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

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

WILLIE E. COLEMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

KENNETH QUINN,

Respondents.

Case No. C06-5076RBL-KLS

ORDER FOR SERVICE AND

RETURN, § 2254 PETITION

The Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

(l) The Clerk shall arrange for service by certified mail upon respondent and the Attorney

General for the State of Washington, copies of the amended petition, all documents in support thereof, and

the Notice of Initial Assignment and Consent Procedure and Consent to Proceed before a United States

Magistrate Judge. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States. The Clerk shall assemble

the necessary documents to effect service. In addition, the Clerk shall send petitioner a copy of this Order,

the General Order, and the Notice of Initial Assignment and Consent Procedure to Proceed and Consent

before a United States Magistrate Judge.

(2) Within forty-five (45) days after such service, respondent(s) shall file and serve an answer in

accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District Courts. As part of

such answer, respondent(s) should state whether petitioner has exhausted available state remedies, whether

Case 3:06-cv-05076-RBL Document 11 Filed 07/05/06 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

an evidentiary hearing is necessary, and whether there is any issue of abuse or delay under Rule 9. 

Respondent shall not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer without first showing cause as to why

an answer is inadequate. Respondent(s) shall file the answer with the Clerk of the Court and serve a copy

of the answer upon petitioner.

(3) The answer will be treated in accordance with Local Rule CR 7. Accordingly, upon receipt

of the answer the Clerk will note the matter for consideration on the fourth Friday after the answer is filed,

petitioner may file and serve a response not later than on the Monday immediately preceding the Friday

appointed for consideration of the matter, and respondent my file and serve a reply brief not later than on

the Thursday immediately preceding the Friday designated for consideration of the matter.

DATED this 5th day of July, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05076-RBL Document 11 Filed 07/05/06 Page 2 of 2
No. P66/309. —

#### The Buhler Corp. and Gehrig, Hoban & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States, protests 65/23060, etc. (New York).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of parts of food preparing machines which are dedicated to use therewith similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Standard Milling Co.*v. *United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 53, C.D. 2388), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATIONI, DANIEL C. DUNN, certify that:1. I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ALLIED HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC.2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) omitted as not yet applicable;c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.Date: February 7, 2007              /s/ DANIEL C. DUNN   Daniel C. Dunn   Vice President, Chief Financial Officer & Secretary  
20
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

MICHAEL L. INGRAM and SANDRA L.

KLOTZ ,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOHN RAYMOND, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5122FDB

ORDER DENYING

RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiffs were denied leave to proceed with their cause of action against various Jefferson

County court officials and others. Plaintiffs now move for reconsideration, but do not persuade the

Court to grant leave to proceed with this matter. ACCORDINGLY, 

IT IS ORDERED: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. # 3] is DENIED. 

DATED this 29th day of March, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05122-FDB Document 4 Filed 03/30/06 Page 1 of 1
1 Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-10591

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY WAYNE GILMORE,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:00-CR-255-1-A

-------------------- December 6, 2001 Before DUHÉ, EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Anthony Wayne Gilmore appeals from his guilty-plea conviction

of possession of more than 50 grams of a mixture containing cocaine

base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a).

Gilmore contends that the district court erred in denying his

motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search to which

Gilmore apparently consented. A voluntary and unconditional guilty

plea waives an appellant’s right to challenge any nonjurisdictional

defects in the proceedings leading to his conviction. U nited

States v. Wise

, 179 F.3d 184, 186 (5th Cir. 1999). This waiver is

applica ble to Fourth Amendment claims. S ee id

. In any event,2

Gil more has fallen far short of demonstrating that the district

court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress,

w ithout a hearing, on the ground that his supporting allegations

were conclusory. S ee United States v. Harrelson

, 705 F.2d 733, 737

(5th Cir. 1983).

Gilmore also argues that the district court erred in denying

his motion for a continuance on the day of sentencing. Gilmore

maintains that his roommate at the trailer where the drugs were

found provided an affidavit “tend[ing] to exonerate” him, Gilmore.

Gilmore has not established that the district court abused its

discretion in denying the motion for a continuance. S ee United

States v. Peden , 891 F.2d 514, 519 (5th Cir. 1989).

