alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1. Upon review of Relator's petition, it appears that the petition may be

subject to the one-year limitation period found at 28 U.S.C. Section

2244(d)(1). As a result, Respondents are directed to address the

applicability of the one-year limitations period and any equitable

considerations thereto. We note, however, that compliance with this Order in

no way excludes or restricts Respondents from filing a full and complete

Answer applying all relevant legal theories and defenses. If, indeed, an

Answer on the merits of Relator's claims is deemed necessary, please note in ¶

2 that the court requires an Answer to be specific and detailed as to

Relator's claims.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CIVIL ACTION

:

 v. :

:

NATHAN J. CHAPMAN, JR. : NO. 2:02-cv-04472-RLB

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of , 2002, upon

consideration of Relator's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, IT IS ORDERED

that:

1. The Clerk of Court shall amend the caption in this case to read:

NATHAN J. CHAPMAN, JR., v. PHILIP JOHNSON, ET AL. The District Attorney of 

Philadelphia is added as a party respondent and the caption is hereby so

amended.

2. The District Attorney shall file specific and detailed Answers

within thirty (30) days of the date of this order (NO LATER THAN 9/22/02)

pursuant to Rule 5, 28 U.S.C. fol. § 2254.1

 BY THE COURT:

 

 PETER B. SCUDERI

 U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-04472-RB Document 6 Filed 08/23/2002 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

ROSENDO RAMIREZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1651 LKK KJM PS

vs.

SANDRA TRUJILLO-GRAHAM,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On April 8, 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 not filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

Although it appears from the file that plaintiff's copy of the findings and

recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to

keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 83-182(d),

service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01651-LKK -KJM Document 8 Filed 05/27/05 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

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. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 8, 2005, are adopted in full; and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(b).

DATED: May 27, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

rami1651.802

Case 2:04-cv-01651-LKK -KJM Document 8 Filed 05/27/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 53556.

protests 56267-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Guy B. Barham Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

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

Cole, J., dissented on jurisdictional grounds, citing *Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 158, C. D. 1175), *Fuchs Shoe Corp.*v. *United States*(id. 338, Abstract 53250), and *W. R. Zanes & Co.*v. *United States*(id. 339, Abstract 53251).
No. 47361.

#### Protest 21534—K of F. Pavel & Co.

C. D. 633. Motion of Government for rehearing denied.
RBLCID FACILITY NAME CORPORATE OR COMPANY NAME PERMIT ISSUANCE DATE PROCESS NAME PRIMARY FUELTHROUGHPUTTHROUGHPUT UNIT CONTROL METHOD DESCRIPTION EMISSION LIMIT 1 EMISSION LIMIT 1 UNIT NV-0047 NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE 99 CIVIL ENGINEER SQUADRON OF02/26/2008  ACT PAINT BOOTHS - SURFACE COATING N/A FILTER CARTRIDGE (99%) AND HIGH- 1.28 LB/MO RBLC search for Painting - PMRBLCID FACILITY NAME CORPORATE OR COMPANY NAME PERMIT ISSUANCE DATE PROCESS NAME PRIMARY FUELTHROUGHPUTTHROUGHPUT UNIT CONTROL METHOD DESCRIPTION EMISSION LIMIT 1 EMISSION LIMIT 1 UNIT NV-0047 NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE 99 CIVIL ENGINEER SQUADRON OF02/26/2008  ACT PAINT BOOTHS - SURFACE COATING N/A CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEM AND HIGH- 91.71 LB/MO NV-0049 HARRAH'S OPERATING COMPANY, INC. HARRAH'S OPERATING COMPANY,08/20/2009  ACT PAINT SPRAY BOOTH - UNIT HA23 N/A 500 GAL/YR MINIMIZING VOC EMISSIONS THROUGH 362.5 LB/MO NV-0049 HARRAH'S OPERATING COMPANY, INC. HARRAH'S OPERATING COMPANY,08/20/2009  ACT PAINT SPRAY BOOTH - UNIT FL23 N/A 600 GAL/YR BACT CONSISTS OF THE FOUR 435 LB/MO NV-0049 HARRAH'S OPERATING COMPANY, INC. HARRAH'S OPERATING COMPANY,08/20/2009  ACT PAINT SPRAY BOOTH - UNIT BA13 N/A 600 GAL/YR BACT CONSISTS OF THE FOUR 435 LB/MO NV-0050 MGM MIRAGE MGM MIRAGE 11/30/2009  ACT PAINT SPRAY BOOTH - UNIT MG39 AT N/A 200 GAL/MO LIMITING THE AVERAGE VOC CONTENT TO 1368 LB/MONTH RBLC search for Painting - VOC
Exhibit 32.2


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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of m-Wise, Inc. ("the Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Gabriel Kabazo, Chief
Financial 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.


