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

Stip. & Order Re Scheduling

AJ KUTCHINS

PO Box 5138

Berkeley, California 94705

(510) 841-5635

State Bar No. 102322

Attorney for Petitioner

ANSAR EL MUHAMMAD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANSAR EL MUHAMMAD, also known as 

CHEVAL WRIGHT,

Petitioner,

vs. NO. CIV S-04-1856 RRB JFM P

JEANNE WOODFORD, Director, 

California Department of Corrections;

JOSEPH L. McGRATH, Warden,

Respondents.

 /

The parties in the above-captioned action hereby stipulate that Petitioner Ansár El

Muhammad shall have until September 18, 2006, to file his Traverse. 

Dated: August 16, 2006 _________/S/_________________

AJ KUTCHINS

Attorney for the Petitioner

Dated: August 16, 2006 ________/S/__________________

DAVID A. LOWE

Deputy Attorney General

Attorney for the Respondents

Good cause appearing therefor, it is hereby ordered that the time for filing Petitioner’s

Traverse shall be, and hereby is, extended to September 18, 2006.

Dated: August 17, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01856-JAM-JFM Document 31 Filed 08/18/06 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

27

28

Stip. & Order Re Scheduling 2

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

I hereby attest that I have on file all holographic signatures for any signatures indicated by

a “conformed” signature (/S/) within this efiled document.

Dated: August 16, 2006 ___________/S/_______________

AJ KUTCHINS

Attorney for the Petitioner

Case 2:04-cv-01856-JAM-JFM Document 31 Filed 08/18/06 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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

ADELINE S. GREENWELL, an

individual,

NO. CIV. S 04-2205 MCE GGH

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

RONALD STREMEL GREENWELL, an

individual; RANDEE J. BRADY,

an individual; CARLA ROBBINS

LEWIS, an individual,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On May 6, 2005, a Petition for Appointment of Guardian ad

Litem was filed on behalf of Plaintiff Adeline S. Greenwell. 

That Petition proposes that Plaintiff’s daughter, Coral Lou

Sehara, be appointed due to Plaintiff’s age (90) and rapidly

deteriorating health.

Case 2:04-cv-02205-MCE -GGH Document 21 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

27

28

The third named defendant, Randee J. Brady, another 1

daughter of Plaintiff’s, was dismissed on January 10, 2005.

2

This action alleges that two of Plaintiff’s other children ,

1

Defendants Ronald Stremel Greenwell and Carla Robbins Lewis, are

liable for misappropriation and/or conversion of monies belonging

to Plaintiff’s Trust Estate. In opposition to the instant

request for appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem, Defendants, while

not disputing the need for appointment of a fiduciary due to

their mother’s condition, nonetheless bring to the Court’s

attention circumstances suggesting that Coral Lou Sehara may have

a conflict of interest in serving as Guardian Ad Litem in this

matter. Given those allegations and the nature of this case, the

Court finds that the ex parte appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem

advocated by Plaintiff’s counsel is inappropriate. Consequently,

the Petition now before the Court is DENIED. 

Any future request for the appointment of a Guardian ad

Litem in this case shall be commenced by the filing of a noticed

motion. In the event such a motion is submitted, counsel should

be prepared to respond to the court’s inquiry as to potential

candidates for that position at the time of the hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 31, 2005

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02205-MCE -GGH Document 21 Filed 05/31/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 61374.

protest 304748-K (Los Angeles).

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., of L. A. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

From a review of the record in this ease, the court found nothing tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the classification by the collector. The protest was therefore overruled.

(Note: The following protests were decided by a special second division, consisting of Rao, Ford, and Oliver, Judges.)
No. R68/18.

reappraisement R64/14518 (Detroit).

#### F. W. Myers & Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *F. W. Myers & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(52 Cust. Ct. 550, Reap. Dec. 10750), the court found and held that the proper basis for appraisement of the pipe organs and parts thereof is constructed value, as defined in section 402(d), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, and that such statutory value is equal to the entered value, less $1201.20.
No. 51398.

#### Protests 914638-G, etc., of Van Raalte Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser*& *Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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 

Patrick Ronald Holley, 

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1425 GEB PAN P

vs. Order

California Department of

Corrections, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel prosecuting a

civil rights action.

