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. 

FELIPE ORTIZ-SANCHEZ,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 05-202M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offenses charged:

Count I: Unlawful entry, first offense (misdemeanor) in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1325(a)(2).

Count II: Unlawful entry, second offense (felony) in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325 (a)(2).

Date of Detention Hearing: Initial Appearance, 4/28/2005.

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 which defendant can meet will reasonably assure

the appearance of defendant as required. If new issues surface, then the defendant may request

another hearing on release.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) In the Complaint for Violation dated April 26, 2005, criminal records are cited that

reflect prior serious offenses committed by Defendant. In addition, the Complaint notes several

Case 2:05-mj-00202-JPD Document 7 Filed 04/28/05 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

violations relating to deportation and removal.

(2) Defendant appears to have no substantial ties to the community or to the Western

District of Washington.

(3) The defendant has stipulated to detention due to the detainer placed on defendant

by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but reserves the right to the possibility

of a subsequent motion for release if there is a change of circumstances. 

(4) No conditions or combination of conditions are apparent that will reasonably assure

the defendant’s appearance at future Court hearings.

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 28th day of April, 2005.

s/ JAMES P. DONOHUE 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-mj-00202-JPD Document 7 Filed 04/28/05 Page 2 of 2
Before the Third Division,

November 8, 1962

No. 67179.

protests 58/3684, etc. (New York).

#### Royal Crown Derby, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C.C.P.A. 15, C.A.D. 458), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 193 (Friday, October 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69633-69634]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22285]


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

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION


Senior Executive Service; Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the appointment of the members of the 
Performance Review Board (PRB) for the Federal Mine Safety and Health 
Review Commission. The PRB reviews the performance appraisals of career 
and non-career senior executives. The PRB makes recommendations 
regarding proposed performance appraisals, ratings, bonuses, pay 
adjustments, and other appropriate personnel actions.

DATES: Applicable on October 6, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Poole, Senior Management and 
Program Analyst, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, 
(202) 577-6831.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Notice announces the appointment of the 
following primary and alternate members to the Federal Mine Safety and 
Health Review Commission PRB:
    Primary Members:

Craig Brown, Deputy Director, Selective Service System (acting)
Charlotte Dye, Deputy General Counsel, Federal Labor Relations 
Authority

[[Page 69634]]

Peggy Gartner, Deputy Office Head, U.S. National Science Foundation

    Alternate Members: None.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 4313(c)(4).

Joshua Poole,
Senior Management and Program Analyst, Federal Mine Safety and Health 
Review Commission.
[FR Doc. 2023-22285 Filed 10-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
Louis D. Levinson, 

International Financial Group, 

Inc., Guilford Specialty Group, 

Inc., Guilford Insurance 

Company, and The Burlington 

Insurance 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 25, 2014

No. 04-14-00606-CV

ARGO GROUP US, INC., Colony Management Services, Inc., Colony Insurance Company, 

Colony National Insurance Company, Colony Specialty Insurance Company, Colony Agency 

Services, Inc., and Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd.,

Appellants

v.

Louis D. LEVINSON, International Financial Group, Inc., Guilford Specialty Group, Inc., 

Guilford Insurance Company, and The Burlington Insurance Company,

Appellees

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-09550

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant's first motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. Time is 

extended to September 26, 2014.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 25th day of September, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
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

ROBERT BROWN,

Petitioner,

v.

RICHARD MORGAN,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5280 FDB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

DENYING PETITION

The Magistrate Judge recommends that this habeas petition be dismissed as untimely. 

Petitioner has not filed an objection. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. Petitioner has filed successive untimely petitions in State Court, the most recent

being dismissed by the Washington State Supreme Court on statute of limitations grounds. As

detailed by the Magistrate Judge, the one-year statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), began to

run on April 24, 1996 and expired on April 24, 1997 without interruption. Petitioner did not file his

habeas corpus petition with this Court until march 12, 2005. The statute of limitations has long since

expired. Moreover, the untimely state court petition did not toll the federal statute of limitations. 

See, Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 1807 (2005).

Case 3:05-cv-05280-FDB Document 19 Filed 06/06/06 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

The Court, having reviewed the petition, the Report and Recommendation of the Hon. Karen

L. Strombom, United States Magistrate Judge, and the remaining record, does hereby find and

Order:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED; and

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner, to counsel for

respondent, and to the Hon. Karen L. Strombom.

DATED this 5th day of June, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05280-FDB Document 19 Filed 06/06/06 Page 2 of 2
From: alconlin1@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:21:22 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,

Al Conlin

Chula Vista, CA 91911
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER OF REMAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

DELIA ALANIZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C06-0558-RSL

ORDER OF REMAND

The Court has reviewed the entire record, including the Administrative Record, the

memoranda of the parties, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

Judge Mary Alice Theiler. It is therefore ORDERED:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) The Court REMANDS this matter for further administrative proceedings; and

(3) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to all counsel and to Judge Theiler.

