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

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

PHILLIP IRA SCHEFFLIN,

Petitioner,

v.

RICHARD MORGAN,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5696FDB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION AND

DENYING PETITION

The Magistrate Judge recommends that this habeas petition be dismissed as untimely. Petitioner

filed an untimely petition in State Court, which he appealed to all levels, finally being denied discretionary

review by the Washington Supreme Court on statute of limitations grounds. As detailed by the Magistrate

Judge, the one-year statute of limitations began to run on August 30, 2003 and expired August 30, 2004. 

Petitioner did not file his habeas corpus petition with this Court until October 17, 2005. Moreover, the

untimely state court petition for post-sentence relief did not toll the federal statute of limitations because

the petition did not constitute a “properly filed” petition.” See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, _____U.S. _____

(2005). 

Petitioner has filed objections asserting that he did file his federal petition timely but that it was lost

in the mail. He states that he then refiled, but when he called to find the status of his case, he was told

there was no case on record. He asserts malfunction of the compute at Stafford Creek, and argues that

pursuit of the state remedies should not count against him. He asserts new evidence coming in the form of

a witness affidavit stating that the alleged victim lied and that the crime did not happen. There is no

Case 3:05-cv-05696-FDB Document 20 Filed 05/26/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

evidence to verify Petitioner’s assertions, and they are insufficient to convince this court that his untimely

petition should be considered. 

The Court, having reviewed the petition, the Report and Recommendation of the Hon. J. Kelley

Arnold, United States Magistrate Judge, objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the remaining

record, does hereby find and Order:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED;

(3) Petitioner’s pending motions are moot and/or inappropriate and therefore DENIED; and

(4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner, to counsel for respondent,

and to the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold.

DATED this 26th day of May 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05696-FDB Document 20 Filed 05/26/06 Page 2 of 2
No. P66/267. —

#### Bloomingdale Bros. (a div. of Fed. Dept. Stores, Inc.) *v.*United States, protests 65/23555 and 65/25560 (New York).

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of electric coffee grinders, having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, without which the articles will not operate, and that the issues involved are analogous to those in *Bruce Duncan*Company, *a/c Sims-Worms*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 85, C.D. 2202) and *United States*v. *Electrolux Corporation*(46 CCPA 143, C.A.D. 718), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                                                  Exhibit 11.1
                                                   Micro Linear Corporation
                                        Statement Re Computation of Earnings Per Share
                                                         (Unaudited)
                                            (In thousands, except per share data)

                                                                Three Months                       Six Months
                                                                    Ended                            Ended
                                                                  June 30,                          June 30,
                                                        ------------------------------    -----------------------------
<S>                                                        <C>              <C>              <C>              <C> 
                                                           1997             1996             1997             1996
                                                        ------------    --------------    ------------    -------------

    Net income......................................         $2,487            $1,836          $4,691           $4,819
                                                        ============    ==============    ============    =============

    PRIMARY:
    Weighted average common shares outstanding......         11,829            12,343          11,912           12,385

    Common equivalents attributable to:
         Convertible preferred shares...............              -                 -               -                -
         Options and warrants.......................          1,565             1,152           1,451            1,132
                                                        ------------    --------------    ------------    -------------
    Total weighted average common and common
         equivalent shares outstanding..............         13,394            13,495          13,363           13,518
                                                        ============    ==============    ============    =============

    Net income per share............................       $   0.19          $   0.14        $   0.35         $   0.36
                                                        ============    ==============    ============    =============

</TABLE>
# Official Journal C 145A/15 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 145A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5715 May 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 145A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5715 May 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2014/C 145A/01 | Notice of open competitions — EPSO/AD/279/14 — Danish-language (DA) Lawyer-linguists (AD 7) — EPSO/AD/280/14 — Finnish-language (FI) Lawyer-linguists (AD 7) — EPSO/AD/281/14 — Slovak-language (SK) Lawyer-linguists (AD 7) — EPSO/AD/282/14 — Slovenian-language (SL) Lawyer-linguists (AD 7) — EPSO/AD/283/14 — Swedish-language (SV) Lawyer-linguists (AD 7) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2014/C 145A/01

Notice of open competitions — EPSO/AD/279/14 — Danish-language (DA) Lawyer-linguists (AD 7) — EPSO/AD/280/14 — Finnish-language (FI) Lawyer-linguists (AD 7) — EPSO/AD/281/14 — Slovak-language (SK) Lawyer-linguists (AD 7) — EPSO/AD/282/14 — Slovenian-language (SL) Lawyer-linguists (AD 7) — EPSO/AD/283/14 — Swedish-language (SV) Lawyer-linguists (AD 7)

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 145A/02 | Review of ‘Competition’ C A Official Journals | 12 |

2014/C 145A/02

Review of ‘Competition’ C A Official Journals

12

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Before the Second Division,

June 12, 1967

No. P67/190.

