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 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DUANE THORN RAY,

Petitioner,

v.

DOUG WADDINGTON,

Respondent.

Case No. C06-5260 RBL/KLS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

The Court, having reviewed petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, the Report and

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom, objections to the Report and

Recommendation [Dkt. #24], and the remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. # 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE; and

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Petitioner, counsel for

Respondent and to the Hon. Karen L. Strombom.

DATED this 20th day of April, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05260-RBL Document 25 Filed 04/20/07 Page 1 of 1
**SAFESTITCH      MEDICAL, INC.**

**Exhibit      32.2 **

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT**

**TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (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 SafeStitch                Medical, Inc. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:                /s/                Adam S.                Jackson                                                          Adam                S. JacksonChief                Financial OfficerAugust                8, 2008 |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W.D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

APRYL J BEACH,

Defendants.

Case No. CR05-5823RBL

ORDER RE: ALLEGATIONS OF

VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS OF

SUPERVISION

THIS MATTER comes on for a disposition hearing on the Petition of the United States Pretrial

Services Office alleging that the defendant has violated the conditions of supervision under bond.

The plaintiff appears through Assistant United States Attorney, Greg Gruber and Kent Liu.

The defendant appears personally and represented by counsel, Thomas Campbell. 

The U.S. Pretrial Services Office has filed a petition alleging violation of the terms and

conditions of supervision by consuming alcohol on or about August 4, 2006; the defendant has been

advised of the allegations; the defendant has been advised of her right to a hearing and the maximum

consequences if found to have been in violation; and the defendant having freely and voluntarily

acknowledged the alleged violation.

NOW THEREFORE, the court finds the defendant has violated the conditions of her Pretrial

Supervision while on release under bond, and orders that the defendant be detained for failing to show

that she will not flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community pursuant to CrR

32.1(a)(1), and CrR 46(c), to be delivered as ordered by the court for further proceedings.

The clerks shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to counsel for the

defendant, the United States Marshal and to the United States Probation Office and/or Pretrial Services

Office.

August 16, 2006.

___s/ Karen L. Strombom 

Karen L. Strombom, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cr-05823-RBL Document 133 Filed 08/16/06 Page 1 of 1
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

SAFMARINE CONTAINER LINES, N.V.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SEASIDE TRADING LLC, a Washington

limited liability company,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5234FDB

ORDER REQUIRING FURTHER

SUBMISSION RE MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Plaintiff, having obtained a default in this matter, now moves for default judgment in the

amount of $6,911.49, which includes costs and attorneys fees. Plaintiff Safmarine contends that in

accordance with the Bill of Lading between Safmarine Container Lines, N.V. and Seaside Trading

LLC, Defendant Seaside owes freight charges in the amount of $3,800.00 and attorneys fees and

costs in the amounts of $2,577l50 and $533.99, respectively. The Affidavit of Daniel S. Potts,

attorney for Plaintiff Safmarine, submits Exhibit # 2, pages 5 through 15, which appear to be

attorney time sheets reflecting date, rate, hours worked etcetera for a particular billing period, etc. 

These invoices bear dates beginning September 12, 2005 through July 25, 2006. This cause of

action was filed April 26, 2006. 

There are no explanations of the work performed, and the Court cannot determine whether

any of the work is duplicative. Neither can it be determined why the invoices go back to September

2005. 

Case 3:06-cv-05234-FDB Document 12 Filed 08/01/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 2

Therefore, Plaintiff’s counsel is required to provide additional information about the nature of

the services rendered as to the particular invoices submitted in order that the Court may determine

whether or not the attorneys fees and costs are reasonable. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED: By no later than Friday, August 18, 2006,

Plaintiff’s counsel shall submit an additional affidavit and any other support that will demonstrate to

the Court the nature of the attorneys’ fees and costs sought in order that it may determine whether

they are reasonable. Counsel shall also explain why the invoices beginning in September 2005 are

submitted. 

DATED this 31st day of July 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05234-FDB Document 12 Filed 08/01/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         240,558
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,359,296
<ALLOWANCES>                                    19,902
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          62,508
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,375,794
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          257,389
<BONDS>                                         13,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       182,995
<OTHER-SE>                                     235,413
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,375,794
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               535,304
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               255,529
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                94,891
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              91,426
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 93,458
<INCOME-TAX>                                    37,637
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             55,821
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    55,821
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

CHRISTOPHER THOMPSON,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-146-M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offenses charged:

Count 1: Conspiracy to Distribute 100 Kilograms or More of Marijuana in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 846.

Count 2: Possession with Intent to Distribute 100 Kilograms or More of Marijuana in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(vii).

Date of Detention Hearing: April 4, 2006.

