alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND 

PRETRIAL MOTIONS DEADLINE - 1 

LAW OFFICES OF 

MONTE E. HESTER, INC., P.S. 

1008 SOUTH YAKIMA AVENUE, SUITE 302 

TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98405 

(253) 272-2157 

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 

 THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

 AT SEATTLE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) No. CR06-159RSM 

 ) 

 vs. ) 

 ) 

BERNARD R. CASEY, ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

 ) MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 

Defendant. ) AND PRETRIAL MOTIONS 

_______________________________) DEADLINE 

 Before this court is the defendant's motion for 

continuance of the trial which is presently scheduled to 

commence on July 18, 2006. The defendant requires additional 

time so that further work may be done on pretrial motions; so 

that witnesses may be located, interviewed and secured for 

testimony at trial; and that defendant may complete trial 

preparation. The government has filed no opposition or 

objection to the present motion. 

 That the court finds, after a consideration of all 

relevant information and the circumstances of this case, that 

without this continuance the defendant will be prejudiced and 

the ability to properly prepare for trial would be impaired. 

Failure to grant a continuance under these circumstances would 

result in a miscarriage of justice. The ends of justice would 

Case 2:06-cr-00159-RSM Document 20 Filed 06/16/06 Page 1 of 2
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND 

PRETRIAL MOTIONS DEADLINE - 2 

LAW OFFICES OF 

MONTE E. HESTER, INC., P.S. 

1008 SOUTH YAKIMA AVENUE, SUITE 302 

TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98405 

(253) 272-2157 

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 

best be served by the granting of the motion for continuance. 

The ends of justice outweigh the best interests of the public 

and the defendant in having the matter brought to trial 

sooner. For these reasons, the court finds the defendant's 

motion for continuance should be granted. The trial scheduled 

for July 18, 2006 is VACATED. Trial shall be RESCHEDULED TO 

October 23, 2006 in Seattle, Washington. It is further 

ORDERED that pretrial motions cutoff date of June 15, 2006 is 

EXTENDED to August 11, 2006. 

 Any and all period of delay resulting from the 

granting of this continuance, from the date of the filing of 

the defendant's motion until the date of the rescheduled 

trial, shall be excludable time pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ''

3161(h)(1)(F) and (h)(8)(A). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 DONE IN OPEN COURT this 16th day of June, 2006. 

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Presented by: 

LAW OFFICES OF MONTE E. 

 HESTER, INC., P.S. 

Attorneys for Defendant 

By: ____/s/_____________________

 Wayne C. Fricke 

 WSB #16550 

Case 2:06-cr-00159-RSM Document 20 Filed 06/16/06 Page 2 of 2
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Inquiry Into Continental Illinois Corp. and Continental Illinois National Bank

              																	United States. Congress. House. Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing. Subcommittee on Financial Institutions Supervision, Regulation and Insurance, 1975-1977					 and 	Ninety-Eighth Congress, 1983-1985. 						*Inquiry Into Continental Illinois Corp. and Continental Illinois National Bank : Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions Supervision, Regulation, and Insurance of the Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, House of Representatives, Ninety-Eighth Congress, Second Session, September 18, 19 and October 4, 1984*,												Washington: 								U.S. Government Printing Office, 										September 18, 19 and October 4, 1984,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/745,			accessed on September 5, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
Cas No. 8,833.

#### McIVER v. WILSON.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 423.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

July Term, 1807.

Setoff — Bankruptcy — Note Assigned to As-signee.

A bond due from the bankrupt to the defendant cannot be set off against the defendant’s note to a third person assigned to the assignee of the bankrupt’s effects after commission issued.

[See Case No. 8,830.]

Assumpsit on a promissory note of Wilson to J. Kennedy, dated the 15th of October, 1805, at 20 days, indorsed by J. Kennedy to Mclver, assignee of the effects of Gillis, a bankrupt. The defendant offered to set off a bond of Gillis to W. Wilson and Roger Col-tart, who is dead, dated 15th of September, 1795, and payable the 15th of March, 1796. The note was given since the date of the commission. The declaration is by Mclver as assignee of the effects of Gillis.

THE COURT

(nem. con.). Clearly, it was not a mutual credit before the bankruptcy, and therefore cannot be set off under the act of congress [of 1800; 2 Stat. 19].
Before the Second Division,

April 30, 1964

No. 68499.

protests 62/19638 and 62/19643 (New Torli).

