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 ORDER – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS TURNER,

Defendant.

CASE NO. CR05-355C

ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial Date

(Dkt. No. 31) and the Government’s Response (Dkt. No. 34) indicating its nonopposition to a

continuance and the joint request of the parties for a Status Conference, and the Court having considered

the papers filed by the parties, together with the balance of the records and files herein, this Court now

finds as follows:

The current pretrial motions due date is February 27, 2006 and the current trial date is May 1,

2006. Counsel Suzanne Lee Elliot is active in plea negotiations with the Government, and additional time

is needed to further explore settlement options in this case and possibly eliminate the need for a trial. A

denial of the requested extensions would unreasonably deny Defendant reasonable time to consult with

counsel within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). Further, Defendant has filed a speedy trial

Case 2:05-cr-00355-JCC Document 35 Filed 04/06/06 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 ORDER – 2

waiver through December 31, 2006 indicating his agreement with a continuance. (Dkt. No. 33.) The

proposed continuance of the trial does not appear to prejudice any party. The Court finds that failure to

grant the requested continuance likely would result in a miscarriage of justice. The Court further finds

that the interests of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial in this case are outweighed by the ends

of justice, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the pre-trial motions cut-off date shall be extended

to August 21, 2006, with a new trial date of October 23, 2006. The time between the date of this Order

and the new trial date shall be excludable time under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§

3161(h)(8)(A) and 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). 

The Court finds a Status Conference unnecessary at this time and DENIES the parties’ joint

motion therefor. The Court further declines to enter a scheduling order in this matter. 

SO ORDERED this 6th day of April, 2006.

A

John C. Coughenour

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cr-00355-JCC Document 35 Filed 04/06/06 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 14,827.

#### UNITED STATES v. COHN.

[7 Int. Rev. Rec. 69.]

Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

Feb., 1868.

Esternal Revenue—Violation op Laws—Fraudulent Cigar Returns.

Phelps & Bell, for the Government.

Mr. Sedgwick, for defendant.

Solomon Cohn was charged with having made false returns of cigars made by him in August, 1866, under the law as it then stood. His return was 50,(MX) a month, at 812 per thousand. The government proved by the entries in his books, which they had seized, that he had sold one man more than 150,000, and that none of his sales were for less than 820 per thousand. Parties who bought of him were also called, and testified to the same rate of sales, and produced his bills. It was further proved that Cohn had had a quarrel with his wife, and that he had said that he did not dare to leave his books at home for fear his wife would get them. The defense claimed that it was not necessary under the law to include in the return sales of cigars bought by Cohn, but only sales of such as he manufactured. They did not, however, prove that these were sales of cigars that he had bought, and THE COURT (BENEDICT. District Judge) held that return of such sales must be made as the law then stood.

The jury found a verdict of guilty.
★

H. Res. 56

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 12, 2007.

Resolved, That the following named Members and Delegates be, and are hereby, elected to the following standing 

committees of the House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON RULES: Mr. McGovern, Mr. Hastings of 

Florida, Ms. Matsui, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Welch of Vermont, 

Ms. Castor, Mr. Arcuri, and Ms. Sutton. 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr. Frank, 

Chairman; Mr. Kanjorski, Ms. Waters, Ms. Maloney of New 

York, Mr. Gutierrez, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Watt, Mr. Ackerman, Ms. Carson, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Meeks of New York, 

Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Clay, 

Ms. McCarthy of New York, Mr. Baca, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Miller 

of North Carolina, Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr. Al Green of 

Texas, Mr. Cleaver, Ms. Bean, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Mr. 

Davis of Tennessee, Mr. Sires, Mr. Hodes, Mr. Ellison, Mr. 

Klein of Florida, Mr. Mahoney, Mr. Wilson of Ohio, Mr. 

Perlmutter, Mr. Murphy of Connecticut, Mr. Donnelly, and 

Mr. Marshall of Georgia. 
2

•HRES 56 EH1S 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE: Mr. Peterson, Chairman; 

Mr. Holden, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Boswell, Mr. 

