alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 766 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 766

 Supporting the goals and ideals of National Infection Prevention Week.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 23, 2007

 Mr. Wicker (for himself and Mr. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania) submitted 
the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy 
                              and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Supporting the goals and ideals of National Infection Prevention Week.

Whereas protecting the health of Americans includes providing every citizen with 
        access to safe and effective health care;
Whereas Infection Prevention and Control Professionals are devoted to patient 
        and health care worker safety and are committed to reducing the risk and 
        occurrence of healthcare-associated infections;
Whereas the prevention of healthcare-associated infections is instrumental in 
        achieving this goal;
Whereas every year, more than 800,000,000 Americans visit their physicians and 
        over 33,000,000 are admitted to hospitals, with many undergoing medical 
        procedures that have a risk of infectious complications;
Whereas healthcare-associated infections increase morbidity and mortality and 
        add a significant financial burden to the cost of health care;
Whereas there is need for a public awareness campaign to help Infection Control 
        Professionals make health care professionals and the general public 
        aware of the importance of preventing healthcare-associated infections, 
        thereby reducing the burden of human suffering and disease; and
Whereas the third week of October 2008, would be an appropriate week to observe 
        National Infection Prevention Week: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of National Infection 
        Prevention Week;
            (2) calls upon the people of the United States to observe 
        the week with appropriate programs and activities; and
            (3) supports raising awareness of the importance of 
        preventing healthcare-associated infections.
                                 <all>
```
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

G. MICHAEL STRAUSS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DONNA HAMILTON, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5772FDB

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION TO DENY

APPLICATION TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Noted for March 31, 2006

This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. Plaintiff in this case is a resident at the Washington State Department

of Social and Health Services’ Special Commitment Center. Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis (Dkt. # 1), but has since paid the court filing fee. Accordingly, the Court should deny the motion.

DISCUSSION

A district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon completion of a

proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, the court has broad discretion in

denying an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963),

cert. denied, 375 U.S. 845 (1963).

On November 29, 2005, the clerk received plaintiff’s complaint and motion to proceed in forma

pauperis. (Dkt. #1). On January 13, 2006, the undersigned ordered plaintiff to cure certain deficiencies in

his motion, or show cause why this matter should not be dismissed. (Dkt. #3). On February 8, 2005,

Case 3:05-cv-05772-FDB Document 7 Filed 03/07/06 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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 2

plaintiff paid the filing fee, stating that he was withdrawing his application to proceed in forma pauperis.

(Dkt. #4 and #5). Because plaintiff has paid the filing fee and has indicated his intent to withdraw his

application to proceed in forma pauperis, that application is therefore moot. 

CONCLUSION

Because plaintiff has paid the court filing fee and has indicated his intent to withdraw his

application to proceed in forma pauperis, the undersigned recommends the court deny his application. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R.

Civ. P.”), petitioner shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file

written objections thereto. 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 set this matter for consideration on March 31, 2006, as

noted in the caption. 

DATED this 7th day of March, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05772-FDB Document 7 Filed 03/07/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2  Certification of the Principal Financial Officer 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 periodic report of IBI Acquisitions, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),Jay Lutsky, the Principal Financial Officer of the Company, 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 operations of the Company. /s/Jay Lutsky Principal Financial Officer Date:  August 31, 2011
Transport Transports Canada Canada TP 7245E



# AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE

The following airworthiness directive (AD) may be applicable to an aircraft which our records indicate is registered in your na me. ADs are issued pursuant to Canadian Aviation Regulation (CAR) 521 Division X . Pursuant to CAR 605.84 and the further details of CAR Standard 625, Appendix H , the continuing airworthiness of a Canadian registered aircraft is contingent upon compliance with all applicable ADs. Failure to comply with the requirements of an AD may invalidate the flight authorization of the aircraft. Alternative means of compliance shall be applied for in accordance with CAR 605.84 and the above-referenced Standard

. This AD has been issued b y the Continuin g Airworthiness Division ( AARDG ) , National Aircraft Certification Branch, Trans p ort Canada, Ottawa, tele p hone 613 952-4357.

