alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

----

I Information

Commission

----

Euro exchange rates (1)

7 June 2004

(2004/C 151/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
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

KEITH L. NASH,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOUG WADDINGTON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5127 RJB/KLS

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

AMEND/ACCEPT TYPED

COMPLAINT

This civil rights action has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. Before the court are plaintiff’s motions to

amend and to accept a typed amended complaint in place of plaintiff’s first amended complaint, to “support

[plaintiff’s] handwritten amended complaint only as a duplicate copy,” purportedly so that defendants may

more clearly understand plaintiff’s complaint. (Dkt. # 51, 56). The amended complaint has been served

and defendants have filed their answer. (Dkt. # 49). 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to accept typed amended complaint (Dkt. # 51) and motion to

amend the first amended complaint (Dkt. # 56) are DENIED.

DATED this 7th day of September, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05127-RJB Document 60 Filed 09/07/06 Page 1 of 1
Before the Second Division,

June 1, 1965

No. 69331.

#### Sterwood Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 64/18398 and 64/18670 (New York).

*441Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of parts of electrical dishwashers similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 67196, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Honorable Cullen B.Vance



### cityA;w-p3y Edna,
Dear Sir: Opinion Number O-2353
Rer In the event the coming election carries and the proposed bonds are voted, what will be the status of the #lOO,OOO bonds previously voted?

We are in receipt of your opinion request of recent date end quote from your letter as followsz

"In 1938 the City ofEdna voted bonds inthe amount & $100,000.00 for thepurpose of ooni strutting sneleotric light andpower generating and distribution system. "Recently itwas determined that this amount would-be inadequate tobuild the system, whereupon, an election was called for May 17th forthe purpose of voting onbonds in the amount of @50,- 000.00, thepurpose of these bonds being Identical with that originally voted. mFhequestion is, in the event the coming eleotion carries and thebonds are voted, what will be the status of the $lOO,OOO.OO'bonds previously voted? llWith respect to the bonds first voted, nothing further has been done since they were voted." If the City ofEdna votes.another bond issue of 9150,000.00, theywill have outstanding a total authorized bond issue of #250,000.00, as there isno law permitting the cancellation or revocation of an authorization once obtained from the electorate.Honorable Cullen B. Vance, page #2, O-2353

We are enclosing a copy of our Opinion Number o-1339, which we believe clearly sets forth our view on this point. It us our understanding thatboth issues are revenue bonds issued under Artiole 1118,Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, therebypledging thenet revenues from said system, and further secured by a mortgage on the properties of said system. Article 1113, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, provides, inpart, as follows:
"Nopart of the income of any such system shall~ever beused to pay any other debt, expense or obligation of such city ortown, until the indebtedness so secured shall have been finally paid." The Supreme Court of Texashas construed this language to preclude cities from issuing second-mortgage bonds against the income of a light system until final payment of the indebtedness secured by the original bond issue. City ofHouston vs.Allred, 71 S.W. (2d) 251.

Therefore, we see that the@OO,OOO.OO issue previously voted would, as amatter of fact, lie dorment and definitely couldnot be issued until the $150,000.00 debthad been fully paid. If at some future time, after the $150,000.00 debt hasbeen fully discharged, the properly constituted officials of the city attempted to issue the $100,000.00 ofbonds, they could not do so if it is conclusively shown that the purpose forwhich such bondshad been authorized had been accomplished.

Trusting that the foregoing answers your question, we are Very truly yours APPROVED JUNE 15, 1940 ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS s/Gerald C.Mann s/ Claud 0. Boothman
ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS By Claud 0.Boothman Assistant Approved Opinion Committee By BWB, Chairman COB-s/cg Encl.
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 quarterly report of DNA Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2009 (the "Report"), I, Wilson Cheung, Principal 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: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  /s/Wilson Cheung Wilson Cheung, Principal Financial Officer July 29, 2009
# Official Journal C 257A/6 Au

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 257A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 586 August 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 257A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 586 August 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 257A/01 | Publication of a vacancy for Members of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board at grade AD 14 (Principal Adviser) — Secretariat-General — Engagement of three Temporary Agents under Article 2(a) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — COM/2015/20009 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2015/C 257A/01

Publication of a vacancy for Members of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board at grade AD 14 (Principal Adviser) — Secretariat-General — Engagement of three Temporary Agents under Article 2(a) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — COM/2015/20009

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________
KATRINA A. RANDOLPH , Petitioner,

v.
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUT ION, Respondent.

__________________________

201 3- 3106

__________________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DC 31 5H120325 -I-1.

__________________________
Before D YK , P ROST and O’M ALLEY , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R

The court considers whether to dismiss Katrina A. Randolph’s petition fo r lack of jurisdiction

. Randolph ’s representative received the Merit Sy s tems Protection Board’s decision in her case on Febru ary 22, 2013

. Her petition was initially r e ceived by t he court on April 25, 2013. A petition for review of an MSPB decision must be filed “within 60 days after the Board issues notice” of its Case: 13-3106 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 07/18/2013KATRINA RANDOLPH V

. SMITHSONIAN INSTITUT ION 2

dec i sion. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A). This filing period is “statutory, mandatory, [and] jurisdi c tional.” Monzo v. Dep’t of Transp. , 735 F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 1984)

. Here, Randolph wa s required to file her petition by April 23, 2013 , two days before it was received. Her petition is therefore untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(A) ( “filing is not timely unless the clerk r eceives the papers within the time fixed for filing”). Ac cor dingly, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider Randolph’s petition and must dismiss it. Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The petition is dismissed. (2 ) Each side shall bear its own costs.

