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

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

MIGUEL ANGEL PERALTA-ALONZO,

 Defendant.

Case No. 06-5091M

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:

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

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

 ( ) 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 17, 2006.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-mj-05091-JKA Document 12 Filed 05/17/06 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 24 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 24

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
              relative to equal rights for women and men.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 20, 1997

 Mr. Kennedy (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Robb, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. 
   Lautenberg, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Feingold, Mr. 
  Harkin, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Bingaman, and Mrs. 
 Feinstein) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
              relative to equal rights for women and men.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied 
or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
    ``Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by 
appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
    ``Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the 
date of ratification.''.
                                 <all>
```
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 OF DISMISSAL 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

 

REFUGIO MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

TRIDENT SEAFOODS CORPORATION,

Defendant.

NO. C06-693JLR

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The court having been notified of the settlement of this matter and it appearing that no

issue remains for the court’s determination,

IT IS ORDERED that this action and all claims asserted herein are DISMISSED with

prejudice and without costs to any party.

In the event settlement is not perfected, any party may move to reopen the case,

provided such motion is filed within 60 days of the date of this order. Any trial date and

pretrial dates previously set are hereby VACATED. 

DATED this 13th day of August, 2007.

AJAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00693-JLR Document 16 Filed 08/13/07 Page 1 of 1
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0002205 08-JAN-2014 07:52 AM
Before the First Division,

June 16, 1948

No. 52383.

protest 137042-K (New York).

#### Micro Sonic Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of record changer units similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Garrard Sales Corp.*v. *United States*(35 C. C. P. A. 39, C. A. D. 369). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 11082)

#### E. J. Edwards & Co. *v.*Untied States

Entry No. 4040.

(Decided October 19, 1965)

*Sharp, Solter & Hutchison*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation :

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the time relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon, the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the Second Division,

October 24, 1967

No. P67/359.

#### Mattoon & Company, Inc., and T. G. Gerry Cullen *v.*United States, protest 61/9172 (San Francisco).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of Von Arx air guns and parts similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Mattoon &*Company, *Inc.,*and *T. G. Cullen*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 282, C.D. 2545), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 60248.

protest 279925-K (San Juan, P. R.).

#### Juan R. Vega *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

The protest not having been filed “within sixty days after, but not before such liquidation” under section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, it was dismissed as untimely.
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 CONTINUING TRIAL/DAVIS, et al. - 1

CR06-166 JCC UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

 Judge John C. Coughenour

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) NO. CR06-166 JCC

v. )

)

WILLIAM DAVIS, and )

EBONEY CHIPMAN, ) ORDER 

) CONTINUING TRIAL

)

Defendants. )

)

Upon consideration of the parties’ Stipulated Motion for Continuance of Trial

Date, and the Waivers of Speedy Trial to be filed by both defendants,

THE COURT NOW FINDS that pursuant to Title 18, United States Code,

Section 3161(h)(8)(A) and Sections 3161(h)(8)(B)(i) and (iv), the ends of justice served

by continuing the trial date to January 16, 2007, outweigh the best interests of the public

and the defendants in a speedy trial, in that, it has been demonstrated that (1) defendants

are not in custody and each agrees to the continuance; (2) counsel for defendant Davis

needs additional time to interview witnesses in Canada in order to effectively prepare for

trial and the presentation of a defense; (3) counsel for both defendants require additional

time to examine portions of the government’s evidence in order to effectively prepare for

trial and the presentation of a defense; (4) counsel for defendant Davis has scheduling

conflicts in two matters set for trial in Washington State Court on November 1, 2006, and 

Case 2:06-cr-00166-JCC Document 59 Filed 10/26/06 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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (206) 553-7970

November 13, 2006, respectively; (5) government counsel will be unavailable the week of

November 20, 2006, and the week of December 4, 2006; and (6) counsel for defendant

Chipman will be out of state from the end of November 2006 until December 26, 2006.

Defendant Davis has filed a Speedy Trial Waiver through December 18, 2006

(Dkt. No. 57).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT trial in this matter is continued until

January 16, 2007.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, for the purposes of computing the time

limitations imposed by the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-3174, the period of delay 

from October 30, 2006, up to and including January 16, 2007, is excludable time pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(8)(A) and (h)(8)(B)(i) and (iv).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT each defendant shall file a Waiver of Speedy

Trial within one week from the date of this Order sufficient to cover the period through

the trial date of January 16, 2007.

DATED this 26th day of October, 2006.

AJohn C. Coughenour

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00166-JCC Document 59 Filed 10/26/06 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 68803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22040]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98664; File No. SR-CBOE-2023-044]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of 
Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Quote Protection Timer

September 29, 2023.
    On August 30, 2023, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with 
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to 
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \1\ and Rule 
19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend Exchange Rule 5.32 
to adopt a passive quote protection mechanism. The proposed rule change 
was published for comment in the Federal Register on September 12, 
2023.\3\ No comments were received on the proposed rule change. On 
September 20, 2023, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change 
(CBOE-2023-044).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98304 (September 6, 
2023), 88 FR 62612.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-22040 Filed 10-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 10

- 00 914

- C V
