alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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

ORDER DENYING STIPULATED

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DONALD HOFF,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 05-508M

ORDER DENYING SECOND

STIPULATED MOTION 

TO EXTEND TIME TO 

FILE INDICTMENT

On December 14, 2005, the parties to the above-captioned matter filed a Second

Stipulated Motion to Extend Time to File Indictment. Dkt. No. 14. The motion argued that

granting a continuance would satisfy the “ends of justice” by providing the parties additional

time to review discovery and to complete plea negotiations. In addition, counsel cited

vacation plans and a January trial in support of the motion.

Congress“ did not intend the ‘ends of justice’ exclusion to be granted as a matter of

course but rather [intended it] to be used sparingly and only when necessary.” United States

v. Lewis, 980 F.2d 555, 560 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citations omitted). Hence, an “ends of

justice” exclusion may be granted only for a specific duration when “justified by the record

with reference to the facts.” United States v. Ramirez-Cortez, 213 F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th Cir.

Case 2:05-mj-00508-MJB Document 15 Filed 12/15/05 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

ORDER DENYING STIPULATED

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

PAGE -2

2000) (internal citations and punctuation omitted). Generalized assertions that the “ends of

justice” will be satisfied by the granting of a continuance are insufficient. Id. at 1154-55.

Moreover, an ongoing plea agreement negotiation is not a factor sufficient for this Court to

find that granting a continuance will satisfy the “ends of justice.” Id. at 1155-56 (citing

United States v. Perez-Reveles, 715 F.2d 1348, 1352 (9th Cir. 1983)). 

Here, the parties have not provided any facts sufficient to justify granting a

continuance. The stipulated motion references only a need to review discovery, without

providing any indication of the amount of discovery or complexity thereof. Moreover, the

waiver of speedy indictment, while signed by Mr. Hoff, is on a pleading entitled United

States of America v. Juan Guevara-Vielma, CR05-419-RSL, and refers to Mr. GuevaraVielma as the person receiving advice about his rights to a speedy indictment. This causes

the Court concern about whether there has been an effective waiver by the defendant. 

The Court acknowledges counsel’s vacation plans. However, the present stipulated

motion does not satisfy the “ends of justice” exclusion. It appears to be a boilerplate motion.

 The motion is DENIED, without prejudice to the parties filing an appropriately

supported motion if they wish to do so.

DATED this 15th day of December, 2005.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-mj-00508-MJB Document 15 Filed 12/15/05 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS, CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS, AND CONDENSED
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD
ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          65,634
<SECURITIES>                                   277,244
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,485
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               384,799
<PP&E>                                          25,994
<DEPRECIATION>                                (21,739)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 399,293
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           58,783
<BONDS>                                        300,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,233
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   399,293
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,978
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                61,420
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,915
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,438)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (16,438)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (16,438)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.63)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.63)
<FN>
<F1>For Purposes of this Exhibit, Primary means Basic.
</FN>


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEPTEMBER
30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      12,081,963
<SECURITIES>                                 5,516,110
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,855,630
<ALLOWANCES>                                   400,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            32,652,425
<PP&E>                                      10,161,372
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,642,691
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              69,262,953
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,234,640
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        84,525
<OTHER-SE>                                  58,875,076
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                69,262,953
<SALES>                                     27,251,326
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            27,251,326
<CGS>                                        7,295,589
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,295,589
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,915,863
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,479,448
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,192,725
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,286,723
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,286,723
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .38
        

</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 24, 2014

NO. 03-13-00701-CR

Johnny Ferris aka Johnny Wayne Ferris, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 51ST DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND ROSE

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment of conviction. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of 

conviction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs 

is made.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) AND SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 (a) and (b))

I, S. Emerson Lybbert, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of TGFIN Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) certify that: (1) the quarterly report of TGFIN Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the “Quarterly Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d); and (2) the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                   By:  /s/ S. Emerson Lybbert

                                   Name: S. Emerson Lybbert

                                   Title: Chairman of the Board and

    Chief Executive Officer

                   (Principal Executive Officer)

Date: May 23, 2011

PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) AND SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 (a) and (b)

I, S. Emerson Lybbert, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of TGFIN Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) certify that: (1) the quarterly report of TGFIN Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the “Quarterly Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d); and (2) the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                   By: /s/ S. Emerson Lybbert

                                   Name: S. Emerson Lybbert

                                   Title: Chief Financial Officer

           (Principal Financial Officer)

Date: May 23, 2011
No. 63406.

protest 58/25555 (Seattle).

