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

\1

 LAW OFFICES OF 

 HOWARD RATNER, INC. P.S. 

 720 THIRD AVENUE #2100 

 SEATTLE, WA 98104-1804 

 (206) 625-0737 FAX (206) 682-5797 

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

 Magistrate Judge Benton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 Plaintiff, ) NO CR06-192 JCC 

 ) 

 v. ) ORDER APPOINTING PSYCHIATRIST 

 ) TO DETERMINE DEFENDANT’S 

 ) COMPETENCE 

RAFAEL DIAZ LAUREANO, ) TO STAND TRIAL OR PLEAD GUILTY 

 ) 

 Defendant. )

 The court has previously ordered (docket # 107) that defendant RAFAEL DIAZ 

LAUREANO’S undergo a psychiatric examination to determine his competence to plead guilty 

or stand trial under 18 U.S.C. § 4241. 

 The court hereby appoints psychiatrist Seth Cohen, M.D. to perform the competency 

evaluation at the Federal Detention Center SeaTac and complete his evaluation and report on or 

before October 23, 2006. Dr. Seth Cohen’s address is: 130 Nickerson St., Suite 204, Seattle, 

WA 98109. 

 The Federal Detention Center SeaTac shall admit Dr. Seth Cohen for the purpose of 

performing the evaluation. 

Case 2:06-cr-00192-JCC Document 113 Filed 10/04/06 Page 1 of 2
ORDER APPOINTING PSYCHIATRIST 

\2

 LAW OFFICES OF 

 HOWARD RATNER, INC. P.S. 

 720 THIRD AVENUE #2100 

 SEATTLE, WA 98104-1804 

 (206) 625-0737 FAX (206) 682-5797 

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

 The court further orders that Dr. Seth Cohen’s fees for the evaluation be paid by the 

court. 

Dated this 4th day of October, 2006. 

A

MONICA J. BENTON 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cr-00192-JCC Document 113 Filed 10/04/06 Page 2 of 2
MAURICE A. BENNETT

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent. ___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FI LED

CASE NO. 1D 17

- 2596

Opinion filed November 8, 2017.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

-- Original
Jurisdiction

.

Maurice A. Bennett, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, Assi stant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the

merits.

RAY, WIN OKUR, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Carl C. THORN, Petitioner, v. ITMANN COAL COMPANY; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.

No. 00-1951.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued June 6, 2001.

Decided June 29, 2001.

S.F. Raymond Smith, Rundle *&*Rundle, L.C., Pineville, WV, for petitioner.

Kathy Lynn Snyder, Jackson & Kelly, Morgantown, WV, for respondents.

ON BRIEF: Mary Rich Maloy, Jackson & Kelly, P.L.L.C., Charleston, WV, for respondent Itmann Coal.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Following oral argument and having considered the briefs and the record, we find no reversible error in the June 9, 2000, decision of the Benefits Review Board, BRB No. 99-0208 BLA, affirming the administrative law judge’s October 29, 1998, decision and order on remand denying benefits.

Accordingly, for the reasons substantially expressed in the opinion of the Benefits Review Board, the petition for review is *DENIED.*
<PAGE>

                                                     March 10, 2000

InterNAP Network Services
         Corporation
601 Union Street
Suite 1000
Seattle, Washington 98101


Ladies and Gentlemen:


         Each of Morgan Stanley Venture Partners III, L.P., Morgan Stanley
Venture Investors III, L.P. and The Morgan Stanley Venture Partners Entrepreneur
Fund, L.P. (collectively, the "Funds") hereby irrevocably agrees with InterNAP
Network Services Corporation (the "Company") to vote all shares of common stock
of the Company beneficially owned in aggregate by the Funds in excess of 9.9% of
the outstanding shares of common stock of the Company in proportion to all votes
cast by the other holders of common stock of the Company (as determined by the
Company and excluding for these purposes all shares of common stock beneficially
owned by the Funds).


                                    Sincerely,


                               Morgan Stanley Venture Partners III, L.P.
                               Morgan Stanley Venture Investors III, L.P.
                               The Morgan Stanley Venture Partners Entrepreneur
                                        Fund, L.P.

                               By:  Morgan Stanley Venture Partners III, L.L.C.,
                                       its general partner

                               By:  Morgan Stanley Venture Partners III, Inc.,
                                       its institutional managing member

                               By: /s/ Debra Abramovitz
                                  -------------------------------
                                  Name: Debra Abramovitz
                                  Title: Vice President

Accepted as of the date
  first above mentioned

InterNAP Network Services Corporation
<PAGE>

By: /s/ Paul E. McBride
   ------------------------------
   Name: Paul E. McBride
   Title: Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
No. 67193.

protests 60/27194, etc. (New York).

