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

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING 2ND STIPULATED 

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 

(Christopher Witham; #06-102MJP)

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

1 (206) 553-1100

 JUDGE MARSHA J. PECHMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CHRISTOPHER JAMES WITHAM,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR 06-102 MJP

 ORDER GRANTING 

SECOND STIPULATED MOTION TO

CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 

THE COURT having considered the second stipulated motion of the parties to continue

the trial date, and the records and files herein, the Court hereby makes the following findings:

1. The Court finds that a failure to grant the continuance would deny counsel the

reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due

diligence, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii).

2. The Court further finds that the ends of justice will be served by ordering a

continuance in this case and that the continuance is necessary to ensure effective trial preparation

and that these factors outweigh the best interests of the public in a more speedy trial, within the

meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the trial date be continued from July 31, 2006, to

September 25, 2006.

Case 2:06-cr-00102-MJP Document 39 Filed 07/18/06 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

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING 2ND STIPULATED 

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 

(Christopher Witham; #06-102MJP)

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

2 (206) 553-1100

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the period of time from the current trial date of July 31,

2006, up to and including the new proposed trial date of September 25, 2006, shall be excludable

time pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq. 

DONE this 18th day of July, 2006.

/S/Marsha J. Pechman 

THE HONORABLE MARSHA J. PECHMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

s/ Jennifer E. Wellman

WSBA # 29193

Attorney for Christopher James Witham

Federal Public Defender’s Office

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, WA 98101

Phone: (206) 553-1100

Fax: (206) 553-0120

jennifer_wellman@fd.org

s/ Jill Otake

Assistant United States Attorney

E-Mail Approval

Case 2:06-cr-00102-MJP Document 39 Filed 07/18/06 Page 2 of 2
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 Bonanza Goldfields Corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Pen-Mun Foo, Chief 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 to the best of my 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.





BONANZA GOLDFIELDS CORPORATION




By /s/ Pen-Mun Foo
 Pen-Mun Foo


Interim Chief Financial Officer


December 30, 2011
#### Thomas D. PETERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-1382.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 9, 2001.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, PAULINE NEWMAN, and LOURIE, Circuit Judges.

Judgment

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

*AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
Secretary Moniz From: Sent: To: Subject: Jerry Woitas Uwoitas@swbell.net] Friday, July 12, 2013 11 :46 AM Secretary Moniz Ceiling Fan Regulations 

## EX.EC -e1.0l3-001Pe2JO

I am opposedto any ceiling fan regulation that would require motion sensors onthese fans. I live in Kingsville, Texas and our summertimeheat here in South Texas is extremely hot. I have a vaulted ceiling in my den and the air conditioning ducts are located in the ceiling. Heatrises so, whenmy air conditioneris running (which is almost constantwith summertime temperatures running around 100 degrees and above) the cold air atthe duct mixes withthe hot air inthe vaulted ceiling causing moisture to accumulate atthe duct and drips water onto my furniture unless the ceiling fan is running atthe same time as the air conditioner. Ifthe ceiling fans could only run when someone is inthe room, my furniture and carpet would be ruined and mold would form.

1
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Timothy OMalley, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for Medwave, Inc. (the Registrant);  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 and results of
operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;  4.
    I am 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 my supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report my 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; and(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
(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  5.
    I have disclosed, based on my 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 control over financial
reporting. Date: May 13, 2005 By:
    
    /s/ Timothy J. OMalleyTimothy J. OMalleyPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
 25
<PAGE>


                                                                  Exhibit 10(12)

                            Description of Amendment
                        to Harrah's Entertainment, Inc's
                          Annual Management Bonus Plan

      In November, 1999, the Human Resources Committee of the Board of
Directors approved an amendment to the bonus matrix for the Annual Management
Bonus Plan. This amendment applies to employees in grades 30 and above which
includes executive officers. The amendment eliminates a specified maximum
amount of bonus which can be earned by reason of exceeding target
performance. The target bonus of 50% to 60% of base salary, depending on the
executive, remains the same and a minimum financial achievement is required
to pay any bonus unless an exception is approved by the Committee.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: TheVincent thrust, eastern San Gabriel Mountains, California**
 
Report | Plate
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:1507
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000959936
 
August 10, 2018
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of Fresenius Kabi Pharmaceuticals Holding,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Thomas Silberg, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the
date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: February 18, 2009 |  |  |  | /S/ THOMAS SILBERG     
|                        |  |  |  | Thomas Silberg         
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification
will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22
- 51121 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,** versus **William Oliver Towery,** Defendant

— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:20
- CR
- 342 - 1

**________________ ______________**  Before **Jones, Southwick,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The attorney appointed to represent William Oliver Towery has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Towery has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the re levant portions of the record reflected therein. We

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 12, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-51121 Document: 00516892747 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/12/2023No. 22
- 51121

2 concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further resp onsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2 . Case: 22-51121 Document: 00516892747 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/12/2023
Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 4 Filed 03/10/2006 Page 1 of 1 Doc. 4

