alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

AROLDO PEREZ-PEREZ,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-070M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offense charged: 

Illegal Reentry After Deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

Date of Detention Hearing: February 16, 2006.

The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and

based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth, finds

that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of

defendant as required or ensure the safety of the community.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) A detainer has been placed on defendant by the Bureau of Immigration and

Customs Enforcement.

(2) Defendant is a citizen of Mexico, and it appears he has no ties to this community,

or to the Western District of Washington.

(3) Defendant has had prior deportations to Mexico.

Case 2:06-mj-00070-JPD Document 6 Filed 02/16/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

(4) Defendant has stipulated to detention, due to the immigration detainer lodged

against him, but reserves the right to contest his continued detention if there is a change in

circumstances.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the extent

practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with

counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which defendant

is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose

of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United States

Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 16th day of February, 2006.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-mj-00070-JPD Document 6 Filed 02/16/06 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 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

TROY DEIMERLY,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVE JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5002 RBL/KLS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Karen L.

Strombom, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, and the remaining record, does

hereby find and ORDER:

(1) Plaintiff’s Letter/Motion regarding Lost Correspondence [Dkt. #63] will be

considered by the Court as an Objection to the Report and Recommendation. One

basis for the recommendation to grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment is

that plaintiff failed to respond in opposition to the motion in violation of Local Rule

CR 7(b). Plaintiff’s objection relates to the failure of Safford Creek Correction

Center to send out some of his legal mail dated September 5, 2006 and October 3,

2006. This lawsuit involves allegations that defendant acted with deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs. This motion for summary judgment was

filed after plaintiff complained that his legal papers were not mailed out by Safford

Creek; therefore, his objection does not relate to or explain why he failed to respond

to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. As such, plaintiff’s objection is

DENIED. 

(2) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(3) Defendant Alves’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #44) is GRANTED; and

Case 3:06-cv-05002-RBL Document 70 Filed 12/18/06 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

(4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff, counsel for Defendant

and to the Hon. Karen L. Strombom.

DATED this 18th day of December, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05002-RBL Document 70 Filed 12/18/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

September 14, 1961

No. 66060.

#### Henry A. Wess, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/6562, etc. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of woodworking machinery, or parts thereof, of the same kind in all material respects as those the subject of *Henry A.*Wess, *Inc.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 78, C.D. 2107), the protests were dismissed, and the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U.S.C. § 2636(d)).
## Breadcrumb

-  Research 
-  Southern Research Station 
-                       Search SRS                  

#### Topic

              - Climate Change(2) - Adaptation(1)
- Climate Change Effects(1)
 
              - Environment and People(3) - History(1)
- Human Impacts(1)
 
              - Fire(1)
              - Fish and Wildlife(1)
              - Inventory, Monitoring and Analysis(1)
              - Managing the Land(3) - Forest Management(1) - Riparian(1)
 
- Restoration and Recovery(2)
 
              - Water, Air and Soil(1) - Water(1)
 

#### Publications

              - Research Paper(1)
              - Scientific Journal(5)

#### Products

              - Science Delivery(2) - CompassLive(2) - Article(2)
 
 

#### Year

              - 2023(1)
              - 2022(1)
              - 2021(1)
              - 2018(1)
              - 2015(1)
              - 2013(1)
              - 2008(1)
              - 2005(1)
              - 2000(1)

# Search SRS

& Sort 

## 									What is forest restoration?							

John A. Stanturf

**compass**

## 									New methods, algorithms, and software for rapid mapping of tree positions in coordinate forest plots							

A. Dan Wilson

**compass**

## 									Southern Forest Research Centennial							

**compass****Compass**

## 									Top Ten of 2022							

**Compass****Compass****Compass**

## 									History of Forest Research in the South, 1921-1933							

**Compass**

## 									Wood variability in mature longleaf pine: differences related to cardinal direction for a softwood in a humid subtropical climate							

Thomas L. EberhardtDaniel J. Leduc

**compass**

## 									Indicator development methodology for volunteer tourism in host communities: creating a low-cost, locally applicable, rapid assessment tool							

John Schelhas

**compass****compass**

## 									Floods in a changing climate							

**Compass****Compass**

## 									Simulation modeling as a tool for understanding the landscape ecology of the southern pine beetle infestations in Southern Appalachian forests.							

Kier Klepzig

**Compass****Compass**
No. 59274.

protest 202249-K/3926 (Chicago).

#### International Expediters, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

It appearing from the official papers that the protest was not filed within the statutory period, the protest was dismissed.
Before the First Division,

March 1, 1957

No. 60545.

#### Polks Model Craft Hobbies, Inc., and Meadows Wye & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 299587-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

An examination of the record showed that the merchandise in question is not chiefly used for the amusement of children and that the electric motors are chiefly used by adults, possessing technical knowledge concerning the basic principles of electricity, in the manufacture or construction of various electrical products. Since it was stipulated that the electric motors in question have as an essential feature an electrical element or device and that they are in chief value of metal, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: smirussell@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:17:25 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,

Philip Russell

Mccomb, MS 39648
Before the Third Division,

December 21, 1964

No. 68965.

#### Antique Import Co. *v.*United States,

protest 63/7684 (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures, valued at $2.50 or more each, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 CCPA 15, C.A.D. 458), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

CONTINUE MOTIONS DEADLINE AND TRIAL 

DATE (No. CR06-026 RSL) - 1 

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

LAW OFFICES OF 

COSTELLO & ASSOCIATES, P.S. 

