alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge 1

for the Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-3065

___________

Thomas A. Fascetti, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Eastern District of Missouri.

International Paper Company, a *

New York corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: April 16, 1997

 Filed: May 7, 1997

___________

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Thomas A. Fascetti appeals from the order of the District Court1

granting summary judgment to International Paper Company, the defendant in

this case of, among other things, alleged employment discrimination based

on age. Having considered the briefs and record and the arguments of the

parties, we conclude that no error of law appears and that summary judgment

was correctly entered against Fascetti on all of his claims. 
-2-

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed. See 8th Cir.

R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.1
List of Project 750 Awards to Executive Officers
	
		
	Executive Officer
	Base Number

	Lance C. Balk
	17,500

	Marshall Barber
	37,500

	Mario Centola
	8,500

	John M. Duffey
	150,000

	Walter S. Hawrylak
	16,000

	Brett Petit
	16,000
1

From:

Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 12:43 PM

To: RedHill; webmail@doh.hawaii.gov

Subject: red hill fuel leak

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Flagged

Please route this correspondence to all officials involved in drafting the agreement for the plan to contain 

further contamination of groundwater.

If prudent measures aren’t implemented swiftly and aggressively, the cost in dollars, public health and the 

reputation of all agencies involved stand to suffer greatly. It will be much more costly to address in the future if 

insufficient stopgap measures are taken. 

The present plan calling for “further study, more frequent testing and yet-to-be-determined upgrades to all 20 

tanks over 20 years” falls woefully short of the appropriate response needed to protect aquifers which supply 

residents from Moanalua to Hawaii Kai. 

What is the role of the agencies and officials involved if not to work together on damage control on matters like 

these? If this is not addressed with decisive, swift and aggressive action, you will all be dealing with a much 

bigger problem in the future. You will be held accountable for many years to come for the decisions you make 

now. 

Respectfully,
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 

Keith M. Cassells,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1798 FCD PAN P

vs. Order

D. Mehta, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoOctober 7, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for production of

documents.

Interrogatories, requests for production, requests for

admission, responses and proofs of service thereof “shall not be

filed with the clerk until there is a proceeding in which the

document or proof of service is at issue. When required in a

proceeding, only that part of the request and response that is in 

issue shall be filed.” Local Rules 33-250(c), 34-250(c) & 36-

250(c).

Case 2:04-cv-01798-FCD-EFB Document 38 Filed 10/27/05 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

Accordingly, I take no action on plaintiff’s October 7,

2005, request for production of documents.

So ordered.

Dated: October 27, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01798-FCD-EFB Document 38 Filed 10/27/05 Page 2 of 2
Filed by sedaredgar.com - Bark Group Inc. - Exhibit 10.27






EXHIBIT 10.27

BARK GROUP INC.
Ostergade 17-19,
3rd Floor, DK-1100 Copenhagen K, Denmark

July 14, 2008

PACIFICWAVE PARTNERS LIMITED
50 California Street,
Suite 1500 
San Francisco, CA 94111

Dear Sirs/Mesdames:

	
      Re: 
	
      Engagement Agreement originally dated August 17, 2007,
      as amended (the “Engagement Agreement”)




We write to confirm our agreement to extend the previous June
1, 2008 termination date to September 30, 2008 by amending Paragraph 2 of the
Engagement Agreement entitled “Term of Engagement” to read as follows:


  “The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of
    36 months (the “Term”) commencing from the date that PacificWave
    receives a copy of this Agreement executed by the Company. PacificWave shall
    be the exclusive financial advisors to the Company during the Term. Thereafter,
    this Agreement shall renew automatically for successive terms of 12 months
    (each, a “Renewal Term”) unless either party shall give twenty (20)
    days’ written notice of termination to the other party before the commencement
    of any Renewal Term. Any termination of this Agreement pursuant to this paragraph
    2 shall be without liability of any character (including, but not limited
    to, loss of anticipated profits or consequential damages) on the part of any
    party thereto, except that the Company shall remain obligated to pay all fees
    and expenses provided to be paid by it specified in paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and
    6 of this Agreement. The Agreement can be terminated with 6 month notice
    by the company during the full term of engagement. If the financial targets
    mentioned in first paragraph (top of page 1) in this Agreement have not been
    achieved by PacificWave before September 30, 2008, the contract is to be considered
    null and void from that date. In such event the company will only pay approved
    invoices to date..”



The Engagement Agreement will continue in full force and effect
without amendment except as provided for herein.

If these amendments to the Engagement Agreement are acceptable
to you, we ask that you execute a copy of this letter where indicated below and
return it to us as early as possible.

Yours truly,

BARK GROUP INC.

	Per: 	/s/ Bent Helvang
	  	Bent Helvang, Chairman



Accepted and agreed as of this 16th day of July, 2008.

