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 REGARDING FEE AWARD - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MIKE KREIDLER, 

Plaintiff,

v.

DANNY L. PIXLER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-0697RSL

ORDER REGARDING 

FEE AWARD

On October 17, 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s

motion to compel defendants to produce various financial, corporate, and accounting

documents from the corporate and the individual defendants. The Court required plaintiff

to file a statement of his reasonable fees and costs incurred in filing the motion and

awarded plaintiff half of those fees. Plaintiff’s counsel subsequently filed the statement. 

Although the Court invited defendants to file a response, they did not do so.

In Washington, the “lodestar” method is the starting point for fee calculations. 

The lodestar fee is determined by multiplying the hours reasonably expended in the

litigation by each lawyer’s reasonable hourly rate of compensation. Bowers v.

Transamerica Tile Ins. Co., 100 Wn.2d 581, 597 (1983). The burden of demonstrating

Case 2:06-cv-00697-RSL Document 115 Filed 11/16/07 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 ORDER REGARDING FEE AWARD - 2

that a fee is reasonable is on the fee applicant, who must provide documentation

sufficient “to inform the court, in addition to the number of hours worked, of the type of

work performed and the category of attorney who performed the work.” Scott Fetzer Co.

v. Weeks, 122 Wn.2d 141, 149, 151 (1993) (internal citation and quotation omitted). 

After reviewing the statement and supporting documents, the Court finds that

counsel’s hourly rates are reasonable. Furthermore, the total number of hours expended,

while high, is not unreasonable given defendants’ opposition and the complicated nature

of the legal and factual issues. However, plaintiff is not entitled to recover the fees

expended prior to and through the Rule 37 conference. Therefore, the Court will

disallow fees for the August 13-15 work. After subtracting those amounts, the total

amount of allowable fees is $10,377. The Court previously awarded plaintiff half of the

amount of fees expended. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to recover its reasonable

attorney’s fees in the amount of $5,188.50. Defendants are jointly and severally liable

for paying the fees, and must do so within thirty days of the date of this order.

DATED this 16th day of November, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00697-RSL Document 115 Filed 11/16/07 Page 2 of 2
Before the First Division,

December 22, 1948

No. 52760.

#### Louis Wolf & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 79779-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of mah jong sets composed of synthetic resin similar in all material respects to the synthetic resin articles the subject of Abstracts 45795 and 50188. The claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 was therefore sustained.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00226-CR

CAMILLE MASON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from County Criminal 

Court No. 2

of Tarrant County (1555502)

December 10, 2020

Memorandum Opinion by Justice 

Dauphinot

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot______________

 Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
Case No. 13,589.

#### The SUE.

[Blatchf. Pr. Cas. 361.] 1

District Court, S. D. New York.

May. 1863.

Prize — Violation of Blockade.

Vessel and cargo condemned for an attempt to violate the blockade.

In admiralty.

BETTS, District Judge.

The above vessel and cargo were captured as prize, March 30, 1863, at sea, off Little River inlet, by the United States steamer Monticello, near the coast of North and South Carolina, and were sent to this port for adjudication. The writ of attachment and the monition were duly served, and were returned April 28 thereafter, and proclamation and default thereon were taken in open court. The vessel’s papers, found on board of her on her capture, were a certificate of British registry, dated at Nassau, N. P.. February 21, 1862. showing that she was owned by Augustus John Ad-derly of that place: a shipping agreement, dated March 16. 1863, showing that she was bound on a voyage from Nassau to Beaufort. N. C., and back to Nassau and other port or ports; and her clearance at the same port, dated March 16, 1863, for the same destination, with the cargo and the bill of lading thereof on board. The master, the mate., and the cook were examined in preparatorio as witnesses, and testified that the vessel was captured off the coast of South Carolina, about 35 miles to the south of Wilmington: that she was English-owned, and was bound for any Confederate port she could reach r that they knew of the blockade of the ports, along the coast; and that all understood that the vessel was destined to ran the blockade. The case admits of no question, on the proofs, that the vessel was. when seized, intentionally engaged in an attempt to violate the existing blockade of the coast. ' A decree of condemnation of the vessel and cargo is, accordingly, rendered.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 193 (Friday, October 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 69671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22252]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--MLCommons Association

    Notice is hereby given that, on August 17, 2023, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), MLCommons Association 
(``MLCommons'') filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Praveen Paritosh (individual member), Oakland, CA; Wei 
Zhao (individual member), San Diego, CA; Luis Oala (individual member), 
Berlin, GERMANY; Ailiverse Pte. Ltd., Singapore, SINGAPORE; Connect 
Tech Inc., Guelph, CANADA; Oracle Corp., Seattle, WA; Trainy Inc., 
Fremont, CA; and Giga Computing Technology Co., Ltd., New Taipei, 
TAIWAN have been added as parties to this venture.
    Also, Gigabyte Technology Co., LTD., New Taipei, TAIWAN; and 
MosaicML, San Francisco, CA have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and MLCommons intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On September 15, 2020, MLCommons filed its original notification 
pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of 
the Act on September 29, 2020 (85 FR 61032).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 25, 
2023. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on June 16, 2023 (88 FR 39478).

