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

SHAWN J. CRUZE,

Petitioner,

v.

DOUG WADDINGTON,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5744FDB

 C06-5064FDB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

The one-year limitation period for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus began to run on

his most recent criminal conviction on December 5, 2000, and the one-year period expired on or

about December 6, 2001. Petitioner did not file his writ of habeas corpus challenging either of the

two convictions until late in 2005, and the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of the petitions in

the above cases, finding that Petitioner has presented no facts or mitigating circumstances to warrant

any equitable tolling of the statute. 

Petitioner files objections, arguing as he did before the Magistrate Judge that owing to his

having been transferred repeatedly in 2001, 2002, 2004, and 2005, he did not have his legal materials

available to him, and he also argues the incompetence of his counsel in handling his case. 

While Petitioner may have been in transit on February 28 and March 5 of 2001, he was not

Case 3:05-cv-05744-FDB Document 19 Filed 05/31/06 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

transferred again until January 18, of 2002. Thus, having reviewed the record, Petitioner’s

objections, and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court concludes that the

R&R must be adopted. 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

2. Petitioner’s federal habeas petitions in the above cases are DISMISSED;

3. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Petitioner, Respondent and to

the Honorable J. Kelley Arnold. 

DATED this 31st day of May, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05744-FDB Document 19 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-05254-RBL Document 10 Filed 06/09/06 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:06-cv-05254-RBL Document 10 Filed 06/09/06 Page 2 of 5
Case 3:06-cv-05254-RBL Document 10 Filed 06/09/06 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:06-cv-05254-RBL Document 10 Filed 06/09/06 Page 4 of 5
Case 3:06-cv-05254-RBL Document 10 Filed 06/09/06 Page 5 of 5
05/2G/2011 13:52 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 01001/003 

Before the U.S. Department of Transportation I X C O ^ I V t l L 

Federal Aviation Administration 

MAY ; - /[!" 

HEARING DOCKET ) 

In the matter or ) 

) DocketNo. CPlOSOOOll 

M & R HELICOPTER ) FAA Case No. 2009SO950434 :, 

) Chief Judge Ronnie A. Yodei 

) 

_) 

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO M & R HELICOPTERS* MOTTON FOR ^ 

CONTEMPT FOR DISOBEDIENCE OF t HE ORDER PERTAINING TO 

SPOILATION OF THE ENFORCEMENT INVESTICATIV E REPORT ^ 

Respondent asks the Chief Administrative Law Judge lo hold the Complainant in 

contempt and enter an Order lo dismiss the case. There is no basis for this motion. 

During iho prc-hearing conference held March 25, 201L the Chief Administrative 

Law Judge directed the Complainani to ei(hcr submit to the Chief Adminij>iraiivc Law 

Judge an "unredacted copy of the investigator's report or include in [Complainant'sl brief 

[our] position with respect lo providing it along with precedence lor not providing ii." 

Transcript ofPrc-Hearing Conference at 84-85. The date set by the Chief Administrative 

Law Judge for submission of this brief is May 27, 2011. Transcript of Pre-Hcaruie 

Conference at 91. 

Wl-IEREFORE, Complainant respectfully requests that the Chief Administrative 

Law Judge deny Respondent's Motion for Contempt for Disobedience of the Order 

Pertaining to_Spoilation oJ'ihe Enforcement Investieative Report. 
05/26/2011 13:52 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 21002/003 

Respectfully submitted, 

Peter Lyiicli 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

for Enforcement 

By: _ 

Charles Raley, Attorney 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue^ S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Phone: (202)267-3357 

Facsimile: (202)267-5106 

Email: charles.raley@faa.gov 

Dated: May 5, 2011 
05/26/201 1 13:5 2 FAX 2024335142 FAA * DMS lg|003/003 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that on this date 1 have placed in the U.S. mail, posuge prepaid, 

certified return-receipt, a copy of Complainant's response to Respondent's Motion for 

Contempt for Disobedience of the Order Pertaining to Spoliation of the Enforcement 

Investigative Repori In ihe Matter o/M & R Helicopter, Docket No. CPlOSOOOl 10, 

FAA Case no. 2009SO950434, addressed to: 

Dr. Michael B. Sclig 

President 

M&RIIelicopters,LLC 

2045 Westgatc Dr., Suiie 205 

Bethlehem, P A 18017 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by the U,S. maiL postage 

prepaid, certified return-receipt and facsimile one copy of the foregoing document to: 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Adminisuative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

] 200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Facsimile: 202-366-7536 

In addition, 1 hereby certify that on this date I have sent by the U.S. mail, postage 

prepaid, certified return-retcipv, the original and one copy of the foregoing document to; 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Dated: May 5, 2011
RESSLER & TESH PLLC 

 821 2nd Avenue, Penthouse Suite 

 Seattle, Washington 98104-1540 

 Office (206) 388-0333 

 Fax: (206) 388-0197 

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 

 Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

TERRY RAYMOND 

 Defendant. 