#### Quality Marble & Granite Co. et al. *v.*United States,

*301Opinion by

Oliver, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of opal glass tiles or tiling, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL - 1

(Proposed)

(James Robert Jackson; CR06-156RSM)

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Ave., Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

(206) 553-1100

 JUDGE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

JAMES ROBERT JACKSON,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR06-156RSM

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

THE COURT having considered the stipulated motion of the parties, the

records and files herein, the Court hereby makes the following findings:

1. Based on the facts set forth in the parties stipulated motion, the Court finds

that a failure to grant the continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time

necessary 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 a

continuance in this case, that a continuance is necessary to insure effective trial

preparation 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).

//

Case 2:06-cr-00156-RSM Document 26 Filed 09/15/06 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

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL - 2

(Proposed)

(James Robert Jackson; CR06-156RSM)

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Ave., Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

(206) 553-1100

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the trial date for James Jackson is

extended from October 10, 2006, to November 13, 2006. Pretrial motions shall be

filed by October 19, 2006.

DONE this 15th day of September 2006.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

s/Nancy Tenney 

WSBA No. 35304

Attorney for James Jackson

Federal Public Defender’s Office

1601 Fifth Ave., Suite 700

Seattle, WA 98101

206/553-1100

206/553-0120

nancy_tenney@fd.org

Case 2:06-cr-00156-RSM Document 26 Filed 09/15/06 Page 2 of 2
#### Ellen H. Parker *vs.*Geneva Vallerand et al.

Androscoggin.

Decided October 4, 1939.

No sufficient foundation was laid for this bill in equity under Revised Statutes, Chapter 118, Section 52, *et seq.,*to remove a cloud on the title to certain real estate the real title to which, or to an undivided interest in common therein, plaintiff alleges vested in herself.

A cloud on title is something, such as a mortgage, deed or other instrument, which can be pointed out, and which, as a semblance of title, either legal or equitable, has some appearance of casting a valid objection over the true owner’s title.

There was no such showing at the trial below. Exceptions over*520ruled. Appeal dismissed. Decree below affirmed.

*Seth May,*for plaintiff.

*Clifford & Clifford,*for defendants.
# Official Journal L 329/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 329 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6417 September 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 329

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6417 September 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS |
| | * | Information concerning the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia on certain aspects of air services | 1 |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1527 of 31 May 2021 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards for the contractual recognition of write down and conversion powers (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| | * | Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1528 of 8 June 2021 correcting the Swedish language version of Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items | 6 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

*

Information concerning the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia on certain aspects of air services

1

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1527 of 31 May 2021 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards for the contractual recognition of write down and conversion powers (
  1
  )

1

2

*

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1528 of 8 June 2021 correcting the Swedish language version of Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items

6

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Before the First Division,

December 20, 1966

No. P66/376.

No. P66/377.

No. P66/378.

#### The Rike Kumler Company *v.*United States, protest 64/16863 (Cleveland). Illfelder Importing Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protests 65/945, etc. (New York). Gimbel Bros., Inc. *v.*United States, protest 65/23335 (New York).

Oliver, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of plastic paperweights similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Ace Importing*Co., *Inc.*v. *United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 226, Abstract 67488), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### Brian S. FAILE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sherman HATCHER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 99-17668.

D.C. No. CV-96-00600-JBR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 6, 2001 San Francisco, California*.

Decided July 5, 2001.

Before PREGERSON, FERGUSON, HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Brian Faile appeals the Magistrate Judge’s order denying his motion for *636release from state custody. The Judge denied the motion because Faile had completed his sentence and the state court had set a briefing schedule for his state habeas hearing. This Court does not have jurisdiction to hear Faile’s appeal. Generally, courts of appeals may only consider cases when there has been a final decision in the court below. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Absent explicit consent of the parties or authorization by the district court, magistrate judges do not have authority to issue final appealable decisions in habeas cases. 28 U.S.C. § 636; Nevada Local Rule IB 1-4; *Columbia Record Prods. v. Hot Wax Records, Inc.,*966 F.2d 515, 516 (9th Cir.1992). In Faile’s case, the District Court never expressly adopted the findings of the Magistrate Judge for the relevant order. Therefore, there was no final appealable decision.

Faile argues that the District Court implicitly adopted the Magistrate Judge’s order when the court issued a Certificate of Appealability (COA). We need not determine the District Court’s intent, however, because Faile filed his notice of appeal before the District Gourt issued the COA. A notice of appeal from a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that precedes the district court’s judgment is not effective. *Serine v. Peterson,*989 F.2d 371, 372-73 (9th Cir.1993).

DISMISSED.

**

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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DENNIS W. SOMERVILLE, 

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN MARTINEZ,

Respondent.

Case No. C06-5090RBL

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION 

 

 NOTED FOR: 

 April 7th, 2006

This habeas corpus 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 3 and MJR 4. 

