alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 14,275a.

#### TUTT v. IDE.

[3 Blatchf. 255. note.] 1

Circuit Court. N. D. New York.

Sept. 1, 1859.

New Trial.

On a motion, made by the defendants for a new trial.

NELSON, Circuit Justice.

I am entirely satisfied with the opinion of Judge Hall in Tutt v. Ide [Case No. 14,275b]. delivered on the decision of the demurrer to the declaration, and which he followed on the trial of the issue of *394. fact, and must, therefore, deny the motion for •a new trial, and give judgment for the plain- . tiffs upon the verdict. The opinion in the case of Converse v. Coit [unreported], delivered hy me in the state court, and referred to on the argument, turned upon a different question from the one involved in this case.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [License No. 01/01-0422]

Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, (“Act”) under Section 309 of the Act and the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations under 13 CFR 107.1900 to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 01/01-0422 issued to New Canaan Funding Mezzanine V SBIC, LP, said license is hereby declared null and void.

Bailey DeVries,

Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation, United States Small Business Administration.

[FR Doc. 2023-22385 Filed 10-6-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 

(Timothy Duquette; #06-5353L)

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

1 (206) 553-1100

 JUDGE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TIMOTHY DUQUETTE,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR 06-5353 RBL

ORDER GRANTING 

STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE

TRIAL DATE 

THE COURT having considered the stipulated motion of the parties to continue the trial

date, the affidavit of defense counsel, and the records and files herein, the Court hereby makes

the following findings:

1. The Court finds that a failure to grant the continuance would deny counsel the

reasonable time necessary to complete discovery and for effective preparation, taking into

account the exercise of due diligence, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii).

2. The Court further finds that the ends of justice will be served by ordering the

continuance in this case and that the continuance is necessary to ensure effective trial preparation

and to complete the discovery process, and that these factors outweigh the best interests of the

public in a more speedy trial, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the trial date be continued from October 16, 2006,

to January 2, 2007 at 9:00 a.m..

Case 3:06-cr-05353-RBL Document 14 Filed 10/11/06 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

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 

(Timothy Duquette; #06-5353L)

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

2 (206) 553-1100

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the period of time from the current trial date of October

16, 2006, up to and including the new proposed trial date of January 2, 2007, shall be

excludable time pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq. Pretrial Motions

cutoff shall be extended to November 14, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of October, 2006. A

RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

s/ Robert H. Gombiner

WSBA # 16059

Attorney for Timothy Duquette

Federal Public Defender’s Office

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, WA 98101

Phone: (206) 553-1100

Fax: (206) 553-0120

robert_gombiner@fd.org

s/ Susan Dohrmann

Assistant United States Attorney

Telephonic Approval

Case 3:06-cr-05353-RBL Document 14 Filed 10/11/06 Page 2 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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

KEVIN LAWRENCE HENDRICKSON,

Petitioner,

v.

ALICE PAYNE,

Respondent.

Case No. C06-5331 RBL

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

The Court, having reviewed petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, petitioner’s

response to order to show cause, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Karen L.

Strombom, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, and the remaining record, does

hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. # 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE; and

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner, counsel for

respondent and to the Hon. Karen L. Strombom.

DATED this 5th day of September, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05331-RBL Document 13 Filed 09/05/06 Page 1 of 1
US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

Washington DC 20590

 April 25, 2013

FOR THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DOT-OSTIATA APPLICATION OF RESOLUTION 787 ON ENHANCED AIRLINE DISTRIBUTION

Submission by the Association of European Airlines (AEA)

Brussels

To whom it may concern, 

In October 2012 the International Air Transport Association (IATA) adopted its new Resolution 787 

on Enhanced Airline Distribution, which it terms a New Distribution Capability (NDC). The Resolution 

sets out the modalities for the development of an electronic data interchange standard which aims 

to modernise current data transmission standards by allowing airlines to present their products to 

consumers through indirect channels. This is not possible at the moment because the GDS network 

is based on outdated standards which were developed over 40 years ago, before the advent of the 

internet. 

AEA fully supports the introduction of Resolution 787 for the following reasons: 

 The new system will provide consumers with easier and faster access to information with 

regard to the different fares available, the possibility to purchase ancillary services, seat 

selection, etc. This will enable them to compare competing offers from different airlines. In 

general such competition leads to lower prices and better customer service. 

 The current GDS system was designed to display only two elements: the base fare and flight 

schedules. In addition, offers made through the GDSs may be higher than those obtained 

through direct channels. Resolution 787 aims to do away with these inefficiencies by 

providing a distribution system which enables consumers to make an informed choice about 

which services best meet their individual needs.

