alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 6, 2013*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**F.110 U.S.-Chartered Depository Institutions, Excluding Credit Unions** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
No. 59287.

protests 191796-K and 198550-K (Baltimore).

#### Brasco Manufacturing Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hot-rolled steel strips similar in all material respects to those involved in Abstract 58580, 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

27

28

Order Granting Request

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

EMPLOYEE PAINTERS TRUST HEALTH

& WELFARE FUND, WESTERN

WASHINGTON PAINTERS DEFINED

CONTRIBUTION PENSION TRUST,

WESTERN WASHINGTON

APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING

TRUST, LABOR MANAGEMENT

COOPERATION TRUST FUND,

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS

& ALLIED TRADES PENSION FUND,

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF

PAINTERS & ALLIED TRADES UNION &

INDUSTRY FUND, AND

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS

& ALLIED TRADES DISTRICT COUNCIL

NO. 5,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TIMOTHY H. JACKSON and JODI L.

JACKSON, husband and wife and the marital

community comprise thereof and BRYDON

PAINTING SERVICES, INC., a Washington

corporation,,

Defendants.

CAUSE NO. C06-5145KLS

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

WAIVE LOCAL RULE 39.1

This matter comes before the court on the parties joint request to waive the requirement of

Local Rule 39.. (Dkt. #29). 

Case 3:06-cv-05145-KLS Document 30 Filed 02/16/07 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 Granting Request

Page - 2

The undersigned finds the parties have set forth good reason to waive such requirement and

therefore the Court waives the requirement to hold a mediation.

DATED this 16th day of February, 2007.

 /s/ Karen L. Strombom 

Karen L. Strombom

U.S. Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05145-KLS Document 30 Filed 02/16/07 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00697-RSL Document 315 Filed 05/05/2010 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00697-RSL Document 315 Filed 05/05/2010 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00697-RSL Document 315 Filed 05/05/2010 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00697-RSL Document 315 Filed 05/05/2010 Page 4 of 4
Exhibit 13.1**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT****Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**     In connection with the Annual Report of Focus Media Holding Limited (the “Company”) on Form20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jason Nanchun Jiang, Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:6. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and7. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.       Date: September 25, 2007               By:
No. P66/343.

#### Colonial Process Supply Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protests 65/15539, 66/3248, and 66/2687 (New York).

Watson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of Vulkollan strips similar in all material respects to those the subject of Hensel, *Bruckmann &*Lorbacher, *Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 212, C.D. 2498), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

November 22, 1966

No. P66/349.

#### L. Batlin & Son, Inc. *v.*United States, protest 64/4022 (New York).

Bao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of battery-operated mixers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *F. B. Vandegrift & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 231, Abstract 68674), 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

27

28 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

HENRY B. GARNIER,

Petitioner,

v.

MAGGIE MILLER-STOUT,

Respondent.

Case No. C06-5285RBL

 ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

The petitioner in this action is seeking federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to both 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 and 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This case has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge

pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 636 (b) (1) (A) and 636 (b) (1) (B) and Local Magistrates’ Rules

MJR 3 and MJR 4.

Before the court is petitioner’s “Motion for Discovery.” (Dkt. # 17). The petitioner does

not indicate what discovery he is seeking or show that discovery is needed in this action. The motion

is DENIED.

The clerk’s Office is directed to send a copy of this order to petitioner and respondents

counsel.

DATED this 18th, day of September, 2006. 

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05285-RBL Document 20 Filed 09/18/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 58712.

protests 134752-K, etc. (New York).

#### RCA Victor Div., Radio Corp. of America and John H. Faunce N. Y., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the paper coverings containing phonograph records the subject of *United States*v. *Radio Corp. of America, RCA Victor Division*(41 C. C. P. A. 137, C. A. D. 541), the claim of the plaintiffs 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

Dated this 2nd day of June , 2006

/S/ PETER H. VOELKER 

 Deputy Clerk

MINUTE ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the WESTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

UNITED STATES of AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

)

)

)

vs. )

) CR05-393 JCC

RUPINDER SINGH GILL,

 Defendant.

)

)

) MINUTE ORDER

The following Minute Order is made at the direction of the Court, the Honorable 

James P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge:

Pursuant to information received from counsel, and at counsel’s request, the Ex Parte

Motion filed May 9, 2006 (dkt #116 ) is hereby STRICKEN as Moot.

Case 2:05-cr-00393-JCC Document 135 Filed 06/02/06 Page 1 of 1
NEWMAN & NEWMAN,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610

Seattle, Washington 98104

(206) 274-2800

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

DECL. OF DEREK NEWMAN IN SUPP.

OF DEFS.’ MOT. TO COMPEL DISCOVERY - 1

(CV06-0204JCC)

The Honorable John C. Coughenour

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

JAMES S. GORDON, Jr., a married

individual, d/b/a

‘GORDONWORKS.COM’; OMNI

INNOVATIONS, LLC., a Washington

limited liability company,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VIRTUMUNDO, INC, a Delaware

corporation d/b/a

ADNOWLEDGEMAIL.COM;

ADKNOWLEDGE, INC., a Delaware

corporation, d/b/a

ADKNOWLEDGEMAIL.COM; SCOTT

LYNN, an individual; and JOHN DOES,

1-X,

Defendants.

