alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY MARSHALL,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-04-1932 LKK GGH PS

vs.

HOME DEPOT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

__________________________________/

On September 16, 2004, the magistrate judge dismissed plaintiff’s complaint,

noting that the court had no jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims, but granting plaintiff leave to

amend due to his pro se status. After numerous extensions of time to amend and failure on

plaintiff’s part to do so, on April 22, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and

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

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff filed

late objections on July 29, 2005, and August 12, 2005, and they were considered by the

undersigned. Plaintiff explains in his objections that he has been unable to respond to both the

magistrate judge’s order and the findings and recommendations because he has been on constant,

but involuntary, move.

////

Case 2:04-cv-01932-LKK -GGH Document 28 Filed 09/01/05 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

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to

which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920

(1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made,

the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v.

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983).

This appears to be a case where, although the magistrate judge could have no way

of knowing it, the facts do not support a willful or negligent failure to prosecute, but default due

to circumstances over which plaintiff had no control. Accordingly, the court DECLINES to

adopt the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations and REMANDS the case to the

magistrate judge to give plaintiff one last chance to comply with the court’s orders.

DATED: August 31, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K .Karlton 

Lawrence K. Karlton

Senior Judge

United States District Court 

Case 2:04-cv-01932-LKK -GGH Document 28 Filed 09/01/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit No. 21

                          JOURNAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant

The following list shows our significant subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002,
their respective states of incorporation and the percentage of voting securities
of each subsidiary owned by its immediate parent. All companies listed have been
included in the consolidated financial statements filed herewith.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                         Percent of Voting
                                                        State                            Securities Owned
Subsidiary                                         of Incorporation                        by Registrant
----------                                         ----------------                        -------------
<S>                                                <C>                                  <C>
Journal Sentinel Inc.                              Wisconsin                            100% by Registrant
Journal Broadcast Corporation*
   (d/b/a Journal Broadcast Group)                 Nevada                               100% by Registrant
NorthStar Print Group, Inc.                        Wisconsin                            100% by Registrant
Add, Inc.                                          Wisconsin                            100% by Registrant
Norlight Telecommunications, Inc.                  Wisconsin                            100% by Registrant
IPC Communication Services, Inc.                   Michigan                             100% by Registrant

------------------------------------------
</TABLE>


*Journal Broadcast Corporation has 3 subsidiaries operating in the United
States.

We have no controlling parent. 25,920,000 shares, or 90%, of our issued common
stock, are owned of record by the stock trust. However, the stock trust must
generally deliver a proxy to active employee unitholders to vote shares on most
matters. Accordingly, we are not controlled by the stock trust and do not
consider it to be our "parent" within the meaning of Rule 12b-2 under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. See Item 12 "Security Ownership of
Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters."


                                       73
No. 50452.

#### Protest 87056-K of Foster Canning Co., Inc. (Boston).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of dog food similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Corporacion Argentina de Productores de Carnes*v. *United States*(32 C. C. P A. 175, C. A. D. 304), which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the protest was sustained as claimed.
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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2391 WBS KJM PS

vs.

EUGENE KOZIOL,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21). 

On April 15, 2005, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Although defendant filed a

request to dismiss the case and a letter regarding a status conference, he has not filed any

substantive opposition to the motion for summary judgment. 

Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 78-230(c) provides that opposition to the

granting of a motion must be filed fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. The Rule

further provides that “[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral

arguments if written opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party.” In

addition, Local Rule 78-230(j) provides that failure to appear may be deemed withdrawal of

opposition to the motion or may result in sanctions. Finally, Local Rule 11-110 provides that

failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions

Case 2:04-cv-02391-WBS-CKD Document 29 Filed 05/11/05 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

authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.”

It appears that the request to dismiss case and the letter filed April 22, 2005 were

not served on plaintiff. Defendant is advised that every document submitted to the court for

consideration must be served on plaintiff. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. Documents not to be served

electronically are usually served by placing a copy in the U.S. mail. If an attorney has filed a

document with the court on behalf of plaintiff, then documents submitted by defendant must be

served on that attorney and not on the plaintiff. Every document submitted in hard copy format

to the court (e.g., by a defendant proceeding pro se) must include a certificate stating the date an

accurate copy of the document was mailed to plaintiff or its attorney and the address to which it

was mailed. See Local Rule 5-135(b) and (c).

