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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, an

Oregon corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

MELINA LaBREE, nka Melina Dawn

Limbaugh, individually; MICHELLE

VANDENHAAK, individually and as

Executrix of the Estate of RANDOLPH G.

LaBREE; and RAYMOND LaBREE,

individually,

Defendants. _____________________________________

MICHELLE VANDENHAAK, individually

and as Executrix of the Estate of

RANDOLPH G. LaBREE; and RAYMOND

LaBREE, individually,

 Third-Party Plaintiffs,

 v.

LONGVIEW FIBRE COMPANY,

 Third-party

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5113RJB

ORDER

On February 21, 2007, the parties submitted a stipulation requesting that the court extend the

dispositive motions deadline by two weeks, to March 14, 2007, because they wish to engage in further

settlement discussions. Dkt. 63.

Pursuant to the request of the parties, the dispositive motions deadline is extended, and the

dispositive motions deadline is RE-NOTED for March 14, 2007. The trial date and all other dates in the

Case 3:06-cv-05113-RJB Document 64 Filed 02/22/07 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 - 2

Order Setting Trial, Pretrial Dates and Ordering Mediation (Dkt. 57) remain the same. The Clerk is

directed to re-note the dispositive motions deadline for March 14, 2007.

It is so ORDERED.

DATED this 22nd day of February, 2007.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05113-RJB Document 64 Filed 02/22/07 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         130,739
<SECURITIES>                                    41,897
<RECEIVABLES>                                  149,555
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,652
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               346,779
<PP&E>                                         122,564
<DEPRECIATION>                                  35,092
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 459,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          244,384
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       120,568
<OTHER-SE>                                      94,048
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   459,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               296,487
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   86,401
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,887
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  20
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 60,561
<INCOME-TAX>                                    24,224
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             36,337
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    36,337
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .64
        

</TABLE>
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

VINCENT DANIEL HOPPER a/ka/

 Vincent Daniel Hopper Marks, a/k/a

Antolin Andrew Marks, a/ka/ Wayne Rudder

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

NEIL CLARK, et al.,

CASE NUMBER: C06-5282RBL/KLS

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried

and the jury has rendered its verdict.

 XX Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been

tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

 IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #46) will be considered as an objection to Magistrate

Judge Karen L. Strombom’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Dkt.

#42) and, as such, is DENIED;

The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation; and

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #30) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt.

#5) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Defendants De Guia, Hawkins, Thomas, Riley, Hansen, and

Singleton.

 July 24, 2007 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Date Clerk

 s/CM Gonzalez 

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:06-cv-05282-RBL Document 58 Filed 07/24/07 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         232,930
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               245,058
<PP&E>                                          70,286
<DEPRECIATION>                                  48,658
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 270,698
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          169,981
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        37,423
<OTHER-SE>                                      63,294
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   270,698
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  168,475
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (168,475)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (168,475)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (168,475)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,086
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      131
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (25)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,293
<PP&E>                                           3,578
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,301)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,648
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,165
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,478
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,648
<SALES>                                            394
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   394
<CGS>                                              473
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      473
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,597
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   7
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,193)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        25
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,218)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     161
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,057)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (2.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.34)


</TABLE>
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 quarterly report of Berman Center, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned,
      in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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.







/s/ Samuel
      Chapman


Name:  Samuel
      Chapman


Title:  Executive
      Officer and Chairman of the Board (Principal
      Executive Officer)





/s/ William
      McDunn


Name:  William
      McDunn


Title:  Chief
      Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)





May
      12,
      2006





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Berman Center, Inc. and will be retained by Berman Center, Inc. and furnished
      to
      the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles A. GHOLSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-4576.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 31, 2001.

Decided June 18, 2001.

Sol Zalel Rosen, Washington, DC, for appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Stephen W. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, VA, for appellee.

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Charles A. Gholson pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base (with previous drug distribution conviction). On appeal, he alleges that the district court erred by denying his later motion to withdraw his guilty plea and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Gholson appeals from his conviction and 262-month sentence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

We do not find that the district court abused its discretion by denying Gholson’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. *United States v. Ubakanma,*215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir.2000). The court applied the correct law, and we find no reversible error. *United States v. Moore,*931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir.1991) (listing factors to be considered). Neither do we find ineffective assistance of counsel “conclusively appears” on the face of the record and thus deny Gholson’s attempt to raise this issue on direct appeal. *United States v. Richardson,*195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir.1999), *cert. denied,*528 U.S. 1096, 120 S.Ct. 837, 145 L.Ed.2d 704 (2000).

Accordingly, we affirm. 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.*
Before the Third Division,

October 6, 1959

No. 63418.

protests 283608-K, etc. (New York).

#### Dalton Cooper, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that involved in *Dalton Cooper, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(41 Cust. Ct. 271, C.D. 2051), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.

