alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
August 13, 1964

Reap. Dec. 10805.

#### Joseph Markovits, Inc. *v.*United States,

reappraisement R62/14415.

(Initial No. R62/10602.) Reap. Dec. 10708. Motion by plaintiff.
Colorado Secretary of State Date and Time: 06/22/2015 09:15 AM ID Number: 20151398897
Document number: 20151398897 Amount Paid: $50.00
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

DAVID L. LAIL (DECEASED)

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

MICHAEL ASTRUE, 

Commissioner of Social Security

CASE NUMBER: C06-5317FDB

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and

the jury has rendered its verdict.

 XX Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been

tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

 IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

That Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Attorney’s Fees (Dkt. #33) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s counsel

is awarded 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) gross attorney fees in the sum of $8,157.45. The Commissioner is

directed to subtract the $3,814.20 previously awarded EAJA fees and send to Plaintiff’s counsel an award

of $4,343.25, minus any applicable processing fees as allowed by statute. 

 April 30, 2009 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Date Clerk

 s/CM Gonzalez 

Deputy Clerk
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT



I hereby consent to the use in the Form 10-SB Registration  Statement, of Allmon
Management,  Inc.  my report for the period  from March 3, 2000  (inception)  to
March 6, 2000,  dated March 8, 2000,  relating to the  financial  statements  of
Allmon Management, Inc. which appear in such Form 10-SB.


                                                    STEPHEN S. BUSH, C.A.
                                                    Chartered Accountant

Port Moody,B.C.
Canada
March 8, 2000


                                    By:/s/ Stephen S. Bush
                                    Chartered Accountant
From: jhhunter25@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:45:49 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,

Jeffrey Hunter

Pacifica, CA 94044
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

Dated this 11th day of January , 2006

/S/ PETER H. VOELKER 

 Deputy Clerk

MINUTE ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the WESTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

JOE and LAURA SPRINKLE,

 Plaintiff,

)

)

)

vs. )

) C05-1898 JPD

SB&C, LTD, et al.,

 Defendant.

)

)

) MINUTE ORDER 

)SETTING PHONE CONFERENCE

The following Minute Order is made at the direction of the Court, the Honorable 

James P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge:

Defense counsel in the above entitled matter has requested a discovery conference with

the Court. The request is GRANTED. 

A Discovery Conference is hereby scheduled for 

TUESDAY, 17 JANUARY 2006 at 9:30am

Chambers will place the conference call. Counsel are directed to contact the deputy clerk

with a telephone number where he can be reached if other than the number listed on the court’s

docket sheet.

Case 2:05-cv-01898-JPD Document 9 Filed 01/11/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                              17
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,841
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     11,091
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,858
<PP&E>                                           2,456
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,860
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,927
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            57
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,876
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,860
<SALES>                                         11,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,300
<CGS>                                            7,003
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,095
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,202
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,202
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,202
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08
        

</TABLE>
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

emuw=w”~ 

b 

G? 

~rromn asea=ab I 

I+ 

! i 

lk 

d : 

,‘\ 

Mr. Nell J. Gilllgan i t 

! 

County Auditor 

Uvalde, Texas (-... :'\ "\l,, 

-----. 

Desr Sir; ---1 "..~.\\,, 

;iy::s; :;%$iq*‘t, 

kunds given t6'tha.m 

te?ala or xouas Bill 

onatrwtion end 

6 OS lateral roads. 

way for cc;un+y lateral roads and for the payment or legal obli&.:tlons lxmurred therefor 

prior to ~'muaq 2, 1939, (b) for the oonstruation or Improvement of oounty l&era1 

rwds, (o) for p&ng the yriuofpal, interest 

and sinki~~$ fund requirements of my bonds or 
374 

Mr. Neil 3. Gilllgan, page 2 

warrants which were lecjaliy issued by suoh 

county or road distrlot prior to January 2, 

1939, the proceeds or which were sotually 

expended In the oonstruotlon or improvement 

of lateral county roads, (d) for the plurpose 

OS supplezuenting runds appropriated by the 

United States Government Sor Sorka Progress 

Administration highway construotton, irubllo 

%orks Administration highway oonstruction, 

and such other grants OS Federal Sunde aa 

may be niade avaiLable to the aLunties or this 

state for oouuty lateral road oonstruotlon, 

a& (e) Sor the purpose of cooperating with 

the State Highway Department and the Federal 

Government Fn the construction of rarm-tomarket roads." 

III our opinion this olearly authorizes the oommissionarti' oourt to expend the tunds given them uuder 

louse Bill #68t3 for the oonstructlon and hialhtauanoa or 

oounty lateral roads. 

