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

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

JIMMIE LEE JONES, JR., )

)

Petitioner, ) CASE NO. C05-1766-JCC-JPD

)

v. )

)

DOUG WADDINGTON, ) REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

Petitioner is a state prisoner who has filed a pro se petition for a writ habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, along with an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. #1).

Petitioner was convicted in 2002 of first degree assault and was sentenced to 14 years in prison. 

(Dkt. #1, Petition at 1). Petitioner’s direct appeal in state court was unsuccessful. (Id. at 2). In his

petition, petitioner states that he filed a personal restraint petition (“PRP”) in the Washington Court

of Appeals on July 27, 2005, and that the PRP is still pending. (Id. at 3-4). Because petitioner

concedes that his PRP is pending, petitioner’s habeas petition is premature. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)

(a habeas petitioner must exhaust his state remedies before filing a petition in federal court); See

United States v. Deeb, 944 F.2d 545, 548 (9th Cir. 1991) (a district court should not entertain a

collateral attack on a conviction while other remedies are pending because to do so would thwart

judicial economy). Thus, the court concludes that the instant habeas petition is premature and should

be dismissed without prejudice. A proposed Order accompanies this Report and Recommendation.

DATED this 1st day of November, 2005.AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-01766-JCC Document 3 Filed 11/01/05 Page 1 of 1
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

104) ll-E-64 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:06 AM Sheet 104 of 264 
" MAR- 5-97 WED 4:43 PM 

03/05/87 12;01 

From: 

Date: 

Contact: 

Company: 

r MI* D! A CT T r f - — D o 

m

 PLASTICS FAA NO. ^04374U4l P f\-tf4=SJr 

©19199410234 PES RTP NC @|003/00;^- £-/ U 

Contaet Report 

Valerie Everette, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. (PES) 

March 5,1997 ^^^^sa:'

i

^^^ ' 

Mr. Mark Wilcox \^3^S^^^" ^ \ 

G&WPlastics U \ f^ e^ \ 

Telephone Number (704) 324-7002 V V—J^SoOC ^ - -

Fax Number: (704)324-0486 \^-^^^ 

Contact Summary: 

Mr. Wilcox was contacted to clarify information provided in the 1993 EPA screening 

survey submitted by G&W Plastics. Mr. Wilcox explained that G&W Plastics uses unsaturated 

polyester resin in open faced molds to make furniture. He stated that their process would likely 

be considered polymer casting. 

Based on mformation provided by Mr. Wilcox, G&W Plastics used approximately 

495,000 pounds of resin in 1996. Approximately 61,500 pounds of styrene monomer were also 

used in the process. Approximately 49,000 pounds of pecan shell filler and 36,000 pounds of 

glass bead filler were used as well. Mr. Wilcox estimated that these amounts showed 

approximately a 50 percent increase in usage from the company's 1992 usage. 

INFORMATION IS ACCURATE 

( 0 

iXficr P1601& rfS fOU*"'*'* 

Ofi^ryri/liAv^him-lsS/A)- 3^SO0 POOMOS. 

StilllM. ~ b&i 3Jo 

Ptcm) smu ?M- 7<J,37Sg/A-SS P/*-<- rt " (%i Ob 7 

X &ots$to /birrTM. 6A some.

 0fJ ^^ 

/., /. .sc -t-at.\t frzi Ac c <J&rrz~ \AA
1 

### Sutton, Tia From: Whiteman, Chad <Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 5:57 PM To: Hengst, Benjamin; Sutton, Tia; Timothy.Mullins@dot. gov; 'james.tamm@dot.gov' Cc: Achanta, Chandana L. Subject: RE: EO 12866 Interagency Comments on HD Phase II NO PR Attachments: EO12866-EPA-NHTSA-Heavy-Duty-Phase2-draft-NOPR-6_5_2015.docx 

### All, Few responses to the redline passback from 5_ 29. Please let me know if you would like to discus s. Thanks, Chad
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 193 (Friday, October 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 69633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22405]


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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION NOTICE OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 88 FR 67289.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: Thursday, October 5, 
2023 at 10:30 a.m.

CHANGE IN THE MEETING: The October 5, 2023 Open Meeting has been 
canceled.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220

(Authority: Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b)

Vicktoria J. Allen,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2023-22405 Filed 10-4-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-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 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DANNY GRIFFITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH LEHMAN,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5022 FDB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION DISMISSING

COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge [Dkt. #8] that the complaint be dismissed, without prejudice. This civil rights action was filed

on January 11, 2006. Plaintiff was given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is attempting

to litigate for the loss of “earned early release” time. 