The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and

based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth, finds:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

Defendant has stipulated to detention, reserving the right to contest his continued

detention upon his appearance in court in the Eastern District of Washington.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the extent

Case 2:06-mj-00146-JPD Document 7 Filed 04/04/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with

counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which defendant

is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose

of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United States

Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 4th day of April, 2006.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-mj-00146-JPD Document 7 Filed 04/04/06 Page 2 of 2
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #18211 and #18212; LA JOLLA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS Disaster Number CA-00389]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians (FEMA-4743-DR), dated 09/27/2023. *Incident:*
                         Tropical Storm Hilary. *Incident Period:*
                         08/19/2023 through 08/21/2023.
 DATES: Issued on 09/27/2023. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         11/27/2023. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         06/27/2024.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 09/27/2023, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Area:*
                     La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
2.375Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.375*For Economic Injury:*Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.375
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 18211 8 and for economic injury is 18212 0. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Francisco Sánchez, Jr., Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience.


[FR Doc. 2023-22205 Filed 10-4-23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
|    |                                                                                                    |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of Bazaarvoice, Inc.; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement 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 report. |

|                       |
|-----------------------|
|                       |  |  |
| Date: August 28, 2017 | /s/ Gene Austin |
|                  |   | Gene Austin |
|                  |   | Chief Executive Officer and President |
|                  |   | (Principal Executive 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

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

ORDER/WATERS (CR05-5828FDB) - 1 (206) 553-7970

Judge Franklin D. Burgess

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) NO. CR05-5828FDB

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

BRIANA WATERS, )

)

Defendant. )

_________________________________ )

The Court having reviewed the United States’ Motion to File a Brief in Excess of

Twelve Pages, enters into the following order:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED: The United States may

file a brief in response to Defendant’s appeal from Judge Arnold’s detention order that does

not exceed 18 pages in length.

DATED this 27th day of March, 2008.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

s/Mark Bartlett 

Mark Bartlett

First Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 388 Filed 03/27/08 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

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

ORDER/WATERS (CR05-5828FDB) - 2 (206) 553-7970

s/Andrew C. Friedman 

ANDREW C. FRIEDMAN

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 388 Filed 03/27/08 Page 2 of 2
No. 65251.

#### Ross Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/1539 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, G. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass ornamental novelties similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 62984, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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 DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO QUASH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_______________________________________)

LANGSTON GOSSETT, ) No. C06-0441RSL

)

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

) MOTION TO QUASH NOTICES OF

THE CITY OF SEATTLE, et al., ) DEPOSITION

)

Defendants. )

_______________________________________)

This matter comes before the Court on “Defendants’ Motion to Quash Depositions

of Officers John Knight and Felton Miles.” Dkt. # 12. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d), “a

party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by

Rule 26(f).” By serving notices of deposition on May 25, 2006, plaintiff clearly “sought

discovery.” Nor is there any real dispute that the notices were issued before the parties

conducted their Rule 26(f) conference. Defendants’ motion to quash the notices of deposition

served on Officers Knight and Miles is therefore GRANTED. The parties are directed to

cooperate in scheduling of all of the depositions noted in the above-captioned matter.

DATED this 28th day of June, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik,

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00441-RSL Document 23 Filed 06/28/06 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 42 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 42

 To disapprove the certification of the President under section 490(b) 
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 regarding foreign assistance for 
                    Mexico during fiscal year 1998.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 3, 1998

    Mr. Coverdell (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Helms, and Mr. 
 Hutchinson) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
        twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 To disapprove the certification of the President under section 490(b) 
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 regarding foreign assistance for 
                    Mexico during fiscal year 1998.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That pursuant to subsection 
(d) of section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
2291j), Congress disapproves the determination of the President with 
respect to Mexico for fiscal year 1998 that is contained in the 
certification (transmittal no. 98-15) submitted to Congress by the 
President under subsection (b) of that section on February 26, 1998.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Cahill, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 225]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), rendered March 9, 1992, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), burglary in the first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and attempted assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and statements made by the defendant to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the warrantless arrest in his home was unlawful, and therefore his statements and certain physical evidence should have been suppressed, is without merit. Although it is true that "[a] warrantless arrest in a suspect’s home or a place in which he has a reasonable expectation of privacy is prohibited absent exigent circumstances or consent” *(People v Long,*124 AD2d 1016,1017; *People v Wells,*143 AD2d 708, 709), once the defendant stepped into a public hallway, the police had the right to make the warrant-less arrest *(see, People v Jacobo,*208 AD2d 432; *People v Siler,*197 AD2d 842, 843; *People v Lopez,*134 AD2d 456). The arrest was not rendered improper when the defendant voluntarily went back into his private residence *(see, People v Jacobo, supra; People v Lopez, supra).*

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

*609The defendant contends that the court’s charge with respect to the presumption of innocence may have conveyed to the jury an impression that the court had already formed an opinion of guilt. Since the defendant did not object to the charge, any error with respect thereto has not been preserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the charge, considered as a whole, conveyed the proper standard. The trial court properly instructed the jury in detail that the People had the burden of proving each and every element of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Actie,*215 AD2d 570; *People v Tómala,*182 AD2d 848; *People v Medina,*178 AD2d 177).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Krausman, JJ., concur.