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

RICHARD ROY SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILL BAILEY,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5173RBL

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

CONDUCT NON STENOGRAPHIC

DEPOSITIONS, ORDERING THE

PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY WITH THE

COURTS ORDERS TO FILE AN

AMENDED COMPLAINT, 

DIRECTING THE CLERK TO

REMOVE ALL DEFENDANTS

EXCEPT WILL BAILEY FROM THIS

ACTION AND STAYING THE

ACTION

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)(A) and 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrates' Rules MJR 1, MJR

3, and MJR 4.

On August 22nd, 2006 the court entered a Report and Recommendation that the complaint be

dismissed but that plaintiff be given leave to amend. The amended complaint was not to contain any

Case 3:06-cv-05173-RBL Document 59 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

27

28 ORDER - 2

new defendants or causes of action, and amendment was allowed solely to permit plaintiff to cure

defects in the original complaint (Dkt. # 39). On August 31st, 2006 plaintiff filed a motion to add a

party (Dkt. # 41). On September 8th, 2006 the District court Judge adopted the Report and

Recommendation and gave plaintiff until October 8th, 2006 to file an amended complaint. The

amended complaint was to contain no new defendants or causes of action (Dkt. # 44). 

On October 17th, 2006 plaintiff filed an amended complaint that names three new defendants,

Freed Swenaon, Jim Carter, and Donna Waters (Dkt. # 53). This attempt at amendment does not

comply with either the Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. # 39), or the Order adopting the Report

and Recommendation, (Dkt. # 44). The court will not consider this Amended Complaint (Dkt. #

53). Because there is no proper complaint before the court the motion for non stenographic

depositions is DENIED.

Plaintiff was given until October 8th, 2006 to comply with the courts order and file an

amended complaint that contained no new defendants or causes of action. Plaintiff has not complied. 

Plaintiff will have until December 1st, 2006 to comply with the court orders to amend. If a proper

complaint that complies with the previous court orders is not filed on or before that date the court

will recommend dismissal of this action and possibly sanctions. This action is STAYED UNTIL

DECEMBER 1ST, 2006.

The Clerk of Court is directed remove Freed Swenaon, Jim Carter, and Donna Waters from

this action. They were never properly named defendants given the courts prior orders. The clerks

office is also directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff and to counsel for defendant.

DATED this 16th, day of November, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05173-RBL Document 59 Filed 11/16/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Baja Mining Corp. (the Company) on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John Greenslade, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)

The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date March 20, 2008

/s/ John Greenslade



John Greenslade

Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Baja Mining Corp. and will be retained by Baja Mining Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 4.12






FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DHT HOLDINGS, INC.
 2012 INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN
  This First Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the DHT Holdings, Inc. 2012 Incentive Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) is effective as of August 20, 2013.
  WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 7(a) of the Plan, the board of directors (the “Board”) of DHT Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) may, subject to the approval of the stockholders of the Company, amend the Plan to increase the maximum number of Shares for which Awards may be granted under the Plan;
  WHEREAS, the Board adopted resolutions on March 11, 2013 approving, subject to the approval of the stockholders of the Company, a proposal to increase the number of Shares that may be delivered pursuant to Awards granted under the Plan from 455,000 to 1,075,000 (the “Proposal”);
  WHEREAS, on June 13, 2013, in accordance with §71(3) of the Business Corporations Act of the Republic of the Marshall Islands and Section 2.08 of the Bylaws of the Company (as amended and restated), the stockholders of the Company approved the Proposal by the affirmative vote of a majority of the shares of the Company’s common stock represented at the annual meeting of stockholders of the Company.
  NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:
  1.  Amendments.  (a) The first sentence of Section 4(a) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:
  “Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 4(b), (i) the aggregate number of Shares that may be delivered pursuant to Awards granted under the Plan shall be 1,075,000.”
  (b)  Upon execution of this Amendment, the Plan shall be deemed to be amended and modified accordingly, and all references to the Plan in such document shall be read to include the Plan as amended and modified by this Amendment.
  2. The Plan.  Except as specifically amended hereby, all of the terms and other provisions of the Plan are hereby ratified and confirmed and shall continue to be in full force and effect in accordance with their respective terms on the date hereof.  Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Plan.
  3.  Headings.  The headings contained in this Amendment are for reference purposes only and shall not affect in any way the meaning or interpretation of this Amendment.
    
   IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Company, has executed this amendment as of the date first written above.
  by/s/ Eirik UbøeName:  Eirik UbøeTitle:    Chief Financial Officer
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. 

RAUL CHAVEZ,

Defendant.

________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CR06-198-RSL

DETENTION ORDER 

Offense charged: 

Conspiracy to Distribute Cocaine, Heroin, and Methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) and 846.

Date of Detention Hearing: December 13, 2007.

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:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) Defendant was born in Mexico and was detained when he returned to the United

States after leaving the United States.

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

continued detention if there is a change in circumstances.

