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

27

28 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

KEITH L. NASH,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOUG WADDINGTON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5127 RJB/KLS

ORDER GRANTING ADDITIONAL

TIME TO RESPOND TO

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This civil rights 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. Before the Court is

Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

(Dkt. # 142). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, Defendants’ response (Dkt. # 144), and

Plaintiff’s reply (Dkt. # 149), the Court finds that the motion should be granted in light of the

Court’s recent Order extending the discovery deadline to allow the parties to complete the

deposition of Defendant Waddington.

ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s motion for additional time (Dkt. # 142) to respond to Defendants’ motion

for summary judgment is GRANTED;

(2) Plaintiff shall respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment by October 5,

2007; Defendants’ may file a reply by October 12, 2007;

(3) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 121) is re-noted for the Court’s

consideration on October 12, 2007; and

Case 3:06-cv-05127-RJB Document 154 Filed 08/16/07 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 - 2

(4) The Clerk of the Court shall send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and counsel for

Defendants.

DATED this 15th day of August, 2007.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05127-RJB Document 154 Filed 08/16/07 Page 2 of 2
No. 67060.

protests 61/1281, etc. (New York).

#### Aut Customs Brokers, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of decharae'terized horsemeat, fresh, chilled, or frozen, similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 66357, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6228

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RICHARD TIRRELL TERRY, a/k/a Perrie Thedan,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-97-

63-L, CA-98-2903-L)

Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 22, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Tirrell Terry, Appellant Pro Se. Joyce Kallam McDonald,

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

January 28, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on January 29, 1999. Pursuant to Rules

58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the

date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as

the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Richard Tirrell Terry appeals from the district court’s orders

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1999) and denying his motions for transcripts, discovery,

continuance, and return of seized property. We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See

United States v. Terry, Nos. CR-97-63-L; CA-98-2903-L (D. Md. Jan.

29,* May 19, & Jun. 2, 1999). Terry’s motion for a transcript at

government expense is denied. 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.

DISMISSED
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 14, 2016

No. 04

- 15

- 00806

- CR

Michael Wilfred LAFLAMME,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 4 06th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CRW160

- D4

Honorable Oscar J. Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

T h e appellant ’ s second motion for extension of time to file their brief is granted. The

appellant ’ s brief is due on July 13, 2016.

____________ _____________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 14th day of June, 2016

.

___ ________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry O’Neil FAULK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-15988

Non-Argument Calendar.

D.C. Docket No. 03-00108-CR-WDO-5.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Aug. 18, 2005.

Jennifer Kolman, Macon, GA, Dean S. Daskal, U.S. Attorney’S Office, Columbus, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Brian Thomas Randall, Randall, Nestor & Johnson, LLC, Macon, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before CARNES, MARCUS and COX, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

Brian T. Randall, appointed counsel for Larry O’Neil Faulk in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the record reveals no issues of arguable merit, counsel’s motion to with*885draw is GRANTED, and Faulk’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2  Certification of the Principal Financial Officer 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 periodic report of IBI Acquisitions, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Dean Sessions, the Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Dean SessionsPrincipal Financial Officer Date: August 28, 2009
# C_2004277EN.01S00301.xml

| 12.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/s3

---

1 November 2004 — New version of EUR-Lex!

europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/

The new site incorporates the Celex service and provides free and easy access in 20 languages to the largest documentary database on EU law.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 78 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      January 24, 2007.
    Resolved,

SECTION 1. VOTING BY DELEGATES AND RESIDENT COMMISSIONER IN COMMITTEE OF THE 
              WHOLE.

    (a) Permitting Votes To Be Cast.--Clause 3(a) of rule III of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives is amended to read as follows:
    ``3. (a) In a Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, each 
Delegate and the Resident Commissioner shall possess the same powers and 
privileges as Members of the House. Each Delegate and the Resident Commissioner 
shall be elected to serve on standing committees in the same manner as Members 
of the House and shall possess in such committees the same powers and privileges 
as the other members of the committee.''.
    (b) Appointment of Chair.--The first sentence of clause 1 of rule XVIII of 
the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by striking ``a Chairman'' 
and inserting ``a Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner as Chairman''.
    (c) Repeating of Certain Votes.--Clause 6 of rule XVIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
    ``(h) Whenever a recorded vote on any question has been decided by a margin 
within which the votes cast by the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner have 
been decisive, the Committee of the Whole shall rise and the Speaker shall put 
such question de novo without intervening motion. Upon the announcement of the 
vote on that question, the Committee of the Whole shall resume its sitting 
without intervening motion.''.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 9 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 1 of 27

