alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       29635 
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                90962 
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            298998 
<PP&E>                                       39707 
<DEPRECIATION>                               14939 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             2327546 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      1844261 
<BONDS>                                     967500 
<COMMON>                                  20920677 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                 198000 
<OTHER-SE>                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               2327546 
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            209642 
<CGS>                                       174439 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               137315 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             21493 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           55941 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (102111)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (9868)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (189415)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0
        

</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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JERRY CAMENISH COOPER,

 Sovereign Washingtonian of United 

 States of America, Creditor, injured

 Third-party intervenor,

 Petitioner

Case No. MS06-5009FDB

ORDER

Petitioner has attempted to open a miscellaneous case in the past, MS06-5009FDB, by filing

a document similar to the one with which he seeks to have a case opened now: to wit, “Notice of

Evidence for Future Case Settlement and Petition to Open Miscellaneous File in Accordance with 28

U.S.C. § 1914, for U.S. Magistrate Review, Issue, and Certification.” The Court rejects this attempt

to either open a new case, or to file a documents in the above closed case, or to “hold as

evidence”documents. 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: The Clerk of the Court is instructed to return the

documents to Plaintiff with this Order and to reject such future filings. 

DATED this 19th day of June, 2007.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-mc-05009-FDB Document 8 Filed 06/20/07 Page 1 of 1
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 20, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130850 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130850 

 COA: 256562 

Calhoun CC: 00-004624-FH 

DESHAWN DARELLE WITCHER, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 16, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0913 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 20, 2006 

 Clerk
No. 67176.

protests 59/25198, etc. (Norfolk).

#### Fred P. Gaskell Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
# Official Journal C 316/21 D

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 316 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4721 December 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 316

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4721 December 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Acts adopted pursuant to Title V of the Treaty on European Union |
| 2004/C 316/1 | Sixth annual report according to operative provision 8 of the European Union Code of Conduct on arms exports | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

Acts adopted pursuant to Title V of the Treaty on European Union

2004/C 316/1

Sixth annual report according to operative provision 8 of the European Union Code of Conduct on arms exports

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

MINUTE ORDER

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

CHIHULY, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ROBERT KAINDL, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C05-1801-JPD

MINUTE ORDER

The following minute order is made at the direction of the Honorable James P.

Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge:

The docket for the above-captioned matter indicates that certain defendants have not

yet filed an answer. These defendants are directed to file an answer no later than February 21,

2006, or show cause as to why they should not be held in default.

DATED this 13th day of February, 2006.

Bruce Rifkin

Clerk of the Court

/s/ Peter H. Voelker 

Peter H. Voelker

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:05-cv-01801-JPD Document 51 Filed 02/13/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED JULY 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,653
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   94,838
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               107,145
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 282,623
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          519,965
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,234,324
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,555,711)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   282,623
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               302,057
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  564,888
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (262,831)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (262,831)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (262,831)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

RANDALL CANUPP,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05-479M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offense charged: 

Count 1. Conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), and

841(b)(1)(A), and 846.

Count 2: Conspiracy to distribute ecstacy in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and

841(b)(1)(C).

Date of Detention Hearing: October 12, 2005.

The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and

based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth, finds

the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), there is a rebuttable presumption that defendant

is a flight risk and a danger to the community based on the nature of the pending charges.

Defendant has not overcome these presumptions.

(2) Defendant’s instant offenses charged involve a large amount of drugs.

Case 2:05-cr-00396-JCC Document 22 Filed 10/14/05 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

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

(3) Defendant has a former felony-drug offense which could result in a twenty-year

mandatory minimum sentence.

(4) Defendant has a substantial prior criminal history.

(5) Defendant has a past history of substance abuse. It is unknown whether his

substance abuse continues at present.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the extent

practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with

counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which defendant

is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose

of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United States

Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 14th day of October, 2005.AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cr-00396-JCC Document 22 Filed 10/14/05 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-05038-RBL Document 1 Filed 01/20/06 Page 1 of 9
Case 3:06-cv-05038-RBL Document 1 Filed 01/20/06 Page 2 of 9
Case 3:06-cv-05038-RBL Document 1 Filed 01/20/06 Page 3 of 9
Case 3:06-cv-05038-RBL Document 1 Filed 01/20/06 Page 4 of 9
Case 3:06-cv-05038-RBL Document 1 Filed 01/20/06 Page 5 of 9
Case 3:06-cv-05038-RBL Document 1 Filed 01/20/06 Page 6 of 9
Case 3:06-cv-05038-RBL Document 1 Filed 01/20/06 Page 7 of 9
Case 3:06-cv-05038-RBL Document 1 Filed 01/20/06 Page 8 of 9
Case 3:06-cv-05038-RBL Document 1 Filed 01/20/06 Page 9 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 124 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 1 of 1 Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 124

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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JAMES D. BACON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALLIE THURMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5185RBL

ORDER GRANTING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS AND

DIRECTING INSTITUTION TO

CALCULATE, COLLECT, AND

FORWARD PAYMENTS

The Court, having reviewed plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1), does

hereby find and ORDER. 

(1) Plaintiff’s declaration indicates he is unable to afford the court’s filing fee or give security

therefor. Accordingly, plaintiff’s application to proceed as a pauper is GRANTED. As set forth below,

an initial partial filing fee will be collected, and plaintiff is required to make monthly payments of

20 percent of the preceding months income credited to his/her account until the full amount of the

filing fee is satisfied.

(2) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and plaintiff’s approved application to proceed in forma

pauperis, the agency having custody of the above named plaintiff is directed to calculate an initial partial

filing fee equal to 20 percent of greater of -- the average monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account or the

average monthly balance in the prisoner’s account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the date

of this Order. The initial partial filing fee should be forwarded to the court clerk as soon as practicable.