Case 2:06-cr-00198-RSL Document 651 Filed 12/14/07 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 appear to be no conditions or combination of conditions other than detention

that will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance at future Court hearings.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

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

Attorney General for confinement in a correctional 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 14th day of December, 2007.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cr-00198-RSL Document 651 Filed 12/14/07 Page 2 of 2
#         Native Aging Visions Newsletter    

        Boozhoo! We are excited to bring our newsletter, *Native Aging Visions*, back as an electronic        newsletter. In this issue you will find matters that are important to Native communities. We hope you enjoy the        stories, tips, and please feel free to reach out to us about any thoughts, questions, or concerns you might        have. We can be reached by phone at (800) 896-7628 or email info@nrcnaa.org.    

- Summer 2024
- Spring 2023
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

DAVID KING and RHONDA KING,

husband and wife,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

KALAMA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 402,

JAMES SUTTON,

Defendants.

Case No.C05-5675 RBL

ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Defendants’ Motions in Limine 1-52

[Dkt. #153].

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

On December 11, 2006 the Court, after a hearing, entered an Order [Dkt. #136] ruling on motions

numbered 1 through 41. The Court will not revise that Order, except as to motion number 40. The Order

does not reflect a ruling on motion number 40; however, the motion was addressed at the hearing, was granted,

and plaintiffs have corrected their exhibit list to reflect the Court’s ruling. [See Dkt. #166].

42. Precluding testimony about Roger Samples alleged 1998 statement. GRANTED

43. Precluding testimony of alleged conversation with Donna Cramer. RESERVED

44. Precluding testimony of matters relating to the Charna Ophus

grievance.

GRANTED

45. Precluding testimony concerning the Bob Lynn altercation. GRANTED

46. Precluding testimony concerning the student “staffing” matter. RESERVED

Case 3:05-cv-05675-RBL Document 171 Filed 05/16/07 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

Page - 2

47. Precluding testimony of any non-party witness concerning whether they

have in any way felt discriminated against on the basis of age or union

association.

RESERVED

48. Precluding testimony about Mr. Hamilton allegedly becoming

“agitated” in January 2004 regarding teachers working one evening for

parent-teacher meetings.

DENIED

49. Precluding testimony that on September 8, 2005, Mr. Hamilton gave

Mr. King “a verbal warning for insubordination for failing to check out 

properly at the end of the school year, on June 17, 2005.” 

GRANT

50. Precluding testimony that on March 1, 2005, Mr. Hamilton informed

Mr. King that he had given student AC a warning for a discipline

referral King had submitted the previous day “after Ms. C . . . had

called [Mr. King] a “butthead.’”

DENIED

51. Precluding testimony relating to the March 2, 2005 situation of Mr.

Hamilton allegedly becoming “very agitated” when he and Mr. King

disagreed over a student discipline matter.

DENIED

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 16th day of May, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05675-RBL Document 171 Filed 05/16/07 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

September 8, 1958

No. 62334.

#### Keuffel & Esser Co. *v.*United States,

protests 317516-K and 323294-K (New York).

*365Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of drawing instrument cases similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 59557, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . A P - 75, 966

LA R R Y R A Y SW EA R I N G EN , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS O N D I R EC T A PPE A L F R O M TH E D EN I A L O F A M O TIO N TO R EC U SE

F I LE D I N CAUS E N O. 9 9 - 1 1 - 0 6 4 3 5 - CR I N T HE 9 J UDI CI AL DI S TR I CT COURT

TH M ON TGO M ERY CO UNTY P erCuriam . O P I N I O N T hi s i s a di r ectappea l of the deni al of a mot i on t o r ecus e fi l ed i n the 9 Judi ci al th D i s tr i ctC ourtof M ont gom eryC ounty , C aus e N o. 99- 11- 06435- C R , s ty l ed The St at e of T exas v. L arryR aySw ear i ngen. A ppel l ant ’ s appea l i s unt i m el yand i s , ther efor e, d is m is s e d
. D o n ot publi sh D el i ver ed: N ovember26, 2008
SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS




This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




The undersigned, who are (i) the Chief Executive Officer and (ii) the Chief Financial Officer of United Development Funding IV (the “Trust”), each hereby certify as follows:




The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Trust (the “Report”), which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.








Dated this 31stday of March, 2010.





s/ Hollis M. Greenlaw
 Hollis M. Greenlaw
 Chief Executive Officer
 
 
 /s/ Cara D. Obert
 Cara D. Obert
 Chief Financial Officer
 
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 02840

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

02840\02840_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

02840\02840_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA Completeness Review Checklist

x 02840\02840_Checklist.xls EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 02840\02840_PART A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02840\02840_PART B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02840\02840_PART C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02840\02840_PART D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02840\02840_PART E.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02840\02840_PART H.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02840\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\2840_ MAP 2 MONTVILLE STATION.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02840\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\2840_ MAP 3 MONTVILLE STATION.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02840\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\2840_ MAP1 MONTVILLE.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02840\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\2840_ WB-1 MONTVILLE.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02840\Certification Statement_02840.pdf Plant Certification Statement

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database .
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,198

EX PARTE JOHN WESLEY WALSH, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 14,971-A IN THE 115TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM UPSHUR COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of burglary of a

habitation and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 

Applicant contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he failed to

timely file a notice of appeal. Specifically, he claims that his attorney failed to preserve his appellate

deadlines by filing his motion for new trial after the time for said filing had expired.
2

Based on an affidavit from Applicant’s trial counsel that he miscalculated the days for filing

a motion for new trial and based on the State’s response indicating its belief that Applicant was, in

fact, denied his right to file an appeal based on counsel’s miscalculation, We find that Applicant is

entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal of the judgment of conviction in Cause No.

