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

Stipulation And Order For Dismissal

SIDNEY J. COHEN, ESQ., State Bar No. 39023

SIDNEY J. COHEN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

427 Grand Avenue

Oakland, CA 94610

Telephone: (510) 893-6682

Attorneys for Plaintiff

HOLLYNN DELIL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOLLYNN DELIL

Plaintiff,

v.

SLJ PROPERTIES L.P., A California

Limited Partnership; And DOES 1-25,

Inclusive, 

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. S 04-1837 WBS DAD

Civil Rights

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

FOR DISMISSAL

Case 2:04-cv-01837-WBS-DAD Document 14 Filed 04/18/05 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

27

28

Stipulation And Order For Dismissal -1-

Plaintiff Hollyn Delil and SLJ Properties L.P., by and through their attorneys of record,

file this Stipulation of Dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (a) (1) (ii).

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on September 2, 2004 .

Plaintiff and defendant have entered into a “Mutual Release And Settlement Agreement”

which settles all aspects of the lawsuit against defendant. The “Mutual Release And Settlement

Agreement” is incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in full. Plaintiff and defendants

stipulate to the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the “Mutual Release And Settlement

Agreement.”

Plaintiff moves to dismiss with prejudice the lawsuit against defendant.

Defendant, who has answered the complaint, agrees to the dismissal with prejudice.

This case is not a class action, and no receiver has been appointed.

This Stipulation and Order may be signed in counterparts.

Wherefore, plaintiff and defendant, by and through their attorneys of record, so stipulate.

Date: 4/13/05 SIDNEY J. COHEN

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

/s/ Sidney J. Cohen

______________________________

Sidney J. Cohen

Attorney for Plaintiff Hollyn Delil

Date: 3/30/05 CAULFIELD, DAVIES, & DONAHUE, LLP

/s/ James R. Donahue

 

James R. Donahue, Esq.

Attorney for Defendant SLJ Properties, L.P.

Case 2:04-cv-01837-WBS-DAD Document 14 Filed 04/18/05 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

27

28

Stipulation And Order For Dismissal -2-

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, IT IS SO ORDERED:

The lawsuit against defendants is dismissed with prejudice. The Court shall retain

jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the “Mutual Release And Settlement Agreement” incorporated

by reference herein as if set forth in full.

Date: April 15, 2005

Case 2:04-cv-01837-WBS-DAD Document 14 Filed 04/18/05 Page 3 of 3
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v MAURICE F. KATZ, Airman First Class, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

20 USCMA 126, 42 CMR 318

No. 23,142

November 6, 1970

*Colonel Bertram Jacobson*and *Captain Robert L. Bridge*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel James M. Bumgarner*was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

We granted review in this case to consider the correctness of the trial proceedings leading to the acceptance of the accused’s plea of guilty. The issue was then pending undetermined in United States v Palos, 20 USCMA 104, 42 CMR 296, decided this date. For the reasons set out in our opinion in that case, we affirm the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Military Review.

Judge Darden concurs.

Ferguson, Judge

(dissenting) :

I dissent.

I disagree with my brothers’ holding in this case that the plea of guilty was *127properly accepted by the military judge for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Palos, 20 USCMA 104, 42 CMR 296 (1970). The military judge’s failure to make a specific finding on the record that the accused knowingly, intelligently, and consciously waived his right against self-incrimination, his right to trial of the facts by a court-martial, and his right to be confronted by the witnesses against him, is, in my opinion, reversible error. Cf. United States v Donohew, 18 USCMA 149, 39 CMR 149 (1969); United States v Fortier, 19 USCMA 149, 41 CMR 149 (1969). Without this specific finding on the record, the record is not verbatim as required by law. See my separate opinion in *Palos,*supra.
#### The State *versus*John Dunlap.

On the trial of an indictment, under the statute, for cheating by false pretences, tlie offence is complete, if there bo one pretence, and that proved *to*be false, and made with a fraudulent design to obtain credit for goods* and credit is induced to *be*given thereby, although the indictment charges that the goods were obtained by more than one false pretence.