Petitioner filed this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge his 2000 Clark County conviction for

five counts of robbery. (Dkt. # 4).

In the petition petitioner mentions a 2003 habeas petition filed in this court challenging the

same conviction. Somerville v. Morgan, 03-CV-5179RBL. Review of the courts record shows the

prior petition being dismissed as procedurally barred. This case appears to be duplicative of the

issues raised in Somerville v. Morgan, 03-CV-5179RBL. Accordingly this petition is successive.

This file should be administratively closed and the case transferred to the Ninth Circuit in

accordance with Circuit Rule 22-3(a).

Case 3:06-cv-05090-RBL Document 5 Filed 03/13/06 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

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Page - 2

DISCUSSION

Ninth Circuit Rule 22-3 (a) states:

(a) Application. Any petitioner seeking leave to file a second or successive 2254

petition or 2255 motion in district court must seek leave under 28 U.S.C. §§

2244 or 2255. An original and five copies of the application must be filed

with the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. No filing fee is required. If a second

or successive petition or motion, or application for leave to file such a petition

or motion, is mistakenly submitted to the district court, the district court

shall refer it to the court of appeals.

(Emphasis added).

Here, the petitioner is filing a successive petition challenging the same issues. See,

Somerville v. Morgan 03-CV-5179RBL. Clearly, the instant petition should be treated as a “second

or successive” petition. The petition should be transferred.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing discussion, the Court should transfer this matter as a second or

successive petition and administratively close the file. A proposed order accompanies this report and

recommendation.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal rules of Civil Procedure, the

parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report to file written objections. See also Fed.

R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of

appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule

72(b), the clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on April 7th, 2006, as noted in the

caption. 

DATED this 13th day of March, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05090-RBL Document 5 Filed 03/13/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the First Division,

JUNE 22, 1950

No. 54435.

#### Coro, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 154046-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of combs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc.*(37 C. C. P. A. 48, C. A. D. 418), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6778

COREY E. JOHNSON,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

LORETTA K. KELLY, Warden, Sussex I State Prison,

 Respondent – Appellee,

and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District 

Judge. (3:07-cv-00731-JRS)

Submitted: July 25, 3013 Decided: July 30, 2013

Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Corey E. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Corey E. Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for 

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); 

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Johnson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 
3

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

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

27

28

Chief Judge Marsha J. Pechman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) NO. CR06-157MJP

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ERRATA TO GOVERNMENT’S

) RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR

HENRY CARL ROSENAU, ) RELEASE PENDING RETRIAL

)

Defendant. )

_________________________________)

On May 29, 2012, the Government filed its Response to Defendant’s Motion for

Release Pending Retrial (Dkt. 157) in the above-captioned case. Attached hereto is the

Corrected Transcript for April 22, 2012, correctly identifying the speakers. A disk with

the audio of the pertinent conversations will be filed with the Court and sent to counsel

for Mr. Rosenau.

DATED this 8th day of June, 2012.

Respectfully submitted,

JENNY A. DURKAN

United States Attorney

SUSAN M. ROE

Assistant United States Attorney

s/ Susan M. Roe

SUSAN M. ROE

Assistant United States Attorney

WSBA 13000

United States Attorney’s Office

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

Telephone: 206.553.1077; Fax: 206.553.0755

Email: Susan.Roe@usdoj.gov

ERRATA - CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT — 1

CR06-157MJP; HENRY CARL ROSENAU

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 159 Filed 06/08/12 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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 8, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the

Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to

the attorney of record for the defendant.

s/ Kathleen M. McElroy 

KATHLEEN M. McELROY

Paralegal Specialist

United States Attorney’s Office

700 Stewart, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

Phone: 206-553-7970

Fax: 206-553-0755

E-mail: Katie.McElroy@usdoj.gov

 

ERRATA - CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT — 2

CR06-157MJP; HENRY CARL ROSENAU

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 159 Filed 06/08/12 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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

ANDREW M. FLORES,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN MARTINEZ, et al,

Respondents.

Case No. C06-5114RBL-KLS

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

The Court, having reviewed the petition for habeas corpus, the Report and Recommendation of

Judge Karen L. Strombom, United States Magistrate Judge, and the remaining record, does hereby find

and Order:

(1) Petitioner’s Motion to Supplement the Record [Dkt. #26] is GRANTED;

(2 the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(3) petitioner’s federal habeas corpus petition is DISMISSED; and

(4) the Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner and to Judge Strombom.

DATED this 6th day of February, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05114-RBL Document 28 Filed 02/06/07 Page 1 of 1
May 4, 1964

No. 68526.

Appeal 5163.

#### Lilli Ann Corporation *v.*United States.

C.D. 2418. Appeal dismissed February 3,1964.