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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES P. DeFAZIO,

Plaintiff,

v. NO. CIV. S-04-1358 LKK/GGH

HOLLISTER, INC., Plan 

Administrator; et al.,

Defendants.

 /

KATHLEEN ELLIS,

Plaintiff,

v. NO. CIV. S-05-559 LKK/GGH

HOLLISTER, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

BRENDA DIMARO; and HALLIE LAVICK,

Plaintiffs,

v. NO. CIV. S-05-1726 LKK/GGH

HOLLISTER, INC., et al.,

O R D E R

Defendants.

 /

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 83 Filed 04/28/06 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

1 As noted during the Status Conference, the parties should

focus on how each proposal would increase efficiency and

convenience for the court. 

2

On April 24, 2006, a Status Conference was held in the abovecaptioned cases. Based on discussions during that conference, the

court hereby ORDERS as follows:

1. Within ten (10) days of the Status Conference, the parties

shall file briefs not exceeding ten (10) pages proposing how the

above-captioned cases should be tried to the court.1

2. All dates in DeFazio v. Hollister, No. Civ. S-04-1358, are

VACATED.

3. Defendants in Ellis v. Hollister, No. Civ. S-05-559, and

Dimaro v. Hollister, No. Civ. S-05-1726, are granted a twenty-one

(21) day extension to file their answers.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 26, 2006

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 83 Filed 04/28/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
32.2








KINDER
MORGAN, INC.


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 on Form 10-K of Kinder Morgan, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in
the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:





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





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





A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Knight Inc. and will be retained by Kinder Morgan, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.








Dated:  March
      5, 2010
            
            /s/
      Kimberly A. DangKimberly
      A. Dang
              Vice
      President and Chief Financial
Officer
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-29375 04-APR-2011 12:30 PM NO. SCWC-29375
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I

STATE OF HAWAI ' I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. STEVE OSHIRO, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (ICA NO. 29375; CR. NO. 07-1-0957)
ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 1 (By: Duffy, J., for the court ) Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Steve Oshiro’s application for writ of certiorari, filed on February 22, 2011, is hereby rejected. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, April 4, 2011.
FOR THE COURT: /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. Associate Justice Michael Jay Greenfor petitioner/defendantappellant on the application Delanie D. Prescott-Tate, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,for respondent/plaintiffappellee on the response

1 Considered by: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ., and Circuit Judge Alm, assigned by reason of vacancy.
No. 52020.

#### Continental Merchandise Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 62629-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
##### 



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 quarterly report is being
prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based
on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this quarterly 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. DuGan

Gordon F. DuGan
Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.1




Schedule of Executive Officers who are Parties
to the Amended and Restated Severance Agreements in the Forms Filed as
Exhibit 10(e) to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K
For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2010








Form A of Severance Agreement


Christopher M. Connor
John G. Morikis
Sean P. Hennessy




Form B of Severance Agreement


Joel D. Baxter
Robert J. Davisson
Robert J. Wells




Form C of Severance Pay Agreement


Thomas P. Gilligan
Catherine M. Kilbane
Allen J. Mistysyn
David B. Sewell
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

PAUL LOUTZENHISER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1937 LKK PAN P

vs.

ALVARO C. TRAQUINA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner prosecuting a civil rights action. 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 22, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

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

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Defendant

Franklin and plaintiff have filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Defendant

Franklin filed a reply.

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-01937-LKK -PAN Document 53 Filed 09/19/05 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

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 22, 2005 are adopted in full;

2. Defendant Franklin’s December 20, 2004, motion to dismiss is denied;

3. Plaintiff’s February 1, 2005, motion for summary judgment is denied;

4. The May 23, 2005, cross-motion for summary judgment of defendants

Traquina, Webster and Cervantes is denied, except as to plaintiff’s due process claims which are

dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and

5. Defendant Franklin’s May 25, 2005, cross-motion for summary judgment is

denied.