Exceptions from the Middle District Court, Redington J. \ presiding.

This was an indictment against Dunlap for obtaining goods of one Carroll by false pretences.

The facts appearing in the exceptions are found in the opinion of the Court, and also the instruction of the presiding Judge. The verdict was, that the respondent was guilty.

*Rice,*for the respondent,

*contended that the*instruction to the jury was erroneous; and cited 1 Wheeler’s Criminal Cases, 448; 2 Wheeler’s Cr. Cas. 161; 13 Wend. 87; *Comm.*v. *Drew,*19 Pick. 185 ; 4 City Hall Rec. 156 ; 1 C. *&*P. 661.

*II. W. Paine,*County Attorney, for the State,

cited 11 Wend. 557; *Comm.*v. *Drew,*19 Pick. 179; and *Slate v. Mills,*17 Maine R. 211.

The opinion of the Court was , drawn up by

Whitman C. J.

This is an indictment under the statute, for cheating by false pretences: and the case comes before us upon exceptions taken to the instructions of the Judge to the jury, on the trial in the Court below. These were, as stated in the exceptions, that, “ if said representations constituted any *78■part of the inducement of Carroll to part with the goods, the offence was made out: That, if any one of the false pretences had the effect, though the others were inoperative, the offence was made out.” The exceptions commenced with stating, that Carroll testified that the defendant made the representations as charged, and that they were proved to have been false. What the representations charged were, the exceptions do not show. We must presume that they were such as would support the indictment, if proved to be false, and were intended to defraud Carroll of his property, and had that effect. The charge of the Judge would seem to have been in substance that if any one of them were so designed, and had that effect, the offence was made out. ' And we think the' cases of the *Commonwealth*v. Drew, 19 Pick. 179; and *The State*v. *Mills,*17 Maine R. 211, fully sustain the charge. The discussions in those two cases were elaborate; reviewing all the cases cited by the counsel for the defendant in this case, and overruling the dictum cited from Wheeler’s criminal .cases. Indeed the decisions in the Supreme Court of New York, *(People*v. *Stone;*9 Wend. 182; and *People*v. *Haynes,*11 *ib. 557,)*have done the same. There can be no rational doubt, if there be one pretence, and that proved to be false, and.made with a fraudulent *design to*obtain credit for goods, and credit is induced to be given thereby, that the offence is complete.

*Exceptions overruled.*
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

CLINTON HARRY STODDARD, No. CIV S-04-1517-FCD-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed this action on August 2, 2004. The matter

was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On October 21, 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 ten days. Plaintiff has not filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

Although it appears from the file that plaintiff's copy of the findings and

recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to

keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 83-182(d),

Case 2:04-cv-01517-FCD-CMK Document 11 Filed 12/01/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.

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 October 21, 2005, are adopted in

full;

2. This action is dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with

court orders and rules; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file.

DATED:December 1, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01517-FCD-CMK Document 11 Filed 12/01/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.1




NEXTERA ENERGY PARTNERS, LP
COMPENSATION SUMMARY FOR INDEPENDENT NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR OF 
NEXTERA ENERGY PARTNERS GP, INC.
(Effective January 1, 2016)


	
		
	Annual Retainer
    (payable quarterly)
	$55,000

	 
	 

	Committee Chair retainer (annual)
    (payable quarterly)
	$15,000

	 
	 

	Annual grant of restricted common units
     (under 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan)
	That number of common units determined by dividing $105,000 by closing price of NextEra Energy Partners, LP common units on effective date of grant (rounded up to the nearest 10 common units)

	 
	 

	Miscellaneous
	Travel and Accident Insurance (including spouse coverage)
IN RE THE PETITION OF THE * IN THE

