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

DETENTION ORDER

PAGE -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. 06-92M

)

v. )

)

) DETENTION ORDER

DEBORAH DOMINIQUE, a/k/a, )

“Deborah Ballard,” )

)

Defendant. )

______________________________)

Offense charged:

Count I: Conspiracy to Distribute Oxycodone.

Date of Detention Hearing: March 8, 2006

 The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. §

3142(f), and based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter

set forth, finds that no condition or combination of conditions which the defendant can meet

will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of any

other person and the community. The Government was represented by Vince Lombardi.

The defendant was represented by Nancy Tenney.

//

Case 2:06-cr-00110-RSM Document 15 Filed 03/13/06 Page 1 of 3
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

DETENTION ORDER

PAGE -2-

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) The defendant is viewed as a risk of danger due to her criminal history,

the presence of a firearm in her residence and lack of compliance with

her previous terms of U.S. probation.

(2) The extent of the use of alcohol and illegal substance by the defendant is

unknown. Given the nature of this offense involving 25,000 illicit

tablets, the defendant’s access to illicit drugs coupled with a clear

prescription drug use/abuse, she poses a risk of nonappearance.

(3) Defendant has a severe bone disease which requires continuous medical

supervision. This condition however, does not overcome the

presumption against release in view of the risk of danger implicit in the

drug trafficking alleged here.

It is therefore ORDERED:

(l) The 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) The 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

the 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

//

Case 2:06-cr-00110-RSM Document 15 Filed 03/13/06 Page 2 of 3
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

DETENTION ORDER

PAGE -3-

 (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 13th day of March, 2006.

AMONICA J. BENTON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00110-RSM Document 15 Filed 03/13/06 Page 3 of 3
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

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

RONALD DEAN FINLEY,

 Defendant.

Case No. CR05-5220M

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( X ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 ( X ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

 ( ) 

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant’s lack of community ties and resources..

 ( ) Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( X ) History of non-compliance with Washington State Department of Corrections.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal,

without prejudice to review..

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 November 30, 2005.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cr-05125-RBL Document 4 Filed 11/30/05 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

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JOSEPH HERNDON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARNP G. DURANO, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5154RJB-KLS

ORDER DENYING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis and the remaining record, hereby finds and ORDERS:

(1) The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted;

(2) Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED; and

(3) The Clerk is directed to send directed to send a copy of this Order to petitioner.

DATED this 21st day of July, 2006.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05154-RJB Document 15 Filed 07/21/06 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

**Section 906 Certification**

 

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

 

Víctor Grifols Deu and Raimon Grifols Roura, Directors and Co-Chief Executive Officers and Alfredo Arroyo Guerra, the Chief Financial Officer of Grifols, S.A., each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

1.                                      the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

 

2.                                      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Grifols, S.A.

 
| Date:    April 4, 2017 |                        |
|----------------------------------|-----------------------------|
|                             |                        |
|                             | /s/ Víctor Grifols Deu |
|                             | Name:                       | Víctor Grifols Deu |
|                             | Title:                      | Director and Co- Chief   Executive Officer |
|                             |                        |
|                             |                        |
|                             | /s/ Raimon Grifols   Roura  |
|                             | Name:                       | Raimon Grifols Roura |
|                             | Title:                      | Director and Co- Chief   Executive Officer |
|                             |                        |
|                             |                        |
|                             | /a/ Alfredo Arroyo   Guerra |
|                             | Name:                       | Alfredo Arroyo Guerra |
|                             | Title:                      | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Before the Second Division,

February 27, 1962

No. 66506.

#### Engis Equipment Company *v.*United States,

protests 259195-K/6886 and 262422-K/7178 (Chicago).

*355Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of talyrond apparatus and equipment similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 64440, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 130362 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, JOHN T. ANDERSON, AMY A. BAUR, Justices
 

MELISSA K. GOODNOE, BRET D. 

GOODNOE, ROLAND HARMES, JR., 

DANIEL J. JONES, ELEANOR V.

LUECKE and THOMAS C. VOICE, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v SC: 130362 

 COA: 262168 

Ingham CC: 04-001522-CH

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF MERIDIAN 

and MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP BOARD 

OF TRUSTEES,

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

LOUIS J. EYDE LIMITED FAMILY 

PARTNERSHIP and GEORGE F. EYDE 

LIMITED FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, 

Intervening Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 9, 2005 

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

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

d0424 

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. 

April 28, 2006 

Clerk
Proposed Order Awarding

Fees Pursuant to EAJA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

ANA REYES PENA, )

) Civil No. C06-5096-RBL

Plaintiff, )

) PROPOSED ORDER 

vs. )

)

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

Based upon the stipulation of the parties in the above-captioned case, it is hereby

ORDERED that fees in the amount of $3,774.72, expenses in the amount of $13.26 and

costs in the amount of $250.00 be awarded to Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section

1920.