The Magistrate Judge ordered the Plaintiff to correct deficiencies in his complaint. Rather

than proceed as ordered, Plaintiff sought to appeal the matter to this Court. This Court dismissed

the appeal as lacking merit and ordered Plaintiff to amend his complaint to correct the deficiencies no

later than June 26, 2006, warning that a failure to do so may result in a recommendation for

dismissal. Plaintiff has not amended his complaint and Magistrate Judge, Karen L. Strombom has

Case 3:06-cv-05022-FDB Document 9 Filed 08/16/06 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

recommended the action be dismissed with prejudice. The Court concurs with the recommendation

of the magistrate Judge.

The Court, having reviewed the Plaintiff’s complaint, the Report and Recommendation, and

the remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

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

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

 

DATED this16th day of August, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05022-FDB Document 9 Filed 08/16/06 Page 2 of 2
March 7, 2013



## JUDGMENT The Fourteenth Court of Appeals DAVID FURRY , Appellant NO. 14 - 12 - 00754 - CV V. SMS FINANCIAL XV, L. L.C., SUCCESSOR - IN - INTEREST TO CHASE BA NK OF TEXAS, N.A. , Appellee

____________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgmen t in favor of appellee, SMS FINANCIAL XV, L.L.C. , SUCCESSOR - IN - INTEREST TO CHASE BA NK OF TEXAS, N.A. , signed July 31, 2012 , was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the ju dgment of the court below AFFIRMED . We order appellant, DAVID FURRY , to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
S. Con. Res. 63 Agreed to November 12, 1997

One Hundred Fifth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That (a) a revised edition of the pamphlet entitled ‘‘The

Constitution of the United States of America’’, prepared under

the direction of the Joint Committee on Printing, shall be printed

as a Senate document, with appropriate illustration.

(b) There shall be printed—

(1)(A) 440,000 copies of the pamphlet for the use of the

House of Representatives, distributed in equal numbers to each

Member;

(B) 100,000 copies of the pamphlet for the use of the

Senate, distributed in equal numbers to each Member;

(C) 2,000 copies of the pamphlet for the use of the Joint

Committee on Printing; and

(D) 1,400 copies of the pamphlet for distribution to the

depository libraries; or

(2) if the total printing and production costs of copies

in paragraph (1) exceed $120,000, such number of copies of

the pamphlet as does not exceed total printing and production

costs of $120,000, with distribution to be allocated in the same

proportion as in paragraph (1).

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
ORDER EXTENDING TRIAL DATE AND DEADLINE FOR FILING PRETRIAL 

MOTIONS FOR DEFENDANT BASILIO - 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 

26 

27 

 

Hon. Ricardo S. Martinez 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 Plaintiff ) CR06-106 RSM 

 ) 

 ) ORDER GRANTING 

vs. ) DEFENDANT ELEAZAR BASILIO’S 

 ) MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND

 ) PRETRIAL MOTION FILING DEADLINE 

NORMAN CHUA GONZALES, ) 

FELIPE MARAMBA, ) 

JERRY RACCA, ) 

ELEAZAR BASILIO, ) 

JONATHAN ESCALANTE, ) 

JECER BELEN, and ) 

ROLANDO HERNANDEZ ) 

 Defendants ) 

_____________________________ ) 

 THE COURT having reviewed defendant Eleazar Basilio’s motion to continue trial date 

and pretrial motion deadline, and any responses to the motion finds that, pursuant to Title 18 

United States Code Sections 3161(h)(8)(A) and (B), the ends of justice served by granting the 

requested continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and defendant in speedy trial, for 

the reasons outlined in defendant’s motion. Specifically it appears to the Court that the failure 

to grant a trial continuance would effectively deny defense counsel the reasonable time 

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

Case 2:06-cr-00106-RSM Document 231 Filed 01/18/07 Page 1 of 2
ORDER EXTENDING TRIAL DATE AND DEADLINE FOR FILING PRETRIAL 

MOTIONS FOR DEFENDANT BASILIO - 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 

 

 Accordingly defense motions are granted and trial of defendant Eleazar Basilio is 

continued to the date of February 20, 2007 and pretrial motions filing deadline is continued to 

February 1, 2007 (alternatively February 9, 2007). 

DATED this 18th day of January, 2007 

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

Presented by: 

s/Mark S. Lee 

WSBA 18085 

Attorney for defendant Eleazar Basilio 

1001 Fourth Avenue 

Suite 3200 

Seattle WA 98154 

Telephone : (206) 292-5032 

Fax: (206) 652-0725 

E-mail : LMS3@qwest.net

Case 2:06-cr-00106-RSM Document 231 Filed 01/18/07 Page 2 of 2
No. 59814.

#### Electrolux Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 269535-K, etc. (New York).

*392Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the electric floor polishers and electric vacuum cleaners are articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device and that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that involved in *United States*v. *J. E. Bernard & Company, Inc.*(42 C. C. P. A. 141, C. A. D. 586), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

June 20, 1951

No. 55674.

protests 28603-K, etc. (New York).

