alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[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: TheFairbanks and Rampart quadrangles, Yukon-Tanana region, Alaska**
 
Report | Plates: 0405
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:337
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000957940
 
July 27, 2018
No. 69257.

#### Parksmith Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 64/10216 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of telescopes, not chiefly used for the amusement of children and valued not over $2 each, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

 

MENCHU,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

AMERICAN DYNASTY F/T, et al.,

 Defendant(s).

 Case No. C06-154P

 MINUTE ORDER

The following minute order is made by the direction of the court, the Honorable Marsha J.

Pechman:

At the request of counsel, an extension of time to file the joint status report is granted. The

report will be due on September 29, 2006. All other FRCP 26-related dates are adjusted

accordingly. Failure to adhere to these deadlines may result in sanctions, up to and including

dismissal of this action.

Filed this 19th day of September, 2006.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

By /s Mary Duett

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00154-MJP Document 14 Filed 09/19/06 Page 1 of 1
Order entered April 20, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00110
- CV
ANGELA NICHOLSON , Appellant

V. WAL
- MART STORES TEXAS, LLC , Appellee On Appeal from the 1 34th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 19
- 14576

O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s April 16, 2021 motion for an extension of
time to file her brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion. We ORDER the
brief tendered t o this Court by appellant on April 16, 2021 filed as of the date of this order. Also before the Court is appellant’s April 16, 2021 motion to supplement the clerk’s record. We GRANT the motion. We ORDER Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre to file, within ten days of the date of this order, a supplementalclerk’s record containing Exhibit A of Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant Wal

- Mart

Stores Texas, LLC’s Traditional and No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment.
We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to s end a copy of this order to Ms. Pitre and all parties.
/s/ CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE
Case 3:06-cv-05078-RBL Document 61 Filed 08/30/07 Page 1 of 21
Case 3:06-cv-05078-RBL Document 61 Filed 08/30/07 Page 2 of 21
Case 3:06-cv-05078-RBL Document 61 Filed 08/30/07 Page 3 of 21
Case 3:06-cv-05078-RBL Document 61 Filed 08/30/07 Page 4 of 21
Case 3:06-cv-05078-RBL Document 61 Filed 08/30/07 Page 5 of 21
Case 3:06-cv-05078-RBL Document 61 Filed 08/30/07 Page 6 of 21
Case 3:06-cv-05078-RBL Document 61 Filed 08/30/07 Page 7 of 21
Case 3:06-cv-05078-RBL Document 61 Filed 08/30/07 Page 8 of 21
Case 3:06-cv-05078-RBL Document 61 Filed 08/30/07 Page 9 of 21
Case 3:06-cv-05078-RBL Document 61 Filed 08/30/07 Page 10 of 21
Case 3:06-cv-05078-RBL Document 61 Filed 08/30/07 Page 11 of 21
Case 3:06-cv-05078-RBL Document 61 Filed 08/30/07 Page 12 of 21
Case 3:06-cv-05078-RBL Document 61 Filed 08/30/07 Page 13 of 21
Case 3:06-cv-05078-RBL Document 61 Filed 08/30/07 Page 14 of 21
Case 3:06-cv-05078-RBL Document 61 Filed 08/30/07 Page 15 of 21
Case 3:06-cv-05078-RBL Document 61 Filed 08/30/07 Page 16 of 21
Case 3:06-cv-05078-RBL Document 61 Filed 08/30/07 Page 17 of 21
Case 3:06-cv-05078-RBL Document 61 Filed 08/30/07 Page 18 of 21
Case 3:06-cv-05078-RBL Document 61 Filed 08/30/07 Page 19 of 21
Case 3:06-cv-05078-RBL Document 61 Filed 08/30/07 Page 20 of 21
Case 3:06-cv-05078-RBL Document 61 Filed 08/30/07 Page 21 of 21
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose Luis LOPEZ-ZAMORA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-50304.

