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

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATION AS 

TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE - 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

LAURA M. COOK, 

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CR05-424-TSZ 

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT 

AND DETERMINATION AS TO 

ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 

SUPERVISED RELEASE

INTRODUCTION 

I conducted a hearing on alleged violations of supervised release in this case on January 29, 

2010. The defendant appeared pursuant to a summons issued in this case. The United States 

was represented by Bob Westinghouse, and defendant was represented by Juanita Holmes. Also 

present was U.S. Probation Officer Jonathan Ishii. The proceedings were digitally recorded. 

SENTENCE AND PRIOR ACTION 

Defendant was sentenced on August 2, 2007 by the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly for 

Obstruction of the Due Administration of the Internal Revenue Laws. She received 18 months of 

detention and 12 months of supervised release. 

In addition to the standard conditions of supervised release, the following special conditions 

were ordered: submit to search; pay $3,753,032 in restitution; provide complete financial, debt, 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATION AS 

TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE - 2 

and asset disclosure; maintain a single checking account in her name and use this account to 

deposit all income and withdrawal all personal expenses; disclose all bank accounts; not to 

transfer/convey any asset without prior approval; allow inspection of any personal computer; 

disclose all computer software; no new credit charges or line of credit without approval; and 

cooperate with and furnish financial information and statements to the Internal Revenue Service 

and file any past tax returns in a timely manner. 

PRESENTLY ALLEGED VIOLATIONS 

In a petition dated January 7, 2010, U.S. Probation Officer Jonathan Ishii alleged that 

defendant violated the following conditions of supervised release: 

1. Failing to cooperate with and furnish information and statements to the Internal 

Revenue Service and file any past tax returns in a timely manner, in violation of the special 

condition of supervised release. 

FINDINGS FOLLOWING EVIDENTIARY HEARING 

This matter was set for an evidentiary hearing. Defendant admitted the above violations, 

waived her right to the evidentiary hearing, and was informed the matter would be set for a 

disposition hearing on February 25, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. before District Judge Thomas S. Zilly. 

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

Based upon the foregoing, I recommend the court find that defendant has violated the 

conditions of her supervised release as alleged above, and conduct a disposition hearing. 

DATED this 29th day of January, 2010. 

A 

BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA 

United States Magistrate Judge
#### Anthony Tepedino et al., Respondents, v Zurich - American Insurance Group, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 604]

—In an action for a judgment declaring, *inter alia,*that the defendant is obligated to defend and indemnify its insured, Allied Wood-brook, Inc., with respect to an underlying action brought by the plaintiffs against Allied Woodbrook, Inc., the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), dated May 4, 1994, as denied its cross motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

This action seeks a judgment declaring, *inter alia,*that the *580defendant is required to defend and indemnify its insured, Allied Woodbrook, Inc. (hereinafter Allied), with respect to an underlying action brought by the plaintiffs against Allied to recover damages allegedly caused by Allied in its construction of their home. The defendant disclaimed coverage of the claims in the underlying action.

