alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: APPEAL OF SPRINGFIELD 

HOSPITAL 

PETITION OF: PROSPECT CROZER, 

LLC

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 186 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of August, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.

FOLIO NO. 42-00-06625-01
Before the First Division,

October 31, 1966

No. P66/314. —

#### Max Eckardt & Sons, Inc. *v.*United States, protest 298680-K (New York).

Oliver, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of plastic paperweights similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Ace Importing Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(50 Cust Ct. 226, Abstract 67488), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6251

DWAYNE ORALLIS SMITH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District

Judge. (CA-99-749-5BR)

Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 21, 2000

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dwayne Orallis Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Dwayne Orallis Smith appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Smith v. United States, No. CA-99-749-5BR

(E.D.N.C. Jan. 28, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
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 W.D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHARLES L SMITH,

Defendant.

Case No. CR06-5064

INITIAL ORDER RE:

ALLEGATIONS OF

VIOLATION OF

CONDITIONS OF

SUPERVISION

THIS MATTER comes on for an initial hearing on the Petition of the United States Probation

Office alleging that the defendant has violated the conditions of supervision.

The plaintiff appears through Assistant United States Attorney, Cpt Glen Templeton.

The defendant appears personally and represented by counsel, Linda Sullivan.

The U.S. Probation Office has filed a petition alleging violations of the terms and conditions of

 supervision, and the defendant has been advised of the allegation(s).

The court finds probable cause with regard to the allegation(s) and schedules a hearing on the

 petition to be held at the time and date below set forth before Judge J Kelley Arnold:

Date of hearing: August 21, 2006

Time of hearing: 11:00 AM

 IT IS ORDERED that the defendant:

( ) Be released on an appearance bond, subject to the terms and conditions set forth thereon.

(X) Be detained for failing to show that he/she will not flee or pose a danger to any other person

 or the community pursuant to CrR 32.1(a)(1), and CrR 46(c), to be delivered as ordered

 by the court for further proceedings.

The clerks shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to counsel for the

defendant, the United States Marshal and to the United States Probation Office and/or Pretrial Services

Office.

August 14, 2006.

__s/ Karen L. Strombom _ Karen L. Strombom, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cr-05064-JKA Document 22 Filed 08/14/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 68430.

protests 62/18207, etc. (New York).

#### Panation Trade Co. et al. *v.*United States,

*312Opinion by

Oliver, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of rosary bracelets the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 66761, the claim of the plaintiffs 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

1

 The full title of petitioner’s petition is “1. Amicus curiae brief filed in the interest of justice

by non-defendant injured party: Keith Eldon Anderson, Secured Paty for Defendant. 2. Acceptance

by Keith Eldon Anderson of Plaintiff Agent’s refusal to allow Keith Eldon Anderson to be the

defendant. 3. Correction of Record. 4. Criminal Complaint. 5. Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus.” (Doc. #1 at 1) (emphasis added). 

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

KEITH E. ANDERSON, )

)

Petitioner, ) CASE NO. C06-208-RSM-JPD

) CR02-423-JCC

v. )

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

Petitioner is a federal prisoner who has filed a pro se petition that describes itself in myriad

ways.1

 Although unclear, the petition appears to challenge petitioner’s recent conviction for mail

fraud and assisting others in filing false income tax returns. (Doc. #1259 in Case No. CR02-423-

JCC). Consequently, it appears that petitioner’s intent is to file a motion to vacate, set aside, or

correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Ordinarily, when a pro se prisoner files a petition such as that filed by petitioner, the court

will seek petitioner’s consent to recharacterize the petition as a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2255. See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003). However, in the present case, the court

need not seek petitioner’s permission to recharacterize his petition as a § 2255 motion. A review of

the history of petitioner’s underlying criminal case reveals that petitioner’s direct appeal of that

Case 2:06-cv-00208-RSM Document 3 Filed 02/14/06 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

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

PAGE 2

case is still pending before the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (See, e.g., Doc. #1244 in

Case No. CR02-423, Order issued on October 3, 2005 by Ninth Circuit denying petitioner’s motion

to represent himself on appeal.) 

