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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE DENNIS ROUNDS, JR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1232 LKK DAD P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DIRECTOR OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

On February 24, 2006, petitioner filed a request for reconsideration of the

magistrate judge’s order filed February 16, 2006, denying petitioner’s ex parte motion for an

expedited ruling on his habeas petition. 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-01232-LKK -DAD Document 11 Filed 03/20/06 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

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the

magistrate judge filed February 16, 2006, is affirmed. 

DATED: March 20, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/roun1232.850

Case 2:04-cv-01232-LKK -DAD Document 11 Filed 03/20/06 Page 2 of 2
(V.D. 106)

#### O. Zernickow Co. R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 786117, etc.

(Decided November 16, 1959)

*Strauss & Sedges*for tbe plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Laweence, Judge:

The cases enumerated in schedule A, attached to and made part of this decision, are before the court on remand from a classification proceeding decided by the second division of this court in *Herman H. Sticht &*Co., *Inc., et al.*v. *United*States, 39 Cust. Ct. 342, Abstract 60979, wherein the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement pursuant to provisions of title 28 U.S.C. section 2636(d).

By stipulation of the parties to these proceedings, it has been agreed that the market value or the price of the instruments and cases herein, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was as set forth in schedule B, attached to and made part of the judgment herein. It was further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

Upon the agreed facts, I find that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(d)), is the proper basis for determining the value of the tachometers, speed indicators, and cases therefor covered by the remand of protests in issue and that such value is as indicated in schedule B referred to, *supra.*

*458I further find such values to be the proper dutiable values of said merchandise.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
20.02 Create an MVD Record
_______________________________________ __ 

### Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



## September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


## 136359 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n 

## PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices



## v SC: 136359 COA: 282155 Wayne CC: 02-009290-FC ELLIS LEE ROBINSON, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the March 21, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s0915 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 22, 2008

Clerk
Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Subpart W

Meeting Documentation: American Petroleum Institute 8/17/10

Date Staff Contact 

Information (Name, 

email, phone #)

Name of 

Organization 

(Attach list of all 

attendees names 

and emails if 

possible) 

Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, 

reporting requirements, etc.)

Written 

Comments 

Provided?

Did they

also submit 

to Docket?

Date sent to

EPA- CCD

8/17/10 Roger Fernandez

Akachi Imegwu

Kate Cardamone

Suzanne Waltzer

Ragan Tate

Bryan Clode, 

EnCana

Reid Smith, 

British Petroleum

Olga Magas, 

Devon

Nina Forehand, 

ExxonMobil

Kenneth Chow, 

Williams 

(Midstream)

Bill Grygar, 

Anadarko

Mark DePaul, 

ExxonMobil

Aaron 

Hutchison, 

Marathon

See following pages No written 

comments 

were submitted 

prior to the 

meeting. 
Sarah Bartlett, 

Williams

Greg Wilkins, 

Marathon

Carol Butero, 

KinderMorgan

Paul Hancock, 

Marathon

Miriam Lev-On, 

API contractor

Arun Naik, Shell

Peter Dahling, 

Chevron

Kevin Bailey, 

ExxonMobil

Terri Shires, API 

contractor 

Karin Ritter, API

Michele 

Schoeppe, API

Khary Cauthen, 

API
Al Collins, Oxy

Miriam Conner, 

Shell
API / EPA Meeting

USEPA OAR Offices, 1310 L Street, Washington DC

August 17, 2010 2:00 pm EDT

List of Issues Discussed

Subpart W

1. API requested an update from EPA on the expected timeframe for OMB review 

2. API inquired of EPA on whether or not Subpart W was submitted to OMB as a final rule or a re-proposal

3. API solicited feedback from EPA on comments API submitted during comment period on proposed facility 

definition for onshore production industry segment

4. API requested feedback from EPA on the interactions between the Natural GasStar volunteer program and 

the subpart W rule

5. API offered to work cooperatively with EPA on related future projects

6. API inquired of EPA on whether or not BAMM would be allowed for subpart W 

7. API solicited feedback from EPA on cost estimates submitted
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    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 Partnership.
 By:
    /s/ MATTHEW A. JONESName:
    Matthew A. JonesTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate: November 12, 2010
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE  OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63
                     OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE


I,  Jonathan  P.  Ward,  the  Chairman  and  Chief  Executive   Officer  of  The
ServiceMaster  Company,  certify that (i) the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended June 30, 2003,  fully  complies with  requirements  of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the  information
contained  in such Form 10-Q fairly  presents,  in all  material  respects,  the
financial condition and results of operations of The ServiceMaster Company.




                                /S/ JONATHAN P. WARD
                                ---------------------
                                Jonathan P. Ward
                                Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                August 14, 2003


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











                                       26
<PAGE>
June 29, 1942

No. 47340.