Gabriel Kabazo
---------------------------------------
Gabriel Kabazo, Chief Financial Officer


Dated: November 14, 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD M. BIRD,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1938 DFL JFM PS

vs.

MAGISTRATE GREGORY

G. HOLLOWS, 

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On April 22, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. No objections

to the findings and recommendations have been filed.

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. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that: 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01938-DFL -JFM Document 25 Filed 06/10/05 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

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 22, 2005, are adopted in full;

2. Defendant’s February 11, 2005 motion to dismiss is granted;

3. This action is dismissed; and

4. Defendant’s February 28, 2005 motion to declare plaintiff to be a vexatious

litigant is denied.

DATED: 6/9/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

/bird1938.801

Case 2:04-cv-01938-DFL -JFM Document 25 Filed 06/10/05 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BART GARBER,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-0840-GEB-CMK-P

vs.

R. DICKENSON,

Defendant. 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 August 30, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings

and recommendations herein 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 ten days. 

Case 2:04-cv-00840-GEB-CMK Document 36 Filed 09/28/05 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

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 30,

2005, are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without

prejudice for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies

under the PLRA prior to filing suit.

Dated: September 27, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00840-GEB-CMK Document 36 Filed 09/28/05 Page 2 of 2
#### Alvin R. NASH, Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-7052.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: June 7, 2001.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, SCHALL, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

*918ON MOTION

GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) and to dismiss Alvin R. Nash’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Nash has not responded.

The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims dismissed as untimely Nash’s September 15, 2000 appeal of the February 14, 2000 decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. Nash appealed to this court.

Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292, not every decision entered by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is appealable. Section 7292(a) provides that a party may only seek review of a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims with respect to the validity or interpretation of any statute or regulation relied on by the court in making its decision. Further, except to the extent that an appeal presents a constitutional issue, this court may not review “(A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). If an appellant’s case does not meet these criteria, 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d) requires this court to dismiss the appeal. *See In re Bailey,*182 F.3d 860 (Fed.Cir.1999).

In his informal brief, Nash discusses the merits of his underlying ease but does not address the timeliness of his notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Because Nash .does not challenge any part of the decision of the Veterans Court, Nash’s appeal must be dismissed. *See Livingston v. Derwinski,*959 F.2d 224, 225-26 (Fed.Cir.1992); 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d); *Albun v. Brown,*9 F.3d 1528 (Fed.Cir.1993).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The Secretary’s motion to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) is granted.

(2) The Secretary’s motion to dismiss is granted.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE02988

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
# C_2006303EN.01002101.xml

| 13.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/21

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 401st meeting on 19 December 2005 concerning a draft decision in Case COMP/C.38.443 Rubber Chemicals

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/C 303/16)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the reduction of the basic amounts due to attenuating circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the reduction of the basic amounts due to attenuating circumstances.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the amounts of reduction of the fines based on the Commission notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the amounts of reduction of the fines based on the Commission notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

---
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHIN G TON , D . C . 2 0460

Ms. Alexandra Dapolito Dunn Executive Director The Environmental Council of the States 50 F Street NW Suit e 350 Washington , DC 20001



# Dear~ **~~** JUN t · 3

**20~** OFF I CE OF WATER

Thank you for your letter sent by e-mai l on April 30, 2014 , concerning assumable waters und er Clean Water Act Section 404(g). Your letter sta tes that one of the challenges states and tribes encounter when pursuing assumption of the CWA's dredge and fill permit program is identifying the waters of the United S tates over which the state or tribe would administer the Section 404 program. You also requ es t that the E nvironmenta l Protection Agency pro vide clarity on the waters for which a state or tribe may assume CWA Section 404 permitting responsibility and the waters for which the US Army Corps of Engineer s retains permittin g respon si b ili ty. Additionally, you request the EPA actively engage your organizations in di scuss ions to clarify this issue. T he EPA f ull y supports states and tribes that want to man age and regu late aquatic resources under theirjurisdiction, such as assuming primary responsibility for issuing dredge and fill permits und e r section 404 of the CW A. Managing aquatic resources i s a partn ers hip between the EPA and the states and the tr ibes, and CWA Section 404(g ) i s just one of the CWA's partnership opportunities. I have asked my staff to ident ify a path forward that enables us to engage your organizations , as well as other appropriate state , federal and tribal partners and technical experts in a process th at seeks to provide clarity on assumabl e waters under CWA Section 404(g). The EPA is committed to prov iding cla r ity and removing s tate and t ri bal identified barrier s to assumption wherever possible. We look forward to discu ss in g this issue with you and your memb ers.