A district court should not entertain a petitioner’s collateral attack on a conviction while the

petitioner also has a direct appeal pending in the Ninth Circuit, because to do so would thwart

judicial economy. See United States v. Deeb, 944 F.2d 545, 548 (9TH Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the

court recommends that petitioner’s petition be dismissed without prejudice. A proposed Order

accompanies this Report and Recommendation.

DATED this 14th day of February, 2006.AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00208-RSM Document 3 Filed 02/14/06 Page 2 of 2
#### 11 Park Place Associates, Respondent, v Joseph Barnes, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[633 NYS2d 19]

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered April 14, 1995, which, after a nonjury trial, *inter alia,*awarded plaintiff $271,809.74 in rent claims and other amounts due, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant-appellant’s argument that "the mere issuance of a[n] [eviction] warrant [in a prior summary non-payment proceeding] cancelled] the obligation to pay future rents” regarding Suite No. 903 is without merit, since the parties’ stipulation, which discontinued the summary proceeding, reserved plaintiff’s right to all other claims, including damages regarding those premises for the remainder of the lease period.

The IAS Court’s award of attorneys’ fees was a proper exercise of discretion and should not be disturbed *(Lefkowitz v Van Ess,*166 AD2d 556). The award of $100,000 in legal fees and $7,066 in disbursements, for which plaintiff provided exhaustive computer documentation, was not excessive. Not only was the amount less than the final figure requested by plaintiff’s attorney, but as the IAS Court noted, "an inordinate amount of plaintiff’s legal fees were generated by defendant’s desire to delay, at any cost (to plaintiff), and to take even the most specious arguments to the highest courts of the state”.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM MEDIWARE'S
QUARTERLY  REPORT TO SHAREHOLDERS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                            3465
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,591
<ALLOWANCES>                                       777
<INVENTORY>                                        475
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 13430
<PP&E>                                            4595
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2695
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   28993
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            11199
<BONDS>                                            139
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           697
<OTHER-SE>                                       16958
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     28993
<SALES>                                          14057
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 14057
<CGS>                                             4654
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    12844
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    64
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  37
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1242
<INCOME-TAX>                                       448
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                794
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       794
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11


</TABLE>
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 748 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3584) to amend title XXI 

of the Social Security Act to extend funding for 18 months for the 

State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 16, 2007 

Mr. ADERHOLT (for himself and Mr. BARTON of Texas) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3584) to amend 

title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend funding 

for 18 months for the State Children’s Health Insurance 

Program (SCHIP), and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution 

2 the House shall immediately proceed to consider in the 

3 House the bill (H.R. 3584) to amend title XXI of the So4 cial Security Act to extend funding for 18 months for the 

5 State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), 

6 and for other purposes. All points of order against the bill 

7 and against its consideration are waived. The bill shall be 

8 considered as read. The previous question shall be considVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:44 Oct 17, 2007 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR748.IH HR748

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 748 IH 

1 ered as ordered on the bill to final passage without inter2 vening motion except: (1) two hours of debate equally di3 vided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minor4 ity member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; 

5 and (2) one motion to recommit. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
From: trishjesus@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:50:06 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,

Trish Farmer

Sylvester, GA 31791
Before the First Division,

October 2, 1967

No. P67/323.

#### Bailey-Mora Company, Inc., et al. *v.*United States, protests 63/1630, etc. (El Paso).

Beckworth, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of wood pine moldings similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Bailey Mora*Company, Inc., *et al.*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 99, C.D. 2737), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
### SERVED: JULY 15, 2013

US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF BEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC

IN THE MATTER OF 

### SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. FAA DOCKETNO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA-2013-0050


### ORDER 

### OFDISMISSAL These proceedings arose from a Complaint:filed by Complainant Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") served April23,**~013.** Respondent Southwest Airlines, Inc. ("Respondent") had earlier filed a Request for Hea,ring. Respondent filed anAnswer to the Complaint which was served onMay 23, 2013. : Respondent onJuly 12, 2013 filed a writte*request to withdraw its Request for Hearing and its Answer. 

