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 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

RONALD GLENN DAUGHERTY,

Petitioner,

v.

JOSEPH LEHMAN,

Respondent.

Case No. C06-5051 FDB

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

This Court adopted the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that

Petitioner’s request for habeas corpus relief be denied and the petition be dismissed with prejudice. 

 Petitioner claims the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial when it excluded

certain family members from the courtroom during the testimony of Laura Daugherty (Petitioner’s

wife and the victim’s step-mother). The State had moved to exclude these family members as

subpoenaed potential rebuttal witnesses to Mrs. Daugherty. This Court agreed with the State Court

of Appeals that the trial court was within its right to exclude the witnesses under Rule 615 as

potential rebuttal witnesses. The trial court was careful to make a record of its basis for the

witnesses’ exclusion and balanced the petitioner’s right to a public trial with the State’s interest in

Case 3:06-cv-05051-FDB Document 24 Filed 10/25/06 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 ORDER - 2

preserving the integrity of the potential witnesses. See, Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 45 (1984).

A court will issue a certificate only when a petitioner has made “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right .” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To satisfy this standard when the court has

dismissed a petition or claims within a petition on the merits, the petitioner must show that

reasonable jurists would find the court's decision on the merits to be debatable or are adequate to

deserve encouragement to proceed further. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The

standard “requires an overview of the claims in the habeas petition and a general assessment of their

merits,” but the court need not determine that the petitioner would prevail on appeal. Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). The court must resolve doubts about the propriety of a COA in

the petitioner's favor. Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000).

The Court finds that Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of the

Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. Reasonable jurists could not debate that the Sixth

Amendment right to public trial should have been resolved differently.

ACCORDINGLY,

IT IS ORDERED:

Certificate of Appealability is DENIED as to Petitioner.

DATED this 24th day of October, 2006 

 

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05051-FDB Document 24 Filed 10/25/06 Page 2 of 2
EX-10.11


 Exhibit 10.11 

AMENDMENT TO THE 

AMENDED AND RESTATED EMULEX CORPORATION 

2005 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 

April 4, 2018 
 This
Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Amended and Restated Emulex Corporation 2005 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended (as amended, the “Plan”) is effective as of the date first set forth above, such amendment being
approved by the Board of Directors of Broadcom Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), pursuant to Section 9 of the Plan. The Plan is hereby amended as follows: 

 

	1.	All references in the Plan to the “Company” or “Broadcom Limited” or “Broadcom Limited, a limited company incorporated under the Republic of Singapore” shall refer to the Company. The
following will replace Section 2.17 of the Plan in its entirety: 

 “2.17 “Company” means Broadcom
Inc., a Delaware corporation.” 
  

	2.	All references to “ordinary shares” or other similar terms in the Plan shall refer to shares of the common stock of the Company. The following will replace Section 2.16 of the Plan in its entirety:


 “2.16 “Shares” means shares of the common stock of the Company, par value $0.001 per share.” 

 

	3.	Except as provided in this Amendment, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 

 * * * *
*
No. 63403.

protests 322347-K, etc. (New York).

#### Markt & Hammacher Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of monofilament fishing lines the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 60183, the items imported prior to June 30, 1956, were held dutiable at 32% percent under paragraph 1211, as modified by T.D. 52739, supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 52857), and the items imported on and after June 30, 1956, were held dutiable at 30% percent under said paragraph, as modified by T.D. 54108.
No. 67531.

#### Dago Trading Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 61/5975, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bread similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nordic Baking & Importing Co., Inc.*(47 CCPA 78, C.A.D. 733), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT AND RULE 13A-14(A) OR 15D-14(A) UNDER THE**

**SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

 

I, Etienne Snollaerts, certify that: 

 

1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Smart & Final Inc. for the quarter ended October 3, 2004. 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report. 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting. 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 10, 2004
   
/s/ Etienne Snollaerts
    
Etienne Snollaerts
    
Chief Executive Officer

 

2
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350)







In
connection with the Quarterly Report of American Nortel Communications Inc..
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
William P. Williams, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and





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





Registrant
            American
      Nortel Communications, Inc.Date:
      July 14, 2008
            By:
      /s/ William P. WilliamsWilliam
      P. WilliamsChairman,
      President Chief Executive Officer (Principle Executive Officer, Principle
      Financial Officer)
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

THOMAS ALLEN CLARK,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALICE PAYNE,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5015 RJB/KLS

ORDER

This civil rights action has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L.

