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

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. 

JERON MARK HANSON,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 05-194M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offense charged: 

Violations of Conditions of Pretrial Release — District of Montana.

Date of Detention Hearing: April 28th, 2005.

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

that no condition or combination of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure

the appearance of defendant as required and the safety of other persons and the community.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) The Pretrial Services Report dated April 28, 2005, indicates the defendant has

violated his condition of pretrial release by incurring new criminal charges for attempting to bribe

a U.S. Pretrial Services employee, removing his electronic monitoring device, and leaving his

residence without permission. In addition, defendant has provided the Court with false

Case 2:05-mj-00194-JPD Document 5 Filed 04/28/05 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

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

information as to his identity, using an alias name as well as his brother’s background information.

(2) There appear to be no conditions or combination of conditions that will reasonably

assure the defendant’s appearance at future Court hearings.

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 29th day of April, 2005.

s/ JAMES P. DONOHUE 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-mj-00194-JPD Document 5 Filed 04/28/05 Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-36-2023]

On June 1, 2023, Nexsus Cocoa Services LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its anticipated facility within FTZ 142, in Southern New Jersey.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (88 FR 38019, June 12, 2023). On September 29, 2023, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time, with the exception of the foreign-status component “refined white sugar,” which was not authorized. The production activity described in the notification was authorized for the other requested finished products and foreign-status components, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including section 400.14. If the applicant wishes to seek authorization for the foreign-status component “refined white sugar”, it will need to submit an application for production authority, pursuant to section 400.23.                

Dated: September 29, 2023.

Elizabeth Whiteman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2023-22130 Filed 10-4-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
No. 57029.

protest 193722-K (New York).

#### Bleyco Paper Corp. *v.*United States,

*320Opinion by

Olives, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cellophane sheets similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Coughlin Mfg. Co.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 40, C. D. 1345) and *Gillette Safety Razor Co.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 44, C. D. 1346), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

VISHAL SINGH UPPAL

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

JOSEPH WILLIE, et al.,

CASE NUMBER: C06-5167FDB

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried

and the jury has rendered its verdict.

 XX Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been

tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

 IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation; and

This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This dismissal is based on Plaintiff’s failure

to prosecute the action and Plaintiff’s failure to take the steps ordered by the court to file a joint

status report. It appears plaintiff has abandoned this action.

 July 24, 2007 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Date Clerk

 s/CM Gonzalez 

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:06-cv-05167-FDB Document 39 Filed 07/24/07 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.1  CERTIFICATIONS  I, Scott Emerson Lybbert, certify that:  1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of TGFIN Holdings, Inc.;  2.   Based upon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statements 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly represent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:  a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report (the Evaluation Date"); and  c)   presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;  5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and  b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and  6.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this report whether there were significant changes in   internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.   /s/ Scott Emerson Lybbert       Chief Executive Officer -------------------------- Scott Emerson Lybbert        April 24, 2007
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ORDER ON IN CAMERA REVIEW OF 

DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ZACHARY 

MIRABACK- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

HENRY C. ROSENAU,

Defendant.

CASE NO. CR06-157MJP

ORDER ON IN CAMERA REVIEW 

OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO 

ZACHARY MIRABACK

This matter comes before the Court on the government’s submission of sealed documents 

relating to Zachary Miraback, who was formerly identified as a witness for the government, but 

has since been stricken from the government’s witness list. At the pretrial conference on April 

12, 2012, the Court ordered the government to turn over the documents for in camera review.

The Court has reviewed the documents, Bates stamped 1829 – 1907, and finds no 

potentially exculpatory material. Therefore, the documents need not be disclosed to Defendant. 

\

\

\

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 99 Filed 04/16/12 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

ORDER ON IN CAMERA REVIEW OF 

DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ZACHARY 

MIRABACK- 2

Marsha J. Pechman

United States District Judge

The clerk is ordered to file these documents under ex parte seal.

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

Dated this 16th day of April, 2012.

A

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 99 Filed 04/16/12 Page 2 of 2
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

44) ll-K- (B) -32 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:49 AM Sheet 44 of 325 
P.2 

/&^gP 

II-K-(B)-32 

ALGORITHMS FOR EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES. 