DATED: September 16, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01937-LKK -PAN Document 53 Filed 09/19/05 Page 2 of 2
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4619 

To revise sections 552, 1461, and 1462 of title 18, United States Code, 

and section 305 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1305), and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 20, 2024 

Ms. SMITH (for herself, Ms. WARREN, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Ms. STABENOW, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. MERKLEY, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Ms. DUCKWORTH, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. FETTERMAN, Mr. BOOKER, 

Mr. WELCH, Mr. PADILLA, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Ms. BUTLER, and Ms. HASSAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To revise sections 552, 1461, and 1462 of title 18, United 

States Code, and section 305 of the Tariff Act of 1930 

(19 U.S.C. 1305), and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Stop Comstock Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. OBSCENE MATERIALS. 

6 (a) TITLE 18.—Part I of title 18, United States 

7 Code, is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4619 IS

1 (1) in section 552— 

2 (A) by striking ‘‘or indecent’’; and 

3 (B) by striking ‘‘or means for procuring 

4 abortion, or other articles of indecent or im5 moral use or tendency,’’; 

6 (2) in section 1461— 

7 (A) by striking ‘‘Every obscene, lewd, las8 civious’’ and all that follows through ‘‘Is de9 clared’’ and inserting ‘‘All obscene materials are 

10 declared’’; 

11 (B) by striking ‘‘or section 3001(e) of title 

12 39’’; and 

13 (C) by striking ‘‘The term ‘indecent’ ’’ and 

14 all that follows through ‘‘assassination.’’; and 

15 (3) in section 1462— 

16 (A) in the first undesignated paragraph— 

17 (i) by striking ‘‘section 230(e)(2)’’ 

18 and inserting ‘‘section 230(f)(2)’’; and 

19 (ii) by striking ‘‘commerce—’’ and all 

20 that follows through ‘‘things may be ob21 tained or made’’ and inserting ‘‘commerce 

22 any obscene material’’; and 

23 (B) in the second undesignated paragraph, 

24 by striking ‘‘matter or thing the carriage or im25 portation of’’ and inserting ‘‘material’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 4619 IS

1 (b) TARIFF ACT OF 1930.—Section 305(a) of the 

2 Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1305(a)) is amended— 

3 (1) by striking ‘‘or immoral’’ and all that fol4 lows through ‘‘unlawful abortion’’; and 

5 (2) by striking ‘‘Provided, That the drugs’’ and 

6 all that follows through ‘‘Provided further, That the 

7 Secretary’’ and inserting ‘‘Provided, That the Sec8 retary’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0093 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007AP0093

**European Parliament legislative resolution of 29 March 2007 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on compliance with flag State requirements (COM(2005)0586 - C6-0062/2006 - 2005/0236(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 027 E , 31/01/2008 P. 0140 - 0140 *

P6_TA(2007)0093

Compliance with the obligations of flag States ***I

European Parliament legislative resolution of 29 March 2007 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on compliance with flag State requirements (COM(2005)0586 — C6-0062/2006 — 2005/0236(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2005)0586) [1],

- having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 80(2) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0062/2006),

- having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A6-0058/2007),

1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-93,717-01

EX PARTE BRIYON SMITH, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. D-1-DC-19-300593-A IN THE 167 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Applicant was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.

Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the

district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant contends that plea was involuntary because the plea agreement was conditioned

on an agreement for shock probation if Applicant successfully completed the initial portion of his

sentence. Based on the record, the trial court has determined that Applicant completed his portion

of the bargain, but counsel failed to timely file a motion for shock probation. It also determined that

the plea agreement was conditioned on an agreement for shock probation.

