alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 14
EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 14
EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 14
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 14
EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 14
EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 14
EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 14
EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 14
EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 14
EPA SANITIZED Page 10 of 14
EPA SANITIZED Page 11 of 14
EPA SANITIZED Page 12 of 14
EPA SANITIZED Page 13 of 14
EPA SANITIZED Page 14 of 14
No. 50034.

#### Protests 48243-K, etc., of Martel Food Corp. et al.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY HOWARD GAUTIER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0721 GEB GGH P

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, Warden,

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner represented by counsel, has been proceeding upon an

application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 15, 2006,

petitioner’s counsel filed a notice of suggestion of death upon the record under Fed. R. Civ. P.

25(a)(1). Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus was originally filed on April 9,

2004; counsel was appointed and the action was stayed twice briefly upon the unopposed

requests of petitioner’s counsel, the second time in order for petitioner to exhaust new claims in

state court, after which the matter proceeded on an amended petition filed on April 5, 2005, the

second stay having been thereafter lifted by order filed on April 11, 2005. 

Petitioner was sentenced pursuant to a conviction under the penal statutes of

California. Petitioner having died during the pendency of the petition, petitioner’s action must be

dismissed. U.S. v. $84,740.00 Currency, 981 F.2d 1110, 1113 (9 Cir.1992); United States v. th

Case 2:04-cv-00721-GEB-GGH Document 33 Filed 03/28/06 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

2

Oberlin, 718 F.2d 894, 896 (9th Cir. 1983) (actions upon penal statutes do not survive

wrongdoer’s death). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for a

writ of habeas corpus be dismissed in light of his death during the pendency of the action.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 3/28/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:009

gaut0721.fr

Case 2:04-cv-00721-GEB-GGH Document 33 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 2
EX-4.28 Letter issued by Sterlite Industries






Exhibit 4.28




March 27, 2008






Mr. K. K. Kaura

Mumbai




Sub : Renewal of Service Agreement for a further period of 6 (six) months



Dear Mr. Kaura,



In terms of the approval accorded by the Board of Directors of the Company at their meeting held on
March 27, 2008, the service agreement between yourself and the Company dated September 12, 2006 for
your appointment as Managing Director and Chief Executive Office of Sterlite Industries (India)
Limited, which expires on 31st March, 2008 is extended for a further period of 6 (six)
months effective from April 1, 2008 up to September 30, 2008.



All other terms and conditions of the agreement dated September 12, 2006 remain the same.



Your acceptance of the above may kindly be intimated to the Company by signing and returning the
duplicate copy of this letter.



Thanking you,




Yours faithfully,

For Sterlite Industries (India) Limited




/s/ Navin Agarwal




Navin Agarwal

Executive Vice-Chairman




Accepted




/s/ Kuldip Kumar Kaura




 






Kuldip Kumar Kaura
Case No. 8,427.

#### LLADO v. The TRITONE.

[8 Reporter, 165.] 1

Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

June 23, 1879.

Evidence — Negligence—Stowage of Freight— Delivery Books — Testimony of Chew — Condition of Freight — Receipts of Vessel.

1. The delivery books of a cargo showed that a large amount of lead was taken out before certain corks which were injured. *Held,*that the books were to be relied on rather than the testimony of the crew to the contrary.

2. In the absence of proof to the contrary, the receipt of the vessel for the freight in good order will make a prima facie case against the vessel.

[Appeal from the district court of the United States for the Southern district of New York.]

August 23, 1S72, A. G. Boye & Co. shipped on board the barque Tritone thirty-one bales of cork, in good order, to be carried to New York, and there delivered in like good order and condition to the libellants. Some lead was stowed ou top of the corks, and in this way a part of the corks were flattened and pressed out of shape, so as to render them unfit for use. Action was brought and judgment given against the vessel.

1

 [Reprinted by permission.]

WAITE, Circuit Justice.