Xhen onae the aounty la advised of the balsnae 

available to thalr oredlt In the lateral road amount 

set up under this law by the Board of County and District 

Road Indebtedness it then becomes a uatter for Betermination by the commlasioners * court US that county as to the 

disposition of~suoh Sunds available, subject only to the 

restriatlons above stated. 

This department is not in a position to any when 

suah Suuds may beaome available to the various counties, 

Sor the reason thst the administmtion of thie law has been 

conS8rred upon the Board of County and District Road Indebtedness and we think tl:at they alone oan advise you as 

to the time such fuuds will beoome available. 

You have already been malled a oopy OS our opinion 

Number O-908, whioh we thluk answers your third inquiry as 
Nr. Nell J. GilJ.lgau, page 3 

to the constitutionality OS this bill. %ie might state 

further that in our opinion tie objeotions raised in 

Opinion Number O-908 were oorreoted in the present bill.. 

House Bill e688, we think, complies with opinion Number 

O-908. 

Very truly yours 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEU2 

Clarenoe h.’ Crowr 

Assl@ant 

APPROEED SEP 23, 19 

APPROVED 

OPBUSi COliKCTTEE 

By /s/ B.W.B. 

Chairman
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

DARRELL JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROL PORTER et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5342RBL

ORDER ADOPTING

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

 The Court, having reviewed Plaintiffs’ complaint, 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) This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

(3) Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, counsel for any defendants

who have appeared, and to the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold.

DATED this 9th day of March, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05342-RBL Document 21 Filed 03/09/07 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

27

28 ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

PETE AND GINGER HINSKEN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALYSSA ZACH et al.,

Defendants

Case No. C06-5107RBL

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AS PRE-MATURE

This Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and

two motions asking for an extension of time or a continuance of plaintiff’s motion. (Dkt. # 16, 24,

and 26). 

This action was commenced on February 17th, 2006, when plaintiffs filed motions for in

forma pauperis status, IFP, and a proposed complaint. (Dkt. # 1). The plaintiffs are a husband and

wife. The original IFP application was deficient and the order granting IFP status was not entered

until March 20th, 2006. 

The court then considered the complaint and while the complaint was found worthy of

service, plaintiff’s had not provided service copies. The service copies were not received until May

Case 3:06-cv-05107-RBL Document 39 Filed 07/31/06 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

22nd, 2006. The court ordered service on May 30th, 2006. Just sixteen days later, prior to any

defendant accepting service, plaintiff’s filed a motion for summary judgement. (Dkt. # 16).

The first defendants filed a notice of appearance on July 3rd, 2006. (Dkt. # 17). The majority

of served defendants argue:

The plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is premature because the date for

answering the complaint falls after the date the motion is noted for consideration.

There has been no discovery and defense counsel is just beginning the process of

gathering information regarding the complaint. Justice Declaration. As a result, these

defendants are not in a position to present evidence in response to the plaintiffs’

motion. Id.

(Dkt. # 24). The defendant represented by the Cowlitz County Prosecutors office has joined in the

motion. (Dkt. # 26). 

Defendants position is well taken. The motions for summary does not allow proper time for

discovery and is premature given the procedural history of this case. Plaintiff’s motion will not be

considered at this time and is STRUCK. 

Plaintiff’s may submit a motion for summary judgment after allowing for time to answer and

60 days for discovery. No motion for summary judgment should be filed before October 8th, 2006.

In light of this order the motions for a continuance of the summary judgment are DENIED

AS MOOT. 

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff, and counsel for defendants who

have appeared and to remove docket numbers 16, 24, and 26 4 from the court’s calendar.

DATED this 31st, day of July 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05107-RBL Document 39 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 2
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

DARRELL JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

 CAROLE PORTER, et al., CASE NUMBER: C06-5342RBL

 Defendants,

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried

and the jury has rendered its verdict.

X Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been

tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

 IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

The Court Adopts the Report and Recommendation.

This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

 March 12, 2007 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Clerk

 /s/ Pat LeFrois 

 Deputy Clerk

Case 3:06-cv-05342-RBL Document 22 Filed 03/12/07 Page 1 of 1
DF,PARTMENT OF TRANS)'ORTA nON

14910-13-PI

""'<;."'·"n,'t'" ",,,,,,.~,,,,.,,,,,,,

,'NE·J7l

Fcdcnll Aviation Administr'atioll

14 CFR Part 39

Airworthiness "Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model CLw600·2B19 (Regional .k1 Series

100 & 440) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Dcp' rtment ofTransponalion

(DOT}

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We arc superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD) jor the

products listed above. This AD results from mandalory cOLnUing air\.vorthiness

information (MeAT) originated by an aviation authority 0 another country to ideniify

and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. T e MeAl de-s,cdbc:;the.unsafe

condition <lS:

AD CF-2002-12 {which corresponds to FAA AD 00)-04-21, amendment

39-13070] lpandated installation of revised overwi g emergency exit

placards showinG.that the exit door should be 0PCI cd and disposed from a

scated position. However, it was latcr discovered t.r,atthe new placards

illustrated an incorrect hand position for removal9fthc exit upper handle

cover. These incorrect instructions could cause ditliculty or delay when

opening the oWfwing emergency exit. I .

