alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) CR 06-0124 MJP

Plaintiff, ) 

) ORDER 

v. )

)

MICHAEL THOMAS COYNER, )

)

Defendant. )

 ____________________________________)

This Court having considered the stipulation of the parties hereby GRANTS the 

parties’ request for a continuance of the trial date and pre-trial motions cutoff date. 

Defendant Michael Thomas Coyner indicated his knowing, voluntary, and intelligent 

waiver of his right to a speedy trial by executing a written waiver of his right to a speedy 

trial through October 31, 2006.

In view of the parties’ agreement to continue the trial date, for the reasons stated 

in their stipulation, the defendant knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to 

a speedy trial, the parties’ desire to engage in plea discussions, the complexity of the case, 

and the interest of the public in ensuring that he has adequate and effective representation 

by counsel recently retained, this Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a 

continuance outweighs the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 2:06-cr-00124-MJP Document 16 Filed 06/05/06 Page 1 of 2
The parties’ motion for a continuance is GRANTED. Trial is reset for October 2,

2006. The Pre-trial Motion cutoff date is reset for August 22, 2006. The time from the 

filing of the stipulated motion through the new trial date shall be excludable under the 

Speedy Trial Act, Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(h)(8)(A).

Dated this 2nd day of June, 2006.

/S/Marsha J. Pechman 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

_____________________________________

ANTHONY SAVAGE, WSBA No. 2208

Attorney for Defendant David Coyner

615 Second Avenue, Suite 340

Seattle, Washington 98104-2200

Telephone: (206) 682-1882

Facsimile: (206) 682-1885

E-mail: loophole@integraonline.com

Case 2:06-cr-00124-MJP Document 16 Filed 06/05/06 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 189-2 Filed 01/18/10 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 189-2 Filed 01/18/10 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 189-2 Filed 01/18/10 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 189-2 Filed 01/18/10 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 189-2 Filed 01/18/10 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 189-2 Filed 01/18/10 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 189-2 Filed 01/18/10 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 189-2 Filed 01/18/10 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 189-2 Filed 01/18/10 Page 9 of 9
# C_2015146EN.01003203.xml

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/32

---

Order of the President of the Court of 20 January 2015 — European Commission v Ireland, intervener: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-236/14) (1)

1

(2015/C 146/42)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.

1

---
## EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS ANALYS I S
James E. McMahon (JEMcMahon@LBL.gov) Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory U. S. DO E Workshop on Standards for Residential Furnaces and Boilers

July 17, 2001Empl oym e nt Imp ac t s A nal ys i s:



## Both Direct and Indirect Emp l oyment



## Impacts Occur

• Direct employment impacts are estimated in the manufacturer impact analysis
• Indirect employment impacts occur from - shifting consumer expenditures among goods (substitution effect) - changing equipment and energy costs (income effect)Employment Impacts Analysis:



## DOE Requests Input from Stakeholders

• What methods should be used to estimate employment impacts?
From: betheatx@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:37:54 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,

Rosyline Bethea

Schertz, TX 78154
No. P67/176.

#### Baron Tube Co. *v.*United States,

protest 321030, (Galveston).

Kao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of plain end oil well *894casing with squared or beveled edges similar in all material respects to that the subject of *American Mannex Corp.*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 31, C.D. 2608), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

(Note : The following protests were decided by a special second division consisting of Kao, Foed, and LANDis, Judges.)
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09

- 22

- 00 151

- CV

__________________

IN RE JAMES RUBIO

__________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding 4 3 5th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 11

- 04

- 04400

- CV

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In a petition for a writ of mandamus, James Rubio complained that the trial
court failed to rule on a n application for a writ of habeas corpus that Rubio filed as a challenge to a 2011 civil commitment order . We requested a response from the
State of Texas. In its response, the State provided a c op y o f the trial court ’s June 27, 2022 order denying Rubio’s app l ication for a writ of habeas corpus. 1 Thus, Rubio’s

1 The order denying the ap plication for a writ of habeas corpus neither state s that the writ had issued n or that the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the application

. See Ex parte Miller , No. 09

- 08

- 00194

- CV , 2008 WL 5780816 at * 1 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont Apr. 2, 2009, no pet.) (dismissing appeal challenging the trial court’s denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus).2 complaint that the trial court f a iled to rule on h i s application for a writ of habeas

co rpus is moot. After considering the petition and the record, we conclude the relator has not shown that he is presently entitled to mandamus relief because he has already received all the relief that he requested in his petition to this Court . Accordingl y, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on July 27 , 2022 Opinion Delivered July 28, 2022 Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 114

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the transfer of Hong Kong to

the People’s Republic of China not alter the current or future status

of Taiwan as a free and democratic country.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 31, 1997

Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself and Mr. BROWNBACK) submitted the following

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the transfer of

Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China not alter

the current or future status of Taiwan as a free and

democratic country.