LIFER FAMILY SUPPORT NETWORK,

LORIE FRIEND, AND JULIE MAGERS * COURT OF APPEALS

FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT

* OF MARYLAND

* Misc. No. 20

* September Term, 2019

ORDER

WHEREAS, on April 6

, 2020, Petitioners filed a pleading entitled Petition for an

Extraordinary Writ (“Petition”) and on April 8, 2020, filed an Amended Petition for an

Extraordinary Writ (“Amended Petition”) , neither of which names any respondents ; and

WHEREAS, the Court is cognizant that the Chief Judge will issue shortly an

administrative order pursuant to the Maryland Constitution, Article IV, §18, and Maryland

Rules 16

- 105(b) and 16

- 100 1 et seq

. , which will provide direction and guidance to the

Administrative Judges of the respective judicial circuits and districts of the District Court

of Maryland in connection with important health concerns affecting inmates detained in or

incarcerated in jails and correctional facilities in Maryland during the COVID

- 19 viru s

pandemic; it is this 10th day of April, 2020

ORDERED , by the Court of Appeals, that the A mended Petition be and is hereby

DISMISSED

.

/s/ Mary Ellen Barbera

Chief Judge/s/ Robert N. McDonald

/s/ Shirley M. Watts

/s/ Michele D. Hotten

/s /Joseph M. Getty

/s/ Brynja M. Booth

/s/ Jonathan Biran
No. 51430.

#### Protests 47372-K, etc., of C. W. Davenport (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the *223holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
EXHIBIT 31.2
                                                                    ------------



                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, William E. Sanford, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Interline Brands,
      Inc.;

2.    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report; and

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial
      information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
      material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
      flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
      quarterly report.


Date: May 6, 2004                   By: /s/ William E. Sanford
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        William E. Sanford
                                        Executive Vice President, Chief
                                        Financial Officer and Secretary


                                      -30-
No. 46144.

#### Protests 2346-K, etc., of Arconti Hardware Co. et al. (Los Angeles, etc.).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Before the Third Division,

May 15, 1947

No. 51709.

#### Protest 129849-K of Baker Castor Oil Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

At the trial counsel for Government moved to dismiss the protest on the ground that it was untimely. An examination of the record disclosing that the protest was filed more than 60 days after the collector’s liquidation, the motion to dismiss was granted.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
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)
    
    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;
andc)
    
    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
controls 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 controls over financial reporting.
  /s/ Gordon F. DuGanGordon F. DuGanChief Executive Officer
(A.R.D. 189)

#### Page & Jones, Inc. Charles A. Sayous, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 222; 5290.

*811First Division, Appellate Term

(Decided June 2, 1965)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the appellants.

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

Before Oliver, Wilson, and Niohols, Judges

Wilson, Judge:

Appellants herein have formally withdrawn their application for review of the decision in *Page &*Jones, *Inc.,*and *Charles A. Sayous, Inc.*v. *United States,*53 Cust. Ct. 363, Reap. Dec. 10788, wherein the court found that export value, as defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, was the proper basis for the valuation of certain canned corned beef, exported from Uruguay, and that such export value was the appraised value in each case. Accordingly, the application for review is dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
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

BERTHA KELLY and

ANNETTE MCKEE,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-04-1873 WBS DAD PS

vs.

RICHARD C. MITCHELL,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On April 29, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

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

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. On May 6,

2005, the findings and recommendations were re-served on plaintiffs at their last known

addresses. Plaintiffs have filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

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 and has considered plaintiffs’

objections. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and

recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. The court has

Case 2:04-cv-01873-WBS-DAD Document 27 Filed 05/31/05 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

determined that there is no need to modify the findings and recommendations based on the points

raised in plaintiffs’ objections.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 29, 2005, are adopted in full;

and 

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to complete service of

process in a timely fashion.

DATED: May 27, 2005

/kelly1873.jo

Case 2:04-cv-01873-WBS-DAD Document 27 Filed 05/31/05 Page 2 of 2
NOTE: This orderis nonprecedential. 

