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

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JAMES ERNEST DICKERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SARGEANT KAMMERZELL,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5263 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 15, 2006, the Clerk received plaintiff’s complaint. (Dkt. # 1). On May 17, 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 June 14, 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-05263-FDB Document 5 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-05263-FDB Document 5 Filed 07/18/06 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-05292-RBL Document 49 Filed 03/22/07 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:06-cv-05292-RBL Document 49 Filed 03/22/07 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:06-cv-05292-RBL Document 49 Filed 03/22/07 Page 3 of 3
Before the Second Division,

September 30, 1959

No. 63402.

protests 295672-K(B) and 315469-K.

#### Markt & Hammacher Co. and Air Express International Agency, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of monofilament fishing lines the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 60183, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case 2:06-cv-00726-RSM Document 6-2 Filed 05/24/06 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00726-RSM Document 6-2 Filed 05/24/06 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00726-RSM Document 6-2 Filed 05/24/06 Page 3 of 3
No. 58318.

protests 190293-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Getz Bros. & Co. and Castelazo & Associates et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of floor coverings, composed wholly or in chief value of rush and not of grass or of rice straw, which do not have a felt base, the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstracts 57889 and 57890, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### Louis WOOTEN, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 01-3244.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 14, 2001.

ORDER

The petitioner having failed to file the required Statement Concerning Discrimination, it is

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 136

Designating October 17, 1997, as ‘‘National Mammography Day’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 9, 1997

Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. MACK, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. AKAKA, Mr.

ASHCROFT, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BENNETT, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. BRYAN, Mr.

CAMPBELL, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. COVERDELL, Mr.

D’AMATO, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr.

FAIRCLOTH, Mr. FRIST, Mr. FORD, Mr. GLENN, Mr. GORTON, Mr.

GRAMS, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. HATCH, Mr. HUTCHINSON,

Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LOTT, Ms. MIKULSKI, Ms.

MOSELEY-BRAUN, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.

REED, Mr. REID, Mr. ROBB, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. ROTH, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. SMITH of Oregon, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. TORRICELLI, Mr. WELLSTONE, and Mr. WYDEN) submitted

the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Designating October 17, 1997, as ‘‘National Mammography

Day’’.

Whereas according to the American Cancer Society, in 1997,

180,200 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and

43,900 women will die from this disease;

Whereas in the decade of the 1990’s, it is estimated that

about 2,000,000 women will be diagnosed with breast

cancer, resulting in nearly 500,000 deaths;
2

•SRES 136 ATS

Whereas the risk of breast cancer increases with age, with a

woman at age 70 having twice as much of a chance of

developing the disease as a woman at age 50;

Whereas at least 80 percent of the women who get breast

cancer have no family history of the disease;

Whereas mammograms, when operated professionally at a

certified facility, can provide a safe and quick diagnosis;

Whereas experts agree that mammography is the best method

of early detection of breast cancer, and early detection is

the key to saving lives;

Whereas mammograms can reveal the presence of small cancers up to 2 years or more before a regular clinical breast

examination or breast self-examination (BSE), saving as

many as 30 percent more lives;

Whereas the medicare program will cover mammograms on

an annual basis for women over 39 years of age, beginning in January, 1998; and

Whereas 47 States have passed legislation requiring health

insurance companies to cover mammograms in accordance with recognized screening guidelines: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate—

2 (1) designates October 17, 1997, as ‘‘National

3 Mammography Day’’; and

4 (2) requests that the President issue a procla5 mation calling upon the people of the United States

6 to observe such day with appropriate programs and

7 activities.

Æ
# Official Journal C 32/2008

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 32 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 516 February 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 32

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 516 February 2008

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | JOINT DECLARATIONS |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 032/01 | Joint Declaration on Relations and Cooperation between the European Union and New Zealand | 1 |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 032/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4804 — Serafina/Intelsat) (1) | 7 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

JOINT DECLARATIONS

Commission

2008/C 032/01

Joint Declaration on Relations and Cooperation between the European Union and New Zealand

1

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2008/C 032/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4804 — Serafina/Intelsat) (1)

7

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 032/03 | Euro exchange rates | 8 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2008/C 032/04 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 | 9 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2008/C 032/03

Euro exchange rates

8

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2008/C 032/04

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001

9

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2008/C 032/05 | Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/124/08 | 14 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 032/06 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5054 — Schwenk-Gruppe/Paul Hartmann) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 15 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2008/C 032/05

Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/124/08

14

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

Commission

2008/C 032/06

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5054 — Schwenk-Gruppe/Paul Hartmann) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

15

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Case 2:05-cv-02034-JLR Document 82 Filed 11/20/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Westwood
Corporation Consolidated Balance Sheet (unaudited) for September 30, 2000, and
the related Consolidated Statement of Operations (unaudited) for the six months
ended September 30, 2000, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                              26
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,629
<ALLOWANCES>                                        35
<INVENTORY>                                      5,773
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,959
<PP&E>                                           5,164
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,353
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,771
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,630
<BONDS>                                          2,419
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            21
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,701
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,771
<SALES>                                         11,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,600
<CGS>                                           10,068
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,082
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (65)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 221
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (638)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (638)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (638)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.094)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.094)


</TABLE>
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. C06-5235RJB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The Court, having reviewed the file, does hereby find and ORDER. 

