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

DETENTION ORDER

PAGE -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. CR06-106 RSM

)

v. )

)

) DETENTION ORDER

FELIPE MARAMBA, )

)

Defendant. )

______________________________)

Offense charged:

Count I: Conspiracy to Commit Bank Fraud, in violation of Title 18, U.S.C.,

Section 1349.

Date of Detention Hearing: June 28, 2006

 The Court, having conducted a contested detention hearing pursuant to Title 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 the defendant

can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety

of any other person and the community. The Government was represented by Jill Otake.

The defendant was represented by Ken Kanev.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) Defendant poses a risk of danger due to the nature of the instant offence

and criminal history; he has an outstanding misdemeanor warrant.

(2) Defendant poses a risk of non-appearance as he has several failures to

Case 2:06-cr-00106-RSM Document 111 Filed 06/29/06 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

DETENTION ORDER

PAGE -2-

appear. Defendant is also associated with several aliases and numerous

forms of identification.

(3) Defendant has no stable residence or income.

(4) Based upon the foregoing information, which is consistent with the

recommendation of U.S. Pre-trial Services, it appears that there is no

condition or combination of conditions that would reasonably assure

future Court appearances and/or the safety of other persons or the

community.

It is therefore ORDERED:

(l) The 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) The 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

the 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 29th day of June, 2006. AMONICA J. BENTON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00106-RSM Document 111 Filed 06/29/06 Page 2 of 2
Order filed January 8 , 2016

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 01070

- CR

____________ EX PARTE YROOJ SHAMI M , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the Co unty Crim inal C our t at Law No
. 3

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1822364

- B



### ORDER

This is an a ppeal from a judgment signed December 3, 2015

. The district clerk has informed this court that the appeal was mistakenly assigned to this court instead of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas.
It is ORDERED that the appeal docketed under this court’s appe llate cause number 14

- 15

- 01070

- CR is transferred to the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texa s

. The Clerk of this Court is directed to transfer all papers filed in the case, and certify all Orders made, to the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas.PER CURIAM
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 SEATTLE

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION and STATE

OF WASHINGTON, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

DEBT SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., 

Defendants.

No. C06-298JLR

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR AN EX PARTE

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on the ex parte motion of the Federal Trade Commission

(“FTC”) and the State of Washington for a temporary restraining order (Dkt. # 4). Plaintiffs claim

that Debt Solutions, Inc. and the other Defendants named (collectively, “DSI”) have engaged in a

fraudulent debt relief scheme aimed at enticing consumers to pay between $400 and $700 for DSI’s

“services,” which often constitute nothing more than DSI advising the consumer to pay more toward

his or her credit card bills each month. Although Plaintiffs present ample evidence to support their

allegations that these Defendants violated federal law, they have presented very little evidence

demonstrating the necessity for ex parte relief. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ present 

ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order, but will allow the Plaintiffs papers to remain under

seal until March 10, 2006. Plaintiffs may either choose to serve the Defendants, allowing them a

chance to respond, or submit a second motion in which they provide better evidentiary support for ex

parte relief. 

Case 2:06-cv-00298-JLR Document 9 Filed 03/07/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          56,939
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   88,057
<ALLOWANCES>                                    32,000
<INVENTORY>                                    224,612
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               675,608
<PP&E>                                         227,712
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,047,001
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          999,390
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,118,840
<OTHER-SE>                                 (9,367,487)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,047,001
<SALES>                                        140,749
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               140,749
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  280,992
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               885,957
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              46,814
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,070,467)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,070,467)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,070,467)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
From: flqueens@embarqmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:54:46 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,

Jerry Queen

Floral City, FL 34436
Before the Second Division,

October 27, 1966

No. P66/306. —

#### D. C. Andrews *&*Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protest 61/4477-11838 (Chicago).

*824Ford, J.

In accordance with, stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of brass sink strainers similar in all material respects to those the subject of Davies, *Turner & Company*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 488, Abstract 69651), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the First Division,

March 8, 1961

No. 65249.

#### William Shaland *v.*United States,

protest 58/5494 (New York).

*366Opinion by

Oliver, O. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beads the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *S. H. Kress & Co.*(46 C.C.P.A. 135, C.A.D. 716), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000875278
<NAME>                        WNC HOUSING TAX CREDIT FUND III
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                             344,474
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   344,474
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,952,102
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,903,684
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,952,102
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     2,176
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       88,393
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   292,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (378,817)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (378,817)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (378,817)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
STIPULATION FOR ORDER OF 

NATURALIZATION - 1 

Northwest Immigrant Rights Project 

615 2nd Ave, Suite 400 

Seattle, WA 98104 

(206) 957-8611 

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 

 Judge Lasnik 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 

MIKHAIL STEPCHUK, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 Case No. C06-570RSL 

 

 ORDER REGARDING 

 NATURALIZATION OF PLAINTIFF 

 JIBAI LI 

 

This Court, having reviewed the stipulation of the parties regarding the naturalization 

application of Plaintiff Jibai Li, A77-152-155, finds that Plaintiff Li meets all the requirements for 

citizenship and ORDERS the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service to naturalize Ms. 

Li. 

 Robert S. Lasnik 

 United States District Judge

Dated this 16th day of May, 2006. 