#### B. R. Anderson & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 7, 2013*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**F.204 Checkable Deposits and Currency** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ferdinand Morrison, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 65]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), rendered June 1, 1993, convicting him of *695burglary in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was deprived of his right to a jury of his choosing when the court denied his peremptory challenge and seated a juror who was a crime victim. We disagree.

It is well settled that neither the prosecutor nor the defense attorney may exercise peremptory challenges to exclude a cognizable group *(see, Batson v Kentucky,*476 US 79; *People v Kern,*75 NY2d 638, *cert denied*498 US 824). Once a prima facie case is made that a party has excluded a cognizable group, the party must give nondiscriminatory reasons for the peremptory challenges. The court then must decide whether the reasons are pretextual or legitimate *(see, People v Allen,*86 NY2d 101, 109-110; *People v Simmons,*79 NY2d 1013). A challenge based on a juror’s status as a crime victim is not pretextual on its face absent any evidence that it was applied in a discriminatory manner *(see, People v Dixon,*202 AD2d 12, 18). While uneven application of race-neutral factors does not always indicate pretext *(see, People v Allen, supra,*at 110), the defendant, who is black, challenged a specific white juror because of her status as a crime victim but could not articulate legitimate reasons for failing to challenge black jurors with similar backgrounds as crime victims. Thus, the court properly found his reason for challenging the white juror in question to be pretextual.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.

76
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. 

DEANDRE H. BRADFORD,

Defendant. ____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-67M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offenses charged:

Count 1: Possession of Cocaine Base with Intent to Distribute in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A).

Date of Detention Hearing: February 21, 2006.

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.

(2) Defendant has no ties to the Western District of Washington, or to this

community.

(3) Defendant has ongoing substance-abuse problems.

Case 2:06-cr-00062-JLR Document 16 Filed 02/23/06 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

(4) There was a firearm present at the time of defendant’s arrest for the instant

offense.

(5) Defendant admitted that he had known the co-defendant for twenty (20) years,

and that both were Crips gang members.

(6) There appear to be no conditions or combination of conditions other than

detention that will address the risk of flight and the the danger to other persons of the

community posed by defendant.

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 23rd day of February, 2006.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cr-00062-JLR Document 16 Filed 02/23/06 Page 2 of 2
Before Judge Ford,

March 12, 1969

No. R69/3.

reappraisements R65/9421, etc. (Pembina).

No. R69/4.

reappraisements R65/9428, etc. (Pembina).

#### J. L. Wood *v.*United States, J. L. Wood *v.*United States, *1114J. L. Wood *v.*United States, J. L. Wood *v.*United States,

No. R69/5.

reappraisements R65/9433, etc. (Pembina).

No. R69/6.

reappraisements R66/2290, etc. (Pembina).

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *J. L. Wood*v. *United States*(58 Cust. Ct. 682, R.D. 11292), 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, is the proper basis of value for the involved bus shells and that said values are the prices set forth in schedule “A”, Canadian currency, per shell, less cost of United States components, as invoiced, packed, said schedule “A” being attached to and made a part of the decisions.
No. 61100.

protests 264351-K (New York).

