alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

DAVID E. LINEAR, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C05-0785-MAT

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Based on stipulations initiated by defendant, the Court granted three extensions of time for

the filing of a responsive brief in this matter. (See Dkts. 14, 16 & 18.) In the last order granting

an extension, the Court gave defendant until Monday, October 31, 2005 to file a responsive brief.

(Dkt. 18.) The Court noted that, absent exceptional circumstances, no further extension would

be allowed. Id. To date, defendant has yet to submit a responsive brief, or any other document

explaining their failure to timely submit a response. In fact, none of the three stipulations

submitted in this matter contain any reason, much less exceptional circumstances, explaining

defendant’s inability to respond to plaintiff’s opening brief in a timely manner.

Accordingly, the Court hereby orders defendant to show cause within ten (10) days of the

Case 2:05-cv-00785-MAT Document 19 Filed 11/07/05 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

PAGE -2

date of this order as to why plaintiff’s request for an award of benefits should not be granted.

Failure to respond to this order in a timely fashion will be construed as an admission that plaintiff’s

contentions have merit.

DATED this 7th day of November , 2005.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-00785-MAT Document 19 Filed 11/07/05 Page 2 of 2
# Official Journal C 164/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 164 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 644 May 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 164

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 644 May 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 164/01 | Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: — 0,00 % on 1 May 2021 — Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2021/C 164/02 | Special report 7/2021 – EU space programmes Galileo and Copernicus: services launched, but the uptake needs a further boost | 2 |
| 2021/C 164/03 | Special report No 6/2021 – Financial instruments in cohesion policy at closure of the 2007-2013 period: verification work yielded good results overall, but some errors remained | 3 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 164/01

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: — 0,00 % on 1 May 2021 — Euro exchange rates

1

Court of Auditors

2021/C 164/02

Special report 7/2021 – EU space programmes Galileo and Copernicus: services launched, but the uptake needs a further boost

2

2021/C 164/03

Special report No 6/2021 – Financial instruments in cohesion policy at closure of the 2007-2013 period: verification work yielded good results overall, but some errors remained

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 164/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M. 10181 — Entega/Viessmann/EMS/EPS) (
  1
  ) | 4 |
| 2021/C 164/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10242— Melitta/Hubert Burda Media/Roast Market) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 6 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 164/06 | Publication of the amended single document following the approval of a minor amendment pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 | 8 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2021/C 164/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M. 10181 — Entega/Viessmann/EMS/EPS) (
  1
  )

1

4

2021/C 164/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10242— Melitta/Hubert Burda Media/Roast Market) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

6

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2021/C 164/06

Publication of the amended single document following the approval of a minor amendment pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012

8

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

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

EN
Before the First Division,

March 27, 1962

No. 66610.

#### Impecco, Ltd. *v.*United States,

protests 58/1166, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fishing reels with two spools similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Charles Garcia & Co., Inc.*(48 C.C.P.A. 140, C.A.D. 780), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 11
 
                             CARDIAC SCIENCE, INC.
                         (A development stage company)

                      COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE INFORMATION

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 

                                                      Three Months Ended    Three Months Ended
                                                        March 31, 1997        March 31, 1996
                                                      ------------------    ------------------
<S>                                                   <C>                   <C> 
Earnings:
   Net income (loss)...............................      $  (168,475)          $  (217,937)
                                                         ===========           ===========
 
Computation of primary per share information:
Shares:
 Weighted average number of
   shares outstanding...........................          39,137,844            38,207,844
                                                         ===========           ===========
 
Primary earnings per share:
 Net income (loss)..............................         $      (.00)          $      (.01)
                                                         ===========           ===========
 
</TABLE>
No. 67203.

protests 61/13760, etc. (Wimington, N.C.).

#### Ernest Greenwood Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to- those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 10.15

Summary of Executive Officer and Director Compensation Arrangements

Executive Officer Compensation

The following table presents the 2007 base salary and 2007 bonus
plan approved by the Board of Directors pursuant to the annual incentive compensation plan for the President and Chief Executive Officer and the other named executive officers currently employed by Hercules. Under the 2007 bonus plan, bonuses are
paid to Hercules executive officers based on performance measures established jointly by the Nominating, Governance and Compensation Committee and management. For 2007, the annual incentive bonuses are based on targets for Hercules
earnings, return on the use of capital, and the level of safety training performed by the Company. The Committee has established three performance measurement levels: threshold level, target level and maximum or stretch level. The amount of
incentive compensation increases with each increasing level of Hercules performance.



|                   |  |             |            |            |   |         |  |   |        
|------------------ |  | ----------- | ---------- | ---------- | - | ------- |  | - | -------
|                   |  | 2007        |            | 2007 Bonus
|                   |  | Base Salary |            | Target     |   | Maximum
|Randall D. Stilley |  | $           | 550,000.00 |            | $ | 412,500 |  | $ | 825,000
|Steven A. Manz     |  | $           | 300,000.00 |            | $ | 165,000 |  | $ | 330,000
|Don P. Rodney      |  | $           | 160,000.00 |            | $ | 48,000  |  | $ | 90,000 
|Randy Reed         |  | $           | 200,000.00 |            | $ | 100,000 |  | $ | 200,000

