alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 69231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22224]



[[Page 69231]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Bytecode Alliance Foundation

    Notice is hereby given that, on July 19, 2023, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Bytecode Alliance Foundation has 
filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General 
and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. 
The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, NGINX, Inc., San 
Francisco, CA, has been added as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Bytecode Alliance Foundation intends 
to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in 
membership.
    On April 20, 2022, Bytecode Alliance Foundation filed its original 
notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 
6(b) of the Act on May 13, 2022 (87 FR 29379).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 12, 
2023. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on June 13, 2023 (88 FR 38532).

Suzanne Morris,
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-22224 Filed 10-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
Case No. 14,264.

#### TURNER v. WHITE.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 465.] 2

Circuit Court. District of Columbia.

May Term, 1834.

Pleading at Law — Debt on Single Bill — Plea of Payment.

1. A single bill may be declared upon according to its legal effect.

2. Upon the plea of “payment.” it is not necessary to produce in evidence the single bill.

3. Tbe plea admits its execution, and that it is truly stated in the declaration.

Debt on a single bill, in the following words: "On demand we bind ourselves, our heirs, &c., to pay to Richard Turner, his heirs, &c., $651. Witness our hands and seals,” &e. “George White (Seal)..” The declaration was in the name of John Pratt, and John Pratt, Junior, executors of Richard Turner, with- a proferí of the letters testamentary, by which it appeared that a certificate was “granted to John Pratt, Senior, and John Pratt, Junior, for obtaining a probate” of the will, “in due form.”

Mr. Hewitt, for defendant,

objected that the letters testamentary did not support the averment that John Pratt, and John Pratt, Junior, were executors of Richard Turner.

The COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, contra)

overruled the objection.

Mr. Hewitt then objected to the admission of the single bill in evidence to -support the averment that the defendant “acknowledged himself to be bound” to the plaintiff’s testator in the sum of $651.

But THE COURT (nem. con.) overruled the objection; being of opinion that the single bill was well set out according to its legal effect.

And CRANCH, Chief Judge, said, that on an issue upon the plea of payment, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to produce the single bill in evidence; as the plea admits its execution, and that it is such an instrument as is averred in the declaration, or appears on oyer.
From: mcvolk@tx3.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:27:09 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,

bonnie fishler

Enumclaw, WA 98022
Case 2:06-cv-00469-JCC Document 1-2 Filed 04/03/06 Page 1 of 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

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

WAYNE SEMINOFF, a single man 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

SUNG HONG, a/k/a LAWRENCE 

HONG, and YOUNG HONG, a married 

couple, HYO HONG, a single woman, 

and H & H GROUP, INC., a Washington 

corporation, 

 Defendants. 

CASE NO. C06-0149 RSM 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Young Ran Kim’s (f/k/a Young Hong) 

Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) and 60(b). Under Rule 60(a), 

a court may correct a clerical mistake or an omission. Defendant contends that this Court made a 

mistake by entering Judgment (Dkt. #65) as to Defendant Young Ran Kim because the Court 

approved a stipulated Judgment solely between Plaintiff and Defendant Sung Hong. However, 

the Judgment against Defendant Young Ran Kim was proper because this Court had already 

entered an Order of Default (Dkt. #38) against her. Defendants failed to enter a notice of 

Case 2:06-cv-00149-RSM Document 72 Filed 04/04/11 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

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 2 

appearance on or before November 3, 2006, after they were directed to do so in the Order 

Granting Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (Dkt. #23). Therefore, it is not relevant that Defendant 

Young Ran Kim was not involved in the stipulated Judgment. 

Defendant also contends that Rule 60(b)(5) and (6) may justify relief from judgment 

where, respectively, “applying [the judgment] prospectively is no longer equitable; or any other 

reason that justifies relief.” However, Defendant has cited no case law or other authority that 

supports the proposition that a person should not be liable for the debts or obligations incurred by 

a spouse during the course of a marriage in Washington. 

(1) Defendant is hereby ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why her Rule 60(b)(5) or (6) Motion 

should not be dismissed. 

(2) Defendant must respond within three weeks of the date of this Order. 

Dated April 4, 2011. 

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cv-00149-RSM Document 72 Filed 04/04/11 Page 2 of 2
No. 68187.

