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 -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

v.

MARCY GOODSON,

Defendant.

CASE NO.CR05-5797RBL

 

 ORDER GRANTING 

 CONTINUANCE OF

 TRIAL DATE

The Government and Defendant jointly moved to continue the trial date. For the reasons orally

stated, on the record, the motion is GRANTED and the Trial Date is CONTINUED to MAY

8, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.

In view of the foregoing, the court finds and rules as follows:

1. Failure to grant a continuance in this matter would deny the defense the reasonable time

necessary for effective preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence. Title 18

U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). 

2. The ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the interest of the

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

resulting from this continuance from JANUARY 18, 2006 to MAY 8, 2006 is excluded for

speedy trial computation purposes under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) and (B) as this is a

reasonable period of delay.

///

///

///

Case 3:05-cr-05797-RBL Document 17 Filed 01/18/06 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 -2

ACCORDINGLY:

The Jury Trial is CONTINUED to Monday, MAY 8, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. 

The Pretrial Conference is rescheduled for MAY 2, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.

The Motions Cutoff date is extended to MARCH 6, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of January, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cr-05797-RBL Document 17 Filed 01/18/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 63834.

protests 98617-K, etc. (New York).

#### Saccone, Speed & Jenney, Inc., 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.
From: pgminni@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:27:34 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Gloria Minni

Frederick, MD 21701
No. 69702.

#### The Durst Mfg. Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 323406K(A) (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of rotary lawn sprinklers or metal parts thereof similar *522in. all material respects to those the subject of *The Durst Mfg. Co., Inc.*v. *United States (50*CCPA 56, C.A.D. 820), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 65214.

#### Maynard & Child, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 175037-K (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , th e court has determined that this opinionsho uld not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 41004 C onfer enc e Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f
- A pp el l ee v. O SCA R C AR RI LLO
- M O RA LE S D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 7 : 0 8 - CR- 7 1 9 - ALL B ef ore SM ITH , B E N AV ID E S , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * T h e F ederalP u bl i c D efen der ap p oi n t ed to represent O scar C arri l l oM ora l es h a s m ov ed for l ea ve to w i th d ra w an d h a s f i l ed a b ri ef i n acco rd a n ce w i th A n d er s v . C a lif

o rn ia , 3 86 U . S. 7 38 ( 19 67 ) . Car r i l l o - M o r al e s ha s no tf i l e d a r e s po ns e . O uri nde pe nde ntre vi e w of t he re c o r d a nd c o uns e l ’ s b r i e f di s c l o s e s no n on frivo l ou s is s u e for ap p ea l . A ccord i n gly, cou n sel’ s m oti on f or leav e to w i t hdr aw i s G RA N TE D , c o uns e li s e xc us e d f r o m f ur t he rr e s po ns ibi l i t i e s he r e i n, a n d th e A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D . S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 16, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk
|               | (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 for the dates and periods covered by the Report. |

|  Date: May 12, 2011                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |                      |                     | /s/ Elizabeth A. Smith                |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                                                              |                      |      | Elizabeth A. Smith                    |
|                                                         |                      |      | President and Chief Executive Officer |
Here is my clean air being shredded. 

I am also testifying on behalf of Stan Hansen who was unable to make it to today's 

hearing. Stan lives at 9212 Loma Vista Drive, Dallas TX 75243. Here is his testimony: 

{Quote) 

"My late wife's name was Barbara Hansen. She was in excellent physical 

health when she was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2005, at the age of 63. 

She loved life and loved to run. She ran three marathons. and often finished 

first in her age group. The doctors reasoned that environmental issues were 

most likely the cause of her disease. She was a non smoker and had not 

been exposed to asbestos. Runners inhale more deeply, and particulate 

matter gets into the deepest recesses of the lungs. where it is the most 

damaging. She died 6 months after her diagnosis. Again, she had been in 

excellent physical health, and was a vibrant, happy person, full of life and 

loving life. 

We trust the EPA to protect us from the abuses of the environment. I thought 

that was the charter. Please adhere to your charter and stand up to the those 

who place profits above human life." 

(End Quote) 

Here is a photo of Barbara before she was diagnosed with lung cancer. 

If the EPA delays implementing these rules for 2 more years, how many 

more people like Barbara will be diagnosed with an environmentally 

related disease?
No. 62778.

#### John S. Connor *v.*United States,

protest 58/7665 (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

There being nothing before the court tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the classification by the collector, the protest was overruled.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                CERTIFICATION Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned officer of ALLIED HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC. (the "Company"),
hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the Company's fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.


                                        /s/ Daniel C. Dunn
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Daniel C. Dunn
                                        Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
                                        & Secretary

November 7, 2006
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Heart, Lung, and Blood Initial Review Group; NHLBI                               ( print page 66859)                            Institutional Training Mechanism Study Section.                    

*Date:*                         December 1, 2023.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Rockledge I, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Michael P. Reilly, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Room 208-Z, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-7975,                         *reillymp@nhlbi.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 22, 2023.

