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

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINDER IN MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 

PAGE -1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

CURTIS S. THOMPSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SCOTT O’TOOLE, et al., 

Defendants. 

____________________________________

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. C05-2064-JLR-MAT 

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO COMPEL AND DEFENDANTS’ 

JOINDER IN MOTION TO 

CONSOLIDATE 

 This is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter comes before 

the Court at the present time on plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery and on defendants’ 

request to join in a motion to consolidate filed in cause number C08-1065-JCC-JPD. This 

Court, having reviewed the record, does hereby ORDER as follows: 

 (1) Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (Dkt. 130) is STRICKEN. Plaintiff, by 

way of the instant motion, seeks to compel the production of all prior complaints and 

investigations against the named defendants or the King County Jail. 

 Plaintiff’s “motion” is, in effect, a discovery request. Discovery requests must be 

made in accordance with the rules set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There is 
01 

02 

03 

04 

05 

06 

07 

08 

09 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINDER IN MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 

PAGE -2 

no provision in those rules for seeking discovery, in the first instance, by way of a motion to 

compel. In fact, motions to compel are reserved for instances where a dispute arises in relation 

to a proper discovery request and the parties have already made a good faith effort to resolve the 

dispute. See Local Rule CR 37. Plaintiff makes no showing that he has either made a proper 

discovery request or that he has made any effort to resolve this issue with counsel for 

defendants. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore not properly before the Court. 

 (2) Defendants’ request to join in the motion to consolidate filed in case number 

C08-1065-JCC-JPD (Dkt. 132) is STRICKEN. Defendants seek to join in a motion to 

consolidate which was filed by the defendants in a separate civil rights action initiated by 

plaintiff and currently pending in this court. By Order dated July 27, 2009, the Honorable 

James P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge, denied the motion to consolidate which was 

filed in C08-1065-JCC-JPD. Accordingly, defendants’ pending request to join in that motion 

is moot. 

 (3) The Clerk shall send copies of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for defendants, 

and to the Honorable James L. Robart. 

 DATED this 26th day of August, 2009. 

 A

 Mary Alice Theiler 

 United States Magistrate Judge
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL P. BURWELL,

Defendant.

Case No. CR06-5471

ORDER RE: ALLEGATIONS OF

VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS OF

SUPERVISION BY UNITED STATES

PRETRIAL SERVICES

THIS MATTER comes on for hearing on the Petition of the United States Pretrial Services Office

Office alleging defendant violated the conditions of supervision as set forth in said Petition.

The plaintiff appears through Special/Assistant United States Attorney, BARBARA SIEVERS; 

 

The defendant appears personally and represented by counsel, LINDA SULLIVAN ;

The defendant has been advised of (a) the alleged violations; (b) the right to a hearing; and ©) that

defendant’s Appearance Bond could be revoked and defendant detained pending resolution of the

underlying charges in the Complaint/Indictment/Information if found to be in violation of supervision.

The defendant having 

( x ) acknowledged the right to a hearing on the merits, voluntarily waived that hearing, and

acknowledged violating the following bond conditions as set forth below:

a. failing to appear for testing May 15, 16, and 18, 2007; and

b. failing to reside at the approved address

( ) been found to be in violation of his bond as set forth below after a hearing before the undersigned:

The court having determined that the defendant violated the conditions of his/her Appearance Bond,

Now therefore defendant’s Appearance Bond is hereby:

( x ) revoked, and the defendant is ordered detained for failing to show that he/she will not flee or pose

a danger to any other person or the community pursuant to CrR 32.1(a)(1), and CrR 46(c), to be

delivered as ordered by the court for further proceedings. 

SENTENCING IS ACCELERATED TO THE FOLLOWING DATE AND TIME:

JUNE 13, 2007

3:00 P.M.

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

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

May 30, 2007.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold _________________ J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cr-05471-MAT Document 23 Filed 05/30/07 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

Attachment E: Worksheets Used to Calculate Labor Costs

This attachment is available as part of the electronic docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0494 and is 

part of the ICR’s Supporting Statement.