No. CV06-0204JCC

DECLARATION OF DEREK A.

NEWMAN IN SUPPORT OF

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

COMPEL

NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:

January 5, 2007

I, Derek Newman, swear under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United

States of America to the following:

1. I am counsel of record for defendants Virtumundo, Inc. (“Virtumundo”) and

Adknowledge, Inc. (“Adknowledge”), am over age 18, and competent to be a witness. I

am making this Declaration based on facts within my own personal knowledge.

A. PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AND SECOND PRODUCTION OF EMAILS

1. On or about December 4, 2006, I met and conferred with Plaintiffs’ attorney

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 72 Filed 12/21/2006 Page 1 of 2

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 72

Dockets.Justia.com
NEWMAN & NEWMAN,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610

Seattle, Washington 98104

(206) 274-2800

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

DECL. OF DEREK NEWMAN IN SUPP.

OF DEFS.’ MOT. TO COMPEL DISCOVERY - 2

(CV06-0204JCC)

via email regarding the belatedly produced emails. See Linke Decl. ¶ 24, Exhibit E.

2. On or about December 5, 2006, Plaintiffs’ attorney advised by email that he

would not produce only the new emails. See Linke Decl. ¶ 24, Exhibit E.

3. Again, on or about December 13, 2006, I met and conferred with Plaintiffs’

counsel regarding the belatedly produced emails. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true

and accurate copy of the deposition transcript of Brett Brewer in which Plaintiffs counsel

and I discuss our December 13, 2006 meeting.

4. Again, on or about December 14, 2006, during Defendants’ deposition, I

met and conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the belatedly produced emails. See

Exhibit A.

5. In the December 14th meeting, Plaintiffs’ counsel advised that he would

consult with his client and would use good faith efforts to produce the information as

requested. Plaintiffs’ counsel refused to commit to producing only the new emails,

however, and has not in fact produced them.

I certify and declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of

Washington and the United States that to my knowledge the foregoing is true and correct.

DATED this 21ST day of December 2006, at Seattle, Washington

Derek A. Newman

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 72 Filed 12/21/2006 Page 2 of 2
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 24

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative

to equal rights for women and men.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 20, 1997

Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. DODD, Mr. ROBB, Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN, Mr.

LAUTENBERG, Mr. KERRY, Ms. SNOWE, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. FEINGOLD,

Mr. HARKIN, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. BINGAMAN,

and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) introduced the following joint resolution; which was

read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States relative to equal rights for women and men.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

8 States:
2

•SJ 24 IS

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. Equality of rights under the law shall

3 not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any

4 State on account of sex.

5 ‘‘SECTION 2. The Congress shall have the power to

6 enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this

7 article.

8 ‘‘SECTION 3. This amendment shall take effect two

9 years after the date of ratification.’’.

Æ
No. 57788.

protest 213560-K (New York).

#### Ciba Pharmaceutical Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise in question is not obtained, derived, or manufactured, in whole or in part, from any of the products mentioned by name in either paragraph 27 or 1651, and that it is a medicinal preparation, has therapeutic properties, is chiefly used for medicinal purposes, and is not a drug of either animal or vegetable origin, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vernell BUTCHER Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-3440.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted April 10, 2001.

Decided July 5, 2001.

Before LOKEN, Circuit Judge, and GOLDBERG1 and BOGUE,2 Judges.3

1

. The Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

2

. The Honorable Andrew W. Bogue, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

3

. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(b), the Chief Judge certified the existence of a judicial emergency necessitating the designation of a panel consisting of fewer than two members of the Court of Appeals.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Vernell Butcher, was convicted by a jury on June 13, 2000, of being a felon in possession of a firearm. *See*18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(l)(1994). Butcher received a 300-month sentence and a five-year supervised release term.

Butcher appeals the decision of the district court4 to deny his motion for a mistrial based on the allegedly improper remarks made by the government prosecutor during closing argument. Additionally, Butcher claims that the district court’s use of the Eighth Circuit’s Reasonable Doubt Jury Instruction impermissibly lowered the government’s burden of proof. We affirm the decision of the district court.

After a careful examination of the record, this Court finds that the trial court did not commit error by denying Butcher’s motion for a mistrial, *see United States v. Wadlington,*233 F.3d 1067, 1077 (8th Cir.2000) (In assessing the prejudicial impact of potential prosecutorial misconduct, the Court considers (1) the cumulative effect of the misconduct, (2) the strength of the properly admitted evidence, and (3) the curative actions taken by the district court), or by giving the jury the Eighth Circuit’s Reasonable Doubt Jury Instruction. *See United States v. Harris,*974 F.2d 84, 85 (8th Cir.l992)(Eighth Circuit’s explicit approval of Reasonable Doubt Jury Instruction). Under Eighth Circuit *477Rule 47B, no further commentary is warranted.

