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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUEBEN ROBERTS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S 04-2232 MCE PAN P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no

absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d

453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at

any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing

§ 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be

served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. 

Petitioner has also requested an extension of time to file and serve an opposition

to respondents’ January 30, 2006, motion to dismiss. 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s March 6, 2006, motion for appointment of counsel is denied

without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings;

Case 2:04-cv-02232-MCE -EFB Document 27 Filed 04/10/06 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. Petitioner’s March 6, 2006, motion for an extension of time is granted; and

3. Petitioner is granted 30 days from the date of this order in which to file and

serve an opposition to respondents’ January 30, 2006, motion to dismiss. Respondents’ reply, if

any, shall be filed 20 days thereafter.

DATED: April 7, 2006.

/mp

/004;robe2232.111+110

Case 2:04-cv-02232-MCE -EFB Document 27 Filed 04/10/06 Page 2 of 2
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00100-CR

Valerie Ann HERNANDEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-CR-0531

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 10, 2010

DISMISSED

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal bywithdrawing her notice of appeal. The

motion is granted and this appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
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

 Pursuant to this court’s April 19, 2006 order, defendants Brown and Largent have until 1

May 19, 2006 to file and serve a response to plaintiff’s complaint. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES WHITTENBERG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2225 GEB PAN P

vs.

V. BORTOLAMEDI, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On April 10, 2006, defendants Bortolamedi, Johnson and Yelton filed a motion to

dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. 1

Local Rule 78-230(m) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file

written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any

opposition to the granting of the motion . . . .” On February 1, 2006, plaintiff was advised of the

requirements for filing an opposition to the motion and that failure to oppose such a motion may

be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. 

Local Rule 11-110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be

grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the

Case 2:04-cv-02225-GEB-EFB Document 19 Filed 05/18/06 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

inherent power of the Court.” In the order filed February 1, 2006, plaintiff was advised that

failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be

dismissed.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty days of the

date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any he has, to the motion to dismiss or a

statement of non-opposition. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation

that plaintiff’s claims against defendants Bortolamedi, Johnson and Yelton be dismissed pursuant

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

DATED: May 17, 2006.

whit2225.46osc

Case 2:04-cv-02225-GEB-EFB Document 19 Filed 05/18/06 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

JAMES JOSEPH DURAN, JR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-04-1875 DFL KJM P 

vs.

JAMES POPE,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a Shasta County Jail prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an

application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because petitioner may be

entitled to the requested relief if the claimed violation of constitutional rights is proved,

respondent will be directed to file an answer.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent is directed to file an answer within sixty days from the date of this

order. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Respondent shall include with the

answer any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the issues

presented in the application. Rule 5, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases;

2. Petitioner's traverse, if any, is due on or before thirty days from the date

respondents’ answer is filed;

Case 2:04-cv-01875-JKS-KJM Document 6 Filed 05/17/05 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

3. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of

petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus on Jo Graves, Senior Assistant Attorney

General.

DATED: May 16, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

pope1875.100

Case 2:04-cv-01875-JKS-KJM Document 6 Filed 05/17/05 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

ANTHONY ALONZO, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1622 GEB CMK

vs.

ANTHONY PRINCIPI,

Secretary, Department of Veteran’s Affairs

Defendant. ORDER

 /

On January 11, 2006, the court issued findings and recommendations in this case,

which have not yet been adopted by the district court. In light of the pending findings and

recommendations, the pre-trial conference set for June 5, 2006 and the trial set for August 8,

2006 are vacated. If needed, these dates shall be reset at a later time. 

DATED: May 9, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01622-GEB-CMK Document 44 Filed 05/09/06 Page 1 of 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 Corumel Minerals Corp. (“Corumel”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Chris Roth, President,
      Chief Executive Officer of Corumel and a member of the Board of Directors,
      certify, pursuant to s.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 represents, the financial
      condition and result of operations of Corumel.








*/s/
      Chris Roth*


Chris
      Roth


Chief
      Executive Officer




August
      12, 2005








**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 Corumel Minerals Corp. (“Corumel”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Chris Roth, Treasurer
      and Chief Financial Officer of Corumel and a member of the Board of Directors,
      certify, pursuant to s.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 represents, the financial
      condition and result of operations of Corumel.








