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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

ROSALINDA RAMOS, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

TACOMA COMMUNITY COLLEGE, a

municipal corporation in the State of

Washington; MARLENE BOSANKO, an

individual; and BRUCE SYDOW, an individual,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5241 FDB

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

EXPEDITE TRIAL DATE

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to expedite the trial date. Trial is

presently set for September 4, 2007. Plaintiff basis the request for an expedited trial date is the

assertion that because this matter was initially commenced in state court, there is a limited amount of

discovery to complete. Plaintiff asserts that she is “greatly prejudiced by the delay because [her]

witnesses’s memory will no longer be as fresh and/or they will be scattered around the country.” 

Plaintiff further asserts she is prejudiced financially and emotionally by the delay.

The Defendants oppose the motion on the basis that any inconvenience to Plaintiff has

resulted form her own decision to voluntary nonsuit the state court action and refile in this Court. 

Defense counsel further asserts that an earlier setting will prejudice Defendants counsel’s ability to

Case 3:06-cv-05241-FDB Document 24 Filed 11/27/06 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 ORDER - 2

defend , as counsel has a full calender of trials preceding this trial date.

This Court also has a full schedule. Taking into consideration the parties joint status report

and the length of trial, this matter is set for the first available date in the Courts schedule. Plaintiff’s

complaints of prejudice are no different than those that may generally be argued by any litigant in any

civil litigation. Further, it does appear that Plaintiff is the cause of some of the complained of delay. 

The action was commenced in state court in April, 2005 and set for trial in May 2006. It was not

until a year had lapsed and just before the scheduled trial date that Plaintiff took a nonsuit and refiled

the action in this Court.

Based upon the foregoing the Court finds there is no just cause to expedite the scheduled trial

date.

ACCORDINGLY,

IT IS ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite Trial Date [Dkt #21] is DENIED.

DATED this 27th day of November, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05241-FDB Document 24 Filed 11/27/06 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

MINUTE ORDER 1–

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

LUCKY BREAK WISHBONE

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., a New York

corporation, and YOUNG AND RUBICAM

INC., a Delaware corporation,

Defendants.

No. C06-312Z

MINUTE ORDER

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

S. Zilly, United States District Judge:

(1) The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Lucky Break Wishbone Corporation’s

unopposed Motion for Reconsideration, docket no. 150. The Court revises its Order, docket

no. 140, at page 6, line 3, as follows: the Court replaces “natural wishbone” with “data set.”

(2) The Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, docket no.

162.

(3) The Court ORDERS the parties’ to file a Joint Status Report by March 31,

2008, with a proposed trial date, duration of trial, and whether it will be tried to a jury.

(4) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of

record.

Filed and entered this 17th day of March, 2008.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

s/ Claudia Hawney

By Claudia Hawney

 Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00312-TSZ Document 180 Filed 03/17/08 Page 1 of 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

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 1

U.S. v. PENN, 06-5082M

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

MAGISTRATE JUDGE J. KELLEY ARNOLD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ALVIN STEVE PENN,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. 06-5082M

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

DATE 

Based on the unopposed motion of the defendant to continue the trial date, the

Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

1. The ends of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best

interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A). 

2. Proceeding to trial absent adequate time for the defense to prepare would

result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(i). 

3. The defense needs additional time to explore issues of some complexity,

including all relevant issues and defenses applicable to the case, which would make it

unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for trial itself

within the time limits established by the Speedy Trial Act and currently set for this case. 

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B(ii). 

//

Case 3:06-mj-05082-JKA Document 11 Filed 07/18/06 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

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 2

U.S. v. PENN, 06-5082M

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

4. Taking into account the exercise of due diligence, a continuance is necessary

to allow the defendant the reasonable time for effective preparation of his defense. 

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). 

NOW, THEREFORE,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date is continued from July 31, 2006, 

to October 2, 2006. The resulting period of delay from July 31, 2006 to October 2,

2006, is hereby excluded for speedy trial purposes under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) and

(B).

DONE this 18th day of July, 2006.

 s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. KELLEY ARNOLD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Presented By:

/s/ 

Linda R. Sullivan 

Attorney for Defendant

Case 3:06-mj-05082-JKA Document 11 Filed 07/18/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the Third Division,

October 18, 1956

No. 60292.

protests 274766-K, etc. (San Francisco).