The case proceeds on the July 20, 2004, complaint. 

Plaintiff alleges deliberate indifference to serious medical

needs and retaliation for exercise of rights protected by the

First Amendment. The complaint requests the court “invoke”

pendent jurisdiction but includes no state law claims. 

August 24, 2004, plaintiff moved “to file supplemental

Case 2:04-cv-01425-GEB-EFB Document 42 Filed 06/01/05 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

2

pleading” to include claims of due process violations and

retaliation occurring after the initial pleading. He did not

submit a proposed supplemental complaint.

January 14, 2005, plaintiff moved for leave to file a

supplemental pleading to include claims regarding “transactions

and occurrences or events which have happened since the date of

the pleading sought to be supplemented, and claims that arose out

of the conduct, transactions, or occurrences set forth or

attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, governed by

state tort law.” He did not submit a proposed supplemental or

amended pleading.

January 28, 2005, defendants opposed plaintiff’s motion on

the ground plaintiff failed to submit a proposed pleading

including, complete unto itself, all claims and allegations

including those permitted by amendment or supplementation. See

Local Rule 15-220; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. Plaintiff’s

motions are deficient because he failed to submit a proposed

supplemental or amended pleading.

May 10, 2005, plaintiff again moved to supplement his

pleading, failing to submit a proposed supplemental pleading.

March 29, 2005, plaintiff moved to “exclude prejudicial

records submitted by defendants,” seeking to “strike” copies of

documents defendants provided to him in discovery. No such

documents are of record in this proceeding. 

Accordingly, the plaintiff’s August 24, 2004, January 14,

2005, and May 10, 2005, requests to supplement his pleading are

Case 2:04-cv-01425-GEB-EFB Document 42 Filed 06/01/05 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

3

denied. Plaintiff’s March 29, 2005, motion to exclude

prejudicial records is denied.

So ordered. 

Dated: May 31, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01425-GEB-EFB Document 42 Filed 06/01/05 Page 3 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEMIAN TREVOR O’KEEFFE,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

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

ORDER

Defendants have represented an intention to file a summary judgment motion. 

Although the law and motion cutoff has passed, due to unanticipated delays in this case, the court

will grant an extension to permit the filing of dispositive motions, and will continue the other

scheduled dates. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The parties may file dispositive motions by April 6, 2006.

2. The pretrial conference is reset to May 18, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. before the

Honorable Gregory G. Hollows.

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01695-GGH Document 28 Filed 02/09/06 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

3. The trial is reset to June 20, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. before the Honorable William B.

Shubb.

DATED: 2/8/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

__________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH/076

O'Keeffe1695.ptc.wpd

Case 2:04-cv-01695-GGH Document 28 Filed 02/09/06 Page 2 of 2
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4608 

To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to authorize the 

use of individual training accounts for certain youth. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 20, 2024 

Mr. HICKENLOOPER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

to authorize the use of individual training accounts for 

certain youth. 

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 ‘‘Building Youth Work5 force Skills Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. YOUTH WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES. 

7 Section 129(c) of the Workforce Innovation and Op8 portunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3164(c)) is amended by adding 

9 at the end the following: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4608 IS

1 ‘‘(9) INDIVIDUAL TRAINING ACCOUNTS.—Funds 

2 allocated as described in paragraph (1) to a local 

3 area may be used to pay, through an individual 

4 training account, an eligible provider of training 

5 services described in section 122(d)(1) for training 

6 services described in section 134(c)(3) provided to 

7 an in-school youth who is not younger than age 16 

8 and not older than age 21, or any out-of-school 

9 youth, in the same manner that an individual train10 ing account is used to pay an eligible provider of 

