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

CARL D. MATTOS,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05-622M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offense charged: 

Count 1: Felon in Possession of a Firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and

924(2)(2).

Count 2: Domestic Violence Misdemeanant in Possession of a Firearm in violation of

Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(9) and 924(a)(2).

Date of Detention Hearing: February 9, 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

that no condition or combination of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure

the appearance of defendant as required or the safety of the community.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) Defendant has had twenty (20) incidents of failure to appear in Court on

misdemeanor cases, four (4) failures to appear on felony cases, and thirty (13) failures to

Case 2:06-cr-00053-JPD Document 9 Filed 02/10/06 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

comply.

(2) Defendant has six (6) additional arrests for eleven (11) charges from the District

of Hawaii.

(3) Defendant has a significant history of substance abuse.

(4) Defendant is view as a risk of flight based on his prior criminal background

history and because of the instant offense.

(5) There are no apparent conditions or combination of conditions existing that will

will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance at future Court hearings.

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

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 10th day of February, 2006.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cr-00053-JPD Document 9 Filed 02/10/06 Page 2 of 2
STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER 

CONTINUING PRETRIAL MOTIONS DEADLINE 

Page 1 of 2 

CR06-0198 RSL (Jose F. Silva-Chavez) 

ANNA M. TOLIN 

Attorney at Law 

2001 Western Avenue, Suite 

200 

Seattle, WA 98121 

(206) 812-5850 

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

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

JOSE FRANCISCO SILVA-CHAVEZ, 

 Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. CR06-198RSL 

STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER 

CONTINUING PRETRIAL MOTIONS 

DEADLINE 

STIPULATION

The United States, by and through Todd Greenberg, Assistant United States 

Attorney, and defendant Jose Francisco Silva-Chavez, by and through his attorney, 

Anna M. Tolin, move to extend the pretrial motions deadline as to defendant Jose 

Francisco Silva-Chavez only to December 29, 2006. This matter is scheduled for trial 

on March 12, 2007. The requested extension is based on the parties’ ongoing efforts to 

negotiate a resolution to this case. 

Respectfully submitted this 1st day of December, 2006. 

___/s/___________________________ ___/s/___________________________ 

Todd Greenberg Anna M. Tolin 

Assistant United States Attorney Attorney for Jose F. Silva-Chavez 

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220 2001 Western Avenue, Suite 200 

Seattle, WA 98101 Seattle, WA 98121 

(206) 553-7970 (206) 812-5850 

Todd.greenberg4@usdoj.gov anna@annatolin.com 

Case 2:06-cr-00198-RSL Document 374 Filed 12/07/06 Page 1 of 2
STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER 

CONTINUING PRETRIAL MOTIONS DEADLINE 

Page 2 of 2 

CR06-0198 RSL (Jose F. Silva-Chavez) 

ANNA M. TOLIN 

Attorney at Law 

2001 Western Avenue, Suite 

200 

Seattle, WA 98121 

(206) 812-5850 

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

ORDER

 Based upon the foregoing stipulation of the parties, the pretrial motions deadlines 

with regard to defendant Jose Francisco Silva-Chavez are continued as follows: The 

deadline for filing pretrial motions shall be December 29, 2006; responses to pretrial 

motions shall be due January 26, 2007; and any reply briefs shall be filed by February 

9, 2007. 

 DATED this 5th day of December, 2006. 

A

Robert S. Lasnik 

United States District Judge

Presented by: 

___/s/_________________________ 

Todd A. Greenberg 

Assistant United States Attorney 

____/s/________________________ 

Anna M. Tolin, WSBA #22071 

Attorney for Jose F. Silva-Chavez

Case 2:06-cr-00198-RSL Document 374 Filed 12/07/06 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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CHRISTOPHER M. MCINTYRE,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5814RBL

ORDER DISMISSING

FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §

1915

 The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge J. Kelley

Arnold, objections to the report and recommendation, if any, and the remaining record, does hereby find

and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED; 

(3) The Clerk is directed to terminate this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and to count

this as a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and

(4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff and to the Hon. J. Kelley

Arnold.

DATED this 24th day of April, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05814-RBL Document 5 Filed 04/24/06 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 12 Filed 06/13/2006 Page 1 of 2

Rinde v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Doc. 12

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 12 Filed 06/13/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### Proven Pictures, Inc., of Maine *vs.*Strand Theatre Operating Co., Inc. et al.

Cumberland County.

