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

ROBERT PAUL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1589 DFL GGH P

vs.

T. GUZMAN, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed June 24, 2005, the magistrate judge’s order of April 11, 2005 was

confirmed by the district judge, and plaintiff was directed to file a second amended complaint

within thirty days. The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed a second

amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

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, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

Case 2:04-cv-01589-DFL-GGH Document 25 Filed 11/16/05 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

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 11/16/05 

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:035

paul1589.fta

Case 2:04-cv-01589-DFL-GGH Document 25 Filed 11/16/05 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 45 (Thursday, March 8, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10358-10359]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4109]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD09-07-002]
RIN 1625-AA00


Safety Zones; Annual Fireworks Events in the Captain of the Port 
Milwaukee Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the Manitowoc St. Patrick's Day 
Fireworks safety zone on the Manitowoc River on March 17, 2007 from 
5:30 p.m. through 7 p.m. This action is necessary to protect the public 
from the hazards associated with fireworks displays. During the 
enforcement period no person or vessel may enter the safety zone 
without the permission of the Captain of the Port or his designated 
representative.

DATES: Effective from 5:30 p.m. (local) through 7 p.m. (local) on March 
17, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CWO Brad Hinken, Prevention 
Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, 2420 South Lincoln 
Memorial Drive, Milwaukee, WI at (414) 747-7154.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are publishing this document to provide 
notice that under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.909(a)(11), the St. 
Patrick's Day Fireworks safety zone on the Manitowoc River will be 
enforced on March 17, 2007 from 5:30 p.m. through 7 p.m. The safety 
zone consists of all waters and adjacent shoreline across from the

[[Page 10359]]

World War II U.S. Cobia submarine, Manitowoc River encompassed by the 
arc of a circle with a 70-foot radius with its center in approximate 
position 44[deg]05.30' N, 087[deg]39.15' W (NAD 1983).
    In order to ensure the safety of spectators and transiting vessels, 
this safety zone will be in effect for the duration of the event. In 
the event that this safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels 
may request permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to 
transit through the safety zone.
    Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain of the 
Port before transits will be authorized. The Captain of the Port may be 
contacted via U.S. Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan on channel 16, VHF-
FM. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast 
Notice to Mariners that the regulation is in effect.

    Dated: February 27, 2007.
B.C. Jones,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. E7-4109 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
EXHIBIT 32




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 Annual Report of Case Financial, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Michael Schaffer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Lawrence Schaffer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




/s/ Michael SchafferMichael Schaffer

Chief Executive Officer

June 18, 2020/s/ Lawrence SchafferLawrence Schaffer

Chief Financial Officer

June 18, 2020
No. 49189.

#### Protests 542490-G, etc., of Favorite Panama Hat Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The testimony showed that certain of the hats in question- are known as harvest hats, similar.to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664), which record was incorporated herein.In accordance therewith the claim at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) was sustained.
**32.2
      SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**





CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 Commonwealth Income & Growth Fund V,
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2007, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Kimberly A. Springsteen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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 result of operations of the Company.







/s/Kimberly
                A. SpringsteenKimberly
                A. SpringsteenChief
                Financial OfficerAugust
                14, 2007
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

LEO ARCHER aka RICKY THOMAS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1454 DFL JFM P

vs.

SOLANO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

On April 24, 2006, plaintiff filed a letter regarding legal property and request that

the court allow him to be housed in a federal facility. This civil rights action was closed on

November 15, 2004. Plaintiff is advised that documents filed by plaintiff since the closing date

will be disregarded and no orders will issue in response to future filings. 

DATED: May 4, 2006.

/mp

arch1454.58

Case 2:04-cv-01454-DFL -JFM Document 12 Filed 05/05/06 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

KEVIN KING,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1158 MCE KJM P

vs.

DEPUTY COLEMAN, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed December 29, 2005, plaintiff's complaint was

dismissed with leave to file a third amended complaint. Plaintiff has now filed a third amended

complaint.

The third amended complaint states a cognizable claim for relief under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the allegations of the amended complaint are proven,

plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: Thrasher, Wolfe, Dunn

and the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01158-MCE -KJM Document 21 Filed 06/16/06 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

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff four USM-285 forms, one

summons, an instruction sheet and a copy of the third amended complaint filed February 9, 2006.

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 1

above; and 

d. Five copies of the endorsed third amended complaint filed February 9,

2006. 

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States

Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4

without payment of costs. 

DATED: June 15, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

king1158.1amd

Case 2:04-cv-01158-MCE -KJM Document 21 Filed 06/16/06 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN KING,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1158 MCE KJM P

vs.

