alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CIV. S-04-0885 FCD GGH 1

THOMAS N. STEWART, III - #88128

ATTORNEY AT LAW

369 BLUE OAK LANE, 2ND FLOOR

CLAYTON, CA 94516

TELEPHONE (925) 672-8452

TELEFAX (925) 673-1729

Attorneys for Byron Chapman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BYRON CHAPMAN, Case No. CIV. S-04-0885 FCD GGH

Plaintiff, STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL; ORDER

v.

CITY OF VACAVILLE, 

VENUETECH MANAGEMENT

GROUP, LLC,

 

Defendants.

__________________________________/ 

The parties hereto stipulate as follows:

The parties have reached a full and final settlement of all issues in this action. A

Settlement Agreement between the parties has been fully executed. 

Some parts of the Settlement Agreement are to be performed in the future. The parties

shall comply with their Settlement Agreement, a copy of which is incorporated by reference as

if fully set forth. The parties request the Court to retain jurisdiction for two year(s) from the

Case 2:04-cv-00885-FCD-GGH Document 32 Filed 08/16/06 Page 1 of 2
CIV. S-04-0885 FCD GGH 2

date the parties executed the Settlement Agreement or until such time as there has been

compliance with the injunctive relief issues set forth in Exhibit 1 to the Settlement Agreement 

in order to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

Although the parties are hereby dismissing this action with prejudice, they agree that the

Court will retain jurisdiction over this action and the parties hereto in order to be able to

enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to this action through their

designated counsel that this action be and hereby is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to FRCP

41(a)(2), and the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement for

two year(s) from the date the parties executed the Settlement Agreement or until such time as

there has been compliance with the injunctive relief issues set forth in Exhibit 1 to the

Settlement Agreement.

Date: August 4, 2006 Date: August 14, 2006

S/Eugene B. Elliot, S/Thomas N. Stewart, III, 

Attorney for Defendants Attorney for Plaintiff

Date: August 8, 2006

S/Kellie M. Murphy,

Attorneys for VenueTech

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Date: August 15, 2006 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

 US District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-00885-FCD-GGH Document 32 Filed 08/16/06 Page 2 of 2
Note to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837

Based on an August 2, 2010 telephone call between EPA and Linde, EPA understands that 

cylinders labeled as NOx can contain NO, NO2 or a combination of NO and NO2; and cylinders 

containing an SO2 and NO2 combination may be possible.
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of
American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. (the Company), that the Quarterly
Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of
the Company at the end of the period covered by the Report and the results of
operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.

|                       |  |     |  |                                                       
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|                       |  | By: |  | /s/ Kenneth H. Traub                                  
|                       |  |     |  |                                                       
|                       |  |     |  | Kenneth H. Traub
President and Chief Executive Officer
|                      
|                      
|                      
|                      
|Date: November 8, 2002 |  |     |  |                                                       

18
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 140 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 140

 To amend the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification 
 Act of 2010 to clarify the use of amounts in the WMAT Settlement Fund.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 12, 2017

 Mr. Flake (for himself and Mr. McCain) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification 
 Act of 2010 to clarify the use of amounts in the WMAT Settlement Fund.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. USE OF FUNDS IN WMAT SETTLEMENT FUND FOR WMAT RURAL WATER 
              SYSTEM.

