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

ANTOLIN ANDREWS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1107 DFL GGH P

vs.

THERESA GUZMAN, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Pending before the court is the second amended complaint filed July 13, 2006. Named as

defendants are Correctional Officers Tapia and Smith.

The court has separately issued an order finding that the second amended

complaint states a colorable claim for relief against defendants as to plaintiff’s retaliation and

access to the court claims. The court also found that the plaintiff’s due process claim was not

colorable. For the reasons stated in the separately issued order, the court now recommends

dismissal of the due process claim.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the due process claim

contained in plaintiff’s second amended complaint be dismissed.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01107-JAM-GGH Document 23 Filed 10/06/06 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

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 twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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: 10/5/06 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

an1107.56

Case 2:04-cv-01107-JAM-GGH Document 23 Filed 10/06/06 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 21



                          Subsidiaries of the Company


    As of March 24, 1998, the Company owned or controlled the following
percentages of the capital stock of the corporations listed below:


                                         State or Country of
    Name of Corporation                     Incorporation       % Owned
    -------------------                    --------------       -------

Kollmorgen Overseas Development
  Corporation                                Delaware               100

Proto-Power Corporation                      Delaware               100

Kollmorgen Tandon (India)                    India                   51

Tianjin Kollmorgen Industrial                Peoples' Republic
  Drives Corporation                         of China                63

Artus Group                                  France                 100
      Kollmorgen Artus
      Societe Anonyme Cryla

Seidel Servo Drives GmbH                     Germany                100

Servotronix, Ltd.                            Israel                 100
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 45 (Thursday, March 8, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10490-10491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4110]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural Utilities Service


Earth Resources Inc.; Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of finding of no significant impact.

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

[[Page 10491]]

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Rural Utilities Service (RUS), 
an agency that administers the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural 
Development Utilities Programs, has made a finding of no significant 
impact (FONSI) with respect to a request from Earth Resources Inc. for 
assistance from RUS to finance the construction and operation of a 
twenty (20) MW power generating station utilizing chicken litter and 
woody biomass as fuel. The proposal would be constructed on a 140-acre 
property in Franklin County, Georgia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Stephanie A. Strength, Environmental 
Protection Specialist, Engineering and Environmental Staff, Stop 1571, 
1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1571, telephone: 
(202) 720-0468 or e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#76250213061e17181f1358050204131811021e36011215580305121758111900"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="481b3c2d38202926212d663b3c3a2d262f3c20083f2c2b663d3b2c29662f273e">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Earth Resources Inc. is proposing to install 
a twenty (20) MW GE ID <greek-i> 8287108 and 114939 steam driven 
turbine generation station and accessory structures, fuel storage and 
handling areas, traffic circulation and parking areas, waste holding 
areas, zero discharge system, and stormwater management features. A new 
85-foot tall stack will be required. The proposal is located in 
Franklin County, Georgia. The generating station will be sited on a 
previously graded five-(5) acre portion of a 139-acre property. The 
remaining acres will be maintained as natural area buffers.
    Alternatives considered by the USDA Rural Development and ERI 
included: (a) No action, (b) alternate locations, (c) alternate methods 
to provide service, (d) alternate construction methods and materials, 
(e) alternate designs, (f) load management and energy conservation 
options, and (g) alternate generation technologies.
    Copies of the Environmental Assessment and FONSI are available at, 
or can be obtained from, RUS at the address provided herein, or from 
Mr. Billy Jones (706) 384-4933, at Earth Resources Inc.'s headquarters 
office located at 774 Highway 320, Carnesville, Georgia 30521.