A

Case 2:06-cv-00570-RSL Document 8 Filed 05/16/06 Page 1 of 2
STIPULATION FOR ORDER OF 

NATURALIZATION - 2 

Northwest Immigrant Rights Project 

615 2nd Ave, Suite 400 

Seattle, WA 98104 

(206) 957-8611 

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 

Submitted on May 16, 2006, by: 

 /s/ Kristin B. Johnson 

 Kristin B. Johnson 

 Assistant U.S. Attorney 

 700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220 

 Seattle, WA 98101-1271 

 Telephone: 206-553-7970 

Kristin.B.Johnson@usdoj.gov 

/s/ Christopher Strawn 

Matt Adams 

WSBA No. 28287 

Kristen Kussmann 

WSBA No. 30638 

Emily Headings 

WSBA No. 33106 

Christopher Strawn 

WSBA No. 32243 

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT 

RIGHTS PROJECT 

615 2nd Ave #400 

Seattle, WA 98104 

Telephone: (206) 957-8611 

Fax: (206) 587-4025 

E-mail: matt@nwirp.org 

 kristen@nwirp.org 

 emily@nwirp.org 

 chris@nwirp.org 

Case 2:06-cv-00570-RSL Document 8 Filed 05/16/06 Page 2 of 2
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD ANN ARBOR, MI 48105
- 2498

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION November 23, 2010 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Meeting with the Aluminum Association FROM: Angela Cullen, Mechanical Engineer TO: Docket EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2010
- 0162 This memorandum documents a teleconference held on Monday , November 22, 2010 between Brian Tucker, Doug Richman, Mary Ellen Akins, John Fitzpatrick, and Kevin L owry of the Aluminum Association and By ron Bunker and Angela Cullen of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The teleconference primaril y discussed clarifications on the weight reductions proposed in the NPRM for Class 7 and 8 tractors and the innovative technology credit program.
December 13, 1963

No. 68169.

Appeal 5146.

#### United States *v.*Standard Milling Co.

C.D. 2388. Appeal dismissed October 18,1963.
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 SEATTLE

EDWARD “TY” GRAHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

CINGULAR WIRELESS LLC,

Defendant.

 NO. C05-1810JLR

 ORDER

 

This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff Edward “Ty” Graham’s Objection to

and Motion to Strike Declaration of Lonnie Rosenwald (Dkt. # 74). For the reasons stated

below, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.

Local Rule CR 7(g) provides that a request to strike material attached to a submission

of the opposing party shall not be presented in a separate motion, but shall be included in the

responsive brief. Local Rules W.D. Wash. CR 7(g). If, as in this case, the document the

movant requests stricken is attached to the reply brief, then the movant may file a surreply. 

Id. The sole purpose of the surreply is to address the request to strike. Id. Prior to filing the

surreply, however, the movant must notify all parties (by telephone or facsimile) and the

assigned judge’s chambers (by telephone) as soon after receiving the reply brief as practicable

that a surreply will be filed. Id. Plaintiff failed to inform this court or opposing counsel of

his intent to file a surreply and erroneously captioned his surreply as a motion to strike

Case 2:05-cv-01810-JLR Document 107 Filed 01/02/07 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

1

 If Plaintiff wants to challenge why Defendant did not produce the Rosenwald declaration

during discovery, the appropriate process is to file a motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

ORDER- 2

contrary to Rule 7(g). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is not properly before this court. For

this reason, the court will deny the motion.

The court notes, however, that Defendant did obtain leave from this court to file the

Rosenwald declaration late. Defendant’s reply materials were due on October 30, 2006. 

While Defendant filed the Lonnie Rosenwald declaration two days after October 30th,

Defendant also properly moved for an order to enlarge time pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court granted Defendant’s motion (Dkt. # 78), giving

Defendant until November 1, 2006 to file the Rosenwald declaration. Accordingly, the

Rosenwald declaration will not be stricken as untimely.1

For the reasons stated above, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to strike (Dkt. # 74).

Dated this 2nd day of January, 2007.

A JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01810-JLR Document 107 Filed 01/02/07 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                              
<ARTICLE>                                          5
<CIK>                                              0000876716
<NAME>                            SMITH BARNEY INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY FUND L.P.
                                                    
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                       SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                                   3,393,468
<SECURITIES>                                               124,870
<RECEIVABLES>                                               10,804
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         3,529,142
<PP&E>                                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           3,529,142
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      147,828
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                               3,381,314
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             3,529,142
<SALES>                                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           292,385
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            61,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            231,085
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                               231,085
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 0.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0
        

</TABLE>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: BRYAN BRIGGS,

Appellant

______________________

2022-1299

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California in No. 4:21-mc-80235-DMR, 

Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu.

______________________

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Bryan Briggs filed a submission at the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of California commencing a miscellaneous action concerning a foreclosure of 

his personal property, requesting “a total of $187,000.” 

Complaint at 44, In re Briggs, No. 4:21-mc-80235-DMR 

(N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2021), ECF No. 1. The court struck Mr. 

Briggs’s filing as improper, directed him to re-file as a civil 

complaint, and closed the matter. After the court denied 

his motion for reconsideration, Mr. Briggs filed this appeal. 

Responding to this court’s March 4, 2022 show cause order, 

Mr. Briggs contends that we have jurisdiction.

Our jurisdiction over final decisions of district courts is 

circumscribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1295. Under that statute, 

this court has jurisdiction only over district court cases 

Case: 22-1299 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 05/26/2022
2 IN RE: BRIGGS

arising under the patent laws, see § 1295(a)(1); or under 

§ 1295(a)(4)(C); or certain cases against the United States 

for claims “not exceeding $10,000 in amount,” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1346(a)(2), see 28 U.S.C. § 1295 (a)(2). Mr. Briggs’s matter falls outside of that limited jurisdiction.*

When this court lacks jurisdiction, we may transfer to 

another court, if it is in the interest of justice, where “the 

action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was 

filed.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Here, that court would be the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The appeal and all transmittals are transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

 May 26, 2022

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

* The court also notes that Mr. Briggs has failed to 

pay the docketing fee or file a completed motion for leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis within the time set forth by 

this court’s March 4, 2022 order.

Case: 22-1299 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 05/26/2022