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

----oo0oo----

LISA LANDERS,

NO. CIV. S-04-1847 FCD/DAD

Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

BELL GAS & MINIMART, et al., 

Defendants.

______________________________/

----oo0oo----

An Order Requiring a Joint Status Report was filed on

September 3, 2004, instructing the parties to file a joint status

report within sixty (60)days of service of the complaint on any

party, or from the date of removal. 

A review of the court’s docket shows the following: an

answer filed on December 6, 2004; a minute order filed 

March 3, 2005, instructing the parties to file a joint status

report in compliance with the order of September 3, 2004; a joint

Case 2:04-cv-01847-FCD-DAD Document 8 Filed 08/25/05 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

27

28

1While the letter has not been filed into the official court

record it does indicate that a courtesy copy was sent to

plaintiff’s counsel. 

2

status report filed On April 4, 2005; another minute order,

filed May 19, 2005, requiring a new joint status report because

the previous report did not comply with the Court’s Order

Requiring a Joint Status Report; and finally a separate status

report filed by defendants on July 6, 2005. 

Defendants’ counsel, Mr. Philip E. Carey, sent a letter, 

separate from the report,1 informing the court that all attempts

to contact plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Theodore Pinnock, to complete

the report have been unsuccessful. The Court has received no

oral or written correspondence from Mr. Pinnock, regarding the

separate report or the letter.

The Court considers Mr. Pinnock’s failure to comply with its

September 3, 2004, order and its March 3, 2005, and May 19, 2005

minute orders very serious violations, especially in light of the

fact that court warned counsel in its order that failure to

timely file could result in sanctions. The court, therefore,

makes the following order:

1. Mr. Pinnock is ordered to show cause why he should not

be sanctioned in the amount of $450.00 ($150.00 each for failing

to comply with the court’s September 3, 2004 order and the

court’s March 3, 2005 and May 19, 2005 minute orders). 

2. Mr. Pinnock shall file his response to the Order to

Show Cause on or before September 9, 2005.

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01847-FCD-DAD Document 8 Filed 08/25/05 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

27

28

3

3. A hearing on the order to show cause and a status

conference are set for September 23, 2005 at 10:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 25, 2005.

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01847-FCD-DAD Document 8 Filed 08/25/05 Page 3 of 3
Before the Third Division,

March 2, 1945

No. 50046.

#### Protests 15856-K, etc., of Acierno Bros. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WENDELL HILL, : CIVIL ACTION

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

:

WILLIAM PATRICK, et al., : No. 05-5261

Respondents :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 7th day of June, 2006 , upon careful and

independent consideration of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge Peter B. Scuderi, and any objections made thereto, IT IS ORDERED

that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.

2. The petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED.

3. There is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Edmund V. Ludwig 

EDMUND V. LUDWIG, J.

Case 2:05-cv-05261-EL Document 11 Filed 06/08/06 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

In connection with the AnnualReport of K-tel International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the periodended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dennis Ward, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The report fully complies with the requirement of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of  1934; and

 

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| By                                                      | /s/ DENNIS WARD |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|--------|
| Dennis Ward                                             |
| *Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer)* |
| *Director*                                              |
| October 14, 2003                                        |

 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

NO. CIV. S-04-1751 FCD/GGH

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND

DISPOSITION

LAMBKA AND RENFROE, et al., 

Defendants.

____________________________________/

Pursuant to the representations of Voluntary Dispute Resolution Neutral appointed in the

above action the court has determined that this case has settled. 

In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 160, dispositional documents are to be

filed on or before July 25, 2005. All dates set in this matter are hereby VACATED.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY BE GROUNDS FOR THE

IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS ON ANY AND ALL COUNSEL AS WELL AS ANY

PARTY OR PARTIES WHO CAUSE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01751-FCD-GGH Document 13 Filed 06/21/05 Page 1 of 1
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.A 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 on Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2006, of
El Paso Exploration
& Production Company (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lisa A. Stewart, President, certify (i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company. /s/ Lisa A. StewartLisa A. StewartPresident(Principal Executive Officer)August 7, 2006
 A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to El Paso
Exploration
& Production Company and will be retained by El Paso Exploration & Production
Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41964

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

BRYAN N. MENDOZA

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 827

Filed: November 25, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. George A. Southworth , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years, for felony driving under the influence, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly E. Smith , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Russell J. Spencer , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before G UTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Bryan N. Mendoza pled guilty to felony driving under the influence . I.C. §§ 18

- 8004,

18

- 8005

. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed including an

allegation that he was a persistent violator. The district court sentenced Mendoza to a unified

term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years

. Mendoza filed an I. C.R

35 motion, which the district court denied. Mendoza appeals.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-2 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct . App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Mendoza ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
(Reap. Dec. 9481)

#### Gellman Brothers v. United States

Entry No. A 209, etc.

