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

27

28 

BNFY 570535v1 -1- (CIV-S-04-2036 KJM) 

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT TIM RYNESS 

AND REQUEST TO RETAIN JURISDICTION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

DIRECTV, INC., a California corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

TIM RYNESS, 

Defendant. 

Case No.: CIV-S-04-2036 KJM 

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION FOR 

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF 

DEFENDANT TIM RYNESS AND 

REQUEST TO RETAIN JURISDICTION 

HAVING READ AND CONSIDERED the parties’ Stipulation for Voluntary 

Dismissal of Defendant TIM RYNESS and Request to Retain Jurisdiction filed July 1, 2005 (the 

Stipulation), having reviewed the docket for this action, and good cause appearing therefore, IT 

IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

(1) Defendant TIM RYNESS is hereby dismissed from this action without 

prejudice; 

(2) Each of the parties to the Stipulation shall bear its/his own costs and 

attorneys’ fees; and 

(3) The undersigned shall retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff DIRECTV and 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:04-cv-02036-KJM Document 23 Filed 07/06/05 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

27

28 

BNFY 570535v1 -2- (CIV-S-04-2036 KJM) 

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT TIM RYNESS 

AND REQUEST TO RETAIN JURISDICTION 

Defendant TIM RYNESS to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement between those parties 

dated May 12, 2005, as set forth in the Stipulation. 

DATED: July 5, 2005. 

_____________________________________ 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-02036-KJM Document 23 Filed 07/06/05 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4564 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4564

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 50 East Derry Road in East Derry, New Hampshire, as the ``Chief 
                    Edward B. Garone Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 18, 2024

  Mrs. Shaheen (for herself and Ms. Hassan) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 50 East Derry Road in East Derry, New Hampshire, as the ``Chief 
                    Edward B. Garone Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. CHIEF EDWARD B. GARONE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 50 East Derry Road in East Derry, New Hampshire, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Chief Edward B. Garone Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Chief 
Edward B. Garone Post Office''.
                                 <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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIRECTV, INC., a California ) NO. CV S-04-2372 GEB GGH

corporation, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

) ORDER RE SETTLEMENT

v. ) AND DISPOSITION

)

DAVID GREENBERG, )

) 

Defendant. )

)

On June 2, 2005, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Settlement

with Defendant David Greenberg” which states this case has settled. 

The parties have until 4:30 p.m. on July 5, 2005, to either file a

document dismissing this action or to lodge a proposed order which

could effect dismissal. See L.R. 16-160(b). Failure to respond by

this deadline may be construed as consent to dismissal of this action

without prejudice and a dismissal order may be filed. See L.R. 16-

160(b) (“A failure to file dispositional papers on the date prescribed

by the Court may be grounds for sanctions.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 14, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02372-GEB-GGH Document 9 Filed 06/15/05 Page 1 of 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 Annual Report of Sunway Global Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-K/A for the period ended   December 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Samuel
      Sheng, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      section 1350 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.





A
      signed
      original 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.





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to
      be
      incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before
      or
      after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in
      such
      filing.





Date:
                August 25, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                Samuel ShengSamuel
                Sheng
              Chief
                Financial Officer (principal financial and
              accounting
                officer)
No. 51725.

#### Petition 6566-R of Balfour, Guthrie & Co., Ltd. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The petition was dismissed.
Case 2:04-cv-02246-ALA   Document 19    Filed 01/12/06   Page 1 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-02246-ALA   Document 19    Filed 01/12/06   Page 2 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-02246-ALA   Document 19    Filed 01/12/06   Page 3 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-02246-ALA   Document 19    Filed 01/12/06   Page 4 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-02246-ALA   Document 19    Filed 01/12/06   Page 5 of 5

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-23T18:13:14-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
Case 2:04-cv-00862-WBS-DAD   Document 14    Filed 01/13/06   Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00862-WBS-DAD   Document 14    Filed 01/13/06   Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00862-WBS-DAD   Document 14    Filed 01/13/06   Page 3 of 3

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-23T10:05:45-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
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

DEMIAN TREVOR O’KEEFFE,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

NO. CIV. S-04-1695 WBS GGH PS

ORDER

On February 26, 2009, the district court adopted this court’s findings and

recommendations, recommending denial of defendants’ summary judgment motion. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The pretrial conference is set for June 28, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. before the

Honorable William B. Shubb. The parties are referred to the initial scheduling order, (dkt. #13),

for the filing of pretrial statements.

