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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

RONALD L. BASKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5130FDB

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

CLARIFICATION 

This 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. Before the

court is a motion for clarification. (Dkt. # 13). Plaintiff does not seek “clarification” of any order

issued by the court. Instead he attempts to argue the merits of his request for injunctive relief and

tell the court why he feels he should be allowed to go to work camp. The court does not have an

acceptable complaint before it and there is no liberty interest in remaining in a particular prison or in

avoiding transfer. Nor does an inmate have a protected liberty interest in classification. Olim v.

Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (1983); Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (1983): Meachum v. Fano, 427

U.S. 215 (1976) . Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

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

DATED this 16th day of May, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05130-FDB Document 14 Filed 05/16/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 65276.

#### D. P. Harris Hdw. & Mfg. Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 322705-K, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), 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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

ALVIN DAMPIER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et 

al.

Defendants.

CASE NO. C06-325 MJP

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

REOPEN

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s letter, (Dkt. No. 14), which the Court construes as a 

Motion to Reopen. Having reviewed the motion and the related record, the Court hereby 

DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion.

Discussion

On June 30, 2006, the Court entered an Order adopting Judge Theiler’s Report and 

Recommendation and dismissing Plaintiff’s case. (Dkt. No. 12.) The Court entered judgment in 

this matter on July 5, 2006. (Dkt. No. 13.) Plaintiff did not file objections to Judge Theiler’s 

Report and Recommendation.

Case 2:06-cv-00325-MJP Document 15 Filed 12/15/15 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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN- 2

Plaintiff filed the present Motion with the Court on November 19, 2015. (Dkt. No. 14.) 

In the Motion, Plaintiff represents that he did not have the opportunity to respond to the Court’s 

orders because he was being transferred back and forth between different facilities. (Id.) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 allows a party to move for relief from a final 

judgment, order or proceeding for several reasons, including “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 

excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Plaintiff’s Motion is properly considered under 

this subsection of Rule 60. However, a motion under this subsection must be brought “no more 

than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or date of the proceeding.” Id. Here, Plaintiff 

waited more than nine years after the Court dismissed his case to bring this Motion. Therefore, 

Plaintiff’s Motion is untimely, and the Court cannot reopen Plaintiff’s case.

Conclusion

Because the Motion is untimely, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen his 

case. (Dkt. No. 14.) The clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order and of the Order of 

Dismissal and Judgment (Dkt. Nos. 12, 13), to Plaintiff.

Dated this 15th day of December, 2015.

A

Marsha J. Pechman

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00325-MJP Document 15 Filed 12/15/15 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-30-1997
<CASH>                                      11,127,980
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               34,462,623
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,435,078
<INVENTORY>                                 28,692,277
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            75,176,018
<PP&E>                                      14,481,453
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             115,525,181
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,321,762
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,203
<OTHER-SE>                                  92,385,240
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               115,525,181
<SALES>                                     53,955,195
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            53,955,195
<CGS>                                       32,187,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               32,187,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,271,978
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               127,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              67,525
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,315,744
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,222,186
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,950,554
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James E. Mayhar, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 975]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), rendered January 4, 1994, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*621We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see, *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf, People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 10.19**

**AMENDMENT NO. 1**

**TO THE**

**ADVISORY AGREEMENT**

This amendment no. 1 to the Advisory Agreement dated as ofNovember 8, 2007 (the “Advisory Agreement”) between KBS Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), and KBS Capital Advisors LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the“Advisor”), is entered as of January 25, 2008 (the “Amendment”). Capitalized terms used herein but not defined shall have the meaning set forth in the Advisory Agreement. 

WHEREAS, upon the terms set forth in this Amendment, the Advisor has agreed to amend and restate Article 16 of the Advisory Agreement and advance fundsto the Company upon the terms set forth below. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants andagreements contained herein, the parties hereto agree that Article 16 of the Advisory Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 

**ADVANCE**

Notwithstanding anything contained in Article 9 of this Agreement to the contrary, theAdvisor hereby agrees to advance funds (the “Advance”) to the Company equal to the amount by which the cumulative amount of distributions declared by the Company from January 1, 2006 through the period ending March 31, 2008exceeds the amount of the Company’s funds from operations (as defined by NAREIT) from January 1, 2006 through March 31, 2008. Advisor further agrees that the Company will only be obligated to reimburse the Advisor for the Advance ifand to the extent that the Company’s cumulative funds from operations for the period commencing January 1, 2006 through the date of any such reimbursement exceed the lesser of (i) the cumulative amount of any distributions declaredand payable to the Company’s Stockholders as of the date of such reimbursement or (ii) an amount that is equal to a 7.0% cumulative, non-compounded, annual return on Invested Capital for the Company’s Stockholders for the period fromJuly 18, 2006 through the date of such reimbursement. Advisor understands and agrees that no interest shall accrue on the Advance being made under this Agreement. 

*Signature page follows.*

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date and year first abovewritten. 

 
KBS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.By: 
/s/ Charles J. Schreiber, Jr.
 Charles J. Schreiber, Jr., Chief Executive OfficerKBS CAPITAL ADVISORS LLCBy: 
Schreiber Real Estate Investments, L.P., a

Manager
  By: 
Schreiber Investments, LLC, as general

partner
   By: 
/s/ Charles J. Schreiber, Jr.
    Charles J. Schreiber, Jr., Manager
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. 

ADRIAN SANTANA,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CR06-220-JLR

DETENTION ORDER 

Offenses Charged: 

Count 1: Conspiracy to Distribute Methamphetamine.

Count 2: Distribution of Methamphetamine.

Count 3: Conspiracy to Import Methamphetamine.

Date of Detention Hearing: August 31, 2006.

The Court, 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) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), there is a rebuttable presumption that defendant

is a flight risk and a danger to the community based on the nature of the pending charges.

