alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 9948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3881]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8283-4]


Notice of Proposed Administrative Settlement Pursuant to the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 122(h) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended 
(``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed 
administrative settlement concerning the Star Lake Canal Superfund 
Site, with the Calabrian Corporation.
    The settlement requires the settling parties to pay a total of 
$20,000 as payment of response costs to the Hazardous Substances 
Superfund. The settlement includes a covenant not to sue pursuant to 
section 107 of CERCLA, 42, U.S.C. 9607.
    For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this 
notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to this 
notice and will receive written comments relating to the settlement. 
The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or 
withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose 
facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is 
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any 
comments received will be available for public inspection at 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 5, 2007.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement and additional background 
information relating to the settlement are available for public 
inspection at 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. A copy of the 
proposed settlement may be obtained from Lydia Johnson, 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or by calling (214) 665-8419. Comments 
should reference the Star Lake Canal Superfund Site, Jefferson County, 
Texas, and EPA Docket Number 06-03-07, and should be addressed to Lydia 
Johnson at the address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edwin Quinones, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or call (214) 665-8035.

    Dated: February 9, 2007.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. E7-3881 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
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

JOHN C. ROBINSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1684 DFL KJM

vs.

MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL 

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Presently calendared for hearing on April 27, 2005 is defendant’s motion to

compel production of records from subpoenaed nonparty Paul Aikin, Ph.D. It does not appear

the notice of motion was served on the subpoenaed nonparty. In addition, the subpoenaed

nonparty has not provided a statement regarding his position with respect to the issues raised in

the motion. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Hearing on defendant’s motion to compel is continued to May 11, 2005 at

10:00 a.m. in courtroom no. 26.

2. Within ten days from the date of this order, subpoenaed nonparty Paul Aikin is

directed to file with the court, and serve a copy on counsel of record, a statement regarding his

Case 2:04-cv-01684-DFL -KJM Document 17 Filed 04/25/05 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

position on the discovery dispute.

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on Paul A. Aikin,

Ph.D., 1107 Ovejas Avenue, Davis, CA 95616.

4. Within ten days from the date of this order, plaintiff is directed to file a

statement regarding his position on the discovery dispute or to file a statement of non-opposition.

DATED: April 25, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01684-DFL -KJM Document 17 Filed 04/25/05 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

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION, )

) 2:04-cv-1752-GEB-PAN (JFM)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

) ORDER

RAMON GUERRERO d/b/a EL )

GRULLENSE RESTAURANT II, and RASIL )

G, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

)

The motion in limine filed on March 13, 2006, is deemed

withdrawn since a schedule for when bona fide motions in limine shall

be filed will either be discussed at any final pretrial conference

held in this action, or will be prescribed in any issued final

pretrial order, if it is determined that a schedule should issue.

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01752-GEB-PAN Document 35 Filed 03/21/06 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

27

28

2

Therefore, the application to shorten time for hearing the motion in

limine is also deemed withdrawn. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01752-GEB-PAN Document 35 Filed 03/21/06 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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

DENISE FRANCIS,

NO. CIV. S 04-1640 MCE JFM

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

DEFENSE COMMISSARY AGENCY aka

(DeCA) AND DOES 1-30, 

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On May 5, 2005, Attorney David Ndudim, who is counsel for

Plaintiff Denise Francis in this litigation, filed a document

entitled “Withdrawal of Attorney of Record” that purported to

effectuate a substitution of attorney leaving his client to

represent herself, in propria persona, in this litigation. By

Order filed May 19, 2005, the Court denied Attorney Ndudim’s

request to withdraw, without prejudice, on grounds that it failed

to comply with the requirements of Local Rule 83-182(d). 

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01640-MCE -JFM Document 11 Filed 07/18/05 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

2

That Rule provides that an attorney may not withdraw, leaving the

client in propria persona, absent noticed motion and an affidavit

from counsel showing the efforts made to provide notification of

the attorney’s intent to withdraw.

On June 8, 2005, the Court issued a Minute Order requiring

Mr. Ndudim to submit, not later than June 22, 2005, a declaration

as to the status of the case and his efforts, if any, to

effectuate a substitution of attorneys. In apparent response to

that Order, Mr. Ndudim submitted, on June 21, 2005, a document

entitled “Withdrawal of Attorney of Record and Declaration of

David Ndudim Regarding Status of the Case”. 