 The NDC will not infringe the customer’s right to privacy. Customers will not be obliged to 

provide any information that they do not already supply to the GDSs, but they will have the 

option to provide some additional personal information which will enable the airline to offer 

them products customised to their travel needs.
 It is not intended that the new standards should become obligatory; airlines will have a 

choice as to whether or not to adopt them, or indeed develop their own hybrid solutions.

AEA believes that Resolution 787 represents a win-win situation for airlines and passengers alike, 

upgrading standards which have been overtaken by new technologies, and is worthy of Department 

of Transportation support.

Yours sincerely, 

Athar Husain Khan

Acting Secretary General

The AEA brings together 35 major European airlines, who collectively carry more than 340 million 

passengers each year, employ over 383,000 staff and operate more than 2,600 aircraft. AEA carriers 

have a long tradition of providing a high level of service to their passengers. AEA and its members 

take their responsibility to provide valuable and reliable customer service to their passengers 

seriously and share the goal of improving the air transport experience
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-5171

PRAECOMM, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

L. James D’Agostino , Greenberg Traurig, LLP, of McLean, Virginia, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was Joseph J. Summerill, IV , of Washington, DC.

Of counsel was David P. Goodwin , of Washington, DC.

Gregg MJ. Schwind , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee.

With him on the brief were Jeffrey S. Bucholtz , Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E.

Davidson , Director, and Brian M. Simkin , Assistant Director.

Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims

Judge Charles F. LettowNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-5171

PRAECOMM, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.



# Judgment

ON APPEAL from the United States Court of Federal Claims

In CASE NO(S). 06-CV-054.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Per Curiam (RADER, LINN, and MOORE, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.



### ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED: _ October 14, 2008

__ / s / Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly, Clerk
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 TAXATION OF COSTS -- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

ALFRED NEWBERRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

FIBERGLASS STRUCTURAL

ENGINEERING, INC., and RANDY RAPOZA,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-742RSL

TAXATION OF COSTS

Having considered briefs in support of, and in opposition to, the cost bill herein, costs in the cause

indicated above are hereby taxed against PLAINTIFF ALFRED NEWBERRY , and on behalf of

DEFENDANTS in the amount of $3,040.29 as follows:

Requested Disallowed Allowed

I. WITNESS FEES & COSTS $328.27 0 $328.27

II. DEPOSITION COSTS $1,417.65 0 $1,417.65

Clerk allowed costs for depositions used by either party in support of or in opposition to summary

judgment motion.

III. COPYING COSTS $1,4700.00 $441.00 $1,029.00

Costs associated with copying materials that were presented to the court were taxable. Clerk estimated

that 70% of the costs requested were presented.

IV. MEDIATOR $1,075.00 $1,075.00 0

Costs for hiring mediator are not taxable.

Case 2:06-cv-00742-RSL Document 87 Filed 09/25/07 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

Requested Disallowed Allowed

TAXATION OF COSTS -- 2

V. CERTIFIED COPIES $441.37 $176.00 $265.37

Costs to obtain certified copies were taxable.

Dated this 25th day of SEPTEMBER, 2007 .

A

Bruce Rifkin

Clerk, U.S. District Court

Case 2:06-cv-00742-RSL Document 87 Filed 09/25/07 Page 2 of 2
Louis D. Levinson, International Financial Group, Inc., Guilford Spec ialty Group, Inc., Guilford Insurance Company, and The Burlington

Insurance 

# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 25, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00606

- CV

ARGO GROUP US, INC. , Colony Management Services, Inc., Colony Insur ance Company, Colony National Insurance Company, Colony Specialty Insurance Company, Colony Agency

Services, Inc., and Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd.,

Appellant s

v.

Louis D. LEVINSON , International Financial Group, Inc., Guilford Specialty Grou p, Inc., Guilford Insurance Company, and The Burlington Insurance Company, Appellee s

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- CI

- 09550 Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant's first motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. Time is extended to September 26, 2014.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 25th day of September, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 7 Filed 11/17/05 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 7 Filed 11/17/05 Page 2 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 TO SHOW CAUSE

PAGE - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

DAVID W. BURTON, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. C06-654-MJP-JPD

)

v. )

)

E.J. HALE, Detective, Kent Police ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Department, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

This is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 22, 2006, this Court

issued orders directing that plaintiff’s amended civil rights complaint be served on Detective E.J.