#### G. & S. Manufacturing Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of percussion caps similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Gold-Silver & Co.*v. *United States*(36 Cust. Ct. 51, C. D. 1753), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 98-30756

Summary Calendar

A. Lawson Enterprises, Inc.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(97-CV-2759-F)

March 19, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This case involves an appeal by A. Lawson Enterprises, Inc.,

Plaintiff-Appellant, from the district court’s grant of Louisiana

Insurance Guaranty Association’s motion for summary judgment. The

Plaintiff-Appellant argues that its claim under the Miller Act, 40

U.S.C. § 270b, should not be time-barred under that law’s statute

of limitations because the doctrine of equitable estoppel should
have resulted in the tolling of the one year statute of

limitations.

We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs and AFFIRM

the district court’s judgment for essentially the same reasons set

forth by the district court. A. Lawson Enterprises, Inc. v.

Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association, No. 97-CV-2759-F.
# Official Journal L 261I/2019

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 261I |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6214 October 2019 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 261I

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6214 October 2019

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Regulation (EU) 2019/1700 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 October 2019 establishing a common framework for European statistics relating to persons and households, based on data at individual level collected from samples, amending Regulations (EC) No 808/2004, (EC) No 452/2008 and (EC) No 1338/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1177/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98 (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Regulation (EU) 2019/1700 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 October 2019 establishing a common framework for European statistics relating to persons and households, based on data at individual level collected from samples, amending Regulations (EC) No 808/2004, (EC) No 452/2008 and (EC) No 1338/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1177/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98 (
  1
  )

1

1

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
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

1

 Because this matter can be decided on the parties’ memoranda, Ms. Pixler’s

request for oral argument is denied.

ORDER DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MIKE KREIDLER, 

Plaintiff,

v.

DANNY L. PIXLER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-0697RSL

ORDER DENYING 

MOTION TO STRIKE

This matter comes before the Court on a motion to strike filed by former defendant

Roxann Pixler pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).1

 (Dkt. #56). On

December 7, 2006, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s claims against Ms. Pixler for lack of

personal jurisdiction. Ms. Pixler alleges that based on the Court’s prior ruling, the Court

must order stricken all references contained in the Amended Complaint to her as a

defendant.

Rule 12(f) provides that upon a timely motion or sua sponte, the Court “may order

stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial,

Case 2:06-cv-00697-RSL Document 64 Filed 02/07/07 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 DENYING

MOTION TO STRIKE - 2

impertinent, or scandalous matter.” The Amended Complaint continues to list Ms. Pixler

as a defendant in the caption, includes factual allegations against her, Amended

Complaint at ¶¶ 1.3, 1.4, 1.11, and legal allegations against her. Id. at ¶¶ 6.2, 7.2, 9.3,

9.13, and 10.2.

Ms. Pixler, who is no longer a party to this action, lacks standing to file this

motion. Furthermore, the references to her in the Amended Complaint appear to be

relevant background allegations and are not improper under Rule 12(f). Plaintiff noted in

his opposition that this motion is unnecessary because Ms. Pixler has been dismissed

from the case, and the parties are bound by that ruling. In response, Ms. Pixler stated that

she is “satisfied” with plaintiff’s “concession” that she is no longer a party. Ms. Pixler

did not need to file this motion to obtain that “concession” as it was already the law of

the case. Accordingly, Ms. Pixler’s motion to strike (Dkt. #56) is DENIED. 

Plaintiff has requested that the Court impose sanctions against Ms. Pixler for filing

a frivolous motion. The Local Rules, however, do not permit the “supplemental

response” plaintiff filed requesting sanctions. The Court has also considered whether to

impose sanctions against Ms. Pixler pursuant to General Rule 3. The issue is a close call,

because Ms. Pixler’s motion was unnecessary and wasted plaintiff’s and the Court’s

resources. However, the Court finds that the motion was not so egregious as to warrant

sanctions.

DATED this 7th day of February, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00697-RSL Document 64 Filed 02/07/07 Page 2 of 2
**1995-  milk_production_01.17.95milk_production_02.16.95milk_production_03.15.95milk_production_04.13.95milk_production_05.16.95milk_production_06.15.95milk_production_07.14.95milk_production_08.16.95milk_production_09.15.95milk_production_10.13.95milk_production_11.16.95milk_production_12.15.95

**
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 205 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 205

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Nation should recognize the 
 contributions of public health and prevention services to this Nation 
and celebrate ``National Public Health Week'' during the week of April 
                       6 through April 12, 1998.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 31, 1998

  Mr. Faircloth (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Bond, Mr. Frist, Mr. 
 Chafee, and Mr. Inouye) submitted the following resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Nation should recognize the 
 contributions of public health and prevention services to this Nation 
and celebrate ``National Public Health Week'' during the week of April 
                       6 through April 12, 1998.

