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 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

OSCAR TRINIDAD,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5804FDB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

WITHDRAW UPON APPEARANCE

OF SUBSTITUTED COUNSEL

Plaintiff having advised previous counsel, Timothy M. Greene, that he has retained other

counsel, and substitute counsel Robert M. Krinsky having now appeared in this case on behalf of

Plaintiff, the Motion of Timothy M. Greene to withdraw (filed on January 10, 2007 and to be heard

no earlier than seven judicial days after filing) as counsel for Plaintiff [Dkt. # 11] is GRANTED. SO

ORDERED. 

DATED this 24th day of January, 2007.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05804-FDB Document 13 Filed 01/24/07 Page 1 of 1
Case No. 13,592.

#### SUFFOLK BANK v. MERRILL.

[Cited in Sumner v. Marcy, Case No. 13,609, and in Ex parte Snow, Id. 13.143. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
EXHIBIT F

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 41-7 Filed 11/02/2006 Page 1 of 2

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 41 Att. 6

Dockets.Justia.com
Virtumundo.com http://www.virtumundo.com/action/index.html?m=308993&e=jamila@...

1 of 1 10/27/2006 11:03 AM

Unsubscribe from Virtumundo's Rewards email mailing list:

To unsubscribe from the Virtumundo Rewards email list, please enter your email address below and then click the

"unsubscribe" button.

E-mail address: Unsubscribe

NOTICE OF RECENT FORGERIES: If you reached this page by clicking on a Virtumundo e-mail unsubscribe link, the

e-mail address field (above) will be automatically filled in with your e-mail address. If no e-mail address or an e-mail address

that is unfamiliar to you appears, you could be receiving e-mail that has been forged to falsely appear as if Virtumundo was

the sender. Please forward the offending e-mail, in its entirety, to privacy@virtumundo.com for our review. If we did send the

e-mail to you, we will promptly remove your address from Virtumundo Rewards.

Click here to view our privacy policy.

Global Unsubscribe

COPYRIGHT © 2002 VIRTUMUNDO, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

jamila@gordonworks.com

CONFIDENTIAL VM 039051

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 41-7 Filed 11/02/2006 Page 2 of 2
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

IL/RESEARCH

08-17574

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LEONEL CANTU LOPEZ,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

D. K. BUTLER, Warden; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 08-17574

D.C. No. 2:04-cv-00822-LKKKJM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 11, 2010** 

Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Leonel Cantu Lopez, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment for defendant in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

FILED

JAN 25 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
IL/RESEARCH

08-17574

alleging that he was unlawfully housed in administrative segregation and subjected

to excessive force. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

de novo an order granting summary judgment, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,

1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant on

Lopez’s due process and Eighth Amendment claims because Lopez failed to raise a

triable issue as to whether the defendant caused the violations Lopez alleges. See

Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (“The inquiry into causation

must be individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities of each

individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a

constitutional deprivation.”). 

Lopez’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
[Cite as McCoy v. Unknown , 2011-Ohio-1944.] 

# Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us

CHARLES MCCOY

Plaintiff

v.

UNKNOWN

Defendant

Case No. 2010-03142-AD

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert

ENTRY OF DISMISSAL

{¶ 1} On February 22, 2010, plaintiff, Char les McCoy, filed a complaint against defendants, April D. Martin, Cale Saric, and the Heath Police Department. On February 23, 2010, this court issued an entry dismissing these parties since they were not state entities and accordingly, could not be sued in the Court of Claims. On April 30, 2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming the Heath City Police Department as defendant. On May 14, 2010, this court issued an entry of dismissal since the Heath City Police Department is not a state entity. On May 19, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to reopen his claim. On September 8, 2010, this court issued an entry requiring plaintiff to file an amended form complaint asserting the reasons he believes the Attorney General is responsible for the actions of the City of Heath Police Department and why their actions resulted in damage to plaintiff. Plaintiff also needed to submit either the filing fee or a poverty statement. {¶ 2} On September 22, 2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff asserts the Attorney General’s Division of Certification and Standards Division is responsible for the actions of the city police officers involved. The Certification andCase No. 2010-03142-AD - 2 - ENTRY

Standards Division ensures that all police training certification programs meet the applicable minimum standards established by the Ohio Revised Code and Ohio Administrative Code. Nothing in the statute or the Administrative Code provides a duty upon the Attorney General to insure the proper conduct of the officers throughout the state that receive this training. Plaintiff has cited no statute, rule, or case law which supports this proposition. Accordingly, plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED. The court shall

absorb the court costs in this case.

________________________________ DANIEL R. BORCHERT Deputy Clerk

Entry cc:

Charles McCoy, #488-128 P.O. Box 7010 Chillicothe, Ohio 45601

DRB/laa Filed 1/28/111 Sent to S.C. reporter 4/15/11
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sepracor Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Adrian Adams, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that to his knowledge:



|Date: May 12, 2008 |  |                                                    
|------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|                   |  | /s/ADRIAN ADAMSAdrian Adams Chief Executive Officer

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

---



QuickLinks
Case No. 6,520.