We reject the defendant’s contention that the instant action is premature as the underlying action has not been resolved. A party who is not privy to an insurance contract but would nevertheless benefit from the insurance policy may bring a declaratory judgment action to determine whether the insurer owes a defense and/or coverage under the policy *(see, Costa v Colonial Penn Ins. Co.,*204 AD2d 591; *Reliance Ins. Co. v Gasart Bldg. Corp.,*122 AD2d 128; *see also, Town of Islip v Zara & Sons Contr. Co.,*207 AD2d 339). Moreover, a declaratory judgment action against insurers with respect to jural relations, either as to present or prospective obligations, is permitted prior to entry of judgment in the underlying action *(see, Costa v Colonial Penn Ins. Co., supra; cf., Hesse v Speece,*204 AD2d 514).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 793 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      November 7, 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. 3685) to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual 
orientation. 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 Education and Labor. After general 
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions of 
the bill are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to 
the bill shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee 
on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 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 amendments are waived except those 
arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. Amendment number 3 in the report of 
the Committee on Rules may be withdrawn by its proponent before the question is 
put thereon. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 3685 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.
```
Case No. 13,555.

#### STUART et al. v. GREENLEAF.

[Brunner, Col. Cas. 77; 13 Day, 311.]

Circuit Court, D. Connecticut.

1809.

Notes — Indorsement before Maturity — Payment to Payee — Presumption.

Whether in an action by an indorsee of a negotiable note against the maker, a discharge by the payee shall be available as a defense until it be shown by the maker that the receipt was given before the indorsement was made.

NOTE. Indorsement of Note — Presumption as to. — It is a legal presumption that the in-dorsement of a note was antecedent to its becoming due. Pettis v. Westlake, 3 Scam. 538, citing case in text.

This was an action by [Robert Stuart and Hamilton Stuart] the indorsees of a promissory note against [David Greenleaf] the maker. The note was made in the state of New York, and was, by the laws of that state, negotiable. It was payable to John I. Staples & Son, and by them indorsed to the plaintiffs.

The defendant offered in evidence two receipts, signed by John I. Staples & Son, for two hundred dollars each, which he contended ought to be allowed in part on the note, unless the plaintiffs could prove that it was assigned to them before the receipts were given.

The plaintiffs contended that the onus pro-bandi lay upon the defendant; that every indorsed note was presumed to have been indorsed the day it was made, or at any rate before it became due, unless the contrary ■were shown. And of this opinion was LIVINGSTON, Circuit Justice.

Daggett & Bristol, for plaintiffs.

The District Attorney, for defendant.

EDWARDS, District Judge,

was of a contrary opinion, and strenuously contended that the onus probandi lay upon the plaintiffs.

It afterwards appeared that the case was with the plaintiffs on other grounds.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7341

PAUL EDWARD SHORT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

LLOYD WATERS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-97-

1021-MJG)

Submitted: March 26, 1998 Decided: April 7, 1998

Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Edward Short, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Celia Anderson Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Short v. Waters, No. CA-97-1021-MJG (D. Md.

Sept. 4, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
(Reap. Dec. 11032)

#### Wm. R. Neal, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 23172, etc.

(Decided June 22, 1965)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiffs.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” attached to this decision and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto subject to the approval of the court:

> That the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule “A”, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consists of steel strap similar in all material respects to the merchandise which was the subject of *Acme Steel Company*v. *United States,*C.A.D. 841.

> That the issues are similar in all material respects to the issues involved in said C.A.D. 841, and that the record therein may be incorporated herein and that the merchandise in this case was sold under conditions and practices similar to those which existed in said C.A.D. 841.

> That at the time of exportation the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold in the principal markets of Canada, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was the invoiced unit price.

> *531That the instant appeals are submitted for decision on the incorporated record and this stipulation.

Upon the agreed facts and the cited authority, I find that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1980, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the steel strap covered by these appeals for reappraisement, and that such value is the invoiced unit price.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
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

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway , Suite 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

ORDER SEALING AFFIDAVIT OF COUNSEL – page 1 (253) 593-6710

 JUDGE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JONATHAN SAWYER,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR05-5344RBL 

ORDER SEALING AFFIDAVIT OF

COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

FOR WITHDRAWAL AND

SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL 

The Court having considered the Motion for Order Sealing Affidavit of Counsel

in support of Motion for Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel,

NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Affidavit of Counsel 

and any order regarding withdrawal and substitution of counsel be sealed.

DONE this 25th day of June, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

/s/ 

LINDA R. SULLIVAN

Attorney for Defendant 

