alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 2:06-cv-00337-TSZ Document 33 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00337-TSZ Document 33 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00337-TSZ Document 33 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00337-TSZ Document 33 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00337-TSZ Document 33 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00337-TSZ Document 33 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00337-TSZ Document 33 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00337-TSZ Document 33 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00337-TSZ Document 33 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00337-TSZ Document 33 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00337-TSZ Document 33 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00337-TSZ Document 33 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 2:06-cv-00337-TSZ Document 33 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 13 of 13
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 to Continue Trial Date/

SANDHU, et al/CR05-393JCC — 1 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) CASE NO.CR05-0393C

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER OF CONTINUANCE

)

KIRANPAL SANDHU, )

TAI DANG, and )

ANTHONY DAO, )

)

 Defendants. ) )

The Court having reviewed the stipulated motion by the United States and

defendants KIRANPAL SANDHU, TAI DANG, and ANTHONY DAO to continue the

trial date, and having reviewed the records and files herein, makes the following findings

and enters the following order:

The Court finds that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(A) and §3161(h)(8)(B)(I),

(ii) and (iv), the ends of justice served by continuing the trial date from June 7, 2006 to

August 14, 2006, outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy

trial. This matter is complex due to the number of defendants involved and it is therefore

unreasonable to expect the parties to adequately prepare for trial before August 14, 2006. 

Additionally, failure to grant a continuance to August 14, 2006 would deny the

defendants the time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise

of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that trial in this matter is continued from 

Case 2:05-cr-00393-JCC Document 133 Filed 05/26/06 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 to Continue Trial Date/

SANDHU, et al/CR05-393JCC — 2 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

June, 2006 to August 14, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. Defendants SANDHU, DANG, and DAO

shall file waivers of speedy trial no later than May 31, 2006. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for purposes of computing the time limitations 

imposed by the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-3164, the period of delay from 

June 17, 2006, up to and including August 14, 2006, is excludable time pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). 

DATED this 26th day of May, 2006.

A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

 /s Jill Otake ___________ 

JILL OTAKE, WA Bar # 28298

Assistant United States Attorney

s/ Bob W. Goldsmith* 

BOB W. GOLDSMITH, WSBA # 12265

Attorney at Law,

s/ Lee A. Covell* 

LEE A. COVELL, WSBA # 952

Attorney at Law,

s/ Jennifer Cannon-Unione* 

JENNIFER CANNON-UNIONE, WSBA # 27008

Dixon & Cannon,

*Electronically signed pursuant to Email authorization.

Case 2:05-cr-00393-JCC Document 133 Filed 05/26/06 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 23.1








CONSENT





The Board of Directors


Circle Star Energy Corp.;





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this annual report on Form 10-K of Circle Star Energy Corp (the “Company”) of the reference to LaRoche Petroleum Consultants, Ltd’s (“LaRoche”) name included or incorporated by reference in connection with the information contained in our reserve report titled “Estimate of Reserves and Future Net Cash Flow to the Circle Star Energy Corporation Interest in Certain Properties Located in Various Counties, Texas as of April 30, 2013 and dated April 10, 2014.





We hereby further consent to the use of our name and to the filing as exhibits to this amended annual report on Form 10-K as of April 30, 2013 of the Company of the reports of LaRoche dated as of April 10, 2014.





LaRoche Petroleum Consultants, Ltd.





By: /s/ William M. Kazmann


William M. Kazmann





Title: Partner


Dated: August 13, 2014
Before the Second Division,

April 18, 1963

No. 67610.

#### Ace Importing Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/11630, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bicycle horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of G. *Joannou Cycle Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 172, C.D. 2253), the claim *oí*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 ORDER – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

GERALD ALAN SHERMAN,

Defendant.

CASE NO. CR05-181C

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Gerald Sherman’s Motion for Temporary

Modification of Conditions of Release (Dkt. No. 31). The Court has carefully considered the papers

submitted by Defendant and hereby GRANTS Defendant’s motion. Defendant may travel to eastern

Washington from July 23, 2005 to July 30, 2005. During this period, electronic monitoring shall not be

required, but Defendant must abide by all other conditions of release as directed by U.S. Pre-Trial

Services. These conditions include, but are not limited to, providing U.S. Pre-Trial Services with a

complete travel itinerary and checking in as directed.

//

//

//

Case 2:05-cr-00181-JCC Document 32 Filed 07/22/05 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

SO ORDERED this 22nd day of July, 2005.

AUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cr-00181-JCC Document 32 Filed 07/22/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 61575.