4

. The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, District Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6598

CLARENCE EPPS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; PROBATION

AND PAROLE; CHESAPEAKE CIRCUIT COURT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District

Judge. (1:06-cv-00274-TSE)

Submitted: December 13, 2006 Decided: December 27, 2006

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Epps, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Epps, Jr., appeals the district court’s order

denying relief in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Epps v.

Virginia Dept. of Corr., No. 1:06-cv-00274-TSE (E.D. Va. Mar. 21,

2006). 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
**EXHIBIT 15.2**

[Letterhead of TransAsia Lawyers] 

10 June 2011 

Youku.com Inc. 

11/F, SinoSteel Plaza 

8 Haidian Street, Haidian District 

Beijing 100080 

People’s Republic of China

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

We consentto the reference to our firm under the heading “Risks Factors” in “Item 3: Key Information” in Youku.com Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010, which will be filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission in the month of June 2011.
#### Wayne A. PEDERSON; Luanne M. Pederson, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. COUNTRY LIFE INSURANCE CO.; Country Investors Life Assurance; Country Mutual Insurance Co.; Country Casualty Insurance Co.; Country Preferred Insurance; Northwest Farm Bureau Insurance Co.; CC Services Inc., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 00-15205.

D.C. No. CV-99-00526-DWH (PHA).

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2001.1

Decided July 19, 2001.

*742Before HALL, WARDLAW, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM2

Defendants appeal from the district court’s order remanding this case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court determined that it did not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims because plaintiff was an independent contractor, and, therefore, not an employee who could sue to enforce the substantive provisions of ERISA. The district court’s decision that plaintiff was an independent contractor was necessary to determine if it had subject matter jurisdiction over this case. *See Lyons v. Alaska Teamsters Employer Serv. Corp.,*188 F.3d 1170, 1173 (9th Cir.1999) (refusing to review remand order because the district court’s decision was “not apart from the jurisdictional determination”). A district court’s order remanding a case to the state court from which it was removed is not reviewable by this Court. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal.

DISMISSED.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
ex_109248.htm


Exhibit 10.4


 


Compensation of Directors


 


Compensation of members of the board of directors of Gyrodyne, LLC is structured as a flat annual fee payable monthly. The annual director fee payable to each director is $42,000 per year (which includes attendance at board meetings and committee meetings). In addition, the Chairman also receives a fee equal to $78,000 per year for total compensation of $120,000 per year. Directors are entitled to be reimbursed for travel and other expenses related to company business.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Jose Manuel, Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 86]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Moore, J.), entered on or about December 6, 1993, granting defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence, unanimously affirmed.

The People’s claim that there was reasonable suspicion to pat down the area where the officer observed an undefined bulge is unpreserved for review as a matter of law *(People v Parris,*83 NY2d 342, 351), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. If we were to review, we would find that the search was not justified. The police lawfully approached a taxicab in order to inform the driver that his brake lights were inoperable. Defendant was seated in the center of the rear passenger seat and glanced to his right upon the approach of the police, who observed a large bulge underneath defendant’s shirt, above the belt line of his pants. As the police acknowledged, there was no indication that the bulge was a weapon. Nonetheless, one of the police officers opened the car door and reached directly towards the bulge. During a fifteen second struggle involving the officers and defendant, one of the officers felt a hard object and subsequently removed a kilogram package of drugs from underneath defendant’s shirt. Under these circumstances, there was no reasonable basis to believe that defendant was armed *(People v Robbins,*83 NY2d 928, 930). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.
No. 59815.

#### John H. Faunce, N. Y., Inc., RCA Victor Div., Radio Corp. of America, et al. *v.*United States,

protests 145011-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the paper record containers the subject of *United States*v. *Radio Corp. of America, RCA Victor Division*(41 C. C. P. A. 137, C. A. D. 541), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 62

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 6, 1997

Referred to the Committee on House Oversight

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That (a) a revised edition of the brochure en3 titled ‘‘How Our Laws Are Made’’, under the direction of

4 the Parliamentarian of the House of Representatives in

5 consultation with the Parliamentarian of the Senate, shall

6 be printed as a Senate document, with suitable paper

7 cover in the style selected by the chairman of the Joint

8 Committee on Printing.

9 (b) There shall be printed—

10 (1)(A) 250,000 copies of the brochure for the

11 use of the House of Representatives, distributed in

12 equal numbers to each Member;
2

SCON 62 RFH

1 (B) 100,000 copies of the brochure for the use

2 of the Senate, distributed in equal numbers to each

3 Member;

4 (C) 2,000 copies of the brochure for the use of

5 the Joint Committee on Printing; and

6 (D) 1,400 copies of the brochure for distribu7 tion to the depository libraries; or

8 (2) if the total printing and production costs of

9 copies in paragraph (1) exceed $180,000, such num10 ber of copies of the brochure as does not exceed total

11 printing and production costs of $180,000, with dis12 tribution to be allocated in the same proportion as

13 in paragraph (1).

Passed the Senate November 5, 1997.

Attest: GARY SISCO,

Secretary.
Before the Second Division,

May 7, 1964

No. 68520.

protests 61/132, etc. (New York).

#### Duffco International Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of electric food juicers or separators, and electric coffee grinders similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 65798, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.