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

27

28 Report and Recommendation - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JOHNNIE C. WHITE,

Plaintiff,

v.

KENNETH PAUL SMITH AND

DANIEL MARK FOZZARD.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5170RBL

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

Noted for September 22nd, 2006 

This action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, has been referred to the undersigned

Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The court ordered plaintiff to show

cause why this action should not be dismissed as the facts alleged appear to be intertwined with his

conviction. (Dkt. # 6). Plaintiff asked for, and received, an extension of time to file a response. 

(Dkt. # 7 and 8). Plaintiff has not responded. 

FACTS 

Plaintiff names two Tacoma City Police Officers as defendants, and alleges excessive force 

was used in arresting him on September 23rd, 2004. While plaintiff alleges he offered no resistance to

his arrest, plaintiff was convicted of two counts of third degree assault. One count with regard to

defendant Officer Smith and one count with regard to defendant Officer Fozzard. (Dkt. # 5, page

Case 3:06-cv-05170-RBL Document 9 Filed 08/28/06 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 Report and Recommendation - 2

12).

The court ordered plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed as the facts

alleged appear to be intertwined with his conviction. (Dkt. # 6). Plaintiff did not file a response to

the order to show cause. On June 13th, 2006 plaintiff asked that he be given “the most time possible”

to complete a response. (Dkt. # 7). Plaintiff was nearly two months, until August 11th, 2006, to

have a response filed. As of August 28th, 2006 nothing has been filed.

DISCUSSION

Nothing has been filed as of August 28th, 2006. The court therefore recommends this action

be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and with the dismissal counting as a strike pursuant to the

Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. 1915 (g). Plaintiff has failed to cure the deficiencies in this

action despite being given opportunity to do so. He has also failed to respond to a court order. A

proposed order accompanies this Report and Recommendation. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal rules of Civil Procedure, the

parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report to file written objections. See also Fed.

R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of

appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule

72(b), the clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on September 8th, 2006, as noted in

the caption. 

 DATED this 28th, day of August, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05170-RBL Document 9 Filed 08/28/06 Page 2 of 2
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 78 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to permit Delegates 

and the Resident Commissioner to the Congress to cast votes in the 

Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 19, 2007 

Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. CLYBURN, Mr. EMANUEL, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Mr. BECERRA, and Ms. SLAUGHTER) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

permit Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to the 

Congress to cast votes in the Committee of the Whole 

House on the state of the Union. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. VOTING BY DELEGATES AND RESIDENT COM3 MISSIONER IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. 

4 (a) PERMITTING VOTES TO BE CAST.—Clause 3(a) 

5 of rule III of the Rules of the House of Representatives 

6 is amended to read as follows: 

7 ‘‘3. (a) In a Committee of the Whole House on the 

8 state of the Union, each Delegate and the Resident ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:01 Jan 19, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR78.IH HR78

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 78 IH 

1 missioner shall possess the same powers and privileges as 

2 Members of the House. Each Delegate and the Resident 

3 Commissioner shall be elected to serve on standing com4 mittees in the same manner as Members of the House and 

5 shall possess in such committees the same powers and 

6 privileges as the other members of the committee.’’. 

7 (b) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR.—The first sentence of 

8 clause 1 of rule XVIII of the Rules of the House of Rep9 resentatives is amended by striking ‘‘a Chairman’’ and in10 serting ‘‘a Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commis11 sioner as Chairman’’. 

12 (c) REPEATING OF CERTAIN VOTES.—Clause 6 of 

13 rule XVIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives 

14 is amended by adding at the end the following new para15 graph: 

16 ‘‘(h) Whenever a recorded vote on any question has 

17 been decided by a margin within which the votes cast by 

18 the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner have been 

19 decisive, the Committee of the Whole shall rise and the 

20 Speaker shall put such question de novo without inter21 vening motion. Upon the announcement of the vote on 

22 that question, the Committee of the Whole shall resume 

23 its sitting without intervening motion.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
No. 63881.

protests 82429-K, etc. (New York).