Suzanne Morris,
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-22252 Filed 10-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
Exhibit 10.24


 





[Letterhead of theglobe.com, Inc.]


 


Robin Segaul Lebowitz


[Insert Address]


 


		Re:	Amendment of Employment Agreement



 


Dear Ms. Lebowitz:


 


The globe.com, Inc. (the “Company”)
has requested, and you have agreed, to the agreements documented herein with respect to your compensation.


 


By countersigning this letter in the space
indicated below, you hereby agree that all salary and any allowances which were payable to you by the Company but the payment of
which has been deferred (the “Deferred Salary”), is hereby cancelled.


 


In order to incentivize Delfin Midstream,
LLC (the “Purchaser”) to purchase a controlling interest of the Company’s common stock, and for other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, you hereby irrevocably and unconditionally
release and fully discharge the Company, its stockholders and the Purchaser, and its and their respective members, partners, trustees,
directors, officers, employees and agents, and the heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns of each of the foregoing,
from any and all liabilities and obligations that may have arisen or accrued on or before the date hereof or may arise or accrue
thereafter under, in connection with or related to the Deferred Salary (the “Released Claims”). You further
agree that you shall not commence or institute any legal actions, including litigation, arbitration or any other legal proceedings
of any kind whatsoever, in law or equity, or assert any claim, demand, action or cause of action concerning, the Released Claims.


 


[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank;
Signature Page Follows]


 






     

    
 


    

 


	 	Sincerely,
	 	 	 
	 	Theglobe.com, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Michael S. Egan
	 	Name:	Michael S. Egan
	 	Title:	Chief Executive Officer


 





	ACKNOWLEDGED
    AND AGREED TO	 
	AS OF THIS
    ___ DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017,	 
	EFFECTIVE
    JANUARY 1, 2018	 
	 	 
	/s/ ROBIN SEGAUL LEBOWITZ	 
	ROBIN SEGAUL LEBOWITZ
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

GEORGE HERTZOG,

Petitioner,

v.

MAGGIE MILLER-STOUT,

Respondent.

CASE NO. C06-5287RJB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION,

DISMISSING WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS, AND DENYING

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Karen L. Strombom (Dkt. 19) and the petitioner’s Motion to Supplement the Records and

to Produce New [sic] Found Evidence (Dkt. 27). The Court has considered the Report and

Recommendation, the motion, and the file herein.

I. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

As set forth in the Report and Recommendation, Mr. Hertzog’s petition is time barred

because the statute of limitations ran on or about November 19, 2001. Dkt. 19 at 4. Mr. Hertzog

twice moved for additional time to file objections to the Report and Recommendation, and both

motions were granted. See Dkt. 22, Dkt. 25. 

Mr. Herzog has not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the interest of

fairness to the petitioner, the Court has considered Mr. Hertzog’s Motion to Supplement the

Case 3:06-cv-05287-RJB Document 28 Filed 12/04/06 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

Records and to Produce New [sic] Found Evidence (Dkt. 27) and the accompanying documents

as objections. 

The only portion of the motion addressing the timeliness of Mr. Hertzog’s petition

apparently contends that the petition is not time barred due to the improper denial of requests for

documents from his court-appointed attorney in February of 2001. Dkt. 27-1 at 4. The majority of

the motion addresses the substantive merits of Mr. Hertzog’s petition and not its timeliness. In a

document entitled “Rebuttal,” Mr. Hertzog contends that he was unaware of the statute of

limitations governing his petition and lists several events that occurred after the statute of

limitations expired. See Dkt. 27-6 at 7-8. Mr. Hertzog fails to establish that equitable tolling is

warranted, and the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

II. ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Karen L.

Strombom (Dkt. 19) is ADOPTED, and the petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. # 5) is

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Motion to Supplement the Records and to Produce

New [sic] Found Evidence (Dkt. 27) is DENIED.

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 4th day of December, 2006.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05287-RJB Document 28 Filed 12/04/06 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

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 1

U.S. v. PENN, 06-5082M

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

MAGISTRATE JUDGE J. KELLEY ARNOLD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ALVIN STEVE PENN,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. 06-5082M

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

DATE 

Based on the unopposed motion of the defendant to continue the trial date, the

Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

1. The ends of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best

interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A). 