PACIFICWAVE PARTNERS LIMITED

	Per: 	/s/ Henrik Rouf
	  	Authorized Signatory
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Curative Health  Services,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ended  June 30,  2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Thomas
Axmacher, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to my knowledge:

      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 Company.

                                        /s/ Thomas Axmacher
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Thomas Axmacher
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            August 9, 2005
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----

On August 25, 2005 the Court issued an Order to Show Cause

as to Plaintiff’s failure to submit a joint status report. On

September 9, 2005 plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Theodore A. Pinnock,

filed a response to the order to show cause and the Court

subsequently issued an Order on September 13, 2005 discharging

the Order and setting a new status conference. The court also

required that a new Status Report be filed or in the alternative

other appropriate documents by November 8, 2005. 

Case 2:04-cv-01847-FCD-DAD Document 11 Filed 11/15/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

A review of the court’s docket shows that plaintiff’s

counsel has not complied with the order of September 13, 2005. 

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

September 13, 2005 order very serious, especially in light of the

previous order to show cause. 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 $300.00 and as to why plaintiff's

case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute for failing

to comply with the court’s September 13, 2005 order. 

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

Show Cause on or before November 23, 2005.

3. A hearing on the order to show cause is set for

December 2, 2005 at 10:00 A.M.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 15, 2005.

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01847-FCD-DAD Document 11 Filed 11/15/05 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of 1 Minneso ta, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Arthur J . Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-2461

___________ Jerry Boitnott, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Craig E. Cascarano; Fred Grittner, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: November 4, 1998 Filed: December 4, 1998

___________ Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Min nesotainmate Jerry Boitnott appeals the district court’s order dismissin g 1 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A his civil rights action. Ha ving carefully reviewed the record, weaffirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons set forth in its order. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
(Reap. Dec. 9480)

#### Railway Express Agency, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 152; 1118.

(Decided July 14, 1959)

*Wallace é Schwarts) {Joseph Schwarts! of*counsel) for tlie plaintiff.

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

Foed, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed above covering certain glassware imported from Sweden were consolidated for the purpose of trial.

When these cases were called for trial, it was stipulated by and between counsel for the respective parties that the export value of the merchandise covered by reappraisement 297000-A, entry number 152, within the meaning of section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, was the invoiced unit prices, less 34 per centum discount, plus labels and packing, as invoiced. It was further stipulated that there was no higher foreign value.

With respect to reappraisement 297614-A, entry number 1118, it was stipulated by counsel that, at the time of exportation, the export value was the invoiced unit values, plus labels and packing, as invoiced, 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 the merchandise here involved; and that such value in reappraisement 297000-A, entry number 152, is the invoiced unit prices, less 34 per centum discount, plus labels and packing, as invoiced, and such value in reappraisement 297614 — A, entry number 1118, is the invoiced unit values, plus labels and packing, as invoiced.
From: ASRAC

Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 4:40:07 PM (UTC -05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)

To: 'kamrane@ahrinet.org'; 'tballo @earthjustice.org'; 'jbauman@nra c.com'; 'brice.bowley@ge.com';

'mdane@traulsen.com'; 'pdoppel@hvac.mea.com'; 'ghalleysji@aol.com';

'pantelis.hatzikazakis@lennoxind.com'; 'chon@truemf g.com'; 'jill.hootman@trane.com'; 'mbh9@pge.com';

'michael.kojack@ul.com'; 'john.m.mandyck@utc.com'; 'karen.meyers@rheem.com';

'pmolvie@cleaverbrooks.com'; 'kent.peters on@p2seng.com'; 'nrolph@lochinvar.com';

'hsachs@aceee.org'; 'ron.shebik@ hussman.com'; 'judd.smith@csagro up.org'; 'lstarr@neea.org';

'phillip.stephens@htproducts.com'; 'russell.tharp@go odmanmfg.com'; 'etruskoski@gmail.com'; Barhydt,

Laura

Cc: Cymbalsky, John; 'neileisner@gmail.com'; ASRAC

Subject: Commercial HVAC Working Group

Good Afternoon,

Please find a copy of the agenda for the first meeting of the Commercial HVAC and WH Certification

Working Group. The meeting will be run by a third

‐ party facilitator, who will be introduced at the

meeting and he will go over the negotiated rulemaking process with the working group. In addition, the

agenda includes a discussion of the ground rules for which the working group will follow. To prepare for

the discussion on ground rules, DOE is distributing a copy of the ground rules that were used in the

distribution transformer standards negotiations. Lastly, the commercial HVAC and WH Certification

Group will be working with the facilitator to set

‐ up a schedule for future meetings and discussions.