No. 06-00149 RSM 

ORDER ON MOTION TO CORRECT 

JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE AND 

DIRECT ADJUDGMENT IN CUSTODY 

RELEASE DATE 

 Terry Raymond, by and through his attorney Allen M. Ressler, having moved this Court 

for an Order Correcting Amended Judgment and Sentence and Clarification of In Custody 

Release Date, the Court having reviewed the records and files herein, having noted the 

stipulation of Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah Vogel, and being otherwise fully advised, now, 

therefore, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

 The Amended Judgment and Sentence filed January 29, 2007 is hereby amended to 

accurately reflect this Court’s order that Mr. Raymond’s Federal incarceration shall run 

concurrent with the State’s 18 month sentence imposed under Kitsap County Cause Number 

06-9-00924-7 which began on April 14, 2006. 

 The Federal Bureau of Prisons is directed to adjust the release date of Terry Raymond 

accordingly. 

 DATED: February 11, 2008. 

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00149-RSM Document 335 Filed 02/11/08 Page 1 of 1
No. 67169.

protest 61/24622 (New York).

#### Richter Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

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 C.C.P.A. 78, C.A.D. 733), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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 DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_______________________________________)

JERRY BRENDEN, )

) Case No. C05-1681L

Plaintiff, ) 

v. )

) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

SELLEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ) MOTION FOR CHANGE OF

) VENUE

Defendant. )

_______________________________________)

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Second Time: Motion: Change

of Venue.” Dkt. # 20. Plaintiff requests that this matter be transferred to the United States

District Court for the Western District of Washington at Tacoma because he cannot get a fair

trial in the county in which defendant resides and was employed to construct the new United

States Courthouse. Plaintiff has not alleged, and the undersigned is unaware of, any “personal

bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party” that would require the

transfer of this matter to another judge. 28 U.S.C. § 144. Nor has plaintiff explained why the

Court should assume that King County jurors and judges would be unable to decide this matter

in a fair and impartial manner: the mere fact of corporate residence and business activity in a

particular county is not enough to compel a change of venue. 

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for change of venue is

DENIED. 

Case 2:05-cv-01681-RSL Document 30 Filed 01/25/06 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 DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR CHANGE OF VENUE -2-

DATED this 25th day of January, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01681-RSL Document 30 Filed 01/25/06 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

ORDER

Page - 1

THE HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

GROUP NORTHWEST, INC., an Oregon

Corporation,

 Plaintiff,

v.

THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, a

Washington State Municipal Corporation,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5219 RBL

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff Group Northwest, Inc., filed suit against Defendant, the City of South Bend, in Pacific

County Superior Court on April 3, 2006. Defendant removed the matter to this Court on April 18, 2006. 

This Court granted Plaintiff’s attorney Charles Shane’s Motion to Withdraw as Attorney [Dkt. #s 14-15]

on December 14, 2006. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. # 16] was filed on June 14,

2007. Plaintiff’s response was due July 2, 2007. To this Court’s knowledge, Plaintiff has not retained new

counsel.

Although an individual may appear before this Court pro se, corporations appearing in court

proceedings must be represented by an attorney. See Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's

Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-03 (1993) (“[i]t has been the law for the better part of two centuries 

. . . that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel). “Corporations

appearing in court proceedings must be represented by an attorney” because “corporations are artificial

entities that can only act through their agents.” Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. v. Longview Plumbing & Heating

Case 3:06-cv-05219-RBL Document 20 Filed 07/18/07 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

Co., Inc., 91 Wn. App. 697, 701, 958 P.2d 1035 (1998). Additionally, every pleading of a party

represented by another must be signed by an attorney. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

Plaintiff is therefore directed to SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING within 14 DAYS of the date of

this Order why this Court should not dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff can show such

cause by retaining the services of a lawyer to: (1) put in a notice of appearance to show that the Plaintiff

corporation has proper representation; (2) bring the Plaintiff corporation’s pleadings into compliance with

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11's signing requirements; and (3) inform the Court as to when counsel will be prepared to

respond to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. # 16].

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

DATED this 18th day of July, 2007.

(

A

Electronically Signed Per Authorization)

RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05219-RBL Document 20 Filed 07/18/07 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1

                                                                EXHIBIT 10.01.02


                                AMENDMENT TO THE
           TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY CORP. CAPITAL ACCUMULATION PLAN
                       (AS AMENDED THROUGH JULY 23, 1997)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


         Section 10 (e) of the Travelers Property Casualty Corp. Capital
Accumulation Plan is hereby amended to add the following sentence at the end of
such Section:

                  "The value of any shares allowed to be withheld or tendered
                  for tax withholding may not exceed the amount allowed
                  consistent with fixed plan accounting in accordance with
                  generally accepted accounting principles."
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1000 PLATE B

EXPLANATION

p= id
Structure contours on base of
“oll rock" of Decorah formation

SS»

‘ea of shallow lead pits

i]
Shatt

s

HOLES DRILLED BY U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Dre

TRUE NORTH.