#### Seedman International Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Da whence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cycle horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of *G. Joannou Cycle Co., Inc.*v. *United; States*(46 Cust. Ct. 172, C.D. 2253), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 217

Recognizing the Valley Forge Military Academy and College for establishing

the ‘‘General H. Norman Schwarzkopf Library’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 27, 1998

Mr. SPECTER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Armed Services

RESOLUTION

Recognizing the Valley Forge Military Academy and College

for establishing the ‘‘General H. Norman Schwarzkopf

Library’’.

Whereas General H. Norman Schwarzkopf graduated from

Valley Forge Military Academy and College as Valedictorian in 1952 and graduated from the United States

Military Academy at West Point in 1956;

Whereas General H. Norman Schwarzkopf served with distinction with over 35 years of service, earning numerous

distinguished service awards including awards for valor

and two purple hearts, foreign decorations, as well as the

Congressional Gold Medal and the Presidential Medal of

Freedom;

Whereas General H. Norman Schwarzkopf commanded a

multinational coalition of 34 members during Operation
2

SRES 217 IS

Desert Shield/Desert Storm and freed the country of Kuwait on February 26, 1991; and

Whereas the Valley Forge Military Academy and College

intends to build the General H. Norman Schwarzkopf

Library and to dedicate it as a national commemorative

site for Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the United States Senate recognizes

2 Valley Forge Military Academy and College for establish3 ing a ‘‘General H. Norman Schwarzkopf Library’’, which

4 will serve as a national commemorative site for Operation

5 Desert Shield/Desert Storm.

6 SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit

7 a copy of this resolution to the Valley Forge Military

8 Academy and College.

Æ
# C_2015236EN.01004201.xml

| 20.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2015 — Yoo Holdings v OHIM — Eckes-Granini Group (YOO)

(Case T-562/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark YOO - Earlier national and international word marks YO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 236/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Yoo Holdings Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Bonne, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Eckes-Granini Group GmbH (Nieder-Olm, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2014 (Case R 762/2013-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Eckes-Granini Group GmbH and Yoo Holdings Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Yoo Holdings Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Yoo Holdings Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet of Percon Incorporated and Subsidiaries as of June
30, 1997 and the related consolidated statements of income and cash flows for
the six months in the period ended June 30, 1997 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             536
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,202
<ALLOWANCES>                                        82
<INVENTORY>                                      4,157
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,357
<PP&E>                                           4,209
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,469
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,777
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,171
<BONDS>                                            815
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,850
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,421 <F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,777
<SALES>                                         12,784
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,784
<CGS>                                            6,025
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,025
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  21
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,275
<INCOME-TAX>                                       798
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,477
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,477
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.36

<FN>
<F1>  Represents retained earnings of $2,803 and cumulative translation
adjustment of ($382).
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
No. 57799.

protest 191205-K (Philadelphia) .

#### Nicholas & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          12,579
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,531
<ALLOWANCES>                                       817
<INVENTORY>                                         18
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,342
<PP&E>                                          10,206
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,104
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,071
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        46,002
<OTHER-SE>                                    (28,545)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,528
<SALES>                                         29,517
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,517
<CGS>                                           11,189
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,189
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,851
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 276
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,843)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,843)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,843)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        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 PROPOSED ORDER - [C05-5723-RJB]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MICHAEL J. LESH,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant

Civil No. C05-5723-RJB

PROPOSED ORDER

Based on the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 405(g). On remand, an administrative law judge (ALJ) will:

• hold a de novo hearing;

• obtain updated records from Plaintiff's treating sources;

• re-evaluate the opinions of Dan Neims, Psy.D.;

Case 3:05-cv-05723-RJB Document 16 Filed 03/22/06 Page 1 of 3
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 PROPOSED ORDER - [C05-5723-RJB]

• re-evaluate Plaintiff's mental impairment, including anger management;

• re-evaluate Plaintiff's subjective complaints, including regarding his physical limitations;

• consider all lay evidence of record;

• reconsider findings in the sequential evaluation process given the re-evaluated evidence

discussed above, including whether Plaintiff can perform the physical and mental

requirements of his past relevant work or other work; and

• obtain supplemental testimony from medical and vocational experts if warranted.

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.983, 416.1483, Plaintiff may submit new evidence and raise

any issue on remand whether or not raised previously. Plaintiff may be awarded costs pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1920 and reasonable attorney fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to

Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.