Director Fees

Directors who are also full-time officers or employees of Hercules do not receive additional compensation for serving as directors. All other directors receive an annual retainer of $30,000. Each non-employee director
also receives a fee of $1,500 for each board meeting and each committee meeting attended. In addition, the chairman of the audit committee receives an annual fee of $15,000 and the chairman of the nominating, governance and compensation committee
receives an annual fee of $8,000. Hercules also reimburses the reasonable expenses incurred by the directors in attending meetings and Company business.Any fees payable to directors who are affiliated with LR Hercules Holdings, LP
(Lime Rock) will be paid to Lime Rock. Each non-employee director also receives an annual grant of restricted stock under Hercules 2004 long-term incentive plan having a fair market value (as defined in the plan) of $40,000, which
vests on the first business day after the following years annual meeting of stockholders.
Before the Second Division,

December 20, 1965

No. 69700.

#### Rohde & Schwarz Sales Co. *v.*United States,

protest 64/17947 (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of instruments in chief value of metal having essential electrical elements, designed to measure the amperage of electricity, not voltage, the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. G. *L. Electronics, Inc., Arrow Sales, Inc.*(49 CCPA 111, C.A.D. 804), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# Official Journal C 75/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 75 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6228 February 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 75

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6228 February 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 75/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9167 — Patron Capital/Marriott International/PEH Warsaw Bidco) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2019/C 75/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9245 — BAC/Marriott/Airhotel BVBA) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2019/C 75/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9167 — Patron Capital/Marriott International/PEH Warsaw Bidco) (
  1
  )

1

1

2019/C 75/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9245 — BAC/Marriott/Airhotel BVBA) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 75/03 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2019/C 75/04 | Electronic identification schemes notified pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market | 3 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2019/C 75/03

Euro exchange rates

2

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2019/C 75/04

Electronic identification schemes notified pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 75/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9276 — Sika/Financière Dry Mix Solutions) (
  1
  ) | 6 |
| 2019/C 75/06 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9301 — KDDI/Mitsubishi UFJ Securities Holdings/Kabu.com) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 7 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2019/C 75/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9276 — Sika/Financière Dry Mix Solutions) (
  1
  )

1

6

2019/C 75/06

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9301 — KDDI/Mitsubishi UFJ Securities Holdings/Kabu.com) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

7

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

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

EN
# C_2023177EN.01000101.xml

| 17.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 177/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 177/1

---

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

2022-2023 SESSION

Sittings of 12 to 15 December 2022

TEXTS ADOPTED

---
Yeager v. Adkins 

250 Va. 1 (1995) 

________________________________________________________________ 

VIRGINIA:

 In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme court 

Building in the City of Richmond, on Friday, the 9th day of June, 

1995. 

Leonard Jewell Yeager, Appellant, 

 against Record No. 941437 

 Circuit Court No. L1373 

Stephen Andrew Adkins, Appellee. 

 Upon an appeal from a judgment rendered by the 

Circuit Court of Madison County on the 20th day of May, 

1994. 

 Upon consideration of the record, briefs, and argument of 

counsel, the Court is of opinion that there is no error in the 

judgment appealed from. 

 Appellant, Leonard Jewell Yeager, filed this action against 

appellee, Stephen Andrew Adkins, seeking to recover damages for 

personal injuries Yeager sustained in an automobile accident. 

Adkins, the driver of the only car involved in the accident, was 

arrested and charged with reckless driving. Code § 46.2-852. 

Adkins signed a summons stating in relevant part: "I promise to 

appear in accordance with this Summons. . . . SIGNING THIS 

NOTICE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ADMISSION OF GUILT." He did not 

post a cash bond as security for his appearance. 

 Adkins failed to appear in general district court, was 

convicted of reckless driving, and subsequently paid a fine and 

court costs. Yeager unsuccessfully sought to present evidence of 

this conviction in the trial of his tort action against Adkins. 
 Yeager, relying upon Code § 8.01-418, argues that Adkins' 

failure to appear in the general district court proceedings and 

his subsequent payment of a fine constituted a forfeiture and, 

thus, evidence of the judgment of the general district court is 

admissible. Code § 8.01-418 states: 

 Whenever, in any civil action, it is contended 

that any party thereto pled guilty or nolo contendere 

or suffered a forfeiture in a prosecution for a 

criminal offense or traffic infraction which arose out 

of the same occurrence upon which the civil action is 

based, evidence of said plea or forfeiture as shown by 

the records of the criminal court shall be admissible. 