Letter from E. Medine, EEA to A. Wehe, EPArSASD. 

March 25, 1980. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(B)-32
CERAM Budgetary Proposal 

Hartenstein RFP 

(CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT)
September 29, 1959

No. 63414.

Suit 4958.

#### United States *v.*Baker Perkins, Inc., and R. F. Downing & Co., Inc.

C.D. 1961 reversed July 7, 1959. C.A.D. 714.
October 2, 1956

No. 60275.

Suit 4849.

#### United States *v.*J. Eisenberg, Inc.

Abstract 59106 reversed April 18, 1956. C. A. D. 616.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-192406) pertaining to the 2006 Stock Incentive Plan, 2013Stock Incentive Plan, and 2013 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. of our report dated March 6, 2014, with respect to the financial statements of Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) forthe year ended December 31, 2013. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

San Diego, California 

March 6, 2014
#### Don CAMPBELL, also known as Donald Lee, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John B. GROVES, Charles Williams, and Howard A. Peters, III, Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 01-1426, 01-1851.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted April 10, 2001.

Decided July 10, 2001.

*434Before RIPPLE, DIANE P. WOOD, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Plaintiff Don Campbell sued several prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking compensatory and punitive damages as well as attorney’s fees for alleged deprivations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. On October 7, 1998, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Campbell on his Eighth Amendment claims against defendants John Groves, Charles Williams, and Howard Peters. After the district court denied their motion for judgment as a matter of law, these defendants appealed to this court (No. 99-3775).

While their appeal was pending, Campbell moved for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and on January 23, 2001, the district court awarded him $45,550.48 in attorney’s fees. On February 22, 2001, the defendants filed the appeal in No. 01-1426 from the fee award. Later, on March 15, 2001, the district court awarded Campbell $8,829.21 in fees for time spent litigating the fee petition. On April 9, 2001, the defendants filed their appeal in No. 01-1851 from that order.

In an opinion issued today, we have reversed the jury verdict in favor of Campbell and remanded the case to the district court to enter judgment as a matter of law in favor of Groves, Peters, and Williams, on the ground that they were entitled to qualified immunity. In light of this outcome, the district court’s awards of attorney’s fees must also be reversed. See *Pardo v. Hosier,*946 F.2d 1278, 1285 (7th Cir.1991) (“When a judgment on which an award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party is based is reversed, the award, of course, falls with it.”), quoting *Palmer v. City of Chicago,*806 F.2d 1316, 1320 (7th Cir.1986). Both fee awards are hereby Vacated and the case is Remanded for entry of judgment consistent with this order.
Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,


18
U.S.C. Section 1350











I, Robert
Papiri, President, Secretary and Treasurer of Alchemical Capital Corp. (the
“Corporation”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to my knowledge that:




1.  the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Corporation for the year ended December 31,
2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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




Date:  March
      31, 2009
                  By:
                  /s/ Robert
      PapiriRobert
      PapiriPresident,
      Secretary and Treasurer
                    (Principal
      Accounting
Officer)
C:\Users\1096\OneDrive\FMCS\DOE RegNeg 2014\Term Sheet Road Map.twdx

Tuesday, September 09, 2014 

# Term Sheet Road Map - "To Do " Items as determined on 9/9
Other discussions Labels Enforcment and compliance Space/water heating Window Types (Allowable) 

### For 9/9/2014

Presentation Navigant: Scope, template, sturcture, definitions for Term Sheet Presentation: Manny - IECC 2015 Inclusion/Exclusion/Discussion Presentation E. Levy - Discussion on Solar heat gain/ multiple strawboys 

### For 9/22/2014 Affordability 

### When cost data becomes available (End of this week) Climate Zones Actual Performance Levels: For determined paths and product types Paths to compliance 

# Term Sheet Road Map - "To Do " Items as determined on 9/9
Before the First Division,

October 13, 1966

No. P66/263. —

No. P66/264. —

No. P66/265. —

#### Morris Friedman *v.*United States, protests 58/7854, etc. (Philadelphia). Morris Friedman *v.*United States, protests 59/26126, etc. (Philadelphia). Morris Friedman *v.*United States, protests 61/6560, etc. (Philadelphia).