Whereas Hong Kong was acquired by the United Kingdom in

1898 and leased from China for 99 years;

Whereas the treaty through which the Hong Kong territory

was leased from China expired on July 1, 1997, at which

time Hong Kong reverted to China;

Whereas no treaties exist between the People’s Republic of

China and Taiwan which determine the future status of

Taiwan, and, unlike Hong Kong, Taiwan has been de

facto independent since 1949;
2

•SRES 114 IS

Whereas the People’s Republic of China attempts to apply to

Taiwan the formula commonly known as ‘‘one country,

two systems’’ in an effort to annex Taiwan to China;

Whereas the People’s Republic of China has refused to renounce the use of force against Taiwan and held military

exercises in the Taiwan Strait in March 1996 in an attempt to intimidate the people of Taiwan in their first

presidential elections; and

Whereas the Taiwan Relations Act states that ‘‘[i]t is the

policy of the United States to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful

means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to

the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and

of grave concern to the United States’’: Now, therefore,

be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that—

2 (1) the transfer of Hong Kong to the People’s

3 Republic of China does not alter the current and fu4 ture status of Taiwan;

5 (2) the future of Taiwan should be determined

6 by peaceful means through a democratic process in

7 accordance with the principle of self-determination,

8 as outlined in the Charter of the United Nations;

9 and

10 (3) the United States should assist in the de11 fense of Taiwan in case of threats or military attack

12 by the People’s Republic of China against Taiwan.

Æ
SCWC-15-0000001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

STATE OF HAWAI#I,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

TEDDY MUNET,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-15-0000001; CR. NO. 12-1-1114)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Teddy Munet’s

application for writ of certiorari filed on September 26, 2016,

is hereby rejected. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 10, 2016.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-15-0000001

10-NOV-2016

08:00 AM
No. 67611.

#### Oxford International Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 59/1562, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bicycle horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of G. *Joannou Cycle Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 172, C.D. 2253), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tyrone Walker, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 918]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Orgera, J.), rendered July 22, 1992, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his challenge to the admission of testimony by a police witness that, in the witness’s experience, pre-recorded money is not recovered from drug dealers in "about 50 percent” of arrests *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Tevaha,*84 NY2d 879). In any event, we reject the defendant’s contention that he was denied a fair trial by the admission of this testimony since it was necessary to explain the absence of the pre-recorded money on the defendant *(see, People v Tevaha,*204 AD2d 92, *affd*84 NY2d *470879, *supra; People v Ellsworth,*176 AD2d 127; *cf., People v Kelsey,*194 AD2d 248), particularly in light of the defendant’s repeated and extensive focus during trial on the fact that the pre-recorded money was not recovered from him in the instant case *(cf., People v McKnight,*144 AD2d 702).

The trial court’s *Sandoval*ruling was not an improvident exercise of discretion *(see, People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371; *People v Carrasquillo,*204 AD2d 735; *People v Moise,*199 AD2d 423; *People v King,*187 AD2d 612; *People v Otero,*184 AD2d 484; *People v Kyser,*147 AD2d 590; *People v Rahman,*62 AD2d 968, *affd*46 NY2d 882).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                            2792
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 35528
<PP&E>                                           79848<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                    5155<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4366103
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1861700
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      55035
<COMMON>                                        357655
<OTHER-SE>                                     1308692
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4366103
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                588072
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (367381)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (220691)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (588072)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.018)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.018)
<FN>
<F1>Figure is Property and Equipment, Net, plus accumulated Depreciation.
<F2>According to the registrant's records, Depreciation and Amortization are
$5,155 and $3,729, respectfully, for a total of $8,884.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 102 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 102

 Designating August 15, 1997 as ``Indian Independence Day: A National 
         Day of Celebration of Indian and American Democracy''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 18 (legislative day, June 17), 1997

 Mr. Specter submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Designating August 15, 1997 as ``Indian Independence Day: A National 
         Day of Celebration of Indian and American Democracy''.