*/s/
      Chris Roth*


Chris
      Roth


Chief
      Financial Officer




August
      12, 2005
ACCEPTED

12-17-00249-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

5/11/2018 3:19 PM

Pam Estes

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 5/11/2018 3:19:57 PM PAM ESTES Clerk
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

REGINA BLACKHURST,

Plaintiff, CIV. NO. S-04-2191 GEB GGH 

vs.

TRINITY CHURCH, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Defendants’ motion to compel depositions presently is calendared for hearing on

September 26, 2005. The discovery deadline in this case was August 24, 2005. Therefore, the

matter will have to be vacated from the calendar. Defendants are advised that they must seek a

modification of the district court’s scheduling order with the district judge before returning to

this court. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the September 26, 2005 hearing on

defendants’ motion to compel, filed August 29, 2005, is vacated from the calendar.

DATED: 9/7/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076:Blackhurst2191.vac.wpd

Case 2:04-cv-02191-GEB-GGH Document 16 Filed 09/07/05 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 

William Jackson Kitchens,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1206 MCE PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Pat Houge, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff moves voluntarily to dismiss his claims against

defendant Jeff Diggs. Defendant filed no opposition. 

Since defendant Diggs served an answer, plaintiff cannot

voluntarily dismiss without an order of the court without filing

a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have

appeared in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). But an action

may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s instance upon order of the 

court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems 

proper. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).

The complaint alleges defendant Diggs violated plaintiff’s 

Case 2:04-cv-01206-MCE -EFB Document 34 Filed 01/06/06 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

right to due process by basing his determination plaintiff was a

sexually violent predator solely on papers submitted to him by a

different defendant. Plaintiff now asserts that upon review, he

believes these allegations “were in fact inconsequential,” and

that defendant Diggs is not the person who performed the required

review.

Since defendant Diggs filed no opposition, plaintiff’s

October 27, 2005, motion should be granted and claims against

defendant Diggs are dismissed with prejudice.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: January 5, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01206-MCE -EFB Document 34 Filed 01/06/06 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 9,775.

#### MOORE v. SHIELDS.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 529.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1824.

Replevin — Actios on Bond — Breach op Condition-Return Eloigned.

In order to support an action upon a replevin-bond, it is not necessary that the defendant in replevin who has recovered judgment against the plaintiff in replevin for damages and costs, should obtain a writ of retomo habendo returned “eloigned;” but the non-payment of the damages found by the jury, is a breach of the condition of the bond upon which an action may be maintained.

Debt on a replevin-bond. The breach alleged, was the non-payment of the damages and costs found by the verdict of the jury in the trial of the action of replevin, for the defendant in replevin against the plaintiff in replevin. The defendant, who was a Burety in the replevin-bond, pleaded in substance, that the plaintiff in replevin was always, after the judgment of the court in that action, ready to return the replevied property, and still is ready to return it. To this plea there was a general demurrer and joinder. The condition of the bond was to prosecute the writ of replev-in with effect; to return the goods replevied, if a return thereof should be adjudged by the court, and to pay all such costs, charges, and damages as may be adjudged by the court to be sustained by occasion of replevying the said goods; and in all things well and truly to observe and perform the judgment of the said court upon the premises.

Mr. Ashton, for defendant, contended that no action could be maintained upon the bond until a writ of retomo habendo should have been issued and returned “eloigned.” But in the action of replevin the defendant in replev-in did not obtain a judgment for a return.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

(nem. con.) adjudged the plea to be bad, and rendered judgment upon the demurrer, for the plaintiff, for the penalty of the bond and damages, to be released on the payment of the damages found for the defendant in replevin in that action and the costs of the replevin, and the costs of the present action upon the bond.
Exhibit 31.1CERTIFICATIONSI, Eugenio Lopez, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Jafra Worldwide Holdings (Lux) S.àr.l.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.Date November 10, 2006       /s/ EUGENIO LOPEZ Eugenio Lopez    Chief Executive Officer  
63
---

