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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

STEVEN VOLSTAD,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEAN MASON,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5005RBL

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION TO

DISMISS COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

NOTED FOR:

April 14th, 2006

This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B). This matter comes before the court upon plaintiff's request/motion to voluntarily dismiss his

complaint, (Dkt. # 5). After reviewing plaintiff's motion, the pleadings made in support thereof,

defendants’ response, and the remaining record, the Court should GRANT the motion and dismiss this

matter without prejudice.

DISCUSSION

Under Rule 41, a plaintiff has the right to voluntarily dismiss his case when no answer or motion for

summary judgment has been filed by an adverse party. Rule 41(a)(1) specifically provides that dismissal as a

matter of right can be foreclosed only by the filing of an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Roddy v.

Dendy, 141 F.R.D. 261, 262 (S.D. Mississippi, 1992). Unlike a Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal, a Rule 41(a)(2)

dismissal requires court approval and is only effective "upon such terms and conditions as the court deems

Case 3:06-cv-05005-RBL Document 6 Filed 03/14/06 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

27

28

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 2

proper." Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2); Stevedoring Servs. of Am. v. Armilla Int'l B.V., 889 F.2d 919, 921 (9th

Cir.1989). When ruling on a motion to dismiss without prejudice, the district court must determine whether the

defendant will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal. Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d

1162, 1169 (9th Cir.1994); Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir.1982).

Here, the complaint has not been served. Thus, plaintiff has a right to dismiss the action. Prior to the

court assessing filing fees. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, plaintiff's request to voluntarily dismiss his complaint (Dkt. # 5) should be GRANTED. 

A proposed order accompanies this report and recommendation. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule

72(b) of the Federal rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this

Report to file written objections. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a

waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating

the time limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on April 14th,

2006.

Dated this 13th day of March, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05005-RBL Document 6 Filed 03/14/06 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

23

24

25

26

27

28

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

DONALD JAMAR LEWIS,

 Defendant.

Case No. 06-5016M

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 (X) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 (X) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

 ( ) History of failure to comply with Court orders.

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 (X) Defendant’s lack of sufficient ties to the community and uncertainty of business.

 ( ) Immigration and Naturalization Service detainer.

Other:

 (X) Defendant has not overcome the rebuttable presumption.

 

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal.

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 January 31, 2006.

__s/ Karen L. Strombom________________

Karen L Strombom, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-mj-05016-KLS Document 15 Filed 01/31/06 Page 1 of 1
H. Res. 744 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

November 5, 2007. 

Whereas there are 195,871 Native American veterans in the 

United States; 

Whereas Native Americans have participated for over 200 

years in United States military actions; 

Whereas the participation of Native Americans in the War of 

1812, the Civil War, and the Spanish-America War was 

significant; 

Whereas in World War I, it is estimated that more than 

12,000 Native Americans served the United States 

Armed Forces; 

Whereas more than 44,000 Native Americans served in the 

Armed Forces during World War II, in both the European and Pacific fronts, representing a substantial portion of the 350,000 Native Americans then living in the 

United States; 

Whereas Native Americans fought in the Korean conflict, and 

more than 42,000 Native Americans fought in the Vietnam War, 90 percent of whom served as volunteers; 

Whereas Native Americans also provided significant contributions in the military operations in Grenada and Panama 

and the Persian Gulf War in 1980s and 1990s; and 
2 

•HRES 744 EH 

Whereas Native Americans should also be recognized for their 

participation in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) recognizes all Native American veterans who 

have served the Nation with honor, pride, devotion, wisdom and strength for serving their country and protecting their homeland; and 

(2) calls upon the President to issue a proclamation 

urging the people of the United States to observe a day 

honoring Native American veterans with appropriate 

ceremonies and activities. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
**Exhibit 32.2**  

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER**  

**Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**  

     Pursuantto Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of IC Places, Inc., or the Company, hereby certifies, tohis knowledge, that: 

     (i)the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal yearended December 31, 2011, or the Report, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and 

     (ii)the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

|  August  30, 2012 | By   | /s/ Peter Messineo                                                                  |   |
|------------------------|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                   |           | Peter  Messineo                                                                     |   |
|                   |           | Chief Financial  Officer  (Principal financial officer and Principal accounting officer) |   |
|                   |

 

     Theforegoing certification is being furnished with the Company’s Annual Report onForm 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to be incorporated by referenceinto any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof,regardless of any general information language in such filing. 

 

 

----
**Exhibit 32**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Coastal Carolina Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”), each certify that, to his and her knowledge on the date of this certification:

 

1.             The annual report of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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.

