alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 3STo. 9,573.

#### MILLER et al. v. HOOE et al.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 622.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1825.

Garnishment — Absent Debtor — No Effects within Jurisdiction — Attachment.

1. Upon a chancery attachment in Alexandria county, District of Columbia, against the effects of an absent debtor, the garnishee, residing in Alexandria county, is not liable to the plaintiff for goods of the defendant which are in the garnishee’s custody in Virginia, where the debt- or himself resides.

2. If the resident garnishee is not indebted to the defendant, and has no effects of the defendant in his possession in this district, and the defendant himself is not found in the county of Alexandria, no decree can be rendered against either the garnishee or the debtor, and the bill must be dismissed, as this court has no jurisdiction in the case.

This was a chancery attachment in the county of Alexandria, District of Columbia, to attach the effects of John Hooe, a resident of Virginia, in the hands of Jonathan Janney, a resident of the county of Alexandria, for a debt due by Hooe to Mordecai Miller & Son, of Alexandria. The subpoena was served upon Janney on the 3d of April, 1824. The garnishee, Janney, answered that he was not indebted to Hooe at the time of service of the attachment, or at any time afterwards, but that Hooe was indebted to him at the time of the service of the attachment in the sum of 5587; that Hooe has his crop of wheat ground at Janney’s mill in Virginia, which was under the immediate direction and managenjent of one John P. Smoot, who was authorized to give receipts for flour brought to the mill, and to deliver the flour to the respective owners; that Hooe agreed that Janney should retain as much of his flour as would satisfy and discharge the debt to Janney; that after he had retained enough flour for that purpose, there remained more than enough to pay the debt due to Mordecai Miller & Son, the complainants, but Hooe sold it to one George Johnson, to whom it was delivered after the service of the subpoena upon Janney, who, as the property was out of the jurisdiction of this court, did not think himself justified in Withholding it from Mr. Johnson, who had purchased it. He denied all fraud and collusion, &e.

1

 (Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

(THRIJSTON, Circuit Judge, absent) was of opinion, that as the garnishee *321■was not indebted to the defendant Hooe, and had not any effects of that defendant in his hands within the jurisdiction of this conrt, no decree could be made against either of the defendants, and ordered the bill to be dismissed.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or
caused such internal control over financial reporting to be
designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role
in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Richard RudmanRichard RudmanChairman, Chief Executive Officer and
President
No. 64623.

#### Shrager Bros. Co. *v.*United States,

protests 313651-K, etc. (Pittsburgh).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of carrizo baskets the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Chester K. Stoner*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 178, C.D. 2083), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
STIPULATION AND ORDER - 1 

Magistrate Judge Arnold 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

at Tacoma 

KRISTA M. ELLIS ) 

) NO. C06-5125FDB 

) 

Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION AND ORDER 

) TO EXTEND BRIEFING 

v. ) SCHEDULE 

) 

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, ) 

Commissioner of Social ) 

Security, ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

______________________________) 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned 

Attorneys for the parties that briefing schedule shall be 

extended as follows: 

Plaintiff’s opening brief to be filed on or before July 31, 2006. 

Defendant’s answering brief to be filed on or before August 28, 

2006. 

Plaintiff’s reply brief to be filed on or before September 12, 

2006. 

This stipulation is made to allow the parties additional 

Case 3:06-cv-05125-FDB Document 14 Filed 06/23/06 Page 1 of 2
 STIPULATION AND ORDER - 2 

time within which to file pleadings, necessitated by unexpected 

circumstances. 

DATED this 21st day of June, 2006. 

________________________ _________________________ 

DENNIS L. COMSTOCK, #7326 BRIAN C. KIPNIS 

Attorney for Plaintiff Assistant United State Att. 

SO ORDERED this 23rd day of June, 2006. 

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold____________ 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:06-cv-05125-FDB Document 14 Filed 06/23/06 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 11-2 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 1 of 9

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 11 Att. 1

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 11-2 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 11-2 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 11-2 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 11-2 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 11-2 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 11-2 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 11-2 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 11-2 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 9 of 9
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 572 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 572

   Encouraging employers and online dating sites to use sex offender 
                   registries for background checks.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 25, 2007

  Mr. King of New York submitted the following resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Encouraging employers and online dating sites to use sex offender 
                   registries for background checks.

Whereas registries tracking sex offenders are important tools in protecting 
        against recidivism among sex offenders;
Whereas the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent 
        Offender Registration Act (the ``Wetterling Act'', 42 U.S.C. 14071), 
        established guidelines for the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 
        territories to require sex offenders to register where they reside, 
        work, and attend school, as applicable;
Whereas the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (the ``Walsh Act'', 
        Public Law 109-248), expanded the range of offenses that require 
        registration in the Wetterling Act, as well as extended the requirement 
        to register to juveniles convicted of serious sex offenses;
Whereas the Walsh Act requires all jurisdictions to implement at least the 
        registration requirements described in title I of the Walsh Act by July 
        27, 2009; and
Whereas section 120 of the Walsh Act established the Dru Sjodin National Sex 
        Offender Public Website to enable the public to obtain relevant 
        information for each sex offender by a single query for any given zip 
        code or geographical radius: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives encourages--
            (1) employers to check the names of potential employees 
        with the Federal and State sex offender registries when hiring 
        for positions that involve teaching, supervising, interacting 
        with, or working in the general vicinity of children;
            (2) online dating sites to check the names of site members 
        and individuals seeking site membership with the Federal and 
        State sex offender registries, and take appropriate measures to 
        prevent inappropriate use of such sites, including prohibiting 
        access to individuals that are listed on such registries; and
            (3) all States and jurisdictions to expeditiously implement 
        at least the registration requirements described in title I of 
        the Walsh Act before July 27, 2009, and to the greatest extent 
        possible implement stricter requirements than those so 
        described.
                                 <all>
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

