alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T S T AN L E Y K E L L E Y, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. R O B E R T K . W O N G , W a r d e n ; O FFI CE O F TH E G O V ERN O R, R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 15939 D. C. No . 2 : 0 5 - c v - 0 1 7 1 3 - ALA ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia A rthurL . A l a r c ón, C i r c ui tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A ugus t2, 2011 ** B efo re: R Y M E R , IK U T A , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C al i forni a s t at e pri soner S t anl eyK el l eyappeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c ourt ’ s j udgm e ntde ny i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on. W e ha ve j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 3 , a n dw e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED AU G 11 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 15939 2 K e l l e yc ont e nds tha tthe hi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s w e r e vi ol a t e d be c aus e the G o v e rn o r ’ s 2 0 0 4 d e c i s i o n t o d e n yh i m p a r o l e w a s n o ts u p p o rt e db y“ s o me ev i d en ce. ” T h i s cl ai m i s fo recl o sedb y Sw artho utv. C oo ke , 131 S . C t . 859, 863 ( 2 0 1 1 ) ( h o ld in g th a t th e o n lyf e d e r a l r ig h t a t is s u e in th e p a r o le c o n te x t is procedural ). T o the e xt e nttha tK e l l e yc ont e nds tha tthe G ove rnorvi ol a t e d hi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s byf

a i l i ng t o hol d ahe a r i ng be f or e r e ve r s i ng the gr a ntof pa r ol e by th e C al i fo rn i a B o ard o f P ri so n T erm s, th atco n t en t i o n i s fo recl o sedb y St yr e v . A da ms , __ F . 3d __, 2011 W L 2176465, a t*1- 2 ( 9th C i r . June 6, 2011) ( hol di ng th a t C oo ke i m pl i c i t l yr e j e c t s a r gum e nttha tthe G ove rnorw a s r e qui r e d t o hol d a hear i ng before re vers i ng the B oard’ s dec i si on grant i ng parol e) . K e lly ’s r e m a in in g c la im s la c km e r it. AF F I RME D.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RESENTENCING - 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

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT TACOMA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

MICHAEL JORDAN, 

 Defendant. 

CASE NO. CR05-5823RBL 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RESENTENCING 

THIS MATTER is before the Court on pro se Defendant Jordan’s Motion for a reduction 

in Sentence, based on his rehabilitation in custody. Jordan pled guilty to Kidnapping Resulting in 

Death in 2007. That felony carried a mandatory minimum of life imprisonment. As part of the 

plea agreement, parties agreed to a sentence of 16-22 years. Jordan was sentenced to 19. He has 

served 12. 

Jordan claims he has been rehabilitated in prison and asks the Court to reduce his 

sentence by an undetermined amount as a result. He relies on Pepper v United States, 131 S.Sct. 

1229 (2011) for the proposition that a District Court can consider his post-sentencing conduct in 

re-sentencing., But as the Government points out, Pepper involved a post-Booker, post-remand 

re-sentencing. Booker does not apply to Jordan and his sentence has not been set aside. 
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RESENTENCING - 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

Instead, he must clear the twin hurdles of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)—a narrow statue 

allowing limited adjustments to an otherwise final sentence; it is not authority for a plenary 

resentencing proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010). 

The Government argues that Jordan cannot pass the first test, because the Guidelines 

have not been amended in a way that addresses his crime or his sentence. See USSG § 

1B10(a)(1). None of the amendments applies, and none have the effect of lowering the 

defendant’s “applicable guideline range.” USSG § 1B1.10(a)(2). 

For these and the other reasons identified and articulated in the Government’s response, 

the Motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated this 23rd day of March, 2018. 

A

Ronald B. Leighton 

United States District Judge
From: krashop@mchsi.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:47:38 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,

Patricia Krastel

Polk City, IA 50226
Exhibit 4.1



18zaf77502   18-2775-2 C4.1 P1 Exhibit 4.1 Doc 6 


    




 






 



18zaf77502   18-2775-2 C4.1 P1 Exhibit 4.1 Doc 6
Before the First Division,

December 15, 1964

No. 68949.