    (a) Authorization of WMAT Rural Water System.--Section 307(a) of 
the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2010 
(Public Law 111-291; 124 Stat. 3080) is amended in the matter preceding 
paragraph (1) by inserting ``, (b)(2),'' after ``subsections (a)''.
    (b) Funding.--Section 312(b)(2)(C)(i)(III) of the White Mountain 
Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-
291; 124 Stat. 3093) is amended by striking the period at the end and 
inserting the following: ``, including the planning, design, and 
construction of the WMAT rural water system, in accordance with section 
307(a).''.
                                 <all>
```
# BOB WORTHAM

CORY J. H. CRENSHAW CRIMINAL D ISTRICT A TTORNEY PAT KNAUTH First Assistant Executive Assistant Jefferson Count y Courthouse ASHLEY CHASE 1085 Pearl Street

, 3 r d Floo r KATHLEEN M. KENNEDY Criminal Chief Beaumont

, Texas 77701 Civil Chief (409) 835-8550 WAYLN THOMPSON FAX (409) 784-5893 RANDI KING Appellate Chief

GARY REAVES

Public Integrity Family Chief

JAMES ARCENEAUX Chief Investigator



## June 2, 2015

Chris Prine Fourteenth Court of Appeals 301 Fannin, Suite 245 Houston, Texas 77002

Re: Ronnie Thibodeaux Docket No. 15-21315 / Appeal No. 14-15-00316-CR

To The Honorable Court of Appeals:

After having read the complete reco rd, the State waives its right to answer the Appellant’s Anders Brie f. The State may respond to any supplemental or additional briefs f iled by Appellant in this appeal.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Wayln G. Thompson

___________________________ Wayln G. Thompson Assistant Criminal District Attorney Jefferson County, Texas (thompson@co.jefferson.tx.us)

WGT/mh ACCEPTED
14-15-00316-CR
FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS
6/2/2015 1:36:48 PM
CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

## cc: CM/RRR #7012 1010 0002 1585 3246
Gaylyn Leon Cooper, Attorney at Law, 1104 Orleans Street, Beaumont, Texas 77701
No. 54027.

#### Capitol Distributors Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 136404-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 

 

MICHAEL BAKER, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs. CIV-S-04-0549-GEB/GGH

ARAMARK CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendant(s).

______________________________________/

 Defendant filed a discovery motion on April 22, 2005 set for hearing May 12,

2005 @ 10:00 a.m.. Notwithstanding the three days specified by E.D. Cal. L.R. 37-251 the joint

statement shall be filed in no later than five court days before the scheduled hearing.

Notwithstanding E.D. Cal. L.R. 5-133(f), if the joint statement is more than 25 pages, or the

attachments are longer than 50 pages, the copy shall be hand delivered or sent by overnight mail

to chambers on the day of filing. The filing deadline, accordingly, will be May 5, 2005.

The dispute may be organized by category, with specific discovery items attached,

if appropriate, as an exhibit. For each disputed category or individual item, include: (1) the

specific disputed discovery category or item; (2) the response; (3) the moving party’s position;

and (4) the opposition. E.D.Cal. L.R. 37-251(c)(3). Do not file separate briefing. Id.

Privilege objections must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). Except in

extraordinary circumstances, the party claiming privilege may not submit a post-hearing privilege

log. The failure properly to support a privilege objection with a privilege log may be deemed to

waive it. 

The moving party is responsible for filing the joint statement. The opposing party

nevertheless must timely draft and submit its portion. Failure of either party to use best efforts to

ensure timely filing will be cause for sanctions. 

Dated: 4/25/05 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

___________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

U.S. Magistrate Judge

baker549.251

Case 2:04-cv-00549-DAD Document 78 Filed 04/25/05 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7495
CLENARD BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; MICHAEL MOORE, Director of SCDC; DOUGLAS A. ROBINSON, Construction Supervisor, SCDC, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-1966-2-21AJ) Submitted: January 7, 1997 Decided: January 24, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clenard Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice is not reviewable by the court unless the reasons stated for the dismissal clearly disclose that no amendment to the complaint could cure its defects. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). In the present case, the district court expressly referred Appellantto the magistrate judge's report and recommendation for instructions on how to cure his defective complaint. The appeal is therefore dismissed. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v VICTOR K. HARGRAVE, Airman, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

20 USCMA 27, 42 CMR 219

No. 22,934

August 14, 1970

*Colonel Bertram Jacobson*and *Major Frank T. Moniz*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel James M. Bumgarner*and *Major Donald B. Strickland*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