(Decided July 14, 1959)

*Wallace & Schwartz (Joseph Schwartz*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*George Oochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Spector,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Ford, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof, were consolidated for the purpose of trial. The merchandise consists of various articles imported from Japan which were invoiced and entered at the ex-factory prices. The appraiser of merchandise advanced the value by the addition of inland freight, buying commissions, and other charges.

When these cases were called for trial, it was stipulated by and between counsel for the respective parties that the entered value represents the export value and that there was no higher foreign value.

On the agreed facts, I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of value of the merchandise herein involved and that such value in each instance was the entered value.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MICHAEL ANTHONY CARR

AKA MICHEAL ANTHONY CARR,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-11-00315-CR

Appeal from the

Criminal District Court Number Two

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC#1163387D)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
From: Parker, Barrett  

Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 3:25 PM

To: Rosenthal, Steven <rosenthal.steven@epa.gov>

Subject: MATS RTC that could help attached

Steve:

Attached are 3 responses to comments from the MATS Response to Comment Documents that you may find helpful in

reminding the source that monitoring and maintaining good control device operating can go a long way in meeting the

emissions limit.  

Note that our rules have a mixture of confidence levels, e.g., 97.5% for CAMR, 99.9% for CO for Boiler MACT, and 99%

for MATS.  Currently, 99% is favored.

Finally, you may want to copy Chuck French, Phil Murine’s supervisor, in your request for additional help from

RTI.  Chuck may be asking Phil about the money spent on other projects.

Barrett
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

MYRON VANCE VIVIAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1493 GEB DAD P

vs.

WARDEN CASTRO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On May 5, 2006, plaintiff requested an extension of time to May 19, 2006, to

respond to defendants’ April 19, 2006 motion to dismiss. On May 24, 2006, plaintiff submitted

an unsigned and undated document titled “Notice of Motion to Rebutt [sic].” Although a proof

of service form dated May 17, 2006, is attached to plaintiff’s notice, the form does not list the

name and address of any person served with the document.

The court deems plaintiff’s mistitled document to be opposition to defendants’

motion to dismiss. Plaintiff will be required to file a properly completed proof of service

showing the date on which he served a copy of the opposition on defendants’ counsel.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01493-GEB-DAD Document 24 Filed 05/31/06 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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s May 5, 2006 request for an extension of time to May 19, 2006, to

respond to defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted;

2. Plaintiff’s document filed May 24, 2006, is deemed to be plaintiff’s timely

opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss;

3. Plaintiff is granted ten calendar days to file a proof of service showing the date

on which he served a true and exact copy of his opposition on defendants’ counsel; and

4. Defendants’ reply to plaintiff’s opposition shall be filed and served in

accordance with Local Rule 78-230(m).

DATED: May 30, 2006.

DAD:13:bb

vivi1493.36opp

Case 2:04-cv-01493-GEB-DAD Document 24 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**

**PURSUANTTO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof EnerNOC, Inc. (the “Company”), for the quarter ended March 31, 2009,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),we, Timothy G. Healy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Neal C.Isaacson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, to suchofficer’s knowledge, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18,United States Code, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: May 8, 2009

 
| By:    | /s/ Timothy G. Healy                         |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Timothy G. Healy                             |
|   | Chief Executive Officer                      |
|   | (Principal Executive Officer)                |
|   |                                         |
| By:    | /s/ Neal C. Isaacson                         |   |
|   | Neal C. Isaacson                             |
|   | Chief Financial Officer                      |
|   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

----
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

SANDRA DEANNE SHAYNE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1492 MCE DAD P

vs.

DEBORAH JACQUES, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Good cause appearing, Respondents’ October 20, 2005 second request for an

enlargement of time is granted. Therefore, the answer to Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas

corpus shall be filed no later than November 21, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 24, 2005.

