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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

FRANK LOUIS MILES et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ELDON VAIL et al.,

Defendants

Case No. C06-5319FDB

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR AN EXTENSION

OF TIME TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE 

MOTION

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge

pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrates' Rules MJR 1, MJR

3, and MJR 4. Before the court is defendant’s motion asking for a sixty-day extension of time to file

dispositive motions (Dkt. # 14). Plaintiff opposes the motion, in part, because his motion for an

extension of time to conduct discovery was denied (Dkt. # 15).

On September 18, 2006, the court entered a scheduling order that gave the parties until April

22, 2007 to file dispositive motions (Dkt. # 10). Counsel for defendants states that since that order

was entered his section of the Attorney General’s Office has had a 33% turn over in the attorneys

Case 3:06-cv-05319-FDB Document 17 Filed 05/14/07 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

that handle this type of litigation. The record in this case shows a change of counsel on September

14, 2007 (Dkt. # 9). 

The court does not routinely grant motions of this nature. Here, counsel shows a somewhat

special set of circumstances which justify the request for an extension of time. The motion is

GRANTED. 

Dispositive motions must be filed by June 29, 2007. The Joint Status Report will be due on

or before November 30, 2007. 

The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiffs and to counsel for

defendants and note the change in due dates.

DATED this 14 day of May, 2007.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United states Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05319-FDB Document 17 Filed 05/14/07 Page 2 of 2
No. 57045.

protest 172183-K (New York).

#### Gibson Export Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bí-watt and 1-watt carbon resistors composed in chief value of metal, used chiefly as parts of radio apparatus, instruments, or devices, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# Official Journal C 245/28 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 245 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6028 July 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 245

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6028 July 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 245/01 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 June 2017 to 30 June 2017(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council) | 1 |
| 2017/C 245/02 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 June 2017 to 30 June 2017(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC) | 12 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2017/C 245/01

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 June 2017 to 30 June 2017(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

1

2017/C 245/02

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 June 2017 to 30 June 2017(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC)

(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC)

12

---

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

EN
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 132

To authorize the printing of a collection of rules and authorities of special

investigatory committees of the Senate.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 6, 1997

Mr. WARNER submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

To authorize the printing of a collection of rules and

authorities of special investigatory committees of the Senate.

1 Resolved, That a collection of rules and authorities

2 of special investigatory committees of the Senate, be print3 ed as a Senate document, and there be printed additional

4 copies of such document up to, but not exceeding, $1,200

5 for use of the Committee on Rules and Administration.

Æ
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the WESTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

KAVU, INC.,

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 vs. 

OMNIPAK CORPORATION,

 Defendant.

 C06-109 RSL

 MINUTE ORDER

 REASSIGNING CASE

Pursuant to the Amended General Order entered by the Chief Judge on

November 3, 2004, this action has been reassigned to the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United

States District Judge. 

All future documents filed in this case must bear the cause number C06-109 RSL and bear

the Judge’s name in the upper right hand corner of the document.

Dated this 7th day of March , 2006

BRUCE RIFKIN

Clerk of Court

by: /s/ PETER H. VOELKER

 Peter H. Voelker, Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00109-RSL Document 11 Filed 03/07/06 Page 1 of 1
Case No. 7,688.

#### KEMPER v. ADAMS et al.

[5 McLean, 507.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Illinois.

July Term, 1853.

Lien of Judgment — Effect of on Land — Conveyance. ,

1. The lien of a judgment is not a title to the land, against which the statute of limitations can operate. It is a security, and not a claim of title.

[Cited in Metz v. State Bank of Brownville, 7 Neb. 171: Bowen v. Billings, 13 Neb. 442. 14 N. W. 152.]

2. The conveyance of the land, after the judgment, does not affect the lien.

At law.

Mr. Logan, for plaintiff.

Mr. Lincoln, for defendants.

1

 |Reported by Hon. John McLean, Circuit J ustico.]

OPINION OF

THE COURT.