D.C. No. CR-01-01918-JM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 14, 2004.

Decided Aug. 4, 2005.

Kyle W. Hoffman, Karl A. Sandoval, USSD — Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*602Christopher R.J. Pace, Cooley Godward LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before TASHIMA, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Jose Lopez-Zamora challenges his sentence. He argues that he must be resentenced because the district court erroneously believed the sentencing guidelines categorically forbid a district court from departing due to the minor nature of the underlying felony. He also argues that reversal is required because the district court applied the sentencing guidelines as mandatory. *See United States v. Booker,*- U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We agree that the district court should determine whether “the sentence imposed would have differed materially if the district court judge were applying the Guidelines as advisory rather than mandatory....” *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). We therefore remand the sentence for further proceedings consistent with *Ameline. Id.*at 1084-85.

REMANDED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**From:** Malcolm Woolf [ mailto:mwoolf@aee.net ]

**Sent:** Monday, November 10, 2014 1:38 PM **To:** Hoffman, Howard **Subject:** Touching base 

### Howard
- Just left you a vm. Please call my cell when you have a chance. 301/767
- 6698. Lo oking forward to catching up.

**Malcolm Woolf** Senior Vice President, Policy and Government Affairs **Advanced Energy Economy** The business voice of advanced energy Email: mwoolf@aee.net Office : 202.391.0678 | Mobile: 301.767.6698 Web: www.AEE.net | Twitter: @AEEnet 

### Staying on top of energy policy across 50 states is hard... PowerSuite makes it easy! See how >
Case 3:06-cr-05007-JKA Document 13 Filed 04/24/06 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:06-cr-05007-JKA Document 13 Filed 04/24/06 Page 2 of 5
Case 3:06-cr-05007-JKA Document 13 Filed 04/24/06 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:06-cr-05007-JKA Document 13 Filed 04/24/06 Page 4 of 5
Case 3:06-cr-05007-JKA Document 13 Filed 04/24/06 Page 5 of 5
September 13, 1961

No. 66066.

Suit 5056.

#### United States *v.*Charles Garcia & Co., Inc.

C.D. 2187 affirmed July 21, 1961. C.A.D. 780.
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 Bakken Energy Corp.  (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending May 31, 2015 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, 2015.  By:/s/ Shi Long NingShi Long Ning
Chief Financial Officer
From: we2todds@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:49:54 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,

Sandra Todd

Muncie, IN 47304
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

Leslie C. Coleman

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

Michael Astrue

CASE NUMBER: C06-5014RBL

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried

and the jury has rendered its verdict.

 X Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been

tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

 IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

1. Plaintiff’s attorney Elie Halpern is awarded a gross attorneys fee of $ $10,613.40 pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), reduced by the EAJA fees of $4,625.30 that previously were

awarded, leaving a net fee of $5,988.10. When issuing the 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) check for

payment to Plaintiff’s attorney herein, Social Security is directed to send to Plaintiff’s

attorney the net balance of $5,988.10, minus any applicable processing fees as allowed

by statute.

 May 7, 2009 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Clerk

____________Jennie L. Patton____________

Deputy Clerk
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 33 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 1 of 4

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 33

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 33 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 33 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 33 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 4 of 4
From: neilstra@tm.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:20:07 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,

Neil Greiling

Maribel, WI 54227
U.S. v. Rodney Rollness, CR 06-041 RSL 

Order Resetting Briefing Schedule 

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

The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Petitioner, 

 vs. 

RODNEY ROLLNESS, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. CR 06-041 RSL 

ORDER RESETTING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE 

The Court, having reviewed the Unopposed Motion to Reset the Briefing Schedule for 

the motion for reduction in sentence hereby states that IT IS ORDERED that the motion be 

granted. The briefing schedule shall be as follows: 

a. Any amended or supplement motion by counsel on behalf of the defendant should be

filed on or before July 16, 2021; 

b. The government’s response to the motion should be filed on or before August 6, 2021;

c. Any reply should then be filed on or before August 12, 2021 and the matter noted

August 13, 2021. 