DATED this 9th day of January, 2007. 

A

RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05096-RBL Document 25 Filed 01/09/07 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

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CALVIN ROUSE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOUG WADDINGTON et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5183RJB

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-05183-RJB Document 11 Filed 05/18/06 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 18th day of May, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05183-RJB Document 11 Filed 05/18/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

April 20, 1966

No. P66/39.

protests 64/13568, etc. (New York).

#### Louis Greenberg & Son, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Rao., C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of rubber bulb horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Sherwin International, Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 466, Abstract 69382), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 56799.

#### Dodge & Olcott Co. *v.*United States,

protest 24035-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of cornmint oil the same in all material respects as that the subject of *A. Maschmeijer, Jr., Inc.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 139, C. A. D. 476) and other items consist of mandarin oil similar to that the subject of *Fritzsche Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 90, C. D. 1134), the claims of the plaintiff were sustained.
No. 63408.

protest 58/22909 (Boston).

#### Richard M. Ott & Sons, Inc. *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.
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 CONTINUING SENTENCING

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD ALLEN FABEL, 

RODNEY ROLLNESS, 

JOSHUA BINDER, and 

RICKY JENKS, and

PAUL FOSTER.

Defendants.

Case No. CR06-041L

ORDER CONTINUING SENTENCING

This matter comes before the Court on defendant Rollness’ “Motion to Continue

Sentencing” (Dkt. #831). The Court, having considered the memoranda filed by the

Government and defendant, as well as the interests of the victim’s family, grants defendant’s

motion for a continuance. Though great weight has been given to the victim’s interest in

resolving this matter promptly, the serious nature of the punishment, combined with the fact that

this is defendant’s first request for a continuance, compels the Court to grant defendant’s

motion. The new sentencing hearing shall be held on October 18, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. If this date

or time is inconvenient for the victim’s family, the Government should notify the Court so that

appropriate adjustments can be made. 

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 839 Filed 09/13/07 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

ORDER CONTINUING SENTENCING

-2-

The original sentencing date of September 19, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. will now be used to hear

argument on defendant’s motion regarding the Court’s sentencing authority as to the VCAR

charge (Dkt. #824).

DATED this 13th day of September, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 839 Filed 09/13/07 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

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

FELIX ADEOKUN,

 Defendant.

Case No. 06-5016M

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 (X) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( X ) Defendant’s lack of sufficient ties to the community.

 ( ) Immigration and Naturalization Service detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Other:

 (X) Defendant has not overcome the rebuttable presumption. This order is entered without prejudice as to the defendant.

 

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal.

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 

January 31, 2006.

__s/ Karen L. Strombom_______________

Karen L Strombom, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cr-05058-RBL Document 16 Filed 01/31/06 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6290

FLOYD GLENN WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BISHOP L. ROBINSON, Secretary Department Public Safety & Correctional Services,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-96-

3752-AMD)

Submitted: July 10, 1997 Decided: July 23, 1997

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Floyd Glenn Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Floyd Williams appeals from a district court order dismissing

without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994), complaint based on

Williams' failure to comply with the court's prior orders directing

him to amend his complaint. Because Williams may proceed with this

action by amending his complaint as directed, his appeal is interlocutory and not subject to appellate review under Domino Sugar

Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.

1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 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
Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet 

Kentucky Division for Air Quality 

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

Appendix H.7 

Kentucky CAIR Regulations 

 

 Appendix H.7 - 1

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
[This page intentionally left blank.]

 Appendix H.7 - 2

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
 Appendix H.7 - 3

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
 Appendix H.7 - 4

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
 Appendix H.7 - 5

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
[This page intentionally left blank.]

 Appendix H.7 - 6

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
 Appendix H.7 - 7

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
 Appendix H.7 - 8

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
[This page intentionally left blank.]

 Appendix H.7 - 9

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
 Appendix H.7 - 10

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 32.1(1)

            Section 1350 Certification by the Chief Executive Officer

         I, Timothy Richardson, the chief executive officer of Micro Linear
Corporation (the "Company"), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter
63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my knowledge,

         (i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 29, 2003, (the "Report"), complies with the requirements of section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

         (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: August 13, 2003                               /s/ Timothy A. Richardson
                                                     --------------------------
                                                        Timothy A. Richardson
                                                        Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Micro Linear Corporation and will be retained by Micro Linear
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.

-----------

(1) The material contained in this Exhibit 32.1 is not deemed "filed" with the
SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company
under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether
made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.