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

MINUTE ORDER 

PAGE – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

RAFAEL DOMINGO ESMERIO,

Petitioner,

v.

ALBERTO GONAZALES, et al.,

Respondents.

CASE NO. C06-411-RSL-JPD

MINUTE ORDER

The following Minute Order is made at the direction of the Court, the Hon. James P.

Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge: 

Having considered petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file a response to

respondents’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #14), the Court hereby grants petitioner until June 26,

2006, to file a response. Respondents’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #11) is re-noted on the Court’s

calendar for consideration on June 30, 2006.

DATED this 5th day of June, 2006.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

 By: /s/ Peter Voelker 

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00411-RSL Document 15 Filed 06/05/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the annual report of DNA Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2010 (the "Report"), I, Wilson Cheung, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  /s/Wilson Cheung Wilson Cheung, Principal Financial Officer July 29, 2010
#### Surik AMBARCHYAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry G. MASSANARI*, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 99-56853.

D.C. No. CV-97-07648-AAH (AN).

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 4, 2001.

Decided May 2, 2001.

Before HUG, DUHÉ, ** and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Larry G. Massanari is substituted for his predecessor, Kenneth Apfel, as Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 The Honorable John M. Duhé Jr., Senior Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

We affirm the District Court’s summary judgment order denying Surik Ambarchyan supplemental security income disability benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act.

In 1991, Ambarchyan applied for supplemental security income disability benefits. The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) determined that Ambarchyan was not “disabled” within the meaning of the Social Security Act and denied his application accordingly. Ambarchyan then requested and received a hearing before an SSA administrative law judge (“ALJ”). In 1994, an ALJ, considering Ambarehyan’s disability claim *de novo,*also determined that Ambarchyan was not disabled. Ambarchyan appealed the ALJ’s decision to the SSA Appeals Council. The SSA Appeals Council, in turn, remanded Ambarchyan’s case to another ALJ for reevaluation. In 1995, the second ALJ concluded that Ambarchyan was not disabled.

Ambarchyan asked the SSA Appeals Council to review the second ALJ’s decision. When the Appeals Council declined to review the second ALJ’s decision, that decision became the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”). Ambarchyan appealed the Commissioner’s decision to the District Court. In 1999, the District Court found that substantial evidence supported the Commissioner’s decision and, therefore, granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. Ambarchyan appeals the District Court’s summary judgment.

Because the Commissioner applied the proper legal standards in determining that Ambarchyan was not disabled and because our review of the record indicates that substantial evidence supported the Com*499missioner’s decision, we affirm. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind could consider adequate to support a conclusion. *Taylor v. Heckler,*765 F.2d 872, 875 (9th Cir.1985). The record here contains relevant evidence that could cause a reasonable mind to conclude that Ambarchyan is not disabled.

That two ALJs and the SSA Appeals Council reached this very conclusion assures us that Ambarchyan’s claims have been fully and fairly vetted.

AFFIRMED.

***

 jjjjg disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
No. 57052.

protest 164853-K (New York).

#### The Rudy Patrick Seed Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bird’s-foot trefoil seed *(Lotus cornieulatus)*similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Transcontinental Seed, Inc.*(Alltransport, Incorporated) v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 163, C. D. 1462), 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 GRANTING MOTIONS TO 

FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

PETER TILTON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

THE MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES, INC.,

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-0098RSL

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO

FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

This matter comes before the Court on three motions to seal: (1) defendants’ motion to

file their motion to dismiss and supporting declarations and exhibits under seal (Dkt. #35), (2)

plaintiff’s motion to file his opposition and supporting documents under seal (Dkt. #53), and (3)

defendants’ motion to file their reply memorandum and supporting documents under seal (Dkt.

#59). Filing entire motions and all related documents under seal is disfavored. However, in this

case, the documents filed under seal include descriptions of plaintiff’s psychological and mental

state, medical and financial information, and other highly sensitive personal information. The

Court finds that the parties have made a compelling showing that the public’s right of access is

outweighed by the interests of the public and the parties in protecting the filings from public

review. 

Case 2:06-cv-00098-RSL Document 86 Filed 01/03/07 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 GRANTING MOTIONS TO 

FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL - 2

Pursuant to Local Rule 5(g), it is therefore ordered that the motions to seal are

GRANTED. Counsel properly filed docket entries 36, 37, 38, 54, 55, 56, 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 71,

72, 73, and 78 under seal, and they shall remain sealed.

 

DATED this 3rd day of January, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00098-RSL Document 86 Filed 01/03/07 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                        7286 
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               108133 
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            192308 
<PP&E>                                       39707 
<DEPRECIATION>                              (16939)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              415874 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      1283363 
<BONDS>                                     768750 
<COMMON>                                  21344130 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                 198000 
<OTHER-SE>                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                415874 
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            382403 
<CGS>                                       273951 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                71765 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              1249 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           23114 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          36686 
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 12323 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donna Bowels, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 620]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered June 30, 1994, convicting her of man*606slaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court improperly marshaled the evidence in its charge to the jury. Since the defendant failed to object to the charge now claimed to have been improper, her claim is unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]).

The defendant also asserts that the court erred in admitting her arrest photographs into evidence. As the appearance of the defendant at trial was dramatically different from that at the time of the crime and as the photographs corroborated trial testimony, the court properly admitted the photographs into evidence *(see, People v Pobliner,*32 NY2d 356, *rearg denied*33 NY2d 657, *cert denied*416 US 905; *People v Lakram,*207 AD2d 360, *Iv denied*84 NY2d 1034, *cert denied*— US —, 116 S Ct 235). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Scott F. Drill, certify that:

1.
        I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Insignia Systems, Inc.;


2.
        Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present 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 officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:


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 is made known to us by others within the Registrant, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;


b)
        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;


c)
        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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;


5.
        The registrants
other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):


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; 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 over financial reporting.






