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

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

JAMES M. HUMES

Chief Assistant Attorney General

FRANCES T. GRUNDER

Senior Assistant Attorney General

DAVID A. CARRASCO

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

MEGAN R. O’CARROLL, State Bar No. 215479

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 324-5288

Fax: (916) 324-5205

Attorneys for Defendants Avery, Cantu, Orr, Stetina and Whisler

SA2006300595

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY HORSTMAN, 2:04-CV-1644 GEB DAD P

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

J. CANTU, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

The court finds that there is good cause to grant Defendants’ April 3, 2006 request

for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Accordingly, Defendants are granted a period of thirty days, to and including May

3, 2006, to file and serve a responsive pleading.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 4, 2006.

/hors1644.eotresp

Case 2:04-cv-01644-GEB-DAD Document 16 Filed 04/05/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 55964.

protest 162260-K (New York).

#### L & C Hardmuth, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
(Reap. Dec. 10730)

#### Durable Floor & Tile Co. (Norton & Ellis, Inc.) *v.*United States

Entry No. 5307.

(Decided April 28, 1964)

*Sharp & Bogan*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been limited, under the terms of a stipulation of submission, to certain hardboard, manufactured in France and exported to the United States by the Societe Francaise pour le Commerce Exterieur de Pan-neaux (EXPANO), and which is “described on the invoices as Iso-gil hardboard D-3.” As to all other merchandise included on the invoice covered by the entry involved herein, the appeal for reap-praisement has been abandoned.

Stipulated facts, upon which the case is before me, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is foreign value, as defined in section 402a (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and that such statutory value therefor is 3.31 nouveau francs per square meter, less 31 per centum, less 1 per centum, less *iy2*per centum, less 20 per centum, plus packing.

As to all other merchandise included on the invoice covered by the entry involved herein, the appeal for reappraisement is dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

             CORPORATE PROPERTY ASSOCIATES 16 - GLOBAL INCORPORATED

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Corporate Property Associates
16-Global Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gordon F. DuGan, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

      (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/ Gordon F. DuGan
    -----------------------------------
    Grdon F. DuGan
    Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

        11/14/2005

    Date

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4583 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4583

    To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to extend the 
   authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue 
  priority review vouchers to encourage treatments for rare pediatric 
                               diseases.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 18, 2024

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to extend the 
   authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue 
  priority review vouchers to encourage treatments for rare pediatric 
                               diseases.

    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 ``Creating Hope Reauthorization Act of 
2024''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO ISSUE PRIORITY REVIEW VOUCHERS TO 
              ENCOURAGE TREATMENTS FOR RARE PEDIATRIC DISEASES.

