alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000875385
<NAME> ACCESS SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US$

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          82,728
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  119,516
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,167
<INVENTORY>                                    108,537
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               364,961
<PP&E>                                       1,273,101
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,034,369
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 668,365
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,136,335
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        39,652
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,637,694
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   668,365
<SALES>                                        214,578
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               214,578
<CGS>                                           76,071
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  258,154
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,673
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (288,122)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (288,122)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (288,122)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)


</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

 ORDER

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

FLENARD TYRONE NEAL, JR., DONALD

JAMAR LEWIS, FELIX ADEOKUN,

Defendants.

Case No. CR06-5058 RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon a Joint Defense Motion to Extend

Motions Cutoff Date [Dkt. #44].

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, it is hereby

ORDERED that the joint motion is GRANTED. Pretrial motions, if any, shall be filed on or before

August 28, 2006.

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing

pro se.

Dated this 17th day of July, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cr-05058-RBL Document 45 Filed 07/17/06 Page 1 of 1
Before Judge Watson,

April 10, 1969

No. R69/13.

reappraisements R64/14785, etc. (New York).

#### Mantell Export Co. *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues and merchandise involved herein are the same in all material respects as those in *Mantell Export Company*v. *United States*(58 Cust. Ct. 662, R.D. 11290), the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, was the proper basis for the determination of the value of the second-quality wooden coat hangers and that such value was $95.50 per 1,000, less the pro rata share of the items of ocean freight and marine insurance premium as invoiced.
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 – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

LISA HANIGAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF KENT, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C06-176JLR

ORDER

The court has reviewed Defendants’ motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule

60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Dkt. # 55). Defendants argue that the court

incorrectly applied Rule 7(f) of the Local Rules, which requires parties to file motions for

over-length briefs at least three judicial days before the underlying motion is due. Local

Rules W.D. Wash. 7(f). In this case, Defendants filed their motion for over-length brief

on the day the underlying brief was due. The court therefore struck the pages of the brief

that exceeded the twelve-page limitation. 

Defendants now move for reconsideration because “a party cannot logically be

aware of whether a reply brief will be over-length on the very next day after receiving the

Case 2:06-cv-00176-JLR Document 57 Filed 12/26/06 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 – 2

opposition [brief].” Defs.’ Mot. at 3. Rule 7(f)(4) provides, however, that in all cases,

the reply brief “shall not exceed one-half the total length of the brief filed in opposition.” 

Plaintiff did not move for leave to file an over-length brief. Her opposition brief was

therefore limited to twenty-four pages, as per Rule 7(e)(3). Accordingly, under no

circumstances would Defendants have been permitted to file a brief that exceeded twelve

pages, or one-half the length of the Plaintiff’s opposition brief. 

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party to move the

court to grant relief from a prior judgment or order for a number of reasons, including:

fraud; newly discovered evidence; voided, released, discharged or satisfied judgments; or

“any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment [or order].” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(6). Because Defendants failed to identify the basis for their motion for

reconsideration under Rule 60(b), the court evaluates the request under the catchall

provision of Rule 60(b)(6). Courts apply subsection (b)(6) “sparingly and as an equitable

remedy to prevent manifest injustice.” Hamilton v. Newland, 374 F.3d 822, 825 (9th Cir.

2004) (quoting United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th

Cir. 1993)). Such motions must be supported by extraordinary circumstances. Hamilton,

374 F.3d at 825 (citations and quotation marks omitted). Having reviewed Defendants’

brief, the court finds no circumstance, let alone extraordinary circumstances, that merit

this court’s review of its prior order (Dkt. # 54). The motion for reconsideration is

DENIED (Dkt. # 55).

Dated this 22nd of December, 2006.

A JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00176-JLR Document 57 Filed 12/26/06 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 55 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 1 of 18

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 55

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 55 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 2 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 55 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 3 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 55 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 4 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 55 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 5 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 55 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 6 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 55 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 7 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 55 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 8 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 55 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 9 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 55 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 10 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 55 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 11 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 55 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 12 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 55 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 13 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 55 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 14 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 55 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 15 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 55 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 16 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 55 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 17 of 18
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 55 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 18 of 18
(Reap. Dec. 10796)

#### Mitsubishi Int’l Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 840468, etc.

*381(Decided August 5, 1964)

*William Whynman*and *Lane, Young & Fox*for tlie plaintiff.