#### Charles Sadek Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 63/4353 (New York).

Opinion by

Bao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Hibachis similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 63217, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 631 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     September 5, 2007.
Whereas on August 6, 2007, six miners, Kerry Allred, Don Erickson, Juan Carlos 
        Payan, Brandon Phillips, Manuel Sanchez, and Jose Luis Hernandez, were 
        trapped 1,800 feet below ground in the Crandall Canyon mine in Utah;
Whereas Federal, State, and local rescue crews worked relentlessly in an attempt 
        to locate and rescue the trapped miners;
Whereas three rescuers, Gary Jensen, Brandon Kimber, and Dale ``Bird'' Black 
        lost their lives during the rescue attempt;
Whereas the loss of the miners has had a tremendous effect on the local 
        community;
Whereas the emergency efforts coordinated by the Emery County Sheriff's 
        Department have been exemplary;
Whereas Utah is one of the largest coal producing States in the Nation, 
        producing over 21 million tons of coal in 2005;
Whereas coal continues to be the economic engine for many communities;
Whereas during the last century over 100,000 coal miners have been killed in 
        mining accidents in the Nation's coal mines;
Whereas the Nation is greatly indebted to coal miners for the difficult and 
        dangerous work they perform to provide the fuel needed to operate the 
        Nation's industries and to provide energy to homes and businesses; and
Whereas many residents of Emery County and Carbon County, Utah, and the 
        surrounding areas, came together to support the miners' families and the 
        community has been steadfast in its efforts to help the families of the 
        missing and deceased: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes Kerry Allred, Don Erickson, Juan Carlos Payan, 
        Brandon Phillips, Manuel Sanchez, Jose Luis Hernandez, Gary Jensen, 
        Brandon Kimber, and Dale ``Bird'' Black for their sacrifice in the 
        Crandall Canyon, Utah coal mine;
            (2) extends the deepest condolences of the Nation to the families of 
        these men;
            (3) recognizes the many volunteers who participated in the rescue 
        efforts and provided support for the miners' families during the rescue 
        operations; and
            (4) honors the long national heritage of coal mining families and 
        supports the tradition for the future.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
AMENDMENT FOUR
                                     TO THE
                           FLEET FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.
                     SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN
                               (1996 RESTATEMENT)

1.   Section 3.2 is amended effective August 15, 1999 to read as follows:

     3.2.  TERMINATION OF PARTICIPATION. The Chief Executive Officer of the
     Company may terminate a Participant prospectively for any reason. Any such
     termination of participation shall not reduce the benefit accrued by the
     Participant up to the date of termination.

2.   Section 5.4 is amended effective August 15, 1999 to read as follows:

     5.4   VESTING. If a Participant or Beneficiary is not entitled to receive a
     benefit under the Basic Plan because the benefit is not vested, the
     Participant or Beneficiary shall also not be entitled to receive benefits
     under the Plan.

3.   Section 5.5 is added effective August 15, 1999 to read as follows:

     5.5   FORFEITURES. Notwithstanding anything in this Plan to the contrary,
     any benefits payable to a Participant hereunder may be forfeited,
     discontinued or reduced prior to a Change of Control, if the Committee
     determines, in its discretion, based on the advice and recommendation of
     management, that (i) the Participant has been convicted of a felony, or
     (ii) the Participant has failed to contest a prosecution for a felony, or
     (iii) the Participant has engaged in willful misconduct or dishonesty, any
     of which is directly harmful to the business or reputation of the Company.
     Following a Change of Control, a Participant's benefits may be forfeited,
     discontinued or reduced only if a Participant has been convicted of a
     felony or has failed to contest a prosecution for a felony.

4.   Article 7 is amended effective August 15, 1999 to read as follows:

     Article 7.  AMENDMENT OR TERMINATION OF PLAN.

     The Plan may be amended or terminated in writing by the Committee or the
     Company in any manner at any time. Notwithstanding the previous sentence,
     no such amendment or termination may reduce the amount of a Participant's
     benefit or his distribution rights related thereto as determined under the
     provisions of the Plan in effect immediately prior to such amendment or
     termination, and this second sentence of Article 7 is irrevocable and may
     not be amended.



<PAGE>

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment Four has been adopted by the Human Resources
and Planning Committee on the 15th day of August, 1999 and is executed by a duly
authorized officer of Fleet Financial Group, Inc.

                                       FLEET FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.


                                       By:   /s/ WILLIAM C. MUTTERPERL
                                           ---------------------------
                                             William C. Mutterperl
                                             Executive Vice President, Secretary
                                               and General Counsel
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 63

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That (a) a revised edition of the pamphlet

3 entitled ‘‘The Constitution of the United States of Amer4 ica’’, prepared under the direction of the Joint Committee

5 on Printing, shall be printed as a Senate document, with

6 appropriate illustration.