#### Protest 44218-K of Rudolf Nathan.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
Exhibit 10.2

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO
                           CURATIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                            2000 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

      WHEREAS, pursuant to resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of
Curative Health Services, Inc., (the "Company") by written consent dated April
25, 2002, the Curative Health Services, Inc. 2000 Stock Incentive Plan (the
"Plan") was amended to increase the number of shares of common stock of the
Company subject to options thereunder from 1,600,000 to 2,177,900 shares; and

      WHEREAS, such amendment to the Plan was approved by the shareholders of
the Company;

      NOW, THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that Section 4(a) of the Plan is
amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:

            (a) Shares Available. Subject to adjustment as provided in Section
            4(c) of the Plan, the aggregate number of Shares that may be issued
            under all Awards under the Plan shall be 2,177,900. Shares to be
            issued under the Plan may be either authorized but unissued Shares
            or Shares acquired in the open market or otherwise. Any Shares that
            are used by a Participant as full or partial payment to the Company
            of the purchase price relating to an Award, or in connection with
            the satisfaction of tax obligations relating to an Award, shall
            again be available for granting Awards (other than Incentive Stock
            Options) under the Plan. In addition, if any Shares covered by an
            Award or to which an Award relates are not purchased or are
            forfeited, or if an Award otherwise terminates without delivery of
            any Shares, then the number of Shares counted against the aggregate
            number of Shares available under the Plan with respect to such
            Award, to the extent of any such forfeiture or termination, shall
            again be available for granting Awards under the Plan.
            Notwithstanding the foregoing, the number of Shares available for
            granting Incentive Stock Options under the Plan shall not exceed
            2,177,900, subject to adjustment as provided in the Plan and subject
            to the provisions of Section 422 or 424 of the Code or any successor
            provision.

Dated as of April 25, 2002.
Approved by Shareholders on May 30, 2002
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNARD LEE DAVIS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0821 LKK KJM P

vs.

M. KNOWLES, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file and serve an opposition to

defendants’ September 25, 2006 motion to dismiss. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's October 17, 2006 motion for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff shall file and serve an opposition to defendants’ September 25, 2006

motion to dismiss on or before November 6, 2006. Defendants' reply, if any, shall be filed

within seven days thereafter.

DATED: October 24, 2006

1/mp

davi0821.36

Case 2:04-cv-00821-LKK -KJM Document 27 Filed 10/25/06 Page 1 of 1
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT 

TROY E. HALE, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D14-5494 

 ) 

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. )

___________________________________) 

Opinion filed September 18, 2015. 

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Lee County; Bruce E. Kyle, Judge. 

KHOUZAM, Judge. 

 Troy Hale appeals the order denying his motion for jail credit under Florida 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801. We affirm without prejudice to Hale's right to file a 

timely motion under rule 3.850. See Johnson v. State, 60 So. 3d 1045, 1052 (Fla. 

2011). We caution, however, that "[w]hen a criminal defendant seeks to withdraw a 

negotiated plea, or to attack it collaterally, if he is successful he loses the benefit of the 

bargain he has elected to attack." Id. (quoting Moreland v. Smith, 664 So. 2d 1039, 

1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)).
 -2-

CRENSHAW and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
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

JOSHUA PHILLIPS,

Petitioner, 2:04-cv-1257-GEB-GGH-P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al., 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has timely filed a notice of

appeal of this court's June 26, 2006, denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Before

petitioner can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c);

Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2). The certificate of appealability must “indicate which specific issue or issues

satisfy” the requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

A certificate of appealability should be granted for any issue that petitioner can

demonstrate is “‘debatable among jurists of reason,’” could be resolved differently by a different

court, or is “‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Jennings v. Woodford,

Case 2:04-cv-01257-GEB-GGH Document 34 Filed 08/29/06 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

 Except for the requirement that appealable issues be specifically identified, the standard 1

for issuance of a certificate of appealability is the same as the standard that applied to issuance of

a certificate of probable cause. Jennings, at 1010.

2

290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).

1

Petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right in

the following issues presented in the instant petition: 1) admission of prior statement by Sabrina

R. violated the Confrontation Clause; 2) admission of videotaped statements by the other victims

violated the Confrontation Clause; and 3) insufficient evidence.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is

issued in the present action.

Dated: August 28, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01257-GEB-GGH Document 34 Filed 08/29/06 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Internet Security Systems, Inc.(the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned, the Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of the Boardof the Company, certifies that:

(1)   The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange 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.
| /s/ THOMAS E. NOONAN    |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|
| Thomas E. Noonan        |   |   |
| Chairman, President and |   |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |   |
|                    |   |   |
| August 4, 2006          |   |   |

 

----
No. 50964.

#### Protests 116135-K, etc., of C. J. Tower & Sons (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(14 Cust. Ct. 94, C. D. 919). In accordance therewith the claim for free entry was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4077 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4077

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 180 Steuart Street in San Francisco, California, as the ``Dianne 
                        Feinstein Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DIANNE FEINSTEIN POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 180 Steuart Street in San Francisco, California, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Dianne Feinstein Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Dianne 
Feinstein Post Office''.

