alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. RAYMOND ALLEN MATTESON, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 596 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 28th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
WMD Awareness-Level Training Course 

AWR-160

rt

This awareness-level weapons of mass destruction (WMD) course will be delivered throughout the 

nation to jurisdictions approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency/National Preparedness 

Directorate (FEMA/NPD) and the Centralized Scheduling and Information Desk.

Course Description:

Suppor

Developed by the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium (NDPC), the WMD Awareness-Level 

Training Course is a six-hour training program that provides emergency responders with awarenesslevel instruction on recognition, avoidance, isolation, and notification techniques in a WMD environment. 

The course covers prevention and deterrence of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and 

explosive (CBRNE) hazards.

Cost, Course Length, and Delivery:

tions Su

All Training and course materials are provided at no cost 

to eligible participants. This Course is 6 hours. 

This course is also available online at

http://www.ctosnnsa.org. Attendees may also challenge 

the course and receive full credit if they pass the pretest 

(available online). Operati

Target Audience:

◊ Law Enforcement

◊ Emergency Medical Services

◊ Emergency Management Agency

◊ Fire Service

◊ Hazardous Materials (HazMat) r

◊ Public Works

ism 

O

◊ Governmental Administrative

◊ Public Safety Communications

◊ Health Care

◊ Public Health

◊ Other skilled support personnel 

that provide immediate support 

services during prevention, 

r Terror

Example of terrorist use of explosives

response, and recovery 

operations.

ounter

Eligibility:

Responders applying for the course must 

submit the enrollment application 

provided by the NDPC.

Co

The RAIN concept is stressed throughout the course for all hazards

p y
Certificate:

A certificate will be issued upon successful 

completion of the course, acknowledging 0.6 

continuing education units (CEUs) through the 

University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV). A 

letter verifying CEUs can be provided upon 

request by contacting the Counter Terrorism 

Operations Support (CTOS) registration desk.

Course Scheduling:

Coordination between Counter Terrorism 

Operations Support (CTOS) and the hosting 

Use of the Emergency Response Guidebook is covered in this course

jurisdiction is required at least eight (8) weeks prior 

to the course delivery

Enrollment Information:

See Contact Information below.

To register for the online course go to 

http://www.ctosnnsa.org.

Recognize the effects of a chemical blister agent

Prerequisite:

None

Radiation exposure versus radioactive contamination is 

covered in classroom demonstrations

Effects of a single salt-sized grain of a primary explosive.

For More Information, Contact the Registration Desk at:

National Nuclear Security Administration/Nevada Site Office

Counter Terrorism Operations Support Program

P.O. Box 98521, M/S NLV126, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521

702.295.3224 • 702.537.2639 Fax

E-mail: ctosreg@nv.doe.gov

www.ctosnnsa.org

DOE/NV--1253-REV1.1

January 2009
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

Order to Dismiss Indictment

CR06-240-MJP/Adrian Santana

Judge Pechman 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) NO. CR06-240 MJP

Plaintiff, )

 v. )

) ORDER TO DISMISS 

ADRIAN SANTANA, ) INDICTMENT

)

Defendant. ) 

_________________________________ )

This matter having come on before the undersigned court on the Government’s Motion to

Dismiss, pursuant to F.R.Cr.P. 48, the Court having considered the Motion and files and records, now

therefore,

DISMISSES the above-entitled Indictment as the conduct charged is subsumed into United States

v. Domingo Santana et al, CR06-220 JLR. The Detention Order for the defendant shall be transferred to

United States v. Domingo Santana et al, CR06-220, and shall remain in full force and effect. 

DATED the 24th day of August, 2006. 

A

Marsha J. Pechman

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00240-MJP Document 15 Filed 08/29/06 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

27

28 ORDER 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JOHN WISE,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5810 FDB/KLS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME TO FILE REPLY

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge

Karen L. Strombom pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b) and Local MJR 3 and 4. Plaintiff has filed a

motion to compel discovery. (Dkt. # 43). Plaintiff has also filed a motion for extension of time within

which to file a reply to Defendants’ response to his motion to compel. (Dkt. # 46).

Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(2)A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party moving to compel

discovery must “include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer

with the party not making disclosure in an effort to secure the disclosure without court action.” 

Plaintiff’s motion does not include such a certification. Nor has Plaintiff attempted to confer with

Defendants’ about his discovery requests. (Dkt. # 45). The Court will not consider any motion to

compel before the parties have made a good faith effort to resolve their discovery disputes and indicate to

Case 3:05-cv-05810-FDB Document 58 Filed 04/05/07 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 2

the Court that they have done so.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. # 53) is DENIED and Plaintiff’s motion for an

extension of time to file a reply to Defendants’ response to his motion to compel (Dkt. # 46) is DENIED

as moot.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants.

DATED this 4th day of April, 2007.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05810-FDB Document 58 Filed 04/05/07 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 121 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 121

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

   Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the victory of the 
     United States in the cold war and the fall of the Berlin Wall.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 121

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the cold war was an enduring struggle between communism and democracy 
        throughout the second half of the 20th century;
Whereas an estimated 24,000,000 members of the United States Armed Forces served 
        during the cold war;
Whereas 400,000,000 people were freed from the bondage of communism during the 
        cold war in the countries then known as the Soviet Union, East Germany, 
        Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, and 
        Lithuania;
Whereas the victory of the United States in the cold war will signify freedom 
        and security for decades to come;
Whereas the fall of the Berlin Wall, one of the most significant events of the 
        20th century, symbolized the triumph of democracy over communism; and
Whereas November 9, 1999, will mark the 10th anniversary of this historic event: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the Nation should celebrate 
the victory of the United States in the cold war and the 10th 
anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall by--
            (1) promoting education about the cold war and its 
        historical significance;
            (2) supporting efforts to establish a memorial museum to 
        victims of communism that reflects the suffering of millions of 
        victims worldwide and the role of the United States in 
        promoting freedom and democracy that led to the end of the cold 
        war;
            (3) celebrating peace, freedom, and the principles of 
        democratic government;
            (4) honoring and reflecting upon the role of the United 
        States in the international struggle for individual human 
        rights and the evolution of the free enterprise system; and
            (5) recognizing the veterans who served during the cold 
        war.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 19, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 99.3

GMAC Mortgage
----


February 28, 2006

DEUTSCHE BANK
TRUST ADMINISTRATOR
1761 EAST ST. ANDREW PLACE
SANTA ANA, CA 92705-4934


Re:   Annual Officers Statement of Compliance
      Year Ending 2005
      GMACM Investor Agreement # 41330

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

GMAC Mortgage Corporation ("GMACM") hereby certifies to the best of our
knowledge and belief, that for the calendar year 2005:

1.    A review of the activities of the Seller / Servicer and of performance
      according to the Seller / Servicer contract has been made under such
      Officer's supervision.

2.    To the best of the undersigned Officer's knowledge, and based on such
      review, the Seller / Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under this
      Agreement for such year.

3.    GMACM is currently an approved FNMA and FHLMC Servicer in good standing.

4.    If applicable, GMACM has filed the information returns with respect to the
      receipt of mortgage interest pursuant to Sections 6050H, 6050J and 6050P
      of the Code, received in a trade or business, reports of foreclosures and
      abandonment's of any Mortgaged Property and the information returns
      relating to cancellation of indebtedness income with respect to any
      Mortgaged Property.

5.    All hazard, flood, FHA mortgage insurance and primary mortgage insurance
      premiums, taxes, ground rents, assessments and other lienable items have
      been paid in connection with the mortgaged properties.

6.    All property inspections have been completed as required.

7.    Compliance relative to Adjustable Rate Mortgages has been met.

8.    Fidelity Bond and Errors and Omissions Insurance coverage is current, in
      full force and effect.

Servicer:      GMAC Mortgage Corporation

By:            /s/ Michael Kacergis
               ----------------------------------------------

Name:          Michael Kacergis

Title:         Manager
               Enterprise Risk Management
               Enterprise Servicing Group Risk and Compliance


GMAC Mortgage Corporation
500 Enterprise Road
Horsham, PA 19044
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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

PACTOOL INTERNATIONAL LTD., a

Washington corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

KETT TOOL COMPANY INC.,

an Ohio corporation; and H. ROWE

HOFFMAN, chairman and part owner of

Kett Tool Company, Inc.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C06-5367BHS

ORDER REQUESTING

RESPONSE TO

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion for reconsideration

(Dkt. 160). The Court has considered the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby

requests that Plaintiff PacTool International Ltd. (“PacTool”) file a response to the

motion.