7 (b) There shall be printed—

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

9 use of the House of Representatives, distributed in

10 equal numbers to each Member;

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

12 of the Senate, distributed in equal numbers to each

13 Member;

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

15 the Joint Committee on Printing; and

16 (D) 1,400 copies of the pamphlet for distribu17 tion to the depository libraries; or

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

19 copies in paragraph (1) exceed $120,000, such num-
2

SCON 63 ES

1 ber of copies of the pamphlet as does not exceed

2 total printing and production costs of $120,000,

3 with distribution to be allocated in the same propor4 tion as in paragraph (1).

Passed the Senate November 5, 1997.

Attest:

Secretary.
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 63

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing printing of the pamphlet entitled ‘‘The

Constitution of the United States of America’’.
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. 06-121M

)

v. )

)

JOSE LUIS DIAZ-RODRIGUEZ, ) DETENTION ORDER 

)

Defendant. )

______________________________)

Offense charged:

Illegal Reentry After Deportation

Date of Detention Hearing: March 15, 2006

The Court, having conducted an uncontested 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 Don

Reno. 

The defendant was represented by Jay Stansell.

//

Case 2:06-mj-00121-MJB Document 8 Filed 03/16/06 Page 1 of 3
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-

//

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

 (1) The defendant represents a risk of nonappearance due to the following:

he is a citizen and national of Mexico who has previously been deported;

he has no ties to this district; his ties to the Western District of

Washington are unknown/unverified; and the Bureau of Immigration,

Customs and Enforcement (“BICE”) has filed a detainer.

(2) The defendant represents a risk of danger due to his extensive criminal

history to include drug possession, grand theft and forgery.

(3) The defendant does not contest detention.

Thus, there is no condition or combination of conditions that would reasonably assure

future court appearances.

It is therefore ORDERED:

(l) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody

of the Attorney General for confinement in a correctional facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving

sentences, or being held in custody pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private

consultation with counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for

the Government, the person in charge of the correctional 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

//

//

//

Case 2:06-mj-00121-MJB Document 8 Filed 03/16/06 Page 2 of 3
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 -3-

//

(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 16th day of March, 2006.

AMONICA J. BENTON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-mj-00121-MJB Document 8 Filed 03/16/06 Page 3 of 3
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

RONALD L. BASKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEVIN BOVENKAMP,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5150RJB

ORDER GRANTING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS AND

DIRECTING INSTITUTION TO

CALCULATE, COLLECT, AND

FORWARD PAYMENTS

The Court, having reviewed plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1), does

hereby find and ORDER. 

(1) Plaintiff’s declaration indicates he is unable to afford the court’s filing fee or give security

therefor. Accordingly, plaintiff’s application to proceed as a pauper is GRANTED. As set forth below,

an initial partial filing fee will be collected, and plaintiff is required to make monthly payments of

20 percent of the preceding months income credited to his/her account until the full amount of the

filing fee is satisfied.

(2) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and plaintiff’s approved application to proceed in forma

pauperis, the agency having custody of the above named plaintiff is directed to calculate an initial partial

filing fee equal to 20 percent of greater of -- the average monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account or the

average monthly balance in the prisoner’s account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the date

of this Order. The initial partial filing fee should be forwarded to the court clerk as soon as practicable.

Subsequently, if the prisoner’s account exceeds $10.00, each month the agency is directed to

Case 3:06-cv-05150-RJB Document 2 Filed 03/28/06 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

Page - 2

collect and forward payments equal to 20 percent of the prisoner’s preceding month’s income credited to

the prisoner’s account. In the event that the monthly payment would reduce the prisoner’s account below

$10.00, the agency should collect and forward only that amount which would reduce the prisoner’s

account to the $10.00 level. Please note that this $10.00 limit does not apply to the initial partial filing fee

described above. Finally, the monthly payments should be collected and forwarded to the court until the

entire filing fee ($250.00) for this matter has been paid.

(3) The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a copy of this Order and the General Order, and a copy

of this Order along with a copy of plaintiff’s Acknowledgment and Authorization portion of the IFP

application to the attention of the inmate account manager (IFP account manager) at the Washington State

Department of Corrections.

DATED this 28th day of March, 2006.

 /s/ J. Kelley Arnold____________ J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05150-RJB Document 2 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             415
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,868
<PP&E>                                         124,070<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,311<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,458,660
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,743,145
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     55,035
<COMMON>                                       463,766
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,439,693
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,458,660
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,297,295
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (867,653)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (429,642)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,297,295)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.034)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.034)
<FN>
<F1>Figure is property and equipment, net, plus accummulated depreciation.
<F2>According to the registrant's records, depreciation and amortization are
$11,311 and $7,549, respectively, for a total of $18,770.
</FN>


</TABLE>
No. 58232.

protest 750268-G (New York).

#### James A. Merkel *v.*United States,

*305Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of moufflons similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 57768, the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.