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

27

28

ORDER/MCGARVEY — 1

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

Judge Burgess

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) NO.CR05-5346FDB

)

Plaintiff, )

) AGREED ORDER EXTENDING 

) TIME FOR GOVERNMENT’S 

) RESPONSE TO PRE-TRIAL 

BARRY THOMAS McGARVEY, ) MOTIONS

)

Defendant. ) )

Upon stipulation of the parties to continue the time for the Government’s

response to pretrial motions in the above-captioned case, and that Ronald Ness,

attorney for Mr. McGarvey, is in agreement to a continuance, and that such a

continuance is necessary because counsel for the Government will be unavailable

during much of the time prior to July 7, 2005,

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:05-cr-05346-RJB Document 22 Filed 06/30/05 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/MCGARVEY — 2

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Government’s response to pretrial motions 

is continued to July 14, 2005.

DATED this 30th day of June, 2005.

 /s/ Franklin D Burgess 

FRANKLIN D. BURGESS

United States District Judge

Presented by:

s/CARL BLACKSTONE 

Assistant United States Attorney

s/RONALD D. NESS 

Attorney for Barry McGarvey

Case 3:05-cr-05346-RJB Document 22 Filed 06/30/05 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-03-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-26-2000
<CASH>                                          30,233
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,612
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,549
<INVENTORY>                                    151,186
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               262,061
<PP&E>                                         331,043
<DEPRECIATION>                                 128,507
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 562,312
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          145,847
<BONDS>                                        139,392
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           291
<OTHER-SE>                                     253,993
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   562,312
<SALES>                                        399,361
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               399,361
<CGS>                                          345,138
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  345,138
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                50,013
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,245
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    965
<INCOME-TAX>                                       373
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                592
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       636
<EPS-BASIC>                                      $0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.02


</TABLE>
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60203 Summary Calendar

NORRIS COXWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

(4:95CVLN)

- - - - - - - - - - December 20, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1 Norris Coxwell appeals the district court’s affirmance of the Commissioner’s decision denying him social security disability and supplemental income benefits beyond the closed period ending June 17, 1991. He argues that the record does not support the determination by the administrative law judge (ALJ) of medi cal improvement beginning June 18, 1991, and that because no new medical evidencewas added to the record after remand from the Appeals Council,

Coxwell’s disability continued. From our review of the record and
the appellate arguments, we conc lude that there was substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s determination. S ee Anthony v. Sullivan , 954 F.2d 289, 292 (5th Cir. 1992).
Coxwell also a rgues that the ALJ failed to consider, in
accordance with Social Security Ruling 95-5p, Coxwell’s subjective complaints of pain. In light of the ALJ’s incorporation into the decision after remand the summary of evidence and evaluation from
the initial ALJ decision, we detect no error in the ALJ’s evaluation of the complaints of pain. S ee Anthony , 954 F.2d at 292.
AFFIRMED.
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲

▲

▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/13

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 13 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.50 N 76.81 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★ ■

■

■ ■

★

●

●

●

●

★ ●

● ●

●
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Guidesto ore in the Leadville district, Colorado**
 
Report | Plate
 
SuDoc Number: I19.3:779
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000959877
 
August 6, 2018
Order entered October 3, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00967-CV

IN RE TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY, TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY BOARD 

OF TRUSTEES, GARY PATTERSON, CHRIS DEL CONTE, DAVID GABLE, ZACH

LACROSS, DILLON SMITH, JAMES RUSSELL "RUSTY" BURNS, AND DOUGLAS 

MEACHUM, Relators

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-00585-A

ORDER

Before Justices Bridges, Brown, and Boatright

Before the Court are real party in interest Kolby Listenbee’s motion to abate and 

amended motion for extension of time to file response brief. We DENY the motion to abate. 

We GRANT the amended motion for extension and ORDER the real party in interest to file his 

response brief, if any, by October 15, 2018.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                       5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                           0000875579
<NAME>                          WorldWideWeb Institute.com, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                                             1
<CURRENCY>                                                      US Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                              MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                                 APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                   SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                          1
<CASH>                                                             1514801
<SECURITIES>                                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                       300785
<ALLOWANCES>                                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                   1839868
<PP&E>                                                              683997
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      164143
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                     4645864
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                               242566
<BONDS>                                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                                        1120000
<COMMON>                                                              9779
<OTHER-SE>                                                        (6806481)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                       4645864
<SALES>                                                             716226
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                    716226
<CGS>                                                               748642
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                      3014768
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                   3887140
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   13125
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                   (6934324)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                               (6934324)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                                      (6934324)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                          (0.69)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                        (0.69)



</TABLE>
Case No. 14,828.