# mniteb**~tate5** 

# <!Court of**~peaI5** 

# for tbe jf 

# eberaI <!Circuit

JEFFREYA. 

### KNOLL,

Claimant-Appellant, 

### v. ERIC K. 

### SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OFVETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee_ 2012-7057 Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in case no. 09-4422, Judge William A. Moorman. 

### ON MOTION ORDER Jeffrey A. Knoll moves to withdraw his appeal. Upon consideration thereof, 

### IT Is ORDERED 

### THAT: (1) The motion to withdraw the appeal is granted. The appeal is dismissed.KNOLLv.DVA 2 (2) Each side shall bearits own costs. 

## MAR 09 2012 Date

cc: Peter J. Meadows, Esq. Nelson R. Richards, Esq. s21 FOR THE COURT /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk

Issued As A Mandate: __ 

## MA_R_0_9.....:2::...:0--'12'---_ FILED U.S. COURTOF APPEALS FOR THE**FED~RAl** CIRCUIT



### MAR 092012

JANHORBALY 

### CLERK
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4489 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4489

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the Federal building located at 50 United Nations Plaza in 
 San Francisco, California, as the ``Senator Dianne Feinstein Federal 
                  Building'', and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN FEDERAL BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The Federal building located at 50 United Nations 
Plaza in San Francisco, California, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Senator Dianne Feinstein Federal Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal building 
referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Senator Dianne Feinstein Federal Building''.

            Passed the Senate September 25, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 4489

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To designate the Federal building located at 50 United Nations Plaza in 
 San Francisco, California, as the ``Senator Dianne Feinstein Federal 
                  Building'', and for other purposes.
```
10872/0005/581524.2 Second Amended Judgment 

 Case No.: CIV.S-04-2344 LKK JFM

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

MICHAEL DAUGHERTY, 

Defendant. 

AND RELATED COUNTERACTIONS 

Case No.: CIV.S-04-2344 LKK JFM

SECOND AMENDED 

JUDGMENT 

(INCLUSION OF ATTORNEYS’ 

FEES AND COSTS AWARD) 

DECISION BY THE COURT: This action came on for hearing on a 

summary judgment motion filed by Plaintiff and Counter-defendant Ford Motor 

Credit Company against Defendants and Counterclaimants Michael Daugherty and 

Daugherty Lincoln Mercury, Inc. The issues have been heard and a decision has 

been rendered. The findings of the Court are contained in an Order dated May 1, 

2006, and entered May 2, 2006. 

Plaintiff Ford Motor Credit Company timely moved the Court for an award 

of attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court granted the motion for attorneys’ fees and 

costs by ordered entered on July 19, 2006. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:04-cv-02344-LKK -JFM Document 134 Filed 09/21/06 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

10872/0005/581524.2 Second Amended Judgment 

 Case No.: CIV.S-04-2344 LKK JFM

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 

Pursuant to that Order, the Court amends Judgment, effective as of May 16, 

2006, as follows: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Judgment 

is entered in favor of Ford Motor Credit Company and against Michael Daugherty 

and Daugherty Lincoln Mercury for the following amounts: 

Principal: $374,711.14 

Interest: $130,506.53 

Attorneys’ Fees $ 58,005.00 

Costs $ 644.00 

Total: $563,866.67 

Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs having been determined by noticed 

motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54 and Local Rule 78-230. 

The Counterclaims and Third-party Claims filed by Michael Daugherty and 

Daugherty Lincoln Mercury, Inc. against Ford Motor Credit Company and Ford 

Motor Company are denied in their entirety and dismissed with prejudice. Michael 

Daugherty and Daugherty Lincoln Mercury shall take nothing by any of their 

affirmative claims. 

DATE: September 21, 2006 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:04-cv-02344-LKK -JFM Document 134 Filed 09/21/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated October 25, 2016, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-212822) of Smart Trust 274,
comprising Smart Trust, Dynamic Sector Income Trust, Series 16.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


October 25, 2016