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 MINUTE ORDER – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

TROUT UNLIMITED, AMERICAN RIVERS,

PACIFIC RIVERS COUNCIL, WILD

STEELHEAD COALITION, NATIVE FISH

SOCIETY, and SIERRA CLUB,

Plaintiffs and IntervenorCross-Defendants,

v.

D. ROBERT LOHN, in his capacity as Regional

Administrator of National Marine Fisheries Service

Northwest Regional Office, and NATIONAL

MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE,

Defendants and CrossDefendants,

and

BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF

WASHINGTON, WASHINGTON STATE FARM

BUREAU, COALITION FOR IDAHO WATER,

and IDAHO WATER USERS ASSOCIATION,

Intervenor-Defendants and

Cross-Claimants.

CASE NO. C06-0483C

MINUTE ORDER

Case 2:06-cv-00483-JCC Document 29 Filed 07/18/06 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 MINUTE ORDER – 2

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C. 

Coughenour, United States District Judge:

This matter is before the Court on the motion to intervene by the Building Industry Association of

Washington, Washington State Farm Bureau, Coalition for Idaho Water, and Idaho Water Users

Association (“Applicants”). (Dkt. No. 12.) Applicants seek to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 24(a) as defendants to oppose Plaintiffs’ first cause of action challenging NMFS’s downlisting

of Upper Columbia Steelhead, as well as the third cause of action contesting NMFS’s denial of a petition

to split wild and hatchery salmon into separate ESUs/DPSs. (Mot. 1; First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 58–68,

80–86.) Applicants would also intervene as cross-claimants, however, to oppose the NMFS’s Hatchery

Listing Policy. (Mot. 1–2; First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 69–79.) Plaintiffs do not oppose Applicants’ motion to

intervene, but have requested leave to intervene as cross-defendants to oppose Applicants’ request for

declaratory and injunctive relief contained in a Proposed Cross-Complaint. 

Having considered Applicants’ motion in light of the complete record in this matter, the Court

hereby GRANTS their motion to intervene. The Applicants are DIRECTED to file separately their

Answer to the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 27) and their Cross-Complaint for Declaratory and

Injunctive Relief. 

The Court further GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request for leave to intervene as cross-defendants. 

Plaintiffs and Defendants are DIRECTED to file their respective responses to the Cross-Complaint in

accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules. 

DATED this 18th day of July, 2006.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk of Court

By /s/ C. Ledesma 

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00483-JCC Document 29 Filed 07/18/06 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

INITIAL ORDER RE: ALLEGATIONS OF 

VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS OF 

SUPERVISION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANTHONY REY BAUTISTA,

Defendant.

CASE NO. CR06-59RSL

INITIAL ORDER RE: 

ALLEGATIONS OF VIOLATION OF 

CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION

THIS MATTER comes on for an initial hearing on the Petition of the United States 

Probation Office alleging that the defendant has violated the conditions of supervision.

The plaintiff appears through Assistant United States Attorney, Matthew Thomas.

The defendant appears personally and represented by counsel, Miriam Schwartz.

The U.S. Probation Office has filed a petition alleging violations of the terms and 

conditions of supervision, and the defendant has been advised of the allegation(s).

The court finds probable cause with regard to the allegation(s) and schedules a 

hearing on the petition to be held at the time and date below set forth before Judge

Robert S. Lasnik:

Date of hearing: May 10, 2013

Time of hearing:11:00am

Case 2:06-cr-00059-RSL Document 32 Filed 04/23/13 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

INITIAL ORDER RE: ALLEGATIONS OF 

VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS OF 

SUPERVISION - 2

IT IS ORDERED that the defendant

X Be released on an appearance bond, subject to the terms and conditions set 

forth thereon.

__ Be 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.

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.

Dated this 23 day of April, 2013.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00059-RSL Document 32 Filed 04/23/13 Page 2 of 2
August 25, 1953

No. 57473.

Suit 4733.