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/16938, etc. (San Diego).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of blocked or trimmed palm leaf harvest hats similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Bailey-Mora Co., Inc., a/c Vera Lou, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 55, C.D. 2508), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case No. 14,872.

#### UNITED STATES v. COTTINGHAM.

[2 Blatchf. 470.] 1

Circuit Court, N. D. New York.

Oct. 20, 1852.

Juki—Peremptory Challenges—W hen Allowed —Embezzlement from Mail—Decoy Letter.

1. Peremptory challenges to jurors are not allowed in the courts of the United States in any other than capital cases, even though they are allowed in other cases by the state law.

[Cited in U. S. v. Randall, Case No. 16,118; U. S. y. Coppersmith, 4 Fed. 199.]

2. A decoy-letter, containing money, mailed for the purpose of entrapping a clerk in a post-office, who opens it and takes the money, is within the 21st section of the act of March 3, 1825 (4 Stat. 107).

[Cited in U. S.- v. Whittier, Case No. 16,688; U. S. v. Rapp, 30 Fed. 822; U. S. y. Wight, 38 Fed. 109; Walster v. U. S.. 42 Fed. 896;* XL S. y. Grimm, 50 Fed. 530.]

This was an indictment against [George Cot-üngham] a clerk in the post office at Albany, New-York, under the 21st section of the act of March 3, 1825 (4 Stat. 107), for opening a letter and stealing money therefrom. The punishment fixed by law for the offence was imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than twenty-one years. On the trial, the counsel for the prisoner claimed the right to challenge peremptorily twenty of the jurors, under the provisions of the 2d section of the state statute (2 Rev. St. 734, § 9), which is as follows: “Every person arraigned and put on trial for any offence punishable with death, or with imprisonment in a state prison ten years or any longer time, shall be entitled to challenge peremptorily twenty of the persons drawn as jurors for such trial, and no more.” The letter containing money, which it was proved the prisoner had opened, and from which he had taken the money, was a decoy-letter, prepared and mailed by an officer of the government for the purpose of entrapping the prisoner. The counsel for the prisoner raised the objection that such a letter was not within the act.

James R. Lawrence, U. S. Dist. Atty. .

Deodatus Wright, for prisoner.

1

 [Reported by Samuel Blatchford. Esq., and here reprinted by permission.]

THE COURT

decided that the prisoner had no right to any of the peremptory challenges claimed, because such challenges were not allowed at common law in any other than capital cases. See note to U. S. v. Reed [Case No. 16,134.]

It also charged the jury that the purpose for- which the letter from which the money was taken was mailed, was not a question un-' der the act.
#### In re Kenneth TRIBBLE, Petitioner.

No. 01-6475.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 5, 2001.

Decided June 26, 2001.

*94Kenneth Tribble, Petitioner pro se.

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Tribble petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to act upon his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 *&*Supp.2000). The district court entered a final order on May 11, 2001, denying relief on Tribble’s § 2254 petition. Accordingly, although we grant Tribble’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, as amended, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel GUTIERREZ-NIETO, also known as Daniel Gutierrez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-40549.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Daniel Gutierrez-Nieto (“Gutierrez”) appeals the 40-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States following deportation. He argues, for the first time on appeal, that the district court erred in sentencing him under a mandatory guideline scheme, citing *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

Gutierrez asserts that the district court’s application of the guidelines as mandatory is a “structural error” that is “insusceptible” of harmless error analysis. Alternatively, he asserts that the error should be presumed prejudicial. Gutierrez’s arguments have been rejected by this court in *United States v. Martinez-Lugo,*411 F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir.2005). We review for plain error. *See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d 728, 732-33 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(July *32525, 2005) (No. 05-5556). The district court committed error that is plain when it sentenced Gutierrez under a mandatory guideline scheme. *See id.*at 733; *Martinez-Lugo,*411 F.3d at 600. Gutierrez, however, fails to meet his burden of showing that the district court’s error affected his substantial rights. *See Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d at 733-34; *United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 521-22 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517); *see also United States v. Bringier,*405 F.3d 310, 317 & n. 4 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(July 26, 2005)(No. 05-5535).

As he concedes, Gutierrez’s argument that the sentencing provisions in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) are unconstitutional is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). *See Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000); *United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). Accordingly, Gutierrez’s sentence is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
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

WILLIAM C. ULERY,

Petitioner,

v.

DOUG WADDINGTON,

Respondent.

Case No. C06-5192RBL

 ORDER DENYING COUNSEL

This 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition has been assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge.

Petitioner has filed a letter asking how to get counsel appointed to him. (Dkt. #11). The letter was

not served on opposing counsel, however, the court considers the letter as a motion for appointment

of counsel.