Pursuant to CAR 202.51 the registered owner of a Canadian aircraft shall, within seven days, notify the Minister in writing of any change of his or her name or address. To request a change of address, contact the Civil Aviation Communicat ions Centre (AARC) at Place de Ville, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N8 , or 1-800-305-2059 , or www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/communications/centre/ address.asp
2 4-0022 ( 01-2005 ) 1/1 No

. CF-2013-27 Issue Date 25 September 2013

Number: CF-2013-27 Subject: Ice Protection System – Inoperative Timer and Monitor Unit Effective: 8 October 2013 Applicability: Bombardier Inc. model DHC-8- 400, -401 and -402 aeroplanes, serial numbers 4001 through 4446. Compliance: Within 2000 hours air time or 12 months , whichever occurs first, from the effective date of this AD, unless already accomplished. Background: There have been several in-service reports of t he failure of high pressure shutoff valves (HPSOV) causing the Timer and Monitor Unit (TMU) to become inoperative since the HPSOV and TMU are on the same circuit breaker. An inoperative TMU would result in the lo ss of the automatic de-icing mode and would lead to an increased workload for the flightcrew. In the case where additional failures occur during a critical flight phase, the significantly increased workload could lead to loss of control of the aeroplane. This AD mandates a wiring modification to segregate the HPSOV power supply from the TMU. Corrective Actions: Incorporate Bombardier ModSum 4-110595. Bo mbardier Service Bulletin (SB) 84-36-04, Revision A, dated 17 April 2013, or later re visions approved by the Chief, Continuing A irworthiness, Transport Canada, provides approved instructions for incorporating ModSum 4-110595. Incorporation of Modsum 4-110595 in accordanc e with the Initial Issue of SB 84-36-04, dated 13 March 2013, also satisfies the requirements of this AD. Authorization: For the Minister of Transport, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Derek Ferguson Chief, Continuing Airworthiness Contact: Robert Farinas, Continuing Airworthine ss, Ottawa, telephone 613-952-4357, facsimile 613-996-9178 or e-mail AD-CN@tc.gc.ca or any Transport Canada Centre.
----

|                            |   | Three Months Ended |      |
|---------------------------------|--------|--------------------|-----------|
|                            |   | September 30,      |      |
|                            |   | 2010               |      |   | 2009 |   |
|                            |   |               |      |   |   |   |
| Basic Earnings Per Share   |   |               |      |   |   |   |
|                            |   |               |      |   |   |   |
| Net earnings                    |   | $                  | 1,052,000 |   |   | $ | 619,000 |   |
|                            |   |               |      |   |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted-average Common Shares: |   |               |      |   |   |   |   |   |
|                            |   |               |      |   |   |   |   |   |
| Basic Shares Outstanding        |   |               | 7,979,000 |   |   |   | 7,723,000 |   |
|                            |   |               |      |   |   |   |   |   |
| Basic Earnings Per Share        |   | $                  | 0.13      |   |   | $ | 0.08 |   |
|                            |   |               |      |   |   |   |   |   |
| Diluted Earnings Per Share      |   |               |      |   |   |   |   |   |
|                            |   |               |      |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net earnings                    |   | $                  | 1,052,000 |   |   | $ | 619,000 |   |
|                            |   |               |      |   |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted-average Common Shares: |   |               |      |   |   |   |   |   |
|                            |   |               |      |   |   |   |   |   |
| Outstanding                     |   |               | 7,979,000 |   |   |   | 7,723,000 |   |
|                            |   |               |      |   |   |   |   |   |
| Stock Options                   |   |               | 81,000    |   |   |   | 37,000 |   |
|                            |   |               |      |   |   |   |   |   |
| Restricted Stock                |   |               | 74,000    |   |   |   | 129,000 |   |
|                            |   |               |      |   |   |   |   |   |
| Diluted Shares Outstanding      |   |               | 8,134,000 |   |   |   | 7,890,000 |   |
|                            |   |               |      |   |   |   |   |   |
| Diluted Earnings Per Share      |   | $                  | 0.13      |   |   | $ | 0.08 |   |

----
Case 2:06-cv-00153-MJP Document 30 Filed 10/30/06 Page 1 of 1
Before the First Division,

February 26, 1958

No. 61579.

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 263280-K and 268084-K (New York).

• Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of parts of photo enlargers; that said enlargers were held dutiable at 15 percent under paragraph 1551, as modified, as photographic cameras in *Manca, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 271, C. D. 1874); and that, in accordance with said decision, parts for enlargers are properly dutiable as parts of photographic cameras under paragraph 1551, the claim of the plaintiff at 20 percent was sustained.
EXHIBIT A

NEWMAN & NEWMAN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

HOURLY RATE SHEET

Derek Newman $325

John Whitaker $310

Roy Berg $300

Roger Townsend $275

Jessica Newman $250

S. Christopher Winter $250

Randy Moeller $235

John Du Wors $215

Michael Spain $210

Derek Linke $175

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 133-2 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 1 of 1

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 133 Att. 1

Dockets.Justia.com
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.