*817Niohols, J.

In accordance with, stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of bags or baskets in chief value of rush similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Carson M. Simon & Co.*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 103, C.D. 2558), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Indus trial H yg i ene Issues C oncerni n g th e E PA NCEL
Order entered October 3, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00967
- CV
IN RE TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNI VERSITY, TEXAS CHRIS TIAN UNIVERSITY BOAR D OF TRUSTEES, GARY PA TTE RSON, CHRIS DEL CONT E, DAVID GABLE, ZACH LACROSS, DILLON SMIT H, JAMES RUSSELL "RU STY" BURNS, AND DOUG LAS MEACHUM, Relators Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 18
- 00585
- A



### O RDER Before Justic es Bridges, Brown, and Boatright Before the Court are real party in interest Kolby Listenbee’s motion to abate and amended motion for extension of time to file response brief. We DENY the motion to abate.
We GRANT the amended motion for extension and OR DER the real party in interest to file his response brief, if any, by October 15, 2018

.
/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE
# Official Journal L 304/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 304 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6318 September 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 304

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6318 September 2020

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1298 of 13 July 2020 amending the Annex to Regulation (EU) 2019/452 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union | 1 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1299 of 11 September 2020 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Szilvásváradi pisztráng’ (PGI)) | 4 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1300 of 11 September 2020 approving a non-minor amendment to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [‘Asiago’ (PDO)] | 5 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Decision (EU) 2020/1301 of 17 September 2020 approving, on behalf of the European Union, the modification of Appendix 1 to Annex XIII to the Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, of the other part | 6 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1298 of 13 July 2020 amending the Annex to Regulation (EU) 2019/452 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union

1

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1299 of 11 September 2020 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Szilvásváradi pisztráng’ (PGI))

4

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1300 of 11 September 2020 approving a non-minor amendment to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [‘Asiago’ (PDO)]

5

DECISIONS

*

Commission Decision (EU) 2020/1301 of 17 September 2020 approving, on behalf of the European Union, the modification of Appendix 1 to Annex XIII to the Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, of the other part

6

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

PATRICIA BELL WATKINS,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Respondent.

Case No. C06-5141FDB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This habeas corpus petition has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant

to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrates' Rules MJR 3 and MJR

4. Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. # 1 and 2). 

Originally petitioner only named the state of Washington as a respondent. (Dkt. # 1 and 2). 

Petitioner is challenging a driving under the influence, DUI, conviction but did not indicate in the

petition or the amended petition what sentence was imposed. (Dkt. # 1 and 2). 

The court entered an order to amend the caption or file an amended petition as only the state

had been named as a respondent. (Dkt. # 4). Petitioner responded and states she is not currently

incarcerated and she seeks to challenge a “future sentence”, presumably for the aforementioned DUI

Case 3:06-cv-05141-FDB Document 6 Filed 05/24/06 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

conviction. (Dkt. # 5). Again, petitioner fails to inform the court what sentence was imposed, or if

sentencing has actually occurred. Petitioner does indicate her appeals have been denied in state

court. (Dkt. # 5).

A petition for habeas corpus must be filed by a person who is in custody at the time of filing. 

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (c), § 2254 (a), § 2255. Although a petitioner may challenge a future consecutive

sentence while in custody, there is no indication that petitioner is addressing a consecutive sentence. 

Petitioner in this case does not appear to meet the in custody requirement for filing a habeas corpus

petition. Accordingly, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this petition should not

be dismissed.

In responding to this order petitioner will inform the court of her current custodial status and

what “future sentence” she is challenging, specifically identify the sanction or future jail term that is

at issue. Petitioner will have until June 24th, 2006 to comply with this order and if no response is

filed or if the response is inadequate the court will recommend dismissal of ths action.

The clerk is ordered to send copies of this order to the petitioner and to note this matter for

the courts June 24th, 2006 calendar.

DATED this 23rd day of May, 2006. 

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05141-FDB Document 6 Filed 05/24/06 Page 2 of 2