I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On January 31, 2011, the Court granted PacTool’s motion for summary judgment

as to Defendants’ affirmative defenses (Dkt. 149). On February 14, 2011, Defendants

filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order. (Dkt. 160). 

Case 3:06-cv-05367-BHS Document 174 Filed 03/08/11 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 - 2

II. DISCUSSION

Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule CR 7(h), which provides 

in relevant part as follows:

No response to a motion for reconsideration shall be filed unless requested

by the court. No motion for reconsideration will be granted without such a

request. The request will set a time when the response is due, and may limit

a briefing schedule to particular issues or points raised by the motion, may

authorize a reply, and may prescribe page limitations.

Local Rule CR 7(h)(3). 

The Court has considered the motion for reconsideration and the remainder of the

file and hereby requests a response to the motion from PacTool.

III. ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that PacTool may file a response to

Defendants’ motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 160) on or before March 21, 2011, in a

brief not to exceed 10 pages to which Defendants may file a reply, on or before March

25, 2011, in a brief not to exceed 5 pages and the motion for reconsideration is

RENOTED to March 25, 2011. 

DATED this 8th day of March, 2011.

A 

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05367-BHS Document 174 Filed 03/08/11 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

Dated this 25th day of September , 2006

/S/ PETER H. VOELKER 

 Deputy Clerk

MINUTE ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the WESTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

CHIHULY, INC. Et al.,

 Plaintiff,

)

)

)

vs. )

) C05-1801 JPD

ROBERT KAINDL, et al.,

 Defendant.

)

)

) MINUTE ORDER

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

James P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge:

The jury trial in the above entitled matter is hereby continued from April 16, 2007, to

Tuesday, May 8, 2007. Trial will commence at 9:00am in Courtroom 12A, U.S. Courthouse,

Seattle, Washington. 

In addition, the Court will conduct a Final Pretrial Conference on Wednesday, May 2,

2007, at 1:30pm. Unless notified otherwise, the conference will be conducted in 

Courtroom 12A. Proposed voir dire, jury instructions, and trial briefs will now be filed by the

close of business Wednesday, April 25, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-01801-JPD Document 106 Filed 09/26/06 Page 1 of 1
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3601 — APAX/CINVEN/WORLD DIRECTORIES)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2004/C 263/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)  Available on DG COMP website:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/legislation/consultation/simplified_tru.pdf.

----
#### Narine GYONJYAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-72894.

Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 4, 2005.

*605David Nakatsuma, Los Angles, CA, for Petitioners.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Genevieve Holm, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Narine and Levon Gyonjyan, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, and will reverse only if the evidence that the petitioner presented was so compelling that no reasonable fact-finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution. *See Singh v. Ashcroft,*301 F.3d 1109, 1112 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

Gyonjyan’s asylum claim is premised on alleged persecution on account of her political opinion opposing the alleged embezzlement at her former employer, a state social services agency.

Substantial evidence, however, supports the IJ’s conclusion that Gyonjyan failed to show that her opposition to this alleged corruption was “directed toward a governing institution ... and not only against individuals whose corruption was aberrational.” *Grava v. INS,*205 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir.2000). The alleged embezzlement Gyonjyan reported at her place of employment is not considered “opposition to a government institution,” but opposition toward specific individuals in the agency where she worked. *See id.*

*606Gyonjyan testified that following her reporting of the alleged embezzlement, there was an attempted kidnapping of her daughter, search of her home, detention, threatening phone calls, and a fire at her husband’s business. The IJ properly concluded that these incidents failed to have the requisite nexus to her whistle-blowing activities. *See Sangha v. INS,*103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir.1997) (Petitioner cannot establish this alleged persecution was “on account of’ her political opinion by inference, unless the inference is one that is clearly drawn from facts in evidence).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 106 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 106

  To commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Presidential Management 
                            Intern Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              July 9, 1997

  Mr. Robb (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Warner, Mr. 
Kennedy, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Santorum, and Mr. Kerry) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                            on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  To commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Presidential Management 
                            Intern Program.