            Passed the Senate November 19, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 4077

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 180 Steuart Street in San Francisco, California, as the ``Dianne 
                        Feinstein Post Office''.
```
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Eddie Dunbar,

Petitioner, 2:04-cv-1176-GEB-PAN-P

vs. Order

A. K. Scribner, et al.,

Respondents.

-oOoOn August 16, 2005, the court dismissed petitioner’s

application for a writ of habeas corpus and the Clerk of the

Court entered judgment. On October 13, 2005, petitioner filed a

request for additional time to file a notice of appeal. 

A timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite

to appealing a judgment of the district court. Fed. R. App. P.

4(a); Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257,

264 (1978). Ordinarily, a party in a civil case must file the

notice within 30 days after judgment is entered. Fed. R. 

Case 2:04-cv-01176-GEB-PAN Document 28 Filed 11/22/05 Page 1 of 3
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

App. P. 4(a). If a party files a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 60 within ten days of the entry of judgment, time to file a

notice of appeal runs from entry of the order disposing of the

motion. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). The district court may

extend time if a party so moves within 30 days of the time the

notice must be filed and the party shows either excusable neglect

or good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5).

A court may find excusable neglect upon a showing a party

failed timely to file because of careless omission to act. See

Pincay v. Andrews, 351 F.3d 947, 950 (9th Cir. 2003). A party

who seeks an extension within 30 days after time to appeal

expired cannot satisfy this standard. See State of Oregon v.

Champion International Corp., 680 F.2d 1300, 1301 (per curiam)

(noting the good cause language was added to the rule because the

excusable neglect standard does not fit the situation in which an

appellant seeks an extension before the expiration of the initial

appeal period); see also Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) advisory

committee note.

Since judgment was entered August 16, 2005, and no party

filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, petitioner had

until September 15, 2005, to file a notice of appeal and until

October 15, 2005, to move for an extension of time to file a

notice of appeal.

Petitioner’s October 13, 2005, request is timely. 

Petitioner asserts he could not timely appeal because he

underwent lumbar surgery at the beginning of August and was

Case 2:04-cv-01176-GEB-PAN Document 28 Filed 11/22/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

placed in the California State Prison Corcoran Acute Care

Hospital. He did not receive the August 16,2005, order until

September 13, 2005.

I find petitioner has shown good cause.

Accordingly, petitioner’s October 13, 2005, request is

granted.

So ordered.

Dated: November 22, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01176-GEB-PAN Document 28 Filed 11/22/05 Page 3 of 3
21.10 Close a Batch
**EXHIBIT 21.1****Subsidiaries of the Registrant**       **State or Other Jurisdiction of** **Name** **Incorporation or Organization** Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company Indiana     Irwin Commercial Finance Corporation Indiana     IrwinCommercial Finance Corporation, Equipment Finance Indiana     Irwin Equipment Lease Funding, LLC Delaware     Irwin Franchise Capital Corporation Indiana     Irwin International Corporation Edge Act     Irwin Commercial Finance CanadaCorporation Canada     Onset Alberta, Ltd. Canada     Irwin Union Securities, Inc. Indiana     Irwin Union Collateral, Inc. Indiana     Irwin Union Insurance, Inc. Indiana     Irwin Union Advisory Services, Inc. Indiana     Irwin Union Realty Corporation Indiana     Irwin Home Equity Corporation IndianaIHE Funding Corp. II Delaware     Irwin Mortgage Corporation IndianaIrwin Reinsurance Corporation Vermont     Irwin Union Investor Services, Inc. Indiana     IFC Capital Trust VI Delaware
 

 
       **State or Other Jurisdiction of** **Name** **Incorporation or Organization** IFC Statutory Trust VII Connecticut     IFC Capital Trust VIII Delaware     IFC Capital Trust IX Delaware     IFC Capital Trust X Delaware     IFC Capital Trust XI Delaware     IFC Mortgage Corporation Indiana     Irwin Residual Holdings Corporation IndianaIrwin Funding Corp. DelawareIrwin Funding Corp. II Delaware     Irwin Residual Holdings Corporation II IndianaIHE Funding Corp. DelawareIrwin Union Bank, F.S. B. FederalIrwin FSB Collateral, Inc. IndianaIrwin Equipment Finance Corporation IndianaIrwin Leasing Corporation IllinoisIrwin Ventures LLC DelawareIrwin Ventures SBIC LLC Delaware
Brief Stricken and Order filed September 09 , 2021

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 20

- 00123

- CV

____________ MARCUS JACQUOT , Appellant

V.

MELODY COKER , Appellee

On Appeal from the 280th District Court

Harris County, Texas T rial Court Cause No

. 2019

- 51429



### ORDER
Appell ee ’ s brief disclose s the name of a person who was a minor when the underlying suit was filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.9(a)(3 ). Accordingly, the brief is
STRICKEN. Appell ee is ordered to file a brief that comp lie s with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9 on or before S eptem ber 20, 2021

. PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Spain , and Wilson

.