alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hylda J. BEVANS, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 01-3162.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 18, 2001.

*998Before MAYER, Chief Judge, PAULINE NEWMAN and MICHEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Hylda J. Bevans petitions for review of the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, Docket No. NY0831990465-I2, affirming the decision of the Office of Personnel Management that she is not entitled to a former spouse survivor annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System. We *affirm*the decision of the Board. *Background*

Petitioner and Mr. Bevans were married in 1961 and divorced in 1987. Mr. And Mrs. Bevans entered a property settlement agreement wherein she waived any entitlement she might have to Mr. Bevans’ retirement benefits in exchange for a lump sum payment from Mr. Bevans at the time of the divorce and monthly payments during his retirement. Mr. Bevans retired from employment with the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1992 and died in 1998. At the time of retirement Mr. Bevans elected to receive the entirety of his retirement payments, and made no provision for a portion of the payments or a survivor annuity to be paid to Mrs. Be-vans.

After Mr. Bevans’ death, Mrs. Bevans applied for a survivor annuity from OPM. When that request was denied, she appealed to the Board. The Board found that Mrs. Bevans would only have been entitled to a survivor annuity if Mr. Bevans had elected to so provide at the time of his retirement, or if the divorce decree so provided. Since Mr. Bevans did not elect a survivor annuity when he retired and Mrs. Bevans waived any right she might have to his retirement benefits at the time of their divorce, the Board affirmed OPM’s decision. This petition followed.

*Discussion*

The laws and regulations in effect at the time of Mr. Bevans’ retirement provide for a survivor annuity to a former spouse only if the employee elects to provide one at the time of retirement, or if a survivor annuity is ordered as part of the divorce decree. Mrs. Bevans does not allege that she meets either of these requirements.

Mrs. Bevans explains the abuses experienced during her marriage to Mr. Bevans, and states that she was intimidated and overwhelmed at the divorce proceedings and was not aware of the significance of many of the documents she was signing. Mrs. Bevans points out that Mr. Bevans made no provision for her support following his death, and argues that she is entitled to survivor benefits.

We deplore the abuses described by Mrs. Bevans. However, the courts are prohibited by law from awarding government benefits unless there is statutory entitlement to those benefits. *See OPM v. Richmond,*496 U.S. 414, 424, 110 S.Ct. 2465, 110 L.Ed.2d 387 (1990) (“Money may be paid out only through an appropriation made by law; in other words, the payment of money from the Treasury must be authorized by a statute.”)

*999We discern no error in the Board’s ruling that Mrs. Bevans does not meet the statutory requirements for receipt of a survivor annuity. That decision must be affirmed.

No costs.
ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION

TO CONTINUE MOTIONS FILING

DEADLINE AND TRIAL DATE;

CR06-0052C - 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

 Plaintiff, ) NO. CR06-0052C

) 

v. ) ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION

) TO CONTINUE MOTIONS FILING

ROBERT BRENT BEAZLEY, ) DEADLINE AND TRIAL DATE 

ROBERT WILLIAM LEASE, )

TIMOTHY CHAO CHEN, and )

ANTHONY BERT LIN, )

 Defendants. )

___________________________________)

Based upon the stipulation of the parties (Dkt. No. 31), and the Court’s review of the

record, the Court finds that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§3161(h)(8)(A), (B)(i) and (ii), the ends

of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interest of the

public and the defendant in a speedy trial, and that the period of delay resulting from this

continuance shall be excluded in computing the time within which the trial of this matter

must commence. 

Specifically, the Court finds that this case involves the alleged smuggling of

marijuana into the United States from Canada using a helicopter, and a conspiracy to

distribute the marijuana. The government’s investigation is ongoing on both sides of the

Case 2:06-cr-00052-JCC Document 32 Filed 03/10/06 Page 1 of 2
ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION

TO CONTINUE MOTIONS FILING

DEADLINE AND TRIAL DATE;

CR06-0052C - 2

border. The government is also still in the process of obtaining reports from the lawenforcement agencies involved, some of which have been obtained and copied but have not

yet been produced to defense counsel. CDs and DVDs containing discoverable materials are

also being made, but have not been provided to defense counsel. To give the Defendants

sufficient time to review discovery before filing pretrial motions, a continuance of the trial

date would serve the interests of justice.

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that, subject to the defendants filing

Waivers of Speedy Trial, the motions filing deadline is continued from March 9, 2006, to

April 6, 2006, and the trial date is continued from April 10, 2006, to May 22, 2006. 

The court further ORDERS that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h), the period of time

from the current trial date to the new trial date is excluded in the computation of time under

the Speedy Trial Act.