I. Worksheet used to Calculate Registrant Labor Costs 

NAICS: 325300

Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing

Labor Category: Formula Managerial Technical Clerical

Unloaded Hourly Rate1 = W $54.34 $28.88 $17.23

Benefits Percentage2 Lb = B/W 44% 44% 44%

Benefits per hour B = W*Lb $24.15 $12.84 $7.66 

Loaded Hourly Rate Wb = W + B = 

W(1+Lb)

$78.49 $41.72 $24.89

Overhead Percentage3 Lo = OH/Wb 50% 50% 50%

Overhead per hour OH = Wb*Lo $39.25 $20.86 $12.44

Fully Loaded Hourly 

Rate

Wf = Wb + OH

= W + B + OH 

$117.74 $62.58 $37.33

1. Data Source: BLS http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_325300.htm May 2012 data

 NAICS 325300 - Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing

 Standard Occupational Codes: 

 Management: 11-0000, Management Occupations 

 Technical: 19-0000, Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations 

 Clerical: 43-0000, Office and Administrative Support Occupations 

2. Fringe benefits/wage per hour. 

3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth 

Edition, EPA-452-02-001, January 2002, pg. 2-34. The loading for indirect costs is within the 

range of 20-70% of the load labor rate (wage + benefits) suggested in EPA guidance.
Page 2 of 2

II. Worksheet used to Calculate EPA and Federal Government Labor Costs

NAICS: 999100 

Federal Executive Branch

Labor Category: Formula Managerial Technical Clerical

Unloaded Hourly Rate1 = W $55.66 $36.11 $20.59

Benefits Percentage2 Lb = B/W 44% 44% 44%

Benefits per hour B = W*Lb $24.74 $16.05 $9.15

Loaded Hourly Rate Wb = W + B = 

W(1+Lb)

$80.40 $52.16 $29.74

Overhead Percentage3 Lo = OH/Wb 50% 50% 50%

Overhead per hour OH = Wb*Lo $40.20 $26.08 $14.87

Fully Loaded Hourly 

Rate

Wf = Wb + OH

= W + B + OH 

$120.60 $78.24 $44.61 

1. Data Source: BLS http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999100.htm May 2012 data

 NAICS 999100 - Federal Executive Branch

 Standard Occupational Codes: 

 Management: 11-0000, Management Occupations 

 Technical: 19-0000, Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations 

 Clerical: 43-0000, Office and Administrative Support Occupations 

2. Fringe benefits/wage per hour. 

3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth 

Edition, EPA-452-02-001, January 2002, pg. 2-34. The loading for indirect costs is within the 

range of 20-70% of the load labor rate (wage + benefits) suggested in EPA guidance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF  SEPTEMBER  30,  1999,  AND  STATEMENT  OF INCOME FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDING  SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, OF HEALTHSTAR CORP. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         115,007
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,982,126
<ALLOWANCES>                                   221,826
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,336,301
<PP&E>                                       3,540,285
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,438,454
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,551,172
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,526,580
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,876
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,350,687
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,907,806
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (557,119)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (19,684)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (537,435)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)


</TABLE>
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

KEVIN L. HENDRICKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

THURSTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S

OFFICE, TACOMA POLICE, AND

OFFICER JOHN DOE BUDINISH,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5374RBL

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST

TO ASSIST WITH

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

This matter is before the court, following Judge Leighton’s order adopting the recommendation to

deny Defendant Thurston County’s motion for summary judgment. On review of the record, the court

does hereby find and ORDER. 

(1) Plaintiff raised the issue of appointment of counsel in a recently filed document (Doc. 26),

which is construed as a motion for appointment of counsel. Having reviewed the matter, the court finds it

is appropriate to GRANT Plaintiff’s request for assistance in the appointment of an attorney in this matter. 

