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

DARREL WAYNE VANDERGRIFF,

Plaintiff,

v.

LYNNE DELANO, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5062 RJB/KLS

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

This civil rights action has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L.

Strombom pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. Before the court is

plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s previous order denying plaintiff’s motion for

appointment of counsel (Dkt. # 81), and a second motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. # 82). 

Having reviewed both motions, the court finds and ORDERS:

(1) Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 81) is DENIED. Motions for

 reconsideration are disfavored and will ordinarily be denied in the “absence of a showing of manifest

error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been

brought to the court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local Rule CR 7(h)(1). Here,

plaintiff has identified no error in the court’s order, nor presented any new facts or legal authority

that suggest reconsideration is appropriate. As plaintiff has been previously advised, there is no

right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although the court, under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), can request counsel to represent a party proceeding in forma pauperis, the

Case 3:06-cv-05062-BHS Document 84 Filed 09/07/06 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

court may do so only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331

(9th Cir. 1986); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616

F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980). A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light

of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.

(2) Plaintiff has demonstrated an adequate ability to articulate his claims pro se. 

Moreover, it appears that this case does not involve exceptional circumstances which warrant

appointment of counsel. Plaintiff argues that now that he has been moved to a facility that has no

law library, his need for counsel is greater. Lack of a law library at plaintiff’s facility, however, does

not amount to an exceptional circumstance. Accordingly, plaintiff's second motion to appoint

counsel (Dkt. # 82) is DENIED.

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff and counsel for

Defendants.

DATED this 7th day of September, 2006. 

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05062-BHS Document 84 Filed 09/07/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 763 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      October 23, 2007.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1011) to designate additional National 
Forest System lands in the State of Virginia as wilderness or a wilderness study 
area, to designate the Kimberling Creek Potential Wilderness Area for eventual 
incorporation in the Kimberling Creek Wilderness, to establish the Seng Mountain 
and Bear Creek Scenic Areas, to provide for the development of trail plans for 
the wilderness areas and scenic areas, and for other purposes. All points of 
order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under 
clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill shall 
be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All 
points of order against provisions of the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to 
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Natural Resources; (2) the amendment printed in the report of the 
Committee on Rules, if offered by Representative Goodlatte of Virginia or his 
designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
(except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI) or demand for division 
of the question, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable 
for ten minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; 
and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 1011 pursuant to this resolution, 
notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone 
further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the 
Speaker.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
H. Res. 683 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 27, 2007. 

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 3121) to restore the financial solvency of the 

national flood insurance program and to provide for such program to make available multiperil coverage for damage resulting from windstorms and floods, and for other purposes. 

The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 

points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General 

debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 

hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 

ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial 

Services. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 

amendment under the five-minute rule. The amendment in 

the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 

Financial Services now printed in the bill, modified by the 
2 

•HRES 683 EH 

amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee 

on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as 

adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. 

The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill 

for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute 

rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order 

against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment 

to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed 

in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 

the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in 

the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 

the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled 

by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 

amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 

of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 

Whole. All points of order against such further amendments 

are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 

XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such further amendments as may have 

been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as 

ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
3 

•HRES 683 EH 

without intervening motion except one motion to recommit 

with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 3121 

pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 

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

Speaker. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
From: patbecker50@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:19:14 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,

Patrick Becker

Estero, FL 33928
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                      AMERICAN NORTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                    UNAUDITED


                                                    1999          1998
                                                 3RD QUARTER   3RD QUARTER
<S>                                             <C>            <C>
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE: NOTE 2

Common shares outstanding, beginning of period    15,153,785   14,237,016 

Effects of weighting shares:
   Weighted common shares issued . . . . . . .    (1,082,627)  (3,202,769)
                                                -------------  -----------

Weighted average number of common shares . . .    14,071,158   11,034,247 
                                                =============  ===========
   outstanding

Net Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $ 803,208.23   172,534.60 
                                                =============  ===========

Earnings Per Share . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $       0.06         0.02 
                                                =============  ===========


DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE: NOTE 2

Common shares outstanding, beginning of period    15,153,785   14,237,016 

Effects of weighting shares:

   Weighted common shares issued . . . . . . .    (1,082,627)  (3,202,769)
                                                -------------  -----------
   10% Convertible Debentures. . . . . . . . .         5,844      314,613 
                                                -------------  -----------

Weighted average number of common shares and
   common equivalent shares outstanding. . . .    14,077,002   11,348,860 
                                                =============  ===========

Net Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $ 802,208.23   172,534.60 
                                                =============  ===========

Earnings Per Share . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $       0.06         0.02 
                                                =============  ===========
</TABLE>
From: saschmurr@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:42:31 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,

Shannon Schmurr

Round Rock, TX 78664
Case 3:05-cv-05602-RBL Document 40 Filed 04/12/06 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:05-cv-05602-RBL Document 40 Filed 04/12/06 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:05-cv-05602-RBL Document 40 Filed 04/12/06 Page 3 of 3
### 2002 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

1-30-2002 

# H a nn aho e v

. D a n a C or p

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al :

D ock e t 1-1961

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2002

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2002 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du

. 

### R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" H a nn ahoe v

. D a n a C or p " (2002). 2002 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 73. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2002/73NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 01-1961

JEFFREY A. HANNAHOE; EDWARD R. HANNAHOE, JR., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUAT ED,

Ap pellants

v.