Baca, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr. Marshall of 

Georgia, Ms. Herseth, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Costa, Mr. Salazar, 

Mr. Ellsworth, Ms. Boyda, Mr. Space, Mr. Walz, Ms. 

Gillibrand, Mr. Kagen, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Davis of Tennessee, Mr. Barrow, Mr. Lampson, Mr. Donnelly, and Mr. 

Mahoney of Florida. 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Mr. Lantos, Chairman; Mr. Berman, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. 

Payne, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Engel, Mr. Delahunt, 

Mr. Meeks, Ms. Watson, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. 

Carnahan, Mr. Tanner, Ms. Woolsey, Ms. Jackson-Lee, Mr. 

Hinojosa, Mr. Wu, Mr. Miller of North Carolina, Ms. Linda 

Sanchez of California, Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr. Costa, Mr. 

Sires, Ms. Giffords, and Mr. Klein of Florida. 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY: Mr. Thompson 

of Mississippi, Chairman; Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, 

Mr. Markey, Mr. Dicks of Washington, Ms. Harmon, Mr. 

DeFazio, Ms. Lowey, Ms. Norton, Ms. Lofgren, Ms. JacksonLee, Ms. Christensen, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Langevin, Mr. 

Cuellar, Mr. Carney of Pennsylvania, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Al 

Green of Texas, and Mr. Perlmutter. 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM: Mr. Waxman, Chairman; Mr. Lantos, Mr. Towns, Mr. 
3

•HRES 56 EH1S 

Kanjorski, Ms. Maloney of New York, Mr. Cummings, Mr. 

Kucinich, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Clay, Ms. 

Watson, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Yarmuth, Mr. Braley, 

Ms. Norton, Ms. McCollum, Mr. Cooper of Tennessee, Mr. 

Van Hollen, Mr. Hodes, Mr. Murphy of Connecticut, Mr. 

Sarbanes, and Mr. Welch of Vermont. 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS: Mr. Filner, Chairman; Ms. Brown of Florida, Mr. Snyder, Mr. Michaud, Ms. 

Herseth, Mr. Mitchell of Arizona, Mr. Hall of New York, Mr. 

Hare, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Donnelly, 

Mr. McNerney, and Mr. Space. 

Attest:

Clerk.
Case No. 13,551.

#### STRUVE v. SCHWEDLER et al.

[4 Blatchf. 23.] 1

Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

April 15, 1857.

Copyright — How Secured.

Under section 4 of the copyright act of February 3d, 1831 (4 Stat. 437), in order to secure a copyright to a book, a printed copy of its title must be deposited in the proper clerk’s *269office, before its publication, and, within three months after its publication, a copy of it must be delivered to such clerk.

[Cited in Donnelley v. Ivers, 18 Fed. 594.]

[See Baker v. Taylor, Case No. 782.]

In equity. Thiswas an application for a provisional injunction, to restrain the defendants [Frederick Schwedler and another] from the publication of a work called “Gustav Struve’s Welt-Geschichte,” or “Gustav Struve’s History of the World,” for which the plaintiff claimed to have obtained a copyright. The defendants, in their answer, set up that, as early as the year 1852, the plaintiff made an arrangement with one William Schluter, the printer of a German newspaper in New York, to print certain parts of the work; that, in pursuance of such arrangement, six volumes of the same were printed and published between the year 1852 and the 1st day of October, 1854; that, by the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff was to receive from Schluter, and did receive, during the publication thereof, ten dollars per sheet for the manuscript of the work, and was also to participate in some degree in the . profits of the sales; and that the work was put on sale immediately on its first publication, and so continued until April, 1856, when Schlu-ter became unfortunate in business and made an assignment of his property for the benefit of his creditors, including the edition of the work then on hand, and also the stereotype plates of the same. He had also previously given a chattel mortgage upon the same to one Sebastian Sehovadderbeck, to secure a large indebtedness. The property was subsequently sold under the assignment and mortgage, at public auction; and the title of the defendants was derived from that sale. It was also shown that the copyright of the plaintiff was not taken out for the work until the 26th of April, 1856.

