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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1867 WBS JFM

vs.

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2363

FAIRVIEW LANE, etc., ORDER

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff’s motion to exclude claimants Barbara and Richard Ryan’s witnesses and

documents not previously disclosed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (a)(1) was calendared for

hearing on August 25, 2005. Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h), the court has determined that the

matter will be submitted on the papers without oral argument. Upon review of the motion and

the documents in support and opposition, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT

MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:

Plaintiff’s arguments concerning initial disclosure of discovery concerning

claimants’ potential innocent owner defense and standing are well taken. However, based on the

procedural posture of this case, plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the late provision of claimants’

discovery disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a). Good cause appearing, claimants will be

Case 2:04-cv-01867-WBS -JFM Document 49 Filed 08/26/05 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

directed to provide initial disclosure as to any evidence they intend to use at trial in support of

these two theories within ten days from the date of this order. Failure to comply with this order

may result in the imposition of sanctions, including, but not limited to, an order excluding

claimants’ witnesses and documents from trial. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s June 20, 2005 motion for sanctions and to exclude is denied without

prejudice; and

2. Within ten days from the date of this order, claimants Barbara Ryan and

Richard Ryan shall make initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a). 

DATED: August 25, 2005.

001; fairview.oah

Case 2:04-cv-01867-WBS -JFM Document 49 Filed 08/26/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 50076.

#### Protests 974773-G, etc., of Clover Bead & Novelty Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the beads in question are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Eitinger Bead Co.*v. *United States*(13 Cust. Ct. 50, C. D. 867), certain of the items were held dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 1503 and others at 20 percent under the same paragraph as modified by T. D. 49458. The protests were sustained to this extent.
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 FLATBUSH FEDERAL BANCORP, INC. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Jesus R. Adia, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and John S.
Lotardo, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, 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 result of operations
            of the Company.

The purpose of this  statement  is solely to comply  with Title 18,  Chapter 63,
Section  1350 of the United  States  Code,  as  amended  by  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

                                         /s/ Jesus R. Adia
                                         -----------------------------------
                                         Jesus R. Adia
                                         President and
                                         Chief Executive Officer

                                         /s/ John S. Lotardo
                                         -----------------------------------
                                         John S. Lotardo
                                         Executive Vice President and
                                         Chief Financial Officer

Date: November 14, 2007
      -----------------

                                       24
'•"'\''

US. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC IN THE MATTER OF 

### ADDISONJETMANAGEMENT, INC. FAA DOCKETNo. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Case) FDMS FAA-2012-0205 

### ORDER TO RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE 

# ..

...

The Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") has filed a

## ~otion to Decision C'Motion") dated July 13, 2012. The basis for the Motion is

# Complainant~s.~ssertion that the Answer to the Complaint ofRespondent Addison Jet Management, Inc. ("Respondent"), together with documents already submitted, establish that Respondent committed the violations with which it is charged. Complainant argues additionally that its proposed civil penalty of$8,149 conforms with established guidelines and should be upheld. Respondent has failed to answerthe Motion. WHEREFORE, 

### it is ORDERED as follows: 1. 

### On or before August 24, 2012, Respondent shall file a response to this Order stating whythe reliefrequested in Complainant's Motion should not be granted;

## ~d2 2. Absent a full and complete response to the ordering paragraph above, Respondent may be sanctioned, including, butnot limited to, allegations in the Complaint may be deemed admitted; Respondent's Request for Hearing may be dismissed; and/or a Default Judgment may be entered against Respondent in the fuil amount ofthe fine requested by the Complainant inits Complaint.

Attachment
- Service List

't



## ..SERVJ[CELIST ORIGINAL & 'ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 . Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2Wl000 1 ONE COPY Gerald P. Shaw, Director ofOperations AddisonJet Management, Inc., Respondent 7515 Lemmon Avenue Dallas, TX 75209 Autumn Killingham, Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Enforcement Division, AGC-300 Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 TEL: 202-267-7728 FAX: 202-267-5106 TheHonorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S,E. 

### (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2012-0205 (Civil Penalty Action)



# ...

1 Servicewas byU.S. Mail. For service inpersonor by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, · DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Cleric,AGC-430. 

### -2-
No. 57290.

protest 194549-K (San Juan, P. R.).

