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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERTA MUNDAY,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S- 04-0593 FCD/PAN

v. ORDER FOR SANCTIONS

and FURTHER ORDER TO CAUSE

PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY, et al., 

Defendants.

________________________________/

On November 7, 2005, plaintiff’s counsel, Roxanne R. Fritz, was ordered to show cause

why she should not be sanctioned in the amount of $ 300.00 ($150.00 for her failure to comply

with the court’s September 14, 2005 order and for violation of Local Rule 5-133(a)). She was

further ordered to meet and confer with defendant’s counsel for the preparation of a joint status

report and to file a response to the order to show cause by November 28, 2005. 

On November 28, 2005, defendant’s filed a separate status report and supporting

declaration. Upon review of this briefing it appears that Ms. Fritz has continued to ignore the

court’s orders. Accordingly, the court makes the following orders:

1. Ms. Fritz shall pay sanctions in the amount of $300.00. Payment should be in the

form of a check made payable to the Clerk of the Court. The sum is to be paid

personally by plaintiff’s counsel not later than ten (10) days from the filing of

this Order for Sanctions.

Case 2:04-cv-00593-FCD-PAN Document 55 Filed 12/09/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

2. This sanction is personal to the attorney, is to be borne by her personally, and is

not to be transmitted to the client by way of a charge of attorney’s fees and/or

costs.

3. Counsel shall read the Civil Rules of the Local Rules of the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of California in their entirety within thirty (30)

days of the filing of this Order for Sanctions.

4. Not later than thirty (30) days from the filing of this Order, plaintiff’s counsel

shall file a declaration attesting to her compliance with the terms of this Order.

The court makes the following further Order to Show Cause (OSC): 

1. The status hearing and OSC hearing set for December 16, 2005 is VACATED.

2. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to show cause why plaintiff's case should not be

dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

2. Plaintiff’s counsel shall file a response to the order to show cause on or before

January 6, 2006.

3. A hearing on this order to show cause is set for Friday, January 13, 2006 at 

10:00 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 9, 2005.

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00593-FCD-PAN Document 55 Filed 12/09/05 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 10052)

#### Ford Motor Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 967834.

(Decided August 1, 1961)

*John A. Moelcle*and *James E. O’Boyle*for the plaintiff.

*William B. Orriclc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

LawreNCe, Judge:

The above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement presents the question of the proper dutiable value of a certain importation of automobiles.

Said appeal has been submitted for decision on a stipulation of fact wherein the parties have agreed as follows:

> That the merchandise and the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule A, attached hereto, are the same in ail material respects as the merchandise and issues in the case of *Ford Motor Company*v. *United States,*decided in Reap. Dec. 9683 and affirmed in A.R.D. 124, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> That at the time of exportation of the involved automobiles neither such nor similar automobiles were being freely offered for sale in the country of exportation for home consumption or for export to the United States, nor freely offered *417for sale in the United States pursuant to Section 402a (c), (d), and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, and that the cost of production thereof as defined in Section 402a (f) of said Act is the proper basis for appraisement of the involved automobiles.

> That the said cost of production is as shown in Schedule A attached hereto and made a part of this stipulation.

Upon the record before the court, I find and bold that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402a (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 91 Treas. Dec. 295, T.D. 54165 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(f)), is the proper basis of value for the merchandise in issue and that said value is as shown in schedule “A,” attached to and made a part of this decision.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
AMENDMENT
      TO

    SECURITY
      AGREEMENT

    


    This
      Amendment to Security Agreement (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into on
      July 3, 2008, by and between Knight Energy Corp., a Maryland corporation
      (“Debtor”), and HD Special-Situations, LP (the “Secured Party”). 

     

    A.
      The
      Debtor and Secured Party have previously entered into a Security Agreement
      dated
      May 20, 2008 (the “Security Agreement”), in connection with an aggregate of
      $1,500,000 in loans from Secured Party to Debtor. 

     

    B.
      Pursuant to Section 13.6 of the Security Agreement, the Debtor and Secured
      Party
      now desire to amend the Security Agreement as set forth herein in order for
      it
      to also apply to an additional $2,500,000 which is being loaned by Secured
      Party
      to the Debtor concurrently herewith. 

     

    NOW,
      THEREFORE, in consideration of their respective promises contained herein and
      other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
      are
      hereby acknowledged by the parties, the parties hereby agree as follows:


     

    1.
      Amendment
      to Recitals A and B. Recitals
      A and B of the Security Agreement are hereby deleted in its entirety and
      replaced with the following: 

     

    “A.
      Debtor and Secured Party have entered into a Note Purchase Agreement dated
      May
      20, 2008, and a Note Purchase Agreement dated July 3, 2008 (collectively, the
      “Note Purchase Agreement”). 

     

    B.
      Pursuant to the Note Purchase Agreement, Debtor has, among other things,
      delivered to Secured Party four 15% Senior Secured Promissory Notes in the
      principal amounts of $1,000,000, $400,000, $100,000 and $2,500,000
      (individually, a “Note;” collectively, the “Notes”).” 

