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

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Ave., Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

(Lennie Hennings, Yvon Hennings; CR06-137 RSM) (206) 553-1100

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

 MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL - 1

 JUDGE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

LENNIE HENNINGS and YVON

HENNINGS, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR06-137 RSM

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 

THE COURT having considered the stipulated motion of the parties, the records

and files herein, the Court hereby makes the following findings:

1. Based on the facts set forth in the parties stipulated motion, the Court finds

that a failure to grant the continuance 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. The Court further finds that the ends of justice will be served by ordering a

continuance in this case, that a continuance is necessary to insure effective trial

preparation and that these factors outweigh the best interests of the public in a more

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

Case 2:06-cr-00137-RSM Document 23 Filed 06/16/06 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

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Ave., Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

(Lennie Hennings, Yvon Hennings; CR06-137 RSM) (206) 553-1100

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

 MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL - 2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the trial date for Lennie and Yvon

Hennings is extended from July 10, 2006, to September 5, 2006. Pretrial motions

shall be filed by August 5, 2006.

DONE this 16th day of June, 2006.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

s/Nancy Tenney 

WSBA No. 35304

Attorney for Lennie Hennings

Federal Public Defender’s Office

1601 Fifth Ave., Suite 700

Seattle, WA 98101

206/553-1100

206/553-0120

nancy_tenney@fd.org

Case 2:06-cr-00137-RSM Document 23 Filed 06/16/06 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 SEATTLE

DANITA CHRISTIE,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRENT NELSON, JAMES LUCAS,

KATHERINE NELSON, CYBERECORD, INC.,

et al., 

Defendants.

No. C05-0775MJP

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT

JAMES LUCAS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT

MATTER JURISDICTION

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant James Lucas’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack

of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 12). Defendant Lucas alleges that diversity jurisdiction

does not exist in this case because both he and Plaintiff reside in California. Without complete

diversity, he reasons, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this case and should dismiss it

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Plaintiff Christie has not responded to this motion. Upon a

closer look at Ms. Christie’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1), however, the Court notices that Ms. Christie is

alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §78a, et seq. Because this is a

claim made under a federal statute, the Court has jurisdiction of this matter under 28 U.S.C. §1331,

and also has supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law causes of action under 28 U.S.C.

§1367. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter

Jurisdiction. 

Case 2:05-cv-00775-MJP Document 15 Filed 09/07/05 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 - 2 

The Clerk of the Court shall direct a copy of this order be sent to all counsel of record.

Dated: September 7th , 2005.

A

Marsha J. Pechman

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00775-MJP Document 15 Filed 09/07/05 Page 2 of 2
Service vi'a US. CertifiedMail, &turn-&ceipt &quested, andFirst-ClassMail
October 7, 2015
Attn: Kate Barber Federal Aviation Administration Enforcement Division, MidwestTeam 2300 East DevonAve. Des Plaines, IL 60018 Attn: HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430 FederalAviation Administration 800 Independence Ave, S.W. WilburWright Building- Suite 2W1000 Washington, D.C. 20591 REQUEST FOR HEARlNG RE: FINAL NOTICE OF PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY Re: Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc., Case No. 2015-GL-70-0126
Pursuant to 14 C.F.R §13.16, Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc. hereby respectfully requests a hearing before the Admiuisttative LawJudge concerning the FederalAviation Admiuisttation's proposed civil penalty in the above-captioned matter. Further arguments and evidence in supportwill be submitted once Fanuie Mayhas been notified of the Administrative Law Judge assigned to this matter. Fannie May also respectfully requests that further correspondence in this matter by directed to Ron Orcutt, Director ofWarehousing and Distribution Operations, Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc., 1793 Enterprise Parkway, Twinsburg, Ohio 44087. Sincerely,

Ron Orcutt 

### "L'rf?'n.**cf"~~"/** 

### ·· Director ofWarehousing and Distribution Operations Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc. 1793 Enterprise Parkway Twinsburg, Ohio 44087 Phone: (614) 743-3592 Email: rono@fanniemaybrands.com
UNITED STATES NMCCA NO. 201 800283 Appellee
Special Panel 4



### v.

Calixto GONZALEZ, Jr. ORDER Lance Corporal (E

- 3 )

U. S. Marine Corps Remanding Case for Appellant New Post

- Trial Processing

Upon consideration of the record of trial, the Court determined that t he
convening authority (CA) failed to order the sentence executed in the CA ’s a ction.

Accordingly, it is, by the Court, this 1 7 th day of December 2019,

ORDERED:

1. That the CA’s action, dated 12 September 2018 , is hereby SET ASIDE

. 2. That the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General for
submission to an appropriate CA for preparation of a new CA’s action in compliance with R.C.M. 1107( f ) (4)

.