Relief is granted. Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970). The judgment in cause
2

number D-1-DC-19-300593 in the 165 District Court of Travis County is set aside, and Applicant th

is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Travis County to answer the charges as set out in the

indictment. The trial court shall issue any necessary bench warrant within ten days from the date of

this Court’s mandate.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to theTexasDepartment ofCriminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Delivered: May 18, 2022

Do not publish
"G7

3g 60000
35°45'N

39 Yee

“G57

35°30'N

“6 gin

391 2000

35°15'N
“6°

79 gates

3678000

35°N

39 gi

70°45'E

71°15'E

— Road

—-— $tream, mostly intermittant

O City, town, or village
—- Province boundary

A

CL]

Peak
Image quadrant or tile

5 MILES

10 KILOMETERS

[}——
No. 59007.

protest 244305-K (New York).

#### E. Tabasso & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in this case, the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration # 10818]
 AGENCY: Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (FEMA-1684-DR), dated 02/23/2007. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         11/16/2006 through 11/17/2006. *Effective Date:*
                         02/23/2007. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         04/24/2007.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 02/23/2007, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Bradford, Lackawanna, Luzerne, Sullivan, Susquehanna, Wayne, Wyoming. *The Interest Rates are:* PercentOther (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere
5.250Businesses And Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10818. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008.) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. E7-3783 Filed 3-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
No. 46734.

#### Protests 33351-K, etc., of Ciba Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel it was held that the merchandise covered by the protests herein is dutiable at *7}iao*of 3 cents per pound on the entire weight.
No. 52016.

#### William J. Oberle, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 114422-K/12705 (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that duty was assessed on case number 7764 and that it has since been verified that said merchandise Was not imported. In accordance With stipulation and following *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) the court sustained the protest and directed the collector to make refund of duties taken upon the merchandise in case number 776'4.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Dwayne MOODY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-30223.

D.C. No. CR-00-00079-JCC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.*

Decided June 21, 2001.

*564Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Kenneth Dwayne Moody appeals the 92-month sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea conviction for armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The legal interpretation of guideline terms are reviewed de novo. *United States v. Duran,*37 F.3d 557, 559 (9th Cir.1994). A district court’s factual findings underlying a sentencing decision are reviewed for clear error. *Id.*Review under the clearly erroneous standard is significantly deferential, requiring a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. *See United States v. Reed,*80 F.3d 1419, 1424 (9th Cir.1996).

Moody contends that the district court erred by applying a two-level enhancement for reckless endangerment in the course of fleeing from law enforcement agents pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 (1998). Specifically, he contends that the district court failed to establish a nexus between the armed bank robbery and the car chase twenty hours later because there was no evidence that he fled in order to avoid detection for the bank robbery. *See United States v. Duran,*37 F.3d 557, 560 (9th Cir.1994) (assuming without holding that section 3C1.2 requires a nexus between crime of conviction and the reckless endangerment). Moody also contends that the district court erred in finding that he created a substantial risk to others during flight. Both contentions lack merit.

Even assuming that section 3C1.2 requires a nexus between the crime of conviction and the reckless endangerment, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Moody, who was driving the same car he used during the bank robbery, knew he was being pursued by law enforcement agents for the bank robbery committed the previous day. *Id.*

The court’s finding that Moody created a substantial risk is also not clearly erroneous. The court found that Moody engaged in a high-speed chase that reached speeds of up to 100 m.p.h. and that he traveled through red lights without stopping. *See Reed,*80 F.3d at 1424 (holding that where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
No. 59566.

protest 257873-K (Los Angeles).

#### John L. Westland & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended May 25, 1955, effective July 1, 1955, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution. '
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          22,571
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  214,963
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     20,277
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               303,027
<PP&E>                                       1,352,787
<DEPRECIATION>                                 489,812
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,257,457
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          329,838
<BONDS>                                        315,564
<COMMON>                                       140,489
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              572
<PREFERRED>                                      7,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     286,271
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,257,457
<SALES>                                      1,103,389
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,103,389
<CGS>                                          732,072
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  989,665
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,211
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 81,572
<INCOME-TAX>                                    29,050
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             52,522
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    52,522
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Before the Second Division,

April 3, 1946

No. 50983.

#### Protests 120661-K, etc., of J. & A. Manufacturing Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.