alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 14,273.

#### TURTON v. UNION PAC. R. CO.

[3 Dill. 366.] 1

Circuit Court. D. Nebraska.

1875.

Federal Jurisdiction over the Union Pacific Railroad Company by Removal from the ' State Cocrt, under the Act of July 27, 1868. 15 Stat. 227.

Under the legislation of congress, the Union Pacific Railroad Company, sued in a state court for negligence, on making application in due form, stating, inter alia, that it has a defense to the action arising under a law of the United States, viz. under the charter of the company; may remove ■ the suit to the circuit court of the United States, and on such removal the cause may be fully tried on the merits.

See Rev. St. § 640.

This action was originally commenced in one of the state courts of Nebraska, by [George X Turton] the plaintiff, a citizen of that state, against the defendant, to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff, caused by the negligence of the defendant in operating its road. Answer in denial filed in the state court. Afterwards the defendant filed its petition in the state court for the removal of the cause into this court stating, inter alia, therein; that it was a corporation created and organized under and by virtue of a law of the United States, approved July 1, 1862, and that it is not a banking corporation, and that it has a defense to and in the said action arising under a law of the United States, to-wit: under the act last mentioned. Surety was accepted, and the cause ordered to be removed by the state court. In the circuit court the plaintiff filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the court, which the defendant- denied. The plea was submitted on an agreed statement of facts, which admitted that no defense is claimed to exist or is sought to lie made under any other law of the United States than the charter of the defendant. 12 Stat. 489.

Mr. Marlow, for plaintiff.

Mr. Poppleton, for defendant.

MILLER. Circuit Justice.

I am of opinion that the cause was properly removed into this court under the act of congress relating to the removal of suits against federal corporations, and that it may be fully tried here upon its merits. Plea to the jurisdiction overruled. Judgment accordingly.
February 11, 1955

No. 58773.

Suit 4807.

#### United States *v.*G. Klein & Son.

Abstract 57678 reversed November 9, 1954. C. A. D. 574.
Exhibit
    32.2CERTIFICATION
        OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
        OF
        OAKRIDGE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
        PURSUANT
        TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
        AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
        SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In
    connection with the Annual Report of Oakridge International Corporation a Nevada corporation (the "Company") on
    Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
    "Report"), Lit Wai Sun, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant
    to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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, as amended;
    and(2)
    The
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
    of the Company.  A
    signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Oakridge International Corporation,
    and will be retained by Oakridge International Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
    staff upon request./s/ Lit Wai Sun------------------------------------------Lit Wai SunChief Financial
    OfficerNovember 3, 2015
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 – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

TIMOTHY C. MYER and JOHN E.

GRISWOLD,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NITETRAIN COACH COMPANY INC.;

NASHVILLE COACH, INC.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C06-804C

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Nashville Coach’s Motion to Continue

Deadline for Mediation (Dkt. No. 37), Plaintiffs’ Response thereto (Dkt. No. 39), and Defendant’s Reply

(Dkt. No. 41). The Court, having carefully considered all of the papers submitted and determined that

oral argument is not necessary, hereby finds and rules as follows. 

The basic facts of this case have been recited in prior Orders of this Court. (See Orders (Dkt.

Nos. 22, 36).) Defendant’s instant motion sought to extend the mediation deadline in this case to July 13,

2007 as well as an order compelling Plaintiff Myer to provide “all updated medical records, and any

discoverable material related to a neuropsychologist’s evaluation.” (Mot. 4.) In response, Plaintiff

indicated that all parties have already agreed to a continuance of the mediation date to June 4, 2007, but

Case 2:06-cv-00804-JCC Document 42 Filed 05/04/07 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 – 2

objected to the request to compel because, Plaintiff argued, it was an improper attempt to seek a Rule

26(a)(2) expert report before such is due. In Reply, Defendant agreed to a June 4, 2007 mediation

deadline, denied that it was seeking expert disclosures early, and requested that Plaintiff be required to

make and supplement initial disclosures, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A) and

26(e)(1). 

There is no controversy regarding the mediation date. Accordingly, this joint request is

GRANTED and the mediation deadline shall be extended to June 4, 2007. 

As to the “neuropsychological report,” it is clear that Plaintiff is not required to provide an expert

report before such is due under Rule 26(a)(2). However, Plaintiff is required to provide and supplement

requested discovery as a general matter, including treating physician information, pursuant to Rules

26(a)(1)(A) and 26(e)(1). These requirements already bind Plaintiff and there is no need for an Order

from this Court to impose them. Moreover, Defendant has not made a showing that it has satisfied the

requirement to meet and confer with Plaintiff about Rule 26 discovery requests as dictated by Local Rule

37(a)(2). Instead, Defendant only invokes Rules 26(a)(1)(A) and 26(e)(1) in its Reply to the instant

motion. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s request to require specific discovery already

required by the Federal Rules by any particular date. Plaintiff is reminded of the ongoing duty to

supplement disclosures under Rule 26(e)(1). 

SO ORDERED this 4th day of May, 2007.

