alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**JESSE LEWIS,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 219 WAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 23rd day of October, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal** 

**is** DENIED

**.**
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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DOUGLAS R. HIGGINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

HENRY RICHARDS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5692 RBL/KLS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On May 9, 2006, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for a 120 day extension of the discovery

and summary judgment deadlines. (Dkt. # 18). The court’s order was based on plaintiff’s failure to

engage in discovery within the time provided in the court’s scheduling order. After carefully

reviewing the motion for reconsideration and the record, the court ORDERS as follows:

(1) Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 19) is DENIED. Motions for

 reconsideration are disfavored and will ordinarily be denied in the “absence of a showing of manifest

error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been

brought to the court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local Rule CR 7(h)(1). Here,

plaintiff has identified no error in the court’s order, nor presented any new facts or legal authority

that suggest reconsideration is appropriate. Plaintiff complains of a delay in the receipt of deposition

Case 3:05-cv-05692-RBL Document 21 Filed 07/20/06 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 - 2

subpoenas from the clerk’s office for service by another plaintiff in a separate case, Monte

Hoisington v. Richards, et al, Case No. 05-5281RBL. Although the parties may have some informal

agreement regarding the sharing of discovery, plaintiff is responsible for the conduct of his case. The

Clerk’s office received the subpoenas on April 4, 2006 and they were issued on April 14, 2006. 

Thus, there was sufficient time to schedule depositions before the discovery deadline of May 26,

2006. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore denied.

(2) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff and to the Honorable 

Ronald B. Leighton.

DATED this 20th day of July, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05692-RBL Document 21 Filed 07/20/06 Page 2 of 2
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JACK E. ZIPF and MARY DARLENE ZIPF,

Appellants,

v.

CRYSTAL SANDS OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA NOT FOR 

PROFIT CORPORATION,

Appellee.

No. 2D2022-2934

May 10, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Kevin Bruning, 

Judge.

Heather Cherepkai and Leland W. Wilson of Denali Law Group, P.A., Fort 

Myers (withdrew after briefing), for Appellants.

Jack E. Zipf, pro se.

Mary Darlene Zipf, pro se.

Lissette Gonzalez of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, LaROSE, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
2

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
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

for the WESTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

CHILHULY, INC., and PORTLAND

PRESS, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

)

)

)

)

vs. )

) C05-1801 JPD

ROBERT KAINDL, et al.,

 Defendant.

)

)

) MINUTE ORDER

The following Minute Order is made at the direction of the Court, the Honorable 

James P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge:

The Court notes counsel for all parties have now appeared, but some only within the past

week. The plaintiffs are directed to advise the Court that all parties have been served with the

Notice of Initial Assignment and Consent Form (dkt #2), and the Minute Order of

 November 22, 2005 (dkt #20).

To the extent they have not already complied with the above referenced orders, all parties

are directed to advise Peter H. Voelker, deputy clerk, by close of business Friday, December 9,

2005, as to whether their respective clients consent or decline to have the matter proceed before

the Honorable James P. Donohue, U.S. Magistrate Judge. ( Mr. Voelker can be contacted at

 (206) 370-8422, or by fax at (206) 370-8425; the parties are not to file this information

electronically or forward the information, in any form, to the chambers of Judge Donohue.) 

Case 2:05-cv-01801-JPD Document 26 Filed 12/06/05 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

Should a party, or parties, decline to consent, the matter will be reassigned to a district judge on

Monday, December 12, 2005.

Dated this 6th day of December, 2005

Bruce Rifkin, Clerk of Court

/s/ PETER H. VOELKER 

Peter H. Voelker

Deputy Clerk

MINUTE ORDER

CV05-1801 JPD

Case 2:05-cv-01801-JPD Document 26 Filed 12/06/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 58767.

protest 238069-K (New York).

#### Semon Bache & Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose any evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action, the protest was overruled.
No. 60254.

petition 7206-R (New York).

#### Omega Import Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

From the testimony, it appeared that, prior to entry, the owner of the petitioner supplied the appraiser with all information he had received from the foreign shipper and that the merchandise was entered at what he believed to be the proper market value. Later, the appraiser advised the petitioner to amend its entry by increasing the value stated thereon. However, the petitioner decided to litigate the matter by filing an appeal for reappraisement, which was ultimately abandoned, due to stress of business. Thereafter, and on subsequent entries involving similar merchandise, notice was sent by the appraiser to the petitioner, advising the latter to reduce its entered values to agree with the amount originally used on the particular entry involved herein. The customs examiner testified that his recommendation to the petitioner to reduce its entered values, after insisting that they be increased, was based on a foreign investigation that “developed a different value,” and that, if the entry in question were presented to him, he would now accept the original invoiced and entered value as the proper value for the merchandise. From an examination of the record, it was held that there was no intention 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.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Brandon Cody Kihega, Appellant

No. 06

- 12

- 00078

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 102nd District Court of Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 11F0408