DANA CORPORATION; RODNEY RIGHTMYER; MICHAEL DANO WSKI; JOHN A. KACZOR; DON LEWIS; JACK GLAZER; CHARLES HARTMA N; KENNETH R. CARL; EDWARD OSENBACH; JOHN WRIGHT; HARRY WHIT ED; HAROLD YERGER; EVERGREEN SYSTEMS, INC; BENARD "NICK" COLE; P. MICHAEL GREENE; DAVID "BRUCE" BUTCHER; SOUTHWO OD MORCOTT; EASTERN METALS, INC.; GARY MATZ; LARRY L. GOL DBERG; ROBERT H. NASPINSKY; JOHN DOES 1-27

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

(District Court No.00-CV-5193) District Court Judge: Eduardo C. Robreno

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a ) January 14, 2002

Before: ALITO and ROTH, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZ ER, Senior District Judge.

(Opinion Filed: January 31, 2002 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURTPER CURIAM:

The facts and procedural background of this ca se are familiar to the parties. We hold that the District Court properly granted defen dants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' civil action under the Racketeer Influenced and Cor rupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). See 18 U.S.C.  1962, 1964. The court below was correct in ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing. This Court has held previously that "the Supre me Court has acknowledged that a private plaintiff might validly plead (and even pro ve) that a defendant has committed [a RICO] violation, but still lack standing ... if his own injury is too remotely connected to it." Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., 171 F.3d 912, 921 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing Holmes v. Securities Inv estor Protection Corp., 503 U.S. 258, 268 (1992)); see also Allegheny Gen. Hosp. v. Phili p Morris, Inc., 228 F.3d 429, 443 (3d Cir. 2000). The decision of the District Court will be AFF IRMED.

TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:

Kindly file the foregoing Opinion.

Circuit Judge
2015 UT App 55

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF UTAH,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JOHNNY MAEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Per Curiam Decision

No. 20140472-CA

Filed March 5, 2015

Eighth District Court, Vernal Department

The Honorable Clark A. McClellan

No. 135800008

Colleen K. Coebergh, Attorney for Appellant

Sean D. Reyes and Cherise M. Bacalski, Attorneys

for Appellee

Before JUDGES STEPHEN L. ROTH, MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN

and KATE A. TOOMEY.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Johnny Maez appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to 

possession of a firearm by a restricted person, a second degree 

felony. Maez argues that the district court abused its discretion 

in sentencing him to prison instead of probation.

¶2 We review the sentencing decision of the district court, 

including the decision to grant or deny probation, for abuse of 

discretion. See State v. Valdovinos, 2003 UT App 432, ¶ 14, 82 P.3d 

1167. “An abuse of discretion results when the judge fails to 

consider all legally relevant factors or if the sentence imposed is 

clearly excessive.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted). Furthermore, “[a]n appellate court may only find 

abuse if it can be said that no reasonable [person] would take the 
State v. Maez

20140472-CA 2 2015 UT App 55

view adopted by the trial court.” Id. (second alteration in 

original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, 

a “defendant is not entitled to probation, but rather the court is 

empowered to place the defendant on probation if it thinks that 

will best serve the ends of justice and is compatible with the 

public interest.” State v. Rhodes, 818 P.2d 1048, 1051 (Utah Ct. 

App. 1991).

¶3 Here, the evidence demonstrated that Maez had an 

extensive criminal history, having spent much of his adult life 

incarcerated. Maez also had what the district court termed an 

“ugly” parole history, having violated the terms of his parole or 

probation at least five times. In fact, the incident at issue in this 

case occurred while Maez was on probation. Additionally, the 

district court considered Maez’s medical issues, i.e., kidney 

failure and a traumatic brain injury, as potential mitigating 

factors, although the district court noted that Maez had 

continued violating the law despite these medical issues. The 

record indicates that the district court considered all potential 

mitigating factors raised by Maez. Ultimately, the district court 

concluded: “Historically he has posed such a huge threat, and 

his injuries that he is suffering now, where he is involved in 

alleged gang activity where firearms were at play, and this is a 

charge where he possessed a . . . loaded gun . . . it seems to me 

that I have to protect society. I wish I had a different route, but I 

can’t see it.” Under the totality of the circumstances, we cannot 

conclude that “no reasonable [person] would take [this] view;”

consequently, we cannot conclude that the district court abused 

its discretion in sentencing Maez to prison. See Valdovinos, 2003 

UT App 432, ¶ 14.

¶4 Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 187 (Thursday, September 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 66895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21561]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-23-047]


Sunshine Act Meetings

Agency Holding the Meeting: United States International Trade 
Commission.

TIME AND DATE: October 11, 2023 at 11:00 a.m.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
    1. Agendas for future meetings: none.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Commission vote on Inv. Nos. 701-TA-585-586 and 731-TA-1383-1384 
(Review) (Stainless Steel Flanges from China and India). The Commission 
currently is scheduled to complete and file its determinations and 
views of the Commission on October 19, 2023.
    5. Outstanding action jackets: none.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sharon Bellamy, Supervisory 
Hearings and Information Officer, 202-205-2000.
    The Commission is holding the meeting under the Government in the 
Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b). In accordance with Commission policy, 
subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, 
may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: September 26, 2023.
Sharon Bellamy,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-21561 Filed 9-26-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
No. 57006.

protest 187461-K (New York).

#### Gimbel Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the issue herein is similar in all material respects to that involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the merchandise, consisting of 13 sets of infants’ wear from case No. 7063/1, was not in fact imported. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon said 13 sets of infants’ wear missing out of case 7063/1. The protest was sustained to this extent.
[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iron ores of the Iron Springs district, southern Utah**
 
Report | Plates: 010203040506
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:338
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000957942
 
July 27, 2018