NELSON, Circuit Justice.

Besides the apparent title of the defendants to the edition of the six volumes of the history in question, derived under the agreement of Schluter with the plaintiff, and the printing and publication in pursuance thereof, there is another objection to the injunction asked for, to which no answer has been given. By the 4th section of the copyright act of February 3d, 1831 (4 Stat. 437), it is provided, that no person shall be entitled to the benefit of it, unless he shall, before publication, deposit a printed copy of the title of his book in the clerk’s office of the district court of the district in which the author resides, and shall, within three months from the publication of the book, deliver a copy of it to the clerk of the said district. In this case, neither of these steps was taken till some years after the publication, and after two editions had been printed, and the greater part of them sold. The motion for the preliminary injunction must, therefore, be denied.
Case No. 7,643.

#### KEENE v. JACKSON.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 166.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

April Term, 1819.

Landlord and Tenant — Attachment for Rent —Discharge in Insolvency.

An attachment for rent not due, is superseded by the tenant’s discharge under the insolvent law of the District of Columbia of the 3d of March, 1803, § 5 [2 Stat. 238].

This was an attachment for rent not due, under the Virginia act of 29th November, 1792, § 8, p. 154.

Mr. Swann, for plaintiff

[Newton Keene], moved for judgment on the attachment. Since the attachment was served, and before the rent became due, the tenant, [J. W.] Jackson, was discharged under the insolvent law of the District of Columbia of 3d March. 1803.

Mr. Mason, for trustee of Jackson’s effects,

objected that the attachment was superseded by the discharge of the tenant under the insolvent act. § 5.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch. Chief Judge.]

And

THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent),

being of that opinion, quashed the attachment.
No. 68155.

#### Lafayette Radio Electronics Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 62/3571, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of various types of meters similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *G. L. Electronics, Inc., Arrow Sales, Inc.*(49 CCPA 111, C.A.D. 804), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case No. 8,830.

#### McIVER v. KENNEDY.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 424.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

July Term, 1807.

Principal and Surety — Endorser—Insolvency op Maker — Reasonable Notice — Evidence —Deeds—Not Recorded.

1. Under the laws of Virginia, in an action against the indorser of a promissory note, the plaintiff, to excuse himself for not having first brought suit against the maker, must show him to have been insolvent at the time of bringing the suit; and in order to recover, must have given reasonable notice of the non-payment by the maker; and the jury is to decide whether the notice was reasonable.

2. A deed of land in Maryland cannot be read in evidence unless recorded in Maryland.

[See Case No. 8,833.]

Assumpsit upon W. Wilson’s note, indorsed by the defendant [James Kennedy], to the plaintiff, as assignee of Gillis’ estate. 1st count on the assignment of the note, setting forth that the maker, W. Wilson, was insolvent at the time of the suit brought 2d count for money had and received.

THE COURT

decided, (doubtfully,) that the plaintiff must prove the maker of the note insolvent at the time of bringing the action; that the plaintiff must prove reasonable notice to the indorser, of the non-payment by the maker; and that the jury were to decide whether the notice was reasonable.

THE COURT refused to permit the defendant to read in evidence (to prove the solvency of W. Wilson,) a deed of land in Washington county, Maryland, certified by T. Williams, (who calls himself clerk of Prince William county, in Virginia,) to have been proved in the latter count?', but not recorded in Washington county in Mar?'land, according to the laws of Maryland.
IN THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, LAKELAND, FLORIDA 

October 20, 2017 

PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D16-619 

 ) 

PHYLLIS BARBOSE, Personal ) 

Representative of the Estate of John ) 

Barbose, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

 ) 

BY ORDER OF THE COURT: 

 Upon consideration of Appellant's motion for a written opinion/citation filed on 

August 21, 2017, 

 IT IS ORDERED that Appellant's motion for a written opinion is granted. The 

decision dated August 18, 2017, is withdrawn and the attached opinion is substituted 

therefor. Appellee's opposition to Appellant's motion is noted. Appellant's motion for 

leave to file a reply is denied as moot. 