Whereas, the Presidential Management Intern Program was created 20 years ago to 
        attract to federal service men and women of exceptional management 
        potential and special training in public policy;
Whereas, more than 3500 persons have been appointed to federal service under the 
        Presidential Management Intern Program;
Whereas, these men and women contribute to raising the standards of public 
        service through their hard work and dedication: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate recognize the skill and dedication of 
Presidential Management Intern Program participants and commemorate the 
20th anniversary of the Presidential Management Intern Program.
    That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the Presidential 
Management Alumni Group as an expression of appreciation for their 
continued support for federal service and the Presidential Management 
Intern Program.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 21.1
 State ofLegal Name
    
    Fictitious Name
    
    IncorporationPet DRx Veterinary Group, Inc.
    
    Animal Internal Medicine
    
    DelawareBascom Animal HospitalScripps Ranch Veterinary HospitalAdler Veterinary Care, Inc.
    
    Adler Veterinary Group
    
    CaliforniaAnimal Clinic of Yucca Valley, Inc.
    
    High Desert Animal Hospital
    
    CaliforniaAnimal Emergency Clinic of the Desert, Inc.
    
    
    
    CaliforniaAnimal Medical Hospital, Inc.
    
    Animal Medical Hospital
    
    CaliforniaBay Area Veterinary Specialists, Inc.
    
    Bay Area Veterinary Specialists
    
    CaliforniaBonita Pet Hospital, Inc.
    
    Bonita Pet Hospital
    
    CaliforniaBradshaw Veterinary Clinic, Inc.
    
    Bradshaw Veterinary Clinic
    
    CaliforniaBrentwood Pet Clinic, Inc.
    
    Brentwood Pet Clinic
    
    CaliforniaCalifornia Animal Hospital Veterinary
    
    California Animal Hospital
    
    CaliforniaSpecialty Group, Inc.
    
    Veterinary Specialty GroupEldorado Animal Hospital, Inc.
    
    Eldorado Animal Hospital
    
    CaliforniaJerauld L. Woodring, Inc.
    
    
    
    CaliforniaLawrence Pet Hospital
    
    Lawrence Pet Hospital
    
    CaliforniaMcConnell & Fenton Corporation
    
    All Creatures Veterinary Care
    
    CaliforniaRainbow Hawk, Inc.
    
    California Oaks Veterinary Hospital
    
    CaliforniaSan Carlos Veterinary Hospital, Inc.
    
    San Carlos Veterinary Hospital
    
    CaliforniaSouth Bay Veterinary Specialists, Inc.
    
    
    
    CaliforniaSouth County Emergency Animal Clinic, Inc.
    
    
    
    CaliforniaStanford Pet Clinic, Inc.
    
    The Palo Alto Pet Hospital at Stanford
    
    CaliforniaTarvin & Lenehan, Inc.
    
    Veterinary Surgical Specialists
    
    CaliforniaValley Animal Medical Center
    
    Valley Animal Medical Center
    
    CaliforniaVets & Pets, Incorporated
    
    All About Pets Animal Care
    
    CaliforniaVetSurg, Inc.
    
    
    
    CaliforniaYuba-Sutter Veterinary Hospital, Inc.
    
    Yuba-Sutter Veterinary Hospital
    
    California
No. 61631.

#### Burleigh Brooks, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 301199-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, G. J.

In accordance with stipulation of. counsel that the merchandise is “in fact photographic lenses, which would now be classified at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 228 (b), and T. D. 51802,” the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TERRY STURGEON, SR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-3583

[March 21, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Barbara Anne 

McCarthy, Judge; L.T. Case No. 17-6391 CF10A.

Terry S. Sturgeon, Sr., Madison, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., WARNER and MAY, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.