alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Rolon, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 208]

—Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kriendler, J.), imposed March 30, 1994.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

As the record indicates that the defendant was incorrectly informed that he was not entitled to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive, his purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent *(see generally, People v DeSimone,*80 NY2d 273, 282-283). We have examined the defendant’s contention that the sentence was excessive and find it to be without merit *(see, People v Kazepis,*101 AD2d 816). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, O’Brien, Pizzuto and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
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

JAMES ERNEST DICKERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROL PORTER, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5302 FDB/KLS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s filing of an

application to proceed in forma pauperis and a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To file a

complaint and initiate legal proceedings plaintiff must pay a filing fee of $350.00 or file a proper

application to proceed in forma pauperis.

On May 9, 2006, the Clerk received plaintiff’s complaint. (Dkt. # 1). On June 1, 2006, the Clerk

sent plaintiff a letter informing him that he must either pay the court filing fee or submit a proper

application to proceed in forma pauperis by July 1, 2006, or this matter could be subject to dismissal.

(Dkt. # 2). On July 7, 2006, the plaintiff submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

However, plaintiff failed to submit a trust account statement as required. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2):

A prisoner seeking to bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or

Case 3:06-cv-05302-FDB Document 4 Filed 07/18/06 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

proceeding without prepayment of fees or security therefor . . . shall submit a certified

copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for

the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal,

obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner is or was

confined.

Plaintiff thus was required to submit a statement showing the balance and activity of his account for the

six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint. 

Accordingly, the Court orders the following:

(1) Plaintiff shall seek to cure the above deficiency by paying the full $350.00 court filing fee or

filing a proper application to proceed in forma pauperis no later than August 7, 2006. 

Failure to cure this deficiency by the above date shall be deemed a failure to properly

prosecute this matter and the court will recommend dismissal of this matter.

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

DATED this 18th day of July, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05302-FDB Document 4 Filed 07/18/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 67633.

#### Japan Food Corp. and Hoyt, Shepston & Sciaroni *v.*United States,

protest 61/13714 (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fish blocks similar in all material respects to those the subject of *The Lee Herrmann Co., a/c The Coldwater Seafood Corp.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 49, C.D. 2101), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Abatement Order filed April 28, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00338-CR

____________

EX PARTE BRIAN F. ROBERTS, 

On Appeal from the 185th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 883239-A

ABATEMENT ORDER

The record does not contain the trial court’s submit findings of fact and 

conclusions of law on the denial of appellant’s application for writ of habeas 

corpus. Article 11.072, section 7(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 

requires the trial court to make written fact findings and conclusions of law when 

denying application for writ of habeas corpus unless the court denies the 

application as frivolous. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.072 ' 7(a). The statute 

is mandatory and the proper procedure to correct the error is to abate the appeal 
and direct the trial court to make the required findings and conclusions. See Ex 

parte Enriquez, 227 S.W.3d 779, 784 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, pet. ref’d). 

Accordingly, the trial court is directed to reduce to writing its findings of 

fact and conclusions of law on the denial of appellant’s application for writ of 

habeas corpus and have a supplemental clerk’s record containing those findings 

filed with the clerk of this court on or before May 28, 2015.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the 

trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this court. The court will 

also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party. 

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM
No. 58670.

protests 177808-K, etc. (Ogdensburg).

#### E. Dillingham, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *E. Dillingham, Inc.*(41 C. C. P. A. 221, C. A. D. 555), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1805 as pickets was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>     5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                           17925
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   198767
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      68486
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                285178
<PP&E>                                          180283
<DEPRECIATION>                                   40628
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  424833
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4408220
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        566
<COMMON>                                        162701
<OTHER-SE>                                    (4296628)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    424833
<SALES>                                         291644
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                291644
<CGS>                                            71909
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    71909
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1022852
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               69826
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (126952)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (126952)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (126952)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.009)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.009)


</TABLE>
# Official Journal L 69/8 Ma

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 69 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 498 March 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 69

English edition

Legislation

Volume 498 March 2006

---

| Contents | | II   Acts whose publication is not obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Commission |
| | * | Commission Decision of 7 June 2005 on Alitalia's industrial restructuring plan
  (notified under document number C(2005) 1651)

   (1) | 1 |

Contents

II   Acts whose publication is not obligatory

page

Commission

*

Commission Decision of 7 June 2005 on Alitalia's industrial restructuring plan
  (notified under document number C(2005) 1651)

   (1)

(notified under document number C(2005) 1651)

1

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| 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.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DENNIS W. SOMERVILLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN MARTINEZ, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5363 RJB/KLS

ORDER

This civil rights action has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L.