Application of the presumption is appropriate in this case.

(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-00220-JLR Document 81 Filed 08/31/06 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 or the

safety of the community. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) 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) 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 31st day of August, 2006. AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cr-00220-JLR Document 81 Filed 08/31/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 53320.

protest 132911-K (A) (New York).

#### Universal Transcontinental Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
EXHIBIT 35.1



World Omni Financial Corp.



Servicer Compliance Statement



Pursuant to Item 1123



of Regulation AB



I, Joseph A. Venezia, do hereby
certify that I am the Chief Financial Officer of World Omni Financial Corp., a Florida corporation, and further certify on behalf of World
Omni Financial Corp. in its capacity as servicer (the “Servicer”) under the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement 2019-B to Closed-End
Servicing Agreement, dated as of August 21, 2019 (the “Exchange Note Servicing Supplement”), among AL Holding Corp.,
as Closed-End Collateral Agent, World Omni LT, as Titling Trust, and the Servicer, as follows:



(i)            A
review of the activities of the Servicer during the period covered by the issuing entity’s Annual Report on form 10-K and covered
by the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement and the Closed-End Servicing Agreement (as defined in the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement)
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance under the Exchange Note
Servicing Supplement and the Closed-End Servicing Agreement (as defined in the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement), has been made under
my supervision.



(ii)            To
the best of my knowledge, based on the review described above, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Exchange Note
Servicing Supplement and the Closed-End Servicing Agreement (as defined in the Exchange Note Servicing Supplement) in all material respects
throughout the Reporting Period.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I
have hereunto set my hand as of March 25, 2022.



| | WORLD OMNI FINANCIAL CORP.
| | --------------------------



| | By: | /s/ Joseph A. Venezia                         
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------
| |     | Name: Joseph A. Venezia                       
| |     | Title: Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required
to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Principal
Life Income Fundings Trust 2008-024 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, do
not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is
included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.
    
    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this
report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing
agreement(s) in all material respects; and5.
    
    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.
   /s/ Dwight N. SoethoutDwight N. SoethoutVice President  Principal Life Insurance Company
AFS-11-249-E 

April 22, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10177A 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0970 

Mr. Omer ErSelcuk 

President/Chief Executive Officer 

Seaborne Virgin Islands, Inc., d.b.a. Seaborne Airlines 

1210 Watergut 

Christianstead, VI 00820 

Dear Mr. ErSelcuk: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 10177. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated March 31, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Seaborne Virgin Islands, Inc., d.b.a. Seaborne Airlines (Seaborne Airlines) for an 

extension of Exemption No. 10177. That exemption from part 121, appendix K, paragraph 

5(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows Seaborne Airlines to continue 

to operate DHC-6-300 float-equipped airplanes after the December 20, 2010, effective date 

without making certain aircraft performance requirements. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Seaborne Airlines. 
 2

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10177 

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I grant your petition. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 10177 to November 30, 2011 

unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Raymond Towles 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service
Before the First Division,

May 16, 1967

No. P67/162.

#### Luro Products Company, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 63/13650, etc. (New York).

Oliver, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of electric motors similar in all material respects to those the subject of *James G. Wiley Co., a/c Ungar Electric Tools, Inc.*v. *United States*(49 Cust. Ct. 199, Abstract 66961), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.

*891(Note : The following protests were decided by a special first division consisting of Oliver, WatsoN, and'IÍAO, Judges.)
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

NICHOLAS S. ROY,

Plaintiff,

v.

VICTORIA BARSHAW et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5296FDB

ORDER GRANTING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS AND

DIRECTING INSTITUTION TO

CALCULATE, COLLECT, AND

FORWARD PAYMENTS

The Court, having reviewed plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1), does

hereby find and ORDER. 

(1) Plaintiff’s declaration indicates he is unable to afford the court’s filing fee or give security

therefor. Accordingly, plaintiff’s application to proceed as a pauper is GRANTED. As set forth below,

an initial partial filing fee will be collected, and plaintiff is required to make monthly payments of

20 percent of the preceding months income credited to his/her account until the full amount of the

filing fee is satisfied.

(2) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and plaintiff’s approved application to proceed in forma

pauperis, the agency having custody of the above named plaintiff is directed to calculate an initial partial

filing fee equal to 20 percent of greater of -- the average monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account or the

average monthly balance in the prisoner’s account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the date

of this Order. The initial partial filing fee should be forwarded to the court clerk as soon as practicable.

Subsequently, if the prisoner’s account exceeds $10.00, each month the agency is directed to

Case 3:06-cv-05296-FDB Document 4 Filed 06/23/06 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

collect and forward payments equal to 20 percent of the prisoner’s preceding month’s income credited to

the prisoner’s account. In the event that the monthly payment would reduce the prisoner’s account below

$10.00, the agency should collect and forward only that amount which would reduce the prisoner’s

account to the $10.00 level. Please note that this $10.00 limit does not apply to the initial partial filing fee

described above. Finally, the monthly payments should be collected and forwarded to the court until the

entire filing fee ($350.00) for this matter has been paid.

(3) The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a copy of this Order and the General Order, and a copy

of this Order along with a copy of plaintiff’s Acknowledgment and Authorization portion of the IFP

application to the attention of the inmate account manager (IFP account manager) at the Washington State

Department of Corrections.

DATED this 22nd day of June, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05296-FDB Document 4 Filed 06/23/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the Third Division,

June 20, 1967

No. P67/205.

#### Lipper *&*Mann, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 61/8633, etc. (New York).

*901No. P67/206.

#### United China & Glass Co. *v.*United States,

protest 63/21167-16995 (New Orleans).

LaNdis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *W. Kay Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 130, C.D. 2484), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.