Rinde v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Doc. 9

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 9 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 2 of 27
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 9 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 3 of 27
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 9 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 4 of 27
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 9 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 5 of 27
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 9 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 6 of 27
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 9 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 7 of 27
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 9 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 8 of 27
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 9 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 9 of 27
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 9 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 10 of 27
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 9 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 11 of 27
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 9 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 12 of 27
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 9 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 13 of 27
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 9 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 14 of 27
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 9 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 15 of 27
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 9 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 16 of 27
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 9 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 17 of 27
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 9 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 18 of 27
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 9 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 19 of 27
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 9 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 20 of 27
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 9 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 21 of 27
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 9 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 22 of 27
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 9 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 23 of 27
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 9 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 24 of 27
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 9 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 25 of 27
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 9 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 26 of 27
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 9 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 27 of 27
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1293/2006

of 30 August 2006         

establishing a prohibition of fishing for anglerfish in ICES zone IV (Norwegian waters) by vessels flying the flag of Germany

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (1), and in particular Article 26(4) thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to common fisheries policy (2), and in particular Article 21(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2006 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.

Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. It shall be prohibited to retain on board, tranship or land such stock caught by those vessels after that date.

Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 August 2006.

For the Commission

Jörgen HOLMQUIST            

Director-General for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs

----

(1)OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59.

(2)OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 768/2005 (OJ L 128, 21.5.2005, p. 1).

(3)OJ L 16, 20.1.2006, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1262/2006 (OJ L 230, 24.8.2006, p. 4).

----

ANNEX

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: JEFFREY GRAY THOMAS, 

attorney disciplinary matter, 

______________________________ 

JEFFREY GRAY THOMAS, 

Appellant.

No. 21-55462 

D.C. No. 2:20-ad-00779-PSG 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Philip S. Gutierrez, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 14, 2021**

Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Jeffrey Gray Thomas, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s 

order imposing reciprocal discipline following his involuntary inactive enrollment 

by the State Bar of California. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

review for an abuse of discretion, in re Corrinet, 645 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 

2011), and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 21 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-55462 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in disbarring Thomas in the 

Central District of California because Thomas did not meet his burden to show that 

he was deprived of due process, that proof of misconduct was insufficient, or that 

grave injustice would result from the imposition of reciprocal discipline. See In re 

Kramer, 282 F.3d 721, 724-25 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth the limited 

circumstances in which an attorney can avoid a federal court’s imposition of 

reciprocal discipline and setting forth attorney’s burden of proof).

Thomas’ request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 6) and motion to file 

a late brief (Docket Entry No. 7) are granted. The Clerk will file the opening brief 

submitted on August 7, 2021 (Docket Entry No. 4).

AFFIRMED.
No. P67/177.

No. P67/178.

No. P67/179.

#### Diebold, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 61/19403 (New York).

#### Seedman International Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 64/7143,etc. (New York).

#### S. Hiller & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 66/12058 (New York).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of certain padlocks similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Shriro Trading Corp.*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 422, C.D. 2669), the claim of the plaintiffs 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

27

28

ORDER FOR DISMISSAL

WALKER/CR06-90RSL - 1

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )) NO. CR06-90RSL Plaintiff, ) v. )) ORDER TO DISMISS STORMY WALKER, ) INDICTMENT WITHOUT ) PREJUDICE Defendant ) ______________________________)

This matter having come on before the undersigned court on the Government’s

Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice, pursuant to F.R.Cr.P. 48, the Court having

considered the Motion and files and records, now therefore,

DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the above-entitled Indictment as the

conduct charged is subsumed into United States v. Kavel Multani, et al., CR06-38RSM. 

DATED the 17th day of May, 2006. 