Internet Address (URL) • http .//www epa gov Recycled/Recyclable • Pnnted W i th Vegetable 011 Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer. Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperPlease feel free to contact me if you have any questions on this important i ss u e, o r your staff may contact Mr. John Goodin, Act ing Director of the EPA ' s Wetlands Di vision a t Goodin.Joh n @ epa.gov o r (202) 566-13 73. cc : Ms . J ean n e C hristie Exec utiv e Dir ector
Sincerely , Nancy K. Sto er Act in g Assistant Adm ini stra t or Associatio n of Sta te Wetlands Mana gers Ms. Julia Anastas i o Execut i ve Director an d General Coun sel Association of C l ean Water Administrators Mr. Sean Rolland Deputy D ir ector

Assoc i ation of Clean Water Adm ini stra t or
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4578 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4578

To amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to require reports to Congress 
  on State Long-Term Care Ombudsman Programs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 18, 2024

 Mr. Braun (for himself and Mr. Casey) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Older Americans Act of 1965 to require reports to Congress 
  on State Long-Term Care Ombudsman Programs, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Long-Term Care Transparency Act''.

SEC. 2. REPORTING ON STATE LONG-TERM CARE OMBUDSMAN PROGRAMS.

    Chapter 2 of subtitle A of title VII of the Older Americans Act of 
1965 (42 U.S.C. 3058f et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:

``SEC. 714. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

    ``Each year, the Assistant Secretary shall submit, to the Committee 
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and the Special Committee on 
Aging of the Senate and the Committee on Education and the Workforce of 
the House of Representatives, a report that--
            ``(1) aggregates all reports submitted under section 712(h) 
        for such year; and
            ``(2) provides a summary of the findings of such 
        reports.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

             Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings
             -----------------------------------------------------

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    SHARES
                                                                    ------
<S>                                             <C>            <C>
Basic Shares outstanding at June 30, 2001                             1,959,413
                                                                      ---------

     Net profit after tax           $2,303,499 = $ 1.18 per share
     --------------------           ----------
     Basic Shares outstanding        1,959,413

Diluted Shares outstanding at June 30, 2001                           2,043,417
                                                                      ---------

     Net profit after tax           $2,303,499 = $ 1.13 per share
     --------------------           ----------
     Diluted Shares outstanding      2,043,417
</TABLE>
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

Patrick Ronald Holley,

Plaintiff, Civ. No. S 04-1425 GEB PAN P

vs. Order on Request for Counsel

California Department of 

Corrections, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in a civil rights action. Plaintiff moved August 3,

2005, for appointment of counsel.

In proceedings that do not threaten a litigant with loss of

physical liberty, there presumptively is no right to appointed

counsel. Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18,

26-27 (1981). Section 1915(e)(1) of Title 28 confers discretion

upon the court to request counsel represent an indigent civil

Case 2:04-cv-01425-GEB-EFB Document 69 Filed 10/25/05 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

2

litigant. Mallard v. District Court, 490 U.S. 296 (1989).

In deciding whether to appoint counsel the court exercises

discretion governed by a number of factors, including the

likelihood of success on the merits and the applicant’s ability

to present his claims in light of their complexity. Weygandt v.

Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); see also, LaMere v.

Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987). Ordinarily the

presumption of regularity in the state’s procedures for confining

prisoners suggests a lack of likely success and counsels against

appointment of counsel. See Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 887

(7th Cir. 1981). As a general rule, the court will not appoint

counsel unless the applicant shows his claim has merit in fact

and law. Id. Even if the applicant overcomes this hurdle, the

court will not appoint counsel if the law is settled and the

material facts are within the plaintiff’s possession and do not

require investigation outside the prison walls. Id. at 887-88. 

Here, plaintiff alleges his constitutional rights were

violated when Herrera deprived him of access to medical care in

retaliation for plaintiff’s prior first amendment activity. The

law governing these issues is settled and investigation outside

the prison walls is unnecessary to discover material facts. 

There is, on the record before the court, no reason to believe 

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01425-GEB-EFB Document 69 Filed 10/25/05 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

3

appointment of counsel would be of significant benefit. The

August 3, 2005, request for counsel therefore is denied.

So ordered.

Dated: October 25, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01425-GEB-EFB Document 69 Filed 10/25/05 Page 3 of 3