 DATED this 10th day of March, 2006.

A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00052-JCC Document 32 Filed 03/10/06 Page 2 of 2
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Trey Walker Prock, * From the 396th District

Court of Tarrant County,

Trial Court No. 1321389D

.

Vs. No. 11

- 13

- 00341

- CR * June 19, 2014

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

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

Willson, J. , and Bailey, J. )

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

should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the appeal

is dismissed.
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 Earth Dragon Resources Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “report”), I, Yuan Kun Deng, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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:





(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 14th day of September, 2010.








YUAN KUN DENGYuan Kun DengChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40890

MELVIN JOHNSON, III,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CRAIG ESTLINBAUM; SHARON KELLER, Presiding Judge; LAWRENCE E. 

MEYERS; CHERYL JOHNSON, Judge; MIKE KEASLER, Judge,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CV-130

Before PRADO, OWEN, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Melvin Johnson, III, Texas prisoner # 1626767, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

action against a Texas district court judge and the judges of the Texas Court 

of Criminal Appeals, alleging that he was denied a fair opportunity to present 

facts in support of his state habeas application. The district court dismissed 

the complaint without prejudice, and it denied Johnson’s motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The court certified that the appeal was not 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 19, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 15-40890 Document: 00513598742 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/19/2016
No. 15-40890

taken in good faith. By moving for IFP status in this court, Johnson is 

challenging the district court’s certification. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 

197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Johnson’s argument that his claims for prospective injunctive and 

declaratory relief are cognizable under § 1983 fails. Here, Johnson challenged 

alleged constitutional defects in the state habeas proceedings—claims which 

he concedes cannot form the basis for federal habeas relief. See Moore v. 

Dretke, 369 F.3d 844, 846 (5th Cir. 2004). Moreover, a review of his pleadings 

demonstrates that the only remedy he sought against the Texas judges was in 

the nature of mandamus relief. Federal courts, however, do not have the 

authority to direct a state court’s actions under the circumstances alleged by 

Johnson. See Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb Cnty. Superior Court, 474 F.2d 1275, 

1275-76 (5th Cir. 1973).

Johnson’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard 

v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we deny the IFP 

motion and dismiss the appeal. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

The dismissal of the appeal as frivolous counts as a “strike” for purposes of the 

“three strikes” bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 

F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Johnson is WARNED that if he accumulates 

at least three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in any 

civil action or appeal filed in a court of the United States while he is 

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of 

serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING 

ISSUED.

2

 Case: 15-40890 Document: 00513598742 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/19/2016
No. 66577.

#### M. Pressner & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 61/14257 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plastic camera viewers similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 65082, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[House Document 114-60]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

114th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - - House Document 114-60
______________________________________________________________________

 
 TERMINATION OF SEYCHELLES AS BENEFICIARY UNDER THE AFRICAN GROWTH AND
                             OPPORTUNITY ACT

                               __________

                                MESSAGE

                                  from

                     THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                              transmitting

 NOTIFICATION OF THE INTENT TO TERMINATE THE DESIGNATION OF SEYCHELLES 
 AS A BENEFICIARY SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN COUNTRY UNDER THE AFRICAN GROWTH 
 AND OPPORTUNITY ACT PROGRAM, PURSUANT TO SEC. 506A(a)(1) OF THE TRADE 
             ACT OF 1974, AS AMENDED [19 U.S.C. 2466(a)(1)]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

   October 1, 2015.--Message and accompanying papers referred to the 
         Committee on Ways and Means and ordered to be printed
To the Congress of the United States:
    I am providing notification of my intent to terminate the 
designation of Seychelles as a beneficiary sub-Saharan African 
country under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) 
program.
    Section 506A(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(the ``1974 Act'') (19 U.S.C. 2466a(a)(1)) authorizes the 
President to designate a country listed in section 107 of the 
AGOA (19 U.S.C. 3706) as a beneficiary sub-Saharan African 
country eligible for the benefits described in section 506A(b) 
of the 1974 Act (19 U.S.C. 2466a(b)), if the President 
determines that the country meets the eligibility requirements 
in section 104 of the AGOA (19 U.S.C. 3703), subject to the 
authority granted to the President under subsections (a), (d), 
and (e) of section 502 of the 1974 Act.
    Pursuant to section 502(e) of the 1974 Act, I have 
determined that Seychelles has become a ``high income'' country 
and its designation as a beneficiary sub-Saharan country is no 
longer within the authority granted to the President under 
section 502 of the 1974 Act. Accordingly, pursuant to section 
506A(a)(1) of the 1974 Act (19 U.S.C. 2466a(a)(1)), I have 
determined that Seychelles is no longer eligible for benefits 
as a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country for the purpose of 
section 506A of the 1974 Act, effective January 1, 2017.