I entertain no doubt whatever, from the evidence, that the flattening of the corks which is complained of was caused alone by the improper stowage of the cargo. The cargo consisted in part of over 6,000 pigs of lead, weighing more than 500 tons. In discharging it is apparent that more than one-half of the lead came out before any considerable part of the corks. I am aware that most of the witnesses for the vessel testified to the contrary, but the delivery books show that they must be mistaken. This being so, it is clear that some of the lead must have been stowed on top of the corks. The port warden who surveyed the cargo as it was discharged testifies to that effect, and in his certificate, made at the time, he states that the cork in a few bales were slightly flattened from the rocking and pressure of the cargo. The testimony on the part of the vessel is of such a character as not to be entitled to confidence. At any rate, inasmuch as no evidence has been given to show that the corks were in bad order when shipped, I am clear that the vessel has done nothing to overcome the prima facie case made against her by her receipt for the property in good order. It follows that the judgment of the district court was right. Judgment affirmed.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Abgenix, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

November 5, 2004

 

 
|   | /s/ H. WARD WOLFF                                           |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | H. Ward Wolff                                               |
|   | Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President,  Finance |
|   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)                |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Abgenix, Inc. and will be retained by Abgenix, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

 

----
No. 64097.

protest 59/9599 (Los Angeles).

#### United Commercial Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Exhibit 10.22


          AMENDMENT TO SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT AGREEMENT

     THIS AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of the 23rd day of
March, 2000, by and between INTERNATIONAL MULTIFOODS CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), having its principal offices at
200 East Lake Street, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391, and FRANK W. BONVINO,
whose principal residence is located at 5518 West Highwood Drive,
Edina, MN 55436 ("Bonvino").

     WHEREAS, the Company and Bonvino entered into that certain
Supplemental Retirement Agreement, dated September 20, 1996, and
accepted by Bonvino on September 27, 1996, a copy of which is attached
as Exhibit A hereto (the "Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS, the Company and Bonvino wish to amend the Agreement to
clarify the parties' intent that the Agreement and its terms and
provisions do not supercede or modify the terms and provisions of the
Revised and Restated Severance Agreement, dated as of September 17,
1993, between the Company and Bonvino, as hereinafter provided.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the preceding recitals and the
terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the Company and Bonvino
agree to amend the Agreement, effective as of the date of this
Amendment set forth above, as follows:

     1.  The Agreement is hereby amended by inserting the following
new Section 3.6:

     "3.6  Effect of Agreement.  This Agreement does not supersede or
modify in any respect that certain Revised and Restated Severance
Agreement, dated as of September 17, 1993, between the Company and
Bonvino (the "Severance Agreement"), which shall continue in full force
and effect. The Company and Bonvino agree and acknowledge that the
severance benefit provided for under Section II of this Agreement is in
addition to, and not in lieu of, any amounts that the Company is
obligated to pay to Bonvino under the terms and provisions of the
Severance Agreement."

     2.  Except as modified by this Amendment, the terms and
conditions of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed and delivered this
Amendment as of the day and year first above written.

                           INTERNATIONAL MULTIFOODS CORPORATION
ATTEST:

/s/ Timothy J. Keenan       By: /s/ Gary E. Costley
Assistant Secretary             Gary E. Costley
                               Chairman of the Board, President
                                 and Chief Executive Officer

WITNESS:

/s/ Denise M. Kuntz         /s/ Frank W. Bonvino
                               Frank W. Bonvino
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 8777]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3330]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[ES-960-1420-BJ]


Group No. 36, Missouri; Eastern States: Filing of Plats of Survey

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Filing of Plat of Survey; Missouri.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plats of 
survey of the lands described below in the BLM-Eastern States, 
Springfield, Virginia, 30 calender days from the date of publication in 
the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, 7450 Boston 
Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153. Attn: Cadastral Survey.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This survey was requested by the Corps of 
Engineers.
    The lands we surveyed are:

Fifth Principal Meridian, Missouri

T. 27 N., R. 15 W.

    The plat of survey represents the dependent resurvey of a 
portion of U.S. Survey No. 2848 and a portion of the subdivisional 
lines; and the survey of the Thompson Bend Acquisition Boundary, and 
was accepted February 6, 2007.

T. 27 N., R. 16 W.

    The plat of survey represents the dependent resurvey of a 
portion of the subdivisional lines; and the survey of the Thompson 
Bend Acquisition Boundary, and was accepted February 6, 2007.

T. 28 N., R. 16 W.

    The plat of survey represents the dependent resurvey of a 
portion of the township boundaries; and the survey of the Thompson 
Bend Acquisition Boundary, and was accepted February 6, 2007.

T. 27 N., R. 17 W.

    The plat of survey represents the dependent resurvey of a 
portion of the subdivisional lines; and the survey of the 
subdivision of Section 5, and the Thompson Bend Acquisition 
Boundary, and was accepted February 6, 2007.

T. 28 N., R. 17 W.

    The plat of survey represents the dependent resurvey of a 
portion of the South boundary and a portion of the subdivisional 
lines; and the survey of the Thompson Bend Acquisition Boundary, and 
was accepted February 6, 2007.

