alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 65235.

#### Ross Products, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 50/30764, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, O. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of dish mops similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 64603, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

ALLAN PARMELEE,

Petitioner,

v.

SANDRA CARTER,

Respondent.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C05-2028-JLR-MAT

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner is incarcerated in Clallam Bay Corrections Center (“CBCC”) in Clallam Bay,

Washington. He has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Respondent has filed an answer, along with the state court record. The petition has been noted

for consideration by the court on March 24, 2006. Petitioner now seeks an extension of time to

file a response to the answer. Citing numerous problems with obtaining legal materials at CBCC,

petitioner asks for a 216-month extension of time. Having considered the motion, and the balance

of the record, the court does hereby find and ORDER as follows:

(1) When petitioner originally filed his habeas petition, he requested an immediate stay

of proceedings in order to conduct adequate research to properly litigate this case. (Doc. #6).

Case 2:05-cv-02028-JLR Document 20 Filed 03/20/06 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 DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

PAGE -2

The court denied the request, noting that the petition appeared, at least preliminarily, to state a

cognizable claim and that petitioner had filed a legal memorandum which included several pages

of legal argument. (Doc. #9). The court advised petitioner that he could later move for an

extension of time, if necessary, to properly litigate this matter.

Petitioner’s request for a 216-month (or 18-year) delay in these proceedings to enable him

to file a response is not what the court had in mind, nor is it apparently intended to be taken

seriously. Rather, it appears that petitioner is exaggerating in order to make the point that legal

research at CBCC is a very slow process.

While the court appreciates the fact that because petitioner is incarcerated, he faces certain

obstacles in performing legal research, the court does not appreciate petitioner’s casual attitude

towards wasting the court’s time with an absurd request. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for

extension of time (Doc. #19) is DENIED. In addition, petitioner is ordered to SHOW CAUSE,

no later than 14 days from the date of this Order, why he should not be barred from filing a

response altogether to respondent’s answer, as a sanction for wasting the court’s time.

(2) The Clerk shall direct a copy of this Order to petitioner and to the Honorable James

L. Robart.

DATED this 20th day of March , 2006.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-02028-JLR Document 20 Filed 03/20/06 Page 2 of 2
---

Exhibit 99.7


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the annual report of Baja Mining Corp. (the Company) on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rowland Wallenius, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. March 31, 2011
     /s/ Rowland WalleniusRowland WalleniusChief Financial Officer
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Baja Mining Corp. and will be retained by Baja Mining Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


---
Exhibit 11.6

CONSENT OF EXPERT



To:

Baja Mining Corp., (the Company)



I, John W. Greenslade, do hereby consent to the filing of the written disclosure of the technical report titled, Baja Mining Corp.  A Preliminary Assessment of the El Boleo Copper Cobalt Project, of the El Boleo Project located in Santa Rosalia, Baja California Sur, Mexico and dated August 12, 2005 (the Technical Report) and any extracts from or a summary of the Technical Report in the Registration Statement on Form 20-F dated, July 6, 2006 (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 6th day of July, 2006.



By: [consentofexpertjohngreens002.gif]
Case 2:06-cr-00192-JCC Document 88 Filed 07/28/06 Page 1 of 1
# IMMC.EESC-2019-00683-AC.ENG.xhtml.EESC-2019-00683-00-00-AC-TRA-EN.docx

EN

European Economic and Social Committee

European Economic and Social Committee

NAT/769

NAT/769

Authorisations for fishing vessels post Brexit

Authorisations for fishing vessels post Brexit

OPINION


  European Economic and Social Committee


  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2403 as regards fishing authorisations for Union fishing vessels in United Kingdom waters and fishing operations of United Kingdom fishing vessels in Union waters

  [COM(2019) 49 final – 2019/0010(COD)]

OPINION

European Economic and Social Committee

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2403 as regards fishing authorisations for Union fishing vessels in United Kingdom waters and fishing operations of United Kingdom fishing vessels in Union waters

