alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER

PAGE - 1

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANIEL MACLEOD, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. CR06-0213-JCC

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the government’s motion to dismiss the 

indictment without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 136.) As noted by the government, Defendants Daniel 

MacLeod, Ricky Clark, Richard Gow, and Kimberly Rouse were indicted for possession of 

marijuana with the intent to distribute, and conspiracy to distribute marijuana. (Dkt. No. 26.)

Defendants Daniel MacLeod, Ricky Clark, and Richard Gow allegedly absconded after they 

were released on bond. (Dkt. No. 136 at 1–2.) The government believes that none of the three 

alleged absconders are in the country, and in fact has no information as to their current 

whereabouts. (Dkt. No. 136 at 1–2.) According, the government asks for leave under Federal 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) to dismiss the indictment without prejudice. The Court finds 

that the government is acting in good faith in making this motion. United States v. Hayden, 860 

F.2d 1483, 1487 (9th Cir. 1988) (“If the district court finds that the prosecutor is acting in good 

faith in making its Rule 48(a) motion, it should grant the motion.”).

Case 2:06-cr-00213-JCC Document 137 Filed 06/18/14 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

PAGE - 2

The Court GRANTS the government’s motion, (Dkt. No. 136), and GRANTS the 

government leave to dismiss the indictment without prejudice.

DATED this 18th day of June 2014. AJohn C. Coughenour

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00213-JCC Document 137 Filed 06/18/14 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

ROBERT WARD GARRISON,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5837 FDB/KLS

ORDER EXTENDING PLAINTIFF’S

TIME TO RESPOND TO

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Presently before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 97). Prior

to the filing of Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel and for sanctions. (Dkt. # 85

and 86). Those motions were denied, but the parties were directed to confer and the discovery

deadline was extended until October 10, 2007. (Dkt. # 99).

Accordingly, the Clerk shall re-note Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 97)

until November 9, 2007. Plaintiff’s brief and affidavits in opposition to the motion shall be filed

and served not later than November 5, 2007. Defendants may file a reply not later November 5,

2007.

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants.

DATED this 16th day of October, 2007.A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05837-FDB Document 108 Filed 10/17/07 Page 1 of 1
Before the Third Division,

June 17, 1948

No. 52389.

petition 6635-R (New York),

#### Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The petition was dismissed.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

TIMOTHY C. CLARK,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C06-5208RJB-KLS

ORDER

The Court, having reviewed plaintiff's complaint, the Report and Recommendation of Judge Karen

L. Strombom, United States Magistrate Judge, and objections to the report and recommendation, if any,

and the remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) the ALJ erred in his decision as described in the report;

(3) the matter is therefore REVERSED and remanded to the Commissioner for further

administrative proceedings; and

(4) the Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff's counsel, defendant’s counsel

and Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom.

DATED this 23nd day of March, 2007.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05208-RJB Document 22 Filed 03/23/07 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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

Case 3:06-cv-05208-RJB Document 22 Filed 03/23/07 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00944-RSM Document 199 Filed 05/27/2009 Page 1 of 8
Case 2:06-cv-00944-RSM Document 199 Filed 05/27/2009 Page 2 of 8
Case 2:06-cv-00944-RSM Document 199 Filed 05/27/2009 Page 3 of 8
Case 2:06-cv-00944-RSM Document 199 Filed 05/27/2009 Page 4 of 8
Case 2:06-cv-00944-RSM Document 199 Filed 05/27/2009 Page 5 of 8
Case 2:06-cv-00944-RSM Document 199 Filed 05/27/2009 Page 6 of 8
Case 2:06-cv-00944-RSM Document 199 Filed 05/27/2009 Page 7 of 8
Case 2:06-cv-00944-RSM Document 199 Filed 05/27/2009 Page 8 of 8
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.40

                 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC.
                             1993 STOCK OPTION PLAN


     THIS FIRST AMENDMENT, made as of the 17th day of February, 2000, by MOHAWK
INDUSTRIES, INC., a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Delaware (the "Company"):

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

     WHEREAS, the Company has established the Mohawk Industries, Inc. 1993 Stock
Option Plan (the "Plan"); and

     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it advisable to amend the Plan as of
the effective date hereof;

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of the effective
date hereof, by substituting the following for Plan Section 5(g):

     "(g)  provide that, if an optionee dies or becomes disabled (as defined in
Code Section 22(e)(3)) while he or she is a director or employee of the Company
or a Subsidiary, as applicable, the Option shall become immediately vested and
exercisable in full and may be exercised by the optionee or by a legatee or
legatees of the optionee under his or her last will, or by his or her personal
representative or representatives, at any time until the first anniversary of
the optionee's death or disability or, if earlier, the expiration of the Option
term."

     Except as specifically amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force
and effect as prior to this First Amendment.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this First Amendment to be
executed as of the day and year first above written.

