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 ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

HAROLD GLEN BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH LEHMAN,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5073RBL

ORDER DENYING COUNSEL AND

WARNING PLAINTIFF 

This civil rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Plaintiff was given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court

reviewed plaintiff's complaint and entered an order to amend. (Dkt. # 5). Plaintiff has appealed that

order. (Dkt. # 8). Plaintiff has also moved for appointment of counsel. (Dkt. # 7).

Plaintiff’s motion for counsel states “[a]ll these Capello cases have settled except mine and a

few others! See attached.” (Dkt. # 7). Nothing is attached. Further, the court is not clear what

plaintiff means by “Capello cases.” Mr. Capello is a litigant in both state and federal court and

reference to his name without a case number and indication which court the plaintiff is referring to is

of little aid to the court. 

Case 3:06-cv-05073-RBL Document 9 Filed 04/12/06 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

In considering plaintiff’s motion for counsel the court notes there is a standard for

appointment of counsel in the Ninth Circuit. There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although the court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), can request

counsel to represent a party proceeding in forma pauperis, the court may do so only in exceptional

circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Franklin v. Murphy,

745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980). A finding of

exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and

the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues

involved. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.

Plaintiff has made no showing of likelihood of success on the merits. The current complaint

is deficient. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. # 7) is DENIED.

The court is troubled by the plaintiff’s failure to address the legal standard for appointment of

counsel in his motion. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 plaintiff’s signature on a pleading

is an indication the motion is brought in good faith and is not designed to needlessly increase

litigation costs. The court accepts that this motion was brought in good faith. Plaintiff is warned

that future motions should address the proper legal standard for the courts’ consideration. Future

improper motions may result in sanctions including costs, monetary sanctions, and possibly dismissal

of actions.

The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a copy of this Order.

DATED this 11th day of April, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05073-RBL Document 9 Filed 04/12/06 Page 2 of 2
# EPA REGISTRATION NUMBER 86004-3

VOL. 2**EPA REGISTRATION NUMBER**

_______________________________________________________________

Page 122 is not included in this copy.

Pages _______ through _ are not included in this copy.

_______________________________________________________________

The material not included contains the following type of

information:

_____ Identity of product inert ingredients.

_____ Identity of product impurities.

_____ Description of the product manufacturing process.

__ **_** __ Description of quality control procedures.

_____ Identity of the source of product ingredients.

_____ Sales or other commercial/financial information.

_____ A draft product label.

**__x___** The product confidential statement of formula.

_____ Information about a pending registration action.

_____ FIFRA registration data.

_____ The document is a duplicate of page(s) _______.

_____ The document is not responsive to the request.

_____ Proprietary information pertaining to the chemical
composition of an inert ingredient provided by the source
of the ingredient.

_____ Attorney-Client Privilege.

_____ Claimed Confidential by submitter upon submission to the

Agency.

_____ Internal Deliberative Information.

* The information not included is generally considered confidential by product
registrants. If you have any questions, please contact the individual who

prepared the response to your request.

_________________________________________________________________
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>					5

<S>		<C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>				9-MO
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>				SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>					June-30-1999
<CASH>					908,394
<SECURITIES>					0
<RECEIVABLES>				956,304
<ALLOWANCES>				41,990
<INVENTORY>					879,010
<CURRENT-ASSETS>				2,743,708
<PP&E>					2,784,080
<DEPRECIATION>				2,012,026
<TOTAL-ASSETS>				4,053,203
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>			1,176,077
<BONDS>					0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>			0
<PREFERRED>					0
<COMMON>					59,004
<OTHER-SE>					312,606
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>		4,053,203
<SALES>					1,321,676
<TOTAL-REVENUES>				1,321,676
<CGS>						659,995
<TOTAL-COSTS>				659,995
<OTHER-EXPENSES>				2,087,347
<LOSS-PROVISION>				1,358,895
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>			(66,771)
<INCOME-PRETAX>				(607,316)
<INCOME-TAX>				0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>			(607,316)
<DISCONTINUED>				0
<EXTRAORDINARY>				0
<CHANGES>					0
<NET-INCOME>				(607,316)
<EPS-BASIC>				(0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>				0


</TABLE>
Order entered July 16, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00243
- CR STEVEN LYNN JONES, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 401
- 82891
- 2011



### O RDER
The Court GRANTS appellant’s July 14, 2014 second motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief

. We ORDER appellant to file the brief within TEN (10) DAYS from the date of this
order.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
Case No. 14,230.

#### TUDOR v. The EAGLE.

[5 Hunt. Mer. Mag. 262.]

District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Sept., 1841.