     

    2.
      Ratification
      of Remaining Terms.
      Except
      as expressly set forth in this Amendment, all of the terms and provisions of
      the
      Security Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

     

    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly
      executed by their respective authorized persons on the date first written above.
      

     

    
      	
              KNIGHT
                ENERGY CORP.

            
	 	 
	
              By:

            	 
              
	
              Title: 

            	 
              
	 	 
	
              By:

            	 
              
	
              Title:

            	 
              


    

     

    
      
         

      

      
         

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

       

    

    
      	
              HD
                SPECIAL-SITUATIONS, LP

            
	 	 
	
              By:

            	 
              
	
              Title:
No. 66803.

#### Leslie B. Canion *v.*United States,

protest 61/8808 (Galveston).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Robert K. Berbst*(48 C.C.P.A. 145, C.A.D. 781), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained, and it was held that the personal exemptions should be applied against the value of said automobile to the extent that said exemptions were otherwise uncharged.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOSE GARAY : CIVIL ACTION

 : 

 v. :

 :

GEORGE PATRICK, et al. : NO. 05-CV-5669

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 5th day of February, 2010, after a de novo review, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and

ADOPTED.

2. The petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED.

3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED with prejudice.

4. There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ J. William Ditter, Jr. 

J. WILLIAM DITTER, JR.
```

                     NAVISTAR FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                            AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                                               Exhibit 24
                            POWER OF ATTORNEY

Each person whose  signature  appears below does hereby make,  constitute
and appoint  Pamela  Turbeville,  Paul Martin and Kristin  Moran and each
of them  acting  individually,  true  and  lawful  attorneys-in-fact  and
agents  with  power to act  without  the  other  and with  full  power of
substitution,  to  execute,  deliver and file,  for and on such  person's
behalf,  and in such  person's  name and capacity or capacities as stated
below,  any  amendment,  exhibit or  supplement  to the Form 10-K  Report
making  such  changes  in  the  report  as  such  attorney-in-fact  deems
appropriate.

                               SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the  requirements  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,
this report has been signed below by the  following  persons on behalf of
the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated:

    Signature                Title                              Date

/s/ANDREW J. CEDEROTH     Vice President and Treasurer;      February 14, 2005
   Andrew J. Cederoth      Director
                          (Principal Financial Officer)

/s/PAMELA TURBEVILLE      Chief Executive Officer and        February 14, 2005
   Pamela Turbeville       Director
                          (Principal Executive Officer)

/s/TERRY M. ENDSLEY       Director                           February 14, 2005
   Terry M. Endsley

/s/THOMAS M. HOUGH        Director                           February 14, 2005
   Thomas M. Hough

/s/ROBERT C. LANNERT      President; Director                February 14, 2005
   Robert C. Lannert

/s/PAUL MARTIN            Vice President and Controller;     February 14, 2005
   Paul Martin            Director
                          (Principal Accounting Officer)

/s/MARK SCHWETSCHENAU     Director                           February 14, 2005
   Mark Schwetschenau
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Requisition Number: OSD-4-00002]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice of calendar year (CY) 2024 TRICARE Prime and TRICARE Select out-of-pocket expenses.

# SUMMARY:

This notice provides the CY 2024 TRICARE Prime and TRICARE Select out-of-pocket expenses.

# DATES:

The CY 2024 rates contained in this notice are effective January 1, 2024.

# ADDRESSES:

Defense Health Agency (DHA), TRICARE Health Plan, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, Virginia 22042-5101.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Debra Fisher, telephone (703) 275-6224.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The National Defense Authorization Acts for Fiscal Years 2012 and 2017, and subsequent implementing regulations (                    *e.g.,*                     § 199.17 of title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations), established rates for TRICARE beneficiary out-of-pocket expenses and how they may be increased by the annual cost of living adjustment (COLA) percentage used to increase military retired pay or via budget neutrality rules. The CY 2024 retiree COLA increase is 3.2%.                

The DHA has updated the CY 2024 out-of-pocket expenses as shown below:
      ( print page 80700)          ( print page 80701)          ( print page 80702)    
The CY 2024 rates contained in this notice are effective January 1, 2024.

Dated: November 14, 2023.

Aaron T. Siegel,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

BILLING CODE 6001-FR-P

[FR Doc. 2023-25553 Filed 11-17-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6001-FR-C
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

View Business Reports: Processing Options by OTC Endpoints

To view processing options by OTC Endpoints report, complete the following steps:

1. From the Reports tab, click Deposit Processing Reports. The View Reports page 

appears. 

2. Under Business Reports, click Processing Options by OTC Endpoints. The Processing 

Options by OTC Endpoint parameters page appears.

3. Enter you search criteria.

• Enter the Processing Option, required

• Select Yes or No for Report With Children

• For Report With Children, click Yes to generate a report that contains data for the 

selected OTC Endpoint as well as all of the lower level OTC Endpoints. 

• For Report With Children, click No to generate a report that contains data only for 

the selected OTC Endpoint.

• TGA denotes a deposit processing OTC Endpoint.

• CHK denotes a check capture OTC Endpoint.

• M denotes a mapped accounting code; an open lock denotes access permission; 

and a closed lock denotes no access permission.

• CDC denotes card processing OTC Endpoint.