                                                      Barack Obama.
    The White House, September 30, 2015.
```
[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: Retracementof the boundary line between Idaho and Washington, from the junction of Snakeand Clearwater rivers northward to the international boundary**
 
Report | Plate
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:466
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000959574
 
August 10, 2018
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 33-6 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 1 of 2

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 33 Att. 5

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 33-6 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 2 of 2
1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

ARDIS A. MAUNE,

Plaintiff,

v.

BANKERS LIFE & CASUALTY

COMPANY; GARY A. DOWNING; and

RICHARD E. CARTER,

Defendants.

No.: C06-05083 RBL

ORDER GRANTING AGREED SECOND

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

IDENTIFY EXPERTS UNDER FED. R.

CIV. P. 26(a)(2) AND FIRST MOTION TO

EXTEND DISCOVERY CUT-OFF AND

DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE 

TO: ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD

Defendants, by counsel, having moved the Court for a second time to extend the

deadline to disclose expert testimony under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) by thirty days, to and

including, January 18, 2007, and having moved the first time to extend the discovery cutoff to and including February 2, 2007, and extend the dispositive motion deadline to and

including February 12, 2007, and the Court, being duly advised in the premises, hereby

GRANTS said Motion. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the deadline to disclose expert testimony under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) is extended to and including January 18, 2007, the discovery cut-off is

Case 3:06-cv-05083-RBL Document 25 Filed 12/13/06 Page 1 of 2
2

extended to and including February 2, 2007, and the dispositive motion deadline is

extended to and including February 12, 2007. So ordered. 

Date: December 13, 2006.

A

RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05083-RBL Document 25 Filed 12/13/06 Page 2 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

SUMMARY REPORT OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

AS TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF PRETRIAL RELEASE

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

TAI CHI DANG,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. CR05-393-JCC

SUMMARY REPORT OF U.S.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE AS TO 

ALLEGED VIOLATIONS

OF PRETRIAL RELEASE

The Pretrial Services Office and the United States have presented information indicating

that defendant has violated the conditions of release. Specifically, his Pretrial Services officer

believes that he has violated the following condition of supervision:

1. The defendant has violated the special bond condition he maintain residence and

not change residence without prior approval of Pretrial Services by changing his residence without

prior approval from Pretrial Services.

2. The defendant has violated the special bond condition he maintain employment, or

if unemployed, actively seek employment as directed by Pretrial Services by being unemployed.

3. The defendant has violated the Pretrial Services supervision condition he report to

Case 2:05-cr-00393-JCC Document 218 Filed 11/07/07 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

SUMMARY REPORT OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

AS TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF PRETRIAL RELEASE

PAGE 2

Pretrial Services monthly, in person, or as otherwise directed by the officer by failing to report to

Pretrial Services during October, 2006.

Defendant was advised in full as to those charges and as to his constitutional rights.

Defendant admitted the alleged violations and waived any evidentiary hearing as to

whether they occurred.

The court therefore FINDS:

1. By clear and convincing evidence, that defendant has violated the conditions of

pretrial release by changing his residence without prior approval from Pretrial Services.

2. By clear and convincing evidence, that defendant has violated the conditions of

pretrial release by failing to actively seek employment.

3. By clear and convincing evidence, that defendant has violated the conditions of

pretrial release by failing to report to Pretrial Services during October, 2006.

 The next hearing will be set before Judge Donohue to address the disposition of the

violations. Pending the hearing, the defendant will be detained.

DATED this 7th day of November, 2007.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cr-00393-JCC Document 218 Filed 11/07/07 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-05201-RBL Document 3 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 1 of 1 Chavarria-Romo v. United States of America Doc. 3

Dockets.Justia.com
From: merty05@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:52:04 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,

Karen Mertens

Green Bay, WI 54313
[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: Geologyof oil and gas fields in Steubenville, Burgettatown, and Claysvillequadrangles, Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania**
 
Report | Maps: 05070809101213
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:318
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000957762
 
July 26, 2018
**Exhibit 32**

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

I, Tom Emmitt, Principal Executive Officer andPrincipal Financial Officer of Bakhu Holdings Corp. (the “Company”) certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed the annual report on Form10-K of the Company;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual reportdoes 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 thisannual report; and

 

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

 

Date: December 6, 2018

 

/s/ Tom Emmitt	

Tom Emmitt

Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
No. 62823.

#### Magnesium Elektron, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/7289 (New York).

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.