#### Julius Wile Sons & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), 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

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO PAY FINE - 1

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway , Suite 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARNOLD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GENESIS NEWSOME,

Defendant.

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR06-5133

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF

TIME TO PAY FINE

 Upon stipulation of the parties to extend the time to pay the fine in the case of caption, 

the Court finds that such an extension would serve the ends of justice and outweighs the

interest of the public therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the fine be extended until May 15, 2007.

DONE this 15th day of November, 2006.

 s/ J Kelley Arnold 

J. KELLEY ARNOLD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Presented by:

/s/ /s/ 

Miriam Schwartz Capt. Kenneth Tyndal

Attorney for Defendant Special Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:06-cr-05133-MJB Document 15 Filed 11/15/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,241
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                16,400
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      9,609
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          16,719
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            16,722
<LOANS>                                         46,727
<ALLOWANCE>                                        410
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  88,427
<DEPOSITS>                                      80,223
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                552
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,992
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,660
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  88,427
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,213
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  290
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   164
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 1,667
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 580
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 580
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,087
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       20
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    925
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    250
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         190
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       190
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.67
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                       279
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   401
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       17
<RECOVERIES>                                         7
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  410
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               410
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
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 Page 1 ORDER- [C06-5224-KLS]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

CHRISMA CRUMPTON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant

Civil No. C06-5224-KLS

ORDER

Based on the stipulation of the parties it is hereby ORDERED that the above-captioned

case be remanded for further administrative proceedings. Upon remand, the Administrative Law

Judge (ALJ) will update the evidence of record, particularly the evidence from Ina R. Oppliger,

M.D. The ALJ will further consider and evaluate the opinions expressed by Dr. Oppliger, Richard

Price, M.D., and Thomas Clifford, Ph.D., and Janis Lewis, Ph.D., State agency psychological

consultants, and provide rationale for the weight accorded to these opinions. The ALJ will

evaluate Plaintiff’s impairments under the guidelines set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520,

404.1520a, 416.920 and 416.920a, and in Social Security Ruling 02-01p, providing rationale for

Case 3:06-cv-05224-KLS Document 16 Filed 09/11/06 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 Page 2 ORDER- [C06-5224-KLS]

the conclusions reached. The ALJ will further consider Plaintiff’s subjective complaints under the

guidelines set forth in Social Security Ruling 96-7p, address lay witness testimony, and if

necessary, obtain supplemental vocational expert testimony.

This case is reversed and remanded on the above grounds pursuant to sentence four of 

42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2412(d), upon proper request to this Court. 

DATED this 11th day of September, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Presented by:

s/ CAROL A. HOCH WSB # 9289

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

Attorney for Defendant

Office of the General Counsel

701 Fifth Ave, Ste 2900, M/S 901

Phone: 206-615-2684

Fax: 206-615-2531

carol.a.hoch@ssa.gov

Case 3:06-cv-05224-KLS Document 16 Filed 09/11/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
    32.1CERTIFICATION
        OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
        OF
        OAKRIDGE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
        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 Oakridge International Corporation a Nevada corporation (the "Company") on
    Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
    "Report"), Lit Wai Sun, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant
    to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    The
    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
    and(2)
    The
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
    of the Company.  A
    signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Oakridge International Corporation,
    and will be retained by Oakridge International Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
    staff upon request./s/ Lit Wai Sun------------------------------------------Lit Wai SunChief Executive
    OfficerNovember 9, 2015
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-14-0001189 29-DEC-2014 07:48 AM
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6362

JEFFREY LYNN UNDERWOOD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JACK LEE, Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-141-R) Submitted: June 9, 1998 Decided: June 23, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Lynn Underwood, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Underwood v. Lee , No. CA-98-141-R (W.D. Va. Mar. 5, 1998). We deny Underwood’s motion to appoint counsel and his motion for permission to refile his habeas petition in state court. 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
To:           Barry Lyons

From:         Jack Keiser

Date:         April 12, 2000

Re:           Transition Bonus


As you know, Thermo Electron has undertaken an aggressive reorganization plan.
This restructuring is critical for the long term health and success of Thermo
Electron.