                                        MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC.


                                        By:
                                           -----------------------------------

ATTEST:


By:
   ----------------------------

[CORPORATE SEAL]
SCPW-20-0000699 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

CHRIS SLAVICK, Petitioner,

vs. STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, J., and Circuit Judge Ashford, assigned by reason of vacancy, with Wilson, J., dissenting, with whom McKenna, J., joins) Upon consideration of petitioner Chris Slavick’s petition for writ of mandamus, filed on November 6, 2020, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right to relief and that he lacks alternative means to seek relief. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to the requested extraordinary writ. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai # i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-20-0000699 04-DEC-2020 03:22 PM Dkt. 8 ODDPrelief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the

alleged wrong or obtain the requested action). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the petition for writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fee.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, December 4, 2020. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ James H. Ashford

DISSENT I dissent in that I would require an answer pursuant to Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 21(c). /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2053

LINDA L. WAGNER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LINDAWAGNER.COM, an Internet domain name,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:16-cv-00053-LMB-IDD)

Submitted: February 28, 2017 Decided: March 15, 2017

Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Linda L. Wagner, Appellant Pro Se. Attison Leonard Barnes, III, 

Ari Scott Meltzer, David Edison Weslow, WILEY REIN, LLP, 

Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Linda L. Wagner appeals the district court’s orders

granting summary judgment in favor of the Internet domain name 

Lindawagner.com and denying reconsideration in Wagner’s in rem 

action under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 1125(d) (2012). We have reviewed the record and the 

parties’ arguments and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Wagner v. Lindawagner.com, No. 1:16-cv-00053-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va. 

Aug. 15, 2016; Aug. 19, 2016). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
No. 63442.

protests 272604-K, etc. (Boston).

#### Walker Services & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that involved in *Dalton Cooper, Inc., et al.*v. *Unites States*(41 Cust. Ct. 271, C.D. 2051), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.

Donlon, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in her dissenting opinion in C.D. 2051, *supra.*
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 102

Designating August 15, 1997 as ‘‘Indian Independence Day: A National

Day of Celebration of Indian and American Democracy’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 18 (legislative day, JUNE 17), 1997

Mr. SPECTER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Designating August 15, 1997 as ‘‘Indian Independence Day:

A National Day of Celebration of Indian and American

Democracy’’.

Whereas India is the world’s largest democracy and shares

with the United States the system in which the supreme

power to govern is invested in the people;

Whereas the people of India drew upon the values of the rule

of law in creating a representative democracy;

Whereas India and the United States share a common bond

of being former British colonies;

Whereas India’s independence was achieved pledged to the

principles of fairness, dignity, peace, and democracy;

Whereas these and other ideals have forged a close bond between our two nations and their peoples;
2

SRES 102 IS

Whereas August 15, 1997 marks the 50th anniversary of the

end of the struggle which freed the Indian people from

British colonial rule; and

Whereas it is proper and desirable to celebrate with the Indian people, and to reaffirm the democratic principles on

which our two great nations were born: Now, therefore,

be it

1 Resolved, That August 15, 1997 is designated as ‘‘In2 dian Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration

3 of Indian and American Democracy’’. The President is re4 quested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people

5 of the United States to observe the day with appropriate

6 ceremonies and activities.

Æ
Sl()-l()()3()4-()4 5

WiUAR D AIRPOR T 

# Unluersit yo fIllinoi s - Wlllar d Airpor t

Airpor t Manager' s Offic e 1 1 Airpor t Roa d /

Savoy , Illinoi s /

61874-880 0

Februar y24 , 201 0 Th e Honorabl e Raymon d H . LaHoo d Secretar y U.S . Departmen t o f Transportatio n 120 0 NewJerse yAve , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Docl<e t DOT-OST-2010-003 4 Dea rMr . Secretary : Than k yo u fo rth e opportunit yt o expres s ou rsuppor t fo rth e applicatio n fo rantitrus t immunity an d propose d join t busines s agreemen t file d b yAmerica n Airline s an d Japa n Airlines . Th e propose d allianc e betwee n thes e tw o airline s I s vita l fo rth e oneworl d allianc e t o compet e effectivel ywit h th e Sta ran d SkyTea m alliances . Thi s increase d allianc e competitio n wil l i n tur n enhanc e th e benefit s o fth e Department' s Ope n Skie s policy...firs t b ysolidifyin g U.S.-Japa n Ope n Skies , the n b yservin g a s a foundatio n fo rfurthe rliberalizatio n acros s Asia . Champaign-Urban a i s th e hom e o f th e Universityof Illinois , on e o fth e pre-eminen t researc h universitie s i n th e world . i\/Ian yo f ou rstudent s ar e o fAsia n descen t an d w e generat e a significan t amoun t o ftrave l t o tha t par t o f th e world . I n addition , ou rcommunity' s ongoin g effort s t o promot e trade , stimulat e jo b growth , an d increas e touris m an d cultura l tie s i s countin g o n internationa l ai rservice , particularl yservic e t o growin g an d underserve d market s i n Asia . Afte ra thoroug h review , w e encourag e th e Departmen t o fTransportatio n t o approv e thi s applicatio n a s I t woul d enabl e thes e oneworl d allianc e airline s t o wor k closel ytogethe rt o delive r highl ycompetitiv e ai rtransportatio n services . Approva l fo rAA/JA L allianc e wil l have a positiv e impac t o n ai rtrave l b yofferin g customers more service , schedulin g an d pricin g option s an d wil l hel p t o ensure tha t customers continu e t o benefi t fro m th e competitio n afforde d b ythre e competitiv e ai ralliances . W e urg e yo u t o quickl yapprov e thi s application . Sincerely , ( > Stephe n j/Wan:fe k Universityo fIllinois-—Willar d Airport 1 1 Airpor t Roa d Savoy , Illinoi s 6187 4 wanzek@llllnois.ed u
* After examining appellant’s brief and the appellat e record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted w ithout oral argument. This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. T he court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R . 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUL 10 2002 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