 No further motions for rehearing will be entertained in this appeal. 

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING IS A 

TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL COURT ORDER. 

MARY ELIZABETH KUENZEL, CLERK 

 
 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

 OF FLORIDA 

 SECOND DISTRICT 

PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D16-619 

 ) 

PHYLLIS BARBOSE, Personal ) 

Representative of the Estate of John ) 

Barbose, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

 ) 

Opinion filed October 20, 2017. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco 

County; James R. Stearns, Judge. 

Geoffrey J. Michael of Arnold & Porter LLP, 

Washington, D.C., for Appellant. 

George A. Vaka of Vaka Law Group, 

Tampa; Brent R. Bigger of Knopf Bigger, 

Tampa; Hendrik Uiterwyk, Paul E. Berg, 

Andrew Bennett, and Anna FrederiksenCherry of Abrahamson & Uiterwyk, Tampa, 

for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

 We find no merit in the issues raised in this appeal and affirm the 

judgment below accordingly. With respect to Philip Morris USA Inc.'s comparative fault 

argument (raised at § V. B. of Philip Morris USA Inc.'s initial brief), we affirm based on 

our decision in Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Boatright, 217 So. 3d 166 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), 

and once again certify conflict with R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Grossman, 211 So. 
- 2 - 

3d 221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Calloway, 201 So. 3d 753 

(Fla. 4th DCA 2016), and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Schoeff, 178 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 

4th DCA 2015). 

KHOUZAM and LUCAS, JJ., and CARROLL, HUNTER W., Associate Judge, Concur.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the WESTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

VICTOR B. PINEDA,

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 vs. 

CITY of SEATTLE, et al.,

 Defendant.

 C06-157 RSL

 MINUTE ORDER

 REASSIGNING CASE

Pursuant to the Amended General Order entered by the Chief Judge on

November 3, 2004, this action has been reassigned to the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United

States District Judge. 

All future documents filed in this case must bear the cause number C06-157 RSL and bear

the Judge’s name in the upper right hand corner of the document.

Dated this 6th day of February, 2006

BRUCE RIFKIN

Clerk of Court

by: /s/ PETER H. VOELKER

 Peter H. Voelker, Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00157-RSL Document 6 Filed 02/06/06 Page 1 of 1
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, David E. Schreiman, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SPARTA, Inc.;2.
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a)
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):  a)
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting. May 10, 2005 /s/ David E. SchreimanDavid E. SchreimanChief Financial Officer
 - 22 -
IV 

House Calendar No. 69 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 461 

[Report No. 110–176] 

Dismissing the election contest relating to the office of Representative from 

the Twenty-fourth Congressional District of Florida. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 6, 2007 

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, from the Committee on House Administration, 

reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Dismissing the election contest relating to the office of Representative from the Twenty-fourth Congressional District of Florida. 

1 Resolved, That the election contest relating to the of2 fice of Representative from the Twenty-fourth Congres3 sional District of Florida is dismissed. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

House Calendar No. 69 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 461 

[Report No. 110

–176] 

RESOLUTION 

Dismissing the election contest relating to the office 

gressional District of Florida. of Representative from the Twenty-fourth ConJUNE 6, 2007 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
ACCEPTED

12-14-00367-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

3/3/2015 10:37:59 AM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 3/3/2015 10:37:59 AM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
From: maherl@wwdb.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:49:34 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,

L Maher

Bountiful, UT 84010
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Aeromobile, Department of Transportation Advisory Committee for Aviation 

Consumer Protection