Whereas over the past 50 years, the United States has achieved significant 
        increases in life expectancy and reductions in the incidence of injury, 
        disability, and disease;
Whereas the public health approach is credited with the majority of improvements 
        in our Nation's health status and expanded life expectancy of 30 
        additional years since the turn of the century;
Whereas public health services are successful in identifying and addressing 
        patterns of disease, illness, and injury in populations and ensuring 
        healthy living and working environments;
Whereas the 3,000 public health departments of the Nation provide the critical 
        frontline of defense against the dangers posed by infectious disease 
        outbreaks, natural disasters, terrorist acts, and other serious threats 
        to the health of Americans; and
Whereas ``National Public Health Week'' provides an opportunity to highlight and 
        commend the efforts of public health professionals to protect, promote, 
        and enhance the health of all citizens in communities across this 
        country: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) recognizes the outstanding dedication of community, 
        State, and Federal public health professionals and services and 
        commends the professionals for their role in safeguarding 
        communities and workplaces, and improving health and well-being 
        of Americans; and
            (2) calls upon Americans to celebrate ``National Public 
        Health Week'' during the week of April 6 through April 12, 
        1998, with appropriate activities and ceremonies.
                                 <all>
```
No. 51792.

#### Allied Purchasing Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 130154-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 58753.

protest 225964-K (New York).

#### Astoria Pan Americana, Inc., and J. J. Boll *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of ficin powder or *leche de oje en polvo*the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Astoria Pan-Americana, Inc.*v. *United States*(32 Cust. Ct. 243, C. D. 1608), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 32  CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Vincent Verdiramo, President of Serino 5, Corp. (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:  1.  This Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the period ended April 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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. Date: September 20, 2006: /s/ Vincent Verdiramo ___________________________  President
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 36

Relative to the retirements of Arthur Curran, Donn Larson, and Richard

Gibbons.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 30, 1997

Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Relative to the retirements of Arthur Curran, Donn Larson,

and Richard Gibbons.

Whereas Arthur Curran, Donn Larson, and Richard Gibbons

will retire from the Senate on January 31, 1997;

Whereas Arthur Curran was appointed as a Senate Doorkeeper in 1975 by Vice President Rockefeller;

Whereas Arthur Curran rose to the post of Superintendent

of Doorkeepers and has dutifully served in that post for

the last 15 years;

Whereas Donn Larson first began his Senate career under an

appointment from Senator Milton Young in 1959;

Whereas Donn Larson served in the Republican Cloakroom

from 1961 to 1968, leaving to work in the Federal Government until his return to the Senate in 1977, where he
2

SRES 36 ATS

has served as Deputy Supervisor of the Doorkeepers

since 1981;

Whereas Richard Gibbons has served as a Senate Doorkeeper

since 1977, acting as press liaison outside the President’s

Room just off the Senate Floor;

Whereas since the 103rd Congress Richard Gibbons has

served in the Senate Chamber and has diligently assisted

both Senators and staff alike in a myriad of tasks in addition to his role of helping to maintain order in the

Chamber; and

Whereas each of these three gentlemen has faithfully served

the Senate and they have carried out their duties with efficiency and good nature: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate extends its thanks to Ar2 thur Curran, Donn Larson, and Richard Gibbons for their

3 many years of dedicated service and wishes them well in

4 their future aspirations.

5 The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy

6 of this resolution to Arthur Curran, Donn Larson, and

7 Richard Gibbons.

Æ
EXHIBIT 31.1

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Robert Gelfand, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Wallace Mountain
     Resources Corp.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual 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 registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this annual report;

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the registrant, including its
          consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
          entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report
          is being prepared;
     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.   I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
     significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
     recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
     significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
17th day of June, 2006.


/s/ Robert Gelfand
-----------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Before the Third Division,

March 28, 1962

No. 66617.

#### Austin-Western Works *v.*United States,

protest 61/15037 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are similar to those involved in Abstract 57104, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
null

2008-04-08

37.45029

eng - Argued: 2008-04-08. Docket number: 2007-1567Pt1
No. 56178.

protest 167795-K (Mobile).

#### Radmar Trading Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
# Official Journal C 417/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 417 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6211 December 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 417

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6211 December 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | ECA |
| 2019/C 417/01 | Annual report on EU agencies for the financial year 2018 (2019/C 417/01) | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

ECA

2019/C 417/01

Annual report on EU agencies for the financial year 2018 (2019/C 417/01)

1

---

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

EN