DATED this 13th day of July, 2021. 

A

Robert S. Lasnik 

United States District Judge
U.S. v. Rodney Rollness, CR 06-041 RSL 

Order Resetting Briefing Schedule 

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

Presented by: 

/s/ Anna M. Tolin 

Anna M. Tolin 

Tolin Law Firm
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 GRANTING MOTION TO 

FILE EXHIBIT UNDER SEAL - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

PETER TILTON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

THE MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES, INC.,

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-0098RSL

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

FILE EXHIBIT UNDER SEAL

This matter came before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to File Exhibit Under Seal. 

The Court finds that Defendants have made a compelling showing that the public’s right of

access is outweighed by the interests of the public and the parties in protecting Exhibit A to the

Declaration of Gavin W. Skok in Support of Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for a

Protective Order from public review, for the reasons set forth in Defendants’ Motion to File

Exhibit Under Seal. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 5(g), it is therefore ordered that Defendants’ Motion to File

Exhibit Under Seal (Dkt. #19) is GRANTED. Counsel properly filed under seal Exhibit A to the

Case 2:06-cv-00098-RSL Document 25 Filed 08/17/06 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 GRANTING MOTION TO 

FILE EXHIBIT UNDER SEAL - 2

Declaration of Gavin W. Skok in Support of Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for a

Protective Order and it shall remain under seal.

 

DATED this 17th day of August, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00098-RSL Document 25 Filed 08/17/06 Page 2 of 2
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 8:34 AM

To: 'Dan@MarthasVineyardProductions.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov'

Subject: Request for Additional Information: Martha's Vineyard Productions (FAA-2015-2427)

August 27, 2015 

Dear Mr. Martino: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. 

FAA−2015−2427). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process 

your petition. 

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by 

Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and 

remove closed-set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the 

requested response date listed below. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If 

you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by September 

10, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999.
H. Res. 817 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

November 14, 2007. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany 

the bill (H.R. 3074) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, 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. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Northern Technologies International Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Philip M. Lynch, Chairman of the Board and Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

| | (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.

|                        | Message                                                                                        
|----------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |                                                                                                
|                        | Philip   M. Lynch                                                                              
|                        | Chairman   of the Board of Directors &    Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer)
|Lino Lakes,   Minnesota |                                                                                                
|July 15, 2005           |
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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

ROBERT WARD GARRISON,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5837 FDB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION DISMISSING

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. §

1983 action be granted. As detailed by the Magistrate Judge, the Court does not have jurisdiction

over Captain Tauscher and the Doe Defendants and thus, the claims against these Defendants should

be dismissed. Although the claims against the remaining were timely filed, the approved vendor

policy is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests and meets First Amendment scrutiny. 

Nor has Plaintiff established an Eighth Amendment claim regarding the conditions of confinement

(unsanitary cell conditions and denial of food and medical care), as Defendants’ response to

Plaintiff’s behavior was a reasonable response to safety concerns created by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has

also failed to support a claim of denial of access to the courts. Plaintiff’s claims of Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendment violations are not supported by facts, but consist of mere conclusionary

allegations, and are subject to dismissal. Finally, the Eleventh Amendment bars suit against state

agencies, to wit: the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) and the Washington

Corrections Center (WCC).

Case 3:05-cv-05837-FDB Document 137 Filed 02/26/08 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 - 2

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

Karen L. Strombom, Objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the remaining record, does

hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Dkt # 97] is GRANTED;

(3) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Tascher are DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE;

(4) Plaintiff’s claims against the remaining Defendants are DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE; and

(5) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff, counsel for Defendants 

and to the Hon. Karen L. Strombom.

DATED this 25th day of February, 2008.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05837-FDB Document 137 Filed 02/26/08 Page 2 of 2