To the extent that Mr. Ndudim’s filing of June 21, 2005

purports to accomplish his withdrawal as counsel of record from

this case, it remains defective for the same reasons previously

identified in this Court’s earlier Order dated May 19, 2005. 

Mr. Ndudim has not filed a noticed motion as required by Rule 83-

182(d) and has not served his client with that motion. Aside

from indicating that he sent “a certified mail to plaintiff

regarding [the] withdrawal” and “has yet to receive any

response”, Ndudim has not set forth the efforts made to notify

his client of his intent to withdraw. Moreover, and in any

event, Ndudim has not indicated the basis for his withdrawal

request under the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar

of California. 

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01640-MCE -JFM Document 11 Filed 07/18/05 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

Consequently Attorney Ndudim’s request to withdraw is again

DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 18, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01640-MCE -JFM Document 11 Filed 07/18/05 Page 3 of 3
# C_2006067EN.01003701.xml

| 18.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 67/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/37

---

Special Reports to the European Parliament made in accordance with Article 3(7) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman (1)

1

(2006/C 67/19)

The European Ombudsman addressed three special reports to the European Parliament in 2005:

| — | Special Report of 12 May 2005 following the draft recommendation to the European Anti-Fraud office in complaint 2485/2004/GG; |
| --- | --- |

—

Special Report of 12 May 2005 following the draft recommendation to the European Anti-Fraud office in complaint 2485/2004/GG;

| — | Special Report of 27 May 2005 following the draft recommendation to the European Commission in complaint 1391/2002/JMA; |
| --- | --- |

—

Special Report of 27 May 2005 following the draft recommendation to the European Commission in complaint 1391/2002/JMA;

| — | Special Report of 4 October 2005 following the draft recommendation to the Council of the European Union in complaint 2395/2003/GG. |
| --- | --- |

—

Special Report of 4 October 2005 following the draft recommendation to the Council of the European Union in complaint 2395/2003/GG.

The texts of the special reports are available on the European Ombudsman's website in all 20 official languages at: http://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int.

Paper copies can be requested free of charge from the European Ombudsman's office — 1 Avenue du Président Robert Schuman — B.P. 403 — F-67001 Strasbourg Cedex. Telephone (33) (0) 388 17 23 13 — Fax (33) (0) 388 17 90 62 — Email: euro-ombudsman@europarl.eu.int.

---

(1)  Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom of 9 March 1994 of the European Parliament on the Regulations and General Conditions Governing the Performance of the Ombudsman's Duties (OJ L 113, 4.5.1994, p. 15).

1

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4737

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus ROBERT MCDONALD PARRIS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CR-04-15) Submitted: January 25, 2006 Decided: March 1, 2006 Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randolph Marshall Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Donald David Gast, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).*Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Robert McDonald Parris appeals his conviction and ninety-four month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (2000). Counsel has filed an Anders * brief in which he states that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggests that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance at sentencing when he argued for a sentence at the bottom of the Guideline range rather than a more lenient sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). Parris was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally not cognizable on dire ct appeal. See United States v. King , 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). Rather, to allow for adequate development of the record, a defendant must bring his claim in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). See id. ; United States v. Hoyle , 33 F.3d 415, 418 (4th Cir. 1994). An exception exists when the record conclusively establishes ineffective assistance. United States v. Richardson , 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that any deficiencies in counsel’s performance are not conclusively demonstrated.- 3 - In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Parris’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Parris, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Parris requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition 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 Parris. 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
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Mark Bruk, CEO, Secretary and Treasurer of Xten Networks, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)	the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Xten Networks Inc. for the three month period ended July 31, 2004 (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 Xten Networks, Inc.

Dated: September 14, 2004

/s/ Mark Bruk					Mark Bruk
CEO, Secretary and Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT DODSON, No. CIV S-04-1068 MCE CMK 

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., 

ET AL., 

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff filed this action against defendants Dollar Tree

Stores and Jason Matacki alleging that she was discriminated

against by encountering various architectural barriers in

violation of the ADA and California law. This matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for discovery

pursuant to 72-302(c).

On June 8, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations herin which were served on all parties and which

contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days.

Case 2:04-cv-01068-MCE -CMK Document 29 Filed 07/21/05 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

Neither party has filed objections. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 8, 2005, are

adopted in full; and

2. Defendant Matecki is prohibited from introducing

evidence at trial and from testifying on his own behalf at trial.