    Dated: March 2, 2007.
James R. Newby,
Assistant Administrator--Electric Program, Rural Development--Utilities 
Programs.
 [FR Doc. E7-4110 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-15-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 10.16


 


Summary Promissory Note


 


Date: December 22, 2011


By: Email


 


Attn: Shareholders – UNorth LLC


274 E Hamilton Ave, Suite A


Campbell, CA 95008


 


RESOLVED, that LLC would borrow amount of $20,000 from the LLC
member Maryam Rowghani on December 22, 2011. LLC agrees to pay back the amount by Feb 28, 2012 with annual interest rate of 14%.
The payment schedule will be as follows:


 


Borrowed Amount: $20,000


Interest: 14.00%


Estimated Value on 02/28/12: $20,528


Daily Interest Rate: 0.038%


 


	/s/ Michael Faro	 
	Michael Faro	 
	Managing Member	 
	UNorth LLC	 


 


	 	UNorth® LLC
	 	PO Box 1116, Campbell, CA 95009
	 	1.888.324.2787 tel
	 	1.408.378.7629 fax
	 	www.unorth.com
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

ANTHONY R. THOMPSON,

Petitioner

v.

M.D. OVERMYER,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 79 WM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of November, 2017, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Petition for 

ROR Bail, the Motion for Order of Discharge, the Motion for Contestation to District 

Attorney’s Appearance, and the Motion to be Granted ROR Bail are DENIED.
**Exhibit
      32.1**








CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of m-Wise, Inc. ("the Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Mordechai Broudo,
      Chairman of the Board and Secretary, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that
      to my knowledge:





(1)
      the
      Report fully comply 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 result of operations of the Company.





By:
      /s/Mordechai Broudo





Mordechai
      Broudo, Chairman





Dated:
      August 14, 2007
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE CARL SAMPLE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1132 FCD KJM P

vs.

SACRAMENTO SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER & WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

 / AD TESTIFICANDUM

George Carl Sample, inmate # T-99239, a necessary and material witness in

proceedings in this case on September 26, 2006, is confined in California State Prison

Sacramento, Prison Road, P.O. Box 290002, Represa, California 95671-0002 in the custody of

the Warden Scott M. Kernan; in order to secure this inmate's attendance it is necessary that a

Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issue commanding the custodian to produce the inmate

in Court, 15 Floor, Courtroom 2, United States Courthouse, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California th

on September 26, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. A Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issue, under the seal of this court,

commanding the Warden to produce the inmate named above to testify in United States District

Court at the time and place above, and from day to day until completion of court proceedings or

as ordered by the court; and thereafter to return the inmate to the above institution; 

2. The custodian is ordered to notify the court of any change in custody of this

inmate and is ordered to provide the new custodian with a copy of this writ; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a courtesy copy of this order and

writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum on the Out-To-Court Desk, California State Prison -

Sacramento, P.O. Box 290007, Represa, California 95671. 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM

To: Warden Scott M. Kernan, California State Prison Sacramento, Prison Road, P.O. Box

290002, Represa, California 95671-0002:

WE COMMAND you to produce the inmate named above to testify before the

United States District Court at the time and place above, and from day to day until completion of

the proceedings or as ordered by the court; and thereafter to return the inmate to the above

institution.

FURTHER, you have been ordered to notify the court of any change in custody

of the inmate and have been ordered to provide the new custodian with a copy of this writ.

DATED: August 23, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01132-FCD-KJM Document 59 Filed 08/23/06 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4304

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. DONOVAN ISAIAH JONES, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:08-cr-00461-HMH-1)

Submitted: September 18, 2009 Decided: October 1, 2009

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Donovan Isaiah Jones was indicted for sale of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D) (2006), and unlawful transport of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (West 2006 & Supp. 2008). Jones pled guilty without the benefit of a written plea agreement. The district court sentenced Jones to concurrent terms of sixty months’ imprisonment and two years’ supervised release for the drug offense and 212 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release for the firearms conviction. On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), noting no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the sentence imposed was reasonable. Finding no error, we affirm. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. We further find that the district court imposed a sentence that is procedurally and substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007) (review of sentence is for abuse of discretion). In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing,

23 of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such filing would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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.
AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6762

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

VINCENT JENNELL, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District

Judge. (CR-02-32)

Submitted: July 14, 2005 Decided: July 27, 2005

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vincent Jennell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, John

Leslie Brownlee, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Vincent Jennell, Jr., appeals the district court order

denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s order and affirm for the

reasons of the district court. See United States v. Jennell, No.