Please make sure you bring an up

‐ to

‐ date calendar with you to the meeting that covers the next 4 or 5

months.

While the Department strongly encourages all working group members to attend in person if possible,

DOE understands there are situations where travel may not be possible on such short notice.

Consequently, the webinar information for the meeting can be found at:

https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/574434864

.

We look forward to seeing you next week and the beginnings of a productive process.

Thanks,

John
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

DEWAYNE N. LOGAN, No. CIV S-04-0683-LKK-CMK

Petitioner, 

vs.

O R D E R

RODERICK HICKMAN, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

mandamus directed at state prison officials. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21). 

On September 15, 2004, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within 20 days. Plaintiff has not filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. 

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-00683-LKK -CMK Document 5 Filed 09/27/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 15, 2004, are adopted

in full;

2. This action is dismissed; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file.

DATED: September 27, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

Case 2:04-cv-00683-LKK -CMK Document 5 Filed 09/27/05 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

Page 1

EM ILY R OB INSO N, e t al. v. SA CR AM EN TO CO UN TY , et al. USDC, Eastern District, Case No. CIV.S-04-1617 FCD DAD

ORDER

LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN

Mark E. Merin, SBN 043849

Jeffrey I. Schwarzschild, SBN 192086 

2001 P Street, Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: 916/443-6911

Facsimile: 916/447-8336

E-Mail: mark@markmerin.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

PORTER, SCOTT, WEIBERG & DELEHANT

Terence J. Cassidy, SBN 099180

350 University Avenue, Suite 200

Sacramento, CA 95825

Telephone: 916/929-1481

Facsimile: 916/927-3706

E-Mail: tcassidy@pswdlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants

—o0o—

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

—o0o—

EMILY ROBINSON, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., 

Defendants.

CASE NO: CIV.S-04-1617 FCD/PAN

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall file their Joint Stipulated Motion for

Preliminary Approval of Provisional Settlement Class and Settlement of Class Action and

Stipulation of Settlement on or before July 10, 2006.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing has been set in this matter for

August 18, 2006 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 2 of the above-entitled Court located at 501 I Street,

Sacramento, California. 

DATED: June 26, 2006 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

HON. FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

JUDGE, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:04-cv-01617-FCD-EFB Document 57 Filed 06/27/06 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TUTUILA F. TUVALU,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1724 DFL KJM P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On December 29, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Case 2:04-cv-01724-JAM -KJM Document 46 Filed 03/17/06 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. The findings and recommendations filed December 29, 2005, are adopted in

full; and 

2. Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (docket nos. 20, 23, 25 and 29) are

denied.

DATED: 3/16/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01724-JAM -KJM Document 46 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 2
ACCEPTED 12-17-00249-CR TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 5/11/2018 3:19 PM Pam Estes CLERK
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-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Zach Sivan, Chief
Executive Officer, 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.





/s/ Zach SivanZach
      Sivan, Chief Executive
Officer





Dated:
August 13, 2010
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

BRONCHE JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV-S-04-1783 FCD KJM P 

vs.

THE CDC, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER FOR PAYMENT

 / OF INMATE FILING FEE

To: The Director of the California Department of Corrections, 1515 S Street, Sacramento,

California 95814:

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is obligated to

pay the statutory filing fee in effect at the time of filing of his action, $150.00. Plaintiff has been

assessed an initial partial filing fee of $10.50 for this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 

Upon payment of that initial partial filing fee, plaintiff will be obligated to make monthly

payments in the amount of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s

trust account. The California Department of Corrections is required to send to the Clerk of the

Court the initial partial filing fee and thereafter payments from plaintiff’s prison trust account

each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00, until the statutory filing fee of $150.00 is

paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

Case 2:04-cv-01783-FCD-KJM Document 6 Filed 05/12/05 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

Good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Director of the California Department of Corrections or a designee shall

collect from plaintiff’s prison trust account an initial partial filing fee in the amount of $10.50

and shall forward the amount to the Clerk of the Court. Said payment shall be clearly identified

by the name and number assigned to this action.

2. Thereafter, the Director of the California Department of Corrections or a

designee shall collect from plaintiff's prison trust account the $139.50 balance of the filing fee by

collecting monthly payments from plaintiff's prison trust account in an amount equal to twenty

percent (20%) of the preceding month's income credited to the prisoner's trust account and

forwarding payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds

$10.00 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The payments shall be clearly identified by

the name and number assigned to this action. 

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

plaintiff's signed in forma pauperis affidavit on Director, California Department of Corrections,

1515 S Street, Sacramento, California 95814.

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Financial

Department of the court.

DATED: May 11, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

john1783.cdc

Case 2:04-cv-01783-FCD-KJM Document 6 Filed 05/12/05 Page 2 of 2