2. Trial is scheduled for August 10, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. before the Honorable

William B. Shubb.

DATED: March 24, 2010

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

__________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH/076

O'Keeffe1695.sch2.wpd

Case 2:04-cv-01695-GGH Document 69 Filed 03/24/10 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STOCKTON EXECUTIVE LIMOUSINE

CHARTER SERVICES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,

CREW TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC.,

RENZENBERGER, INC., and DOES 3

through 20, inclusive,

Defendants.

CIV. S-04-1999 LKK PAN 

ORDER 

-o0oDefendants Crew Transport Services, Inc., and

Renzenberger, Inc., move to compel plaintiff’s responses to

interrogatories and for sanctions. The hearing on the motion,

scheduled for November 30, 2005, is vacated. The parties’ joint

stipulation and communications with my staff confirm that 

plaintiff has now responded without objection to all

interrogatories. 

Case 2:04-cv-01999-LKK -EFB Document 34 Filed 11/29/05 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

Defendants may serve and file their supported request for

sanctions on or before December 9, 2005; plaintiff may file a

reply, if any, by December 16, 2005. The matter will then be

submitted for decision on the papers. 

So ordered.

Dated: November 28, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01999-LKK -EFB Document 34 Filed 11/29/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 52609.

protest 135259-K (New York).

#### L. W. Moritz Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Counsel for the Government moved to dismiss upon the ground that the protest was not filed within the time prescribed by law, in compliance with section 514, Tariff Act of 1930. The motion to dismiss was therefore granted.
June 10, 1957

No. 60878.

#### C. J. Tower & Sons *v.*United States,

protest 217087-K.

C. D. 1872. Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
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

 The date petitioner signed the proof of service by mail controls as he gets the benefit of the

mailbox rule. See Smith v. Duncan, 297 F.3d 809, 814 (9th Cir. 2002). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID L. FULBRIGHT,

Petitioner, No. CIV S 04-2490 DFL PAN P

vs.

D. L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel. On March 17, 2006, the court

dismissed this action and judgment was entered. On April 20, 2006, petitioner filed a request for

an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and an application for a certificate of probable

cause. Plaintiff signed this document and its proof of service by mail on April 16, 2006.1

A timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite to appealing a judgment

of the district court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a); Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978). Ordinarily, a party in a civil case must file the notice within thirty days after

judgment is entered. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). The district court may extend time to appeal if a party

so moves within thirty days of the time the notice must be filed and the party shows either

excusable neglect or good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5).

Case 2:04-cv-02490-DFL-PAN Document 16 Filed 05/03/06 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

A court may find excusable neglect upon a showing a party failed timely to file

because of careless omission to act. See Pincay v. Andrews, 351 F.3d 947, 950 (9th Cir. 2003). 

A party who seeks an extension within thirty days after time to appeal expired need show only

show good cause. See State of Oregon v. Champion International Corp., 680 F.2d 1300, 1301

(per curiam) (noting the good cause language was added to the rule because the excusable neglect

standard does not fit the situation in which an appellant seeks an extension before the expiration

of the initial appeal period); see also Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) advisory committee note.

Petitioner had until April 16, 2006, to file a notice of appeal or to move for an

extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

Petitioner’s April 16, 2006, request for an extension of time is timely.

Petitioner asserts he cannot timely appeal because officials periodically cancel

programming, which has limited petitioner’s access to the law library.

Petitioner has shown good cause.

Petitioner’s April 20, 2006, request will be granted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s April 20, 2006, request for an extension of time to file a notice of

appeal and an application for a certificate of appealability is granted;

2. Petitioner has thirty days from the date of this order to file and serve a notice of

appeal and an application for a certificate of appealability. 