Whereas India is the world's largest democracy and shares with the United States 
        the system in which the supreme power to govern is invested in the 
        people;
Whereas the people of India drew upon the values of the rule of law in creating 
        a representative democracy;
Whereas India and the United States share a common bond of being former British 
        colonies;
Whereas India's independence was achieved pledged to the principles of fairness, 
        dignity, peace, and democracy;
Whereas these and other ideals have forged a close bond between our two nations 
        and their peoples;
Whereas August 15, 1997 marks the 50th anniversary of the end of the struggle 
        which freed the Indian people from British colonial rule; and
Whereas it is proper and desirable to celebrate with the Indian people, and to 
        reaffirm the democratic principles on which our two great nations were 
        born: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That August 15, 1997 is designated as ``Indian 
Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of Indian and American 
Democracy''. The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling 
upon the people of the United States to observe the day with 
appropriate ceremonies and activities.
                                 <all>
```
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 of Laser-Pacific  Media Corporation
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ended June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Robert McClain, Chief 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 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 results of operations of the
Company.


/s/Robert McClain
-----------------
Robert McClain
Chief Financial Officer
August 12, 2003

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
other  document  authenticating,   acknowledging,   or  otherwise  adopting  the
signature  that  appears in typed form  within  the  electronic  version of this
written  statement  required by Section 906, has been provided to  Laser-Pacific
Media  Corporation and will be retained by Laser-Pacific  Media  Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Official Journal C 227A/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2013.227.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 227A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 566 August 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2013.227.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 227A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 566 August 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications |
| 2013/C 227A/01 | Vacancy for an Administrative Manager (Grade AD 14) of the Office of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications — BEREC Office (Riga, Latvia) — BEREC/2013/02 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications

2013/C 227A/01

Vacancy for an Administrative Manager (Grade AD 14) of the Office of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications — BEREC Office (Riga, Latvia) — BEREC/2013/02

1

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 27 | (RO) |
| 29 | |
| 33 | |
| 34 | |
| 36 | (DA) |
| 41 | (BG) |
| 43 | (EN) |
| 49 | (ET) |
| 50 | (HU) |
| 51 | (SL) |
| 54 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 58 | (EN/GA) |
| 75 | |
| 81 | |
| 82 | |
| 88 | (BG) |
| 89 | (CS) |
| 94 | |
| 104 | |
| 109 | |
| 111 | |
| 112 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 117 | (ET) |
| 118 | |
| 120 | |
| 131 | |
| 143 | |
| 160 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 162 | |
| 166 | |
| 167 | |
| 168 | |
| 172 | |
| 173 | |
| 174 | |
| 176 | (BG/DE/EN/ET/FI/IT/LT/LV/MT/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV) |
| 180 | (MT) |
| 182 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 183 | (IT) |
| 191 | |
| 192 | |
| 193 | |
| 194 | |
| 196 | |
| 197 | |
| 199 | |
| 200 | |
| 204 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 210 | (LV) |
| 211 | (PL) |
| 219 | |
| 227 | |

5

27

(RO)

29

33

34

36

(DA)

41

(BG)

43

(EN)

49

(ET)

50

(HU)

51

(SL)

54

(DE/EN/FR)

58

(EN/GA)

75

81

82

88

(BG)

89

(CS)

94

104

109

111

112

(DE/EN/FR)

117

(ET)

118

120

131

143

160

(DE/EN/FR)

162

166

167

168

172

173

174

176

(BG/DE/EN/ET/FI/IT/LT/LV/MT/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV)

180

(MT)

182

(DE/EN/FR)

183

(IT)

191

192

193

194

196

197

199

200

204

(DE/EN/FR)

210

(LV)

211

(PL)

219

227

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
----

|   | 1. | 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      Mediware. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:  May      6, 2008 | /s/    | T.      Kelly Mann           |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|                               |   | T.      Kelly Mann           |   |
|                               |   | Chief      Executive Officer |   |
|                               |   |                         |   |
| Dated:  May      6, 2008 | /s/    | Mark      B. Williams        |   |
|                               |   | Mark      B. Williams        |   |
|                               |   | Chief      Financial Officer |   |

----
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 7, 2013*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**F.225 Life Insurance and Pension Fund Reserves** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|