The accused was convicted by a general court-martial of possession of marihuana in Naha City, Okinawa, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 934. He contends that, since the offense was committed outside the limits of any United States military installation on Okinawa, he could not be tried by court-martial for his misconduct. See O’Callahan v Parker, 395 US 258, 23 L Ed 2d 291, 89 S Ct 1683 (1969). In United States v Ortiz, 20 USCMA 21, 42 CMR 213, decided this date, we held that the limitation on court-martial jurisdiction defined in the *O’Callahan*case was inoperative in Okinawa. Also, in United States v Beeker, 18 USCMA 563, 40 CMR 275 (1969), we held that wrongful possession of marihuana in the civilian community possessed sufficient military significance to make that misconduct triable by court-martial within the rationale of *O’Callahan.*We, therefore, affirm the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Military Review.
EXHIBIT
      32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, the undersigned officer of Getty Realty Corp. (the “ Company ”)
      hereby
      certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





(i)
      the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended
      September 30, 2006 (the “ Report ”)
      fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (subject to the Company's
      position prevailing in regard to the remaining unresolved SEC comment, as more
      fully described in the Report); and





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








Dated:
      November 2, 2006





BY: /s/
      Leo
      Liebowitz


(Signature)


LEO
      LIEBOWITZ


Chairman
      and Chief Executive Officer








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Getty Realty Corp. and will be retained by Getty Realty Corp. and furnished
      to
      the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
      incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before
      or
      after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in
      such
      filing.
#### Washburn-Crosby Company, Appellant, *v.*Budzowski.

*Sales*— Affidavit *of defense*— Sufficiency.

In an action of assumpsit for the price of flour, alleged to .have been sold and delivered to the defendant, an affidavit of defense is sufficient, which denies the sale and delivery as averred in the *75plaintiff’s statement, and only admits an oral promise to pay tbe debt of another, contrary to tbe provisions of the Statute of Frauds.

Argued April 24, 1924.

Appeal, No. 172, April T., 1924, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Lawrence Co., Sept. T., 1923, No. 74, discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, in the case of Washburn-Crosby Company, a Corporation, v. Marshall Budzowski.

Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

Affirmed.

Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Before Emery, P. J.

Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.

The court discharged the rule. Plaintiff appealed.

*Error assigned*was, among others, the order of the court.

*Edwin M. Underwood,*for appellant.

*H. A. Wilkison,*of *Akens & Wilkison,*for appellee.

July 2, 1924:

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from the refusal of judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Plaintiff declares for the price of flour alleged to have been sold and delivered to defendant. The affidavit denies the sale and delivery as averred in the statement and alleges that the flour was sold and delivered to the Peerless Baking Company, of Youngstown, Ohio, and that, at plaintiff’s request, before delivery of the flour, defendant “orally guaranteed the payment of the purchase price......if not paid by” that vendee; and that judgment should be entered in his favor. He added other averments to which we need not now refer. If the allegations mentioned are true, (a) he neither bought nor received the flour; and *76(b) he cannot be compelled to pay the debt of the vendee because his promise was not in writing, as required by the statute of frauds: Act of April 26, 1855, P. L. 308; Nugent v. Wolfe, 111 Pa. 471, 480.

Judgment affirmed.
Before the First Division,

June 23, 1941

No. 46108.

#### Protest 938984-G of P. Silverman & Son (Portland, Maine).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of scrap jacket felt waste similar to that the subject of *Silverman*v. *United States*(27 C. C. P. A. 324, C. A. D, 107). The claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1555 was therefore sustained.
Before the First Division,

March 27, 1958

No. 61741.

#### F. L. Kraemer & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 309467-K and 312236-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The protests were dismissed for lack of prosecution.
[Proposed] Order to Stipulation Regarding Withdrawal of FirstAmended Complaint

07960102\00004432.DOC 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

27

28

HUNTER RICHEY Di BENEDETTO & EISENBEIS, LLP 

Maureen A. Lenihan (State Bar #111041) 

Rachel N. Kook (State Bar #169493) 

Attorneys at Law 

520 Capitol Mall, Suite 400 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Telephone: (916) 491-3000 