F OR T HE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk

s23 Case: 13-3106 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 07/18/2013
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

PAGE -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. CR06-198 RSL

)

v. )

)

) DETENTION ORDER

MIGUEL GARCIA, )

a/k/a Ramiro Ayon-Ramirez )

)

Defendant. )

________________________________)

Offense charged:

Conspiracy to Distribute Cocaine, Heroin and Methamphetamine

Date of Detention Hearing: June 13, 2006

 The Court, having conducted an uncontested detention hearing pursuant to Title 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 the defendant can meet will

reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of any other person and

the community. The Government was represented by Todd Greenberg. The defendant was

represented by Robert Goldsmith.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) There is probable cause to believe the defendant committed the drug offense. 

The maximum penalty is in excess of ten years. There is therefore a rebuttable

presumption against the defendant’s release based upon both dangerousness

and flight risk, under Title 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e).

Case 2:06-cr-00198-RSL Document 79 Filed 06/14/06 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

PAGE -2-

(2) Defendant is viewed as a risk of danger due to the nature of the instant offense

and criminal history which includes an active felony warrant. Defendant also

has substance abuse problems.

(3) He is viewed as a risk of non-appearance as he is a not a United States citizen

and has violated a court order by failing to appear. 

(4) Defendant stipulated to detention.

(5) Based upon the foregoing information, it appears that there is no condition or

combination of conditions that would reasonably assure future Court

appearances and/or the safety of other persons or the community.

It is therefore ORDERED:

(l) The 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) The 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 the

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 14th day of June, 2006. AMONICA J. BENTON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00198-RSL Document 79 Filed 06/14/06 Page 2 of 2
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 4, 2017

No. 04

- 16

- 00603

- CR

Belinda CISNEROS, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appel lee

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Brooks County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15

- 06

- 11022

- CR Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The clerk’s r ecord has been filed, but it does not contain the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification of the appellant’s right to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). This court must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of a ppeal has not been made part of the record.” Id. Appellant is given notice that this appeal will be dismissed unless, by January 23, 2017, unless a certification is filed showing he has the right to appeal is made part of the appellate record. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (holding that timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke court of appeals’ jurisdiction); Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order), disp. on merits, No. 04

- 03

- 00176

- CR, 2003 WL 21508347 (July 2, 2003, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication).

If a supplemental clerk’s record is required, appellant must request a supplemental record from the trial court clerk and file a copy of the request with this court. If appellant fails to satisfactorily respond to this order within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed.

We order all appellate deadlines are suspended until further order of the court. We

further order the cl erk of this court to serve copies of this order on the attorneys of record and the
court reporter.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 4th day of January, 2017

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
----

| (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material      aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of all the      Company. |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | GARY D.      ALEXANDER                                                                Gary      D. Alexander |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Principal      Executive and Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|   | March      27th,      2009                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |

----
# Official Journal C 11/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2014.011.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 11 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5715 January 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2014.011.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 11

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5715 January 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 011/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 011/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 011/02 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 011/02

Euro exchange rates

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 011/03 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.7142 — Mitsubishi Corporation/Mitsubishi Electric Corporation/International Elevator & Equipment) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 3 |
| 2014/C 011/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.7143 — Mitsubishi Corporation/Mitsubishi Electric Corporation/Mitsubishi Elevator Thailand) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 5 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2014/C 011/03

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.7142 — Mitsubishi Corporation/Mitsubishi Electric Corporation/International Elevator & Equipment) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

3

2014/C 011/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.7143 — Mitsubishi Corporation/Mitsubishi Electric Corporation/Mitsubishi Elevator Thailand) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

5

---

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 011/05 | Corrigendum to Commission notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (OJ C 366, 14.12.2013) | 6 |

Corrigenda

2014/C 011/05

Corrigendum to Commission notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (OJ C 366, 14.12.2013)

6

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit 32.1

Section 1350 Certification

In connection with the filing of the Amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the "Report") by Cellular Technical Services Company, Inc. ("Registrant"), each of the undersigned hereby
certifies that:

| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and                      
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
|

By:
      /s/Stephen
            KatzStephen KatzChief Executive
          OfficerAugust 24,2007By:
      /s/Kenneth
            BlockKenneth BlockSecretary and
          Chief Financial OfficerAugust 24,2007


A signed original of this written statement required by Section1350has been provided to Cellular Technical Services Company, Inc. and will be
retained by Cellular Technical Services Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



---
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DARRELL JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROL PORTER et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5342RBL

ORDER DENYING APPOINTMENT

OF COUNSEL AND WARNING

PLAINTIFF 

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate

Judge pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Plaintiff was given leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. The court reviewed the complaint and found it deficient. Plaintiff was ordered to file an

amended complaint.(Dkt. # 9). Plaintiff has received extensions of time to file an amended complaint. 

An amended complaint is due on or before January 26, 2007 (Dkt. # 16).

Since the inception of this action plaintiff has filed at lease three motions asking counsel be

appointed in his case. (Dkt. # 10, 12, and 15). As the court has previously explained, there is no

right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although the court, under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), can request counsel to represent a party proceeding in forma pauperis, the

court may do so only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331

(9th Cir. 1986); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616

Case 3:06-cv-05342-RBL Document 17 Filed 12/05/06 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

F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980). A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light

of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331.

Plaintiff has made no showing of likelihood of success on the merits, although the facts in his

complaint are sufficient to state a claim. The current complaint is deficient because parties are not

named and the facts are not tied to the actions of any named party. Plaintiff has articulated his facts

well. Accordingly, Plaintiff's third motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. # 15) is DENIED. 

Plaintiff is warned that repetitive motions, once a court has entered a ruling, are improper. 

No further motion for appointment of counsel will be considered unless plaintiff specifically

addresses the standard and shows exceptional circumstances and a likelihood of success on the

merits.

The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a copy of this Order.

DATED this 5th day of December, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05342-RBL Document 17 Filed 12/05/06 Page 2 of 2