    Section 529(b)(5) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
U.S.C. 360ff(b)(5)) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2024, 
unless'' and all that follows through the period at the end and 
inserting ``September 30, 2030.''.
                                 <all>
```
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

WALTER MAURICE SAVAGE, No. 2:04-cv-1079-MCE-PAN-P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an

Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. 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 January 24, 2006, 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 (10)

days. 

Case 2:04-cv-01079-MCE -PAN Document 28 Filed 03/09/06 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

 On February 10, 2006, the magistrate judge extended for ten days the time for filing 1

objections. On March 1, 2006, petitioner filed a request, dated February 23, 2006, for an

additional extension of time to file objections. On March 3, 2006, petitioner filed objections,

dated February 28, 2006, to the findings and recommendations. Petitioner’s second request for

extension of time is granted and the court has considered petitioner’s objections.

2

After receiving an extension of time, Petitioner has filed

Objections to the Findings and Recommendations.1

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 January 24, 2006,

are adopted in full; 

2. Respondents’ June 17, 2005 Motion to Dismiss is granted;

and

3. This action is dismissed as untimely and as pleading

claims that are unexhausted. 

DATED: March 8, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01079-MCE -PAN Document 28 Filed 03/09/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating
to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Mark J. DeCesarisMark J. DeCesarisacting Chief Financial Officer
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2024-0307

_____________________________

DEARLYN LOJARES,

Appellant,

v.

ALFONSO SILVA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Robert K. Groeb, Judge.

July 25, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, RAY, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Cynthia Stump Swanson, Swanson Law Center, P.A., Gainesville, 

for Appellant.

Sabina Tomshinsky, Home Town Law, P.A., Gainesville, for 

Appellee.
(Reap. Dec. 8519)

#### Venetianaire Corp. of America *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 765295-1/2; 760954-1/2.

(Decided January 12, 1956)

*Fred Bennett*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon tbe following stipulation of counsel for tbe parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED:

> 1. That the merchandise covered by the above-enumerated appeals for reappraisement is bamboo material and bamboo articles imported from Japan;

> 2. That the market value or the price at the time of exportation to the United States of each item of merchandise covered by consular invoice No. 7940, certified September 11, 1953, and consular invoice No. 7335, certified August 28, 1953, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was the unit invoice price of each item of such merchandise, less the charges stated on the invoices to be included therein for

> Inland freight from Kumamoto to shipping port by railway

> Storage

> Cartage

> Hauling and lighterage

> Consular fee

> and that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise;

> 3. That the above-enumerated appeals for re-appraisement be submitted on this stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts I find tbe export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, to be tbe proper basis for tbe determination of tbe value of tbe mercbandise covered by consular invoice No. 7940, certified September 11, 1953, and consular invoice No. 7335, certified August 28, 1953, and that sucb value was tbe unit invoice price of each item, less tbe charges stated on tbe invoices to *506be included therein for inland freight from Kumamoto to shipping port by railway, storage, cartage, hauling and lighterage, and consular fee.

Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise, they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 63101.

#### Hirschberg-Schutz & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 248699-K, etc. (New York).

*398Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of narrow woven fabrics of cotton similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Beer Stern Import Corp.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 294, C.D. 1944), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
**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 Corumel Minerals Corp. (the
“ *Company* ”)
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30 th ,
      2004,
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      “ *Report* ”),
      I,
      Chris Roth, Chief
      Executive Officer of the
      Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:





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.










By:*/s/
      Chris
      Roth*


Chris
      Roth


Chief
      Executive Officer


June
      9 th ,
      2005





***EX
          32 - 1***


**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 Corumel Minerals Corp. (the
“ *Company* ”)
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30 th ,
      2004,
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      “ *Report* ”),
      I,
      Dr. Edwin Meier, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 that:





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.










By: */s/
      Dr. Edwin
      Meier*


Dr.
      Edwin Meier


Chief
      Financial Officer


June
      9 th ,
      2005





***EX
          32 - 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

DIRECTV INC., 

 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2058 MCE GGH

vs. 

CRAIG HANRION, ORDER

 Defendant. 

___________________________/

This matter, presently scheduled for plaintiff’s motion for default judgment

against defendant Hanrion, is vacated from the calendar for July 21, 2005, and will be taken

under submission on the papers.

DATED: 7/11/05 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

___________________________________

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

direct2058.sbm.wpd

Case 2:04-cv-02058-MCE -GGH Document 16 Filed 07/11/05 Page 1 of 1
Sandbagging techniques :: Booklets, Manuals, and GuidesUSACE Digital Library
  HomeBrowse AllHelp Search       Advanced Search   
Find results with:error div
      All of the wordsAny of the wordsThe exact phraseNone of the wordsinAll 
      fieldsTitleSubjectOrganizational authorPublisherPersonal authorDate 
      publishedReport typeFile formatReport numberLanguageDocument 
      locationDivisionUse rightsDate digitizedandorAdd another field
Search by date 
     from after before on  to  Searching collections:
  Booklets, Manuals, and Guides 
Add or remove collections Home  Sandbagging techniques  Reference URL  
To link to this object, paste this link in email, IM or document
 

To embed this object, paste this HTML in website
 
Sandbagging techniques
View Description 
  PDF Text 
              There is no text for this item.               

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
Description Title Sandbagging techniques 
      Organizational author United States. Army. Corps of Engineers. 
      Northwestern Division

      Publisher U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Northwestern Division 
      Date published 2004 
      Date digitized 2012 
      Subject Sandbags
      Safety education
      Brochures

      Division United States. Army. Corps of Engineers. Northwestern Division

      District United States. Army. Corps of Engineers. Portland District
      United States. Army. Corps of Engineers. Seattle District
      United States. Army. Corps of Engineers. Kansas City District
      United States. Army. Corps of Engineers. Omaha District
      United States. Army. Corps of Engineers. Walla Walla District

      File format pdf 
      File size 3.8MB 
      Resolution Born-digital 
      Language eng 
      Use rights This document was published by a federal government agency and 
      is in the public domain. 
      Document location 2004-NWD_Sandbag_Pamphlet.pdf 
      Contributed by Omaha District, Public Affairs Office 

                                                                   
you wish to report: 
Your comment:
 Your Name:
 Submit

            Cancel

...      Back to topHome | About | Contact Us | USACE Library Program Powered 
  by CONTENTdm®

                                                                                 
          
Select the collections to add or remove from your search 
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 
         Select All Collections


        BBooklets, Manuals, and Guides

              Budget Reports


        CCultural Resources Reports


        DDesign Materials


        FFish & Wildlife Reports


        HHistories


        LLaws Relating to the USACE


        MMagazines and Newsletters

              Maps

              Media


        PProject Management Reports


        TTechnical Reports

              Test IWR Reports

              Test Photographs



  500

  You have selected: 1

 
            OK

            Cancel
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

29–011 2013

113th Congress, 1st Session – – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 113–13 

THE REPORT FOR THE FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION 

PROJECT, ROSEAU RIVER 

COMMUNICATION 

FROM

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, 

CIVIL WORKS, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

TRANSMITTING

THE ENGINEERING DOCUMENTATION REPORT FOR THE FLOOD 

DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT FOR THE ROSEAU RIVER 

MARCH 4, 2013.—Referred to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure and ordered to be printed 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HDOCE:\Seals\Congress.#13

(III)
IV
V
VI
(1)

3

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14




19

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44


47
48
49
50
51
52


55

57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68


71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79



83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
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

DAVID WESLEY BIRRELL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1576 DFL EFB P

vs.

JOSEPH BICK, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has requested that the court stay this action pending the district judge’s

resolution of plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the July 20, 2006, order denying his

motion to extend the time for discovery.

A district court has inherent power to control its docket in order to “promote economy of

time and effort for itself, for counsel and for litigants.” CMAX, Inc., v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268

(9th Cir. 1962) (denying petition for mandamus where district court imposed stay of civil action

pending outcome of administrative proceedings). Before entering a stay while a different court

resolves a pending matter, the court must consider the following three factors: (1) the possibility

that the resultant delay will harm the non-moving party; (2) the possibility that denying a stay

Case 2:04-cv-01576-GEB-EFB Document 39 Filed 10/18/06 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

will cause hardship or inequity to the moving party; and (3) whether the proceedings will be 

simplified or complicated as a result of a stay. See Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248,

254-255 (1936). 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated any likelihood he will succeed on his motion for

reconsideration. A stay would not benefit plaintiff or simplify matters for the court, but it would

cause delay. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s September 18, 2006, motion to stay these

proceedings is denied.

Dated: October 17, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01576-GEB-EFB Document 39 Filed 10/18/06 Page 2 of 2