Facsimile: (916) 491-3080 

Attorneys for Defendant 

BANNER HEALTH dba BANNER LASSEN MEDICAL CENTER, 

A non-profit Arizona Corporation incorrectly sued herein as 

BANNER COMMUNITY HOSPITAL 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GRANVILLE MARSHALL, M.D., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF SUSANVILLE, COUNTY OF LASSEN, 

BANNER COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, DAVE 

ANDERSON and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

___________________________________________/ 

Case No. CIV-S-04 1054 DFL KJM 

ORDER ON STIPULATION 

REGARDING WITHDRAWAL 

OF FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT 

 

The Court, upon due consideration of the Stipulation Regarding Withdrawal of 

First Amended Complaint submitted by the parties to this action, the Court’s own records, 

including the arguments and evidence presented in the moving and opposition papers to 

Defendants’ motions attacking the First Amended Complaint, and matters upon which the Court 

is entitled to take judicial notice orders as follows: 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the First Amended Complaint currently on 

file with this court is deemed withdrawn and further deemed null and void. 

Dated: 4/21/2006 /s/ David F. Levi___________________________

HON. DAVID F. LEVI 

CHIEF JUDGE OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT, 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Case 2:04-cv-01054-RRB -KJM Document 62 Filed 04/24/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>     0001052635
<NAME>    MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING V, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-25-1999
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                 1,031,024
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,576
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,049,601
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,049,601
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,576
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    876,300
<COMMON>                                       154,725
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,049,601
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,389
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,389
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             37,389
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    37,389
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
**Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity asChief Executive Officer of American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. (the “Company”),that the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition ofthe Company at the end of the period covered by the Report and the results ofoperations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.
|  |   | By: /s/ Kenneth H. TraubKenneth H. Traub  President and Chief Executive Officer |
|--|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Date:  August 11, 2006

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to AmericanBank Note Holographics, Inc. and will be retained by American Bank NoteHolographics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----
1

Hunt, JeffFrom: Robert Ukeiley [rukeiley@igc.org]

Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 7:38 PMTo: Hunt, JeffSubject: WA PM10 Maintenance SIP

Dear Mr. Hunt:

I could not find the following in the docket on regulations.gov:

Kotchenruther, Robert. “Fugitive Dust from Coal Trains: Factors Effecting Emissions and Estimating PM2.5”, EPA Region 10,

Annual NW‐AIRQUEST Meeting, June 2013.

If it is not there, can you please provide me with a copy as it seems that EPA relied upon it? Thanks Robert Ukeiley

Law Office of Robert Ukeiley

507 Center StreetBerea, KY 40403

Tel: 859‐986‐5402

rukeiley@igc.org

Counsel for Sierra Club
CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 
 We have
issued our report dated September 24, 2007, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of Jaco
Electronics, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2008. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in
the Registration Statements of Jaco Electronics, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form
S-8/S-3 (File No. 33-89994, effective March 3, 1995), as amended by
Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement of Jaco Electronics
on Form S-8/S-3 (File No. 333-49873, effective April 10, 1998), the Registration
Statement of Jaco Electronics, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-8/S-3 (File No.
333-49877, effective April 10, 1998) and the Registration Statement of Jaco
Electronics, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-8/S-3 (File No. 333-111065,
effective December 10, 2003).
 
 
 
 GRANT
THORNTON LLP
 
 Melville,
New York
 September
29, 2008
Before the First Division,

March 20, 1946

No. 50951.

#### Protest 120901-K of Theo. *L.*Stern & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the beads are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Eitinger Bead Co.*v. *United States*(13 Cust. Ct. 50, C. D. 867), the claim at 35 percent under paragraph 1503 was sustained.