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

OlxveR, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement listed in the attached Schedule A consists of footwear, the uppers of which are composed in chief value of rayon with soles composed wholly or in chief value of India rubber; and that said footwear was appraised under Section 402a (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> That at the time of exportation of the imported footwear no' domestic manufacturer offered like or similar footwear for sale and like or similar footwear was not manufactured or produced in the United States.

> That on or about the date of exportation, such or similar footwear was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, at the invoice unit prices less marine insurance premium and ocean freight, as noted on the invoices, said prices including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States.

> That on or about the date of exportation, the foreign value or such value as defined in Section 402a(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, of such or similar merchandise was no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the said appeals for reappraisement may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the footwear in question is export value, as defined in section 402 a(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and hold that such statutory value for the present merchandise is the invoice unit prices, less marine insurance premium and ocean freight as noted on the invoices.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Case 2:06-cv-00149-RSM Document 73 Filed 04/29/11 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00149-RSM Document 73 Filed 04/29/11 Page 2 of 3
STIPULATION FOR AND ORDER VACATING DEFAULT AND

JUDGMENT ENTERED AGAINST YOUNG HONG AND

DISMISSING ALL CLAIMS AGAINST YOUNG HONG - 3

(CV-06-00149-RSM)

Williams, Kastner & Gibbs PLLC

601 Union Street, Suite 4100

Seattle, Washington 98101-2380

(206) 628-6600

3136383.1

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 29th day of April, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, and a copy of which was delivered via

email and U.S. Mail to:

Wayne Seminoff

PO Box 956

Kirkland, WA 98083

wayne@isomedia.com

Plaintiff Pro Se

DATED this 29th day of April, 2011.

s/Mark S. Davidson

Mark S. Davidson, WSBA #06430

Michael I. White, WSBA #35409

Attorneys for Defendant Young Ran Kim,

formerly known as Young Hong

WILLIAMS, KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC

601 Union Street, Suite 4100

Seattle, WA 98101-2380

Telephone: (206) 628-6600

Fax: (206) 628-6611

Email: mdavidson@williamskastner.com

mwhite@williamskastner.com

Case 2:06-cv-00149-RSM Document 73 Filed 04/29/11 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 69956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22395]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[FR-6430-N-01]


Availability of HUD's Fiscal Year 2021 Service Contract Inventory

AGENCY: Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice advises of the availability to the public of 
service contracts awarded by HUD in Fiscal Year (FY) 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Akinsola A. Ajayi, Assistant Chief 
Procurement Officer, Office of Policy, Systems and Risk Management, 
Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; telephone 
number 202-402-6728 (this is not a toll-free number) and fax number 
202-708-8912. HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from 
individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals 
with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more about how to 
make an accessible telephone call, please visit https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/telecommunications-relay-service-trs.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section 743 of Division C 
of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117, 
approved December 16, 2009, 123 Stat. 3034, at 123 Stat. 3216), HUD is 
publishing this notice to advise the public of service contracts 
inventories that were awarded in FY 2021. The inventories are organized 
by function and are reviewed by HUD to better understand how contracted 
services are used to support HUD's primary mission, to insure HUD 
maintains an adequate workforce for operations and to research whether 
contractors were performing inherently governmental functions.
    The inventory was developed in accordance with guidance issued on 
November 5, 2010 by the Office of Management and Budget's Office 
Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). OFPP's guidance is available at 
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/procurement/memo/service-contract-inventories-guidance-11052010.pdf.
    HUD has posted its inventory and a summary of the inventory on the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development's homepage at the following 
link: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/cpo/sci.

Dr. Akinsola A. Ajayi,
Assistant Chief Procurement Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-22395 Filed 10-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
From: nsmerritt@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:01:51 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,

Nancy Merritt

Dover, NH 03820
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

SUMMARY REPORT OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE AS

TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE 

PAGE -1- 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

DANIEL JOSEPH GARRIS,

 Defendant.

 CASE NO. CR 06-96JCC

 SUMMARY REPORT OF U.S.