In accordance with the plan and rules for the pro bono panel, the Court Clerk is requested draw on the pro

bono panel and forward to the court the name of an attorney who can then be appointed to represent

Plaintiff in this matter. 

 (2) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to plaintiff and counsel of record

DATED this 2nd day of April, 2007.

_/s/ J. Kelley Arnold J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05374-BHS Document 28 Filed 04/02/07 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sepracor Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, TimothyJ. Barberich, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: November 9,2006

|        |     | /s/ TIMOTHY J.  BARBERICH |
|--------|----------|---------------------------|
|   |     | Timothy J. Barberich      |
|   | * * | *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Sepracor Inc. and will beretained by Sepracor Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

----
n ~ — i2~i$'0O0ii-cfi 

### To Tti£HD^ABii "TupftCS of 5act, Couar: h)0WComes Mtowmh Mteu*nr.£x/-r*£ fC8oc/£ Sr<m>


### LOM&L WSJ*Pto>m>-T4£frank T& G&rccrt THPrT A Wl/Arc CDtulff? USA *k$%*J AT*P AJ7 

## f^otofitttoZ*(\W£LL(WT 2E&d1~ST$ ThlftfUEBZ PQooZV&h A Ca>/ •OP TUP f)W€HATB t-EC&Rp X^tJ~Tt4F5> CASE, ORTti&T 1~tf& CDU£T &>^/WW5 17/£ (ApcrrtQ to TtiBTmt

doctor ~To P-aouj (TifL^tet f±-Copy ofY(4Ef 

### ^••BCcXZX*, AVD^ag-_ot/4^. Q.^Jk.ep As T4P £h*tar

'"-^••X-jJuijjSSij 

# Tm •» to imr^H rycr a- co?y orris &*«*** l&rei> '&£wu? Qrorm r++e jAm. dav 0f,t/aMmM^
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-4300EA

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Arkansas. * Gina Lee Patton, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: April 23, 1998

Filed: April 27, 1998

_____________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Gi na Lee Patton appeals her guidelines sentence for possessing with intent t o distribute cocaine base (crack). On a ppeal, Patton renews her constitutional challenge to the 100 -to-1 ratio used in establishing the guidelines range for powder and crac k cocaine. Patton contends Congress acted with a discriminatory purpose when i t rejected the Sentencing Commission's proposed amendment to equalize the sentencing ranges f or powder and crack cocaine offenses. Patton's contention, however, i s foreclosed by our decision in U nited States v. Carter , 91 F.3d 1196, 1197-99 (8th Cir. 1996). We thus affirm Patton's sentence. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/Aof Sepracor Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2006 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),the undersigned, David P. Southwell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)   the Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:September 12, 2006
|        | /s/ DAVID P.  SOUTHWELL   |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   | David P. Southwell        |
|   | *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Sepracor Inc. and will be retainedby Sepracor Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

----
CA 21-8

May 14, 2021

TO THE OFFICERS AND MANAGERS IN CHARGE OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS 

SECTIONS:

SUBJECT: Resumption of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Quarterly 

Reporting

Applicability: This letter is relevant to all institutions supervised by the Federal 

Reserve.

On March 31, 2020, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve (Board) issued

Consumer Affairs Letter (CA Letter) 20-6, “Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) 

Quarterly Reporting during the COVID-19 Pandemic,” to inform its supervised financial 

institutions that it did not intend to cite in an examination or initiate an enforcement 

action for failure to report the quarterly HMDA data.1 The Board issued this CA Letter 

to provide its supervised financial institutions with flexibility during the COVID-19 

pandemic, reduce administrative burden, and allow the institutions to focus their time and 

attention on serving their customers. CA Letter 20-6 informed institutions that, at a later 

date, the Board would provide information as to how and when it expects its supervised 

institutions to resume quarterly HMDA data submissions. CA Letter 20-6 also instructed 

institutions to continue collecting and recording HMDA data in anticipation of making 

annual data submissions.