#### Leading Forwarders, Inc. *v.*United States,

*388Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the item of merchandise described as No. 6034 consists of artificial flowers, not wholly or in chief value of beads, bugles, bullions, filaments, lame, metal threads, rayon or other synthetic textiles, spangles, threads, tinsel wire or yarns, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained as to said item. • .
EXHIBIT 10.39
  
   Start Date:
    
    February 2, 2009Reports to:
    
    Ben Wolff  Chief Executive OfficerLocation:
    
    Kirkland, WABase salary:
    
    $500,000 annually (paid bi-weekly)Bonus Target:
    
    $500,000 paid annually based on company and individual performance.Stock Awards:
    
    150,000 Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) and 350,000 stock options with an expected date of grant within
30 days of starting with Clearwire. Both the options and RSUs vest over 4 years, 25% per year.
Details regarding these awards will be provided to you separately. You will also be targeted to
receive a grant of 150,000 stock options in September, 2009 based on your performance and the
performance of Clearwire. In addition, you are expected to participate in the normal course
performance based stock awards historically issued semi-annually. Please remember that all stock
awards are subject to approval by the Compensation Committee of the Board.Relocation:
    
    The company will reimburse you for all reasonable and customary expenses related to your relocation
to Kirkland. These benefits will include    Exploratory trip for you and your family.    1-2 house hunting trips for you and your family.    Reimbursement of lease expenses in the Seattle area for up to a 6 month period.    Reimbursement of reasonable and customary closing costs on the sale of your current home.    Reimbursement of R&C closing costs on the purchase of a new home in the Seattle area    Shipment and storage of household goods    Tax gross up on non-deductible relocation reimbursementsMore information regarding relocation benefits will be forwarded to you separately.Benefits:
    
    In this role, you will participate in Clearwires benefit programs including medical, dental,
disability, life insurance and 401(K) plans.Time Off:
    
    You will be eligible for a total of 4 weeks of paid time off in accordance with the companys
vacation and time off policies. In addition, Clearwire will grant you 5 floating holidays upon your
starting with the company.Severance 
Benefits:
    
    In the event, your employment is terminated involuntarily during your first 18 months with Clearwire
for a reason other than cause,or documented unsatisfactory job performance you will be eligible for
a severance benefit equal to 100% of your annual base salary and targeted annual bonus. Causeshall
have the correlative meaning set forth in Clearwires Change in Control Severance Plandated March
25, 2008. Documented unsatisfactory job performancewill be deemed to have occurred following a 90
day period during which you have been requested in writing by the Board to cure specific and material
job performance deficiencies and you have failed to do so as determined by the majority of the Board
members.




---



##### 



Clearwires Change in Control Plan Severance Plan
       
 Accepted By: /s/ DAVID SACH  Date Accepted: January 21, 2009
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 69232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22223]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--The Institute of Electrical and Electronics 
Engineers, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on July 17, 2023, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), The Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers, Inc. (``IEEE'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development 
activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, 33 new 
standards have been initiated and 22 existing standards are being 
revised. More detail regarding these changes can be found at: https://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/sba/05jun2023/, https://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/sba/29jun2023/.
    The following pre-standards activities associated with IEEE 
Industry Connections Activities were launched or renewed: https://standards.ieee.org/about/bog/cag/approvals/july2023/.
    The following conformity assessment programs associated with 
published IEEE standards and supporting their promulgation were 
initiated:
    IEEE CertifAIEd, https://engagestandards.ieee.org/ieeecertifaied.html?_gl=1*1nwd00q*_ga*MTUzMjIwNDE4MS4xNjg5MDAxNDUz*_ga_XDL2ME6570*MTY4OTMzNTgzNC41OS4xLjE2ODkzMzYxNjUuMC4wLjA.
    IEEE P1952 Position, Navigation and Timing, https://standards.ieee.org/products-programs/icap/programs/pnt-user-equipment/.
    On September 17, 2004, IEEE filed its original notification 
pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of 
the Act on November 3, 2004 (69 FR 64105).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on April 10, 
2023. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on June 13, 2023 (88 FR 38534).

Suzanne Morris,
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-22223 Filed 10-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P