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 AS TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS

 OF SUPERVISED RELEASE

INTRODUCTION

I conducted a hearing on alleged violations of supervised release in this case on

October 16, 2007. The United States was represented by Karyn Johnson. The defendant

was represented by Paula Deutsch for Jennifer Wellman. The proceedings were recorded

on disk.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE

Defendant had been convicted of Mail Theft on or about June 13, 2006. The

Honorable John C. Coughenour of this court sentenced Defendant to one hundred and

twenty-two days of confinement, followed by three years of supervised release. The

conditions of supervised release included requirements that defendant comply with the

standard 13 conditions.

Case 2:06-cr-00096-JCC Document 85 Filed 10/17/07 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

1

The report adds a violation to another matter set for dispositon on Decemeber 7, 2007.

SUMMARY REPORT OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE AS

TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE 

PAGE -2- 

DEFENDANT'S ADMISSION

USPO Angela McGlynn alleged in a supplemental violation report filed with the

Court that the defendant violated the conditions of supervised release in one respect:1

(3) Failing to comply with the home confinement program on or about October 5,

2007, in violation of the special condition requiring he participate in the home

confinement program with electronic home monitoring as directed by the

probation officer for a period of one hundred and twenty days.

I advised the defendant of the charge and of his constitutional rights. At today’s hearing

the defendant admitted violation number three, waived any hearing as to whether it

occurred and consented to having the matter set for a disposition hearing before the

Honorable John C. Coughenour. 

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Based upon the foregoing, I recommend the court find that the defendant has violated

the conditions of his supervised release as alleged and set the matter for a disposition

hearing.

The defendant has been detained pending a final determination by the court.

DATED this 17th day of October, 2007.

AMONICA J. BENTON

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Sentencing Judge : Hon. John C. Coughenour Assistant U.S. Attorney : Karyn Johnson

Defense Attorney : Jennifer E. Wellman

U. S. Probation Officer : Angela M. McGlynn

Case 2:06-cr-00096-JCC Document 85 Filed 10/17/07 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 13.1**

** **

** **

** **

** **

**Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal FinancialOfficer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, I, Suresh Venkatesan, the Chief Executive Officer of POET Technologies Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify,that, to my knowledge:

 

1.The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended 2015 (the "Report") ofthe Company 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.

 

The foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with the provisionsof Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended to be used or relied upon for any other purpose.

 

 

Date: March 18, 2016

 

 

 

 

/s/ Suresh Venkatesaon

_____________________

 

Name: Suresh Venkatesan

 

Title: Chief Executive Officer
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 GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 1

United States v. Crabtree; CR05-5830RBL

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

JUDGE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ANDREW CRABTREE,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR05-5830RBL

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

DATE 

Based on the stipulated motion of the parties to continue the trial date, and the

affidavit of defense counsel in support of the motion, the Court makes the following

findings of fact and conclusions of law:

1. The ends of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best

interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A). 

2. Proceeding to trial absent adequate time for the defense to prepare would

result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(B)(i). 

3. The defense needs additional time to explore issues of some complexity,

including all relevant issues and defenses applicable to the case, which would make it

unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for trial itself

within the time limits established by the Speedy Trial Act and currently set for this case. 

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B(ii). 

Case 3:05-cr-05830-RBL Document 22 Filed 01/19/06 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 GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 2

United States v. Crabtree; CR05-5830RBL

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

4. Taking into account the exercise of due diligence, a continuance is necessary

to allow the defendant the reasonable time for effective preparation his defense. 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). 

NOW, THEREFORE,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date is continued from January 30, 2006

to April 24, 2006, at 9:00 am. The resulting period of delay from January 30, 2006, to

April 24, 2006, is hereby excluded for speedy trial purposes under 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(A) and (B).

Pre-trial motions are due no later than March 13, 2006.

Pre-trial conference shall be on April 19, 2006, at 9:00 a.m..

IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of January, 2006. ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented By:

/s/ Jerome Kuh /s/ Susan B. Dohrmann 

Jerome Kuh Susan B. Dohrmann 

Attorney for Defendant Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:05-cr-05830-RBL Document 22 Filed 01/19/06 Page 2 of 2