Strombom pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. Before the Court is

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. (Dkt. # 6). The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff's

motion for appointment of counsel does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Although the court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), can request counsel to represent a party proceeding

in forma pauperis, the court may do so only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon,

789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984);

Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980). A finding of exceptional circumstances requires

an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to

articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Wilborn, 789 F.2d

at 1331.

Case 3:06-cv-05363-RJB Document 10 Filed 09/26/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER - 2

Plaintiff has demonstrated an adequate ability to articulate his claims pro se. Moreover, it

appears that this case does not involve exceptional circumstances which warrant appointment of

counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. # 6) is DENIED.

(2) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff.

DATED this 26th day of September, 2006. 

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05363-RJB Document 10 Filed 09/26/06 Page 2 of 2
# MD5 checksums generated by MD5summer (http://www.md5summer.org)
# Generated 3/18/2009 2:36:17 PM

aa819a851d7c08d30896d9226765760e *96785.pdf
# Materials Not Included in Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2009-1231 Directorate Identifier: 2009NM212AD

170-57-0036 --- 3/13/09 190-57-0027 --- 3/18/09

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained inthe Supplemental AD Docket
MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 LindAve. Sw., Renton, WA 98057 

### 4252271221 DURING THE HOURS OF: 9a.m. and 3pm., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FormDate: 03/05/2008
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3385 — CARGILL/BCA)

(2004/C 111/10)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 1 April 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

For more information concerning subscriptions please contact:

----
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

﻿

Pursuant to, and solely for purposes of, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), each of the undersigned hereby certifies in the capacity and on the date indicated below that:

﻿

1.  The Quarterly Report of Monro, Inc. ("Monro") on Form 10-Q/A  (Amendment No. 1) for the period ended June 24, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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 results of operations of Monro.

﻿

| ﻿                                              |   |                    |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
| /s/ Brett T. Ponton                                   |   | Dated: November 2, 2017 |
| Brett T. Ponton                                       |   |                    |
| Chief Executive Officer and President                 |   |                    |
| ﻿                                              |   |                    |
| /s/ Brian J. D’Ambrosia                        |   | Dated: November 2, 2017 |
| Brian J. D’Ambrosia                            |   |                    |
| Senior Vice President – Finance, Treasurer and |   |                    |
| Chief Financial Officer                               |   |                    |

﻿

﻿

----
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

WAYNE RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANDRA CARTER, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5324FDB-KLS

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME

This matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), Local Magistrates Rules MJR 3 and 4, and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

The case is before the Court on plaintiff’s filing of a motion for extension of time (Dkt. #31) to respond to

defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #30). After reviewing plaintiff’s motion, defendants’ response

thereto, and the balance of the record, the Court finds and orders as follows:

On December 26, 2006, defendants filed their motion to dismiss, which was noted for January 19,

2007. On January 16, 2007, plaintiff filed his motion for an extension of sixty (60) days in which to file a

response to defendants’ motion to dismiss, stating he has been in segregation and has had limited access to

legal resources. Plaintiff further states he is due for release on February 26, 2007, after which he will have

access to such materials. In their response, defendants state that they do not oppose plaintiff’s request for

an extension of time. (Dkt. #32). 

Accordingly, in light of the above, plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (Dkt. #31) hereby is

Case 3:06-cv-05324-FDB Document 33 Filed 02/14/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his response to defendants’ motion to dismiss by no later than Monday,

April 16, 2007. Defendants’ reply, if any, shall be due by no later than Thursday, April 19, 2007. The

Clerk shall re-note defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #30) for consideration on Friday, April 20, 2007. 

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff and counsel for defendants.