This is an action of ejectment, under a statute of Illinois. Possession by defendants was admitted. A patent dated 10th July, 1844, to Thomas A. Denny, was given in evidence, which covers the land in controversy. A deed from the patentee, dated 7th of July, 1S43, to Bradshaw, was also in evidence. A judgment was obtained against Bradshaw, at the suit of [John H.] Kemper, for four thousand three hundred and fifty dollars, the 14th of June, 1843. The court, in which the judgment was rendered, adjourned the 20th of June, from which day the lien of the judgment attached, by a statute of the state. Execution was issued the 1st July, 1843, which was returned no property. An alias execution was issued the 15th of February, 184S, which was levied on the lands in controversy. A venditioni exponas was issued the 2Sth August, 184S, and the lands were sold the 8th of June, 1850. The marshal’s deed was made the 7th of January, 1851, under the order of the court, by the new marshal, to the plaintiff. The defendants gave in evidence a deed from Bradshaw to Adams, for the land, dated the 10th of July. 1843: also a deed from Adams to Bavey, one of the defendants, dated 20th July, 1843.

On this defense the question is made as to the effect of the lien on the judgment. By the Revised Statute of Illinois, it is provided, that a judgment shall be a lien from the last day of the court, at which the judgment is entered, for the term of seven years. The judgment was entered prior to the deed of the defendant, and before the deed from Bradshaw to Adams. The statute of limitations did not begin to run before the deed of the 10th of July, 1843. But the lien of the judgment is no title or claim on the land. It gives no right of possession. It is a mere security for the payment of the judgment, but is no claim to the land. The conveyance of the land, after the judgment, does not affect the lien. Until the marshal’s deed was executed, there was no title in the plaintiff against which the statute could run. The jury, under the instruction of the court, found for the plaintiff. Judgment.
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

36 38 40 42



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 08/14 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 14 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.50 N 76.81 WMeters AGL
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 OF DEFAULT - 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SEAN N. ANGELL,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-370

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Default having been entered against the Defendant in accordance with Rule 55 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and counsel for Plaintiff having requested judgment against the

defaulted Defendant and having filed a proper declaration with me as to the amount due;

Judgment is, therefore, hereby rendered in favor of the Plaintiff, United States of America,

and as follows against Defendant, Sean N. Angell:

CAUSE OF ACTION

Principal: $4,834.18

Prejudgment Interest to November 22, 2005,

at 5.3% per annum: $169.69

TOTAL: $5,003.87

1. Interest continues to accrue at 5.3% per annum to entry of judgment on the principal

Case 2:06-cv-00370-S/L Document 8 Filed 06/02/06 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 OF DEFAULT - 2

amount of $4,834.18

2. Interest accrues on the total judgment amount after judgment at the legal rate until fully

paid.

3. The United States of America shall have and recover filing fees allowed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 2412(a)(2) in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00).

DATED this 2nd day of JUNE, 2006.

A

Bruce Rifkin

Clerk, U.S. District Court

Case 2:06-cv-00370-S/L Document 8 Filed 06/02/06 Page 2 of 2
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14** 
**- 1744** 

SANTA ESPERANZA VILLANUEVA GUERRERO ,
Petitioner ,

v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : November 14, 2014 Decided: November 26, 2014

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Santa Esperanza Villanueva Guerrero, Petitioner Pro Se

. Michael Christopher Heyse , Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Santa Esperanza Villanueva Guerrero, a nat ive and
citizen of the Dominican Republic, petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing
her appeal from the immigration judge’s order finding her
removable. We deny the petition for review.
In her pro se in formal brief, Guerrero contends her

counsel was ineffective and that her removal would be an extreme
hardship to her children. Because she does not challenge the

Board’s conclusion that she was removable, the issue is waived.

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Guer rero’s issues in her informal brief
were not raised on appeal to the Board. Because she failed to
exhaust the issues, we are without jurisdiction to review them.

See Asika v. Ashcroft , 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, we deny the pet ition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court, and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 770 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      November 5, 2007.
Whereas the Veterans History Project was established by a unanimous vote of the 
        United States Congress to collect and preserve the wartime stories of 
        American veterans;
Whereas Congress charged the American Folklife Center at the Library of Congress 
        to undertake the Veterans History Project and to engage the public in 
        the creation of a collection of oral histories that would be a lasting 
        tribute to individual veterans and an abundant resource for scholars;
Whereas there are 17,000,000 wartime veterans in America whose stories can 
        educate people of all ages about important moments and events in the 
        history of the United States and the world and provide instructive 
        narratives that illuminate the meanings of ``service'', ``sacrifice'', 
        ``citizenship'', and ``democracy'';
Whereas the Veterans History Project relies on a corps of volunteer 
        interviewers, partner organizations, and an array of civic minded 
        institutions nationwide who interview veterans according to the 
        guidelines it provides;
Whereas increasing public participation in the Veterans History Project will 
        increase the number of oral histories that can be collected and 
        preserved and increase the number of veterans it so honors; and
Whereas ``National Veterans Awareness Week'' commendably preceded this 
        resolution in the years 2005 and 2006: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes ``National Veterans Awareness Week'';
            (2) supports the designation of a ``National Veterans History 
        Project Week'';
            (3) calls on the people of the United States to interview at least 
        one veteran in their families or communities according to guidelines 
        provided by the Veterans History Project; and
            (4) encourages local, State, and national organizations along with 
        Federal, State, city and county governmental institutions to participate 
        in support of the effort to document, preserve, and honor the service of 
        American wartime veterans.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 70