There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless an

evidentiary hearing is required, because the action is civil, not criminal, in nature. See Terravona v.

Kincheloe, 852 F.2d 424, 429 (9th Cir. 1988); Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir.

1992); and Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 

Case 3:06-cv-05192-RBL Document 12 Filed 06/01/06 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

An evidentiary hearing has not been granted in this case. Further, the claims in the petition are

adequately set forth and articulated. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. # 11) is

therefore DENIED.

The clerk is directed to send copies of this order to petitioner and counsel for respondent.

DATED this 1st day of June, 2006. 

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05192-RBL Document 12 Filed 06/01/06 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JAMES ERNEST DICKERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROL PORTER et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5235RJB

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

NOTED FOR:

August 11th, 2006, 2006

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 proposed complaint and

applied for in forma pauperis status. (Dkt. # 1).

The court reviewed the in forma pauperis application and entered an Order To Show Cause. 

(Dkt. # 5). The order gave plaintiff until July 7th, 2006 to cure a number of defects in his application. 

Plaintiff has not complied.

The 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

Case 3:06-cv-05235-RJB-JKA Document 6 Filed 07/20/06 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

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).

Based on the above, the Court should deny plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis,. 

Plaintiff has not shown that is unable to pay the full filing fee to proceed with his lawsuit. Mr. Dickerson

has failed to comply with a court order and failed to cure the deficiencies in his application. The court

should direct Mr. Dickerson to pay the filing within 30 days of the court’s order and if he fails to pay the

filing fee the clerk should be directed to dismiss this matter.

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 August 11th, 2006, as noted in the

caption.

DATED this 20th day of July, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05235-RJB-JKA Document 6 Filed 07/20/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 99 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 99

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That, for the purpose of section 1082(b)(1)(B) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, the display of the POW/MIA flag 
at the Capitol shall begin at 6:30 p.m. on Sunday, May 24, 1998. As 
used in this section, the term ``POW/MIA flag'' has the same meaning as 
in section 1082 of such Act.
    Sec. 2. The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe regulations with 
respect to the first section of this resolution.

            Passed the Senate May 22, 1998.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
105th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            S. CON. RES. 99

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

              Authorizing the flying of the POW/MIA flag.
```
No. 63409.

protest 59/4183 (Boston).

#### Pistorino *&*Company, Inc., for the account of Mitchell Bogaty *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
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 Quarterly Report of Startech Environmental Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Peter J. Scanlon,
Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary of the Company, certify,
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), as applicable, 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 results of operations
          of the Company.



By: /s/ Peter J. Scanlon
    ------------------------
    Peter J. Scanlon
    Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, Vice President and
    Principal Financial Officer
    September 14, 2007
No. 60603.

#### Sintered Carbide Corp. and Airport Clearance Service et al. *v.*United States,

protests 255164-K, etc. (New York).

*452Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the tungsten carbide bars the subject of Abstract 68268, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
PROPOSED ORDER ON STIPULATED 

MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

IN AND FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 ) NO: CR 06-5220-FDB 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) ORDER ON STIPULATED 

 ) MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION 

Sergio Cisneros-Alvarez, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. )

 This matter having come on regularly before the court on the Stipulated Motion for 

Order of Substitution filed by the parties herein, RICHARD A. SMITH of Smith Law Firm

on behalf of Defendant, Sergio Cisneros-Alvarez, and Linda R. Sullivan, substituted counsel, 

and the parties having agreed and stipulated to the matter before the Court, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Stipulated Motion for Order of Substitution is 

hereby GRANTED. Richard A. Smith is hereby substituted as counsel for Defendant, Sergio 

Cisneros-Alvarez. 

DONE this 11th day of April, 2006. 

 U.S. Dist. Court/Western Dist. of WA

 

 _s/ Karen L. Strombom___

 Hon. Karen L. Strombom, 

 U.S. Magistrate Judge 

Presented by: Smith Law Firm

 

 /s/ Richard A. Smith 

RICHARD A. SMITH, WSBA 15127 

SMITH LAW FIRM 

314 No. Second Street 

Yakima, WA 98901 

Telephone : (509) 457-5108 

Facsimile : (509) 452-4601 

E-Mail : rasmith@house314.com 

Case 3:06-cr-05220-FDB Document 16 Filed 04/11/06 Page 1 of 2
PROPOSED ORDER ON STIPULATED 

MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION 2

 /s/ Telephonic Authorization 

LINDA R SULLIVAN 

Fed. Public Defender's Office (Tacoma) 

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400 

Tacoma, WA 98402 

Telephone : (253) 593-6710 

Facsimile : (253) 593-6714 

E-mail : linda_sullivan@fd.org 

Case 3:06-cr-05220-FDB Document 16 Filed 04/11/06 Page 2 of 2