Decided March 27, 1939.

In the Superior Court for the County of Cumberland, at the June Term, 1938, a jury was waived, and the trial of the case was to the judge. He, in vacation, that is to say, between the end of that term of court and the beginning of another term, — more specifically, under date of August 17, 1938, — decided the issue, in the sense of awarding judgment, for the plaintiff.

Counsel for defendants appear to have drafted, signed and verified by affidavit, on September 20, 1938, a motion for a new trial, on the basis of newly discovered evidence. A study of the record does not reveal when the motion was filed in court.

The net of it is that not until the February Term, 1939, which, of judicial knowledge, was the fifth term of court since the date the motion bears, and which was subsequent to the handing down by the Law Court (136 Me., 512, 3 A. [2nd], 650,) of its mandate overruling defendants’ exceptions to the rulings and decision of the judge, was an order entered by the Superior Court Justice then presiding, for a commissioner to receive the evidence of sworn witnesses, in support of, and as well against, the allegations of the new-trial motion.

After evidence insisted to support such allegations (opportunity to rebut or impeach which was put aside,) had been taken out, and *516a report thereof made and authenticated, the case was transmitted to the instant court. R. S., Chap. 96, Sec. 59. The case has been submitted on briefs, without oral argument.

*Julius Greenstein, Abraham*Breitbard, for plaintiff.

*Harry C. Libby, Eugene F. Martin,*for defendants.

It is familiar appellate practice, where justice demands such course, to remand causes in order that some defect in the record may be supplied. But, to send this case back, that the record might be put in shape, would do no good in ultimate result.

In the event of a correction of the record, even if the motion for a new trial should be deemed suitable procedure, a point not here raised, the evidence on which the movant relies would be, as to the original issue, — that which the first judge tried and decided, — outside the law’s classification of newly discovered evidence.

The motion for a new trial is denied. It is so ordered.
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. 

HECTOR LOZANO-REYES,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-219M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offense charged: 

Illegal Reentry After Deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

Date of Detention Hearing: May 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

(1) Defendant is a native and citizen of Mexico who has been previously deported.

(2) A detainer has been placed on defendant by Immigration and Customs

Enforcement.

(3) Defendant has stipulated to detention, due to the immigration detainer lodged

against him, but reserves the right to contest his continued detention if there is a change in

circumstances.

(4) Defendant is associated with nine different aliases and two different dates of birth.

Case 2:06-mj-00219-JPD Document 6 Filed 05/05/06 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

(5) There appear to be no conditions or combination of conditions other than

detention that will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance at future Court hearings.

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

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 5th day of May, 2006.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-mj-00219-JPD Document 6 Filed 05/05/06 Page 2 of 2
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: f

f ^> 

# 135 ) ll-K - (B ) - ' Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:52 AM Sheet 135 of 325

# 'm Pi "•(0 ) P.2 _
II-K-(B)-H 3

COAL PRIC E CHANGE S FORINDUSTRIA L NSP S ANALYSE S Lette r fro

m C . Ebert , ICF t o J . Greenwald , EPA:OP A Jun e 1 , 198 3 THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(B)-10 9
No. 55013.

#### Empire Liquor Corp. and McKesson & Robbins, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 120105-K and 128914-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
October 3, 1956

No. 60276.

Suit 4841.

#### S. J. Charia & Co. *v.*United States.

C. D. 1642 affirmed June 21, 1956. C. A. D. 622.
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

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JUAN BARELA

Accused as Suspect in Child Abuse 

Arrested, Cover Cited for Obstruction

LYNN BARELA

Joined as Party of Interest,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

ELLIS W. JOHNSON, M.D.

In Individual Capacity and

In Professional Capacity as Family Physician

LORI JOHNSON

In Individual Capacity and

In Professional Capacity as Medical Assistant,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5785 RBL

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL

WITH PROFFERS

THIS MATTER is before the court on the Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Set Aside Dismissal with Proffers”

[Dkt. # 36]. The Motion’s precise basis is not clear, but it appears that the Plaintiffs again seek

Reconsideration of the Court’s October 23, 2006 Order of Dismissal [Dkt. # 26]. Because the Plaintiffs’

Motion was not filed “within 10 judicial days” of that Order, it is not timely under Local Rule 7(h)(2).

Additionally, this Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter, as the Plaintiffs have appealed the

dismissal of their clams. 

//

/

Case 3:05-cv-05785-RBL Document 39 Filed 02/26/07 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

Page - 2

Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED.

