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

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 140

Expressing the sense of the Senate in support of the President’s action

to eliminate discriminatory trade practices by Japan relating to international shipping.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 24, 1997

Mr. HELMS (for himself, Mr. LOTT, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. INOUYE, and Mr. DORGAN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

OCTOBER 27, 1997

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate in support of the President’s action to eliminate discriminatory trade practices

by Japan relating to international shipping.

Whereas restrictive and discriminatory Japanese port practices have been a significant source of international concern for many years, have increased the cost of transporting goods to and from Japan for American consumers, and all ocean carriers and their customers, and have

restricted United States carriers’ operations in Japan

while Japanese carriers have not faced similar restrictions in the United States;
2

SRES 140 ATS

Whereas for many years the Federal Maritime Commission,

and the United States Departments of State and Transportation, have investigated and monitored these practices and urged the Japanese Government to remedy the

problems caused by these restrictions; and

Whereas recent actions by the Federal Maritime Commission

and negotiations conducted by the Departments of State

and Transportation with the Government of Japan have

reportedly produced agreements which would, when implemented, reform the Japanese port practices and remedy these problems: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate expresses strong support

2 for—

3 (1) the efforts of the President and executive

4 branch to achieve removal of Japanese port restric5 tions, and

6 (2) vigilant, continued monitoring and enforce7 ment by the Federal Maritime Commission of

8 changes in port practices promised by the Japanese

9 Government that will benefit international trade.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         875278
<NAME>                        WNC HOUSING TAX CREDIT FUND III, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US CURRENCY
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                           439,726
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 439,726
<PP&E>                                                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 8,133,063
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  0
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                     7,456,995
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   8,133,063
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  11,964
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    283,978
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 972,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (411,084)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (411,084)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (411,084)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (82)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0
        

</TABLE>
From: nakatish@suddenlink.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:38:37 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,

Richard Speer

Natchitoches, LA 71457
#### Javier TINAJERO-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-72214.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 15, 2005.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Javier Tinajero-Rodríguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction over the BIA’s discretionary hardship determination. *See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).

We also lack jurisdiction over TinajeroRodriguez’s due process challenge. *See Torres-Aguilar v. INS,*246 F.3d 1267, 1270-71 (9th Cir.2001) (holding no jurisdiction over challenge to discretionary hardship determination simply recast in due process language).

The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. *See Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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 Page 1 PROPOSED ORDER - [C06-485-TSZ]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

CAROLYN COUGHLAN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant

Civil No. C06-485-TSZ 

PROPOSED ORDER FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME

Based upon the Stipulation between the parties it is hereby ORDERED that the Defendant

shall have an extension to and including September 1, 2006, to file Defendant’s answering brief. 

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have to and including September 15, 2006, to file

Plaintiff’s Reply Brief.

Case 2:06-cv-00485-TSZ Document 13 Filed 08/15/06 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 Page 2 PROPOSED ORDER - [C06-485-TSZ]

DATED this 15th day of August, 2006.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Presented by:

s/ Joanne Dantonio 

JOANNE DANTONIO

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

Attorney for Defendant

701 Fifth Ave, Ste 2900, M/S 901

Seattle, WA 98104-7075

Phone: 206-615-2730

Fax: 206-615-2531

joanne.dantonio@ssa.gov

Case 2:06-cv-00485-TSZ Document 13 Filed 08/15/06 Page 2 of 2
## North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division Air Quality 

### Beverly Governor Perdue Sheila C. Holman

Stanley A. Meiburg Acting Regional Administrator US EPA, Region 4 Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, Georgia 30303 

### Director November 9, 2010

Subject: State Implementation Plan Revisions DearMr. Meiburg: 

### Dee Freeman Secretary

On July 15, 2010, the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) amended the state's 15A NCAC 02D Section .0900 Volatile Organic Compounds rules to reflectthe Group IV Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) level ofcontrol. These rules were the subject ofa public hearing held on April27, 2010. Enclosed is the hearing record for this public hearing and a copy ofthe rules for which approval is requested. Note that the rules for which approval is requested, which became effective September 1, 2010, differ from the rules in Chapter II ofthe hearing record as a result oftechnical changes required by the State Rules Review Commission. The hard copy ofthe rules and hearing record is identical to the .pdffiles recorded on the CD. Please proceed to approve the aforementioned rules and amendments as part ofthe federally-approved State Implementation Plan. Ifyou need additional information orhave any questions, please contactMs. Joelle Burleson ofmy staffat (919)733-147 4