/shay1492.111sec

Case 2:04-cv-01492-MCE -DAD Document 21 Filed 10/25/05 Page 1 of 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

br55.eot(2)

[Proposed] Order Granting Defendant’s First Request for EOT

1

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

JAMES M. HUMES

Chief Assistant Attorney General

FRANCES T. GRUNDER

Senior Assistant Attorney General

JAMES E. FLYNN

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

MARIA G. CHAN, State Bar No. 192130

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 323-1940

Fax: (916) 324-5205

Attorneys for Defendant Rose

SF2004401281

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

GREGORY L. BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al. ,

Defendants.

NO. CIV S-04-0055 LKK GGH-P

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S FIRST REQUEST

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO

FILE AN OPPOSITION TO

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND TO

FILE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant’s first request for an extension of time to file an opposition to Plaintiff’s

motion for partial summary judgment and to file Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was

considered by the Court, and good cause appearing, Defendant’s request is granted.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant shall have until November 19, 2005 to file

the opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgement and to file Defendant’s

motion for summary judgment.

DATED: 11/18/05 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00055-LKK -GGH Document 48 Filed 11/18/05 Page 1 of 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMMY O’NEIL CHARITY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0444 GEB GGH P

vs.

THOMAS CARROLL, Warden, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On February 2, 2005, plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel was denied. 

On September 19, 2006, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of that order. Local Rule 72-

303(b), states “rulings by Magistrate Judges shall be final if no reconsideration thereof is sought

from the Court within ten court days . . . from the date of service of the ruling on the parties.” 

E.D. Local Rule 72-303(b). To the extent that plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the February 2,

2005, it is untimely. To the extent that plaintiff makes a second request for appointment of

counsel, it is denied for the reasons set forth in the February 2, 2005, order, that this court does

not find in this case the required exceptional circumstances to warrant a request for voluntary

assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017

(9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).

\\\\\

 

Case 2:04-cv-00444-GEB-GGH Document 33 Filed 09/22/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s September 19, 2006, request for reconsideration of the February 2,

2005, order is denied as untimely; alternatively,

2. Plaintiff’s September 19, 2006, second request for appointment of counsel is

denied.

DATED: 9/22/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

char0444.dny

Case 2:04-cv-00444-GEB-GGH Document 33 Filed 09/22/06 Page 2 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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Thomas F. Weddle,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-1369 MCE PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Trinity County Superior Court,

et al.,

Respondents.

-oOoMarch 16, 2005, the court ordered petitioner to show cause

why the petition should not be dismissed for his failure to

exhaust state judicial remedies. Petitioner did not respond.

Accordingly, the court hereby recommends the petition be

dismissed for failure to exhaust.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

Case 2:04-cv-01369-MCE -PAN Document 7 Filed 04/27/05 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

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: April 26, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01369-MCE -PAN Document 7 Filed 04/27/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.34

Summary of 2006 Executive Compensation

The
current salary of each of the Company's executive officers is as follows:

|Executive Officer                                                                                 |  | Base Salary
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------
|Brian T. Keane, President and Chief Executive Officer                                             |  | $          
|John J. Leahy, Executive Vice President of Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer |  | $          
|Robert B. Atwell, Senior Vice President                                                           |  | $          
|Russell J. Campanello, Senior Vice President                                                      |  | $          
|Georgina L. Fisk, Vice President                                                                  |  | $          
|Richard S. Garnick, President North American Services                                             |  | $          
|Raymond W. Paris, Senior Vice President                                                           |  | $          
|Laurence D. Shaw, Senior Vice President                                                           |  |            

£amount
in British Pounds.

Under
the Company's 401(K) deferred profit and sharing plan, after one-year of employment, the Company contributes $.50 for each pre-tax dollar deferred, up to
6.0% of the executive's annual salary contributed up to a maximum $6,000 per year. In addition, each executive is eligible for reimbursement of Financial Planning services up to $12,000 per year.
Lastly, each executive is eligible for awards under the Company's stock incentive plans.

Upon
the approval of the 2006 Incentive Compensation Plan for the Company's executive officers, the Company expects that it will file a summary of the 2006 Incentive Plan on a
Current Report on Form 8-K.

---



QuickLinks