A::;a result, the timely and safe evacuation ofpassellger a]d crew may' be impeded. We

are issuing this AD to require actions 10corred tbe unsar condition on these produds.

AN£-I?1

l\lM.-1-

""TI_"~.:;,,"".'M"

C-~

'::"/1 ,0

"",m,,,,,·,,"O,.

IIN\«.-l(C(

"""-;,."']' !Jjtr;u~~

'2(; I'f 10

"",,,,~r"""',,GL.

'f~~\'

"M'-

H!L"Lf."L
[4910-13-PI

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT ATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0525j Directorate Identifier 2 09-NM-027-ADj Amendme

39-~"****;AD 2010-**-**]

RlN 2120-AA64

VTING YMOOl

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model CL- 00-2B19 (Regional Jet Series ROlJTrNGSYMBOL

INI"Wu.S,SIG

100 & 440) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), De artment of Transportation

ROLfTlNGSYMBOl.

(DOT).

NITIAl.'lISIG

ACTION: Final rule.

DA1'E

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD) for the

products listed above. This AD results from mandatory 10ntinUing airworthiness

information (MeAl) originated by an aviation authority f another country to identify

IlJJVTING SYMlJOL

DATE

and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. I e MeAl describes the unsafe OlITTNO,YMBoL

r>I1TIAI..W.G

d crew may be impeded. We

condition as:

Jill CF-2002~12 (which corresponds to FAA 12003-04-21, amendment

39~13070] mandated installation of revised overwing emergency exit

placards showing that the exit door should be op6ned and disposed from a

seated position. However, it was later discovere~ that the new placards

illustrated an incorrect hand position for rernov I of the exit upper handle

cover. These incorrect instructions could cause d fficulty or delay when

opening the overwing emergency exit.

As a result, the timely and safe evacuation of passenger

"lTIAi.SlSIG

DATE

OlJTTNG SYMBOl.

NI'rIAl.SISlG

DATE

O~"TTNO SYMBOL

IT

are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the uns e condition on these products.
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

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

JIMMIE STRONG II,

 Defendant.

Case No. CR06-5308FDB

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 (X ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 (X ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 (X ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

 ( ) 

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant’s lack of community ties and resources..

 ( ) Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal,

without prejudice to review..

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 May 16, 2006.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cr-05308-BHS Document 6 Filed 05/16/06 Page 1 of 1
September 26, 1955

No. 59321.

Suit 4803.

#### United States *v.*J. E. Bernard & Company, Inc.

Abstract 57542. (Appeal dismissed June 15, 1955.)
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 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

STIPULATION & ORDER OF DISMISSAL – 1

(CV-06-242-RSL)

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

AZEB HAGOS TSEGAYE

(Agency # A48-062-687),

 Plaintiff/Petitioner,

 v.

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General 

of the United States; MICHAEL CHERTOFF,

Secretary of Homeland Security; ROBERT J.

OKIN, Former Seattle District Director, U.S.

Citizenship and Immigration Services; and 

LAURA LAUGHLIN, Special Agent in 

Charge, Seattle Division, Federal Bureau of

Investigation,

 Defendants/Respondents.

Case No. CV-06-242-RSL

STIPULATION AND

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Note on Motion Calendar June 14, 2006)

Petitioner and Respondents hereby STIPULATE AND AGREE that this case may be

DISMISSED without prejudice and without award of costs or attorney fees.

Respectfully submitted on June 14, 2006.

 /s/ Bart Klein 

BART KLEIN

WSBA # 10909

Attorney at Law

Attorney for Petitioner

 /s/ Christopher L. Pickrell 

CHRISTOPHER L. PICKRELL

WSBA # 12787

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorney for Respondents

Case 2:06-cv-00242-RSL Document 7 Filed 06/15/06 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

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

STIPULATION & ORDER OF DISMISSAL – 2

(CV-06-242-RSL)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The parties having so stipulated, the above is SO ORDERED. The Clerk is directed to

send copies of this Order to all counsel of record.

DATED this 15th day of June, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00242-RSL Document 7 Filed 06/15/06 Page 2 of 2