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

STEWART MANAGO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1712 FCD DAD P

vs.

M. KNOWLES, 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 August 16, 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.

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-01712-FCD-DAD Document 21 Filed 09/30/05 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 August 16, 2005, are adopted in full;

and

2. Plaintiff’s October 27, 2004 motion for preliminary injunction is denied.

DATED:September 30, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01712-FCD-DAD Document 21 Filed 09/30/05 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 10748)

#### Refrigeradora Del Centro, S.A. E. H. Corrigan, Jr. *v.*United States

Entry No. 31, etc.

(Decided May 6, 1964)

*Stein & Shostalc (S. Richard, Shostalc*of counsel) for the plaintiffs..

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General *(Sheila N. Ziff,*trial'attorney), for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into between counsel for the parties herein:

> Mb. Shostak: This appeal is abandoned insofar as it pertains to all merchandise other than mashed or puree strawberries. The appeal is abandoned also insofar as it pertains to consumption entries 31, 32, 133, 293, 294, 295, 465, 476, and 557.

> Plaintiff offers to stipulate that the merchandise in the remaining entries not abandoned heretofore consists of mashed or puree strawberries imported from Mexico into Laredo, Texas, during the year 1956.

> Plaintiff further offers to stipulate that on or about the dates of exportation ,of the merchandise hereinbefore described, such or similar merchandise was .freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Mexico, in .the usual wholesale quantities, and in the ordinary course of trade for exporta-jtion 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, *549at 11 cents per pound, f.o.b. Irapuato, Gto., net packed, and that there was no higher foreign value.

> That the above appeal for reappraisement is limited to the merchandise and entries hereinbefore described, and is abandoned as to all other merchandise. Plaintiff requests that this appeal may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this oral stipulation.

> Mrs. Ziff : I have conferred with the line examiner and the Appraiser at the port of Laredo, and agree to said stipulation.

> Mr. Shostak : Plaintiff submits.

> Mrs. Ziff: Submit.

On the agreed facts, I find and bold that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved herein, consisting of mashed or puree strawberries, and that such value was 11 cents per pound, f.o.b. Irapuato, Gto., net, packed. As to all other merchandise involved in this appeal, the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-22-00890-CR

The STATE of Texas,

Appellant

v.

Luis Donaldo ROMERO LANDERO,

Appellee

From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13942CR

Honorable Dennis Powell, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 15, 2024

DISMISSED

Appellant, the State of Texas, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal in compliance with 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a). See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). No opinion has issued.

Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss this appeal. See id. We dismiss any other 

pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Forms S-8 Nos. 33-00175, 33-16187,
33-00176, 2-76657, 2-91931, 33-16188, 33-38361, 2-40012, 2-87193, 2-61721, 2-89418,
33-38360, 33-38361, 33-52760, 33-52758, 33-52756, 33-52762, 333-16113, 333-56119, 333-56752,
333-62759, 333-68566, 333-100436, 333-104066, 333-104067 and 333-118039 and Form S-3
No. 333-46329), of Keane, Inc. and in the related Prospectuses of our reports dated March 3, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Keane, Inc., Keane, Inc. management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of
Keane, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005.

|                                    |  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
|----------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|Boston, Massachusetts
March 9, 2006 |  |                      

---



QuickLinks
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4483 

To extend, and repeal the waiver authority under, the Protecting Europe’s 

Energy Security Act of 2019. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 5, 2024 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. COTTON, and Mr. RISCH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To extend, and repeal the waiver authority under, the 

Protecting Europe’s Energy Security Act of 2019. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Securing Europe’s En5 ergy Security Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4483 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF, AND REPEAL OF WAIVER UNDER, 

2 PROTECTING EUROPE’S ENERGY SECURITY 

3 ACT OF 2019. 

4 Section 7503 of the Protecting Europe’s Energy Se5 curity Act of 2019 (title LXXV of Public Law 116–92; 

6 22 U.S.C. 9526 note) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking subsection (f); and 

8 (2) in subsection (h)(2), by striking ‘‘the date 

9 that is’’ and all that follows and inserting ‘‘January 

10 1, 2031.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 26, 2010 

p1018 

Order 

 

October 26, 2010 

139582 

PATRICIA PAQUETTE, Guardian and 

Conservator of RICHARD PAQUETTE, a 

Legally Incapacitated Person, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139582 

 COA: 279909 

Macomb CC: 2004-002787-NO 

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

ARVILLA WOODS, SHANNE SMITH, and 

MARISSA GIBBONS, 

Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of February 26, 2010, the application for leave to appeal the July 21, 

2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in 

Univ of Mich Regents v Titan Ins Co (Docket No. 136905). On order of the Court, the 

case having been decided on July 31, 2010, 487 Mich ___ (2010), the application is again 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented 

should be reviewed by this Court. 

CORRIGAN, J. (concurring). 

I continue to adhere to the analyses set forth in Justice MARKMAN’s dissenting 

opinion in Univ of Mich Regents v Titan Ins Co, 487 Mich ___ (2010), and my statement 

dissenting from the denial of rehearing in that case, ___ Mich ___ (2010) (October 15, 

2010). 