#### Hostos M. Gallardo v. United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial, Government counsel conceded that in an investigation made by the collector’s office it was ascertained that a mistake had *439been made and that actually no 30-foot bars were imported. In view of the concessions made, the collector was directed to reliquidate the entry and figure the duty on the basis of the weight of a 20-foot bar for the entire shipment and to refund all duties taken in excess.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

PAUL WOMMER,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-10039

D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00596-GMNGWF-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Gloria M. Navarro, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 20, 2015** 

San Francisco, California

Before: KLEINFELD, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Paul Wommer was convicted of three counts of structuring financial

transactions, one count of tax evasion, and one count of making a false return or

statement. Wommer successfully appealed his sentence of 41 months’

FILED

DEC 17 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
imprisonment, and was subsequently resentenced to 33 months’ imprisonment. 

Wommer challenges his resentencing as vindictive. We affirm.

1. Wommer argues that the district judge engaged in vindictive resentencing

after Wommer’s successful appeal to this court. See United States v. Wommer, 584

F. App’x 815 (9th Cir. 2014). Wommer’s initial sentence of 41 months’

imprisonment was at the low end of the guidelines range. At resentencing, the

district judge found that Wommer qualified for a lower total offense level than at

the initial sentencing, and she imposed a sentence of 33 months’ imprisonment. 

This sentence was at the high end of the guidelines range. Because Wommer’s

overall sentence was not increased, no presumption of vindictiveness arises. United

States v. Horob, 735 F.3d 866, 871 (9th Cir. 2013). Nor did Wommer prove actual

vindictiveness on the part of the district judge, who reasonably could have

concluded that a 33-month sentence was appropriate given the underlying conduct

and sentencing factors. See id. at 871-72.

2. Wommer also argues that the district court was vindictive in denying his

motion for unescorted commitment to Bureau of Prisons custody. The district

judge provided an explanation for denying the motion that was unrelated to

Wommer’s exercise of his right to appeal. See Fenner v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 251

F.3d 782, 789 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding no vindictiveness where the Parole

2
Commission “provided wholly logical, nonvindictive reasons for issuing the parole

violation warrant” after the defendant filed a habeas petition) (internal quotation

marks omitted). Thus, there was nothing vindictive in the district judge’s denial of

Wommer’s motion for unescorted commitment to Bureau of Prisons custody.

AFFIRMED.

3
**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 CounterPath Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark Bruk, the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Director (Principal Executive) 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 to my knowledge:

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

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

Date: December 18, 2006.
| /s/ Mark Bruk   |
|---------------------------|

Mark Bruk 

Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Director

(Principal Executive)

 

 

CW995161.1
Exhibit 31.2

Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Dale E. Messick, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1
to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Luna Innovations Incorporated; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.

Date: August 10, 2012



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|/s/    Dale E. Messick                 
|Dale E. Messick Chief Financial Officer
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:Proceedings of the ... Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium**
 
1989 | 1990: ABCDEFG | 1991: ABCDE | 1992 | 1993: ABCDE
1994:ABDEF | 1995: ABCD | 1996: ABCD | 1997: ABCDE
1998:ABCDE | 1999: ABCDEFGHI | 2000: ABCDFHIJ
2001:ABCDEF | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007| 2008 | 2009| 2010
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.42/30:
Item Number:0084-D-01 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000604694
 
June 19, 2018
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-122-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
Before the First Division,

August 8, 1944

No. 49661.

#### Protests 109063-K, etc., of Geilich Leather Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

In accordance with stimulation of counsel that the hides in question are the same in all material respects'as those the subject of *Rice*v. *269
      *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 118, C. D. 807), certain of the hides in question were held •dutiable as claimed.
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

CLARENCE MOSES WILLIS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2060 DFL GGH PS

vs.

DENNIS FIDDAMENT, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, filed a motion for summary judgment

on June 30, 2005. This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21),

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

The “summary judgment” motion filed by plaintiff appears to be nothing more

than a renewed objection to the undersigned’s authority to hear this action. Regardless of its

contents, plaintiff failed to notice the motion for summary judgment on the undersigned’s law

and motion calendar as required by Local Rule 78-230(b). Because there are outstanding

findings and recommendations which recommend this action be dismissed, plaintiff’s motion

will be vacated pending a district court order addressing the findings and recommendations. 

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-02060-DFL-GGH Document 21 Filed 08/10/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is

vacated pending a district court order addressing this court’s findings and recommendations of

July 7, 2005.

