alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 68147]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21829]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules; Hearing of the Judicial 
Conference

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States.

ACTION: Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules; notice of cancellation 
of open hearing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The following public hearing on proposed amendments to the 
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure has been canceled: Appellate Rules 
Hearing on October 18, 2023. The announcement for this hearing was 
previously published in the Federal Register on August 9, 2023.

DATES: October 18, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: H. Thomas Byron III, Esq., Chief 
Counsel, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the U.S. 
Courts, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus 
Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Phone (202) 502-1820, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#88dafde4edfbcbe7e5e5e1fcfcededd7dbedebfaedfce9faf1c8e9e7a6fdfbebe7fdfafcfba6efe7fe"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b9ebccd5dccafad6d4d4d0cdcddcdce6eadcdacbdccdd8cbc0f9d8d697cccadad6cccbcdca97ded6cf">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2073.)

    Dated: September 26, 2023.
Shelly L. Cox,
Management Analyst, Rules Committee Staff.
[FR Doc. 2023-21829 Filed 10-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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 ORD ON NOTICE OF RMVL - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

WASBASH NATIONAL CORPORATION, et

al.,

Defendant(s).

NO. C06-57P

 STANDING ORDER REQUIRING 

 SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION 

 REGARDING REMOVAL

 

Upon removal of the action and for good cause, the court orders the removing defendant or

defendants within seven (7) days of the date of this order to serve and file a submission providing the

following information:

1. Have all defendants served at the time of removal joined in the removal? Provide a full

explanation if all defendants served at the time of removal did not join in the notice of

removal.

2. On what date was the first defendant served? On what date was the notice of removal

filed? Provide a full explanation if the notice of removal was dated more than thirty

(30) days after the first defendant was served.

3. If the action has been removed on grounds of diversity jurisdiction, is any defendant

served at the time of removal a citizen of the forum state?

4. If the action has been removed on grounds of diversity jurisdiction, state the citizenship

of all named plaintiffs and all named defendants (including the citizenship of all

members or partners in any non-corporate party), if such states of citizenship were not

set forth in the notice of removal.

5. If the action has been removed on grounds of diversity jurisdiction, state the amount of

damages in controversy.

Case 2:06-cv-00057-MJP Document 4 Filed 01/18/2006 Page 1 of 2

Hernandez et al v. Wabash National Corporation et al Doc. 4

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 ORD ON NOTICE OF RMVL - 2

If the plaintiff has a response to defendants’ submission, such response, if any, shall be filed

and served within seven (7) days of the date of defendants’ submission. Any motion to remand the

action to state court based on any procedural defects in the removal must be filed thirty (30) days after

removal or sooner. See 28 U.S.C. §1447(c).

The clerk is directed to send copies of this order to all counsel of record.

Dated: January 18, 2006

AMarsha J. Pechman

U.S. District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00057-MJP Document 4 Filed 01/18/2006 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                 5

<S>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>             6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    FEB-28-2001
<PERIOD-END>                         AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                                               108,000
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    390,077,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                      14,270,000
<INVENTORY>                                          361,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 359,470,000
<PP&E>                                             3,020,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                     1,730,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   386,772,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            301,645,000
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                          23,100,000
<OTHER-SE>                                        41,410,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     386,772,000
<SALES>                                           92,866,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 103,530,000
<CGS>                                             88,731,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     88,731,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   3,082,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   1,823,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 5,491,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    4,403,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                       1,670,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                2,733,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                       2,733,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                             0.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0.50


</TABLE>
Before the Third Division,

September 12, 1961

No. 66057.

#### B. Altman & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/8798, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of vitrified decorated bowls similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 50327, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### Grand Union Company, Respondent-Appellant, v James A. Klein, Appellant-Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 32]

—In an action to recover damages pursuant to the terms of a lease, (1) the defendant appeals and the plaintiff cross-appeals on the ground of inadequacy from a decision of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), entered December 6, 1993, which determined the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment and (2) the defendant appeals and the plaintiff cross-appeals on the ground of inadequacy from a judgment of the same court, entered January 6, 1994, which, upon granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the principal sum of $40,413.

Ordered that the appeals from the decision are dismissed, without costs or disbursements, since no appeal lies from a decision *(see, Schicchi v Green Constr. Corp.,*100 AD2d 509); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that, pursuant to the terms of the lease, the plaintiff was required to pay for the cost of labor for the repairs to the leased premises and the defendant was required to pay for the cost of materials. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly found that there were no triable issues of fact and properly granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment *(see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557). Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.
(Reap. Dec. 11031)

#### Titmus Optical Company, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. P-9.

(Decided June 22, 1965)

*Michael A. O’Brien*for the plaintiff.

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

Rao, Judge:

The instant appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto that the merchandise marked A and initialed DAS by Examiner Sass on the invoices accompanying the entries covered by the above named appeals for reappraisement consists of Color Vision Tests and was exported to the United States in 1962.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that on the dates of exportation of said merchandise to the United States, the price at the time of exportation at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or, in the absense of *530sales, offered for sale in tlie principal markets of the country of exportation, 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 $12.34 each, net, packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these appeals be submitted on this stipulation, said appeals being limited to the merchandise marked A as aforesaid.