2. Proceeding to trial absent adequate time for the defense to prepare would

result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(i). 

3. The defense needs additional time to continue to explore issues related to

trial, including all relevant issues and defenses applicable to the case, which would make

it unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for trial itself

within the time limits established by the Speedy Trial Act and currently set for this case. 

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B(ii). 

//

Case 3:06-mj-05082-JKA Document 17 Filed 09/19/06 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 UNOPPOSED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 2

U.S. v. PENN, 06-5082M

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

4. Taking into account the exercise of due diligence, a continuance is necessary

to allow the defendant the reasonable time for effective preparation of his defense. 

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). 

NOW, THEREFORE,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date is continued from October 2, 2006

to January 8, 2007. The resulting period of delay from October 2, 2006 to January 8,

2007, is hereby excluded for speedy trial purposes under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) and

(B).

DONE this 19th day of September, 2006.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold J. KELLEY ARNOLD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Presented By:

/s/ 

Linda R. Sullivan 

Attorney for Defendant

Case 3:06-mj-05082-JKA Document 17 Filed 09/19/06 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION OFPRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Timothy Armes, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Reportof MedCareers Group, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2014 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all materialrespects the financial condition and results of operations of MedCareers Group, Inc.

 

*By:/s/ Timothy Armes*

Timothy Armes

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer and PrincipalFinancial/Accounting Officer)

 

May 12, 2014
No. 60572.

#### Pfaff American Sales Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 267744-K, 275459-K, and 273762-K (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that each of the items of merchandise in question, when joined together with a sewing-machine head, included in the same importation, forms a complete article of commerce known as a portable sewing machine, and that the items in question and said sewing-machine heads are integral parts of such portable sewing machines, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

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.

MICHAEL DUDAS,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. CR06-138-JCC

DETENTION ORDER

Offense charged: Conspiracy to Import Marijuana; Conspiracy to Distribute Marijuana;

Importation of Marijuana (two counts); Distribution of Marijuana (two

counts); Possession of Marijuana on Board Aircraft (two counts)

Date of Detention Hearing: Initial Appearance, March 20, 2008

The Court, having 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

that no condition or combination of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure

the appearance of defendant as required and the safety of other persons and the community.

/ / /

Case 2:06-cr-00138-JCC Document 6 Filed 03/20/08 Page 1 of 3
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

1. Defendant was not interviewed by Pretrial Services. He is believed to be a native

of Canada.

2. Defendant does not oppose detention.

3. Defendant poses a risk of nonappearance based on Canadian citizenship and

unknown background information. He poses a risk of danger due to the nature of the instant

offense.

4. There does not appear to be any condition or combination of conditions that will

reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance at future Court hearings while addressing the danger

to other persons or 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

Case 2:06-cr-00138-JCC Document 6 Filed 03/20/08 Page 2 of 3
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 3

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United States

Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 20th day of March, 2008.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cr-00138-JCC Document 6 Filed 03/20/08 Page 3 of 3
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

LEONAL MARIN TORRES,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFREY UTTECHT,

 Respondent.

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

CASE NUMBER: C06-830RSM

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury

has rendered its verdict.

 X Decision by Court. This action came to consideration before the Court. The issues have been considered

and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

The Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved. Petitioner’s amended petition for a writ of

habeas corpus is GRANTED. 

Dated this 17th day of January, 2008.

 BRUCE RIFKIN 

 Clerk

/s/ Rhonda Stiles

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00830-RSM Document 45 Filed 01/17/08 Page 1 of 1
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

DETENTION ORDER - 1

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAUL MARTINEZ-SOTELO,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 06-201M

DETENTION ORDER

Offense charged:

Trafficking in false Alien Registration Receipt Cards.

Date of Detention Hearing: 04/27/06

The court, having 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 that no

condition or combination of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the

appearance of defendant as required.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) Defendant is reportedly a citizen of Mexico.

Case 2:06-mj-00201-JLW Document 7 Filed 04/27/06 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

DETENTION ORDER - 2

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i)

(2) The United States alleges that his presences in this country is illegal. There is an

immigration detainer pending against him. The issue of detention in this case is

therefore essentially moot.

(3) Defendant and his counsel offered nothing in opposition to the entry of an order of

detention.

(4) Upon advice of counsel, defendant declined to be interviewed by this court’s pretrial

services officer. There is therefore limited information available about him.

It is therefore ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the Attorney

General for confinement in a corrections 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 27th day of April, 2006.

s/ John L. Weinberg 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-mj-00201-JLW Document 7 Filed 04/27/06 Page 2 of 2