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00090-RSL Document 6 Filed 05/17/06 Page 1 of 1
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 04736**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  04736\04736_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 04736\04736_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04736\04736_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04736\04736_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04736\04736_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04736\04736_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04736\04736_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

04736\Certification Statement Plant ID 04736.pdf Plant certification statement x 04736\Supplemental Documents\04736_Map1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04736\Supplemental Documents\04736_Map2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04736\Supplemental Documents\04736_Water Balance.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04736\04736_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

04736\04736_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 04736\04736_Financial Report 2007.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 04736\04736_Financial Report 2008.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 04736\04736_Annual Report 2009.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
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 GRANTING REQUEST

FOR ADDITIONAL BRIEFING - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

CHARLES GORMAN, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

NATIONAL CITY HOME LOAN

SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-618RSL

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST 

FOR ADDITIONAL BRIEFING

This matter comes before the Court on a motion for summary judgment filed by

defendant National City Home Loan Services, Inc. (“National City”). (Dkt. #13). Plaintiffs,

who are suing on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege that National City

charged them a $15 fee not authorized by their loan documents for faxed delivery of mortgage

loan payoff statements. Defendant alleges that all of plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed

because they are preempted by regulations of the United States Treasury Department, Office of

the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”). Defendant submitted a letter, dated August 21, 2006,

with its reply memorandum from the OCC’s First Senior Deputy Comptroller and Chief Counsel

opining that the fax fee is consistent with OCC regulations. Ordinarily, the Court does not

consider new evidence presented for the first time with a reply. In this case, however, the letter

was drafted after defendant filed its motion, though defendant has not explained whether it could

Case 2:06-cv-00618-RSL Document 40 Filed 09/15/06 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 GRANTING REQUEST

FOR ADDITIONAL BRIEFING - 2

have sought the letter sooner. Also, the letter appears to be probative and the Court prefers to

consider issues with the benefit of a complete record. Therefore, the Court will consider the

letter and allow plaintiffs an opportunity to respond to it. Plaintiffs have not requested

additional time to conduct discovery regarding the letter, so an additional two weeks should be

ample time to respond.

In its surreply, plaintiffs also requested the opportunity to respond to a second issue. 

Plaintiffs filed with their response a declaration from Professor Arthur Wilmarth. In its reply,

defendant argued that the declaration should be stricken because Professor Wilmarth purports to

be a legal expert, invading the province of this Court. Plaintiffs have requested an opportunity

to respond to that argument. The Local Rules do not permit a response, and the Court does not

need any additional briefing on that issue.

Accordingly, plaintiffs may submit an additional memorandum, not to exceed 6 pages, by

September 29, 2006 which addresses the OCC letter. No further briefing will be accepted on the

issue. The Clerk of the Court is directed to renote National City’s Motion for Summary

Judgment (Dkt. #13) on the Court’s calendar for September 29, 2006.

DATED this 15th day of September, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00618-RSL Document 40 Filed 09/15/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 56791.

#### E. Tamburo & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 175227-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the involved

merchandise consist of bleached silk fabrics similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Walter Strassburger & Co., Inc., el al.*v. *United States*(26 Cust. Ct. 210, C. D. 1326). Upon the established facts and following the cited authority, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Service vi'a US. Certified Mail, &turn-&ceipt &quested, and First-Class Mail 

October 7, 2015 

Attn: Kate Barber 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Enforcement Division, Midwest Team 

2300 East Devon Ave. 

Des Plaines, IL 60018 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

REQUEST FOR HEARlNG RE: FINAL NOTICE OF PROPOSED CIVIL PENALTY 

Re: Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc., Case No. 2015-GL-70-0126 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R §13.16, Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc. hereby respectfully requests a 

hearing before the Admiuisttative Law Judge concerning the Federal Aviation Admiuisttation's 

proposed civil penalty in the above-captioned matter. 

Further arguments and evidence in support will be submitted once Fanuie May has been notified of 

the Administrative Law Judge assigned to this matter. 

Fannie May also respectfully requests that further correspondence in this matter by directed to Ron 

Orcutt, Director of Warehousing and Distribution Operations, Fannie May Confections Brands, 

Inc., 1793 Enterprise Parkway, Twinsburg, Ohio 44087. 

Sincerely, 

Ron Orcutt "L'rf?'n. cf"~~"/ ·· 

Director of Warehousing and Distribution Operations 

Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc. 

1793 Enterprise Parkway 

Twinsburg, Ohio 44087 

Phone: (614) 743-3592 

Email: rono@fanniemaybrands.com