(1) Plaintiff shall show cause why he has not corrected the deficiencies noted by the clerks office,

(Dkt. # 2), (i.e., no trust account statement, no written consent for recovery of funds), and insufficient

service packet,(i.e. no copies of the complaint or Marshal service forms).

(2) Plaintiff will have until July 7th, 2006 to correct the deficiencies in this action or the court will

recommend denial of the in forma pauperis motion and that the action be dismissed for failure to

prosecute.

(3) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to plaintiff and note the July 7th, 2006

date on the court’s calendar. 

DATED this 5th day of June, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05235-RJB-JKA Document 5 Filed 06/05/06 Page 1 of 1
E.O. 12866 Review 2060-AQ42 Email 012011.txt From: Nizich.Sharon@epamail.epa.gov Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 7:52 AM To: cortney_higgins@omb.eop.gov Cc: Fruh.Steve@epamail.epa.gov; tierney.jan@epamail.epa.gov; Talcott.Fred@epamail.epa.gov; Guinnup.Dave@epamail.epa.gov; Stewart.Michael@epamail.epa.gov; French.Chuck@epamail.epa.gov; Westlin.Peter@epamail.epa.gov; Hanzel, Veronica; Laney, Michael N.; Benner.Tim@epamail.epa.gov Subject: Part of E.O. 12866 Review: EPA Staff Response regarding revised rule

text regarding ambient monitoring pertaining to Primary Lead RTR, RIN 2060-

AQ42

Hello CortneyI have not heard from OGC yet, but this is our revision to the language regarding the ambient monitoring. This language is in line with current efforts regarding the lead NAAQS, which also satisfies the RTR requirement for compliance. I believe this allows for the elimination of any duplicative requirements.

(k) The owner or operator of each source subject to §63.1544(d) must operate a monitoring system for measuring the source’s contributions to the lead compound concentrations in the ambient air. (1) The owner or operator must operate ambient air monitors sufficient in number, location, and frequency of sample collection to detect expected maximum concentrations of lead compounds in the ambient air due to emissions from the affected source(s) in accordance with a written plan as described in (k)(2) of this paragraph and approved by the Administrator. The plan must include descriptions of the sampling and analytical methods used. (2) The owner or operator must submit a written plan describing and explaining the basis for the design and adequacy of the monitoring network, the sampling, analytical, and quality assurance procedures, and any procedures and the justification for any seasonal, background, or other data adjustments within 45 days after the effective date of this subpart. (3) The Administrator at any time may require changes in, or expansion of, the monitoring program, including additional sampling and analytical protocols and network design. (l) If all rolling three-month average ambient concentrations of lead measured by the ambient monitoring system are less than [50 percent] of the concentration limit in §63.1544(d) for three consecutive years, the owner or operator may submit a revised plan to reduce the monitoring sampling and analysis frequency (e.g., from daily to weekly). For any subsequent period, if any rolling three-month average ambient concentration measured at any monitor in the monitoring system exceeds [50 percent] of the ambient concentration limit in §63.1544(d), the owner or operator must resume monitoring pursuant to paragraph (k)(1) at all monitors until another three consecutive years of ambient concentration measurements less than [50 percent] of the ambient concentration limit is demonstrated.

Page 1
No. 57474.

Suit 4743.

#### United States *v.*Perry Ryer & Co.

C. D. 1403 affirmed June 3, 1953. C. A. D. 524.
# IMMC.EESC-2018-00210-AC.ENG.xhtml.EESC-2018-00210-00-00-AC-TRA-EN.docx

EN

European Economic and Social Committee

European Economic and Social Committee

NAT/729

NAT/729

Herring stocks in the Baltic Sea

Herring stocks in the Baltic Sea

(Category C)

(Category C)

OPINION


  European Economic and Social Committee


  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 2016/1139 as regards fishing mortality ranges and safeguard levels for certain herring stocks in the Baltic Sea

OPINION

European Economic and Social Committee

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 2016/1139 as regards fishing mortality ranges and safeguard levels for certain herring stocks in the Baltic Sea

[COM(2017) 774 final – 2017/0348 COD]

[COM(2017) 774 final – 2017/0348 COD]

Consultation

| Consultation | European Parliament, 15/01/2018


  Council of the European Union, 19/01/2018 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment |
| Adopted at plenary | 14/02/2018 |
| Plenary session No | 532 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 193/1/3 |

Consultation

European Parliament, 15/01/2018

European Parliament, 15/01/2018

Council of the European Union, 19/01/2018

Council of the European Union, 19/01/2018

Legal basis

Legal basis

Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Section responsible

Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment

Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment

Adopted at plenary

Adopted at plenary

14/02/2018

14/02/2018

Plenary session No

Plenary session No

532

532

Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions)

Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions)

193/1/3

193/1/3

Since the Committee endorses the contents of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 532nd plenary session of 14 and 15 February 2018 (meeting of 14 February), by 193 votes to 1 with 3 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Since the Committee endorses the contents of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 532nd plenary session of 14 and 15 February 2018 (meeting of 14 February), by 193 votes to 1 with 3 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 14 February 2018

Brussels, 14 February 2018

Georges Dassis

The president of the European Economic and Social Committee

_____________
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald Carroll, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 942]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Obús, J.), rendered on or about December 15, 1993, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Asch, Williams and Tom, JJ.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 10, 2016. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, August 10, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16D0465. HOPE OF COLUMBUS v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2014CV251347
No. 54996.

#### Max Schuster *v.*United States,

protests 157291-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.