AJohn C. Coughenour

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00804-JCC Document 42 Filed 05/04/07 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00871-JLR Document 38 Filed 04/21/08 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00871-JLR Document 38 Filed 04/21/08 Page 2 of 2
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

RICHARD ROY SCOTT JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

AL NERIO, et al. CASE NUMBER: C06-5340RJB 

 

 

 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 trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and

a decision has been rendered.

Plaintiff's pending motions (Dkts. 236, 219, 222, 223, 237, 231, 233, 234, 241, 242 243, 246 and 247) and any other

pending motions are DENIED; U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold's Report and Recommendation, Dkt #221, is ADOPTED;

Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay $500.00 to the Clerk of Court.

 August 14, 2007 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Clerk

/s/Dara L. Kaleel 

By Dara L. Kaleel, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:06-cv-05340-RJB Document 260 Filed 08/14/07 Page 1 of 1
#### Ragnar E. DANNESKJOLD, Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-7174.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 23, 2001.

ORDER

Appellant having paid the required filing fee, it is ORDERED that the order of dismissal and the mandate be, and the *958same hereby are, VACATED and RECALLED, and the notice of appeal is REINSTATED.

Appellee should compute the due date for filing its brief from the date of filing of this order.
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

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO EXTEND INDICTMENT DEADLINE – 1

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ANTHONY ADAMS,

Defendant.

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. 05-5182M

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

MOTION TO EXTEND INDICTMENT

DEADLINE

Upon stipulation of the parties to continue the speedy indictment time to allow counsel

to continue to investigate and negotiate this case, and upon the defendant’s Waiver of Right to

Speedy Indictment, the Court finds that such a continuance would serve the ends of justice,

and that the failure to grant such continuance in this case would deny counsel for the

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the

exercise of due diligence, therefore, 

//

//

//

//

Case 3:05-cr-05885-FDB Document 12 Filed 11/21/05 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

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO EXTEND INDICTMENT DEADLINE – 2

//

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the time to file an indictment be continued to

December 31, 2005. The period of delay resulting from this continuance from November 30,

2005, to December 31, 2005, is hereby excluded for speedy trial purposes under 18 U.S.C.

§3161(h)(8)(A) and (B).

DONE this 21st day of November, 2005.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Presented By:

/s/ 

Russell V. Leonard

Attorney for Defendant

/s/ 

Michael Dion

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:05-cr-05885-FDB Document 12 Filed 11/21/05 Page 2 of 2
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

BULLETIN 1000 PLATE 11

1150 HOLE 7 HOLE 12
HOLE 8 HOLE 9 = : WoLE 13
— nl ‘ ——— ae
1125 | z a
gf M00
§
S 1075 Galena dolomite
2
3
5
# 1050 N
z Fee ae
=
025 ee eee ———
a ‘Quimbys Mil mem 3 ———
ey, See fae ee oe
aot
ee AIT FER ALON 2c, IN PARTS PER MILLION —|
Decorah formation
1000 ai
é 600°
0 1000 ZINC, IN PARTS PER MILLION ZINC, IN PARTS PER MILLION <a .——
ZINC, IN PARTS PER MILLION ZINC, IN PARTS PER MILLION atest oy Reclad —
97s é 3600
ZING, IN PARTS PER MILLION
ee sea HOLE 8 HOLE 9 HOLE 10 HOLE 11 ‘HOLE 12
HOLE 13
sol
aT —__—— 2S Soil
1125 : | = es
“1100
g Galena dolomite
z Galena door
ite
5 07s ‘
g
B res0
= —
z Decorah formation — 3
z —— ——
1025. —— == Si aa
a ‘Quimby Mil member E. 3 ———
ri 11600 latteville formation 4 sali ———
LEAD, IN PARTS PER MILLION ina: Rate |
} at Decorah formation
1000 ~ = a
SS! Sas a oo ° 1600
0 1600 72600 0 1000 LEAD, IN’ PARTS PER MILLION \EA0,N PARTS PER MILLION enpgy
LEAD, IN PARTS PER MILLION LEAD, IN PARTS PER MILLION ibys i meer
975 } ,
LEAD, IN PARTS PER MILLION
11507)HOLE 7 HOLE 8 HOLE 9 HOLE 10 ‘HOLE 12
soi
1128 SS
00 a“
A .
=
z Galena dlorite
3 1078
H
E sc20|
z
z | —~___ |B ar oe es ae
5 02 === ——| <a
Lice Fh ibys Mil member ey
10 Platteville formation |
SON, IN PERCENT
——- Decorah formation
1000: =
= £! 0 —
0 10 20 To IRON, IN PERCENT IRON, IN PERCENT ma
IRON, IN PERCENT IRON, IN PERCENT Patel loretion
78 j b
IRON, IN PERCENT
°
90 150 225 300 450 600 FEET

CROSS SECTIONS THROUGH DRILL HOLES 7-13 SHOWING ZINC, LEAD, AND IRON CONCENTRATIONS IN ROCKS AT CROW BRANCH

369614 O—56 (In pocket) No. 5
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

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. 