Upon, the agreed facts, I find 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, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise covered by this appeal for reappraisement, and that such value is $12.34 each, net, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Office of the United States Trade Representative

          - [Docket Number USTR-2023-0007]

# AGENCY:

Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).

# ACTION:

Notice; cancelation of public hearing.

# SUMMARY:

The interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) sought public comments to assist USTR in the preparation of its annual report to Congress on Russia's implementation of its obligations as a Member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). USTR is cancelling the public hearing that was scheduled to take place on October 12, 2023.

# DATES:

The public hearing scheduled for October 12, 2023 is cancelled.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Silvia Savich, Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Russia and Eurasia, at                         *Silvia.Savich@ustr.eop.gov*                         or (202) 395-2256.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On August 8, 2023, the TPSC sought public comments to assist USTR in the preparation of its annual report to Congress on Russia's implementation of its obligations as a Member of the WTO.                     *See*88 FR 53576 (Aug 8, 2023). The notice included a September 20, 2023 deadline for the submission of written comments and requests to testify at a public hearing that was scheduled to take place on October 12, 2023. In response to the request for comments, USTR received two submissions. USTR also received one request to participate in the public hearing, which subsequently was withdrawn. Therefore, USTR is cancelling the October 12, 2023 public hearing.                

Laura Buffo,

Chair of the Trade Policy Staff Committee, Office of the United States Trade Representative.

[FR Doc. 2023-21831 Filed 10-2-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3290-F3-P
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 ORDER FOR SERVICE AND RETURN, 2254 PETITION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

RONALD GLENN DAUGHERTY,

Petitioner,

v.

KENNETH QUINN,

Respondent.

Case No. C06-5051FDB

 ORDER FOR SERVICE AND

 RETURN, § 2254 PETITION

(1) The clerk shall arrange for service by certified mail upon respondent, a copy of the

petition, of all documents in support thereof, and of this Order. All costs of service shall be

advanced by the United States. The Clerk shall assemble the necessary documents to effect service. 

The Clerk shall send petitioner a copy of this Order, and the General Order. The clerk will also send

a courtesy copy of the petition to the Washington State Attorney General’s Office Criminal Justice

Division. 

(2) Within forty-five (45) days after such service, respondent shall file and serve an

 answer in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District

Courts. As part of such answer, respondents should state whether petitioner has exhausted available

state remedies, whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary, and whether there is any issue of abuse

of delay under Rule 9. Respondent shall not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer without

Case 3:06-cv-05051-FDB Document 3 Filed 02/13/06 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 ORDER FOR SERVICE AND RETURN, 2254 PETITION - 2

first showing cause as to why an answer is inadequate. Respondent shall file the answer with the

Clerk of Court and serve a copy of the answer upon petitioner.

(3) The answer will be treated in accordance with Local Rule CR 7. Accordingly, upon

 receipt of the Answer the Clerk will note the matter for consideration on the fourth Friday after the

answer is filed, petitioner may file and serve a response not later than on the Monday immediately

preceding the Friday appointed for consideration of the matter, and respondent may file and serve a

reply brief not later than on the Thursday immediately preceding the Friday designated for

consideration of the matter.

DATED this 13th day of February, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05051-FDB Document 3 Filed 02/13/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-30231

MARY L. HELMS, individually and as next friend of Amy T. Helms;

AMY T. HELMS, a minor; MARIE L. SCHNEIDER,

Plaintiffs - Appellants - Cross Appellees - Appellees,

VERSUS

CECIL J. PICARD, Louisiana Superintendent of Public Education;

KENNETH DUNCAN, Louisiana State Treasurer; LOUISIANA STATE BOARD

OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION; JEFFERSON PARISH SCHOOL

BOARD SYSTEM; ELTON LAGASSE, Superintendent of the Jefferson

Parish School System; LAURIE E. ROLLING, President and member of

the Jefferson Parish School Board; LIBBY MORAN, Vice President

and member of the Jefferson Parish School Board; ROBERT WOLFE,

member of the Jefferson Parish School Board; BARRY BORDELON,

member of the Jefferson Parish School Board; O.H. GUIDRY, member

of the Jefferson Parish School Board; CEDRIC FLOYD, member of the

Jefferson Parish School Board; POLLY THOMAS, member of the

Jefferson Parish School Board; GENE KATSANIS, member of the

Jefferson Parish School Board; MARTIN MARINO, member of the

Jefferson Parish School Board, 

Defendants - Appellees - Cross Appellants,

and

RICHARD W. RILEY, Secretary of the United States Department of

Education; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES CORPORATION,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

GUY MITCHELL; JAN MITCHELL; EUGENE CERISE; KATHY CERISE,

Intervenor Defendants - Appellees - Cross Appellants.
1Judges Wiener and Dennis did not participate in the

consideration of the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

January 13, 1999

ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion 8/17/98, 5 Cir., 97-30231, 151 F.3d 347)

Before DUHÉ, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.1

PER CURIAM:

The Petitions for Rehearing are DENIED and the court having

been polled at the request of one of the members of the court and

a majority of the judges who are in regular active service not

having voted in favor, (Fed. R. App. P and 5th Cir. R. 35) the

Suggestions for Rehearing En Banc are also DENIED.