Hale and on the Kent Police Department. The record reflects that the Kent Police Department was

served by the United States Marshals Service on August 24, 2006, and that counsel entered a notice

of appearance on August 31, 2006. The record further reflects that on September 20, 2006, the Court

received a notice of withdrawal and substitution of counsel which was filed on behalf of defendants

Hale and the Kent Police Department. However, to date, the Court has not received a waiver of

service of summons from defendant Hale, nor has it received an answer to plaintiff’s amended

complaint from the Kent Police Department. Both of these documents are long overdue.

Case 2:06-cv-00654-MJP Document 20 Filed 01/05/07 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

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

PAGE - 2

Accordingly, the Court does hereby ORDER as follows:

(1) Defendant E. J. Hale shall SHOW CAUSE within fourteen (14) days of the date on

which this Order is signed why the Court should not direct that he be served personally and why the

cost of personal service should not by assessed against him pursuant to Rule 4(d) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

(2) Defendant Kent Police Department shall SHOW CAUSE within twenty-one (21) days

of the date on which this Order is signed why default should not be entered against it in this action

for failure to respond to the complaint.

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, to defendant Hale, to

counsel for defendants, and to the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman.

DATED this 5th day of January, 2007.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00654-MJP Document 20 Filed 01/05/07 Page 2 of 2
### -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 38 40 42 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲

▲


## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 05/30 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 30 May 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.90 N 76.65 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■


## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ●

● 

## ★ ● ● ● ●
Case 2:02-cv-02110-BJR Document 1 Filed 10/10/02 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-02110-BJR Document 1 Filed 10/10/02 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-02110-BJR Document 1 Filed 10/10/02 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-02110-BJR Document 1 Filed 10/10/02 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-02110-BJR Document 1 Filed 10/10/02 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-02110-BJR Document 1 Filed 10/10/02 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-02110-BJR Document 1 Filed 10/10/02 Page 7 of 7
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

_________________________________________ Clerk May 24, 2013

t0521 

# Order

May 24, 2013

146371 & (308)

DANIEL ADAIR, et al

., Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v SC: 146371

COA: 230858

STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for expedited decision is GRANTED. The

application for leave to appeal the November 6, 2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals is

considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we

REVERSE that portion of the Court of Appeals judgment denying all attorney fees for

Phase II of the plaintiffs’ Headlee Amendment litigation. As explained by the special

master, the plaintiffs established that their attorneys performed reasonable and necessary

wo rk relating to the record keeping claim for which they are entitled to attorney fees.

Adair v Michigan , 486 Mich 468, 493

- 494 (2010). We REMAND this case to the Court

of Appeals to articulate on the record specific factual findings regarding the amount o f

attorney fees that are properly compensable for Phase II and enter an award consistent

with those findings, bearing in mind that the burden of proof to establish the attorney

time devoted to the record keeping claim and the reasonableness of the requeste d fees

rests on the plaintiffs. See Smith v Khouri , 481 Mich 519, 528

- 529 (2008) (opinion by

T AYLOR , C.J.). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this C ourt.
Exhibit 10(b)



                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
GE Life and Annuity Assurance Company
and
Contractholders
GE Life & Annuity Separate Account 4:

We consent to the use of our reports included herein and to the reference to our
firm under the heading "Experts" in the Statement of Additional Information.

The report of KPMG LLP dated January 21, 2000 with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of GE Life and Annuity Assurance Company and subsidiary,
contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company changed its
method of accounting for insurance-related assessments in 1999.


                                  /s/ KPMG LLP

Richmond, VA
March 13, 2000
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 22, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01081]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0114; FRL-9771-9]

Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of State Implementation 
Plans; State of Utah; Regional Haze Rule Requirements for Mandatory 
Class I Areas Under 40 CFR 51.309; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is supplementing the preamble to the final rule that 
appeared in the Federal Register on December 14, 2012. This final rule 
partially approved and partially disapproved a State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Utah on May 26, 2011 that 
addresses regional haze. The final rule preamble inadvertently did not 
include language pertaining to judicial review, and this document adds 
that language.

DATES: Effective on January 14, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel Dygowski, Air Program, Mailcode 
8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6144, dygowski.laurel@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In Federal Register document 2012-29406 
published in the Federal Register on December 14, 2012 (77 FR 74355), 
the following corrections are made:
    1. On page 74372, in the first column, in section V. Statutory and 
Executive Order Reviews, paragraph L. is added to read as follows: ``L. 
Judicial Review--Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 
petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the 
United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 25, 
2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of 
this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the 
purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a 
petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the 
effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged 
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 
307(b)(2).)''

    Dated: December 20, 2012.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2013-01081 Filed 1-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Annual Report of Orofino Gold Corp.  (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending May 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Shih Long Ning, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of May 31, 2011.  By:/s/ Shi Long NingShi Long Ning
Chief Financial Officer