DATED this 26th day of February, 2007.

A

RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05785-RBL Document 39 Filed 02/26/07 Page 2 of 2
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49684-49685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19618]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0904, FRL-9846-5]

Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation 
Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze and Interstate Transport Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is correcting the preamble to the final rule that appeared 
in the Federal Register on July 30, 2013. This final rule partially 
approved and partially disapproved a portion of Arizona's State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) to implement the regional haze program for 
the first planning period through 2018. The final rule preamble 
inadvertently misstated the effective date of the rule under the 
Congressional Review Act and the deadline for filing of petitions for 
judicial review of the rule under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air 
Act. This document corrects those errors and clarifies that the rule 
was signed by the Acting Regional Administrator for EPA Region 9.

DATES: This rule is effective on August 29, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Nudd, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 
Planning Office, Air Division, Air-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105. Gregory Nudd can be reached at telephone number 
(415) 947-4107 and via electronic mail at r9azreghaze@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In Federal Register document 2013-18022 
published in the Federal Register on July 30, 2013 (78 FR 46142), the 
following corrections are made:
    1. On page 46174, in the third column, in section VI. Statutory and 
Executive Order Reviews, paragraph K. Congressional Review Act, the 
last sentence is corrected to read as follows: ``This rule will be 
effective on August 29, 2013.''
    2. On page 46174, in the third column, in section VI. Statutory and 
Executive Order Reviews, paragraph L. Petitions for Judicial Review, 
the first sentence is corrected to read as follows: ``Under section 
307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this 
action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the 
appropriate circuit by September 28, 2013.''
    3. On page 46174, in the third column, the title of Jane Diamond is

[[Page 49685]]

corrected to read as follows: ``Acting Regional Administrator, Region 
9.''

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Sulfur 
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 2, 2013.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2013-19618 Filed 8-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
Case 3:05-cv-05812-RBL Document 20 Filed 08/29/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:05-cv-05812-RBL Document 20 Filed 08/29/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 62837.

#### Indestructible Pearl Bead Makers, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 311493-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the porcelain tea sets involved herein were accompanied by a tray and were of the same type and nature as those involved in *B. Shackman & Co. et al.*v. *United States*(28 Cust. Ct. 298, C.D. 1426), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained as to the merchandise identified in the papers as item number 7009 and by the invoice number 1284/96.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 130651 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 130651 

 COA: 254802 
 Wayne CC: 03-014144-01

TANIA MARIA SWAIZEY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 2, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0724 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 31, 2006 

 Clerk
PUBLIC LAW 111–28—JUNE 19, 2009 123 STAT. 1773 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1284: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009): 

Mar. 16, considered and passed House. 

May 21, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–28 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 103 West 

Main Street in McLain, Mississippi, as the ‘‘Major Ed W. Freeman Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. MAJOR ED W. FREEMAN POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 103 West Main Street in McLain, Mississippi, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Major Ed W. Freeman 

Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Major Ed W. Freeman Post Office’’. 

Approved June 19, 2009. 

June 19, 2009 

[H.R. 1284] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29 with PUBLIC LAWS
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

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

LISA A. CORNISH,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C05-5686RBL

ORDER

The Court, having reviewed plaintiff's complaint, the Report and Recommendation of Judge

Karen L. Strombom, United States Magistrate Judge, and objections to the report and recommendation, if

any, and the remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) the ALJ erred in his decision as described in the report;

(3) the matter is therefore REVERSED and remanded to the Commissioner for further

administrative proceedings; and

(4) the Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff's counsel, defendant's counsel

and Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom.

DATED this 25th day of May, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05686-RBL Document 21 Filed 05/25/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.1—Section 302 CertificationI, Ellen Z. Lamale, certify that:I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containingdistribution or servicing reports filed in respect of period included in the year covered by thisannual report, of Principal Life Income Fundings Trust 2005-55;1. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report; 2. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided tothe depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, forinclusion in these reports is included in these reports; 3. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and the trusteeunder the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, and based upon my knowledge and theannual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in thereports, the depositor and trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement;and 4. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the compliance by the trusteeand the depositor with the minimum servicing or similar standards based upon the reportprovided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with theUniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedures, as set forth inthe pooling and servicing, or similar agreements, that is included in these reports.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Ernst and Young and Citibank, N.A.Date: March 24, 2006   By: /s/ Ellen Z. LamaleName: Ellen Z. LamaleTitle: Senior Vice President and Chief Actuary