To correct a technical error in the enrollment of the bill S. 1026.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 13, 1997

Mr. D’AMATO submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To correct a technical error in the enrollment of the bill

S. 1026.

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill (S. 1026)

3 to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United

4 States, the Secretary of the Senate shall strike subsection

5 (a) of section 2 and insert the following:

6 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7 of the Export-Import

7 Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635f) is amended by strik8 ing ‘until’ and all that follows through ‘but’ and inserting

9 ‘until the close of business on September 30, 2001, but’.’’.

Æ
----

|   | 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 15, 2009 | /s/ T. Kelly Mann                                     |   |
|--------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                           |   T. Kelly Mann  Chief Executive Officer    |
|                           |                                                  |   |
| Dated:  May 15, 2009 | /s/ Mark B. Williams                                  |   |
|                           |   Mark B. Williams  Chief Financial Officer |

----
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

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

BERNARD OTIS HUFF,

Petitioner,

v.

DOUG WADDINGTON, 

Respondent.

Case No. C06-5105RJB

 ORDER GRANTING AN

EXTENSION OF TIME

This habeas corpus petition has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant

to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrates' Rules MJR 3 and MJR

4. Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On June 1st petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time until August 2nd, 2006 to file a

traverse. (Dkt. # 15). Respondent does not oppose the motion. (Dkt. # 17).

The motion is GRANTED.

The traverse will be due on or before August 2nd, 2006 and the clerk is directed to send a

copy of this order to petitioner and counsel for respondent and to note the matter as ready for review

August 4th 2006.

DATED this 30th, day of June, 2006. 

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05105-RJB Document 19 Filed 06/30/06 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

Case 3:06-cv-05105-RJB Document 19 Filed 06/30/06 Page 2 of 2
#### Margaret Sullivan, Appellant, v St. Vincent’s Medical Center of Richmond et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[631 NYS2d 776]

—In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for wrongful death, the plaintiff appeals from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Amann, J.), entered June 7, 1993, which, upon a jury verdict finding the defendants not at fault on the issue of liability, is against her and in favor of the defendants St. Vincent’s Medical Center of Richmond, K. Rehman, S. Nair, Joseph Andriorio, "John” Doherty, and E. Earley and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered July 7, 1993, which, upon a jury verdict finding the defendants not at fault on the issue of liability, is against her and in favor of the defendant Jipjitendra Patel.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

In commencing this medical malpractice action, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants had deviated from accepted medical practices by failing to diagnose and treat the decedent for Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, a rare disease, at the earliest possible time after the decedent had been admitted to the hospital. At trial, the plaintiff presented an expert witness who testified that, in his opinion, the defendant physicians’ failure was a departure from accepted standards of diagnostic care, *406and the defendants presented expert witnesses with opinions to the contrary.

The jury’s verdict in favor of the defendants is not against the weight of the credible evidence *(see, Nicastro v Park,*113 AD2d 129, 134). The jury was entitled to accept the opinions of the defendants’ experts and to reject the opinion of the plaintiffs expert.

The plaintiff has failed to preserve her remaining contention for appellate review. Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Thompson and Ritter, JJ., concur.
From: lorrainedundon@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:05:39 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,

Lorraine Dundon

Fountain Inn, SC 29644
# Official Journal L 27/2013

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.027.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 27 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5629 January 2013 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.027.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 27

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5629 January 2013

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 78/2013 of 17 January 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain tube and pipe fittings of iron or steel originating in Russia and Turkey | 1 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) No 79/2013 of 28 January 2013 making imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia subject to registration | 10 |
| | | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 80/2013 of 28 January 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 13 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 78/2013 of 17 January 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain tube and pipe fittings of iron or steel originating in Russia and Turkey

1

*

Commission Regulation (EU) No 79/2013 of 28 January 2013 making imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia subject to registration

10

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 80/2013 of 28 January 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

13

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.