Date:  May 14, 2007
        /s/ Scott F. DrillScott F. DrillPresident and Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)




---
(Reap. Dec. 10561)

#### Los Angeles Tile Jobbers *v.*United States

Entry Nos. *39382;*35906.

(Decided July 8, 1963)

*Lawrence & Tuttle (Edward N. Glad*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General *(James F. O’Hara,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties herein:

> Me. Glad : I offer to stipulate that the merchandise covered by both appeals consists of mosaic tile exported by S.A.I.V.O., from Italy, during April and May of 1957.

> I further offer to stipulate that during the period in question the freely offered prices of such or similar merchandise for consumption in Italy in the usual

> *328wholesale quantities at the principal markets, and in the ordinary course of trade, for each category, per square meter, were as follows:

> Category NC, 2,200 lira;

> Category NS, 2,400 lira;

> Category AN, 2,550 lira;

> Category GG, 6,000 lira;

> Category RA, 9,000 lira;

> Plus 40 lira per square meter packed, plus 3%.

> 1 further offer to stipulate that during the period in question no higher export value as defined by Section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification [sic] Act of 1938, for such or similar merchandise existed.

> Me. O’Haea : I have discussed this matter with Examiner Clouse of this port, and with his concurrence X so stipulate.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the glass articles here in question, and that said value for each category, per square meter, was as follows:

> Category NO, 2,200 lira;

> Category NS, 2,400 lira;

> Category AN, 2,550 lira;

> Category GG, 6,000 lira;

> Category RA, 9,000 lira;

Plus 40 lira per square meter packed, plus 3 percent.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
Mohanad Shurrab, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge,
the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Interpro Management Corp. for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Interpro Management
Corp.






Date:
      June 29, 2009
                  By:
                  /s/
      Mohanad ShurrabMohanad
      Shurrab, President, Treasurer and
Director
  This
certification accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that
section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the
extent that Interpro Management Corp. specifically incorporates it by
reference.
CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











In
      connection with this Annual Report of Red Rock Pictures Holdings Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ending August 31, 2007, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Robert Levy, Chief Executive Officer and Principal
      Accounting Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1.

      Such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ending August 31, 2007,
      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 such Yearly Report on Form 10-KSB for the year
      ending August 31, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of Red Rock Pictures Holdings
      Inc.






Dated:
                December 19, 2007




RED
      ROCK PICTURES HOLDINGS INC.




By:
            /s/
                Robert
                Levy


Robert
      Levy


Chief
      Executive Officer,


Principal
      Financial and Principal
      Accounting Officer
No. 61622.

#### The Best Foods, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 305956-K (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

Plaintiff having raised no objection and following *The Best Foods, Inc.*v. *United States*(37 Cust. Ct. 1, C. D. 1791), the motion was granted.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 
| ****                     |
|--------------------------|
|  Sallie  Mae, Inc.  |
|  12061 Bluemont Way |
|  Reston,VA 20190    |

 

 

**Annual Officer Certificate**

** **

**SLM Student Loan Trust 2005-5**

 

Pursuant to Section 3.1 of the Administration Agreement (the“Agreement”) and Section 3.9 of the Trust Indenture (“the Indenture”), we, theundersigned, hereby certify that (I) a review has been made of the activitiesand performance of the Servicer and Administrator from January 1, 2005 throughDecember 31, 2005, and (II) to the best of our knowledge, the Servicer and Administratorhave fulfilled their obligations under the Agreement throughout such period.Additionally, pursuant to Section 11.1(b) (v) of the Indenture, alldispositions of collateral that occurred during the above period were in theordinary course of the issuer’s business and the proceeds thereof were appliedin accordance with the basic documents.

 

 

March 27, 2006

 

 
| /S/ TED A. MORRIS  |   | /S/ J. LANCE FRANKE |   |
|--------------------|--------|---------------------|--------|
| Authorized Officer |   | Authorized Officer  |

 

----
* 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. 00-20309

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE HERNANDEZ-BENAVIDEZ, 

also known as Jose Hernandez Benavidez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-99-CR-677-1

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

February 15, 2001

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

In this appeal following his guilty-plea conviction for

illegally reentering the United States after having been

deported, Jose Hernandez-Benavidez challenges the enhancement of

his sentence pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). He argues that use

of his prior aggravated-felony conviction to enhance his sentence

violates due process, the “jury guarantees” of the Sixth

Amendment, his right to indictment by a grand jury, his

protection from double jeopardy, and his right to a unanimous
No. 00-20309

-2-

jury verdict on each element of the offense. Because HernandezBenavidez failed to raise his challenge in the district court,

our review is for plain error. See United States v. Meshack, 225

F.3d 556, 575 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 834 (2001). 

 In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998),

the Supreme Court held that a prior felony conviction under 

§ 1326(b)(2) was merely a sentencing factor and thus need not be

included in the indictment. In light of the clear precedent in

Almendarez-Torres, Hernandez-Benavidez has failed to show error,

plain or otherwise, in his indictment or sentence. See United

States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), petition for

cert. filed, (U.S. Jan. 26, 2001) (No. 00-8299).

 AFFIRMED.
From: dolphinluver1821@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:20:49 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization 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 that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as 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 that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

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

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

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

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object 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.

Sincerely,

Alyssa Gunderman

Philadelphia, PA 19121