#### HINES v. HEWITT.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 471.) *2*

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Oct. Term, 1834.

Apprentice — Binding—What Constitutes.

•An entry cn the minutes of the orphans’ court in Alexandria, “that Peyton Hines be *205bound apprentice to Peter Hewitt,” does not constitute a lawful binding.

[Cited in Bell v. English, Case No. 1,250.]

This was a petition to be discharged from the service of Peter Hewitt, who claimed the petitioner as his apprentice. ■ There was an entry on the minutes of the orphans’ court of an order, “that Peyton Hines be bound apprentice to Peter Hewitt.” This was the only authority shown by the respondent for holding the petitioner; and it was stated by Mr. Moore, the register of the orphans’ court, that it was conformable to the usual practice of that court, and that no indentures were actually executed.

See the case of Bell v. English [Case No. 1,-250], Oct. term, 1833.

THE COURT

(THRUSTON. Circuit Judge, absent)

decided that it was not a lawful binding, and discharged the boy.
No. 60565.

#### Lep Transport, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 270259-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

There being nothing before the court tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the classification by the collector, the protest was overruled.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2510
KENDALL L. HOLLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOGO D. WEST, JR., Secretary of the Army, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-1804-A) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 25, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kendall L. Holley, Appellant Pro Se. Jeri Kaylene Somers, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order granting theArmy's motion to dismiss and for summary judgment in her Rehabilitation Act and Title VII claims. We have reviewed the record andthe district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Holley v. West , No. CA-95-1804-A (E.D. Va. Sept. 20, 1996). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 223 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 223

 Commending the Prince William Sound Community College on twenty years 
                        of educational service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 6, 1998

  Mr. Murkowski (for himself and Mr. Stevens) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Commending the Prince William Sound Community College on twenty years 
                        of educational service.

