alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By: |   /s/ Harry Bygdnes                                               |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Name:     |  Harry Bygdnes                                                         |
|  Title:    |  Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Director |
|  Date:     |  October 16, 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 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND REFERRING

MATTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_______________________________________)

VINCENT DANIEL HOPPER, now )

known as ANTOLIN ANDREW MARKS, )

) Case No. C05-1812RSL

Petitioner, ) 

v. )

) ORDER GRANTING MOTION

NEIL CLARK, et al., ) FOR RECONSIDERATION AND 

) REFERRING MATTER TO 

Respondents. ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE

_______________________________________)

On or about June 5, 2006, the Court issued an order adopting the Report and

Recommendation of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Mary Alice Theiler in the above-captioned

matter. Petitioner filed a timely motion to reopen the case, which the Court has considered as a

motion for reconsideration. The order adopting the Report and Recommendation erred:

petitioner had been returned to the Northwest Detention Center and US Immigration and

Customs Enforcement custody on April 11, 2006. His removal proceedings were reopened on

May 2, 2006, making dismissal on the grounds of mootness inappropriate.

 

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(h)(3), respondents were given an opportunity to

respond to petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. No response having been filed, petitioner’s

motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The above-captioned matter is hereby reopened and

Case 2:05-cv-01812-RSL Document 78 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 1 of 2

Hopper v. Roach Doc. 78

Dockets.Justia.com
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 GRANTING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND REFERRING

MATTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE -2-

referred to Judge Theiler for consideration of respondents’ original motion to dismiss (Dkt. 

# 34). 

DATED this 17th day of July, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik,

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01812-RSL Document 78 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 2 of 2
Before Chief Judge Rao,

April 24, 1969

No. R69/17.

reappraisement R68/4475 (New York).

#### Shalom Baby Wear, Inc. *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues and facts are the same in all material respects as those in *Shalom*Baby-Wear, *Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 526, Reap. Dec. 10905), the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the cotton and ramie articles of wearing apparel in issue and that such value was the appraised value, less the buying commission, as stated on the invoices.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 11.2

                   SOFTWARE SPECTRUM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
               COMPUTATION OF FULLY-DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                 (Unaudited)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                     Three Months Ended      Nine Months Ended
                                        December 31,            December 31,                                
                                  ----------------------  ----------------------                            
                                                                                                           
                                      1996       1995        1996        1995                              
                                  ----------  ----------  ----------------------                            
<S>                               <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>                                  
Net income                        $  833,000  $2,773,000  $   44,000  $6,176,000
                                  ==========  ==========  ==========  ==========

Shares as adjusted:
  Average number of shares
    outstanding                    4,317,925   4,204,602   4,289,962   4,192,847
  Incremental shares
    from outstanding stock
    options as determined
    under the treasury stock
    method, using the higher
    of ending or average
    market price                     148,054      67,223     132,662      78,209
                                  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------

Shares as adjusted                 4,465,979   4,271,825   4,422,624   4,271,056
                                  ==========  ==========  ==========  ==========

Fully-diluted earnings per share  $      .19  $      .65  $      .01  $     1.45
                                  ==========  ==========  ==========  ==========
</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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MANUEL VASQUEZ-GARCIA,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5606RJB 

 CR02-5698RJB 

ORDER ON PETITIONER’S 

RESPONSE AND IN 

OPPOSITION TO 

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE 

TO §2255

This matter comes before the court on Petitioner’s Response and in Opposition to

Government’s Response to § 2255 (Dkt. 8).

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 9, 2005, Mr. Vasquez-Garcia filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or

Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Dkt. 1. The petitioner’s motion was noted for

November 7, and his reply was due on November 4. Dkt. 5. The government responded on

October 21. Dkt.6. Mr. Vasquez-Garcia filed this “response,” which appears to be an untimely

reply to the government’s response to the petitioner’s § 2255 motion, on November 10, 2005.

Dkt. 8. On November 9, 2005, the court dismissed the petitioner’s motion as time barred because

the petitioner did not file his motion until the one year statute of limitations period had expired.

Dkt. 7.

In the interest of fairness to Mr. Vasquez-Garcia, the court will consider the reply as if it

had been timely filed.

Case 3:05-cv-05606-RJB Document 9 Filed 11/18/05 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

In his reply, Mr. Vasquez-Garcia urges the court to modify his sentence on the grounds

that he is entitled to a downward departure on his base offense level. Dkt 8 at 2. Before reaching

the merits of the petitioner’s motion, the court must determine whether the motion is timely. Mr.

Vasquez-Garcia’s reply makes almost no mention of his motion’s timeliness:

[P]etitioner submit’s [sic] a §2255 ¶ 6(3), claiming that he is entitled to relief pursuant to

the most recent decision announced. See United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005).

The Government claims that this petition is out of time. Mr. Vasquez, claims that he is

subject to relief do [sic] to the §2255 ¶ 6(3) commentary.

Dkt. 8 at 2. As the order dismissing the petitioner’s motion previously stated, 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ¶

6(3) is inapplicable to the Mr. Vasquez-Garcia’s case because Booker has not been “made 

retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review” as is explicitly required by the statute. 28

U.S.C. § 2255 ¶ 6(3). The court should therefore hold that the dismissal of Mr. Vasquez-Garcia’s

motion shall remain in full force and effect, notwithstanding the petitioner’s late reply.

III. ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that Mr. Vasquez-Garcia’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct

Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED.

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and

to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 

DATED this 18th day of November, 2005.