#### Rohner, Gehrig & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 306011-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required
to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Principal
Life Income Fundings Trust 2008-069 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, do
not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is
included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.
    
    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this
report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing
agreement(s) in all material respects; and5.
    
    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.
   /s/ Dwight N. Soethout

Dwight N. SoethoutVice President  Principal Life Insurance Company
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 69240]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22140]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 5, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 28, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 68 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2023-285, CP2023-288.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-22140 Filed 10-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roberto Navaro, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 598]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered May 26, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

During the course of the trial, the prosecutor moved to close the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover police officers who had purchased narcotics from the defendant and who had acted as backups, or so-called ghosts, during the sale. After conducting a hearing pursuant to *People v Hinton*(31 NY2d 71, *cert denied*410 US 911), the trial court granted the prosecution’s motion. Following the court’s ruling, defense counsel moved that the defendant’s mother be permitted to remain in the courtroom. The court denied the motion on the ground that the defendant’s mother, who lived in the Bronx, was likely to visit the defendant’s wife and children, who lived in Queens.

On appeal, the defendant contends, *inter alia,*that the trial court improperly excluded his mother from the courtroom. We agree. There is no evidence in the record that the presence of the defendant’s mother in the courtroom would have endangered the undercover police officers *(see, People v Gutierez,*86 NY2d 817; *People v Pearson,*82 NY2d 436, 443; *see also, People v Kin Kan,*78 NY2d 54; *People v Daniels,*218 AD2d 748). The prosecutor did not establish the proximity of the wife’s home to the area in which the undercover officers continued to work. *624Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that the defendant’s mother lived in or frequented the area in which the officers were working or that she ever did, in fact, go to Queens, a large and densely populated county, for any purpose other than to attend her son’s trial *(see, Vidal v Williams,*31 F3d 67, *cert denied*— US —, 115 S Ct 778).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-21118

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAVID SANTIAGO TAMEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H—01-CR-327-3

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

November 5, 2002

Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel representing David Santiago Tamez has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Tamez was provided

with a copy of counsel's Anders motion and brief, and he has filed

a response to counsel's motion to withdraw. 

Our independent review of the record, counsel's brief, and

Tamez’s opposition shows that there are no nonfrivolous issues for

appeal. Accordingly, counsel's motion for leave to withdraw is
No. 01-21118

-2-

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; FED.

R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(A).
Hancock County Commissioners 

Steven E, Joy V^SZ^ V COUNTY OF HANCOCK 

Percy L. Brown, Jr. X^)9!ti(^V Commissioner's Office 

Fay A. Lawson /iy/jrv^l 50 State Street, Suite 7 

Ellsworth, Maine 04605 

Cynthia A, DePrenger y%^^LyJmt Phone (207) 667-9542 

County Clerk ^C^t^^^y Fax (207) 667-1412 

August 17, 2010 '"' 

Dennis J. Devany, Chief '^ 

Essential Air Service Division, X-53 ^JI 

Office of Aviation Analysis -r-. 

U.S. Dept of Transportation _ rdg ^ 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE "^ §^" ^ 

Washington, D.C. 20590 S "^"^ 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

On behalf of the Hancock County Commissioners, I thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 

Essentia) Air Service Proposals regarding the Hancock County-Bar Harbor Airport (BHB). I would like 

to communicate the wishes of the commissioners regarding the proposal for EAS services by Colgan Air 

Inc., d/b/a US Airways Express, at the Hancock County-Bar Harbor Airport. The county supports 

Colgan Air and recommends Option 1 of its proposal. 

The proposal offered by Colgan Air will provide cabin class air service to the downcast region using a 

Saab 340 with 19 round trips to Boston per week. These trips will be a combination of non-stop and onestop at the Augusta State Airport. Colgan has continued to improve its relationship with airport 

management, operators and the customers and have developed seasonal schedules that accommodate the 

fluctuations in customer demand. A reputation for excellent customer service has been built by Colgan's 

local employees at BHB while the company has also made forward progress with airport management 

with marketing and pricing improvements. Continuation of our long-term relationship with Colgan is 

important and is recommended. 

In the event Augusta is not part of the proposal, negotiations will be necessary to secure an acceptable 

flight schedule and frequency, as Option 2 with only 14 flights per week is not acceptable and will have 

a significant adverse effect on air carrier service. 

The Hancock County-Bar Harbor airport manager, the airport advisory committee and commissioners 

have reviewed this letter and all support the recommendation to have Colgan continue provide EAS 

service at the Hancock County-Bar Harbor Airport. 