Whereas Prince William Sound Community College remains the only individually 
        accredited community college in the University of Alaska system;
Whereas the Prince William Sound Community College student body has grown to 
        over 2,000 in the past 20 years;
Whereas, the Prince William Sound Community College has made distinct and 
        important contributions to the cultural and economic development of the 
        Copper Basin area;
Whereas Prince William Sound Community College continues to be a recognized 
        leader in the University of Alaska System for providing affordable 
        quality higher education to Alaskans; and
Whereas Prince William Sound Community College will be celebrating its twentieth 
        anniversary on May 10, 1998: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the United States Senate honors The Prince William 
Sound Community College for providing Alaskans with over twenty years 
of continuous service and higher education opportunities.
                                 <all>
```
No. 61087.

protest 218493-K (New York).

#### Inter Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Richardson, Judge:

This case involves a shortage of pieces for 12 electrical control boxes. The merchandise shown on the packing list attached to the consular invoice, which was filed with the entry, showed 288 visual indicators for 12 electrical control boxes shipped from Oerlikon Machine Tool Works, Zurich, Switzerland. Duty was assessed on the entered value of $4,515. In making his examination, the customs examiner found that only 144 (not 288) visual indicators were contained in case No. 502. The parties have stipulated that only 144 *383visual indicators were, in fact, imported in case No. 502, not 288 visual indicators, as shown on the packing list attached to the consular invoice, and that the said materials in case No. 502, when calculated to include 144 visual indicators, as also shown on a corrected commercial invoice received by the importer from Oerlikon Machine Tool Works, Buehrle & Co., now attached to the entry papers, had a total value of $3,254.70. Plaintiff claims that duty should not have been assessed on shortshipped or missing merchandise.

The issue before the court in shortage cases is whether or not there was in fact a nonimportation. *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.,*34 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 112, C. A. D. 351. Inasmuch "as the evidence established and the parties have stipulated that there was, in fact, a nonimportation of 144 visual indicators, the importer is entitled to a refund of duties charged upon said 144 visual indicators. The protest is sustained.
No. 57471.

#### Davies, Turner & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 191097-K (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

From the testimony of the deputy collector it appeared that case No. 42 was received in bad order and that the appraiser found a value of $1,305 for the case, whereas the amount used in liquidation was $1,630.80, or $1,631. The witness further testified that had the matter been brought to his attention within the statutory 90 days, the correction would have been made. The collector’s report stated that an “Allowance of $326 in value at 20% ad valo-rem should have been made in liquidation.” On the record presented, it was held that duty on case No. 42 should have been based upon the appraised value of $1,305, as claimed.
`[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 19 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]






                                                        Calendar No. 23
105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 19

 To disapprove the certification of the President under section 490(b) 
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 regarding foreign assistance for 
                    Mexico during fiscal year 1997.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 3, 1997

 Mr. Coverdell (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Helms) introduced 
     the following joint resolution; which was read the first time

                             March 4, 1997

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION


 
 To disapprove the certification of the President under section 490(b) 
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 regarding foreign assistance for 
                    Mexico during fiscal year 1997.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That pursuant to subsection 
(d) of section 490 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
2291j), Congress disapproves the determination of the President with 
respect to Mexico for fiscal year 1997 that is contained in the 
certification (transmittal No. 97-18) submitted to Congress by the 
President under subsection (b) of that section on February 28, 1997.
                                     





                                                        Calendar No. 23

105th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             S. J. RES. 19

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 To disapprove the certification of the President under section 490(b) 
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 regarding foreign assistance for 
                    Mexico during fiscal year 1997.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 4, 1997

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar`
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 1

SEA 2081045v1 0050022-000201

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 

LAW OFFICES

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200 

Seattle, Washington 98101-3045 

(206) 622-3150  Fax: (206) 757-7700 

The Honorable Ronald B. Leighton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT TACOMA 

GROUP NORTHWEST, INC., an Oregon 

Corporation 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, a Washington 

State Municipal Corporation, 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-05219-RBL 

STIPULATED ORDER OF 

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

STIPULATION 

 Pursuant to FRCP 41(2), the parties consent to the entry of the sub-joined Order 

dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice. 

ORDER 

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties described above, the Court rules as 

follows: 

 1. All of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are hereby DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE. 

 2. All of Defendant's counterclaims against Plaintiff are hereby DISMISSED 

WITH PREJUDICE. 

Case 3:06-cv-05219-RBL Document 27 Filed 09/24/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 2

SEA 2081045v1 0050022-000201

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 

LAW OFFICES

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200 

Seattle, Washington 98101-3045 

(206) 622-3150  Fax: (206) 757-7700 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to remove the trial and other related dates 

from the Court’s calendar. 

 4. Each party shall bear their own costs and attorneys fees. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of September, 2007. 

 A

RONALD B. LEIGHTON 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Stipulated to and presented by: 

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Group Northwest, Inc. 

By 

 Charles E. Maduell, WSBA #15491 

Stipulated to, and notice of presentation waived: 

MICHAEL B. TIERNEY, P.C. 

Attorneys for Defendant 

The City of South Bend 

By 

 Michael B. Tierney, WSBA #13662 

Case 3:06-cv-05219-RBL Document 27 Filed 09/24/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 3

SEA 2081045v1 0050022-000201

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 

LAW OFFICES

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200 

Seattle, Washington 98101-3045 

(206) 622-3150  Fax: (206) 757-7700 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on September 12, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing 

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

filing to the following: 

 Michael B. Tierney, tierney@tierneylaw.com, admin@tierneylaw.com 

DATED this 21st day of September, 2007. 

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Group Northwest, Inc. 

By /s/Charles E. Maduell____________ Charles E. Maduell, WSBA #15491 

Telephone: (206) 622-3150 

Fax: (206) 757-7700 

E-mail: chuckmaduell@dwt.com

Case 3:06-cv-05219-RBL Document 27 Filed 09/24/07 Page 3 of 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 ORDER ON CR37 MOTION TO COMPEL AND PROTECTIVE ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

TERENCE D. MANNING,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5791RJB

ORDER ON CR37 MOTION TO

COMPEL AND PROTECTIVE

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on the above-referenced motion (Dkt. 22). The court is

familiar with the records and files herein and documents filed in support of and in opposition to the

motion, including all declarations. 

Preliminarily, the court apologizes to counsel for the mix-up in noting this motion. It was

correctly noted when originally filed, and the renoting was the court’s error.

It appears from the showing made that it is appropriate for the plaintiff to submit to an

independent medical examination by Dr. Glenn Goodwin at his office for two days, on the 20th and

21st of July, 2006 and that request should be GRANTED; provided, however, that if, as alleged by

plaintiff, a two-day examination proves to be physically unreasonable for Mr. Manning, the second

day of the exam may be rescheduled. At this point, however, there is no showing that a two-day

Case 3:05-cv-05791-RJB Document 27 Filed 07/06/06 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 ON CR37 MOTION TO COMPEL AND PROTECTIVE ORDER - 2

examination is not physically appropriate for Mr. Manning. The court requests that Dr. Goodwin be

sensitive to Mr. Manning’s physical problems and that he reschedule the second day, should it appear

during the first day that a second consecutive day of examination is not appropriate. 

The request to videotape the examination and to have a witness to attend the examination

may be disruptive, as indicated in Dr. Goodwin’s declaration, and those requests should be

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of

record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

DATED this 6th day of July, 2006.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:05-cv-05791-RJB Document 27 Filed 07/06/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) AND SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 (a) and (b))

I, S. Emerson Lybbert, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of TGFIN Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) certify that: (1) the quarterly report of TGFIN Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the “Quarterly Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d); and (2) the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                   By:  /s/ S. Emerson Lybbert

                                   Name: S. Emerson Lybbert

                                   Title: Chairman of the Board and

    Chief Executive Officer

                   (Principal Executive Officer)

Date: December 21 , 2010

PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) AND SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 (a) and (b)

I, S. Emerson Lybbert, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of TGFIN Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) certify that: (1) the quarterly report of TGFIN Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the “Quarterly Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d); and (2) the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                   By: /s/ S. Emerson Lybbert

                                   Name: S. Emerson Lybbert

                                   Title: Chief Financial Officer

    (Principal Financial Officer)

Date: December 21 , 2010