### or~-"""-~'-"'-'-'"-"~-""=""-~'-''"='''-'''-"'-~·-'--'~"'-"-'·'

Enclosures SCH/jb
c: Dick Schutt Lynorae Benjamin NacostaWard Hearing Record File
1641 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1641 2728 Capital Blvd., Raleigh, NC 2'7604 Phone: 919-733-3340 IFAX 919-'715-'7175 I Internet: www.ncair.org An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer Sincerely,

Sheila C. Holman

# N~~thCarolina 

# /Vatura/1!1
Case No. 14,861.

#### UNITED STATES v. COOPER.

[4 Dall. 341.]

Circuit Court, D. Pennsylvania.

1800.

WITNESSES—PmviLEGE—MEMBEK3 OF CON lilt ESS.

[Members of congress are not exempt from compulsory process to require their attendance as witnesses in behalf of one charged with crime.]

The defendant, being indicted for a libel on the president [see Case No. 14,865] applied to the court, for a letter to be addressed by them to several members of congress (congress being in session;, requesting their attendance as witnesses on his behalf. In support of the application a variety of similar cases arising under the government of Pennsylvania were referred to.

Before CHASE, Circuit Justice, and. PETERS, District Judge.

CHASE, Circuit Justice.

The constitution gives to every man, charged with an offence, the benefit of compulsory process, to secure the attendance of his witnesses. I. do not know of any privilege to exempt members of congress from the service, or the obligations, of a subpoena, in such cases. I will not sign any letter of the kind proposed. If, upon service of a subpoena, the members of congress do not attend., a different question may arise; and it will then be time enough to decide, whether an attachment ought, or ought not, to issue. It is not a necessary consequence of non-attendance, after the service of a subpoena, that an attachment shall issue. A satisfactory reason may appear to the court to justify or excuse it.

PETÉRS, District Judge.

I know the practice in Pennsylvania to be as it has been stated; for I have received such-letters, from the supreme court, while I was speaker of the house of representatives, requesting that members might be permitted to attend as witnesses. In the present case, I should have no objection to acquiesce in the defendant's application, with the concurrence of the presiding judge. Motion refused.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. {section} 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of New Millennium Products  (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Learned J. Hand, Chief Executive and Financial  Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. {section} 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|Dated:  July 15,2009
By  /s/ Learned J. Hand
-----------------------------
     Learned J. Hand
     Chief Executive and Acting Financial Officer
    (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Case 2:06-cv-00489-TSZ Document 1 Filed 04/06/06 Page 1 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00489-TSZ Document 1 Filed 04/06/06 Page 2 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00489-TSZ Document 1 Filed 04/06/06 Page 3 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00489-TSZ Document 1 Filed 04/06/06 Page 4 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00489-TSZ Document 1 Filed 04/06/06 Page 5 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00489-TSZ Document 1 Filed 04/06/06 Page 6 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00489-TSZ Document 1 Filed 04/06/06 Page 7 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00489-TSZ Document 1 Filed 04/06/06 Page 8 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00489-TSZ Document 1 Filed 04/06/06 Page 9 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00489-TSZ Document 1 Filed 04/06/06 Page 10 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00489-TSZ Document 1 Filed 04/06/06 Page 11 of 12
Case 2:06-cv-00489-TSZ Document 1 Filed 04/06/06 Page 12 of 12
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Roy WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-20321.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided June 29, 2005.

*255James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Winifred E. Akins, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Willie Roy Williams appeals his convictions for possession with intent to distribute controlled substances after having been convicted of two or more felony drug offenses and use of a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking crime. He also appeals his sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. We affirm.

Williams argues that the affidavit used to support the search warrant at issue contained intentionally false statements in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court’s suppression ruling, however, was based on a credibility determination that is supported by the record; therefore, we will not disturb it. *See United States v. Casteneda,*951 F.2d 44, 48 (5th Cir.1992). For this same reason, Williams’s appeal of the denial of his new-trial motion is without merit.

Williams’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are equally unavailing. The evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that Williams was a joint occupant of the Chesterfield residence. Given that drugs were found in plain view on the kitchen counter and on the kitchen table at which Williams sat armed with a loaded assault rifle, the evidence also supported a finding that Williams had knowledge of, access to, and dominion and control over the contraband sufficient to support a finding of constructive possession. *See United States v. Fields,*72 F.3d 1200, 1212 (5th Cir.1996); *United States v. Mergerson,*4 F.3d 337, 348 (5th Cir.1993).