DAVIS, J., not participating. I recuse myself and am not participating because I 

was on the Court of Appeals panel in this case. See MCR 2.003(B).
Exhibit 31.4

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Shum Mukherjee, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed the annual report on Form 10-K/A of OpenTV Corp. for the period ended December 31, 2008; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:
April 30, 2009



/s/    SHUM
MUKHERJEEChief Financial Officer
No. 51414.

#### Protest 116444-K of H. A. Wood (Pembina).

Opinion by

Cline, 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 80, Number 59 (Friday, March 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 16491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07074]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 9071]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition; 
Determinations: ``China: Through the Looking Glass''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``China: Through the Looking Glass,'' 
imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, 
are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Metropolitan 
Museum of Art, New York, New York, from on or about May 7, 2015, until 
on or about August 16, 2015, and at possible additional exhibitions or 
venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have 
ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the imported objects, contact the Office of the Legal Adviser, 
U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), 
Washington, DC 20522-0505, telephone (202-632-6471), or email at 
section2459@state.gov.

    Dated: March 20, 2015.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2015-07074 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
Exhibit





Exhibit 10.4



AMENDMENT NO. 13
TO THE
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
NUCLEAR FACILITIES NON-QUALIFIED CPUC DECOMMISSIONING
MASTER TRUST AGREEMENT
FOR SAN ONOFRE
 NUCLEAR GENERATING STATIONS


This Amendment No. 13 made this 31st day of August, 2016, by and between San Diego Gas & Electric Company (“Company”) and The Bank of New York Mellon, a New York state bank, successor by operation of law to Mellon Bank, N.A (“Trustee”).
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.10 of the San Diego Gas & Electric Company Nuclear Facilities Non-Qualified CPUC Decommissioning Master Trust Agreement for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Stations dated as of June 29, 1992, as amended (the “Agreement”) between the Company and the Trustee, the parties specifically reserve the right to amend the Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and the Trustee agree as follows:
		
	1.
	The following sentence shall be added to Section 1.05:


 “This Agreement has also been known as, the SDG&E Nuclear Facilities Non-Qualified CPUC Decommissioning Master Trust for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Stations.”
		
	2.
	Each Party hereby represents and warrants to the others that it has full authority to enter into this Amendment No. 13 upon the terms and conditions hereof and that the individual executing this Amendment No. 13 on its behalf has the requisite authority to bind that Party.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company, the Trustee, and the California Public Utilities Commission have set their hands and seals in agreement to these amendments as of the latest date set forth below.




SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY




		
	By:
	________________________________________




		
	Date:
	________________________________________




		
	Attest:
	________________________________________






THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON




		
	By:
	________________________________________




		
	Date:
	________________________________________




		
	Attest:
	________________________________________






CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION




		
	By:
	________________________________________




		
	Date:
	________________________________________




		
	Attest:
	________________________________________
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.3


Form of Stock Option Agreement
Washington Federal, Inc.
ID: 91-1661606
425 Pike St
Seattle, WA 98101


Employee Name        Award Number:         Award Number
Employee Address         Plan:                Plan Identification
ID:                ID Number 


Effective XX/XX/XX (the “Grant Date”), you have been granted a(n) incentive stock option by Washington Federal, Inc. (the “Company”) to buy from the Company XXXXX shares of Common Stock at a price of $XX.XX per share (the “Option”).


The Option is granted pursuant to the Washington Federal, Inc. 2011 Incentive Plan (the “Plan”).  Capitalized terms that are used but not defined in this Agreement will have the meanings given those terms in the Plan.


Vesting.  The Option will vest XX% on each of the ___________________ anniversaries of the Grant Date [vesting from three to seven years] provided, however, that immediately prior to a Change in Control (as defined in the Plan), or upon the termination of your Service because of your death or Disability, all of the unvested shares shall become vested.  


After your Service to the Company terminates for any reason, the Option will thereafter be exercisable only for the shares for which it was vested and exercisable on the date of termination.


Your Option will terminate as provided in the Plan.  


THIS AGREEMENT, THE PLAN, AND THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREUNDER DO NOT CONSTITUTE AN EXPRESS OR IMPLIED PROMISE OF CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT OR SERVICE WITH THE COMPANY FOR ANY PERIOD AT ALL, AND SHALL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE EMPLOYEE’S RIGHT OR THE COMPANY’S RIGHT TO TERMINATE THE EMPLOYEE’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COMPANY AT ANY TIME, WITH OR WITHOUT CAUSE OR NOTICE.


By your signature and the Company’s signature below, you and the Company agree that these options are granted under and governed by the terms and conditions of the Plan, as amended and this Agreement, all of which are attached and made a part of this document.


	
					
	WASHINGTON FEDERAL, INC.
	 
	EMPLOYEE
	 

	_____________________________
	 
	_____________________________

	Chief Executive Officer
	 
	[Name]
No. 59571.

protests 189348-K, etc. (New York).