DATED: May 2, 2006.

\004

\fulb2490.grnt eot to appeal

Case 2:04-cv-02490-DFL-PAN Document 16 Filed 05/03/06 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

RUBEN J. BONTTY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1491 GEB KJM P

vs.

CAPTAIN S.J. VANCE, 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 June 28, 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. 

Case 2:04-cv-01491-GEB -KJM Document 7 Filed 08/23/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Plaintiff has 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: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 28,

2005, are adopted in full; and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice.

Dated: August 22, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01491-GEB -KJM Document 7 Filed 08/23/05 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

KEITH M. CASSELLS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1798 FCD PAN P

vs.

D. MEHTA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil

rights action. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the October 25, 2005, order denying his request

for appointment of counsel. 

Plaintiff must show the order to deny his request to proceed in forma pauperis was

clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See L. R. 72-303(f).

Plaintiff asserts that since two defendants are physicians outside the prison he

must conduct investigation outside the prison walls. The need to develop facts through discovery

does not serve the required demonstration of complexity. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328

(9th Cir. 1986). 

Plaintiff asserts he has difficulty obtaining his medications when he goes to the

law library but he makes no showing this has inhibited his ability to pursue his claims.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01798-FCD-EFB Document 48 Filed 03/31/06 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

Accordingly, upon reconsideration, the October 25, 2005, order is AFFIRMED.

IT SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 31, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/cass1798.affrm ord

Case 2:04-cv-01798-FCD-EFB Document 48 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 64150.

protest 59/24552 (New York).

#### The Danwill Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bicycle tires the same in all material respects as the automobile tires the subject of *A. N. Deringer, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 327, C.D. 1882), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
ex10-1.htm


Exhibit 10.1

 

RESOLUTIONS TO APPROVE

FIRST AMENDMENT TO

MOCON INC. 2015 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

 

WHEREAS, MOCON, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains and operates the MOCON, Inc. 2015 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “Plan”); and

 

WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to allow for issuance of fractional shares in order to lower the administrative costs of operating the Plan;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 7.5 of the Plan, the Plan be and it is hereby amended as follows:

 

1.            By inserting the phrase “and fractional” before the words “shares” in the first sentence of Section 4.3(a) such that the sentence now reads in its entirety as follows:

 

“On the applicable Exercise Date for an Offering, each Participant shall automatically and without any action on such Participant’s part be deemed to have exercised his or her Option to purchase at the applicable Option Price the largest number of whole and fractional shares of Common Stock which can be purchased with the amount in the Participant’s Plan Account, subject to Sections 4.1 and 5.3 hereof.”

 

2.            By inserting the phrase “and fractional” before the words “shares” in clause (ii) of Section 6.1(a) such that the clause now reads in its entirety as follows:

 

“(ii) exercise the Option for the maximum number of whole and fractional shares of Common Stock on the applicable Exercise Date with any remaining Plan Account balance returned to the Participant in one lump-sum payment in cash within thirty (30) days after such Exercise Date”

 

3.            By deleting the proviso in clause (iii) of Section 3.1(b) such that this clause now ends with “other Section 423 Option”.

 

 

 

 

 

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

MERRICK JOSE MOORE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0871 MCE PAN P

vs.

J. SLOSS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme

Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent

prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In

certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court

does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of

counsel will therefore be denied.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00871-MCE -EFB Document 35 Filed 02/21/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s February 8, 2006,

motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: February 21, 2006.

/bb/004

moor0871.31

Case 2:04-cv-00871-MCE -EFB Document 35 Filed 02/21/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          13,426
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,312
<ALLOWANCES>                                       679
<INVENTORY>                                     11,049
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,701
<PP&E>                                          38,293
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,617
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  74,751
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,419
<BONDS>                                          3,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           199
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,582
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,781
<SALES>                                        100,938
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               100,938
<CGS>                                           39,923
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,923
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,745
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (179)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,717
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,009
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,708
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,708
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.79


</TABLE>