A

Robert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:05-cv-05606-RJB Document 9 Filed 11/18/05 Page 2 of 2
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 5- 20 53

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Leo n Hen ry

Cart er, III ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v. Ral ph Cla rk ; Pl as te ch Ind us tri es ; Pl as te ch Co rp or at io n ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ctof M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Decem

be r 14 , 20 15 Fi le d: Decem

be r 15 , 20 15 [Unpu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re GRUENDER, BENTON, andKELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.Leo n Cart er ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of hi s act i o n a s b arre d by 1
co ll at eral es to pp el an d res jud ic at a. Up o n care fu l rev ie w, we co nc lu de th at th e di sm is sa l was pr op er. Se e No ll es v. St at e Co mm. fo r Reo rg
. of Sc h. Dis ts

. , 52 4 F.3 d 89 2, 90 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (res jud ic at a effe ct of fir st fo ru m ’s jud gm en t is go ve rn ed by fir st forum ’s l aw; de no vo st an da rdof r ev ie w); se e a ls o Hau sc hi ld t v. Bec ki ng ha m , 68 6 N.W .2d 82 9, 84 0 (Mi nn
. 20 04 ) (s ta nd ard fo r ap pl y in g res ju d i c a ta ; do ct rin e ap pl ie s no t on ly to ev ery m at te r whi ch was act ua ll y li ti ga te d, bu t al so to ev ery m at te r whi ch m ig ht ha ve be en li ti ga te d)

.
Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm
. Se e 8t h C ir. R . 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab l e Mi ch ael J. Dav is , th en -Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct 1 Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of Mi nn es ot a, ad op ti ng th e rep or t and reco m m en da ti on of

th e Hon or ab le Leo I. Bri sb oi s, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e of th e Dis tri ct of Mi nn es ot a. -2

-
No. 67103.

protests 59/11810, 59/24871, and 61/19257 (New York).

#### Joseph Markovits, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass balls similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Joseph Markovits, Inc.*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 151, C.D. 2216), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: emidanmeg3@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:59:22 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Shara Johnson

Lilburn, GA 30047
From: pen4life@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:09:49 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Penny Charlesworth

Westland, MI 48185
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
      (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, including its 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 conclusions about 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 the registrant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 over financial
reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the 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 involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: March 28, 2011
    
    /s/ A. Peyton Bush, IIIA. Peyton Bush, IIIPresident and Chief Executive Officer
Case 2:05-cv-01813-JCC Document 1 Filed 11/01/05 Page 1 of 17
Case 2:05-cv-01813-JCC Document 1 Filed 11/01/05 Page 2 of 17
Case 2:05-cv-01813-JCC Document 1 Filed 11/01/05 Page 3 of 17
Case 2:05-cv-01813-JCC Document 1 Filed 11/01/05 Page 4 of 17
Case 2:05-cv-01813-JCC Document 1 Filed 11/01/05 Page 5 of 17
Case 2:05-cv-01813-JCC Document 1 Filed 11/01/05 Page 6 of 17
Case 2:05-cv-01813-JCC Document 1 Filed 11/01/05 Page 7 of 17
Case 2:05-cv-01813-JCC Document 1 Filed 11/01/05 Page 8 of 17
Case 2:05-cv-01813-JCC Document 1 Filed 11/01/05 Page 9 of 17
Case 2:05-cv-01813-JCC Document 1 Filed 11/01/05 Page 10 of 17
Case 2:05-cv-01813-JCC Document 1 Filed 11/01/05 Page 11 of 17
Case 2:05-cv-01813-JCC Document 1 Filed 11/01/05 Page 12 of 17
Case 2:05-cv-01813-JCC Document 1 Filed 11/01/05 Page 13 of 17
Case 2:05-cv-01813-JCC Document 1 Filed 11/01/05 Page 14 of 17
Case 2:05-cv-01813-JCC Document 1 Filed 11/01/05 Page 15 of 17
Case 2:05-cv-01813-JCC Document 1 Filed 11/01/05 Page 16 of 17
Case 2:05-cv-01813-JCC Document 1 Filed 11/01/05 Page 17 of 17
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

DONALD O. SALAVE’A,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASHINGTON CORRECTION CENTER

RELIGIOUS PROGRAM,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-57O4FDB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s filing of an

application to proceed in forma pauperis and a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To file a

complaint and initiate legal proceedings, plaintiff must pay a filing fee of $250.00 or file a proper

application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

On October 24, 2005, the Clerk received plaintiff’s complaint. (Dkt. #1). On October 31, 2005,

the clerk sent a letter to plaintiff, informing him that he must either pay the $250.00 court filing fee or a

proper application to proceed in forma pauperis and a copy of his prison trust account statement showing

transactions for the past six months. (Dkt. #2). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2):

A prisoner seeking to bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or

proceeding without prepayment of fees or security therefor . . . shall submit a certified

Case 3:05-cv-05704-FDB Document 4 Filed 12/05/05 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

Page - 2

copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for

the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal,

obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner is or was

confined.

Plaintiff thus is required to submit a statement showing the balance and activity of his account for the sixmonth period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint. On November 8, 2005, plaintiff did file an

in forma pauperis application. (Dkt. #3). However, he did not submit a copy of his prison trust account

statement with that application. 

Accordingly, this Court orders the following:

(1) Plaintiff shall seek to cure this deficiency by filing no later than January 5, 2005, a copy

of his prison trust account statement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) showing the

balance and activity of his account for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing

of his complaint. 

Failure to cure this deficiency as indicated herein by the above date shall be deemed a

failure to properly prosecute this matter and the Court will recommend dismissal of

this matter.

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

DATED this 5th day of December, 2005.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05704-FDB Document 4 Filed 12/05/05 Page 2 of 2
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





In connection with the Annual Report of Xun Energy Inc.  (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



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 operation of the Company.



3.

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





Date:   September 28, 2011



By: /s/ Jerry G. Mikolajczyk

Jerry G. Mikolajczyk,

Chief Executive Officer