Subsequently, if the prisoner’s account exceeds $10.00, each month the agency is directed to

Case 3:06-cv-05185-RBL Document 3 Filed 04/14/06 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

Page - 2

collect and forward payments equal to 20 percent of the prisoner’s preceding month’s income credited to

the prisoner’s account. In the event that the monthly payment would reduce the prisoner’s account below

$10.00, the agency should collect and forward only that amount which would reduce the prisoner’s

account to the $10.00 level. Please note that this $10.00 limit does not apply to the initial partial filing fee

described above. Finally, the monthly payments should be collected and forwarded to the court until the

entire filing fee ($250.00) for this matter has been paid.

(3) The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a copy of this Order and the General Order, and a copy

of this Order along with a copy of plaintiff’s Acknowledgment and Authorization portion of the IFP

application to the attention of the inmate account manager (IFP account manager) at the Washington State

Department of Corrections.

DATED this 14th day of April, 2006.

 /s/ J. Kelley Arnold____________ J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05185-RBL Document 3 Filed 04/14/06 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

AUSTIN A. WILSON, ) 

) Petitioner, ) CASE NO. C05-1865-RSL 

)

 v. )

) ORDER 

WASHINGTON STATE )

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, )

et al., )

) Respondents. ) _________________________________ )

The Court, having reviewed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Report

and Recommendation of the Honorable Monica J. Benton, United States Magistrate

Judge, and the remaining record, finds and Orders as follows:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice; 

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Petitioner and to the

Honorable Monica J. Benton.

DATED this 6th day of March, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01865-RSL Document 17 Filed 03/06/06 Page 1 of 1
No. P66/93.

protests 65/3019, etc. (New York).

#### Isaac B. Cohen *&*Sons Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Oliver, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of ballet dancing figures on jewelry boxes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Canton*Son, *Inc.*v. *United States*(48 Cust. Ct. 398, Abstract 66652), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
July 8, 1954

No. 58264.

protests 169097-K and 173167-K.

#### C. J. Tower & Sons *v.*United States,

Protests abandoned May 11, 1954. (Not published.) Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

DANIEL WILLIAM SHREVE,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-66M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offenses charged:

Count 1: Arson in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 844(l).

Date of Detention Hearing: February 21, 2006.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f),

finds that there appear to be no conditions or combination of conditions other than detention

that will reasonably address the risk of flight or danger to the community, based on the

following:

(1) Defendant is facing a significant penalty on the charge which involves a

serious offense.

(2) Little information regarding defendant’s ties to the Western District of

Washington or to this community has been provided to the Court.

Case 2:06-mj-00066-MJB Document 17 Filed 02/22/06 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

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

(3) Defendant has stipulated to detention, reserving the right to contest his

continued detention if there is a change in circumstances.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the

extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in

custody pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation

with counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which

defendant is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal

for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United

States Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 22nd day of February, 2006.AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-mj-00066-MJB Document 17 Filed 02/22/06 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1759

JOHN C. BOYLE, “Jack”,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE; ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR TRADEMARKS; OFFICE OF

THE SOLICITOR; MARTHA SANTAMARTINO, Examining

Attorney,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (MC-01-27)

Submitted: October 10, 2001 Decided: October 26, 2001

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John C. Boyle, Appellant Pro Se. Steven E. Gordon, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

John C. Boyle appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his action seeking judicial review of the decision by the

Solicitor of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to deny

his request to depose a trademark examiner as a third-party

witness. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. Boyle v. United States Patent

& Trademark Office, No. MC-01-27 (E.D. Va., filed May 14, 2001;

entered May 16, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Herman Romanque, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 13]

—Judgment,

Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Kahn, J.), rendered June 11, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that he was denied a fair trial because of the admission of testimony concerning the practices of undercover officers and the techniques employed by narcotics sellers was not preserved as a matter of law by objection (CPL 470.05; *People v Tevaha,*84 NY2d 879), and in any event is without merit. Limited background evidence of this nature can be of assistance to the jury’s understanding of the officers’ behavior, and its admission is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court *(People v Kelsey,*194 AD2d 248, 252). The record does not support defendant’s argument that his attorney failed to provide him with meaningful representation *(People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147) or that his attorney’s performance or tactics prejudiced the defense or defendant’s right to a fair trial *(see, People v Hobot,*84 NY2d 1021, 1022, 1024). Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.
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

DONALD O. SALAVE’A,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASHINGTON CORRECTION CENTER

RELIGIOUS PROGRAM,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5704FDB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

DISMISSING CAUSE OF ACTION

The Magistrate Judge recommends that this cause of action be dismissed as frivolous for

failure of Plaintiff to show how any individual defendant caused or personally participated in the

harm nor did he show violation of a any right, privilege, or immunity secured by the U. S.

Constitution or Federal law. Plaintiff failed to respond to an order directing the filing of an amended

complaint. Plaintiff has filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The Court adopts the Report & Recommendation, and this cause of action is

DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e);

2. The Clerk shall send copies of this order to Plaintiff and to the Honorable Karen L.

Strombom.

DATED this 7th day of April, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05704-FDB Document 10 Filed 04/07/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 63389.

protest 59/4189 (Boston).

#### Dolliff & Company *v.*United States,

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.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Darvus Henry, * From the County Court at Law No. 2

of Midland County

Trial Court No. CC-18,449.

Vs. No. 11-16-00265-CV * August 31, 2018

City of Midland, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, J.;

Gray, C.J., sitting by assignment; and

Wright, S.C.J., sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

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

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed. The costs 

incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed against Darvus Henry.