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

protest 63/2949 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the articles of merchandise, designated on the invoice as “Monla Illuminator with iris diaphragms but without blue-grass disks as code BEECH-DEEMH,” are not essential for the operation of a microscope, can be used with items other than microscopes, and that they are, in fact, lamps in chief value of metal, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Caterpillar
Financial Services Corporation's third quarter 10-Q and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                              52
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    11664
<ALLOWANCES>                                       934
<INVENTORY>                                         31
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                              34
<DEPRECIATION>                                      16
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   12165
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                           8133
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           745
<OTHER-SE>                                         621
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     12165
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   880
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   252
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    50
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 416
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    162
<INCOME-TAX>                                        58
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                104
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       104
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>We are a captive finance subsidiary which does not have a classified balance
sheet.
</FN>


</TABLE>
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

LORRAINE and WALTER WHITE,

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 vs. 

HOLLAND AMERICA LINE, INC. Et al,

 Defendant.

 C05-1753 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 C05-1753 RSL and

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

Dated this 5th day of December, 2005

BRUCE RIFKIN

Clerk of Court

by: /s/ PETER H. VOELKER

 Peter H. Voelker, Deputy Clerk

Case 2:05-cv-01753-RSL Document 10 Filed 12/05/05 Page 1 of 1
[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:Geospatial intelligence support in joint operations.**
 
PDF | ePub
 
SuDoc Number:D 5.12:2-03/2012
Item Number:0315-C (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000955994
 
July 19, 2018
From: jaconlin@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:23:20 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,

John Conlin

San Jose, CA 95124
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: APPEAL OF SPRINGFIELD

HOSPITAL

PETITION OF: PROSPECT CROZER,

LLC :

:

:

:

:

: No. 186 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22nd day of August, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 28, 2015

a1019

Order 

Clerk

October 28, 2015

148533

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148533

COA: 318527

Genesee CC: 13-032889-FH

MOHAMMID SAMUEL-LEE NARD,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 26, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Genesee Circuit Court to 

determine whether the court would have imposed a materially different sentence under 

the sentencing procedure described in People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015). On 

remand, the trial court shall follow the procedure described in Part VI of our opinion. If 

the trial court determines that it would have imposed the same sentence absent the 

unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it may reaffirm the original sentence. If, 

however, the trial court determines that it would not have imposed the same sentence 

absent the unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it shall resentence the defendant.

 

We do not retain jurisdiction.
Before the Third Division,

December 23, 1952

No. 57003.

protest 17394-K (San Francisco).

#### Matson Navigation Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co.,*Inc. v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: mimizeiser@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:25:27 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,

Joanne Zeiser

Signal Mountain, TN 37377
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 6, 2013*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**R.103 Change in Net Worth of Nonfinancial Noncorporate Business** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
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 ON MOTION TO COMPEL

DISCOVERY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

MARTIN L. GUITARD,

Defendant.

Case No. CR06-0069RSL

ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL

DISCOVERY

This matter comes before the Court on defendant Martin Guitard’s “Motion to Compel

Discovery” (Dkt. # 51). In the instant motion, Guitard requests “e-mails, copies of actual

contracts between serviced oil companies and GATX/Kinder Morgan . . . ; and copies of bills of

lading for fuel shipped to Harbor Island by the oil companies as a result of those contractual

agreements . . . .” Motion at 1. The government responds that it does not have any of these

documents, nor does it intend to use them at trial.

The government is required to provide copies of documents that are “within the

government’s possession, custody, or control.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E). The Ninth Circuit

has expanded this obligation only to include items in the possession of other government

agencies, to the extent that those agencies are participating in the same investigation. See United

States v. Zuno-Arce, 44 F.3d 1420, 1427 (9th Cir. 1995). The subpoena provision of the Federal

Case 2:06-cr-00069-RSL Document 75 Filed 06/15/06 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 ON MOTION TO COMPEL

DISCOVERY

-2-

Rules of Criminal Procedure is the proper mechanism for a defendant’s pursuit of the documents

of a third party. Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(1).

Upon review of the parties’ briefs and the arguments presented before the Court,

however, the Court concludes that the government is in a position to assist in the resolution of

this dispute by facilitating the victim company’s cooperation in discovery. At the hearing, the

government indicated its willingness to work with the victim company to provide the following

documents to the defendant: (1) a representative bill of lading; (2) a representative pipeline

ticket; and (3) a representative contract between the oil companies and GATX/Kinder Morgan,

excised of all proprietary information. As to the third document, the Court offers the alternative

option of accepting a copy of a representative contract for in camera review in order to allow the

Court to make its own determination as to which parts will be provided to defendant.

Pursuant to these limitations, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s “Motion to

Compel Discovery” (Dkt. # 51) is GRANTED IN PART.

DATED this 15th day of June, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00069-RSL Document 75 Filed 06/15/06 Page 2 of 2