N o. 04

- 13

- 00018

- CR

Roosevelt J. GREEN

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010

- CR

- 22234W

Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE

, JUSTICE MARION , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, we REFORM the judgment and bill of

costs to delete Appellant Roosevelt J. Green’s requirement to pay attorney ’s fees, and AFFIRM

the trial court’s judgment as reformed. Appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

SIGNED November 27, 2013.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
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

KHALID O. RAHMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

PIERCE COUNTY, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5262 RBL/KLS

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

RULE 26(f) HEARING 

This civil rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a

Rule 26(f) hearing. Pursuant to Rule 26(f), parties must confer to develop a discovery plan except

for those parties exempted from initial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1)(E). Pursuant to Rule

26(a)(1)(E)(iii), an action brought without counsel by a person in custody is one such category

exempted from disclosure and thus, exempted from Rule 26(f)’s obligation of a discovery

conference. 

Now that some of the Defendants have filed their Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint in this

case, the Court finds that issuance of a pretrial scheduling order is appropriate. The order will

address the conduct of discovery and the filing of dispositive motions and joint status report.

Case 3:06-cv-05262-BHS Document 18 Filed 04/10/07 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

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a Rule 26(f) hearing (Dkt. # 10) shall be DENIED. A

pretrial schedule order shall issue separately.

DATED this 5th day of April, 2007.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05262-BHS Document 18 Filed 04/10/07 Page 2 of 2
No. 57479.

#### Joseph Victori & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 205807-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of grated coconut meat in sirup, in tins, similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Allied Food Corporation of America*v. *United States*(28 Cust. Ct. 222, C. D. 1412), the claim of the plaintiff 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- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JAMES ERNEST DICKERSON,

Petitioner,

v.

CAROL PORTER,

Respondent.

Case No. C06-5110RJB

ORDER TO AMEND

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) and local Rules MJR 3 and 4. Plaintiff has filed a complaint and been given in

forma pauperis status. (Dkt. # 5).

The court reviewed the complaint and was unable to read portions of the complaint (Dkt. # 1

pages 3 and 6). The document is so light it will not copy or scan into the system. The clerks office

will send petitioner copies of document, (complaint to give petitioner an idea how difficult it is to

decipher lightly written documents when they are scanned). 

Plaintiff is ordered to file an amended complaint that is darker. Plaintiff will be given until

Case 3:06-cv-05110-RJB Document 7 Filed 03/23/06 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

April 28th, 2006 to comply with this order. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in a

Report and Recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

The clerk is directed to send a copy of this order and the copies of petitioners filings

to petitioner.

DATED this 22nd day of March, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05110-RJB Document 7 Filed 03/23/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

January 17, 1968

No. P68/11.

protests 66/8727 (A) and 66/26835(A) (New York).

#### Mitsui & Co., Ltd. *v.*United States,

Bao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of cotton velveteens similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Amity*
      *988Fabrics, *Inc.*v. *United States*(51 Cust. Ct. 97, C.D. 2416), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: aleen_o@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:06:36 PM

Dear Leaders,

Please do not allow American taxpayers and insurance companies to have to be forced to be complicit

with baby murder aka abortion by forcing Obamacare contraceptive and sterilization including abortion!

Obamacare has already been declared unconstitutional and should not be continued to be implementing

unless Obama gets a reversal!

Please rescind this unconstitutional, unlawful, unethical and unjust coercion mandating controversial

procedures be covered by private health insurance with no co-pay to patients.

If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for any organizations providing

individual/group insurance with moral or religious objections.

The majority of Americans strongly oppose government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans

especially for drugs and devices breaking the Hippocratic Oath to "First, do no harm" includin ella and

Plan B.

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business with moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees.

This legal mandate clearly violates our spirit of conscience laws prohibiting government discrimination

against those objecting to health services on moral or religious grounds.

The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include churches resulting

in a host of businesses and organizations with conscience objections forced to choose between violating

conscience or not offering employees health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by our federal government supposed to be serving us, not us the government.

It is unacceptable that we be forced to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services,

especially when some of these drugs and procedures can take the life of early unborn children and

harm women.

No Americans should be forced by the federal government to essentially subsidize services objected to! I

again urge you in the strongest way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and

sterilizations from the list of mandatory preventive services.

Thank you for standing up for our Constitutional and human rights--our United States of America

foundation.

Sincerely,

Sincerely,

Aleen O'Sullivan

,
Exhibit 12.1**CERTIFICATION OF OUR CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**  I, Zhi Tan, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Focus Media Holding Limited; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this annual report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisannual report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this annual reportthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal controls over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting.Date: May 6, 2008         By:                                /s/ Zhi Tan    Name:  Zhi Tan    Title:  Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5
<LEGEND>                                      
</LEGEND>                                     
<CIK>                                                   0000875359
<NAME>                                       Micro Linear Corp
<MULTIPLIER>                                                  1000
                                                    
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                     Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                       Mar-31-1999
<CASH>                                                        4797
<SECURITIES>                                                 23383
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 5433
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   818
<INVENTORY>                                                   6458
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             45031
<PP&E>                                                       47121
<DEPRECIATION>                                               26314
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               66379
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        11023
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                        14
<OTHER-SE>                                                   54243
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 66379
<SALES>                                                      10906
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             10906
<CGS>                                                         5651
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 5651
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                              63
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (813)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  (756) 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                            (57)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                                   (57)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   (0.01)
        
                         
 
</TABLE>