DATED: July 21, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01068-MCE -CMK Document 29 Filed 07/21/05 Page 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 24, 2011 

h0516 

Order 

 

May 24, 2011 

141878 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141878 

 COA: 283213 

Wayne CC: 07-009813-FC 

MICHAEL DEJUAN POWELS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 17, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Before the Third Division,

April 20, 1955

No. 58981.

protest 224257-K (New York).

#### Imported Merchandise Company *v.*United States,

Ekwall, Judge:

This case involves an importation of willow baskets entered at the port of New York. Plaintiff- does not dispute the rate of duty assessed thereon-but claims that the invoice was carelessly prepared by the shipper in that *344it did not show that the price of two of the items listed was per dozen rather than per piece and that the entered values were actually indicated by the extended total values computed on the basis of unit values per dozen. The summary sheet is checked in the column headed “Appraised,” which indicates that the items were appraised as entered. That the entered values are unit values is well settled. *United States*v. *Kuttroff,*9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 239, T. D. 38204; *Downing & Co.*v. *United States,*11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 310, T. D. 39128; *United States*v. *Bush & Co.,*4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 519, T. D. 33938; *United States*v. *Woodward-Newhouse Co.,*11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 284, T. D. 39100. It is evident from the record that'the appraised values for the two items involved are $4.50 and $7 per basket. No appeal for reappraisement having been filed, such appraised unit values are final and conclusive. (Section 501, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.) In view of the provisions of section 503 (a) of said tariff act, in effect at the time of this entry, liquidation on the basis of the higher appraised values is binding.

Plaintiff relies upon section 520 (c) (1) of the tariff act, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1953 (T. D. 53318), allowing correction of certain types of errors in appraisements. Said act can have no application to the instant situation for the reason that the appraisement herein became final and conclusive on all parties before its effective date, September 7, 1953, and its provisions were not made retroactive.

On the record, we find that the plaintiff has failed to sustain its burden of proof. The protest is, therefore, overruled.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32.3   SUNCOAST NATURALS, INC.

   Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
         (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Peter A. Schniper, Chief Financial Officer of Suncoast Naturals, Inc. (the
"Registrant"), certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 of the
Registrant (the "Report"):

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a)[15(d)] of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


Dated: August 12, 2004        /s/ PETER A. SCHNIPER
                              -----------------------
                              Peter A. Schniper
                              Chief Financial Officer
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4559 

To require benefit eligibility determinations to be made within a certain 

period of time. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 17, 2024 

Mr. CRUZ introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To require benefit eligibility determinations to be made 

within a certain period of time. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Officer John Barnes 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION. 

7 Section 1205 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 

8 and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10285) is amend9 ed by adding at the end the following: 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4559 IS

1 ‘‘(f) Not later than 270 calendar days after receiving 

2 a claim filed under this subpart, the Bureau shall inform 

3 the claimant of the Bureau’s determination as to the 

4 claimant’s benefit eligibility.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
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

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

PHILLIP A. TALBERT

Assistant U.S. Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 554-2789

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 

VICENTE OCADIO,

 

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR-S-04-0389-MCE

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

ON BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR

DEFENDANT OCADIO'S MOTIONS TO

DISMISS CONSPIRACY CHARGE, FOR

DISCOVERY OF INFORMANT

INFORMATION, AND FOR RELEASE

PENDING TRIAL 

DATE: June 28, 2005

TIME: 8:30 a.m.

Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr.

Plaintiff United States of America, by its counsel Assistant

United States Attorney Phillip A. Talbert, and defendant Vicente

Ocadio, by and through his counsel David G. Currie, hereby

stipulate and agree to the following briefing schedule for the

Government's Response and the Defendant's Reply thereto to

Defendant Ocadio's Motion to Dismiss Conspiracy Charge, Motion

for Discovery of Informant Information, and Motion for Release

Pending Trial:

Case 2:04-cr-00389-MCE Document 125 Filed 06/08/05 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

1. Government Response filed by June 14, 2005; 

2. Defendant's Reply filed by June 22, 2005. 

Date: June 2, 2005 McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

By: /s/ Phillip A. Talbert 

PHILLIP A. TALBERT

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Date: June 2, 2005 By: /s/ David G. Currie by PAT 

 DAVID G. CURRIE, Attorney for 

 defendant VICENTE OCADIO

O R D E R

FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: June 7, 2005

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cr-00389-MCE Document 125 Filed 06/08/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 52601.

protest 90566-K (New York).

#### L. Oppleman, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on entry 816804. The protest was sustained to this extent.