[COM(2019) 49 final – 2019/0010(COD)]

Referral

| Referral | European Parliament, 30/01/2019


  Council of the European Union, 06/02/2019 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Articles 43(2) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment |
| Adopted at plenary session | 20/02/2019 |
| Plenary session No | 541 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 171/0/2 |

Referral

European Parliament, 30/01/2019

European Parliament, 30/01/2019

Council of the European Union, 06/02/2019

Council of the European Union, 06/02/2019

Legal basis

Legal basis

Articles 43(2) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Articles 43(2) and 304 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 session

Adopted at plenary session

20/02/2019

20/02/2019

Plenary session No

Plenary session No

541

541

Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions)

Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions)

171/0/2

171/0/2

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 541st plenary session of 20 and 21 February 2019 (meeting of 20 February), by 171 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 541st plenary session of 20 and 21 February 2019 (meeting of 20 February), by 171 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 20 February 2019.

Brussels, 20 February 2019.

Luca Jahier

The president of the European Economic and Social Committee

_____________
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 DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO QUASH AND DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_______________________________________)

RBC DAIN RAUSCHER INC., )

) No. C06-0481L

Plaintiff, ) 

v. )

) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

STEVEN L. ALVORD and D.A. DAVIDSON ) MOTION TO QUASH AND DENYING

& COMPANY, ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

)

Defendants. )

_______________________________________)

This matter comes before the Court on defendants’ “Motion to Quash Subpoenas

and Notices of Deposition and for Protective Order” (Dkt. # 12) and the “Motion of Plaintiff

RBC Dain Rauscher to Compel Discovery” (Dkt. # 16). Defendants do not oppose the entry of

a preliminary injunction in the above-captioned matter. See Dkt. # 17. Plaintiff cannot,

therefore, show any need for discovery “in aid of preliminary injunction proceedings before this

Court.” Dkt. # 8 at ¶ 5. Defendants’ motion to quash is GRANTED and plaintiff’s motion to

compel is DENIED. 

DATED this 17th day of April, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik,

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00481-RSL Document 27 Filed 04/17/06 Page 1 of 1
ORDER - 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT TACOMA 

NEIL GREENING, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

EILEEN W. BISSON et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 06-5298RJB/JRC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL 

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Magistrate 

Judges’ Rules MJR 1, MJR 3, and MJR 4. The case has been referred to this court after remand 

from the Ninth Circuit. 

Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. # 80). 

There is no right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. 

Although the court can request counsel to represent a party, 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e) (1), 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 

Case 3:06-cv-05298-RJB Document 86 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 2
ORDER - 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

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. 

Plaintiff has demonstrated an adequate ability to articulate his claims pro se. Indeed the 

pleadings to date are clear, concise and cogent. Plaintiff has not made any showing of his 

likelihood of success on the merits. Therefore, the motion is DENIED. 

DATED this 11th day of August, 2010. 

A

J. Richard Creatura 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05298-RJB Document 86 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











In connection with this Annual Report of Red Rock Pictures Holdings Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending August 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Reno R. Rollé, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.





December 14, 2010





RED ROCK PICTURES HOLDINGS INC.





By: /s/ Reno RolléReno RolléPresident, Chief Executive Officer,

and Director
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
133414 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PAUL B. STEEL and TERESA Y. STEEL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 133414 COA: 271494 Oakland CC: 2006-073329-CK IVANHOE HUNTLEY-OAKHURST BUILDERS, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 1, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented shou ld be reviewed by this Court.

s0521 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.

