Bambi DeFilippis

Newport, NH 03773
From: janconnie77@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44 Forcing Conscience Unacceptable

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:30:52 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Connie Egger

Seattle, WA 98188
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 118 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 1 of 10

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 118

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 118 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 2 of 10
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 118 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 3 of 10
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 118 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 4 of 10
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 118 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 5 of 10
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 118 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 6 of 10
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 118 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 7 of 10
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 118 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 8 of 10
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 118 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 9 of 10
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 118 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 10 of 10
EXHIBIT B

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 41-3 Filed 11/02/2006 Page 1 of 2

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 41 Att. 2

Dockets.Justia.com
Virtumundo.com http://www.virtumundo.com/action/index.html?m=309104&e=jay@gor...

1 of 1 10/27/2006 10:59 AM

Unsubscribe from Virtumundo's Rewards email mailing list:

To unsubscribe from the Virtumundo Rewards email list, please enter your email address below and then click the

"unsubscribe" button.

E-mail address: Unsubscribe

NOTICE OF RECENT FORGERIES: If you reached this page by clicking on a Virtumundo e-mail unsubscribe link, the

e-mail address field (above) will be automatically filled in with your e-mail address. If no e-mail address or an e-mail address

that is unfamiliar to you appears, you could be receiving e-mail that has been forged to falsely appear as if Virtumundo was

the sender. Please forward the offending e-mail, in its entirety, to privacy@virtumundo.com for our review. If we did send the

e-mail to you, we will promptly remove your address from Virtumundo Rewards.

Click here to view our privacy policy.

Global Unsubscribe

COPYRIGHT © 2002 VIRTUMUNDO, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

jay@gordonworks.com

CONFIDENTIAL VM 039045

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 41-3 Filed 11/02/2006 Page 2 of 2