WAGRETIC WORT

Fair zinc mineralization

Lean zinc mineralization

—s ® ©
oS Barren,
>= 5 HOLES DRILLED BY DODGEVILLE MINING COMPANY
=
°
Ore

o
Fair zinc mineralization

°

Tegourany by Jobn F. Mink and Vance C; Kennedy
ure cartours area of shallow lead pits, and leeation
‘of some dil holes from Heyl, Lyons, and Agnew, 1951

MAP SHOWING TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE OF THE CROW BRANCH AREA

200 8

300614 O—56 (In pocket) No. 2
js ges

ioe L n
Contour interval 20 feet
Datum te mean sea level
No. R69/15.

reappraisements R66/9154, etc. (New York).

#### Mantell Export Co. *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues and merchandise involved herein are the same in all material respects as those in *Mantell Export Company*v. *United States*(58 Cust. Ct. 662, R.D. 11290), 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, was the proper basis for the determination of the value of the second-quality wooden coat hangers and that such value was $101 per 1,000, less the pro rata share of the items of ocean freight and marine insurance premium as invoiced.
| 1.     | Such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending Decemer 31, 2010, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Metha Energy Solutions Inc. |

|                 | Metha Energy Solutions Inc. |
|----------------------|-----------------------------|
|                 |                        |
| Date: April 15, 2011 | By:               | /s/ Jesper Toft |
|                 |                        | Jesper Toft |
|                 |                        | Chief Executive Officer, |
Exhibit 10.3


 





Power
of Attorney


(Translation
Copy)


 


I,
the undersigned, __________, (ID number _________), being a shareholder holding ______% equity interest of Shenzhen
Chuangxiang Network Technology Limited ( the “Company”), hereby irrevocably authorizes Chuangxiang Network
Technology (Shenzhen) Limited (the “Agent”) to exercise the following powers and rights of my ____% equity
interest of the Company during the effective period of this Power of Attorney:


 


I,
the undersigned, exclusively authorize the Agent as the attorney-in-fact, to exercise on my behalf the all shareholder’s
rights in respect of the ____% equity interest of the Company in accordance of the Company’s charters and relevant laws
and regulations, including but not limited to: (i) the right to call for a shareholders’ meeting; (2) receive notice of
a shareholder meeting and the agenda of such meeting; (3) to attend a shareholder’s meeting and exercise the voting right
or to execute relative shareholder resolution(s) (including propose and appoint directors, chief executive officer, chief financial
officer, a and other executive officers, decide distribution of dividends, etc.); (4) rights to sell, transfer, pledge or otherwise
dispose of all or part of the ____% equity interest of the Company on my behalf.


 


The
Agent is authorized to appoint a third party to execute the powers and rights contemplated in this Power of Attorney provided
that such appointment has been authorized by the Agent’s Board of Directors or its Executive Directors.


 


This
Power of Attorney is continuously valid during the term of ten years of the execution unless the Business Operation Management
Agreement among the Company, the Agent and I is terminated earlier for any reason. Upon expiration, if the Agent requests an extension
of the term of this Power of Attorney, I shall extend in accordance with such request.


  





	Authorizing
    Party	 
	 	 
	/s/ 	 
	April 20, 2017
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 201 2

- NM

- 1 7 6

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         3,446
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  13,526
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               405,380
<PP&E>                                         301,751
<DEPRECIATION>                                 118,210
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 714,399
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,087,677
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       11,587,013
<OTHER-SE>                                     (12,414,534)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   714,399
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               103,924
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  210,748
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,032,964
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             34,995
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,180,506)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,180,506)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,180,506)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.13)
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 69116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22130]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-36-2023]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 142; Partial Authorization of Production 
Activity; Nexsus Cocoa Services LLC; (Cocoa or Cocoa Equivalent and 
Sugar Blends); Southern New Jersey

    On June 1, 2023, Nexsus Cocoa Services LLC submitted a notification 
of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its anticipated 
facility within FTZ 142, in Southern New Jersey.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting public comment (88 FR 38019, June 12, 2023). On 
September 29, 2023, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's 
decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this 
time, with the exception of the foreign-status component ``refined 
white sugar,'' which was not authorized. The production activity 
described in the notification was authorized for the other requested 
finished products and foreign-status components, subject to the FTZ Act 
and the FTZ Board's regulations, including section 400.14. If the 
applicant wishes to seek authorization for the foreign-status component 
``refined white sugar'', it will need to submit an application for 
production authority, pursuant to section 400.23.

    Dated: September 29, 2023.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-22130 Filed 10-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P