---

Exhibit 4.(a).63



The State of Israel
Ministry of Communications

| | General
License of Partner Fixed Communications Solutions Limited Partnership for the Provision
of Domestic Fixed-Line Telecommunication Services
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment
No. 3

| | By
virtue of the powers of the Minister of Communications under Article 4 (e) of the
Communications Law (Telecommunications and Broadcasts), 5742-1982, that have been
delegated to us, by all our other powers under any law, we hereby amend the Exclusive
General License for the provision of Domestic Fixed-Line Telecommunication Services,
granted to Partner Fixed Communications Solutions Limited Partnership on 15 January
2007, as follows:
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# Amendment of Article 64

| | 1. | In
Article 64.7, instead of (commencement date), other
          than, shall come:
other
than article 64.1 (a) that will become effective on 15 March 2007 (commencementdate) other than.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(19 February, 2007)

| | (sgd)
Mordechai Mordechai  Director-General | (sgd)
Haim Giron, Adv.Senior Deputy Director-General,Engineering and Licensing
| | --------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
2

In the previous drinking water assessment, the reported time-series was based on the maximum 

application rate of terbufos for sorghum. In the amended DWA, the reported time-series values 

were adjusted based on a typical use rate of 0.895 lbs a.i./A (Appendix A, via email from Tom 

Myers, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, 10/08/2014) for sorghum, which is 53 percent of the 

maximum rate of 1.68 lbs a.i./A. Since there is a linear relationship between the application rate 

and modeled EDWCs, previously reported time-series values for the TX sorghum scenario were 

adjusted simply by multiplying with 0.53 to represent the typical rate for sorghum. Table 1

provides EDWCs based on maximum and typical use rates of terbufos for sorghum. The 

PRZM/EXAMS-generated amended “time series” file of terbufos for TTR for TX sorghum OP 

scenario is also attached below. No additional modeling is warranted at this time because all the 

input parameters from previous modeling (USEPA 2014) remain unchanged.

Table 1. EDWCs for drinking water risk assessment for terbufos and its degradates 

based on maximum and typical rates

Source of Drinking 

Water

Estimated Drinking Water Concentration (μg/L)

1-in-10-year Peak 

Exposure

1-in-10-year 

Annual Mean 

Exposure 

30-year Mean 

Exposure 

Total Toxic Residues of Terbufos (Terbufos plus Terbufos Sulfoxide and Terbufos Sulfone)

Surface Water (max rate 

of 1.68 lbs a.i for 

sorghum)

63.06 11.53 6.13

Surface water (typical 

rate of 0.895 lbs a.i for 

sorghum1

33.42 6.11 3.25

10.53 adjustment factor used in calculating EDWCs

Time Series File 

Sorghum_TTR_Typic

al Rate_ 0.53 Fraction.csv

Reference

US EPA. 2014. Memorandum:. Drinking Water Assessment for the Registration Review of 

Terbufos. Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Chemical Safety and 

Pollution Prevention. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (DP418656, 2014).
3

Appendix A

Terbufos Average Annual A.I. Rates, 2008-2012

Active Ingredient Crop Total Area 

Treated Pounds A.I.

Average A.I. 

Rates 

(lbs a.i./acre)

TERBUFOS Corn 1,256,003 1,157,126 0.921

TERBUFOS

Sorghum 

(Milo) 62,583 56,034 0.895

TERBUFOS Sugar Beets 877,637 1,225,401 1.396

TERBUFOS Sweet Corn 185,882 197,916 1.065

Source: Proprietary Data, 2008-2012

Prepared by C. Doucoure 7-Oct-14

Provided by Tom Myers, Risk Management and Implementation Branch II, Pesticide Re-Evaluation 

Division, via email- October 08, 2014
No. 56443.

protests 167298-K, etc. (New York).

#### Chong Lung Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           32551
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7921118
<ALLOWANCES>                                    928605
<INVENTORY>                                   14547653
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              22999153
<PP&E>                                        13460049
<DEPRECIATION>                                10982520
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                26332923
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2210005
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         33238
<OTHER-SE>                                    20241256
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  20274494
<SALES>                                       39554720
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              40791747
<CGS>                                         25922621
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 25922621
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               8594620
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              306178
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                5968688
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2381000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            3587688
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3587688
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 52283.

protests 37308-K and 47270-K (Los Angeles).

#### L. W. Wonn *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of dog food the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Corporacion Argentina de Productores de Carnes*v. *United States*(32 C. C. P. A. 175, C. A. D. 304) the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.