 

 
| Date:  March 24, 2011 | By:    |   /s/ Michael D. Owens        |
|--------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|                                 |   | Michael D. Owens                        |
|                                 |   | President and   Chief Executive Officer |

 

 
| Date:  March 24, 2011 | By:    |   /s/ Dawn Kinard |
|--------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|
|                                 |   | Dawn Kinard                 |
|                                 |   | Chief Financial   Officer   |

 

----
From: John Peters

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:12:09 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

John Peters
Northport, New York
June 21, 2016

Mr. James Hill

AirCover

3710 Flight Avenue

Redding, CA 96002

Dear Mr. Hill :

This is in response to your letter submitted on April 10, 2015 (public docket No. FAA

- 20 13

-

0382 ) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of AirCover for an

exemption from § § 91.9(b) and 91.203(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.

That exemption, if granted, would allow AirCover to operate its unmanned aircraft system

(UAS) without carrying a flight manual on board or displ aying an experimental certificate,

but allow the flight manual an d experimental certificate to reside with the ground control

station operator.

Based on the FAA Memorandum subject “Interpretation regarding whether certain required

documents may be kept a t an unmanned aircraft’s control station”, (copy enclosed) dated

August 8, 2014, we find this relief not necessary. Accordingly, Docket No. FAA

- 2013

- 0382

is closed.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brandon Roberts

Manager, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosu re
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 4967** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JOHNNY KINLAW LOCKLEAR, JR., a/k/a Bully , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington
. James C. Fox , Senior District Judge. ( 7: 12

- cr - 0 0 062

- F

- 1 )

Submitted : August 4, 2014 Decided: August 7, 2014

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Phillip C. Zane, GEYERGOREY LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Yvonne V. Watford

- McKinney, Assistant United States Atto rneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Johnny Kinlaw Locklear, Jr. appeals the district court’s judgment after pleading guilty to possessing firearms subsequent to a felo ny conviction. On appeal, he contends the district court erred in denying his request for a hearing under Franks v. Delaware , 438 U.S. 154 (1978), which he made in his
pre - plea motion to suppress evidence. We dismiss the appeal. “This court has recognize d that, pursuant to Rule 11(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the direct review of an adverse ruling on a pretrial motion is available only if the defendant expressly preserves that right by entering a conditional guilty plea.” United Stat es v. Abramski , 706 F.3d 307, 314 (4th Cir.), cert. granted , 134 S. Ct. 421 (2013), and aff’d , 134 S. Ct. 2259 (2014) (citations and internal quotations omitted). Absent a valid conditional guilty plea, we “will dismiss a defendant’s appeal from an advers e pretrial ruling on

a non - jurisdictional issue.” Id. (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Tollett v. Henderson , 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973); Haring v. Prosise , 462 U.S. 306, 321 (1983). Because Locklear did not enter a conditional guilty plea, we may not review the district court’s adverse pretrial ruling. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are3 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
From: leelulee@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:31:43 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,

Carl Williams

San Antonio, TX 78213
No. 68483.

protests 63/10725 and 63/11800 (Los Angeles).

#### Palley Supply Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of so-called “Byobu screens,” which are not in chief value *329of bamboo, wood, straw, papier maebe, palm leaf, or compositions of wood, and' that they are manufactures of paper or of which paper is the component material of chief value, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### Edward W. ANDERSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CITY OF ROCK HILL; Sheakley Uni Service, Incorporated; Lyn Koven; Linda Workman; Larry Bigam; Jesse Funderburk; Dawn Beyers; David Young; Wanda Morris, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-1619.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 18, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 23, 2005.

Edward W. Anderson, Appellant pro se. Charles Franklin Thompson, Jr., Malone, Thompson *&*Summers, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina; David Bradley Jordan, Geoffry Mark Dunn, Jordan Law Firm, P.C., Rock Hill, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Edward W. Anderson appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his civil action for failure to timely serve process. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Anderson v. City of Rock Hill,*No. CA-04-22892-0 (D.S.C. Apr. 20, 2005). 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*
No. 64576.

#### Eastern Commission Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/30632 and 59/30614 (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fish similar in all material respects to the fish blocks the subject of *The Lee Herrmann Co., a/c The Coldwater Seafood Corp.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 49, C.D. 2101), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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 report of Oregon Gold, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operation of the Company.



|                      |  |                                
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------
|Date:  April 13, 2009 |  | /s/ Mitchell Geisler           
|                      |  | Name:  Mitchell Geisler        
|                      |  | Title:  Chief Executive Officer



|                      |  |                                
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------
|Date:  April 13, 2009 |  | /s/ Mitchell Geisler           
|                      |  | Name:  Mitchell Geisler        
|                      |  | Title:  Chief Financial Officer