 Where the records of the court in which such 

prosecution was had are silent or ambiguous as to 

whether or not such plea was made or forfeiture 

occurred the court hearing the civil case shall admit 

such evidence on the question of such plea or 

forfeiture as may be relevant, and the question of 

whether such plea was made or forfeiture suffered shall 

be a question for the court to determine. 

 We hold that the trial court did not err by refusing to 

admit evidence of the judgment of the general district court. 

The mere failure to appear in general district court to contest a 

traffic offense and the subsequent payment of a fine and costs do 

not constitute a forfeiture within the meaning of Code § 8.01-

418. 

 Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

The appellee shall recover thirty dollars damages from the 

appellant. 

 A copy of this order shall be certified to the circuit 

court. This order shall be published in the Virginia Reports. 

 A Copy, 

 Teste: 

David B. Beach, Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 39 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.J.Res.39

                       One Hundred Fifth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
 the seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven

                            Joint Resolution

 
 To provide for the convening of the Second Session of the One Hundred 
                             Fifth Congress.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the second regular 
session of the One Hundred Fifth Congress shall begin at noon on 
Tuesday, January 27, 1998.
    Sec. 2. Prior to the convening of the second regular session of the 
One Hundred Fifth Congress on January 27, 1998, as provided in the 
first section of this joint resolution, Congress shall reassemble at 
noon on the second day after its Members are notified in accordance 
with section 3 of this joint resolution.
    Sec. 3. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and Senate, respectively, to assemble whenever, in 
their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
No. 67619.

#### A. J. Fritz & Co. and Ideal Trading Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/23503, etc. (Los Angeles).

*273Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and *J. J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 54421.

#### Air Express International Agency, Inc. *v.*United States,

petition 6661-R (Tampa).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It appeared from the record that the consular fee and an export tax, both of which were in fact nondutiable charges, were included in the unit prices, and the amounts of such charges were deducted from the total invoice price. The merchandise was appraised as entered, but an appeal by the collector established that the invoice unit prices did not include either charge. Upon a full consideration of the entire record it was held that there was no intent to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
Order entered March 18, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01235-CR

No. 05-13-01237–CR

JOHN CLOUD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F93-61603-N and F93-60604-N

ORDER

Appellant’s February 27, 2014 “Motion for Entry of Filed PJN” is DENIED. The Court 

has the record in the above case before it and will review the trial court’s ruling based on the 

record.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order, by first-class mail, to John Cloud, 

TDCJ No. 749521, Powledge Unit, 1400 F.M. 3452, Palestine, Texas 75803.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Dallas County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
Before the Second Division,

December 18, 1946

No. 51479.

#### Protest 729608-G (C) of American Straw Goods Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of hats or hoods similar in all material respects to those the classification of which was involved in *Caradine Hat Co.*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664). In accordance therewith and following the authority cited, the items of merchandise imported and withdrawn for consumption prior to the effective date of T. D. 48075 were held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5), and those items entered or withdrawn for consumption subsequent to that date were held dutiable at 12)4 percent under said paragraph.
# Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01

- 14

- 00564

- CV

Kay Stein

v

.

Gerarda Elizabeth Duenas

NO. 375064 IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO 10 OF BEXAR C OUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

SUPP CLK RECORD

MT FEE

MT FEE

M T FEE

MT FEE

RPT RECORD

TRANSFER

TRANSFER

TRANSFER

TRANSFER

CLK RECORD $0.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$1,491.17

$20.00

$50.00

$100.00

$25.00

$393.00 08/10/2015

01/12/2015

12/09/2014

10/14/2014

09/08/2014

0 7/21/2014

06/24/2014

06/24/2014

06/24/2014

06/24/2014

06/08/2014 UNKNOWN

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

PAID

TRANSFER

TRANSFER

TRANSFER

TRANSFER

PAID UNK

APE

APE

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT



### The costs incurred on appeal to the First Cou rt of Appeals Houston, Texas are

$2,1 1 9 .17.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine

, Clerk o f the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby

certify that this is a true statement of the c osts of appeal in this case.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness myhand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the

First District of Texas, this October 2 3 , 2015

.
---



Exhibit 99.9



CONSENT OF EXPERT



To:

Baja Mining Corp., (the Company)



I, David Mehner, P.Geo, do hereby consent to the filing of the written disclosure of the technical report titled, Underground Resource Calculation and Review, Boleo District, of the El Boleo Project located in Santa Rosalia, Baja California Sur, Mexico and dated November 27, 2003 (the Technical Report) and any extracts from or a summary of the Technical Report in the Registration Statement on Form 40-F dated March 20, 2008 (the Registration) of the Company, and to the filing of the Technical Report with United States Securities and Exchange Commission.



I also consent to the use of my name in the Registration Statement.



Dated this 20th day of March, 2008.





By:/s/ David Mehner______________



---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
129626 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 129626 COA: 253327 Washtenaw CC: 76-010489-FY EDWARD HILL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the Ju ly 12, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s0221 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 27, 2006

Clerk