RANDALL CANUPP, REGINALD PURDOM,

BENJAMIN LONG, and ANTHONY D’ALOIA,

Defendants.

CASE NO. CR05-396C

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Stipulation to Continue Trial and Establish

Motions Cutoff Deadline (Dkt. No. 37).

The current Motions Cutoff Deadline is December 1, 2005 and the current trial date is January 3,

2006. Counsel for Defendant Randall Canupp has just entered his appearance after a substitution of

counsel (see Dkt. No. 38) and has not had sufficient time to review discovery for preparation of legal

motions and for trial. A denial of the requested extensions would unreasonably deny Defendant Canupp

adequate preparation by his attorney and would deny counsel reasonable time to prepare. Due to these

factors, exclusion of additional time under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv) is appropriate, taking into

account the exercise of due diligence. 

All Defendants have joined in the instant motion, but only three of the four have filed speedy trial

Case 2:05-cr-00396-JCC Document 43 Filed 12/16/05 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

waivers. Defendant Canupp has waived speedy trial rights through March 26, 2006 (Dkt. No. 41);

Defendant D’Aloia has waived speedy trial rights through March 21, 2006 (Dkt. No. 39); and Defendant

Long has waived speedy trial rights through March 6, 2006. Defendant Purdom has not waived speedy

trial rights in association with the instant request for a continuance, but because there has been no

severance of trial and his three codefendants have waived speedy trial rights and presented sufficient

grounds for a continuance, the delay between the date of this Order and the new trial date is excludable

time pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7) as to Defendant Purdom. 

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 Defendants 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 January 31, 2006, with a new trial date of March 6, 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) as to all Defendants and, additionally, pursuant to id. § 3161(h)(7)

as to Defendant Purdom. 

SO ORDERED this 16th day of December, 2005.

AJohn C. Coughenour

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cr-00396-JCC Document 43 Filed 12/16/05 Page 2 of 2
[ARTICLE]    5[LEGEND]    This schedule contains summary financial information extracted fromthe balance sheets and statements of operations found in the Company's Form10-QSB for the year to date, and is qualified in its entirety by reference tosuch financial statements.[CURRENCY]    U.S.DOLLARS<TABLE><S>                                                      <C>[PERIOD-TYPE]                                          3-MOS[PERIOD-START]                                   Jul-01-2000[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                                Jun-30-2000[PERIOD-END]                                     Sep-30-2000[EXCHANGE-RATE]                                            1[CASH]                                             1,323,958[SECURITIES]                                               0[RECEIVABLES]                                         20,654[ALLOWANCES]                                          12,000[INVENTORY]                                                0[CURRENT-ASSETS]                                   1,435,794[PP&E]                                               410,881[DEPRECIATION]                                     (221,569)[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                     1,799,656[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                                182,136[BONDS]                                                    0[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                      0[PREFERRED]                                                0[COMMON]                                          25,752,247[OTHER-SE]                                      (31,148,237)[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                       1,799,656[SALES]                                                    0[TOTAL-REVENUES]                                      17,652[CGS]                                                      0[TOTAL-COSTS]                                         88,906[OTHER-EXPENSES]                                   4,545,874[LOSS-PROVISION]                                           0[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                                   683,102[INCOME-PRETAX]                                  (4,265,076)[INCOME-TAX]                                               0[INCOME-CONTINUING]                              (4,265,076)[DISCONTINUED]                                             0[EXTRAORDINARY]                                            0[CHANGES]                                                  0[NET-INCOME]                                     (4,265,076)[EPS-BASIC]                                           (0.34)[EPS-DILUTED]                                         (0.34)</TABLE>
No. 66567.

#### J. T. Steeb & Co., Inc., and Portland Fish Co. *v.*United States,

protest 61/6688 (Portland, Oreg.).

*371Opinion by

Wilson, J.

An examination of the official papers disclosing that the protest was untimely filed, the protest was dismissed.
September 18, 1961

No. 66088.

Suit 5054.

#### C. J. Van Houten *&*Zoon, Inc., and Bluefries, New York, Inc. *v.*United States.

C.D. 2178 affirmed June 2,1961. C.A.D. 775.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 20, 2012*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**L.227 Proprietors Equity in Noncorporate Business** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
From: jimxjan@earthlink.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:02:18 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,

James Turner

Collierville, TN 38017