DATED this 14th day of February, 2007.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05324-FDB Document 33 Filed 02/14/07 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1 (I)

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

      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  of  AmeriResource  Technologies,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the
"Report"),  as  filed  with the Securities and Exchange Commission, on the date
hereof (the "Report), the  undersigned, Delmar Janovec, Chief Executive Officer
and the person performing functions  similar  to  that of a Principal Financial
Officer  of  the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  1350,  as
adopted pursuant to 18 U.S.C., Section 1350, 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 results of operations  of  the
Company.

                              /s/ Delmar Janovec
Dated: September 18, 2007     ------------------
                              Delmar Janovec
                              Chief Executive Officer and Principal
                              Financial Officer
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

LEWIS JOHN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPUTY MARK C. BERRY, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5694RJB-KLS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION SEEKING

TELEPHONIC HEARING

This matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), Local Magistrates Rules MJR 3 and 4, and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

The case is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion seeking telephonic hearing. (Dkt. #36). After reviewing

plaintiff’s motion and the balance of the record, the Court finds and orders as follows:

Plaintiff filed his motion on August 2, 2006. Although that motion is noted for consideration on

August 25, 2006, the Court finds no reason to wait until that date to rule on it. The only reason plaintiff

provides for requesting a telephonic hearing appears to be his allegation that he has no other means of

accessing the Court. Plaintiff’s filing of this motion, as well as the other motions and documents he has

filed with the Court, however, directly belies this allegation. Nor has plaintiff stated the nature of the

matter for which he is requesting a telephonic hearing. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion seeking telephonic

Case 3:05-cv-05694-RJB Document 39 Filed 08/14/06 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

hearing (Dkt. #36) hereby is DENIED. 

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff and counsel for defendants.

DATED this 14th day of August, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05694-RJB Document 39 Filed 08/14/06 Page 2 of 2
y 

p

Secretary of Natural Resources 

g 

, 

, 

g

www.deq. virginia.gov 

FEB 0 1 2016 

David Arnold, Acting Director 

Air Protection Division (3APOO) 

U.S. EPA, Region III 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 

y

Director 

(804) 698-4020 

1-800-592-5482 

Reference: VOC Emission Standards, 

Printing (Rev. C09) 

Dear Mr. Arnold: 

Pursuant to the requirements of§ 110 of the Clean Air Act, we are officially requesting 

approval of a revision to the Commonwealth of Virginia State Implementation Plan approved 

and submitted under the authority of§ 10.1-1185 of the Code of Virginia and in accordance with 

the requirements of 40 CFR Part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of 

Implementation Plans). 

This revision consists of an amendment to the existing Article 53 (Emission Standards for 

Lithographic Printing Processes) and two new regulations: Article 56 (Emission Standards for 

Letterpress Printing Operations in the Northern Virginia Volatile Organic Compound Emissions 

Control Area, 8-hour Ozone Standard) and Article 56.1 (Emission Standards for Offset 

Lithographic Printing Operations in the Northern Virginia Volatile Organic Compound 

Emissions Control Area, 8-hour Ozone Standard). These regulations were adopted in order to 

meet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs) 

for these source types. The regulation amendments were adopted by the State Air Pollution 

Control Board on June 19, 2015 under the authority of§ 10.1-1308 of the Code ofVirginia. 

Enclosed are the following: 

1. A true copy of the official regulation (Revision C09) which was published in the 

Virginia Register of Regulations on November 30, 2015 after being duly adopted by the State Air 

Pollution Control Board on June 19, 2015, certified by the Office of the Attorney General as 
3. Record of hearing and summary of comment. 

For purposes of this submittal, certain provisions are being included for information 

purposes only and are not to be construed as part of the Commonwealth ofVirginia State 

Implementation Plan; these provisions are specifically identified in Enclosure 2 of this submittal. 

If you have any questions or need additional information, please let us know. 

S{:erely, vJf?mr£ 

David K, Paylor "J 

DKP\geg 

TEMPLATES\SIP-REG\REGOO 

SIP\NONA TTN PLANS\20 16\C09-SIP.DOC 

Enclosures
No. P68/12.

protests 62/114, etc. (New York).

#### Marmax Trading Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Eao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of electrical tape, composed wholly or in chief value of vinyl material, similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Devon Tape Corp.*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 507, C.D. 2856), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 61121.

protest 311490-K (New York).

#### The Otto Gerdau Co. *v.*United States,

*393Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bamboo poles similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 59620, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.