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

RICHARD SPRUEL, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAROLD CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5021RJB

ORDER GRANTING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS AND

DIRECTING INSTITUTION TO

CALCULATE, COLLECT, AND

FORWARD PAYMENTS

The Court, having reviewed plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1), does

hereby find and ORDER. 

(1) Plaintiff’s declaration indicates he is unable to afford the court’s filing fee or give security

therefor. Accordingly, plaintiff’s application to proceed as a pauper is GRANTED. As set forth below,

an initial partial filing fee will be collected, and plaintiff is required to make monthly payments of

20 percent of the preceding months income credited to his/her account until the full amount of the

filing fee is satisfied.

(2) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and plaintiff’s approved application to proceed in forma

pauperis, the agency having custody of the above named plaintiff is directed to calculate an initial partial

filing fee equal to 20 percent of greater of -- the average monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account or the

average monthly balance in the prisoner’s account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the date

of this Order. The initial partial filing fee should be forwarded to the court clerk as soon as practicable.

Subsequently, if the prisoner’s account exceeds $10.00, each month the agency is directed to

Case 3:06-cv-05021-RJB Document 4 Filed 01/24/06 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

collect and forward payments equal to 20 percent of the prisoner’s preceding month’s income credited to

the prisoner’s account. In the event that the monthly payment would reduce the prisoner’s account below

$10.00, the agency should collect and forward only that amount which would reduce the prisoner’s

account to the $10.00 level. Please note that this $10.00 limit does not apply to the initial partial filing fee

described above. Finally, the monthly payments should be collected and forwarded to the court until the

entire filing fee ($250.00) for this matter has been paid.

(3) The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a copy of this Order and the General Order, and a copy

of this Order along with a copy of plaintiff’s Acknowledgment and Authorization portion of the IFP

application to the attention of the inmate account manager (IFP account manager) at the Washington State

Department of Corrections.

DATED this 24th day of January, 2006.

 /s/ J. Kelley Arnold____________ J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05021-RJB Document 4 Filed 01/24/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

February 6, 1958

No. 61539.

#### Quon Quon Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 969970-G, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “A” consist of jars, trays, bowls, holders, boxes, candy boxes, vases, letter openers, napkin rings, nut cups, brass trays, brass buckets, temple jars, jars, and pepper pots, chiefly used in the kitchen or household, composed of a base metal, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstracts 45722 and 48117, 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

27

28

Order Denying Motion to Reconsider Detention Order

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

GARY LEE JACKSON,

Defendant.

Case No. CR06-5060 FDB

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

RECONSIDER DETENTION ORDER

This matter comes before the undersigned on the defendant’s motion to reconsider the Detention

Order detaining the defendant prior to trial. (Dkt. #31). The basis of the motion is that the defendant has

a new residence available to him should he be released from custody. 

The Detention Order was not issued on the grounds that the defendant did not have an approved

residence available to him. The Detention Order was issued based on concerns about safety of the

community. As stated in the Detention Order, “[t]his Court finds that the community would not be safe if

the defendant was not detained pending resolution of the underlying charge. He intentionally mislead the

court, he threatened his attorney who did an excellent job representing him at the first detention hearing, he

had been previously warned about making threatening comments and he faces a federal charge based on

statements he allegedly made. The only way the court can be certain that the defendant will do no harm is

to have him detained.” Offering a new place to reside on electronic home monitoring does not address the

Case 3:06-cr-05060-FDB Document 38 Filed 03/23/06 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 Denying Motion to Reconsider Detention Order

Page - 2

basis for the detention order. The motion to reconsider is therefore denied. 

DATED this 23rd day of March, 2006.

 /s/ Karen L. Strombom 

Karen L. Strombom

U.S. Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:06-cr-05060-FDB Document 38 Filed 03/23/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 10-Q FOR
THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,479
<SECURITIES>                                   168,710
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               180,889
<PP&E>                                          34,909
<DEPRECIATION>                                (10,676)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 212,539
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,271
<BONDS>                                         12,108
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         23
<COMMON>                                           211
<OTHER-SE>                                     174,702
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   212,539
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,259
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,011
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,221
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 437
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,077)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,077)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,077)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.33)
        

</TABLE>
From: buhlage@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:16:08 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,

Adam Buhl

Yorba Linda, CA 92886
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

ALLAN PARMELEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANDRA CARTER, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5646RBL-KLS

ORDER DISMISSING

COMPLAINT

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

Karen L. Strombom, objections to the report and recommendation, if any, and the remaining record, does

hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Petitioner’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice; 

(3) Defendants Joe Acton and Versuslaw’s Motion for Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)

[Dkt. #122] is DENIED.

(4) All remaining motions currently pending before the Court are DISMISSED as well;

(5) The Clerk is directed to terminate this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

CR 41; and

(6) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner and the Honorable Karen L.

Strombom.

DATED this 7th day of September, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05646-RBL Document 128 Filed 09/07/06 Page 1 of 1
September 04, 2013

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations

West Building, Room W12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: Clarification to Petition for Exemption,

FAA-2013-0676

Delta Engineering for Project ODA-2265-02

Title 14 CFR § 25.869 (a)(4), amendment 25-113

Subject: Request for immediate exemption from Title 14 CFR §25.869(a)(4) for the wire and cable located 

within certain metal electronic articles.