Seaworthiness — Burden op Proof — Loss op Cargo — Stress op Weather.

This was a libel [by Frederick Tudor] against the ship Eagle, for the .value of a cargo of ice shipped on board of her by li-bellant, in January. 1840, and valued in the bills of lading at between two and three thousand dollars, and destined to the island of Jamaica. It appeared from the evidence that within twenty-four hours after leaving port, the ship sprung a leak, which continued to increase; until, for the purpose of lightening her and getting at the leak, a portion of the cargo was thrown overboard.But the leak still continuing, the ship whs put away for Bermuda, where she arrived in about seven days from the time of her departure; and it being impossible to store the ice, or otherwise preserve it, while she underwent repairs, the residue of it was thrown overboard.

In behalf of the libellant, it was contended that there is always an implied warranty on the part of the owners that the vessel is tight, stanch, and seaworthy, and fit for the voyage; and when, without any extraordinary occurrence, she springs a leak immedi*284ately after leaving port, it is for the owner to prove her seaworthiness at the inception of the voyage. The defendant maintained that the leak was caused by stress of weather such as might have produced the consequences proved, even to a seaworthy vessel.

It appeared that the Eagle was an Eastern built vessel and fifteen years old; and the opinion of experts was given that the logbook did not show any remarkable stress of weather, such as ought not to have been expected at the season of the year in which the voyage was undertaken.

DAVIS, District Judge,

sustained the positions taken by the libellant, and decided that the vessel was unseaworthy at the commencement of the voyage, and the libellant' was entitled to recover the value of ■ the cargo, and a decree was entered accordingly.
San Joaquin Valley 

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

October 8, 2009 

Mr. Mike Guzzetta, Manager 

Rule Evaluations Section 

California Air Resources Board 

P.O. Box 281 5 

Sacramento, CA 9581 2 

Dear Mr. Guzzetta: 

Attached is the Rule Action Package for Rule 4692 (Commercial Charbroiling), which 

was adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Governing Board 

on September 17, 2009. We request that the California Air Resources Board (ARB) 

transmit Rule 4692 and the appropriate documentation to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision. 

Included with this Rule Action Package are the following attachments: 

1. ARB SIP Completeness Checklist 

2. ARB APCDIAQMD Rule Evaluation Form 

3. Clean Copy of Rule 4692 

4. StrikeoutlUnderline Copy of Rule 4692 

5. Governing Board Resolution 

6. Evidence of Public Hearing 

7. Governing Board Memo 

8. Final Staff Report with appendices- . . 

9. Charbroiler Incentive Program (ChlP) Guidelines 

The Rule Action Package is being transmitted by e-mail to ARB staff. If you have any 

questions, please contact Sandra Lowe-Leseth at (559) 230-61 00 or by e-mail at 

sandra.loweleseth@valleyair.org. The District thanks you and your staff for your 

assistance. 

Sincerely, 

Scott Nester 

6m ~6 

Director of Planning 

Attachments 

Seyed Sadredin 

Executive DirectorlAir Pollution Control Officer 

Northern Region Central Region (Main Office) Southern Region 

4800 Enterprise Way 1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue 34946 Flyover Court 

Modesto, CA 95356-8718 Fresno, CA 93726-0244 Bakersfield, CA 93308-9725 

Tel: (209) 557-6400 FAX: (209) 557-6475 Tel: (559) 230-6000 FAX: (559) 230-6061 Tel: (661) 392-5500 FAX: (661) 392-5585 

www.valleyair.org 

Printed on recycled paper. 0
No. 65219.

#### Miya Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/13020, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Shoji panels similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United Enterprises et al.*v. *United States*(41 Cust. Ct. 73, C.D. 2023), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
STIPULATION AND ORDER: (1) ALLOWING PLAINTIFF 

TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND (2) 

EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR FRCP 26(a)(1) 

DISCLOSURES - 1 

Case No. 06-CV-0102-MJP

LAW OFFICES O F

MIKKELBORG, BROZ, WELLS & FRYER PLLC

1001 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 3600 

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98154-1115 

(206) 623-5890

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

THE HONORABLE MARSHA J. PECHMAN 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

PERFORMANCE, INC., a North Carolina 

corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

BRUCE BLUME, an individual, and the 

marital community of BRUCE BLUME, 

and JANE DOE BLUME; and GREG 

BLUME an individual and the marital 

community of GREG BLUME and JANE 

DOE BLUME; and THE BLUME 

COMPANY, a Washington corporation. 

 Defendants. 