    We will place a copy of the plats we described in the open files. 
They will be available to the public as a matter of information.
    If BLM receives a protest against this survey, as shown on the 
plat, prior to the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing 
pending our consideration of the protest.
    We will not officially file the plat until the day after we have 
accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, 
including decisions on appeals.

    Dated: February 16, 2007.
Jerry L. Wahl,
Acting Chief Cadastral Surveyor.
[FR Doc. E7-3330 Filed 2-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P
----

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 September 2006 — L & D v OHIM — Sämann (Aire Limpio)

(Case T-168/04) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Earlier figurative marks representing a fir tree including, in certain cases, verbal elements - Application for figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘Aire Limpio’ - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2006/C 281/52)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: L & D, SA (Huercal de Almeria, Spain) (represented by: initially, M. Knospe, and, subsequently, S. Miralles Miravet and A. Castedo Garcia, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Julius Sämann Ltd (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Castán Pérez Gómez and E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyers)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 March 2004 (Case R 326/2003-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Julius Sämann Ltd and L & D, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

----

(1)OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.

----
No. P68/288.

protest 63/7083, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., a/c Summit Industries *v.*United States,

Watson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of wooden doors similar in -all material respects to those the subject of *B. A. McKenzie & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(58 Cust. Ct. 460, C.D. 3020), the claim -of -the plaintiff was sustained.
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 7/5/2023 1

Criminal Background Checks 

for Ballot-Petition Canvassers 

Miller v. Thurston 

(Timothy L. Brooks, W.D. Ark. 5:20-cv-5163) 

Ballot measures were disqualified because their sponsors did not certify that ballot-petition canvassers had passed criminal background 

checks. A federal complaint alleged that the disqualification was improper because background checks did not have grades of pass or 

fail. The federal district-court judge denied the plaintiffs relief on res 

judicata grounds; a similar claim already had failed in the state’s supreme court. 

Subject: Ballot measures. Topics: Ballot measure; getting on the 

ballot; matters for state courts. 

A September 2, 2020, federal complaint filed in the Western District of Arkansas challenged exclusion from the November 3 general-election ballot two ballot measures that were disqualified because their sponsor did not certify that 

ballot-petition canvassers had passed criminal background checks.1 Among 

the plaintiffs’ allegations were the argument that it was not possible to certify 

that someone had passed a background check, because background checks do 

not result in grades of pass or fail.2 With their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a 

motion for a preliminary injunction3 and a motion to expedite briefing, requesting oral argument by September 14.4

On September 4, Judge Timothy L. Brooks agreed to hear the case on September 14, advising the defendant secretary of state “that if a preliminary injunction is granted, any ballots without the initiatives at issue here will need 

to be reprinted.”5

Judge Brooks denied the plaintiffs immediate relief on September 15.6 The 

complaint was filed six days after Arkansas’s supreme court ruled that a statement that the sponsor had obtained background checks for the canvassers was 

not sufficient to certify that the canvassers had passed background checks.7

Judge Brooks found that the doctrine of res judicata therefore barred the federal claim.8

1. Complaint, Miller v. Thurston, No. 5:20-cv-5163 (W.D. Ark. Sept. 2, 2020), D.E. 2; Miller v. Thurston, 486 F. Supp. 3d 1256, 1261 (W.D. Ark. 2020). 

2. Complaint, supra note 1. 

3. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, Miller, No. 5:20-cv-5163 (W.D. Ark. Sept. 2, 2020), 

D.E. 3; Miller, 486 F. Supp. 3d at 1259. 

4. Motion to Expedite Briefing, Miller, No. 5:20-cv-5163 (W.D. Ark. Sept. 2, 2020), D.E. 5. 

5. Order at 1 n.1, id. (Sept. 4, 2020), D.E. 13; see Miller, 486 F. Supp. 3d at 1259. 

6. Miller, 486 F. Supp. 3d 1256. 

7. Miller v. Thurston, 2020 Ark. 267, 605 S.W.3d 255 (2020); see The Court on Aug. 27 

Blocked Two Proposed Constitutional Amendments, Ft. Smith Times Rec., Sept. 6, 2020, at A9. 