DATED: 8/10/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:mb

Wilis2060.vac

Case 2:04-cv-02060-DFL-GGH Document 21 Filed 08/10/05 Page 2 of 2
#### Reuben Whitney, *in error, versus*James M. Balkam.

Parol evidence is inadmissible to prove, that a militia company had been without any commissioned officer for the term of three months, for the purpose of showing the authority of the commander of the regiment, under the provisions of the Stat. 1837, c. 276, to detail an officer to train and discipline the company ; a copy'of the record of the proceedings of the commander-in-chief in relation to the officers of such company being better evidence.

This was a writ of error brought by Whitney to reverse a judgment of a justice of the peace, rendered against him in a suit brought by Balkam, as adjutant of the regiment, detailed by the commander thereof to train and discipline a company of militia, which was alleged to have been without any commissioned officer for the term of three months, to recover a penalty for the non-appearance of Whitney at a company training.

Several causes of error were assigned but no statement of them is necessary, as the ground of the reversal of the judgment is seen in the opinion of this Court.

*Fuller,*for the plaintiff in error,

remarked that as no counsel appeared in behalf of the original plaintiff, he should submit the case without argument on his part.

The opinion of the Court was by

Shepley J.

By the act of March 28, 1837, c. 276, the commanding officer of the regiment was authorized to detail an officer to train and discipline any company of militia, that should have remained without any commissioned officer for the term of three months. The plaintiff was detailed to train and discipline the Milltown company of infantry in Calais. *407The only evidence introduced to prove, that the company had been without commissioned officers for that term of time, was the testimony of one, who had been clerk of the company, that Bradbury was the last commissioned officer, and that he was discharged in 1833. The defendant contended, that the authority of the commander of the regiment to detail an officer for that purpose could not be established by such testimony.

A private of a company may know the fact, that there is no person acting as a commissioned officer of the conpany ; but he can have no certain knowledge, whether an officer has been duly commissioned or legally discharged. These are matters to be determined with certainty only by the record of the proceedings of *the*comrnander-in-chief. A copy of that record might have been obtained, and it would have been better evidence of the fact, than the testimony of a private of the company. As the plaintiff did not introduce legal proof, that the commanding officer of the regiment was authorized by law to detail him for the performance of those duties, the judgment of the justice is reversed.
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

TERRENCE BROWNLEE, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1330 DFL EFB P

vs.

J. BURLESON, 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 15, 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 twenty days. Plaintiff

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. On September 20, 2006, defendants

filed a reply to plaintiff’s objections.

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

Case 2:04-cv-01330-DFL-EFB Document 62 Filed 09/29/06 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

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 15, 2006, are adopted in full;

and

2. Defendants’ January 27, 2006 motion for summary judgment is granted for all

defendants.

DATED: 9/29/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01330-DFL-EFB Document 62 Filed 09/29/06 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER LEE JENKINS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1152 MCE GGH P

vs.

J.G. ARCEO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested a second extension of time to file an amended complaint

pursuant to the court's order of December 12. 2005. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's February 16, 2006 second application for an extension of time is

granted; 

2. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is now due on or before March 31, 2006;

and

3. There will be no further extension of time.

DATED: 3/1/06 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009/bb

jenk1152.36(2)

Case 2:04-cv-01152-MCE -GGH Document 33 Filed 03/02/06 Page 1 of 1
Before the Second Division,

April 5, 1946

No. 50999.

#### Protests 949604-G, etc., of Henry Pollak, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
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 UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIUS JONES, ) Civ-S-04-0950 LKK CMK P

)

)

Petitioner, ) SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY;

) ORDER

v. )

)

DAVE RUNNELS, Warden, et al. )

)

Respondents. )

 )

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendant, JULIUS JONES, defendant in the aboveentitled matter, hereby substitutes the Law Office of KRISTA HART, in the place and stead

of the present attorney of record, VICTOR S. HALTOM, as his attorney of record. The new

address of record is 428 J Street, Suite 358, Sacramento, CA 95814. Telephone number (916)

498-8398.

The parties below hereby agree and consent to the above substitution.

Dated: December 2, 2005 /s/ 

VICTOR S. HALTOM

Attorney at Law

Dated: December 2, 2005 /s/ 

KRISTA HART

Attorney at Law

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 9, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00950-LKK -CMK Document 27 Filed 01/10/06 Page 1 of 1