1000 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1780 

SEATTLE, WA 98104 

(206) 749-5020 

The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ROBEL SISAY GEBREMEDHIN, and LIBAN

FARAH ALI, 

 Defendants. 

No. CR06-026 RSL 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO CONTINUE MOTIONS 

DEADLINE AND TRIAL DATE 

 THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendants Saimon Gebremichael Melacu 

and Liban Farah Ali’s motion to continue the motions deadline and trial date in this matter. 

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court finds as follows: 

1. That failure to grant a continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time 

necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due 

diligence, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii) and (iv); 

2. That the case is unusual and complex, due to the number of defendants and 

the nature of the prosecution such that it is unreasonable to expect adequate 

preparation within the time limits specified; and 

3. That the ends of justice will be served by ordering a continuance in the 

case, that a continuance is necessary to ensure effective trial preparation, 

Case 2:06-cr-00026-RSL Document 204 Filed 08/31/06 Page 1 of 2
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

CONTINUE MOTIONS DEADLINE AND TRIAL 

DATE (No. CR06-026 RSL) - 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

LAW OFFICES OF 

COSTELLO & ASSOCIATES, P.S. 

1000 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1780 

SEATTLE, WA 98104 

(206) 749-5020 

and that these factors outweigh the best interests of the public in a speedy 

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

 THEREFORE, the Court rules as follows: 

GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, the motions deadline and trial date in this 

matter are hereby continued. The motions deadline is reset to October 31, 2006. The trial date is 

reset to November 27, 2006. 

 The period of time from the current trial date, September 25, 2006, to the new trial date is 

excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161 et seq. 

DATED THIS 31st day of August, 2006. 

 Robert S. Lasnik 

 United States District Judge

A

Presented by: 

s/ Christopher Black

Attorney for Saimon Gebremichael Melacu 

Costello & Associates, P.S. 

1000 Second Ave, Suite 1780 

Seattle, WA 98104 

Telephone: (206) 749-5020 

Fax: (206) 749-5074 

F:\Legal Administration\CLIENT\Active\Melacu, Saimon 1393\Pleadings\08-21-06 Order continuing trial.doc 

Case 2:06-cr-00026-RSL Document 204 Filed 08/31/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF 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 Annual Report of Mondas Minerals Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Scott Bengfort, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
10th day of August, 2009.


/s/ Scott Bengfort
------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
#### Isabel Ruiz, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 192]

—In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals (1) from an order of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), entered April 8, 1994, which denied her motion for permission to file a late claim and granted the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the claim, and (2) as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the same court entered June 16, 1994, as, upon granting renewal and reargument, adhered to its original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered April 8, 1994, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order entered June 16, 1994, made upon renewal and reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered June 16, 1994, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Court of Claims properly found that the claimant should not be granted leave to file a late claim. While it is true the failure to tender a valid excuse will not in and of itself *mandate*the denial of a timely motion for leave to file a late claim *(see, Bay Terrace Coop. Section IV v New York State Employees’ Retirement Sys.,*55 NY2d 979), it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to deny leave to a claimant who had known about the claimed deficiency in service for over two years, but failed to offer *any*excuse for not making the motion *(see, Innis v State of New York,*92 AD2d 606, *affd*60 NY2d 654).

We have examined the claimant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.
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 H&H Imports, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), 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 to his knowledge:

1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:  August ___, 2011

| |        |                        
| | ------ | -----------------------
| | By:    | /s/Steve Rogai         
| | Name:  | Steve Rogai            
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to H&H Imports, Inc. and will be retained by H&H Imports, Inc. and furnished to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
(R.D. 11552)

#### International Seaway Trading Corp. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 859362; 872776-1/3; 887636.

(Decided June 27, 1968)

*Sharretts, Paley, Carter & Blauvelt (Robert Follicle*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Edwin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General *(MolUe Strum,*trial attorney) , for the defendant.

*915Maletz, Judge:

When these three appeals for reappraisement were called for hearing, plaintiff offered no testimony and submitted the cases upon the records. Defendant then moved to dismiss the appeals on the ground that plaintiff had not made out a *prima facie*case.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted. An examination of the records in the appeals before the court discloses nothing which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper values of the imports are the values returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit
32.1








Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,


18
U.S.C. Section 1350











I, Robert
Papiri, President, Secretary and Treasurer of Alchemical Capital Corp. (the
“Corporation”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to my knowledge that:




1.  the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Corporation for the year ended December 31,
2009 (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
Corporation.





Date:  March
29, 2010








By:/s/ Robert
Papiri


Robert Papiri


President, Secretary and Treasurer


(Principal Accounting Officer)
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 1044** 

ANDREA C. WEATHERS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL; HERBERT B. PETERSON, in his individual and official capacity; JONATHAN KOTCH, in his individual and official capacity; BARBARA K. RIMER, in her individual and official capacity; EDWARD M. FOSTER, in his individual and official capacity; SANDRA L. MARTIN, in her individual and official capacity , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. Thomas D. Schroeder , District Judge. ( 1:12

- cv - 01059

- TDS

- JEP )

Submitted : June 30, 2014 Decided: July 22, 2014

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Andrea C. Weathers , Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Thomas Tulchin , NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Andrea C. Weathers appeals the district court ’ s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss her action for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(1), (3) . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error . Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Weathers v. Univ. of N
. C
. , No. 1:12

- cv - 01059

- TDS

- JEP (M.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 201 3 ) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is C ourt and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
From: dhcarl@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:03:40 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,

David Carl

Dallas, TX 75229