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 of Continuance/

U.S. v Bennum, CR06-189TSZ - 1 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

Judge Thomas S. Zilly

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) NO. CR06-189TSZ

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) 

 ) ORDER OF CONTINUANCE

)

VAN X. BENNUM, )

)

Defendant. )

_________________________________)

The Court having reviewed the stipulated motion by the United States and

defendant VAN X. BENNUM to continue the trial date, and having reviewed the records

and files herein, makes the following findings and enters the following order;

The Court finds that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(A) and §3161(h)(8)(B)(i),

(ii) and (iv), the ends of justice served by continuing the trial date from August 7, 2006 to

September 18, 2006, outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a

speedy trial. This matter is complex due to the number of transactions and witnesses

involved and it is therefore unreasonable to expect the parties to adequately prepare for

trial before August 7, 2006. Additionally, failure to grant a continuance to September 18,

2006 would deny the defendant the time necessary for effective preparation, taking into

account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that trial in this matter is continued from August 7,

Case 2:06-cr-00189-TSZ Document 26 Filed 07/31/06 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 of Continuance/

U.S. v Bennum, CR06-189TSZ - 2 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

2006 to September 18, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. Defendant BENNUM shall file a waiver of

speedy trial not later than August 4, 2006.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the purpose of computing the time

limitations imposed by the Speedy Trial Act U.S.C. §§3161-3164, the period of delay

from August 7, 2006, up to and including September 18, 2006, is excludable time

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(B)(iv).

DATED this 31st day of July, 2006.

AThomas S. Zilly

United States District Judge

Presented by:

s/ Jill Otake 

JILL OTAKE

Assistant United States Attorney

Washington State Bar Number 28298

United States Attorney's Office

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

Phone: (206) 553-4254

Fax: (206) 553-0755

E-Mail: jill.otake@usdoj.gov

Case 2:06-cr-00189-TSZ Document 26 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 56822.

#### Brooklyn Color Works, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 182037-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
No. 67170.

protest 60/31252 (Portland, Oreg.).

#### George S. Bush *&*Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of decharaeterized horsemeat, fresh, chilled, or frozen, similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 66254, 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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

SHAININ II, LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOHN ALLEN, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C06-420P

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

AND TO FILE AMENDED

COMPLAINT

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to modify the scheduling order and to

file an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 101). Plaintiffs’ proposed first amended complaint would

significantly simplify the litigation in this Court, leaving only a breach of contract claim by Plaintiff

Shainin LLC against Defendant John Allen. Plaintiffs have also requested that the Court stay the

litigation of this remaining claim. Defendants have indicated that they do not oppose this motion. 

Having reviewed the materials submitted by the parties and the balance of the record, the

Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion. The Court ORDERS as follows:

(1) The scheduling order (Dkt. No. 58) is amended to extend the deadline for filing

amended pleadings to allow the filing of an amended complaint.

(2) Plaintiff Shainin LLC is granted leave to file its First Amended Complaint.

(3) Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (as presented in Docket No. 102-2), will be

deemed filed and served in this action as of the date of this Order. 

Case 2:06-cv-00420-MJP Document 105 Filed 11/16/06 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

1

 Notwithstanding the stay, the Court will entertain a motion by Defendants for attorney’s fees

as authorized by the Court’s order of October 24, 2006 (Dkt. No. 100). If the Court does not receive

such a motion by November 24, 2006, it will assume that the parties have stipulated to the amount of

the fee award and that no further Court action is necessary.

ORDER - 2

(4) Plaintiff Shainin LLC’s remaining claim against Defendant John Allen is hereby

STAYED pending the completion of arbitration proceedings involving the parties.1 Either party may

move to lift the stay after the arbitration proceedings have been completed. The parties are directed to

provide the Court with joint reports regarding the status of the arbitration proceedings every six

months. The first joint status report shall be due by May 15, 2007. 

(5) The clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record.

Dated: November 16, 2006

s/Marsha J. Pechman 

Marsha J. Pechman

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00420-MJP Document 105 Filed 11/16/06 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-8547
WILLIAM RAY DELOACH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WARDEN BASS; REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR SMITH; L. A. BROWN, C/O; LIEUTENANT HARRISON, C/O, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-972-2) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 7, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Ray DeLoach, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIUM: Appellant noted this appeal outside the thirty-day appeal period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to relief under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time periods established by Fed. R. App. P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court entered its order on November 8, 1995; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on December 14, 1995. Appellant's failure to notea timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board

# DATES:

October 19, 2023 at 10:00 a.m.