4. Click an OTC Endpoint to initiate the report. The Processing Options by OTC Endpoints

preview page appears as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Processing Options by OTC Endpoints Report Output Preview Page

Application Tips
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

2

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

• TGA denotes a deposit processing OTC Endpoint.

• CHK denotes a check capture OTC Endpoint.

• M denotes a mapped accounting code; an open lock denotes access permission; 

and a closed lock denotes no access permission.

• CDC denotes card processing OTC Endpoint.

5. Under Export as, you have the following options:

o Select PDF, Excel or Word format

o Click Download

Or

o Click Print PDF Report

Click Previous to return to the previous page.

Application Tips

Additional Button
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE, W ESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON _______________________________________________________ ) MARGARE T SCHINDLER HAAS, ) Shelby County Circuit Court

) No. 141090-IV R.D. Plaintiff

/Appella nt. ) ) VS. ) C. A. NO. 02A01-9604-CV-00073 ) MICHAEL LEE H

AAS, )

) Defendant/Appellee. ) ) _____________________________________________________________________________ O R D E R
_____________________________________________________________________________

The appellant has filed a petition for rehearing stating that this Court’s opinion failed to address the request in her brief that she be awarded attorney’s fees incurr ed on appeal. After due consideration, the appellant’s reque st for an award of attorney’s fee s occurred on appeal is denied.

_____________________________________ FARMER, J.

_____________________________________ CRAWFORD, P.J., W.S.

_____________________________________ LILLARD , J.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 32

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

      Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the
undersigned Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, and Vice
President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Extendicare Health Services,
Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

/s/ Mel Rhinelander
-----------------------------
Mel Rhinelander
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
May 13, 2004

/s/ Mark W. Durishan
-----------------------------
Mark W. Durishan
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
May 13, 2004

47
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6874

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JOSEPH IRVEN POWELL, JR., a/k/a Jody Powell , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:14

- cr - 00079

- FL

- 1; 5:16

- cv - 00956

- FL )

Submitted : November 21, 2017 Decided: November 27, 2017

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Joseph Irven Powell, Jr. , Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Dickerson Kocher , Donald Russell Pender , Stephen Aubrey West , Seth Morgan Wood , Assist ant United States Attorneys, Jennifer E. Wells , Special Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Joseph Irven Powell, Jr., s eeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating th at reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Powell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Powell’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument beca use the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
----

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Flensburg (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2006 — in the Registry Office case Stefan Grunkin and Dorothee Regina Paul, other parties to the proceedings: Leonhard Matthias Grunkin-Paul and Standesamt Niebüll

(Case C-353/06)

(2006/C 281/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Flensburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Stefan Grunkin and Dorothee Regina Paul

Other parties to the proceedings: Leonhard Matthias Grunkin-Paul and Standesamt Niebüll

Question referred

In light of the prohibition on discrimination set out in Article 12 of the EC Treaty and having regard to the right to the freedom of movement for every citizen of the Union laid down by Article 18 of the EC Treaty, is the provision on the conflict of laws contained in Article 10 of the EGBGB valid, in so far as it provides that the right to bear a name is governed by nationality alone?

----
Before the First Division,

December 19, 1941

No. 46700.

#### Protests 981430-G, etc., of Chinese Arts & Crafts, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question consists of articles composed of fluorspar, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Cathay Crafts Corp.*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 87, C. D. 434). In accordance therewith the claim at 40 percent under paragraph 214 was sustained.
No. 51659.

#### Protest 124726-K/12837 of Cuneo Bros., Inc. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

From an examination of the papers the court was unable to find anything sufficient to overcome the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct. The protest was therefore overruled.
No. 60045.

#### Acme Imitation Stones, Ltd., and H. W. Robinson & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 238978-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of Abstract 59105, the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked with the letter “A” at 10 percent under the provision in paragraph 1528, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52836), for imitation semiprecious stones, faceted, and (2) the items marked with the letter “B” at 30 percent under the provision in said paragraph, as modified by T. D. 51802, supplemented by T. D. 51898, for imitation semiprecious stones, not faceted.
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

THOMAS A. HIGHTOWER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0887 GEB GGH P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On July 5, 2005, plaintiff filed objections to the

May 19, 2005, order by the magistrate judge denying his request

for certification of his appeal. The court construes plaintiff’s

objections to be a request for reconsideration. Pursuant to E.D.

Local Rule 72-303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld

unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon review of

the entire file, the court finds that it does not appear that the

magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to

law.

Case 2:04-cv-00887-GEB-GGH Document 41 Filed 07/25/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon

reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed May 19,

2005, is affirmed. 

Dated: July 22, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00887-GEB-GGH Document 41 Filed 07/25/05 Page 2 of 2