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-21145 Filed 9-27-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
### Attachment 1

Table 2a. Mercury (ng/l). Daily Limit.

Facility Period Proposed

Limit Average

Concentration Number of

Days Tested Number of

Exceedances Percentage of

Exceedances Start

Date End

Date

Hatfield's Ferry 07/07/09 10/25/11 242 158.33 128 15 11.7%

Keystone 09/14/10 12/30/13 242 4.55 115 0 0.0%

Miami Fort 07/01/09 12/03/13 242 176.64 81 21 25.9%

Pleasant Prairie 01/05/09 12/18/13 242 259.74 236 87 36.9%



### Table 2b. Mer cury (ng/l). Monthly Limit.

Facility Period Proposed

Limit Average

Concentration Number of

Months Tested Number of

Exceedances Percentage of

Exceedances Start

Date End

Date

Hatfield's Ferry 07/07/09 10/25/11 119 160.67 24 7 29.2%

Keysto ne 09/14/10 12/30/13 119 3.53 24 0 0.0%

Miami Fort 07/01/09 12/03/13 119 100.22 3 1 33.3%

Pleasant Prairie 01/05/09 12/18/13 119 281.79 31 26 83.9%
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Annual Report of Orofino Gold Corp.  (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending May 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Shih Long Ning, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 result of operations of the Company.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of May 31, 2012.  By:/s/ Shi Long NingShi Long Ning
Chief Financial Officer
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 08, 2020. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, July 08, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A20I0238. MICHAEL B. HILL, et al. v. DOZIER LAW FIRM, LLC.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2019CV070038
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39368/39413

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

STEPHEN ROBERT JONES,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 615

Filed: August 29, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Kootenai County. Hon. John P. Luster, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and concurrent, unified sentence of five years, with two 

years determinate, for aggravated assault, affirmed; judgment of conviction and 

concurrent, unified sentence of three years, with one year determinate, for 

possession of a controlled substance, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

In docket number 39368, Stephen Robert Jones pled guilty to aggravated assault, Idaho 

Code §§ 18-901(a), 18-905(b). The district court sentenced Jones to a unified term of five years, 

with two years determinate, to be served concurrently with his sentence in docket number 39413. 

In docket number 39413, Jones pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, Idaho Code 

§§ 37-2732(c)(1), 19-2514. The district court sentenced Jones to a unified term of three years, 

with one year determinate, to be served concurrently with his sentence in docket number 39368. 

Jones appeals from both cases, contending his sentences are excessive. The two cases are 

consolidated on appeal.
2

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 

1014-15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the records 

in these cases, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Jones’s judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** Honorable Ruggero J. Aldisert, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court

of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation. 

*** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFiled 8/23/96

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

LARRY DON NED,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LARRY A. FIELDS, SHERI

VINCENT, R. MICHAEL CODY,

ERICA DUNN,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-6376

(D.C. No. CIV-95-348-T)

(W.D. Okla. )

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA, ALDISERT,** and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.***

Plaintiff Larry Don Ned seeks review of the district court’s grant of

summary judgment to defendants on his civil rights complaint. Our jurisdiction
-2-

over this appeal arises from 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We construe plaintiff’s pro se

pleadings liberally, as required by Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 

We review the court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same

standards as the district court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Wolf v. Prudential Ins.

Co., 50 F.3d 793, 796 (10th Cir. 1995). 

Plaintiff’s complaint contended that defendants 1) violated his due process

rights in connection with a disciplinary matter involving a magazine subscription,

2) discriminated against him on racial grounds when they refused a requested cell

transfer, and 3) violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to prevent spider bites

in his cell. In his response to defendant’s motion to dismiss or for summary

judgment, plaintiff moved for appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing. 

He also alleged that defendants 4) denied him adequate access to the courts due to

their control of the law library, and 5) failed to give him proper medical

treatment. 

After our careful review of the record on appeal and due consideration of

the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district court correctly decided this case. 

Therefore, for substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court’s order
-3-

dated September 19, 1995, the judgment of the United States District Court for

the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s motion for class

certification and appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge
1


 


2


 


3


 


4


 


5


 


6


 


7


 


8


 


9


 


10


 


11


 


12


 


13


 


14
Case No. 8,828.

#### In re McINTYRE.

[See Case No. 8,822.]
H. Res. 794 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

November 6, 2007. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany 

the bill (H.R. 3043) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, 

and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 

2008, and for other purposes. All points of order against the 

conference report and against its consideration are waived. 

The conference report shall be considered as read. 

SEC. 2. A motion to proceed to consideration of H.R. 

3688 pursuant to section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974 shall 

be in order only if offered by the Majority Leader or his designee. 

SEC. 3. Upon receipt of a message from the Senate 

transmitting H.R. 3043, with a Senate amendment thereto, 

it shall be in order to take the same from the Speaker’s table 

and to consider in the House, without intervention of any 

point of order, a motion offered by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee that the House con-
2 

•HRES 794 EH 

cur in such amendment. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion. 

Attest: 

Clerk.