Donlon, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in her dissenting opinion in C.D. 2051, *supra.*
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Brandon Cody Kihega, Appellant

No. 06-12-00078-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 102nd District Court of 

Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

11F0408-102). Opinion delivered by 

Justice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and 

Justice Carter participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellant, Brandon Cody Kihega, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED JANUARY 11, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.18

     Dear Linus,

     I write to confirm your consent, as owner of the LINUX mark, to our
perpetual use, worldwide, of LINUX in product names and company names that we
shall own. We understand that this consent is based upon the facts that our
products are based upon or related to the genuine LINUX Kernel, and that the
company's activities are substantially related to implementation and development
of products that are based upon or related to the genuine LINUX Kernel. Although
in a consent agreement there is no formal requirement of quality control, we
agree that the relationship of our products to the genuine LINUX Kernel assures
the public of the quality it expects in products and activities that are
associated in any way with the LINUX mark.

     Based on this consent, we plan to incorporate the word "Linux" in our
company name; in our product names; and in names, phrases, and logos that will
be used for marketing and advertising purposes. You understand that we will be
relying upon this consent in our commercial activities, including the
development of valuable brands that we shall own independently - although, of
course, we would not claim ownership to the LINUX brand itself. We further
understand that this consent will extend to any successor business of our
company.

     At your request, we enclose a check payable to Linux International in the
amount of $1000.00 in return for your consent. We ask that you signal your
formal agreement by signing a copy of this letter below and returning it to us.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.


                                        Yours very truly,
                                        VA LINUX SYSTEMS, INC.


                                        /s/ LARRY M. AUGUSTIN
                                        ------------------------------------
                                        Larry M. Augustin, President and CEO

     I agree to the foregoing and consent to the use of LINUX as described
above.

/s/ LINUS TORVALDS
------------------------------
Linus Torvalds
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

Hugo Martin Recinos-Recinos, et al.,

 Plaintiff(s),

 v.

Express Forestry Inc. et al.,

 Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 C06-307MJP

 MINUTE ORDER 

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Clerk of Court, Bruce Rifkin:

Pursuant to the Amended General Order entered by the Chief Judge on November

3, 2004 regarding consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge, this action has been

reassigned to the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman, United States District Court Judge. All

future documents filed in this case must bear the cause number C06-307MJP and bear the

Judge’s name in the upper right hand corner of the document. 

Dated this 14th day of March , 2006.

Bruce Rifkin, Clerk of Court

By s/ JUDITH A. NOTHERN 

Judith A. Nothern, Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00307-MJP Document 12 Filed 03/14/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 53321.

protest 134313-K (New York).

#### Arundell Clarke *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
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

PAGE - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

THE NAUTILUS GROUP, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC.,

 Defendant.

CASE NO. C02-2420RSM

ORDER FOR RESPONSE TO

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

On June 9, 2005, plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s previous

order granting defendant’s motions for summary judgment and denying plaintiff’s motions for

summary judgment. (Dkt. #526). In its motion, plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its

decisions in light of new facts raised by a recent deposition of defendant’s expert witness, that

could not have been brought to this Court earlier with reasonable diligence. The motion also

asserts various legal errors in the Court’s previous orders.

Although motions for reconsideration are generally disfavored, this Court may grant

such motion if the moving party provides “a showing of new facts or legal authority which could

not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local Rule

CR 7(h). However, the Local Rules also require that no motion for reconsideration may be

granted without first allowing the non-moving party time to respond.

Case 2:02-cv-02420-RSM Document 529 Filed 06/13/05 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

ORDER

PAGE - 2

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

(1) Pursuant to Local Rule CR7(h)(3), plaintiffs shall file a response to defendants’

motion for reconsideration no later than June 30, 2005. The response is limited to eight pages

or less.

(2) No reply by defendants shall be filed. 

(3) The motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #526) shall be RE-NOTED for consideration

on July 1, 2005.

(4) Plaintiff’s request for oral argument is denied, and this Court shall consider

plaintiff’s motion on the submitted briefs.

(5) The Clerk shall forward a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.

DATED this 13th day of June, 2005.

/s/ Ricardo S. Martinez 

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

 United States District Judge

Case 2:02-cv-02420-RSM Document 529 Filed 06/13/05 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


       
<S>                             <C>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                            3314
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     7836
<ALLOWANCES>                                       333
<INVENTORY>                                        228
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,495
<PP&E>                                           2,663
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,731
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,815
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,637
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           552
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,606
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,815
<SALES>                                          9,751
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,751
<CGS>                                            2,509
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,080
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   389
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    38
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 274
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,502
<INCOME-TAX>                                        86
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,416
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,416
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22
        

</TABLE>
BefoRe Judge Wilson,

March 22, 1966

No. R66/1.

reappraisements R64/18988 and R64/18995 (New York).

No. R66/2.

reappraisements R65/6752, etc. (New York).

#### Panation Trade Co. *v.*United States, Panation Trade Co. *v.*United States,

WilsoN, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues of fact and law are the same in all material respects as those in *Panation Trade Co.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 758, A.R.D. 181), the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the cigarette lighters here in question and that such value was the invoice unit ex-factory prices in each case.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 13, 2015

jam

Order 

Clerk

October 13, 2015

152420 (3)

JOHN L. BUCHANAN II, 

Plaintiff, 

v SC: 152420

AGC: 2092-13

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, 1754-14

Defendant.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $34.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court.

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$341.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in civil 

actions in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.
No. 63429.

protests 325654-K(C), etc. (New York).

#### Lacy Falk *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic filaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Empire Brushes, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 145, C.D. 2078), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.