DATED this 22nd day of March, 2006.

ARobert J. Bryan

U.S. District Judge 

Recommend for Entry:

 s/ Karen L. Strombom 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05723-RJB Document 16 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 3
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 3 PROPOSED ORDER - [C05-5723-RJB]

Presented by:

s/ David M. Blume 

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

Office of the General Counsel

701 Fifth Ave, Ste 2900

Seattle, WA 98104

Phone: (206) 615-2212

Fax: (206)615-2531

david.blume@ssa.gov

Case 3:05-cv-05723-RJB Document 16 Filed 03/22/06 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP   Document 39-1   Filed 09/29/11   Page 1 of 15

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP   Document 39-1   Filed 09/29/11   Page 2 of 15

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP   Document 39-1   Filed 09/29/11   Page 3 of 15

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP   Document 39-1   Filed 09/29/11   Page 4 of 15

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP   Document 39-1   Filed 09/29/11   Page 5 of 15

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP   Document 39-1   Filed 09/29/11   Page 6 of 15

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP   Document 39-1   Filed 09/29/11   Page 7 of 15

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP   Document 39-1   Filed 09/29/11   Page 8 of 15

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP   Document 39-1   Filed 09/29/11   Page 9 of 15

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP   Document 39-1   Filed 09/29/11   Page 10 of 15

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP   Document 39-1   Filed 09/29/11   Page 11 of 15

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP   Document 39-1   Filed 09/29/11   Page 12 of 15

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP   Document 39-1   Filed 09/29/11   Page 13 of 15

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP   Document 39-1   Filed 09/29/11   Page 14 of 15

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP   Document 39-1   Filed 09/29/11   Page 15 of 15
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTOPHER KOCAR, a single person,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CITY OF VADER, a municipality and

CITY OF TOLEDO, a municipality,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-35687

D.C. No. 3:09-cv-05697-RBL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 11, 2013** 

Seattle, Washington

Before: M. SMITH and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and WALTER, Senior

District Judge.

*** 

FILED

JUL 24 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 *** The Honorable Donald E. Walter, Senior District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it found that the

declarations and affidavits Kocar proffered were inadmissible. The alleged

witnesses to the September 8, 2007 tasing incident did not swear to the eight

statements submitted by Kocar as is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1746. When Kocar’s

counsel re-filed the statements, counsel’s secretary had sworn to the statements’

accuracy, but the witnesses still had not sworn that the transcripts of their

interviews were accurate. Because the statements failed to meet the requirements

of 28 U.S.C. § 1746, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it ruled the

statements inadmissible.

Further, the district court did not err when it granted summary judgment in

favor of the cities of Vader and Toledo. Kocar brings state law claims for assault

and battery and negligence, as well as a Monell claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Kocar’s assault and battery claim fails. Kocar offered no evidence that

Officer Stennick caused his head injury. Instead, as defendants argue, Kocar had

just been involved in a bar fight moments before Officer Stennick arrived on the

scene, and Kocar could have received his injury from that incident. Further,

Officer Stennick’s use of force was reasonable. Given Kocar’s failure to comply

with Officer Stennick’s repeated commands, and Kocar’s aggressive and menacing

2
actions, we conclude that Officer Stennick’s use of his Taser was not excessive. 

See Boyles v. City of Kennewick, 813 P.2d 178, 179 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). 

With respect to negligence, Kocar’s claim fails because he has offered no

evidence that Officer Stennick breached any duty owed to him during the incident. 

See Babcock v. Mason Cnty. Fire Dist. No. 6, 30 P.3d 1261, 1268 (Wash. 2001).

Finally, Kocar’s Monell claim fails because Kocar has not shown that any

alleged constitutional violation was “caused by a policy, practice, or custom of the

entity, or . . . the result of an order by a policy-making officer.” Tsao v. Desert

Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1139 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks

omitted). 

AFFIRMED.

3
Exhibit
32.1



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 Organic Alliance, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Parker Booth,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



|(1) | 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 Company.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







|Date: June 3, 2013 | Organic
     Alliance, Inc.             
|------------------ | ----------------------------------------
|                   | By: /s/ Parker
     Booth               
|                   | Parker
     BoothChief Executive Officer



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Organic Alliance, Inc. and will be retained
by Organic Alliance, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.