Strombom pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. Before the court is

plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. (Dkt. # 21). The Court, having reviewed plaintiff's

motion for appointment of counsel does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) 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 demonstrated an adequate ability to articulate his claims pro se. Moreover, it

Case 3:06-cv-05015-RJB Document 26 Filed 07/19/06 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 - 2

appears that this case does not involve exceptional circumstances which warrant appointment of

counsel. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel is DENIED.

(2) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff.

DATED this 18th day of July, 2006. 

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05015-RJB Document 26 Filed 07/19/06 Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4663-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4663-DR), dated July 29, 2022, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This change occurred on July 31, 2023.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, John E. Brogan, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

This action terminates the appointment of Myra M. Shird as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2023-21000 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
Before the Third Division,

March 22, 1956

No. 59786.

#### Kaufmann Department Stores Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 187549-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained. The case having been abandoned insofar as it relates to entry 901179 of protest 194715-K, to that extent it was dismissed.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Vernon Willingham, * From the 104th District Court

 of Taylor County,

 Trial Court No. 28081-B.

Vs. No. 11-21-00270-CV * December 30, 2021

Paras Ramolia, M.D., * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

 (Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal 

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of this 

appeal are taxed against Vernon Willingham.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00047

- CV

BBVA Compass Investment Solutions, Inc., Doris G. Silva, Karen L. McRoberts, Mario Ramos, and David S. Neel, Jr.

v.

Edward Brooks and Geneva Brooks §

§

§

§

§ From the 236th District Court

of Tarrant County (236

- 260857

- 12)

February 12, 2015

Opinion by Justice Gardner



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there was

er r or in the trial court’s “O rder Denying Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings and Compel

Arbitration

. ” It is ordered that said order of the trial court is reversed and the case is

remanded to t he trial court for further proceedin gs consistent with this o pinion

.

It is further ordered that Appellee s Edward Brooks and Geneva Brooks shall pay all of

the costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

__ /s/ Anne Gardner

________________ Justice Anne Gardner
Case No. 6,511.

#### HINCKLEY et al. v. The NORTHUMBERLAND.

[16 Hunt, Mer. Mag. 386.]

District Court, S. D. New York.

March 3, 1847.

Collision — Converging Courses.

[Where one of two vessels upon a converging course commits the fault of luffing instead of keeping away, no damages will be awarded for the consequent collision, where the evidence shows that the other vessel maintained her course, and did not give" way.]

[Libel in admiralty by Joseph Hinckley and others against the ship Northumberland (John Griswold, claimant), for $6,000 damages.]

This was a case of collision between the packet Northumberland and the schooner Louisa, which occurred during a bright moonlight night, off Long Island, Montauk Point, bearing N. N. E. distant forty miles, and the nearest land twenty-nine miles. The schooner was deep with coal, and sunk alongside in five minutes; her crew barely saving their lives, and some of them being hauled out of the water after she went down. Both vessels were alleged to have been close hauled — -the ship on the starboard, the schooner on the larboard tack. Both were made out on the lee bow of each other, on converging courses, and at the distance of about two miles, and each supposed to be to windward of the other’s track, (the ship going at the rate probably of five, the schooner at four, knots.) The schooner held on without altering her course, as did the ship, until within a few of her lengths from the schooner, when she ported her helm, and came into the wind, striking the schooner between her fore and main rigging. If the ship had not luffed, she might have cleared the schooner’s stem or struck her abaft her beam and near her stern; if kept away, she would have apparently cleared the schooner.