DATED this 4th day of December, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00558-RSL Document 20 Filed 12/05/06 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00334-RSL Document 17 Filed 08/25/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00334-RSL Document 17 Filed 08/25/06 Page 2 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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

MY BA DINH,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05-484M 

DETENTION ORDER 

Offenses charged:

Conspiracy to import marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A),

and 846 and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.§§ 841

(a)(1), 841 (b)(1)(D).

Date of Detention Hearing: October 14, 2005

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: 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), there is a rebuttable presumption that

defendant is a flight risk and a danger to the community based on the nature of the pending

charges. 

Case 2:05-cr-00380-RSL Document 19 Filed 10/14/05 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

(2) Defendant’s interview with Pretrial Services produced substantial discrepancies

regarding his living arrangements, employment arrangements, citizenship status

and passport information. These issues raise substantial questions regarding

the risk of nonappearance. In addition, substance abuse questions remain. As

a result, the defendant has not overcome the statutory rebuttable presumption

set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (e). 

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 14th day of October, 2005.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cr-00380-RSL Document 19 Filed 10/14/05 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                           4,666
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  141,386
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,688
<INVENTORY>                                      1,604
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               157,760
<PP&E>                                          50,535
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,967
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 220,980
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          142,117
<BONDS>                                         13,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            46
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,017
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   220,980
<SALES>                                        248,470
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               263,899
<CGS>                                          229,070
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  241,099
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   227
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 359
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    638
<INCOME-TAX>                                       262
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                376
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       376
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10


</TABLE>
No. 67620.

#### H. W. Ebert Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/14394, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case 3:05-cv-05306-RBL Document 104 Filed 09/11/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:05-cv-05306-RBL Document 104 Filed 09/11/06 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.6

                                    SUMMARY

     Loan Agreement Between Wilfried Beeck and Intershop Communications AG

Parties                  Wilfried Beeck and Intershop Communications,AG

Loan Amount              Up to Euro 7,000,000 by Mr. Beeck to INTERSHOP
                         Communications AG.

Purpose                  Working capital credit ("Betriebsmittelkredit") in form
                         of an overdraft credit without earmarking for a
                         specific purpose.

Interest Rate            6% per year.

Delivery of Funds        The amount has to be transferred in total or partly
                         upon request by the borrower to its account at
                         Commerzbank Jena (Germany) within five (5) business
                         days (overdraft credit).

Collateral               Assignment of all current, open claims of Intershop
                         Communications AG and all of its affiliated companies
                         except Intershop Communications Inc.

Termination              Three months' notice without cause, or immediately with
                         cause (e.g., the delay of interest repayments, special
                         breach of contract, making of false statements with
                         respect to the granting or the continued granting of
                         the loan, opening of certain proceedings related to the
                         borrower's bankruptcy, or final suspension of payments)

Repayment                The loan is due in total on the day on which the
                         agreement has been terminated. The borrower can repay
                         the loan in total or in installments at any time.

Governing Law            The laws of the Federal Republic of Germany.
#### Ralph A. YOUNG, dba Hanalei Sport Fishing & Tours; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Timothy E. JOHNS, in his capacity as Chairperson, Department of Land and Natural Resources State of Hawaii; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-15522.

D.C. No. CV-00-774-HG.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.1

Decided June 14, 2001.

*507Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4.

MEMORANDUM2

This preliminary injunction appeal comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

We subject a district court’s order regarding preliminary injunctive relief only to limited review. *Walczak v. EPL Prolong, Inc.,*198 F.3d 725, 730 (9th Cir.1999). Our review of an order regarding a preliminary injunction “is much more limited than review of an order involving a permanent injunction, where all conclusions of law are freely reviewable.” *Id.*A decision regarding a preliminary injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion, which occurs only if the district court based its decision on either an erroneous legal standard or clearly erroneous factual findings. *Id.*

We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion here. We therefore affirm the district court’s order denying the preliminary injunction. Our disposition will affect the rights of the parties only until the district court renders final judgment. *See Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press International,*686 F.2d 750, 752 (9th Cir.1982).

AFFIRMED.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT M 

Earthlink website offering internet access 

service 

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 102-14 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 1 of 2

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 102 Att. 13

Dockets.Justia.com
EarthLink http://www.earthlink.net/

1 of 1 1/21/2007 9:14 AM

© 2007 EarthLink, Inc. All rights reserved.

Members and visitors to the EarthLink Web site agree to abide by our Policies and Agreements.

EarthLink Privacy Policy

myEarthLink | Web Mail | My Account | Support | mySecurity EarthLink

HOME | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | PARTNER PROGRAMS | DOWNLOADS | CAREERS | SITE MAP

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 102-14 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

October 19, 1967

No. P67/350.

#### Ace Importing Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protest 58/15518 (New York).

Bao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of rubber bulb horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Sherwin*International, *Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 466, Abstract 69382), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.