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The hearing date of May 18, 2005 is vacated. Hearing on plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment is continued to June 1 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom no. 26.

2. Defendant shall file opposition, if any, to the motion for summary judgment,

no later than May 18, 2005. Failure to file opposition and appear at the hearing will be deemed

as a statement of non-opposition and shall result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

DATED: May 10, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02391-WBS-CKD Document 29 Filed 05/11/05 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

NICOLAS TRUJILLO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2368 MCE GGH P

vs.

D. LORUSSO,

Defendant. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment filed

November 22, 2005.

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to defendant’s motion. In the order directing

service filed December 10, 2004, the court stated that “[i]f plaintiff does not serve and file a

written opposition to the motion or a request to postpone consideration of defendants’ motion,

the court may consider the failure to act as a waiver of opposition to defendant’s motion.” See

Local Rule 78-230 (m). Defendants’ notice of motion also directed plaintiff to Local Rule 78-

230 for information regarding summary judgment.

A district court may not grant a motion for summary judgment simply because the

nonmoving party does not file opposing material, even if the failure to oppose violates a local

Case 2:04-cv-02368-MCE -GGH Document 37 Filed 02/13/06 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

rule. Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2003); Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652

(9th Cir. March 9, 1994), citing Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993). 

However, when the local rule does not require, but merely permits the court to grant a motion for

summary judgment, the district court has discretion to determine whether noncompliance should

be deemed consent to the motion. Id.

In the instant case, plaintiff has been warned that his failure to oppose a motion

for summary judgment may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. Based on

plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition, the court concludes that plaintiff has consented to

defendant’s motion for summary judgment. In the alternative, the court finds that defendant’s

motion has merit.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant’s November 22,

2005, motion for summary judgment be granted.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

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

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 2/13/06 

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:035

truj2368.46

Case 2:04-cv-02368-MCE -GGH Document 37 Filed 02/13/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4661 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4661

   To amend title 31, United States Code, to include information on 
   improper payments under Federal programs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 10, 2024

 Mr. Braun (for himself, Ms. Rosen, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Marshall, Mr. 
  Ricketts, and Mr. Scott of Florida) introduced the following bill; 
    which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 31, United States Code, to include information on 
   improper payments under Federal 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 ``Improper Payments Transparency 
Act''.

SEC. 2. INCLUDING IMPROPER PAYMENT INFORMATION IN PRESIDENTS BUDGET 
              SUBMISSION.