The conviction and sentence are

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

JERRY E. SPICER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH LEHMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5132FDB

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. Plaintiff has filed a civil rights complaint

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff’s application was

deficient as the court was unable to determine his eligibility for in forma pauperis status based on the

information submitted by plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff was ordered to show cause why his

application should not be dismissed. (Dkt. # 3). 

Plaintiff appealed the order to show cause to the District Court. The District Court found

plaintiff’s appeal to be out of order and re-referred the matter to the undersigned. (Dkt. # 5). 

Plaintiff must respond to this court’s order to show cause in order to proceed with his action. 

Now that this matter has been re-referred to the undersigned, the court deems it appropriate to

provide plaintiff with a short extension of time until June 5, 2006, to respond to its order. If

Case 3:06-cv-05132-FDB Document 6 Filed 05/18/06 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

plaintiff has not complied with the court’s order to respond by that deadline or alternatively, has not

paid the required fee of $250.00, his application to proceed in forma pauperis shall be denied and his

case will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution.

The clerk is instructed to re-note plaintiff’s deadline for compliance with the court’s order to

show cause (Dkt. # 3) until June 5, 2006. 

DATED this 18th day of May, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05132-FDB Document 6 Filed 05/18/06 Page 2 of 2
From: mecea1@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:46:09 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,

Daniel Mecea

New Freeport, PA 15352
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 TO SEAL AND 

FILE REDACTED COPIES - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

KELLY A. VALADEZ, 

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN E. POTTER,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-0329RSL

ORDER TO SEAL DOCUMENTS 

AND FILE REDACTED COPIES 

OF SEALED DOCUMENTS

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Defendant has filed a motion for

summary judgment, some of the exhibits to which contain private and personal information that

needs to be redacted from public documents. 

Pursuant to the General Order of the Court regarding Public Access to Electronic Case

Files (filed 5/29/03), parties are to redact the following information from documents and exhibits

before they are filed with the court:

* Dates of Birth - redact to the year of birth

* Names of Minor Children - redact to the initials

* Social Security Numbers - redact to the last four digits

* Financial Accounting Information - redact to the last four digits

The General Order was issued by the court pursuant to the official policy on privacy
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 TO SEAL AND 

FILE REDACTED COPIES - 2

adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States and can be found on the court’s website

at http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/docs. All documents filed in the above-captioned matter must

comply with the Privacy Policy and the General Order.

In order to restrict access to the private and confidential information that has already

made its way into the record in an expeditious manner, the Clerk of Court is hereby directed to

seal the exhibits at docket #11-4 (which includes exhibits F and G) in the above-captioned

matter. The parties are directed to promptly review all previously filed documents to ensure that

they do not contain additional information that should have been redacted. The parties shall

make every effort to avoid such public disclosures of confidential information in the future.

As a result of the improper filings, a substantial portion of the record is now sealed,

which is inconsistent with the public’s right of access. Defendant is therefore ORDERED to

file, within ten days of the date of this order, redacted copies of all documents which have been

sealed in this case. If the parties have any questions about the Privacy Policy and the General

Order or need assistance in filing and properly labeling the redacted copies, they should contact

the CM/ECF Helpdesk at 1-866-ECF-WAWD (1-866-323-9293). 

 DATED this 12th day of February, 2008.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge
-----Original Message-----

From: James Smith [mailto:jsmith11@fs.fed.us]

Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 3:02 PM

To: Murray, Brian C.

Cc: Depro, Brooks M.

Subject: RE: Environmental Management Article

Hi Brian,

I agree that aggregating by age class means that volumes should be very

narrowly distributed, and therefore no need for adjusting for scale. We

don't adjust estimates for ATLAS files, which are also by age class. Those

factors are more appropriate for summaries such as state-wide volumes.

Also, I don't know of a useful source for an estimate of carbon lost to

fire. I emailed Linda to see if she had any suggestions.

-Jim

"Murray, Brian

C." <bcm@rti.org>

To

08/11/2004 01:57 "'James Smith'"

PM <jsmith11@fs.fed.us>

cc

"Depro, Brooks M." <bmd@rti.org>

Subject

RE: Environmental Management

Article

Jim - The JoF article is of great help to us now as we are documenting the

methods we used for carbon accounting in FASOM and this provides a nice

summary of the methods that you use. In principle, out methods should be

identical. Brooks is looking over the article now to check for

consistency.