14,971-A from the 115th Judicial District Court of Upshur County. Applicant is ordered returned

to that time at which he may give a written notice of appeal so that he may then, with the aid of

counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. All time limits shall be calculated as if the sentence had been

imposed on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant

desire to prosecute an appeal, he must take affirmative steps to file a written notice of appeal in the

trial court within 30 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Delivered: August 19, 2009

Do Not Publish
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

KEVIN L. HENDRICKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

THURSTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S

OFFICE, and TACOMA POLICE

DEPARTMENT,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5374RBL

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF

TO CURE DEFICIENCIES IN

HIS COMPLAINT

After granting plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, this matter comes before the court on

plaintiff's submission of a civil rights complaint for service. The Court, having reviewed the record finds the

following:

Plaintiff's complaint is deficient. Plaintiff names two defendants: the Thurston County Sheriff’s Office,

and the Tacoma Police Department. Plaintiff alleges these defendants violated his U.S. Constitutional and

federally protected civil rights when he was wrongfully arrested on August 23, 2004. According to the

complaint, plaintiff was released after spending over twelve days in the Pierce County Jail when it was

discovered he was not the person named in the arrest warrant. Plaintiff’s allegations appear to properly

support a cognizable claim. To prevail on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 false arrest claim, a plaintiff must show that

there was no probable cause for the arrest. Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 380 (9th

Cir.1998) (per curiam). 

However, Plaintiff has failed to name any individual who personally participated in the alleged

deprivation. In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a complaint must allege facts showing how

Case 3:06-cv-05374-BHS Document 6 Filed 07/27/06 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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

individually named defendants caused or personally participated in causing the harm alleged in the complaint.

Arnold v. IBM, 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, this court orders the following:

(i) Plaintiff shall seek to cure these deficiencies by filing an amended complaint by no later than

August 31, 2006, 2002. If plaintiff fails to cure these deficiencies this court will recommend dismissal of this

matter as frivolous.

(ii) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order and the General Order to plaintiff.

DATED this 27th day of December, 2006.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold J. Kelley Arnold 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05374-BHS Document 6 Filed 07/27/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 68 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 68

  Designating April 9, 1997, and April 9, 1998, as ``National Former 
                   Prisoner of War Recognition Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 20, 1997

 Mr. Specter (for himself, Mr. Akaka, and Mr. Smith of New Hampshire) 
 submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Designating April 9, 1997, and April 9, 1998, as ``National Former 
                   Prisoner of War Recognition Day''.

Whereas the United States has fought in many wars;
Whereas thousands of members of the Armed Forces of the United States who served 
        in such wars were captured by the enemy and held as prisoners of war;
Whereas many prisoners of war were subjected to brutal and inhumane treatment by 
        their captors in violation of international codes and customs for the 
        treatment of prisoners of war and died, or were disabled, as a result of 
        the treatment; and
Whereas the great sacrifices of the prisoners of war and their families deserve 
        national recognition: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates April 9, 1997, and April 9, 1998, as 
        ``National Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day'' in honor of 
        the members of the Armed Forces of the United States who have 
        been held as prisoners of war; and
            (2) requests that the President issue a proclamation 
        calling on the people of the United States to commemorate this 
        day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
                                 <all>
```
Case 3:06-cr-05041-RBL Document 42 Filed 10/26/06 Page 1 of 7
Case 3:06-cr-05041-RBL Document 42 Filed 10/26/06 Page 2 of 7
Case 3:06-cr-05041-RBL Document 42 Filed 10/26/06 Page 3 of 7
Case 3:06-cr-05041-RBL Document 42 Filed 10/26/06 Page 4 of 7
Case 3:06-cr-05041-RBL Document 42 Filed 10/26/06 Page 5 of 7
Case 3:06-cr-05041-RBL Document 42 Filed 10/26/06 Page 6 of 7
Case 3:06-cr-05041-RBL Document 42 Filed 10/26/06 Page 7 of 7
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 15th day of June , 2006

/S/ PETER H. VOELKER 

 Deputy Clerk

MINUTE ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the WESTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

PARAMJIT SINGH DHALIWAL,

 Petitioner,

)

)

)

vs. )

) C06-211 RSL

KEN QUINN, Superintendent,

 Respondent.

)

)

) MINUTE ORDER

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

James P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge:

The parties have requested the noting date for the Habeas petition be extended and reset. 

The request is Granted. The Habeas petition is hereby Re-Noted to Friday, July 14, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00211-RSL-JPD Document 14 Filed 06/15/06 Page 1 of 1