Case 3:05-cr-05344-RBL Document 50 Filed 06/25/07 Page 1 of 1
From: cathmag7@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:11:56 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,

catherine magneer

Okatie, SC 29909
H. Res. 818 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

November 14, 2007. 

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

4156) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the 

Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 

30, 2008, 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 bill shall be considered as 

read. All points of order against provisions of the bill are 

waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 

on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except: 

(1) two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the 

chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 

Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit. 

SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 4156 pursuant to 

this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
2 

•HRES 818 EH 

question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 

bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Federal Aviation 

Administration

Memorandum 

Date: July 22, 2011 

Prepared by: Anne Bechdolt, AGC-220 

Subject: Summary of response to National Air Carrier Association

On July 20, 2011, the FAA responded to clarifying questions submitted by the National Air 

Carrier Association (NACA). The following is a summary of the FAA’s response: 

NACA’s questioned whether “employed by” in § 121.157(b)(1) means an employee of the part 

119 certificate holder. The FAA stated in its response that proposed section 121.1257 (b) (1) 

requires that the individual “be employed by the part 119 certificate holder,” which means that 

there does not have to be a direct employer to employee compensatory relationship. If there is no 

direct employer-employee relationship and the certificate holder has opted to employ the services 

of another entity, the requirements of § 121.1339 would have to be satisfied. In the supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking, the FAA has also used the phrase “persons other than employees 

of the certificate holder” to indicate when an individual does not have to be an employee of the 

certificate holder (such as employees of another part 119 certificate holder or a 142 training 

center). 

In regard to the last question, whether the intended meaning of the proposed language for the 

parenthetical entry “(domestic or flag)” in proposed § 121.1417 is the same as the definitions of 

“domestic operation” and “flag operation” at 14 C.F.R. §119.3, the FAA confirmed that the 

parenthetical refers to domestic and flag operations as now defined in §110.2.
Case 2:05-cv-01471-MJP Document 9 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 1
#### In re: William LEWIS, Petitioner.

No. 05-6571.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 27, 2005.

Decided Aug. 5, 2005.

William Lewis, Petitioner pro se.

Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

William Lewis petitions for writ of mandamus, seeking an order compelling the United States Parole Commission to release him on parole. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. *See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988). Mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. *See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); *In re Beard,*811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987). Moreover, jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against an agency of the United States lies with the district courts, not this court. 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (2000); 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2000) (providing that this court’s authority under All Writs Act extends only to issuance of writs necessary *135or appropriate in aid of appellate jurisdiction).

The relief sought by Lewis is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant Lewis’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
[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: Areconnaissance of the Matanuska coal field, Alaska, in 1905**
 
Report | Plate
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:289
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000957556
 
July 25, 2018
Exhibit 32.2




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 Annual Report of Innovative Wireless Technologies, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Pavel Alpatov, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.





/s/
      Pavel AlpatovPavel
      Alpatov
                              Principal
      Financial Officer
                              March
      29,
2010
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1834 Prepped by Keeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 37)IV-E-1 0 Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 7

Printed 11/10/2008 2:14:35 PM

Sheet 37 of 61P. 2

^ t o ST

4 

# v2 ? UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y WASHINGTON , D.C . 20460

OC T OFFIC E O F AI R AN D RADIATIO N MEMORANDU

M SUBJECT : Meetin

g wit h ChemLin

k o n th e Fue l Registratio n Progra

m FROM : Jame s W. Caldwell , ChiefjW i t J (W^U/^L

Fuel s Section (6406J

) f 7 TO : Ai

r Docke t No . A-90-0

7 On Septembe

r 29 , 199 2 Michae l Les h (ou r registratio n contractor) , Joseph Fernandes , an

d I me t wit h John Motie

r an d Mik e Wes t o f ChemLink . ChemLin

k produce s hydrocarbon additive s fo r reducin g dra g i n pipelines . A

t thi s time , hydrocarbon-onl

y additive s are no t

require d to b e registered . However, based o n th e April 15 , 199

2 NPR M (5 7 F R13168 ) the y ma y ultimatel y b e included . W

e discusse d th e backgroun d o f th e registratio n progra

man d th e mechanic s o

f registration . ChemLin

k asked about

th e health-effects tes t

requirements , an

d I referre d the

mt o th e NPRM . cc : Caroly

n Kruege r

i 

# ED« - •

Printed on Recycled

Paper
No. 65224.

#### Semon Bache & Company *v.*United States,

protest 59/16431.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
Before the Second Division,

March 7, 1957

No. 60555.

#### Euramca Trading Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 261365-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case, the court found nothing tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correct*429ness attaching to the decision of the collector. The protest was therefore overruled.