#### United States *v.*Pacific Customs Brokerage Company.

Abstract 56348 reversed April 15, 1953. C. A. D. 521.
<EX-31(a)>
                                              Exhibit 31(a)
                        CERTIFICATIONS
I, Daniel G. Reynolds, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of
   Calloway's Nursery, Inc.;

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 the statements 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 the financial 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 and I are
   responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
   controls and procedures (as defined in 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, 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 affect,
       the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
       and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have
   disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
   control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors
   and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
   persons performing the equivalent function):
    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:     May 13, 2004

/s/ Daniel G. Reynolds
Daniel G. Reynolds
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
##### 



EXHIBIT
31.2
 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,
 PURSUANT
TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 I, Ramon L Burton, certify that:1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for Medwave, Inc. (the Registrant);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 the statements 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 the financial condition and results of
operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in 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 my supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to me 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 my 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
 5.
    
    I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation 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 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.
  By:
    /s/ Ramon L BurtonRamon L BurtonChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer) 21
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Mineralresources of the Rainbow Lake Wilderness Area and the Flynn Wilderness StudyArea, Bayfield County, Wisconsin**
 
Report | Plate
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:1511
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000959947
 
August 13, 2018
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 Legend Mining Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), 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 operations of the Company.








Date:  July 13, 2011





/s/ Tao Chen


Tao Chen, President and C.E.O.


(Principal Executive Officer)
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 19 Filed 04/11/2006 Page 1 of 1

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 19

Dockets.Justia.com
Exhibit 23


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  
 We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 Registration Nos. 333-152212 and 333-167323, and Form S-3 Registration No. 333-152211), of ENB Financial Corp of our report dated March 23, 2011, relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements which is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of ENB Financial Corp for the year ended December 31, 2010.
 
  /s/  S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.
   Wexford, Pennsylvania
 March 23, 2011






S.R. Snodgrass, A.C. * 2100 Corporate Drive, Suite 400 * Wexford, Pennsylvania 15090-8399 * Phone: (724) 934-0344 * Facsimile: (724) 934-0345
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 Quarterly Report of Laser-Pacific  Media Corporation
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ended June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
James R. Parks, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my 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 operations of the
Company.


/s/James R. Parks
-----------------
James R. Parks
Chief Executive Officer
August 12, 2003

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
other  document  authenticating,   acknowledging,   or  otherwise  adopting  the
signature  that  appears in typed form  within  the  electronic  version of this
written  statement  required by Section 906, has been provided to  Laser-Pacific
Media  Corporation and will be retained by Laser-Pacific  Media  Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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

FARSHAD A. KHOSRAVANI,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C05-5594RBL

ORDER

The Court, having reviewed plaintiff's complaint, the Report and Recommendation of Judge

Karen L. Strombom, United States Magistrate Judge, and objections to the report and recommendation, if

any, and the remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) The administrative decision is AFFIRMED; and

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff'’ counsel, defendant’s counsel

and Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom.

DATED this 24th day of April, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05594-RBL Document 15 Filed 04/24/06 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER — 1

United States v. Christopher Jason McLaughry, Case No. CR 06-114 RSM

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

JUDGE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

 ) CASE NO. CR 06-114 RSM

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) ORDER 

 )

CHRISTOPHER JAMES McLAUGHRY, )

 )

Defendant. ) )

This Court having considered the stipulation of the parties hereby GRANTS the

parties' request for a continuance of the trial date and pre-trial motions cutoff date. 

Defendant Christopher James McLaughry indicated his knowing, voluntary, and

intelligent waiver of his rights to a speedy trial by executing a written waiver of his right

to a speedy trial through March 5, 2007.

In view of the parties' agreement to continue the trial date and pre-trial motion

cutoff date, for the reasons stated in their stipulation, the defendants' knowing, voluntary,

and intelligent waiver or anticipated waiver of his right to a speedy trial, the parties'

desire to continue to engage in plea discussions, the complexity of the case, and the

interest of the public in ensuring the accused adequate, effective, and continued

representation by counsel presently assigned, this Court finds that the ends of justice

served by granting a continuance outweighs the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 2:06-cr-00114-RSM Document 12 Filed 12/04/06 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

United States v. Christopher Jason McLaughry, Case No. CR 06-114 RSM

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

The parties motion for continuance is GRANTED. Trial is reset for February 26,

2007, and all pre-trial motions shall be served on or before January 12, 2007. The time

from the filing of the stipulated motion through the new trial date shall be excludable

under the Speedy Trial Act, Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(h)(8)(A).