8. Miller, 486 F. Supp. 3d at 1265–66.
Searched for **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10003.pdf**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10003.pdf**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
1 Attachment 

Cleve: 

 

For PM2.5 background concentrations, we used data from the monitoring station at the Redding Dept. of Health 

(Station ID 60890004), which is approximately 6.5 miles from the facility, and for NO2 background 

concentrations we used data from the monitoring station at 468 Manzanita Ave in Chico (Station ID 60070002), 

which is approximately 55.5 miles from the facility. Each station is the closest source of ambient data for that 

pollutant. The next closest monitoring stations that include an NO2 analyzer, with distances from the facility 

are: 

 

 60231004 - Eureka (717 South Ave, Eureka, CA): ~99.7 miles 

 60231005 - 7333 Humboldt Hill Road, Eureka, CA: ~100 miles 

 60450008 – Ukiah (306 E Gobbi St, Ukiah, CA): ~103 miles 

 60450009 – Willits (899 S Main St, Willits, CA): ~92 miles 

 60670002 – North Highlands (7823 Blackfoot Way): ~132 miles 

 61010003 – Yuba City (773 Almond St, Yuba City, CA): ~99.3 miles 

 

None of these stations are closer to the facility, and several are located in different airsheds (e.g., the Eureka 

stations 

 

Background concentration monitoring station information 

Eric Albright 

to: 

Cleveland Holladay 

06/28/2012 04:12 PM 

Cc: 

Omer Shalev, Dave Brown, George Emmerson, Shane Young 

Hide Details 

From: Eric Albright <ealbright@environcorp.com>

To: Cleveland Holladay/R9/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Omer Shalev/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Dave Brown <DBrown@spi-ind.com>, George 

Emmerson <GEMMERSON@spi-ind.com>, Shane Young <SYoung@spi-ind.com>

image002.jpg

Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\oshalev\Local Settings\Temp\notesBAAA25\~web9006.htm 8/2/2012
I’m assuming that the description of how the met data were processed using AERMET in Section 4.4 of the 

March 2010 permit application is sufficient. If not, please let me know. 

 

Please let me know if you need anything else to complete your review. 

 

Thanks. 

 

Eric 

 

Eric Albright, PE | Senior Manager

ENVIRON International Corporation

19020 33rd Avenue W, Suite 310 | Lynnwood, WA 98036

T: +1 425 412 1804 | F: +1 425 412 1840 | M: +1 206 909 0591

ealbright@environcorp.com

 

This message contains information that may be confidential, privileged or otherwise protected by law 

from disclosure. It is intended for the exclusive use of the Addressee(s). Unless you are the addressee or 

authorized agent of the addressee, you may not review, copy, distribute or disclose to anyone the 

message or any information contained within. If you have received this message in error, please contact 

the sender by electronic reply to email@environcorp.com and immediately delete all copies of the 

message. 

Page 2 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\oshalev\Local Settings\Temp\notesBAAA25\~web9006.htm 8/2/2012
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 10.29

                              CONSULTING AGREEMENT
                                  TERMINATION


         CONSULTING AGREEMENT TERMINATION (the "Termination Agreement"), dated
as of August 31, 2004 between AMERICAN BANKNOTE CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation having its principal place of business at 560 Sylvan Avenue,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 ("ABN") and SIDNEY LEVY, an individual having a
residence at Avenida Viera Souto 620/1020, Rio de Janiero, Brazil ("Mr. Levy").

         WHEREAS, the parties hereto entered into a Consulting Agreement, as
amended (the "Consulting Agreement") dated as of May 22, 2003, a copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and

         WHEREAS, the parties hereto agree that the Consulting Agreement is no
longer appropriate;

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and of the
representations, covenants and obligations contained herein, as well as for
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

         1.       TERMINATION OF CONSULTING AGREEMENT. The parties hereto agree
                  that the Consulting Agreement shall cease to be of any effect
                  as of the date of this Termination Agreement.

         2.       ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Termination Agreement represents the
                  whole of the agreement reached between the parties and
                  supersedes any previous agreements and discussions that have
                  taken place.

         3.       GOVERNING LAW. This Termination Agreement shall be governed by
                  the laws of the State of New York, United States of America,
                  independent of any conflict of laws principles. The parties
                  hereby unconditionally submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of
                  the courts of New York for any actions, suits, or proceedings
                  arising out of or relating to this Termination Agreement.

         4.       COUNTERPARTS. This Termination Agreement may be executed in
                  counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and
                  all of which together shall be considered one and the same
                  agreement.



<PAGE>




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ABN and Mr. Levy have executed this Termination Agreement as
of the date and year set forth above.


AMERICAN BANKNOTE CORPORATION


By:
    --------------------------
Chief Executive Officer



------------------------------
SIDNEY LEVY