 NO. 06-CV-0102-MJP 

STIPULATION AND ORDER: 

(1) ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND 

(2) EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR FRCP 

26(a)(1) DISCLOSURES 

NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: 

This stipulation resolves Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Leave to File First Amended Complaint, 

previously noted for Thursday, March 23, 

2006, 6:30 p.m.

STIPULATION 

 All parties hereby agree, through their counsel of record, as follows: 

 1. That Plaintiff be authorized to file its First Amended Complaint on or before 

April 10, 2006; and 

 2. That the deadline for FRCP 26(a)(1) be extended by 45 days, to May 15, 2006, 

in order to allow counsel and the parties to focus their attention on early mediation of this 

matter. 

Case 2:06-cv-00102-MJP Document 9 Filed 03/23/06 Page 1 of 2
 

STIPULATION AND ORDER: (1) ALLOWING PLAINTIFF 

TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND (2) 

EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR FRCP 26(a)(1) 

DISCLOSURES - 2 

Case No. 06-CV-0102-MJP

LAW OFFICES O F

MIKKELBORG, BROZ, WELLS & FRYER PLLC

1001 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 3600 

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98154-1115 

(206) 623-5890

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

AGREED TO this 21st day of March, 2006. 

MIKKELBORG, BROZ, WELLS & 

FRYER, PLLC 

s/ Jess G. Webster for 

Joel Watkins (WSBA #10957) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Mikkelborg, Broz, Wells, & Fryer, PLLC 

1001 Fourth Ave., Suite 3600 

Seattle, WA 98154 

Tel.: (206) 623-5890 

Fax: (206) 623-0965 

jwatkins@mbwf.com

JAMESON BABBITT STITES LOMBARD 

PLLC 

s/ Henry C. Jameson 

Henry C. Jameson (WSBA #05676) 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Jameson Babbitt Stites Lombard PLLC 

999 Third Avenue 

Seattle, WA 98104 

Tel.: (206) 292-1994 

Fax: (206) 292-1995 

hjameson@jbsl.com 

ORDER 

 The Court having considered the above stipulation of the parties, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff is granted leave to file its proposed First Amended Complaint, on or 

before April 10, 2006; and 

 2. The deadline for the disclosures required under FRCP 26(a)(1) is hereby 

extended to ___May 15_______, 2006. 

 ORDERED this ______ of March, 2006. 

 /s Marsha J. Pechman

The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman 

U.S. District Court Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00102-MJP Document 9 Filed 03/23/06 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

TEDDY L. HERSEL,

 Defendant.

Case No. 05-5241M

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)

 ( ) 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 ) Crime of Violence (18 U.S.C. 3156)..

 ( ) 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.

 December 21, 2005.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cr-05041-RBL Document 6 Filed 12/21/05 Page 1 of 1
From: Kristina Klausser

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 5:22:27 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Kristina Klausser

637 COZYBROOK LN

STREET ADDRESS 2

ORANGE PARK, Fl 32003
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 23 Filed 05/02/2006 Page 1 of 1 Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 23

Dockets.Justia.com
Exhibit 32.1  Certification of the Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  In connection with the periodic report of Xian Resources, Ltd., (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ended May 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),Jay Lutsky, the Principal Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/Jay Lutsky Principal Executive Officer Date: October 3, 2012
#### Alexander FLORES MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-73744.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 4, 2005.

Alexander Flores Martinez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

*614Regional 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, OIL, 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 **

Alexander Flores Martinez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand to apply for relief under the Convention Against Torture, and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, *Movsisian v. Ashcroft,*395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to remand because Flores Martinez failed to provide any evidence that he would be at risk of suffering torture if he were returned to Guatemala. *See Rodriguez v. INS,*841 F.2d 865, 867 (9th Cir.1987) (motion to remand requires showing of prima facie eligibility for relief sought).

Flores Martinez waived any challenge to the denial of his application for eancellation of removal by failing to raise this issue in his opening brief. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996).

Flores Martinez’s voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. *See Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004).

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.
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

CLINTON HECK,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARK STERN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5030RJB

ORDER REGARDING AMENDED

 COMPLAINT

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action has been referred to Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom

pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. The plaintiff has been granted

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. # 7). Plaintiff was granted leave to amend his complaint. 

(Dkt. # 20). Plaintiff has now done so and the court has determined that he may proceed with this

action. Accordingly, plaintiff must submit properly completed service documents so that the court

may direct service by the U.S. Marshall. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff shall submit properly completed service forms and the appropriate number of

copies of his Amended Complaint to the Clerk of the Court within thirty (30) days of

the date of this Order or the court will recommend dismissal of this action.

DATED this 18th day of July, 2006. 

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05030-RJB Document 51 Filed 07/18/06 Page 1 of 1