May 30, 2007

Clerk
II. IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTICS OF LODGEPOLE PINE

Lodgepole pine at Crater Lake is Pinus contorta subspecies murrayana. Some of its ecological characteristics importanthere are: (1) it is a relatively small, short-lived conifer with sparse foliage; (2) it appears to tolerate a variety of harshenvironments (wet, cold, low nutrients) which few other trees can, but (3) its growth is considerably slowed by suchconditions; (4) it is intolerant of heavy shade; (5) its small, winged seeds are released soon after the cones mature; (6) itis very susceptible to dwarf mistletoe, although few trees die as a direct result of infection; (7) it is quickly killed bymountain pine beetle; (8) it has very thin bark, even when an old tree, rendering it susceptible to kill by fires of lowintensity; (9) trees are very subject to heart rot introduced through wounds such as fire scars; (10) fire-affected treesappear to be very susceptible to secondary bark beetle attack; and (11) dead trees lose their bark rapidly and form a hardsheath, and thus logs appear to decay relatively slowly.

Our lodgepole pine thus differs considerably from ponderosa pine, which has thick bark even when young, gets muchlarger and survives much longer, appears to be more resistant to bark beetles and can be scarred repeatedly withoutrotting. It also differs significantly from its relative in the Rocky Mountains, P. contorta ssp. latifolia in at least one wayof importance to our study (no. 5 above): many Rocky Mountain trees are serotinous, having cones which remain closedfor years until subjected to a high temperature, usually from fire. Thus, in the Northern Rockies, the seed crop of manyyears is released directly on a site following fire in lodgepole pine. In our area, seed for regeneration must be dispersedfrom surviving trees or the edge of the burn, only one year's crop at a time. This probably results in slower, moresporadic regeneration in this area than in the Rockies, especially near the center of large burns.

http://www.nps.gov/crla/lodgepole/lodgepole2.htmDate: 29-May-2001

CRATER LAKEReport: Lodgepole Pine—History and Management

<<< PREVIOUS CONTENTS NEXT >>>

Page 1 of 1Crater Lake NP: Lodgepole Pine: History and Management

11/29/2011http://web.archive.org/web/20081009014158/http://www.nps.gov/archive/crla/lodgepole/lodgepole2.htm
No. 64632.

#### C. H. Timm & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 69/33560 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 6(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Exhibit 4



CERTIFICATION

I, John W. Greenslade, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Baja Mining Corp.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the issuer and have:

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuers auditors and the audit committee of the issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the issuers internal control over financial reporting.



|                       |  |     |  |                                           
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------
|                       |  |     |  |                                           
|Date:   March 30, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ John W. Greenslade                    
|                       |  |     |  | John W. Greenslade
Chief Executive Officer
(Reap. Dec. 11080)

#### Elof Hansson, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 1061-H.

*622(Decided October 13, 1965)

*Sharp, Bolter & Hutchison*for tbe plaintiff.

*John*W. *Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Rao, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by tbe undersigned, subject *to the*approval of tbe Court :

> 1. That tbe subject merchandise consists of bardboard exported from Sweden as to wbicb tbe Secretary of tbe Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported tbe purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to tbe merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidump ting Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-2977

_____________________________

EMMANUEL MCMEANS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Jennie Kinsey, Judge.

October 31, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, WINOKUR, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Emmanuel McMeans, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Holly Simcox, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Exhibit 99.2  -  Report of Management as to compliance with minimum
		 servicing standards for the year ended December 31, 2005



						Irwin Home Equity
						12577 Alcosta Blvd
						Suite 500
						San Ramon, CA 94583-4427
						925.277.2001
						925.277.0481 Fax


						[IRWIN
						HOME EQUITY logo]



		Management's Assertion Concerning Compliance
		   with USAP Minimum Servicing Standards




As of and for the year ended December 31, 2005, Irwin Home Equity Corporation
(the "Company") a majority owned subsidiary of Irwin Union Bank and Trust
Company has complied in all material respects with the minimum servicing
standards as set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform
Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers ("USAP").

As of and for this same period the Company had in effect a fidelity bond and
errors and omissions policy in the amounts of $35,000,000 and $20,000,000
respectively.




/S/Jocelyn Martin Leano      3/1/06
Jocelyn Martin-Leano
Interim President



/S/Dan Kuster                3/1/06
Dan Kuster
Vice President, Finance