Dated this _4_ day of December 2006.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

s/ John J. Lulejian 

JOHN J. LULEJIAN

Assistant United States Attorney

United States Attorney's Office

700 Union Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1270

Telephone: (206) 553-7970

Facsimile: (206) 553-4440

E-mail: John.Lulejian@usdoj.gov

Case 2:06-cr-00114-RSM Document 12 Filed 12/04/06 Page 2 of 2
July 22, 1957

No. 61089.

Suit 4866.

#### Air Carrier Supply Corp. and Carmas Supply Corp. *v.*United States.

C. D. 1740 affirmed April 4, 1957. C. A. D. 647.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

FREDERICK OMOYUMA SILVER, No. 83615 

Appellant, 

vs. 

CANDICE KATIE TOWNER, 

Respondent. FILED 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

This is a pro se appeal from an order denying appellant's 

"objection" to a postjudgment order that denied appellant's motion for a 

birth certificate, motion to disestablish paternity, motion to modify child 

custody and support, and motion for the return of federal stimulus money. 

Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; T. 

Arthur Ritchie, Jr., Judge. 

The order designated in the notice of appeal is not substantively 

appealable. See NRAP 3A(b). This court has jurisdiction to consider an 

appeal only when the appeal is authorized by statute or court rule. Taylor 

Constr. Co. v. Hilton Hotels, 100 Nev. 207, 678 P.2d 1152 (1984). No statute 

or court rule provides for an appeal from an order denying an objection to 

an order. To the extent the order denies a motion for reconsideration or 

rehearing, such orders are not independently appealable. Alvis v. State, 

2 - 3 o g I 
Pickering 

Gaming Control Bd., 99 Nev. 184, 660 P.2d 980 (1983) (holding that an 

order denying a motion for rehearing is not appealable), overruled on other 

grounds by AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. 578, 245 P.3d 

1190 (2010). This court lacks jurisdiction and 

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED. 

J. 

Cadish 

Herndon 

cc: Hon. T. Arthur Ritchie, Jr., District Judge, Family Court Division 

Frederick Omoyuma Silver 

Candice Katie Towner 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT' 

OF 

NEWOA 

(01 1447A ot4V,.4. 2
Before the Third Division,

December 18, 1951

No. 56177.

protests 146861-K, etc. (New York).

#### Doulton & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
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

MICHAEL L. INGRAM and SANDRA L.

KLOTZ,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOHN RAYMOND, CRADDOCK VERSER,

MARK HUTH, KAREN KATES HILDT,

RICHARD SHANEYFELT, JULIE

DALZELL, RICHARD L. DAVIES, BRIAN

POST, DEBRA KRONK, GORDON

TAMURA, KELLI KING, SCOTTY BOYD,

RICK SMITH, BENJAMIN STAMPER,

STEVE RICHMOND, and JEFFERSON

MENTAL HEALTH,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5122FDB

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DENYING APPLICATION FOR

COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL

Plaintiffs have filed a pro se civil rights action against the above-named Jefferson County

Defendants (judges, prosecutors, public defender, sheriff’s department personnel), and have applied

for court-appointed counsel and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Having reviewed Plaintiffs’

Financial Affidavit and application to proceed in forma pauperis, as well as Plaintiffs’ Complaint, the

Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ have sufficient income to pay the filing fee in this matter and courtappointed counsel will be denied. 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and

Plaintiffs’ Application For Court-Appointed Counsel are DENIED. 

DATED this 10th day of March, 2006. AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05122-FDB Document 2 Filed 03/10/2006 Page 1 of 1

Ingram et al v. Raymond Doc. 2

Dockets.Justia.com