IGNACIO DIAZ-CHAVEZ,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-302M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offenses Charged: 

Conspiracy to Distribute Heroin and Cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

841(b)(1)(B), and 846.

Date of Detention Hearing: June 16, 2006.

The Court, 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:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), there is a rebuttable presumption that defendant

is a flight risk and a danger to the community based on the nature of the pending charges.

Application of the presumption is appropriate in this case.

(2) Defendant has stipulated to detention due to an immigration detainer lodged

against him, but reserves the right to contest his continued detention if there is a change in

circumstances.

Case 2:06-cr-00198-RSL Document 7 Filed 06/19/06 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

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

(3) There appear to be no conditions or combination of conditions other than

detention that will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance at future Court hearings or the

safety of 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

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

Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 19th day of June, 2006.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cr-00198-RSL Document 7 Filed 06/19/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32

# SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

The undersigned certify that:

(1)    The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2006, 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 accompanying
Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date:   May 15, 2006 | /s/   Scott F. Drill                                                            
|-------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     | Scott F. DrillPresident and Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)

|Date:   May 15, 2006 | /s/   Justin W. Shireman                                                                         
|-------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     | Justin W. ShiremanVice President, Finance andChief Financial Officer(principal financial officer)

---
No. 56208.

protest 161558-K (Cleveland).

#### Divers Sponge Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
No. 58330.

protest 162121-K (New York).

#### Marconi International Marine Communication Co., Ltd. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consists of parts of radar equipment the same in all material respects as the radar equipment the subject of *United States*v. *United Geophysical Company*(38 C. C. P. A. 137, C. A. D. 451). Upon the agreed statement of facts and following the authority cited, the radar equipment parts were held dutiable as claimed.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 121 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 121

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 21, 1999

        Received and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the victory of the 
     United States in the cold war and the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Whereas the cold war was an enduring struggle between communism and democracy 
        throughout the second half of the 20th century;
Whereas an estimated 24,000,000 members of the United States Armed Forces served 
        during the cold war;
Whereas 400,000,000 people were freed from the bondage of communism during the 
        cold war in the countries then

    known as the Soviet Union, East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, 
        Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania;
Whereas the victory of the United States in the cold war will signify freedom 
        and security for decades to come;
Whereas the fall of the Berlin Wall, one of the most significant events of the 
        20th century, symbolized the triumph of democracy over communism; and
Whereas November 9, 1999, will mark the 10th anniversary of this historic event: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the Nation should celebrate 
the victory of the United States in the cold war and the 10th 
anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall by--
            (1) promoting education about the cold war and its 
        historical significance;
            (2) supporting efforts to establish a memorial museum to 
        victims of communism that reflects the suffering of millions of 
        victims worldwide and the role of the United States in 
        promoting freedom and democracy that led to the end of the cold 
        war;
            (3) celebrating peace, freedom, and the principles of 
        democratic government;
            (4) honoring and reflecting upon the role of the United 
        States in the international struggle for individual human 
        rights and the evolution of the free enterprise system; and
            (5) recognizing the veterans who served during the cold 
        war.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 19, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
---

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

I, Earl Hope, , President of Riverbank Resources Inc., hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Riverbank Resources
        Inc. for the year ended April 30, 2006 (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 Riverbank Resources Inc.                                                                

Date: July 27, 2006.

| | /s/
      Earl Hope          
| | -----------------------------
| | Earl Hope                    
| | President                    
| | (Principal Executive Officer)
| | Riverbank Resources Inc.     

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to
Riverbank Resources Inc.. and will be retained by Riverbank Resources Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
**UNPUBLISHED**
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 08**  **- 2**  **402**

HERMAN WHALING , P etitioner ,
v. EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORPORATION; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS , Respondents
.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board
. ( 08

- 0115

- BLA )

Submitted : March 1 8 , 2010 Decided: April 6, 2010

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and A GE E , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion
. William B. Talty, Hanover, Virginia , f or Petitioner
. Mark E. Solomons, Laura Metcoff Klaus, GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP, Washington, D.C., for Respondent Eastern Associated Coal Corporation
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Herman Whaling s eeks review o f the Benefits Review Board ’ s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge ’ s denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.
§§ 901

- 945 (2006) . Our review of the record discloses that the Board ’ s decision is based upon substantial evidenc e and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. Whaling v. Eastern Associated Coal Corp. , No. 08

- 0115

- BLA . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ad equately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
### UNITED STATES NAVY

- MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

F.D. MITCHELL, J.A. FISCHER, M.K. JAMISON

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

DASHAYNE G. PACE

- BATES

CORPORAL (E

- 4), U.S. MARINE CORPS

NMCC A 201300482

SPECIAL COURT

- MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 4 October 2013.

Military Judge: Col Daniel J. Daugherty, USMC.

Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, The Basic School,

Training Command, Quantico, VA

. Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: LtCol M .E. Sayegh

,

USMC

. For Appellant: LCDR Shannon A. Llenza, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian K. Keller , Esq

.

1 3 March 2014

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

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

After careful consideration of the record, submitted

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court