The Board hereby instructs all financial institutions required to file quarterly to do so 

beginning with their 2021 first quarter data, due on or before May 31, 2021, for all 

covered loans and applications with a final action taken date between January 1 and 

March 31, 2021. The Board does not intend to cite in an examination or initiate an 

enforcement action against any entity that did not make the quarterly filing for data 

collected in 2020. 

This letter supersedes CA Letter 20-6. Reserve Banks are asked to distribute this letter to 

the Federal Reserve-supervised institutions in their districts that may be impacted by the 

HMDA quarterly reporting requirements, as well as to their supervisory and examination 

staff. If supervised financial institutions have questions about the guidance set forth in 

1 See https://www.federalreserve.gov/supervisionreg/caletters/caltr2006.htm. 
2

this letter, they are encouraged to contact the responsible Federal Reserve Bank. In 

addition, questions may be sent via the Board’s public website.2

Sincerely, 

Eric Belsky

Director

Supersedes:

• CA 20-6, “Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Quarterly Reporting during the 

COVID-19 Pandemic.”

2 See http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/contactus/feedback.aspx. 
3
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Stephen GREEN, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-4125.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 29, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 17, 2005.

Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Charles D. Lewis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Angela MastandreaMiller, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

In this appeal, the parties have filed a joint motion to remand to correct an erroneous sentence. Stephen Green pled guilty to a single count of conspiracy to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (2000), and was sentenced to fifty months’ imprisonment followed by four years’ supervised release. In January 2005, the district court found Green in violation of the conditions of his supervised release and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. Green’s crime of conviction is a Class C felony. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(3) (2000). A district court may sentence a defendant to no more than two years’ imprisonment on the basis of a revocation proceeding where the underlying conviction is a Class C felony. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2000). The district court’s imposition of a four year sentence thus exceeds the statutory maximum allowable. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and grant the motion to remand for resentencing. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*VACATED AND REMANDED*
```

[106th Congress Public Law 454]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ454.106]

[[Page 114 STAT. 1952]]

Public Law 106-454
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 219 South Church Street in Odum, Georgia, as the ``Ruth Harris Coleman 
     Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Nov. 7, 2000 -  [H.R. 5229]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 219 
South Church Street in Odum, Georgia, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Ruth Harris Coleman Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Ruth Harris Coleman Post 
Office Building''.

    Approved November 7, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5229:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):
            Oct. 10, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 24, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
EXHIBIT 99.3Management’s Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria     American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (the “Asserting Party”) is responsiblefor assessing compliance, as of December 31, 2006 and for the period from January 1, 2006 throughDecember 31, 2006 (the “Reporting Period”), with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)of Regulation AB, excluding the criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d)(1)(iii), (d)(1)(iv),(d)(2)(iii), (d)(2)(iv), (d)(2)(vi), (d)(3)(iii), (d)(4)(i), (d)(4)(x), (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii),(d)(4)(xiii) and (d)(4)(xv) of Regulation AB, which the Asserting Party has concluded are notapplicable to the activities it performs, directly or through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, AmexCard Services Company, American Express Centurion Bank and American Express Bank, FSB(collectively, the “Affiliated Subservicers”), with respect to the asset-backed securitiestransactions covered by this report (such criteria, after giving effect to the exclusionsidentified above, the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”). The transactions covered by this reportinclude all asset-backed securities transactions involving credit and charge card receivablesconducted by the American Express Credit Account Master Trust and the American Express IssuanceTrust where the related asset-backed securities were outstanding during the Reporting Period (the“Platform”), as listed in Appendix A.     The Asserting Party has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria by each ofthe Asserting Party and the Affiliated Subservicers for the Reporting Period and has concluded thatit and each such party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable ServicingCriteria as of December 31, 2006 and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform taken asa whole.     PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued anattestation report for the Platform on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable ServicingCriteria as of December 31, 2006 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.     By:
No. 60623.

#### Gematex Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 267254-K (New York).

*460Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case, the coui't found nothing tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the decision of the collector. The protest was therefore overruled.