CR-02-32 (W.D. Va. Apr. 19, 2005). We grant the motion to proceed

on appeal in forma pauperis. 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.

AFFIRMED
WRAP TSS as of 7/15/09Plan02d(tpy)PRP18b(tpy)Net ChangeFrom Plan02d toPRP18b(Percent)Point 24,751 30,619 24Area 409 653 60On-Road Mobile 171 165 -4Off-Road Mobile 0 0 0Oil & Gas 0 0 0Road Dust 1,125 1,449 29Fugitive Dust 18,030 25,144 39Windblown Dust 52,546 52,546 0Anthro Fire 259 109 -58Natural Fire 5,369 5,369 0Source CategoryStatewide Coarse PMWyoming Planning and Preliminary Reasonable ProgressEmission InventoriesWyoming Coarse PM Emission Inventory - 2002 and 2018atu a e5,3695,3690Biogenic 0 0 0Total102,660 116,054 13Region Scenario Year Point Anthro FireNaturalFire All Fire Biogenic AreaWRAP AreaO&G Off-ShoreOn-RoadMobileOff-RoadMobileRoadDustFugitiveDust WB DustCoarse ParticulateMatterWY Plan02d 2002 24750.67012 258.633 5368.981 409.32 0 171.47 0 1125.11 18029.8 52545.662WY Prp18b 2018 30619.33015 109.014 5368.981 652.76 0 164.985 0 1448.91 25144.2 52545.662
No. 51410.

#### Protests 783187-G, etc., of Morris Abramovitz et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
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

ARTHUR ANDERSON, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1172 GEB GGH P

vs.

CA BOARD OF PRISON TERMS, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no

absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d

453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at

any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing

§ 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be

served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s March 10, 2006 request

for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage

of the proceedings.

DATED:3/28/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:bb/ande1172.110(2) 

Case 2:04-cv-01172-GEB-GGH Document 58 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 47370.

#### Protests 17331-K, etc., of F. W. Myers & Co., Inc. (Ogdensburg).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed on the basis of the condition in which imported, and that no addition should have been made for the planing, tonguing, and grooving. Protests sustained to this extent.
Evidence Table B1. Articles/arms for class KERATOLYTIC (TOPICAL).

CompTrial Treatment Dose, route, frequency Comments, ancillary treatment

TARGET COMPARATOR Outcome

Table(s)

HEADING

Treatment Dose, route, frequency Comments, ancillary treatment

Dermo® mild wash 

cleanser.

B.01.01 77 Dermo® mild wash clea Continuous

Discrete

Azelaic acid 20% topical bid. Placebo No dose information. 

Washout period of 2-4 

weeks. 

187 Washout period of 2-4 w Continuous

Discrete

Azelaic acid 20% topical bid. Vehicle No dose information. 

B.01.02 52 20% topical (qd 2 Continuous

weeks, then bid)

Azelaic acid 5% topical (qd for 2 

weeks then bid)

Benzoyl 

peroxide

B.03.01 95 Salicylic acid 2% topical bid. Vehicle No dose information. Continuous

Tetracycline, uv light, vit A 

shampoos, 

hexachlorophene as 

needed.

294 Tetracycline or cyst vit Continuous

Discrete

Salicylic acid 1.5% topical tid. Placebo No dose information. 

B.05.01 86 Quaterary 1.5% topical () Element sulfur 1.2%; fre Discrete

ammonia 

complex of 

polythionates

Polythionate 1.5% topical bid. 

Polythionate 2% topical bid. 

Apply heavy layer to face, 

leave on for 20 minutes 

then wash off with warm 

water. Shepard®'s soap.