Daniel Lord, Jr., and B. D. Silliman, for libelants.

Ogden Hoffman. W. I. Morton, and O. Hoffman, Jr., for the Northumberland.

THE COURT

(BETTS, District Judge)

held, that the ship committed a fault in not keeping away instead of luffing; but such fault having been induced by the wrongful act of the schooner, in maintaining her course and not giving way in time, affords no ground for the schooner to demand damages or remuneration therefor.

Libel dismissed, with costs to be taxed.
Exhibit
      32.1


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


**OF
      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




This
      Certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June
      30, 2007 of BioSpecifics Technologies Corp.





The
      undersigned, Thomas L. Wegman, the President, Principal Executive Officer and
      Principal Financial Officer of BioSpecifics Technologies Corp. (the “Company”),
      DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:




1.
            The
                Company’s Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 (the
                “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
                Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and





2.
            Information
                contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
                the
                financial condition and results of operation of the
                Company.




IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this 26th
      day of September, 2007.




/s/
          Thomas L. Wegman
 
 Thomas
          L.
          Wegman
 President
 (Principal
          Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)










A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      BioSpecifics Technologies Corp. and will be retained by BioSpecifics
      Technologies Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or
      its staff upon request.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 21, 2019

No. 04-18-00709-CR

Kayro MORENO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CRS001128D4

Honorable Oscar J. Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant's brief was originally due on March 21, 2019. This court notified appellant's 

counsel of the deficiency on March 27, 2019, but no response was filed. By order dated April 

16, 2019, this appeal was abated to the trial court for an abandonment hearing. The trial court 

conducted the hearing, and a supplemental records were filed containing the trial court’s 

findings. The appeal is REINSTATED on the docket of the court. Appellant’s brief must be 

filed no later than thirty days from the date of this order.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of May, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
No. 64562.

#### W. C. Sullivan & Company *v.*United States,

protest 59/23732-10749 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
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

VINCENT DANIEL HOPPER, AKA

ANTOLIN MARKS

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL MELENDEZ,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5680RBL

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

The Court, having reviewed, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge J. Kelley

Arnold, objections to the report and recommendation [Dkt. #186], and the remaining record, does

hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) This action is DISMISSED. Plaintiff claims relating to contact with consulates and

prospective attorneys are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

(3) Plaintiff’s claims relating to contact with counsel for the purpose of his ongoing

deportation case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as the claims

implicates the propriety of the decision to incarcerate and deport the plaintiff.

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

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

DATED this 16th day of November, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05680-RBL Document 188 Filed 11/16/07 Page 1 of 1
August 28, 1956

No. 60212.

Suit 4859.

#### Atlas Export Co. and F. L. Kraemer & Co. *v.*United States.

Abstract 59303 affirmed May 15, 1956. C. A. D. 618.
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 96 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 1 of 6

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 96

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 96 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 96 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 96 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 96 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 96 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 6 of 6
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO EXPEDITE 

NO. C05-5656 

1 ERROR! AUTOTEXT ENTRY NOT DEFINED.

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT TACOMA 

JAMES Q. WILKINSON, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ELDON VAIL, et al., 

 Defendants. 

NO. C05-5656 JKA 

ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

EXPEDITE 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Expedite Defendants’ 

Motion to Stay Proceedings is hereby GRANTED. The Motion to Stay Proceedings will be 

heard on April 27, 2007. 

 DATED this 27th day of April, 2007. 

 /s/ J. Kelley Arnold______________________ 

 HONORABLE J. KELLEY ARNOLD 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Submitted by: 

ROB MCKENNA 

Attorney General 

/s/ Paul James 

PAUL F. JAMES, WSBA #13525 

JEFF FREIMUND, WSBA #17384 

SARA J. OLSON, WSBA #33003 

Assistant Attorneys General 

Case 3:05-cv-05656-JKA Document 185 Filed 04/27/07 Page 1 of 1