CARL DIXON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. RICHARD SOARES and KEN SALAZAR, Attorney General for the State of Colorado, Respondents - Appellees. No. 02-1093 (D.C. No. 99-D-528) (D. Colorado)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before EBEL , LUCERO and O’BRIEN , Circuit Judges.
Carl Dixon appeals pro se from the denial of his pe tition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dixon was convicted in Colorado state court of first degree felony murder and sentenced to life im prisonment. His § 2254 petition argues five grounds for relief: (1) that h e did not voluntarily waive his- 2 -

right to testify; (2) that no probable cause existe d for the issuance of a search warrant; (3) that evidence irrelevant to the crime charged erroneously was admitted; (4) that a prior inconsistent statement o f a witness erroneously was excluded; and (5) that the evidence was insufficien t to convict. The magistrate judge recommended denial of the firs t, third, and fourth claims on the merits, of the second claim as not co gnizable in habeas because it was fully litigated in state court, and of the fift h claim as procedurally barred. After carefully evaluating Dixon’s claims, the dist rict court adopted the magistrate’s recommendation. For substantially the reasons given by the districtcourt, we GRANT Dixon’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis , DENY a certificate of appealability, and DISMISS the appeal.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel Circuit Judge
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JAMES R. BARNES,

Petitioner,

v.

DOUG WADDINGTON,

Respondent.

Case No. C06-5214FDB

ORDER FOR SERVICE AND

RETURN, § 2254 PETITION

(l) The clerk shall arrange for service by certified mail upon respondent and the Attorney

General for the State of Washington, copies of the petition, all documents in support thereof, and the

Notice of Initial Assignment and Consent Procedure and Consent to Proceed before a United States

Magistrate Judge. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States. The Clerk shall assemble

the necessary documents to effect service. In addition, the Clerk shall send petitioner a copy of this Order,

along with a copy of the Court’s General Order regarding pro se litigation. 

(2) Within forty-five (45) days after such service, respondent(s) shall file and serve an answer in

accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District Courts. As part of

such answer, respondent(s) should state whether petitioner has exhausted available state remedies, whether

an evidentiary hearing is necessary, and whether there is any issue of abuse or delay under Rule 9. 

Respondent shall not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer without first showing cause as to why

an answer is inadequate. Respondent(s) shall file the answer with the Clerk of the Court and serve a copy

of the answer upon petitioner.

Case 3:06-cv-05214-FDB Document 5 Filed 05/09/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

(3) The answer will be treated in accordance with Local Rule CR 7. Accordingly, upon receipt

of the answer the Clerk will note the matter for consideration on the fourth Friday after the answer is filed,

petitioner may file and serve a response not later than on the Monday immediately preceding the Friday

appointed for consideration of the matter, and respondent my file and serve a reply brief not later than on

the Thursday immediately preceding the Friday designated for consideration of the matter.

DATED this 9th day of May, 2006.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05214-FDB Document 5 Filed 05/09/06 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT32.1


CERTIFICATION




Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,


Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)




Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Smart Balance, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:




The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Form 10-K”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:  February 24, 2011
By:
/s/Stephen B. HughesStephen B. HughesChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer(Principal executive officer)




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                              18,908
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        4,305
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                          1,167
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    24,380
<PP&E>                                               6,942
<DEPRECIATION>                                       4,828
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      29,319
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                4,687
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               279
<OTHER-SE>                                          23,879
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        29,319
<SALES>                                              6,761
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     8,147
<CGS>                                                1,851
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        1,851
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     4,889
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         21
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        109
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         1,298
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .09
                                                   

</TABLE>