#### UNITED STATES v. COHN.

[See Case No. 14,827.]
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

STEPHEN PORTER,

RITA PORTER, 

 Plaintiffs,

 vs

SUTTELL and ASSOCIATES PS, et al., 

 Defendants.

CASE NO. C06-5039FDB

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Counsel having notified the Court of the settlement of this case, and it appearing that no issue

remains for the Court's determination,

IT IS ORDERED that this action and all claims asserted herein are DISMISSED with

prejudice and without costs to any party.

In the event that the settlement is not perfected, any party may move to reopen the case,

provided that such motion is filed within ninety (90) days of the date of this Order. Any trial date

and/or pretrial dates previously set are hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of May, 2006. 

A

FRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:06-cv-05039-FDB Document 13 Filed 05/09/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 61586.

#### Richter Bros., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 285603-K, etc. (New York).

*459Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fried herring similar in all material respects to that the the subject of *Richter Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(44 C. C. P. A. 128, C. A. D. 649), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 31.1

                           SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Mark A. Smith, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Bion
Environmental Technologies, Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
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 report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for
the small business issuer and have:

     (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

     (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and

     (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.   I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and
the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent functions):

     (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

     (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 14, 2007



/s/ Mark A. Smith
Mark A. Smith
Chief Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer
From: n123miles@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:46:48 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,

kris egan

Brooklyn, NY 11235
Case 2:05-cv-01554-RSL Document 54 Filed 08/30/06 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:05-cv-01554-RSL Document 54 Filed 08/30/06 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:05-cv-01554-RSL Document 54 Filed 08/30/06 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:05-cv-01554-RSL Document 54 Filed 08/30/06 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:05-cv-01554-RSL Document 54 Filed 08/30/06 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:05-cv-01554-RSL Document 54 Filed 08/30/06 Page 6 of 6
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         38,305
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,571,352
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (879,331)
<INVENTORY>                                    285,300
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,333,979
<PP&E>                                         41,286,478
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (23,241,445)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 24,176,344
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          11,411,304
<BONDS>                                        14,865,252
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       707
<OTHER-SE>                                     5,418,422
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   24,176,344
<SALES>                                        7,275,799
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7,275,799
<CGS>                                          5,910,922
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  6,858,175
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               72,512
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               67,226
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             393,872
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (48,760)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (48,760)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0      
<CHANGES>                                      0      
<NET-INCOME>                                   (48,760)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.01)
        


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kenneth Marion HAMPTON, a/k/a Marion Kenneth Hampton, a/k/a Kenny Hampton, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-6609.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 18, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 25, 2005.

Kenneth Marion Hampton, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS,* and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

*

 Judge Williams did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (2000).

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Marion Hampton appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See United States v. Hampton,*No. CR-00-616 (D.S.C. filed Apr. 4, 2005 & entered Apr. 5, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
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

WILLIAM LAUER, individually and as the

Personal Representative of the Estate of

SHIRLEY LAUER,

Plaintiff,

v.

EXTENDICARE HOMES, INC., a Delaware

corporation; and EXTENDICARE HEALTH

NETWORK, INC. , a Delaware corporation,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5124FDB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO ADD ADDITIONAL

DEFENDANT AND TO REMAND

Plaintiff seeks to join a non-diverse defendant followed by remand of this cause of action to

Thurston County Superior Court, whence it was removed. Plaintiffs assert that they only now

learned, through discovery, the identity of the nurse whom they allege failed to give Shirley Lauer

certain medication and that they cannot obtain complete relief without her being joined. Defendants

object to joinder arguing that (1) Plaintiff could have named a “Jane Doe” defendant in the original

complaint; (2) the Court should exercise its discretion and deny a diversity-destroying amendment

because Plaintiff can recover from Defendants for any alleged misconduct of the nurse, and the

statute of limitations has not run on this cause of action, among other things. 

Case 3:06-cv-05124-FDB Document 14 Filed 04/07/06 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

This cause of action was properly removed. Now that a non-diverse defendant is sought to

be added, there are two options under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e): deny joinder or permit joinder and

remand this matter. Because joint tortfeasors and principals and agents are not indispensable parties

required to be joined, 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 19.06[1], and giving consideration to the other

factors cited by Defendants, the joinder of Laura Copperwheat is denied, rendering the request for

remand moot. 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: Plaintiff’s Motion To Join Defendant And Remand To

State Court [Dkt. # 9] is DENIED. 

DATED this 7th day of April, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05124-FDB Document 14 Filed 04/07/06 Page 2 of 2