DEPUTY COLEMAN, et al., 

Defendants. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 1 completed summons form

 4 completed USM-285 forms

 5 copies of the 2/9/06 

 Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-01158-MCE -KJM Document 21 Filed 06/16/06 Page 3 of 3
Before the Second Division,

August 16, 1944

No. 49672.

#### Protest 71707-K (A) of O. Yoshizawa Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the record it was found that the hats are similar to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664). Those hats imported and withdrawn for consumption prior to the effective date of the Netherlands Trade Agreement were held dutiable at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (to) (5), and those subsequent to said date were held dutiable at 12J4 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) and T. D. 48075, *supra.*
---

---

Exhibit 14.(a).1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the inclusion in
the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Partner Communications Company Ltd. (hereafter
Partner) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, and to the incorporation
by reference into the Registration Statement on Form F-3 filed on December 26, 2001 and
related prospectus of Partner, of our report dated April 20, 2005, on the financial
statements of Partner, which are included in the Form 20-F of Partner.

|Tel-Aviv, Israel |  | /s/ Kesselman & Kesselman
Kesselman & KesselmanCertified Public Accountants (Isr.)
|---------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 20, 2005



---

---
No. 49195.

#### Protest 103084-K of H. S. Dorf & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

At the hearing the Government moved to dismiss the protest on the ground that there was no appearance on the part of the plaintiff and that the importer had failed to file the age certificate as required by Article 451)4) Customs Regulations of 1931, as amended by T. D. 48102. On the record presented the protest was overruled.
#### Frances E. Stevenson, as Administratrix of the Estate of James B. Stevenson, Deceased, Respondent, v John E. Recore, Jr., et al., Appellants.

[633 NYS2d 863]

—White, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Ryan, Jr., J.), entered July 22, 1994 in Clinton County, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The issue on appeal in this action for conscious pain and suffering and wrongful death is whether defendant John E. Recore, Jr. (hereinafter defendant) established, as a matter of law, his freedom from negligence under the emergency doctrine. For the following reasons, we conclude that he did not and, accordingly, affirm Supreme Court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment.

The undisputed facts are that on July 15, 1993 at about 5:15 p.m., defendant was driving his vehicle in the southbound lane of State Route 22 in the Town of Plattsburgh, Clinton County. As he rounded a curve, he noticed a large object lying in his lane of traffic which, as he got closer, he realized was a football-sized rock. Apparently, because of oncoming traffic and a car parked on the shoulder of the southbound lane, defendant elected to drive over the rock. As he did so, he heard a thud but was able to proceed, eventually arriving at his. destination. Unfortunately, after the rock hit the undercarriage of defendant’s vehicle, it become airborne, struck the hood of decedent’s northbound vehicle, and crashed through the windshield striking decedent in the head and inflicting fatal injuries.

We do not concur with defendant’s contention that these facts demonstrate, as a matter of law, that he was confronted with an emergency since it is not uncommon for motorists to encounter debris or other hazards in the roadway. Except in the most egregious circumstances, it is normally left to the trier of fact to determine if a particular situation rises to the level of an emergency, and in this case a question arises as to whether defendant should have anticipated and been prepared *835to deal with the situation confronting him *(see, Tyson v Brecher,*212 AD2d 851; *Pincus v Cohen,*198 AD2d 405, 406; *Davey v Ohler,*188 AD2d 726, 727). Since there are indications in the record that defendant had ample opportunity to observe the rock before striking it, and given the absence of evidence showing that he could not have stopped or driven carefully around the rock, whether defendant acted as a reasonable person would present a factual issue to be resolved by a jury *(see, Davey v Ohler, supra', Woolley v Coppola,*179 AD2d 991, 992). Clearly, in view of these issues, summary judgment in defendant’s favor was not warranted.

Mikoll, J. P., Casey, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
No. 51413.