The Honorable Percy L^ Brojvn, Jr., Chairman 

Hancock County Commissioners
Case 2:06-cr-00011-JLR Document 95 Filed 05/17/06 Page 1 of 8
Case 2:06-cr-00011-JLR Document 95 Filed 05/17/06 Page 2 of 8
Case 2:06-cr-00011-JLR Document 95 Filed 05/17/06 Page 3 of 8
Case 2:06-cr-00011-JLR Document 95 Filed 05/17/06 Page 4 of 8
Case 2:06-cr-00011-JLR Document 95 Filed 05/17/06 Page 5 of 8
Case 2:06-cr-00011-JLR Document 95 Filed 05/17/06 Page 6 of 8
Case 2:06-cr-00011-JLR Document 95 Filed 05/17/06 Page 7 of 8
Case 2:06-cr-00011-JLR Document 95 Filed 05/17/06 Page 8 of 8
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Elias PERDOMO-CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-40940.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Norman E. Mclnnis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Molly E. Odom, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Elias Perdomo-Castro (“Perdomo”) appeals following his guilty plea to a charge of being present illegally in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Perdomo argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional. He correctly acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). *See United States v. Mancia-Perez,*331 F.3d 464, 470 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*540 U.S. 935, 124 S.Ct. 358, 157 L.Ed.2d 245 (2003).

Perdomo argues that the district court committed reversible error by imposing a sentence pursuant to the mandatory Federal Sentencing Guidelines system that was held unconstitutional in *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We review for plain error. *See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d 728, 732 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(July 25, 2005) (No. 05-5556).

The district court committed error that is plain by sentencing Perdomo under a mandatory Sentencing Guidelines scheme. *See id.; United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 520-21 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). However, Perdomo has not carried his burden of showing that the district court’s error affected his substantial rights. *See Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d at 733-34; *Mares,*402 F.3d at 521.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
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 OF DISMISSAL 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

 

JOHN WEST,

Plaintiff,

v.

YACHT MASTERS NORTHWEST,

Defendant.

NO. C06-179 JLR

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The court having been notified of the settlement of this matter and it appearing that no

issue remains for the court’s determination,

IT IS ORDERED that this action and all claims asserted herein are DISMISSED with

prejudice and without costs to any party.

In the event settlement is not perfected, any party may move to reopen the case,

provided such motion is filed within 60 days of the date of this order. Any trial date and

pretrial dates previously set are hereby VACATED. 

DATED this 15th day of February, 2007.

AJAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00179-JLR Document 15 Filed 02/15/07 Page 1 of 1
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

MONTE HOISINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

HENRY RICHARDS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5281 RBL/KLS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On May 9, 2006, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for a 120 day extension of the discovery

and summary judgment deadlines. (Dkt. # 33). The court’s order was based on plaintiff’s failure to

engage in discovery within the time provided in the court’s scheduling order. After carefully

reviewing the motion for reconsideration and the record, the court ORDERS as follows:

(1) Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 34) is DENIED. Motions for

 reconsideration are disfavored and will ordinarily be denied in the “absence of a showing of manifest

error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been

brought to the court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local Rule CR 7(h)(1). Here,

plaintiff has identified no error in the court’s order, nor presented any new facts or legal authority

that suggest reconsideration is appropriate. Plaintiff complains of a delay in receiving deposition

Case 3:05-cv-05281-RBL Document 37 Filed 07/20/06 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 - 2

subpoenas from the clerk’s office for service. The Clerk’s office received the subpoenas on April 4,

2006 and they were issued on April 14, 2006. (Dkt. # 24). The plaintiff had sufficient time to

schedule depositions before the discovery deadline of May 26, 2006. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore

denied.

(2) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff and to the Honorable 

Ronald B. Leighton.

DATED this 20th day of July, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05281-RBL Document 37 Filed 07/20/06 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 23.1

SEALE AND BEERS, CPAs
PCAOB & CPAB REGISTERED AUDITORS
www.sealebeers.com


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the use, in the statement on Form 10K of Mondas Minerals Corp., of
our report dated  August 31, 2010 on our audit of the  financial  statements  of
Mondas  Minerals Corp. as of June 30, 2010 and 2009, and the related  statements
of operations,  stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years ended June 30,
2010 and 2009,  and from  inception on April 25, 2008 through June 30, 2010, and
the reference to us under the caption "Experts".



/s/ Seale and Beers, CPAs
---------------------------------
Seale and Beers, CPAs
Las Vegas, Nevada
March 31, 2011





             Seale and Beers, CPAs PCAOB & CPAB Registered Auditors

                 50 S. Jones Blvd Suite 202 Las Vegas, NV 89107
                   Phone: (888) 727-8251 Fax: (888) 782-2351