This transition will take up to two years to complete. To make the transition
successfully, it is important that we retain your services during this period.

To provide you with an incentive to support the company through this transition,
Thermo Electron is offering you a transition bonus equal to 100% of your annual
base salary. This bonus will be paid to you on July 1, 2001.

Since this bonus will be considered income it will be subject to appropriate
federal, state, city and other tax withholding requirements.

As always, your employment during this period will continue to be as an
employee-at-will. If you elect to leave the company voluntarily Prior to July 1,
2001 you will forfeit this bonus.

If your employment is terminated during this transition period without cause,
your transition bonus will be paid to you at that time.

Termination of your employment for cause during this period (e.g. for gross
personal misconduct, insubordination, misappropriation of funds, fraud,
dishonesty, gross neglect of or failure to perform the duties reasonably
required of you, or any conduct which is in willful violation of any applicable
law or regulation pertaining to Thermo Electron) will also result in the
forfeiture of this bonus.

You will also be paid a prorated portion of your annual reference bonus for the
time you have worked in 2001 at the time your employment is severed.


<PAGE>





This agreement supercedes the bonus offer made to you on January 18,2000 and
constitutes the entire agreement between us. That original bonus commitment is
now null and void.

I appreciate your past contributions to our company and look forward to working
with you as we reorganize our business to assure our future success. If you have
any questions regarding any of the terms of this agreement, please do not
hesitate to contact me.

Once you have read and understood the terms of this offer, please indicate your
agreement by signing below on the line above your typewritten name, make a copy
for your records and return the original document to Joe Momyer.





-------------------------------                  -----------------------
         Barry Lyons                                          Date
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER - 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

BADEN SPORTS, INC.

Plaintiff,

v.

KABUSHIKI KAISHA MOLTEN (DBA

MOLTEN CORPORATION) and MOLTEN

U.S.A., INC., 

Defendants.

No. C06-210MJP

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION 

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the Court’s

order excluding Craig Barker as a witness. (Dkt. No. 291.)

In this district, motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The Court will ordinarily deny

such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new

facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable

diligence. Local Civil Rule 7(h). For the reasons explained on the record during trial on August 9,

2007, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

Dated: August 13th, 2007.

AMarsha J. Pechman

 United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00210-MJP Document 308 Filed 08/13/07 Page 1 of 1
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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/
Stephen VintzStephen VintzChief Financial Officer, Executive VicePresident, Treasurer and Secretary
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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION TO DENY

APPLICATION TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Noted for July 21, 2006

This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. Plaintiff is an inmate at the Stafford Creek Corrections Center. He

filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. # 1), but then subsequently paid the $250.00 Court

filing fee (Dkt. #6). Accordingly, because plaintiff has paid the filing fee, the Court should deny the

application. 

DISCUSSION

A district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon completion of a

proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, the court has broad discretion in

denying an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963),

cert. denied, 375 U.S. 845 (1963).

On March 21, 2006, plaintiff filed his complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis.

(Dkt. #1). On May 10, 2006, the Court ordered plaintiff to cure a certain deficiency in his application by

Case 3:06-cv-05154-RJB Document 14 Filed 06/23/06 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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 2

no later than June 10, 2006, or this matter could be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Dkt. #5). On June

14, 2006, plaintiff paid the $250.00 Court filing fee. (Dkt. #6). Thus, because plaintiff has paid the filing

fee, his application to proceed in forma pauperis is moot. 

CONCLUSION

Because plaintiff has paid the Court filing fee, the undersigned recommends that the Court deny his

application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R.

Civ. P.”), petitioner shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file

written objections thereto. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of

those objections for purposes of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time

limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the clerk is directed set this matter for consideration on July 21, 2006, as

noted in the caption. 

DATED this 23rd day of June, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05154-RJB Document 14 Filed 06/23/06 Page 2 of 2