#### Osaka Textiles, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             303
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,453
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (831)
<INVENTORY>                                     16,671
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,226
<PP&E>                                          32,676
<DEPRECIATION>                                (21,128)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  67,368
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,630
<BONDS>                                         12,879
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           101
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,758
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    67,368
<SALES>                                         14,618
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,618
<CGS>                                         (10,846)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (14,639)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (20)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (401)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (442)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (95)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (347)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (347)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)


</TABLE>
No. 68511.

protest. 63/17512-17071 (New Orleans).

#### Bert Scheuer, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The official papers disclosing that the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.O. § 1514).
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. 

EDWARD MOTLEY,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05-413M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offense charged: 

Escape from custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a).

Date of Detention Hearing: October 13, 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

the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) Defendant appears to have knowingly and voluntarily escapee from custody at

Pioneer Fellowship House, a facility in which he was lawfully confined.

(2) Defendant has stipulated to detention, 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

Case 2:05-cr-00383-MJP Document 7 Filed 10/13/05 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

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-00383-MJP Document 7 Filed 10/13/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.1

                          CERTIFICATIONS

I, Scott Emerson Lybbert, certify that:

  1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of TGFIN Holdings,
Inc.;
        2.   Based upon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain
any untrue statements of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this quarterly report;
        3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly represent in
all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
quarterly report;
        4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:
               a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures toensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is
being prepared;
               b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date
of this annual report (the Evaluation Date"); and
               c)   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
        5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the
audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):
               a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for
the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
               b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal controls; and
        6.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated
in this annual report whether there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


     /s/ Scott Emerson Lybbert       Chief Executive Officer
    --------------------------
         Scott Emerson Lybbert        May 10, 2004
No. 59811.

#### W. N. Proctor Co. *v.*United States,

protests 17597-4-K, etc. (Boston).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Angora rabbit hair similar in all material respects to that the subject of *W. N. Proctor Company*v. *United States*(35 Cust. Ct. 89, C. D. 1727), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

ROBERT BONNEVILLE a/ka/ WILL JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

ELLWANGER, 

v.

KITSAP COUNTY, et al. CASE NUMBER: C06-5228RJB 

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the

jury has rendered its verdict.

 _X__ Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried

or heard and a decision has been rendered.

 

Kitsap County Defendants' Memorandum in Support of an Award of Attorneys Fees, Dkt #110, is

GRANTED. Plaintiff shall pay Kitsap County Defendants' award of attorney fees in the amount of $473.00, on

behalf of Defendants Kitsap County, Stephen Mount and Michael Barth. 

April 17, 2007 BRUCE RIFKIN 

 Clerk

 /s/ Dara L. Kaleel

 By Dara L. Kaleel, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:06-cv-05228-RJB Document 115 Filed 04/17/07 Page 1 of 1
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 9, 2013*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**F.207 Federal Funds and Security Repurchase Agreements** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 79

To commend the bravery and honor of the citizens of Remy, France, for

their actions with respect to Lieutenant Houston Braly and to recognize

the efforts of the 364th Fighter Group to raise funds to restore the

stained glass windows of a church in Remy.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 4, 1998

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mrs. BOXER, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. DURBIN,

and Mr. SANTORUM) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To commend the bravery and honor of the citizens of Remy,

France, for their actions with respect to Lieutenant

Houston Braly and to recognize the efforts of the 364th

Fighter Group to raise funds to restore the stained glass

windows of a church in Remy.

Whereas on August 2, 1944, a squadron of P–51s from the

United States 364th Fighter Group strafed a German

munitions train in Remy, France;

Whereas the resulting explosion killed Lieutenant Houston

Braly, one of the attacking pilots, and destroyed much of

the village of Remy, including 7 stained glass windows in

the 13th century church;
2

•SCON 79 IS

Whereas, despite threats of reprisals from the occupying German authorities, the citizens of Remy recovered Lieutenant Braly’s body from the wreckage, buried his body with

dignity and honor in the church’s cemetery, and decorated the grave site daily with fresh flowers;

Whereas on Armistice Day, 1995, the village of Remy renamed the crossroads near the site of Lieutenant Braly’s

death in his honor;

Whereas the surviving members of the 364th Fighter Group

desire to express their gratitude to the brave citizens of

Remy; and

Whereas, to express their gratitude, the surviving members of

the 364th Fighter Group have organized a nonprofit corporation to raise funds, through its project ‘‘Windows for

Remy’’, to restore the church’s stained glass windows:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That Congress—

3 (1) commends the bravery and honor of the citi4 zens of Remy, France, for their actions with respect

5 to the American fighter pilot Lieutenant Houston

6 Braly during and after August 1944; and

7 (2) recognizes the efforts of the surviving mem8 bers of the United States 364th Fighter Group to

9 raise funds to restore the stained glass windows of

10 Remy’s 13th century church.

Æ