#### Protest 116097-K of W. F. Mackay (Pembina).

*219Opinion by

Cune, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(14 Cust. Ct. 94, C. D. 919). In accordance therewith the claim for free entry was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 10305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4014]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Enhanced-Use Lease of the Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical 
Center, Brecksville, OH

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Enter into an Enhanced-Use Lease.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 
intends to enter into an enhanced-use lease (EUL) for the Louis Stokes 
Cleveland VA Medical Center, Brecksville, Ohio. Under the terms of the 
EUL, the selected lessee/developer would provide the Department with 
fair consideration in the form of discounted services needed at its 
Cleveland (Wade Park) campus. Such services would include 
administrative space and parking services. Additionally, the selected 
lessee/developer would make domiciliary services available to veterans 
in a private facility located within operational proximity of Wade 
Park.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregg Buckley, Office of Asset 
Enterprise Management (004B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-5518.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title 38 U.S.C. 8161, et seq. specifically 
provides that the Secretary may enter into an enhanced-use lease if he 
determines that the implementation of a business plan proposed by the 
Under Secretary for Health for applying the consideration under such a 
lease to the provision of medical care and services would result in a 
demonstrable improvement of services to eligible veterans in the 
geographic service-delivery area within which the property is located. 
This project meets this requirement.

    Approved: February 27, 2007.
R. James Nicholson,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
 [FR Doc. E7-4014 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 12030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4853]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Notice of Sunshine Act Meetings

DATES: Time and Date: 10 a.m., Friday, March 30, 2012.

Place: 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters To Be Considered

    Surveillance and Enforcement Matters. In the event that the times 
or dates of these or any future meetings change, an announcement of the 
change, along with the new time and place of the meeting will be posted 
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-4853 Filed 2-24-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
Case No. 13,804.

#### TAYLOR v. SCHOLFIELD.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 315.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

May Term, 1822.

Notes — Endorsement after Dishonor — Parol Agreement.

If a promissory note be indorsed in blank after it has been dishonored, with a parol agreement between the indorser and the indorsee that the indorser should not be liable except in the case of the maker’s insolvency, it is competent for the defendant to prove such agreement by parol evidence.

Assumpsit [by Elijah Taylor] against [Andrew Seholfield] the indorser of Peter Sanders’ note, indorsed by the defendant in blank after it had been protested.

Mr. Taylor, for the defendant, offered parol evidence to show that at the time of indorsement it was agreed that the defendant should not be liable unless the maker *805should prove to he insolvent. Between immediate parties the defendant may give evidence to contradict the words, “for value received;” a fortiori to explain an equivocal indorsement.

Mr. Hewitt, contril.

The plaintiff may now fill up the blank indorsement by an absolute assignment, and the court will consider it as done; then this parol evidence is to contradict the written contract.

THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge,

absent) admitted the parol evidence. For if the plaintiff had filled the indorsement made after the dishonor of the note, by an absolute assignment, the defendant would have been permitted to show that such an absolute assignment was contrary to the agreement of the parties; and that it was agreed to be an assignment without recourse.
#### Lorraine Conyers, Appellant, v Incorporated Village op Rockville Centre, Respondent.

[635 NYS2d 475]

—Appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), dated June 8, 1994.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Becker at the Supreme Court *(see also, Witte v Incorporated Vil. of Port Wash. N,*114 AD2d 359). Balletta, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.
Case No. 6,753.

#### HOWARD v. AMERICAN DAIRY, ETC., CO.

[10 Chi. Leg. News, 22; 6 Am. Law Rec. 193.]

Circuit Court, N. D. Ohio.

1877.

Right to Costs — State and Federal Statutes —Removed Cases.

[This was an action by Julius F. Howard against the American Dairy & Commercial Company of New York City. Heard on 1 motion of defendant to set aside the verdict of the jury and to grant a new trial.]

Before WELKER, District Judge.

As to costs of the case (the verdict of the jury being for five dollars damages in favor of the plaintiff) it was held:

1. That, where suit was originally commenced by the plaintiff in a state court and removed by the defendant under the statutes to this court, the state statute in reference to the recovery of costs by the plaintiff is followed in this court. The state statute provides that, in actions of this character, if the plaintiff recovers the sum of five dollars, he shall recover costs.

2. That the statutes of the United States (Rev. St. § 968) limiting the right to recover costs where the damages are less than five-hundred dollars only applies to actions originally brought in the circuit court

Motion overruled, and judgment against defendant for the damages and costs.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

ALEXIS NICOLE HILIGH , Appellant,

v.

WILL WILLIAMS, III , Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 3346

[ October 16, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Fabienne E. Fahnestock , Judge; L.T. Case No. FMCE2017

- 008890

.
Alexis Nicole Hiligh, El Paso, Texas, pro se.

Alan R. Burton of Alan Burton Law, Boca Raton, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee , 377 S o. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979).

D AMOORGIAN , C IKLIN and G ERBER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00732-CV

In re Austin Independent School District

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The Austin Independent School District’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

We vacate the Court’s November 26, 2008 stay order.

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Pemberton and Waldrop

Filed: February 12, 2009