Finally, Williams’s argument that he is entitled pursuant to *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), to resentencing on his felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm conviction is predicated on the assumption that the evidence was insufficient to support his remaining convictions. Given our rejection of his sufficiency claims, we do not reach this issue.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
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 GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL & EXTEND PTM’s DUE DATE 

(CR05-0337JCC) 1

 JUDGE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JAKE HUMPHREY, PAUL McCLUSKEY,

and SHANE MENZEL,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR 05-337 JCC

ORDER GRANTING 

STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE

TRIAL DATE AND EXTEND TIME FOR

PRETRIAL MOTIONS

The Court, having reviewed the stipulation of the parties, and the defendants’ agreement

to extend the time for trial, finds as to the facts stipulated to by counsel in that document, and

hereby makes the following findings of fact:

1. Defense counsel has not yet received discovery of evidence including forensic

analysis of the alleged drugs at issue in this case. For this reason, the Court finds that a failure

to grant the continuances would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.

§ 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii). 

2. Given the incomplete state of discovery in this case, the Court further finds that the

ends of justice will be served by ordering the continuances in this case and that the continuances

are necessary to insure effective trial preparation and that these factors outweigh the best interests

Case 2:05-cr-00337-JCC Document 35 Filed 10/27/05 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

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL & EXTEND PTM’s DUE DATE 

(CR05-0337JCC) 2

of the public in a more speedy trial, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the trial date be continued from November 14, 2005,

to December 12, 2005.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the due date for pretrial motions be extended to

November 10, 2005.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the period of time from the current trial date of

November 14, 2005, up to and including the new proposed trial date of December 12, 2005,

shall be excludable time pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants Jake Humphrey and Shane Menzel file

their speedy trial waivers with the Court no later than November 4, 2005.

DONE this 27th day of October, 2005.

AUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cr-00337-JCC Document 35 Filed 10/27/05 Page 2 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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEVIN TUBBS, JOSEPH DIBEE,

JOSEPHINE S. OVERAKER, JUSTIN

SOLONDZ, and BRIANA WATERS,

Defendants.

Case No. CR05-5828FDB

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

Defendant Waters moves for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of her motion to disclose

unlawful electronic surveillance. The Court has reviewed the submissions on the motion and has

reviewed Waters’ motion for reconsideration. The Court is not persuaded to reconsider the denial

and to grant the relief requested. ACCORDINGLY, 

IT IS ORDERED: Defendant Waters’ Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. # 70] is DENIED. 

DATED this 4th day of January, 2007.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 71 Filed 01/04/07 Page 1 of 1
No. 65203.

#### International Looms, Inc., a Division of Woolart Mills, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/4005 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

Following Abstract 54925, the protest was dismissed.
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 MINUTE ORDER – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

IGOR KHARITONOV, WILLIAMS DAVIS,

and EBONEY CHIPMAN,

Defendants.

CASE NO. CR06-166

MINUTE ORDER

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C. 

Coughenour, United States District Judge:

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Igor Kharitonov’s and the Government’s

motion to extend the pretrial motions deadline from June 15, 2006 to June 27, 2006. The Court hereby

GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion, because the parties’ proposed schedule does not

allow the Court adequate time to consider and rule on pretrial motions. 

The new pretrial motions deadline shall be June 22, 2006. Accordingly, motions must be filed by

June 22, 2006. Responses shall be due on June 29, 2006, and Replies shall be due on June 30, 2006. The

Noting Date for pretrial motions shall be June 30, 2006. 

Because only Defendant Kharitonov and the Government moved for this extension, the pretrial

Case 2:06-cr-00166-JCC Document 29 Filed 06/15/06 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 MINUTE ORDER – 2

motions due date originally set in this matter (June 15, 2006) shall apply as to the other Defendants. 

DATED this 15th day of June, 2006.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk of Court

By /s/ C. Ledesma 

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cr-00166-JCC Document 29 Filed 06/15/06 Page 2 of 2
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 18, 2014*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**L.10 Assets and Liabilities of the Personal Sector 1** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 7 Filed 05/22/2006 Page 1 of 4

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 7 Filed 05/22/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 7 Filed 05/22/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 7 Filed 05/22/2006 Page 4 of 4