- 102 ). Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Carter participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial cou rt

. We further order that the appellant, Brandon Cody Kihega, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED JAN UARY 11, 2013 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Exhibit 99.3 - Annual Statement of Compliance for the year
	       ended December 31, 2005


a)

AURORA LOAN SERVICES
A Lehman Brothers Company


Via UPS

February 23, 2006


Diana Kenneally
U.S. Bank National Association
1 Federal Street, 3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02110

RE:	SASCO 2005-GEL3
	Annual Officer's Certificate as to Compliance

Dear Ms. Kenneally:

The undersigned Officer certifies the following for the period ending
on December 31, 2005:

1.	I have reviewed the activities and performance of the Master
Servicer during the preceding calendar year under the terms of the
Trust Agreements and to the best of this Officer's knowledge, the
Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its duties, responsibilities
or obligations under the Agreements;

2.	Based on said review and to the best of this Officer's knowledge,
the Master Servicer is not in default of its obligations under the terms
of the Trust Agreements in any material respect, or, if there is a default
in the fulfillment of its obligations, a description of each default or
failure and the nature and status thereof has been reported to this Officer;

3.	To the best of this Officer's knowledge, nothing has arose to lead
this Officer to believe that its Servicer has failed to perform any of its
duties, responsibilities and obligations under its Servicing Agreement during
the preceding calendar year;

4.	To the best of this Officer's knowledge, the Servicer is not in
default of its obligations under the terms of its Servicing Agreement in any
material respect, or, if there is a default in the fulfillment of its
obligations, a description of each default or failure and the nature and
status thereof has been reported to this Officer;

5.	The Master Servicer has received from its Servicer such Servicer's
annual certificate of compliance and a copy of such Servicer's annual audit
report, in each case to the extent required under the applicable Servicing
Agreement, or, if any such certificate or report has not been received by
the Master Servicer, the Master Servicer is using its best reasonable efforts
to obtain such certificate or report.


Certified By:


/s/ R. Peter Karr
R. Peter Karr
Senior Vice President
Master Servicing Division
#### TAO OF SYSTEMS INTEGRATION, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANALYTICAL SERVICES & MATERIALS, INCORPORATED; Jalaiah Unnam; Venki Subbiah Venkat, formerly known as Subbiah Venkateswaran, Defendants-Appellees, and Siva Mangalam, Defendant. *130Tao of Systems Integration, Incorporated, Plaintiff-Appellee, and Siva Mangalam, Counter Defendant-Appellee, v. Analytical Services & Materials, Incorporated; Jalaiah Unnam; Venki Subbiah Venkat, formerly known as Subbiah Venkateswaran, Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 04-2148, 04-2149.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued May 25, 2005.

Decided Aug. 5, 2005.

ARGUED: Gregory Neil Stillman, Hun-ton & Williams, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Alan Dale Albert, David Kegebein Sutelan, Leclair Ryan, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants. ON BRIEF: Brent L. VanNorman, Hunton & Williams, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. George H. Bowles, Troutman Sanders, L.L.P., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

This case stems from a dispute arising from a series of bids by rival engineering firms seeking to provide services to NASA. Tao of Systems Integration, Inc., appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Analytical Services and Materials, Inc. (ASM) on Tao’s Lanham Act claim. ASM appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Tao on ASM’s trade secrets misappropriation claim and from the district court’s refusal to grant summary judgment in favor of ASM on Tao’s trade secrets misappropriation claim. We have reviewed the record and considered the parties’ arguments and find them to be meritless. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. (J.A. at 3136-61.)

*AFFIRMED*
No. R66/18.

#### Kurt Orban Company, Inc. *v.*United States, reappraisements R61/3885, etc. (Boston).

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues of fact and law are the same in all material respects as those in *843
      *Kurt Orban Company, Inc.*v. *United*States, 52 CCPA 20, C.A.D. 851, the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, is the proper basis of value for the bright steel wire in issue and that said value is the invoice unit values, net packed, exclusive of inland freight and f.o.b. charges.
01 

02 

03 

04 

05 

06 

07 

08 

09 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT 

PAGE -1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

TONY D. PENWELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

REED HOLTGEERTZ, et al., 

Defendants. 

____________________________________

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. C05-2106-TSZ-MAT 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT 

 

 The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States 

Magistrate Judge Mary Alice Theiler, docket no. 135, to which no objections have been filed, 

the governing law, and the balance of the record, does hereby find and ORDER: 

 (1) The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED; 

 (2) Defendants’ renewed motion for summary judgment on the First Amendment, 

free-exercise claim (Dkts. 81, 129) is DENIED; 

 (3) Plaintiff’s opposition briefs in 2007 (Dkt. 96, at 13) and 2011 (Dkt. 127, at 3–5) 

 are CONSTRUED to be motions to amend the complaint to add a Religious 
01 

02 

03 

04 

05 

06 

07 

08 

09 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT 

PAGE -2 

 Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”) claim and are 

GRANTED; 

(4) Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file within thirty (30) days of the date of this 

 order (a) an updated application to proceed in forma pauperis and (b) a renewed 

motion for appointment of counsel; and 

 (5) The Clerk of Court is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff and to 

 Magistrate Judge Mary Alice Theiler. 