### i i I 14 C.P.R.§ 13.215 states: "Atany time before or during a hearing, an agency attorney may withdraw a complaint orparty may withdraw1arequest for a hearing withoutthe consent of the administrative lawjudge. Ifan agency attorney withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing andthe answer, the admirtistrative lawjudge shall dismiss the proceedings underthis subpart withprejudice." Wherefore, the within filed withdrawal ofRequest for Hearing and Answerhaving been read and considered, it is ordered as follows:; 

### 1. Respondent's Request for Hearing

## pe and is hereby dismissed; and ! 

### 2. These proceedings be and are**here~y** 

### dismissed with prejudice.

Attachment(s)- Service List i I

'

# t·Ldc~/h Richard C. Goodwin Administrative Law Judgei

## SERVIC~ LIST I ORIGINAL & :ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 I 

### Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1



### Dane B. 

### Jaques, Respondent's Counsel 

### McKenna Long & 

### Aldridge LLP 1676 International Drive, PH McLean, VA 22102 TEL: 703-336-8800 FAX: 703-336-8750 ONE COPY



### EMAIL: djaques@mckennalong.com Jeffrey Novata, Respondent's Counsel 

### Attorney, Southwest Airlines Co. Love Field P.O. Box 36611 Dallas, TX 75235-1611 TEL: 214-792-4263 Yolanda Ayala Bernal, Complainant's Counsel 

### Senior Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel I 

### Safety Enforcement Branch, Southwest Region, ASW-7E2 Federal Aviation Administration · 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Room 663 Fort Worth, TX 76137 TEL: 817-222-5070 FAX: 817-222-5945 or 5092 EMAIL: Yolanda.A.Bernal@faa.gov FDMS No. FAA-2013-0050 (Civil Penalty Action)

I Service was by u.s. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington,· DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
No. P66/268. —

#### Coles Cranes, Inc. *v.*United States, protest 61/14504 (New York).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of mobile cranes or parts, dedicated thereto, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Coles*Cranes, *Inc.*v. *United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 221, Abstract 67483), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**World Omni Financial Corp.**

**Servicer Compliance Statement**

**Pursuant to Item 1123**

**of Regulation AB**

 

I, Joseph A. Venezia, do herebycertify that I am the Chief Financial Officer of World Omni Financial Corp., a Florida corporation, and further certify on behalf of WorldOmni Financial Corp. in its capacity as servicer (the “Servicer”) under the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement 2021-A to Closed-EndServicing Agreement, dated as of July 21, 2021 (the “Exchange Note Servicing Supplement”), among AL Holding Corp., asClosed-End Collateral Agent, World Omni LT, as Titling Trust, and the Servicer, as follows:

 

(i)            Areview of the activities of the Servicer during the period covered by the issuing entity’s Annual Report on form 10-K and coveredby the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement and the Closed-End Servicing Agreement (as defined in the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement)for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance under the Exchange NoteServicing Supplement and the Closed-End Servicing Agreement (as defined in the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement), has been made undermy supervision.

 

(ii)           Tothe best of my knowledge, based on the review described above, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Exchange NoteServicing Supplement and the Closed-End Servicing Agreement (as defined in the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement) in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Ihave hereunto set my hand as of March 24, 2023.
From: 2bhis@prodigy.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:03:55 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,

Debbie Garza

San Antonio, TX 78258
No. 66048.

#### James S. Baker (Imports) Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/19703, etc. (Houston).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of crowbars similar in all material respects to those the subject of *National Carloading Corp. et al.*v. *United States*(48 C.C.P.A. 70, C.A.D. 767), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 60583.

#### S. H Kress & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 24556A-K and 245565-K (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise described on the invoices as item No. 3213X, china platter, 14 inches, consists of tableware or kitchenware, not containing 25 percent or more of calcined bone, not hotel or restaurant ware or utensils, other than plates, cups, or saucers, valued over $11.50 but not over $18 per dozen pieces, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 59279.

protests 196926-K, etc. (New York).

#### Edwin Jay, Inc. *v.*United States,

*241Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of traveling irons similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Greatrex, Limited,*and *J. J. Gavin & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 79, C. D. 1639), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.