# ADDRESSES:

                        Telephonic. Dial-in (listen only) information: Number: 1-202-599-1426, Code: 370 114 217#; or via web:                         *https://teams.microsoft.com/​l/​meetup-join/​19%3ameeting_​OGQxYmRmZmYtNjc2MC00ZTg2LWEwYTctNjNkMzIwODIzZmMz%40thread.v2/​0?​context=​%7b%22Tid%22%3a%223f6323b7-e3fd-4f35-b43d-1a7afae5910d%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%22533f2df2-5cef-4200-af1c-6d760c60d9cf%22%7d.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## ETAC Meeting Agenda

1. Approval of the minutes of the May 23, 2023, Joint Board/ETAC Meeting

2. September 2023 Investment Program Review—G, F, C, S, I, and L Funds

3. Participant Report

4. FY2024 FRTIB Budget

5. FY 2023 FISMA Results

6. Legislative Update

7. New Business

*Written Statements:*                     Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, interested parties may submit written statements in response to the stated agenda of the meeting, or to the Employee Thrift Advisory Council (ETAC), in general. Individuals may submit their comments to                     *ETACComments@frtib.gov.*                     Written comments or statements received less than 5 days before ETAC's meeting may not be provided to the Committee until its next meeting.                

(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(1).)

Dated: October 3, 2023.

Dharmesh Vashee,

General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.

[FR Doc. 2023-22362 Filed 10-6-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
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

DETENTION ORDER - 1

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAUL MARTINEZ-SOTELO,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 06-201M

DETENTION ORDER

Offense charged:

Trafficking in false Alien Registration Receipt Cards.

Date of Detention Hearing: 04/27/06

The court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and based

upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth, finds that no

condition or combination of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the

appearance of defendant as required.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) Defendant is reportedly a citizen of Mexico.

Case 2:06-cr-00145-MJP Document 7 Filed 04/27/06 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

DETENTION ORDER - 2

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i)

(2) The United States alleges that his presences in this country is illegal. There is an

immigration detainer pending against him. The issue of detention in this case is

therefore essentially moot.

(3) Defendant and his counsel offered nothing in opposition to the entry of an order of

detention.

(4) Upon advice of counsel, defendant declined to be interviewed by this court’s pretrial

services officer. There is therefore limited information available about him.

It is therefore ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the Attorney

General for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable,

from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with

counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which defendant is

confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose of an

appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The clerk shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to counsel

for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United States Pretrial

Services Officer.

DATED this 27th day of April, 2006.

s/ John L. Weinberg 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00145-MJP Document 7 Filed 04/27/06 Page 2 of 2
Case Mo. 14,886.

#### UNITED STATES v. CRANE.

[Cited in the Case of Cange, Case No. 8,065. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
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

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

WANG KOO CHUNG,

 Petitioner, 

v.

DOUG WADDINGTON,

Respondent. 

Case No. C06-5249RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Petitioner’s Motion for a Certificate

of Appealability [Dkt. #19].

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court finds and rules as follows:

This Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability because the petitioner has failed to make “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2); See Report and

Recommendation [Dkt. #14]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing

pro se.

Dated this 20th day of February, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05249-RBL Document 20 Filed 02/20/07 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6934

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL DENNIS OLDS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (CR-96-30-F)

Submitted: September 10, 2003 Decided: February 10, 2004

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Dennis Olds, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*Olds does not challenge the district court’s denial of his

motion for reconsideration in his informal brief filed in this

court. He therefore has waived appellate review of that order.

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael Dennis Olds appeals the district court’s orders

denying his motions filed under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582 (West 2000 &

Supp. 2003), and for reconsideration.*

 We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. The district court may not modify a

sentence under § 3582 once it has been imposed except in very

narrow circumstances not applicable here. Because Olds’ claims

were not cognizable under § 3582, we affirm the district court’s

denial of relief on that basis. 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.

AFFIRMED
No. 59294.

protests 133881-K, etc. (New York).