For clarity, we amend that part of the last sentence of the

panel opinion following the number (2) to read as follows: 

“...(2) we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary

judgment in favor of Defendants and RENDER judgment in

favor of Plaintiffs declaring that the Federal

instructional materials program, 20 U.S.C. §§ 7301-7373,

and its Louisiana counterpart, La.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§

17:351-52, are unconstitutional as applied in Jefferson

Parish, except as applied for the acquisition of

textbooks which use is not challenged by this litigation;

and (3)....”
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

ORDER ON MOTION FOR STAY — 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

SUSAN B. LONG, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE

SERVICE, 

 Defendant.

Case No. C74-724 MJP

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

STAY

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion for stay pending a ruling by

the court of appeals on a motion to stay. (Dkt. No. 106.) After reviewing the motion, Plaintiff’s

response (Dkt. No. 108), and the balance of the record, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion. 

This motion is denied for the same reasons the Court denied Defendant’s first motion to

stay pending appeal. (See Dkt. No. 105.) Once again, the Court has considered the four factors

relevant to a motion for stay: (1) the likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm to

the appellant; (3) relative hardship of the parties; and (4) the public interest. Nautilus Group,

Inc. v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 308 F. Supp. 2d 1208, 1216 (W. D. Wash. 2003). 

The Court is no more convinced of Defendant’s likelihood of success on the motion to

stay currently before the appellate court than it was of the likelihood of success on the appeal

itself. Neither does the Court find that Defendant would be irreparably harmed or that the public

would be injured by denying the stay. As stated repeatedly in past orders, (see Dkt. Nos. 85 &

105), this Court finds that the requested documents do not contain return information, therefore

denying Defendant’s requested stay presents no risk of harm to any party. Finally, the Court is

not convinced by Defendant’s argument that this Court’s orders will moot Defendant’s argument
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

ORDER ON MOTION FOR STAY — 2

on appeal.

The current motion for a stay is denied. Defendant has repeatedly defied this Court’s

orders. (See Dkt. Nos. 54, 85 & 105.) Defendant is instructed to comply immediately with the

instructions set forth in this Court’s June 13, 2008 order. (Dkt No. 85.) 

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to all counsel of record.

Dated: October 1, 2008.

A

Marsha J. Pechman

U.S. District Judge
From: kstruckman@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:34:56 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,

Kyle Struckman

Rapid City, SD 57702
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1000 PLATE 16

NABKODN, KL

SECTION ALONG TRAVERSE SHOWING ZINC CONTENT AND SOIL CONSTITUENTS

°
i

Ld

O 0
PARTS PER MILLION

DEPTH OF SOIL SAMPLE, IN FEET
Fy

|

al |}

12,500
OR MORE

LEAD AND ZINC CONTENT OF RESIDUAL CLAY
10,0004

7500-|

5000-|

mop
5000 .

OR MORE LEAD AND ZINC CONTENT OF SOIL AT 1-FOOT DEPTH é ON
2500-} f a 9 \

of AREER RAAT AoA Z anne aan SERRE RaATAnaaia_Anonnannaan er ; ; j ; ; : ; i j ; i ; ; ; ;
0 2 30 75 100 125 150 15 260 2bs 250 215 300 320 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450 460 480 I 6

DISTANCE ALONG TRAVERSE , IN FEET

LEAD OR ZINC, IN PARTS PER MILLION

EXPLANATION —
. EXPLANATION
Zine °,
aaa Pits on known lead vein
Lead °5 500
5
Sample point and distance, in feet,
Component of slope . from the beginning of the traverse
parallel to traverse —> 5° ise
Direction and estimated amount
PERCENT OF RESIDUAL of land slope
MATERIAL IN’ SOIL ee .
Approximate position of lead vein +500
2° . \
Less than 50 percent \ . 250 \20
More than 50 percent 5 "200
‘ © = 9150
.
Only lead and zinc in p 2 “100
amount from 250 to \ . 750 9 coreet
4000ppm are shown 1
Zine analyses plotted in upper graph
were by bisulfate fusion. Lea
Petal aliiliowerf raphe veraibey MAP SHOWING RELATIVE POSITION OF SOIL SAMPLE POINTS AND A KNOWN LEAD VEIN

4N nitric acid

DISTRIBUTION OF LEAD AND ZINC IN THE SOIL IN THE VICINITY OF THE DEMBY-WEIST LEAD RANGE

869614 O—66 (In pocket) NO. 10
Case 2:05-cv-01951-JLR Document 12 Filed 08/25/06 Page 1 of 1