IN RE Juan Edgar OCHOA, Jr. Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone , Chief Justice Phylis J. Speedlin , Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: January 12, 2011
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On December 22, 2010, relator Juan Edgar Ochoa filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining in part that the Justice of the Peace Precinct 3, Jim Hogg County, has prevented him
from a ppealing the justice court’s ruling. However, b y statute this court only has the authority to issue a writ against a “judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district” and other writs as necessary to enforce our a ppellate jurisdiction. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 22.221 (a)

- (b) ( West 2004)



### . Therefore, we have no mandamus jurisdiction over a justice of the peace unless the issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. We conclude the

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. JP3

- 10

- 544 , styled State of Texas v. Juan Edgar Ocho a , in the Justice of the Peace Precinct 3 , Jim Hogg County, Texas, the Honorable Heriberto Martinez presiding.04

- 10

- 00914

- CV

- 2

- relief rel ator seeks is not necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Accordingly, relator’s petition for
writ of mandamus is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
PER CURIAM
Before the First Division,

December 27, 1951

No. 56195.

protest 79406-K (New York).

#### Seaboard Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliveb, C. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists o’f white beads similar in all material respects to the beads the subject of *Eitinger Bead Co.*v. *United States*(13 Cust. Ct. 50, C. D. 867). The claim at 35 percent under paragraph 1503 was therefore sustained.
No. 63423.

protests 58/388, etc. (Seattle).

#### C. F. Liebert, et al. *v.*United States,

Fobd, Judge:

When this matter was called for trial, the cases listed in schedule “A,” annexed hereto and made a part hereof, were consolidated for the purpose of trial.

These consolidated protests covered three different items which are described as Palmia No. 1 and No. 2 food grinder or mink food grinder, which is hereinafter referred to as a mink food grinder; a mink food mixer; and an item described either as a minkomatie pelt flesher,.a minkomatic fleshing machine, or a mink fleshing machine, which is hereinafter referred to as a mink fleshing machine. All of these items were classified under the provisions of paragraph 372 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 86 Treas. Dec. 121, T.D. 52739, or the Sixth Protocol of Supplementary Concessions to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 91 Treas. Dec. 150, T.D. 54108, as machines, not specially provided for, and were assessed with duty at the rate of 13% per centum ad valorem, 13 per centum ad valorem, or 12 per centum ad valorem under said provisions, depending upon the date of importation.

It is the contention of the plaintiffs that all of said items are entitled to entry free of duty under the provisions of paragraph 1604 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as agricultural implements or repair parts for said implements.

It was stipulated by and between counsel for the respective parties that the mink food grinder covered by the involved protests is the same in all material respects as the mink food grinders involved in *C. F. Liebert*v. *United States,*41 Cust. Ct. 393, Abstract 62415.

Counsel for the respective parties stipulated that the mink fleshing machine is chiefly used on mink ranches by mink farmers to remove the fat from the pelt immediately after the pelt has been removed from the mink.

It was further stipulated by counsel that the items described as a mink food mixer are chiefly used on mink farms by mink ranchers to mix food for minks.

Based upon the foregoing, we hold that the mink food grinders, mink food mixers, and mink fleshing machines are agricultural implements within the purview of paragraph 1604 of the Tariff Act of 1930.

To the extent indicated, the specified claim in these suits is sustained; in all other respects and as to all other merchandise all the claims are overruled. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Before the Eirst Division,

May 7, 1964

No. 68513.

protests 59/16555 and 59/18563 (New York).

#### R. H. Macy Co., Inc., and The Edward O’Toole Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

*337Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plastic paperweights similar in all material respects to» those the subject of Abstract 67488, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 48

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States restoring

religious freedom.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 4 (legislative day, JUNE 2), 1998

Mr. INHOFE introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice

and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States restoring religious freedom.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission

9 for ratification:
2

•SJ 48 IS

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘To secure the right of the People to acknowledge

3 God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the

4 United States nor any State shall establish any official

5 religion, but the right of the People to pray and to recog6 nize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public

7 property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither

8 the United States nor any State shall require any person

9 to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe

10 school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal

11 access to a benefit on account of religion.’’.

Æ
Before the Third Division,

April 12, 1956

No. 59842.

#### Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S. A. *v.*United States,

protest 259294-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (a) of the rules of the court, the protest was dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 40 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 40

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
 authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag 
                         of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 4, 1998

Mr. Hatch (for himself, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Ford, 
Mr. Lott, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Allard, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. 
 Bond, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Burns, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Coats, Mr. Cochran, 
  Ms. Collins, Mr. Craig, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Domenici, Mr. 
Enzi, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Frist, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Grams, Mr. Grassley, Mr. 
Gregg, Mr. Helms, Mr. Hutchinson, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Kyl, 
Mr. Lugar, Mr. Mack, Mr. McCain, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Roth, 
Mr. Santorum, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. 
Smith of Oregon, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Warner, Mr. 
    Baucus, Mr. Breaux, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Reid, Mr. 
     Rockefeller, and Mr. Johnson) introduced the following joint 
 resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
 authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag 
                         of the United States.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the following article is 
proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 
which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the 
Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the 
several States within 7 years after the date of its submission for 
ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical 
desecration of the flag of the United States.''.
                                 <all>
```