Update to request:

This request for exemption from Title 14 CFR § 25.869 (a)(4) for the wire and cable located within certain metal 

electronic articles, where the electronic article is located in a non-fire zone. The request does not request relief 

from Title 14 CFR § 25.869 (a)(4) related to wire and cable wrapped with non-flammable material.

Additional Data related to request:

 The STC will be issued as a ONE-ONLY STC.

 The aircraft is not used for Part 121 or Part 129 service.

 ODA project ODA-2265-02 is for an aircraft that is owned and operated by the U.S. Government, and they 

are fully aware of the request.

 The equipment does not replace any type certified articles.

 The equipment will be located in the cabin area.

 Identify the types and quantities of wire in each of the electronic articles would require the article to be 

opened resulting in the article being damaged or destroyed. 

 Damaging or destroying the electronic articles would not be in the public’s interest and would not change 

the level of safety related to the public. 
Sincerely,

John A. Moritz

Delta Engineering

13 DRBA Way

New Castle County Airport

New Castle, Delaware 19720

Phone (302) 325-9337

E Mail jamoritz@delta-engineering.com
No. 62293.

#### J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 312787-K (B) and 314044-K (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
Before the First Division,

November 20, 1963

No. 68124.

#### Excelsior Accordions, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/21044, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chord organs and parts thereof similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Excelsior Accordions, Inc.*v. *United States*(48 Cust. Ct. 148, C.D. 2328), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 69688.

#### Arklay S. Richards Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 62/11904 (Boston).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of porcelain thermocouple tubes and that the involved articles are not chemical porcelain ware but are, in fact, articles in chief value *517of earthy or mineral substances, not decorated or commercially susceptible of decoration in any manner, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. *John H. Faunae, Philadelphia, Inc.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 196, C.D. 2085), followed.
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 99.1



                            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 on Form 10-Q of SPARTA, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert C. Sepucha, 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:

      (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 as of and for the periods covered by the Report.




/s/ Robert C. Sepucha


Robert C. Sepucha
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2002



                                      -13-
Exhibit 99.9

CONSENT OF NATHAN ERIC FIER

I, Nathan Eric Fier,
CPG, P.Eng, President and Chief Operating Officer of SilverCrest Mines Inc., hereby consent to (a) being named, including
as an expert or “qualified person,” in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Sandstorm Gold, Ltd. for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2014 and any amendments thereto (the “Annual Report “) being filed with United States
Securities and Exchange Commission, which Annual Report incorporates by reference and attaches as an exhibit the Sandstorm Gold
Ltd. Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the “AIF”) and (b) the inclusion
in the Annual Report of technical information relating to the Santa Elena Mine from the AIF.

Date: March 17, 2015



| | /s/ N. Eric Fier                            
| | --------------------------------------------
| | Name:  N. Eric Fier                         
| | Title: President and Chief Operating Officer
No. P66/240. —

No. P66/241. —

#### Reedy Forwarding Company, Inc. *v.*United States, protests 63/4505 and 63/6986 (Tampa). Sears, Roebuck and Co. *v.*United States, protests 63/6984 and 63/13947 (Tampa).

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of galvanized steel pipes or tubes not thinner than 0.065 inch, and not less than % inch in diameter, and that the issue involved herein is similar in all material respects to that in *Amerlux Steel Products Corp. et al.*v. *United States*(52 Cust. Ct. 83, C.D. 2441), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### In re David P. BOYCE, Rajendra Mehta, and David F. Laurash.

No. 00-1525.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 11, 2001.

*957Before MAYER, Chief Judge, LINN and DYK, Circuit Judges.

Judgment

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

*AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
No. 68464.

protests 249439-K, etc. (New York).

#### Deer & Lkle, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the articles in question are not wholly or in chief value of cotton, rayon, or silt and that said lace is wholly or in chief value of a synthetic fiber (nylon) , the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: jeverson.ceverson@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:26:28 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,

Joanne Everson

Fiskdale, MA 01518
No. 62287.

#### N. Katsoris et al. *v.*United States,

protests 144808-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of olives in brine similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Moscahlades Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 127, C. D. 1917), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19E0045. FARAH et al. v. MARTINEZ et al.

Appellants Alicia Farah, Foxxie Real Estate Investments, LLC, Colossal

Property Development, LLC, Eric Walton, and Pristine Palaces, LLC (collectively

“Appellants”) filed an application for interlocutory review in this Court on April 15,

2019. The application did not include the file stamped Certificate of Immediate

Review as required under Court of Appeals Rule 30 (c). 

On April 16, 2019, Appellants filed the instant emergency motion, seeking an

extension of time to refile the application with the file stamped copy of the Certificate

of Immediate Review. However, under our rules, there are no extensions of time to

file interlocutory applications. See Court of Appeals Rule 30 (i). Accordingly, the

emergency motion is DENIED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

April 17, 2019

04/17/2019
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 188 (Friday, September 29, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 67420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21480]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 12194]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Being 
Imported for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Bonnard's Worlds'' 
Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad 
pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for 
temporary display in the exhibition ``Bonnard's Worlds'' at the Kimbell 
Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas; The Phillips Collection, Washington, 
District of Columbia; and at possible additional exhibitions or venues 
yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that 
their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as 
aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public 
Notice of these determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e2918781968b8d8cd0d6d7dba29196839687cc858d94"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="76051315021f19184442434f36050217021358111900">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 
2021.

Nicole L. Elkon,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2023-21480 Filed 9-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>