3. The record will be retur ned to this Court for completion of appellate review.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court

Copy to:
NMCCA ( 51. 4 )

45 ( C DR Roper )

46

02
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 6 Filed 09/17/08 Page 1 of 1
|   | (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 results of operations of the Fund. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: | February 17, 2011 |   |   |   |                                                 |
|--------|-------------------|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   |              | By:    |   | /s/    | ROBERT E. SWANSON                                    |
|   |              |   |   | Name:  | Robert E. Swanson                                    |
|   |              |   |   | Title: | Chief Executive Officer                              |
|   |              |   |   |   | (Principal Executive Officer)                        |
|   |              |   |   |   |                                                 |
| Dated: | February 17, 2011 |   |   |   |                                                 |
|   |              | By:    |   | /s/    | KATHLEEN P. MCSHERRY                                 |
|   |              |   |   | Name:  | Kathleen P. McSherry                                 |
|   |              |   |   | Title: | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |              |   |   |   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)         |
|   |              |   |   |   |                                                 |
|   |              |   |   |   |                                                 |

----
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 Stonecrest One, Inc., (the “Company”), on
Form 10-K/A for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) pursuant to the
requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63
of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C.§ 1350), George C. Critz,
III, the President, principal executive officer and principal financial officer
of the Company, hereby certifies that, to the best of my knowledge:




1. The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and




2. The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the period
covered by the Periodic Report.




Date:
      April 23, 2010
              By:
              /s/ George C. Critz, IIIGeorge
      C. Critz, IIIPresident
      (Principal Executive Officer
                and
      Principal Financial Officer)




*   This
certification accompanies the Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before
or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation
language contained in such filing.
From: smh53jones@satx.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:42:13 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.

I do not have to be a church or "religious employer" to have moral objections.

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,

Stephen Jones

San Antonio, TX 78266
No. 69339.

#### Morris Friedman *v.*United States,

protest 62/5810 (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Christmas lanterns similar in all material respects *to those*the subject of Abstract 68673, -the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 11038)

#### Household Manufacturing Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 52541, etc.

(Decided July 7, 1965)

*Stein & Shostak*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Nichols, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated on schedule A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, are before me on the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated on the attached Schedule A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consists of cutlery, etc.

> 2. That at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise to the United States, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for export to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the invoiced unit values, ex factory.

> 3. That the merchandise and issues involved herein are similar in all material respects to those in *Household Mfg. Co.*v. *United States,*49 Cust. Ct. 482, Reap. Dec. 10393 and that the record in said case may be incorporated with the record herein.

> 4. That all the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement was entered subsequent to February 27,1958.

> 5. That the merchandise the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule A is not included on the list of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521, as provided for in section 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th *542Congress, and that the said merchandise is subject to appraisement under Sec. 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> 6. That the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule A may be deemed submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts and on tlie authority of the decision cited, I find and hold that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 70 Stat. 943, is the proper basis for the determination of value of the merchandise involved herein and that said value is represented by the invoice unit values, ex-factory.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Before the Third Division,

July 16, 1952

No. 56793.

#### Max Rosenberg *v.*United States,

protest 174830-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the circumstances relating to the liquidation of the entry are similar in all material respects to those in Abstract 54732. The collector’s letter of transmittal, which was received in evidence, conceded that the conversion of the currency should have been aecom-*347plished in the manner prescribed in Bureau of Customs Circular Letter No. 2675, dated October 19, 1949. In view of this stipulation and following the cited decision it was held that the currency of the invoice should have been converted in the manner directed by the judgment of this court in said Abstract 54732, in accordance with Bureau of Customs Circular Letter No. 2675, *supra.*
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

Each of the undersigned officers of Local Insight Regatta Holdings, Inc. hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers knowledge:

1. The annual report on Form 10-K of Local Insight Regatta Holdings, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Local Insight Regatta Holdings, Inc.

Date: March 31, 2009



By:

/s/ DOUGLAS A. MYERSName:

Douglas A. MyersTitle:

President


Date: March 31, 2009



By:

/s/ JAMES STIRBISName:

James StirbisTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 5-3 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 1 of 2

Rinde v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Doc. 5 Att. 2

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 5-3 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.1
                          CERTIFICATIONS

I, Scott Emerson Lybbert, certify that:

        1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of TGFIN
Holdings, Inc.;

        2.   Based upon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain
any untrue statements of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this quarterly report;

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

        4.   The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and have:

               a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is
being prepared;

               b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date
of this annual report (the Evaluation Date"); and

               c)   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

        5.   The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors
and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

               a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for
the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

               b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal controls; and

        6.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated
in this annual report whether there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


     /s/ Scott Emerson Lybbert       Chief Executive Officer
    --------------------------
         Scott Emerson Lybbert        August 14, 2003
EXHIBIT 32-2

                            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  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax
Credit Fund III, L.P.  (the  "Partnership")  for the period ended  September 30,
2004 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  I,  Thomas  J.  Riha,  Chief
Financial  Officer of WNC &  Associates,  Inc.,  general  partner of the General
Partner of the Partnership, hereby certify that:

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
     Partnership.




/s/THOMAS J. RIHA
-----------------
Thomas J. Riha
Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
September 16, 2005
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 87

To correct the enrollment of S. 419.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 25, 1998

Mr. JEFFORDS submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To correct the enrollment of S. 419.

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill (S. 419)

3 to provide surveillance, research, and services aimed at

4 prevention of birth defects, and for other purposes, the

5 Secretary of the Senate shall make the following correc6 tions:

7 (1) In section 1 of the bill, strike ‘‘1997’’ and

8 insert ‘‘1998’’.

9 (2) In section 2 of the bill:

10 (A) In subsection (d) of section 317C of

11 the Public Health Service Act (as proposed to
2

SCON 87 ATS

1 be amended by such section 2) strike ‘‘1998’’

2 and insert ‘‘1999’’.

3 (B) In subsection (f) of section 317C of

4 the Public Health Service Act (as proposed to

5 be amended by such section 2) strike ‘‘1998’’

6 and all that follows through ‘‘2001’’ and insert

7 ‘‘1999, $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, and

8 such sums as may be necessary for each of the

9 fiscal years 2001 and 2002’’.

Æ