B.05.02 101 Apply heavy layer to fac Continuous

Discrete

Sulphurated No dose information. 

lime

Vehicle No dose information. 

Patients were allowed to 

continue other treatments.

B.06.01 191 Resorcinol No dose information. Contents unstated. Discrete

Salicylic acid No dose information. 

Sulphur No dose information. 

Placebo No dose information. 

Patients were allowed to 

continue other treatments.

B.06.02 191 Resorcinol No dose information. It is not stated explicitly Discrete

Salicylic acid No dose information. 

Sulphur No dose information. 

Resorcinol No dose information. 

Salicylic acid No dose information. 

Sulphur No dose information. 

B.07.01 165 6.25% topical (can't Discrete

say)

Aluminum 

chloride

Vehicle No dose information. 

B.07.02 228 Sulphur 50% topical bid. Modified placebo. Discrete

Aluminum 100% topical bid. 

chlorhydroxide

Vehicle No dose information. 

"(M)" indicates that data are found on the Multi-Arm tables. Evidence Table B HEADING: Page 1 of 2
CompTrial Treatment Dose, route, frequency Comments, ancillary treatment

TARGET COMPARATOR Outcome

Table(s)

HEADING

Treatment Dose, route, frequency Comments, ancillary treatment

B.07.04 176 Vehicle of gluconolacto Continuous

Discrete

14% topical (can't 

say)

Gluconolactone Vehicle No dose information. 

B.07.06 246 Single preparation. Mavigen® cleansing cr Continuous

Discrete

Soybean No dose information. 

liposome

Glycolic acid No dose information. 

Soybean No dose information. 

liposome

"(M)" indicates that data are found on the Multi-Arm tables. Evidence Table B HEADING: Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 21

                 JAMES RIVER CORPORATION of Virginia
                         SUBSIDIARIES (a)(b)
                       as of December 29, 1996

      James  River  Corporation of Virginia, a corporation  organized
under   the  laws  of  Virginia,  has  the  following  majority-owned
subsidiaries:

                                                  Organized Under
   Name                                             the Laws of

Brusara Participacoes, Ltda.                      Brazil

Cartellas S.A.                                    Greece

Celtona B.V.                                      Netherlands

Crown Zellerbach AG Zug                           Switzerland

Crown Zellerbach International, Inc.              Delaware

Diamond Occidental Forest Inc.                    Delaware

Garant SarL                                       France

ILC Inc.                                          Virginia

James River Canada Inc.                           Canada

James River Fiber Company                         Virginia

James River International Holdings, Ltd.          Virginia

James River Maine, Inc.                           Maine

James River-Marathon, Ltd.                        Ontario

James River Paper Company, Inc.                   Virginia

James River-Pennington, Inc.                      Alabama

James River Timber Corporation                    Alabama


                                 E-5
<PAGE>

                       Exhibit 21 (continued)

                                                  Organized Under
               Name                                 the Laws of

James River Tredegar, Inc.                        Virginia

Jamont N.V.                                       Netherlands

Jamont Services S.N.C.                            Belgium

Jamont Ireland Ltd.                               Ireland

Jamont Tisu S.A.                                  Spain

Jamont UK Limited                                 United Kingdom

Jarapar Participacoes, Ltda.                      Brazil

JRF Immobiliere S.A.                              Belgium

Kaysersberg, S.A.                                 France

Meridian & Bigbee Railroad Company                Mississippi

MidSouth Lumber Company                           Virginia

Nokian Paperi Oy                                  Finland

St. Francis Insurance Company Ltd.                Bermuda

Sodipan S.A.                                      France

Unikay S.r.L.                                     Italy


(a)  Certain  subsidiaries  which, if considered  in  the  aggregate,
     would not constitute a significant subsidiary are not listed.

(b)  Unconsolidated  affiliates for which the Company owns,  directly
     or  indirectly, 50% or less of the outstanding voting stock  and
     which are not controlled by the Company have been excluded  from
     this listing.