    Section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(40) information with respect to improper payment (as 
        such term is defined in section 3351) amounts and rates for 
        programs and activities at each executive agency required to 
        submit improper payment reports under subchapter IV of chapter 
        33, including--
                    ``(A) a narrative description, including a detailed 
                explanation with respect to why any improper payment 
                amounts and rates occurred and trends of--
                            ``(i) each program and activity with 
                        improper payment amounts and rates that have 
                        increased or decreased on average over the 
                        previous 3 years; and
                            ``(ii) each program and activity whose 
                        improper payment amounts and rates did not 
                        change over such years; and
                    ``(B) any corrective actions, including any such 
                action in any corrective action plan under section 
                3352(d), with respect to such programs and activities 
                that are incomplete, and steps the executive agency 
                will take to address issues relating to improper 
                payment amounts and rates.''.
                                 <all>
```
---

---

Exhibit 14.(a).1

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (No. 333-14222) of
Partner Communications Company Ltd. , of our report dated March 7, 2006, relating to the
financial statements, which appears in this Form 20-F.

|Tel-Aviv, IsraelDate: May 16, 2006 | /s/ Kesselman & Kesselman
Kesselman & KesselmanCertified Public Accountants (Isr.)
|---------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
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

LARRY JOHN FARRIS, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1758 GEB KJM P

vs.

SCOTT M. KERNAN, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

On September 20, 2005, the district court ordered the habeas petition in this case

dismissed and gave petitioner leave to file an amended petition containing only exhausted claims.

On September 22, 2005, petitioner filed his first amended petition.

Respondent is directed to file his answer within thirty days of the date of this order. 

Unless either party desires to submit additional briefing or exhibits, the court will rely on the

materials submitted in support of the original petition and answer.

Should respondent file additional briefing and/or exhibits with his answer,

petitioner may file a reply within thirty days of the date the additional briefing is filed. 

DATED: October 3, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2/farr1758.100amd

Case 2:04-cv-01758-GEB -KJM Document 26 Filed 10/04/05 Page 1 of 1
Case Ko. 5,313.

#### The GENERAL GREENE.

[Blatchf. Pr. Cas. 654.] 1

Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

July 17, 1863.2

Pbize — Enemy and Neutral Property.

Decree of the district court [Case No. 5,-312a] condemning the vessel as enemy property, and restoring the cargo as belonging to neutral owners, affirmed.

2

 [Affirming Case No. 5,312a.]

NELSON, Circuit Justice.

This vessel was captured, by the Quaker City, off Cape Henry, June 4, 18G1. The vessel belonged to H. Op-penheim, a citizen of South Carolina and a resident of Charleston. The cargo belonged to neutral owners. The vessel was condemned and the cargo restored. The decree below is affirmed.
Case No. 9,778.

#### MOORE v. VOSS.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 179.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

July Term, 1804.

Payment — Discharge in Bankruptcy — Evidence —How Proved.

1. Bankruptcy of the plaintiff cannot be proved by parol.

2. If the original entries are lost, a copy may be given in evidence.

*708Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered.

Mr. Hewitt, for defendant [Nicholas Voss] offered parol evidence to prove the bankruptcy of the plaintiff [Thomas Moore] and assignment of his effects) to show that the plaintiff could not maintain the action. Refused.

1

 [Reported by 'Hon. William Crunch, Chief Judge.]

At the prayer of the defendant’s counsel,

THE COURT

(KILTT, Chief Judge, absent) gave the following direction to the jury: That if they should be of opinion, from the evidence, that the book produced is the original entry of the sale and delivery, or if they should be of opinion, from the evidence, that a former entry had been made, but that the same is now lost or destroyed, and that this book was truly copied from the original entry by the witness, then this book is evidence; but if they should be of opinion that prior entries exist which are not produced, then this book is not evidence. Peake, Ev. 136; Church v. Perkins, 3 Term R. 749.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on January 31, 2007, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 

The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the ACRS, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

                    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:                          ( print page 1779)    

### Wednesday, January 31, 2007, 10 a.m.-11:30 a.m. 

The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. 

Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Sam Duraiswamy (telephone: 301-415-7364) between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. (ET) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. 

Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda. 

Dated: January 9, 2007. 

Michael R. Snodderly, 

Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW. 

 [FR Doc. E7-404 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
PROMISSORY NOTE – Salary + Bonus + Vacation
Pay Q1+Q2 2016


 


$98,480.00Date: June 30,
2016


FOR
VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Skinvisible, Inc., of 6320 South Sandhill Road, Suite 10, Las Vegas, NV 89120 promises to pay
to the order of Terry Howlett (“Lender”), whose address is,
or such other place as the  Lender


may
designate in writing to the undersigned, the principal sum of Ninety Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Dollars ($98,480.00),
together with interest thereon from date hereof until paid, at the rate of ten percent
(10%) per annum as follows: The entire principal and interest amount shall be repaid on or before June 30, 2021.


All or any part of the aforesaid
principal sum plus interest may be prepaid at any time and from time to time without penalty. This note is in regards to gross
salary and bonus from January 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016.


Upon written request by Lender,
the principal of this loan and accrued interest may be converted to common shares of Skinvisible, Inc. at the price of Two Cents
($0.02) per share at any time up until June 30, 2021. In addition, the Company will issue a warrant agreement in the
name of your designate, which will give the holder the right to purchase further shares at Two Cents ($0.02) per share if
exercised within 3 years following the conversion date. The warrant agreement will give the holder the right to purchase
one share for every two shares acquired by the holder in this transaction for an aggregate total of Two Million Four Hundred
and Sixty Two Thousand (2,462,000) additional shares at the above price.


 


This note is made and executed under, and is in all
respects governed by, the laws of the State of Nevada.





 


Skinvisible, Inc.