One issue that re-surfaced as I read the article is whether we should be

making the scale adjustment due to the fact that FASOM operates off of

aggregated, rather than plot, data. According to the paper, perhaps we

should be applying the adjustment factors (0.94, 0.9,...) to our tree

carbon

calculations. But I am wondering if this is AS necessary if we are

aggregating acres within an age class. In other words, the distribution of

m3/ac should be narrower within an age class than across age classes. Any

thoughts on that?

Brian

-----Original Message-----

From: James Smith [mailto:jsmith11@fs.fed.us]

Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 10:21 AM

To: Murray, Brian C.

Subject: Re: Environmental Management Article

Hello Brian,

Here's the Environmental Management paper and a second very general

overview

of FORCARB-like carbon estimates from the Journal of Forestry -jim
(See attached file: SmithJOF_July04.pdf)(See attached file: Smith04_EM.pdf)

==================================================

Jim Smith

USDA Forest Service

Northeastern Research Station

P.O. Box 640

Durham, NH 03824

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

603-868-7663

jsmith11@fs.fed.us

"Murray, Brian

C." <bcm@rti.org>

To

08/05/2004 03:43 "'jsmith11@fs.fed.us'"

PM <jsmith11@fs.fed.us>

cc

Subject

Environmental Management Article

Hi Jim - Hope you're well. Can you please send me a reprint (electronic if

possible) of your paper on public lands carbon with Linda Heath? Carbon

Stocks and Projections on Public Forestlands in the United States,

1952-2040

Thanks, Brian

Brian C. Murray, Ph.D.

Director

Environmental and Natural Resource Economics Program

Research Triangle Institute

Hobbs 119

3040 Cornwallis Road

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 USA

Phone: 919.541.6468

Fax: 919.541.6683
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 51

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding elections for the legislature of

the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 8, 1997

Mr. HELMS (for himself, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. KERRY, Mr. THOMAS, and Mr.

MACK) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Foreign Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding elections for

the legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative

Region.

Whereas the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong

Kong guarantees Hong Kong a high degree autonomy in

all matters except defense and foreign affairs, and an

elected legislature;

Whereas the United States policy regarding Hong Kong, as

stated in the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of

1992 (Public Law 102–383), is based on the autonomy

and self-governance of Hong Kong by the Hong Kong

people;

Whereas a democratically elected legislature enabling the

Hong Kong people to elect representatives of their choice
2

•SCON 51 IS

is essential to the autonomy and self-governance of Hong

Kong;

Whereas the provisional legislature of Hong Kong was selected through an undemocratic process controlled by the

People’s Republic of China;

Whereas this provisional legislature has adopted rules for the

creation of the first legislature of the Hong Kong Special

Administrative Region which rules are designed to disadvantage and reduce the number of pro-democracy politicians in the legislature; and

Whereas the autonomy of Hong Kong cannot exist without a

legislature that is elected freely and fairly according to

rules approved by the Hong Kong people or their democratically elected representatives: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That Congress urges Hong Kong Chief Exec3 utive C.H. Tung and the government of the Hong Kong

4 Special Administrative Region to schedule and conduct

5 elections for the first legislature of the Hong Kong Special

6 Administrative Region according to rules approved by the

7 Hong Kong people through an election-law convention,

8 referendum, or both.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 68663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22027]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

[245A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900]


Indian Gaming; Approval of Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact 
Amendment Between Prairie Island Indian Community and the State of 
Minnesota

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice publishes the approval of the Addendum to the 
Tribal-State Compact for Control of Class III Blackjack between the 
Prairie Island Indian Community and the State of Minnesota.

DATES: The Amendment takes effect on October 4, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of 
Indian Gaming, Office of the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, 
Washington, DC 20240, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0d446369646c634a6c6064636a4d6f646c236a627b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4900272d2028270e282420272e092b2028672e263f">[email protected]</span></a>, phone (202) 219-4066.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., the 
Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal Register notice 
of approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class 
III gaming activities on Indian lands. As required by 25 CFR 293.4, all 
compacts and amendments are subject to review and approval by the 
Secretary. The Amendment updates the Compact to add definitions, 
regulatory standards for Class III Card Games, and provides for 
enforcement and disputes. The Amendment is approved.

Bryan Newland,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2023-22027 Filed 10-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4337-15-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>