Dockets.Justia.com
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                            MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                               JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                 FEB-28-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                        1
<CASH>                                                        11,030,000
<SECURITIES>                                                   1,512,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  4,026,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     829,000
<INVENTORY>                                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              17,025,000
<PP&E>                                                         7,364,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 2,728,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                29,875,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         12,780,000
<BONDS>                                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                                        7,000
<COMMON>                                                          46,000
<OTHER-SE>                                                    12,961,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  29,875,000
<SALES>                                                       47,949,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              47,949,000
<CGS>                                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 47,457,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               285,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  830,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     299,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              531,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0
<CHANGES>                                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     531,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                       0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       0.12
        

</TABLE>
Before the Second Division,

December 19, 1963

No. 68184.

#### Polks Modeleraft Hobbies, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 62/12220 (New York).

*289Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of multitesters similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United, States*v. G. *L. Electronics, Inc., Arrow Sales, Inc.*(49 CCPA 111, C.A.D. 804), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                       STARTECH ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION

                            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 period ending July 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Joseph S. Klimek, President and Chief Executive Officer 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) 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 result of operations of the Company.


                                            /s/  Joseph S. Klimek
                                            ----------------------------------
                                                 Joseph S. Klimek
                                                 President and Chief Executive
                                                 Officer
                                                 September 15, 2003

<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                       STARTECH ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION

                            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 period ending July 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert L. DeRochie, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 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) 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 result of operations of the Company.


                                            /s/  Robert L. DeRochie
                                            ----------------------------------
                                                 Robert L. DeRochie
                                                 Chief Financial Officer &
                                                 Vice President, Investor
                                                 Relations
                                                 September 15, 2003
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

ANA REYES PENA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C06-5096RBL-KLS

ORDER

The Court, having reviewed plaintiff's complaint, the Report and Recommendation of Judge

Karen L. Strombom, United States Magistrate Judge, and objections to the report and recommendation, if

any, and the remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) the ALJ erred in his decision as described in the report;

(3) the matter is therefore REVERSED and remanded to the Commissioner for further

administrative proceedings; and

(4) the Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff's counsel, defendant’s counsel

and Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom.

DATED this 6th day of November, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05096-RBL Document 20 Filed 11/06/06 Page 1 of 1
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE ANN ARBOR, MI 48105

- 2498

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION **August 14 , 20**  **13** MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Meeting with GM regarding Tier 3 FROM: Michael Olechiw TO: EPA Docket # EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0135 This memo documents a meeting held on August 14 , 201 3 between representatives of General Motors an d EPA to discuss Tier 3. The attendees are shown below. The agenda has been docketed as a separate .pdf. Th e purpose of the meeting was to clarify points in the Tier 3 rule

. Attendees: Michael Olechiw EPA Dave Belton GM Bill Studzinski GM Robert Babik GM Chris Nevers EPA Don Kopinski EPA Chris L aroo EPA David Wright EPA Dave Good EPA Steve Horetski GM Andy Barren GM Jim Ehlmann GM Donald Nagy GM Steve Fornetti GM Glenn W. Passavant GM Tony Fernandez EPA Paul Machiele EPA Tad Wy sor EPA Alan Stout EPA
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 17, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-60591 Summary Calendar

JOSE MARIA SALVADOR-REYES, Petitioner,

versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A29 766 843

-------------------- Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Maria Salvador-Reyes (Reyes) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) March 17, 2004, decision dismissing the appeal from the denial of his motion to reopen a 1990 in absentia order of deportation. The BIA denied Reyes’s motion for reconsideration of this decision on June 8, 2004. Reyes filed his petition for review on July 7, 2004. We are required to examine jurisdiction sua sponte if
necessary. See Williams v. Chater , 87 F.3d 702, 704 (5th Cir.No. 04-60591 -2- 1996). Reyes had 30 days to file a timely petition for review from the BIA’s decision. See Navarro-Miranda v. Ashcroft , 330 F.3d 672, 676 (5th Cir. 2003); Ibrik v. INS , 108 F.3d 596, 597 (5th Cir. 1997). The BIA’s denial of an appeal and its denial of a motion to reconsider are two separate final orders, each of which requires its own petition for review. See Stone v. INS , 514 U.S. 386, 394, 401-02, 405-06 (1995). Because Reyes did not file a petition for review of the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal of the denial of his motion to reopen until more than three months after this decision, his petition for review is not timely as to the March 17, 2004 decision. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to review this decision, and the petition to review it is DISMISSED. See Karimian-Kaklaki v. INS , 997 F.2d 108, 111 (5th Cir. 1993). Although Reyes’s petition for review is timely as to the BIA’s denial of his motion for reconsideration, he has not made any arguments regarding this decision. Therefore, he has abandoned any challenge to the denial of his motion for reconsideration, and, to the extent that his petition for review may be construed as extending to that decision, it is DENIED.
See Al-Ra’id v. Ingle , 69 F.3d 28, 33 (5th Cir. 1995).