#### Holland Colombo Trading Society, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of coconut shell charcoal the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Holland Colombo Trading Society, Inc.*v. *United States*
      *349(34 Cust. Ct. 90, C. D. 1684), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1802 was sustained.
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS4055 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
Exhibit








AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
This Amendment No. 7 to Employment Agreement is entered into on August 23, 2016 by Cimpress USA Incorporated (formerly known as Vistaprint USA, Incorporated) (the “Company”) and Robert S. Keane (the “Employee”). The Company and the Employee previously entered into an Employment Agreement dated September 1, 2009, as amended (the “Agreement”), and now wish to amend the Agreement further to reflect the Employee’s compensation for the Company’s 2017 fiscal year.
The parties agree as follows:
1.Compensation and Benefits.


1.1    Salary.  The Company shall pay the Employee, in accordance with the Company’s regular payroll practices, an annualized base salary of $1,248,970 for the one-year period commencing on July 1, 2016. 


1.2    FY 2017 Incentive Compensation.  The Employee is entitled to receive performance share units under the Cimpress N.V. 2016 Performance Equity Plan with a value of $5,250,000.


1.3    Withholding.  All salary, equity, and other compensation payable to the Employee is subject to applicable withholding taxes.


2.    No Other Modification.  Except as specifically modified by this Amendment, the Agreement remains unchanged and in full force and effect.
The parties have executed this Amendment as of the date set forth above.
CIMPRESS USA INCORPORATED
By:    /s/Lawrence A. Gold
		
	Title:
	Senior Vice President


EMPLOYEE
/s/Robert S. Keane
Robert S. Keane
Case No. 8,449.

#### LOCKWOOD v. COMSTOCK et al.

[4 McLean, 383.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Michigan.

June Term, 1848.

Partnership — Dissolution—Note Given bt One —Old Debt — Authority to Settle Accounts.

1. After the dissolution, neither partner by any note in writing, can bind the partnership, even for a debt contracted by it. And in this view, a note is a new contract; though it be given to pay a debt of the firm.

[Cited in Conklin v. Ogborn, 7 Ind. 555; Gardner v. Conn, 34 Ohio, 192: Woodson v. Wood, 84 Va. 487, 5 S. E. 279.]

2. An authority to one party to settle the accounts of the firm, collect and pay its debts, does not authorize the individual to give a note in the name of the late firm.

[Cited in Woodson v. Wood, 84 Va. 487, 5 S. E. 279.]

At law.

Sedgtvick & Campbell, for plaintiff.

Mr. Hand, for defendant.

OPINION OP

THE COURT.

This is a motion for a new' trial, reserved for a full bench. The suit was brought by plaintiff, as in-dorsee of two promissory notes, dated September 1st, 1S39, against defendants, as makers, under the firm of Charles Bissell & Co. It W’as in evidence, that the firm W'as dissolved October 29th, 183S, of which payees had personal notice, prior to the making of the notes. They wrere given for a debt due by the firm, by Bissell, without any authority from Comstock to use the partnership name. The following advertisement of the dissolution of the partnership was published, in the “Daily Advertiser” of Detroit, a paper of general circulation, October 31st, 1S38: “Dissolution.” “The co-partnership heretofore existing under the firm of Charles Bis-sell & Co., is this day dissolved by mutual consent. The business will hereafter be continued by Charles Bissell, who is duly authorized to settle all demands in favor or against said firm.” “Detroit. October 29th. 1838. Signed, Charles Bissell. H. H. Comstock.”

It is argued, 1. That the dissolution of the partnership put an end to the power of Bis-sell to use the partnership name. Bell v. Morrison, 1 Pet. [26 U. S.] 370; Atwood v. Gillett, 2 Doug. [Mich.] 205; Story, Partn. 458, 472-474; Gow, 253, 254.

2d ground. That the terms in w'hieh the dissolution was announced to the public, did not authorize Bissell to use the name of his former partner. The Question is well set-tied in this country that, after the dissolution of a partnership, the partnership name can not be used, by either partner in the creation of a new’ contract. That power existed during the partnership, but its dissolution terminated it. The name can not be used in giving a note for a debt due by the late firm. For that would be a new contract, variant from that which was entered into, during the partnership. This power to use the name of Comstock was clearly not given in the notice of dissolution. It authorized Bissell, who continued the business, “to settle all demands in favor of or against said firm.” But it did not authorize him to use the name of his late partner, in entering into a new contract. To settle, was to ascertain the balance due, and pay it, but not to give a note or any other obligation. The motion for a new trial is granted.
No. 62572.

#### J. J. Boll and Trans World Shipping Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 327625-K and 327631-K (A) (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 55251.

#### Decorative Crafts, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 166321-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the items in question consist of earthenware articles similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 51676. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the cited authority it was held that the merchandise consists of earthenware articles composed of a nonvitrifled absorbent body, not artifieally colored and composed wholly of clay, which articles are painted, colored, tinted, stained, enameled, gilded, printed, ornamented, or decorated. The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
May 21, 1959

No. 63091.

Suit 4953.

#### Herbert B. Holler and U. S. Wolfson Bros. Corp. *v.*United States.

C.D. 1946 affirmed February 11, 1959. C.A.D. 704.
No. 49190.

#### Protest 561224-G of Brigham Hopkins Co. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain of the items consist of 8-bu. 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 protest was sustained to -this extent.