#### Aromatic Products, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of essential oils the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Ungerer & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 152, C. D. 1647), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

LAKSMI McKENNA WHITE,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CR06-0186-JCC-JPD

DETENTION ORDER 

Offenses charged: 

Count 1: Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana in violation of U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(D).

Date of Detention Hearing: May 10, 2006.

The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and

based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth, finds

the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) When arrested and charged with the instant offense, defendant was serving a

sentence of supervised release from a previous offense and conviction on or about June 21, 2002.

(2) Defendant has stipulated to detention, but reserves the right to contest her

continued detention if there is a change in circumstances.

Case 2:06-cr-00186-JCC Document 12 Filed 06/01/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

(3) There are no conditions or combination of conditions other than detention that

will reasonably assure the appearance of defendant as required.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the extent

practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with

counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which defendant

is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose

of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United States

Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 1st day of June, 2006.AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cr-00186-JCC Document 12 Filed 06/01/06 Page 2 of 2
#### Kelvin DANIELS, Poseidon Baskin, Djibril Toure, Hector Rivera, Raymond Ramirez, Kahil Shkymba, Bryan Stair, Tiara Bonner, Theron McConneyhead, and Horace Rogers, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Rudolph Giuliani, Mayor, Howard Safir, New York City Police Commissioner, City Police Officers John Does 1-500, and Anthony Curtin, New York City Police Officer, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellants, Peter Mante, New York City Police Sergeant; Walter Doyle, New York City Police Officer, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.

No. 01-7469.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 12, 2001.

*21Gail Donoghue; Michael D. Hess, Heidi Grossman, Linda Donahue, Kristin Bran-son, Alan G. Krams, Scott Shorr, of counsel, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY, for appellants.

Jonathan C. Moore, Law Offices of Jonathan C. Moore, Nancy Chang, William H. Goodman, Center for Constitutional Rights, Adam D. Gale, Jennifer R. Cowan, Charles P. Reichmann, Jonathan Boyarín, Alison L. LaCroix, Debevoise *&*Plimpton, Robert F. Van Lierop, Van Lierop, Burns & Bassett, New York, NY, for appellees.

Present CABRANES, STRAUB and SACK, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order, granting defendants’ petition for leave to appeal and staying discovery, is VACATED; the present appeal is therefore DISMISSED.

Plaintiffs brought this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated for alleged constitutional violations by a unit of the New York City Police Department known as the Street Crime Unit. In a January 25, 2001 opinion and order, the District Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class for injunctive and declaratory relief. *See Daniels v. City of N.Y.,*198 F.R.D. 409 (S.D.N.Y.2001).

On March 26, 2001, defendants filed a petition with this Court for leave to appeal the District Court’s certification order. In a May 1, 2001 order, we granted this petition and stayed discovery until further notice by this Court. Subsequently, we modified the order to stay discovery of only an unredacted version of a police database known as the UF-230 Database.

Upon due reflection and a full consideration of the merits of this appeal, we hold that the May 1, 2001 order granting defendants’ petition for leave to appeal and staying discovery was improvidently granted. Accordingly, we VACATE this order. *Cf Rezzonico v. H & R Block, Inc.,*182 F.3d 144, 149 (2d Cir.1999) (holding that the law-of-the-case doctrine does not preclude an appellate court from reconsidering a decision by a prior motions panel). The present appeal is therefore DISMISSED, without prejudice to our consideration at a later time of the issues raised in the instant appeal.
# Official Journal L 40/2013

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.040.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 40 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 569 February 2013 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.040.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 40

English edition

Legislation

Volume 569 February 2013

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) No 109/2013 of 29 January 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 748/2009 on the list of aircraft operators that performed an aviation activity listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on or after 1 January 2006 specifying the administering Member State for each aircraft operator also taking into consideration the expansion of the Union emission trading scheme to EEA-EFTA countries (1) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EU) No 109/2013 of 29 January 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 748/2009 on the list of aircraft operators that performed an aviation activity listed in Annex I to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on or after 1 January 2006 specifying the administering Member State for each aircraft operator also taking into consideration the expansion of the Union emission trading scheme to EEA-EFTA countries (1)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
No. 56815.

#### G. Brunella et al. *v.*United States,

protests 261176-G, etc. (New York).

*357Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of grenadine the same in all material respects as that the subject of *La Manna, Azema & Farnan, Inc.*v. *United*States (39 C. C. P. A. 44, C. A. D. 461), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.