 DATED this 16th day of August, 2011. 

 

 

 

Thomas S. Zilly 

United States District Judge 

A
----

| 1. | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A-1 of BioTime, Inc. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: January 13, 2015  |
|-------------------------|
|                    |   |
| /s/ Michael D. West     |   |
| Michael D. West         |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |

----

| 1. | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A-1 of BioTime, Inc. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: January 13, 2015  |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |   |
| /s/ Robert W. Peabody   |   |
| Robert W. Peabody       |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |

----
July 25, 1963

Reap. Dec. 10574.

#### Williams, Clarke Company *v.*United States,

Reappraisement dismissed May 9, 1963.

Entered at Los An-geles, Calif. (Not published.) Motion by plaintiff.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 198 (Monday, October 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71344-71345]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22746]


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

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION


Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) Notice of 
Vacancy

AGENCY: U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

ACTION: Notice of vacancy.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and the Charter 
of the EAC Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC), the EAC 
is posting this notice of vacancy for a Standards Board representative 
to the TGDC. The vacancy shall be filled jointly by the EAC and the 
Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

ADDRESSES: Pursuant to the TGDC Charter, the EAC will post the notice 
on the EAC website: https://www.eac.gov. Interested Standards Board 
members should contact the Alternate Designated Federal Official by 
email, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bed5cdd3d7cad6fedbdfdd90d9d1c8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="96fde5fbffe2fed6f3f7f5b8f1f9e0">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

TGDC Appointment Process

    The Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC) is a non-
discretionary Federal Advisory Committee established by the Help 
America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), Public Law 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666 
(2002). The TGDC assists the EAC in developing the Voluntary Voting 
System Guidelines (VVSG). The chairperson of the TGDC is the director 
of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The TGDC 
is composed of 14 other members appointed jointly by EAC and the 
director of NIST.
    HAVA mandates that the 14 other members appointed jointly by the 
EAC and NIST must include an equal number of members of the EAC 
Standards Board, members of the EAC Board of Advisors, and members of 
the Architectural and Transportation Barrier Compliance Board. The TGDC 
Charter requires that notice of vacancies on the Committee for those 
individuals jointly appointed by EAC and NIST be published in the 
Federal Register as well as on the Commission's website.

[[Page 71345]]

Pursuant to HAVA and the TGDC charter, the EAC is publishing this 
notice of vacancy on the TGDC for a representative of the EAC Standards 
Board. This vacancy shall be filled through a joint appointment of a 
current member of the EAC Standards Board by the EAC and NIST.

Camden Kelliher,
Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
[FR Doc. 2023-22746 Filed 10-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# Official Journal C 64A/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2012.064.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 64A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 553 March 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2012.064.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 64A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 553 March 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 064A/01 | Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — second supplement to the 30th complete edition | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2012/C 064A/01

Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — second supplement to the 30th complete edition

1

---

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

EN
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the quarterly report of Cancer Therapeutics,  Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  August
31, 2007 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic
Report"),  I,  Chene
Gardner,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            The
      Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
            The
      information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.





Dated as
of October 15, 2007





By /s/
Chene Gardner


_______________________


Chene
Gardner


Chief
Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**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 the annual report of American Basketball Association, Inc.
      (the
      "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006 (the
      "Report"), I, Darren Cioffi, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      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; and




(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


/s/
                Darren CioffiDarren
                CioffiChief
                Financial OfficerApril
                27,
                2007
Before the Third Division,

June 3, 1965

No. 69342.

#### National Silver Co. *v.*United States,

protests 63/992, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “T” consist of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *W. Kay Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 130, C.D., 2484), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 530 Filed 12/20/11 Page 1 of 10
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 530 Filed 12/20/11 Page 2 of 10
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 530 Filed 12/20/11 Page 3 of 10
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 530 Filed 12/20/11 Page 4 of 10
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 530 Filed 12/20/11 Page 5 of 10
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 530 Filed 12/20/11 Page 6 of 10
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 530 Filed 12/20/11 Page 7 of 10
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 530 Filed 12/20/11 Page 8 of 10
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 530 Filed 12/20/11 Page 9 of 10
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 530 Filed 12/20/11 Page 10 of 10
September 19, 1956

No. 60252.

Suit 4832.

#### D. N. & E. Walter & Co. and Hoyt, Shepston & Sciaroni *v.*United States.

C. D. 1629 affirmed February 21, 1956. C. A. D. 615.
Before the Third Division,

November 6, 1967

No. P67/388.

No. P67/389.

#### United China & Glass Co. *v.*United States, protest 65/12475 (Portland, Oreg.) W. Kay Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protest 66/41267 (New York).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *W. Kay Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 130, C.D. 2484), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.