11 training services under subparagraphs (F)(iii) and 

12 (G) of section 134(c)(3) for training services pro13 vided to an adult or dislocated worker.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
|                                             |   | Three      months ended |      |   | Three      months ended |   |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|-----------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                                             |   | March      31, 2009     |      |   | March      31, 2008     |   |
|                                             |   |                    |      |   |                    |   |
| Income      available to common stockholders     |   | $                       | 323,867   |   |                    | $      | 2,129 |   |
|                                             |   |                    |      |   |                    |   |   |   |
| Weighted      average shares outstanding         |   |                    | 2,660,218 |   |                    |   | 2,643,551 |   |
|                                             |   |                    |      |   |                    |   |   |   |
| Basic      earnings per share                    |   | $                       | 0.12      |   |                    | $      | 0.001 |   |
|                                             |   |                    |      |   |                    |   |   |   |
| Income      for diluted earnings per share       |   | $                       | 323,867   |   |                    | $      | 2,129 |   |
|                                             |   |                    |      |   |                    |   |   |   |
| Total      weighted average common shares        |   |                    |      |   |                    |   |   |   |
|   and      equivalents outstanding for |   |                    |      |   |                    |   |   |   |
|   diluted      computation             |   |                    | 2,660,218 |   |                    |   | 2,643,551 |   |
|                                             |   |                    |      |   |                    |   |   |   |
| Diluted      earnings per share                  |   | $                       | 0.12      |   |                    | $      | 0.001 |   |
EXHIBIT
32





Certification
of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


of
Rainier Pacific Financial Group, Inc.


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








The undersigned hereby certifies,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with
this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2009, that:





1.
            the
      report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
  and





2.
            the
      information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the Company’s financial condition and results of operations as
      of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements
      included in such report.

















/s/John A.
Hall


John A.
Hall


President
and Chief Executive Officer,


Interim
Chief Financial Officer








Dated:
May 8, 2009





31
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

June 30, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk REVISED JUNE 30, 2005 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

_______________



### m 04-41290 Summary Calendar

_______________



### U NITED 

### S TATES OF 

### A MERICA 

### , Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS



### S ALVADOR 

### V EGA 

### -D IAZ 

### ,

Defendant-Appellant.



### _________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas



### m 5:04-CR-473-1

______________________________

Before D AVIS , S MITH , and D ENNIS , Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM : *

Having pleaded guilty of il legal re-entry after deportati on, Salvador Vega-Diaz appeals his forty-six-month sentence of imprisonment, which is to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. He argues that his sentence un der a mandatory application of the sentencing guidelines must be vacated in light of United States v. Booker

, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). We review this issue for harmless

error, because Vega-Diaz did raise it in the district court.

Our review of the record convinces us that the district court would have imposed a lower
sentence under advi so ry guidelines. Conse- * Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.2

quently, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. U

nited States v. Pennell

, 409 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2005); U nited States v. Gracia-Cantu

, 30 2 F.3d 308, 313 (5th Cir. 2002).

The decision to remand makes it unnecessary for us to address whether the enhancement of Vega-Diaz’s sentence based on prior drug trafficking convictions pursuant t o U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b )(1)(A)(i) constitutes reversible error in light of U nited States v. Gutierrez-Ramirez

, 405 F.3d 352, 353-60 (5th Cir. 2005). U

nited States v. AngelesMendoza

, 407 F.3d 742, 754 & nn.26-27 (5th Cir. 2005). The district court will have the benefit on remand of the record supplements
p rovided by the government relative to t his issue.

Finally, Vega-Diaz argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) are unconstitutional in li ght of A

pprendi v. New Jersey

, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). We agree with Vega-Diaz’s concession that this issue is for eclosed. S ee Almendarez-Torres v. United States

, 523 U.S. 224, 24 7 (1998); U

nited States v. ManciaPerez , 331 F.3d 464, 470 (5th Cir. 2003).

The judgment of se nt ence is VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing.
Exhibit 11, Form 10-K
                                                          Kansas City Life
                                                          Insurance Company



                         KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
                          COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                    Years ended December 31, 1996, 1995 and 1994

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                              1996                 1995                 1994
<S>                       <C>                   <C>                  <C>

Shares outstanding
at the end of:
  January                   6,181,054            6,163,293            6,146,912
  February                  6,184,705            6,167,341            6,149,595
  March                     6,182,989            6,169,609            6,152,038
  April                     6,184,937            6,167,726            6,148,472
  May                       6,191,114            6,176,567            6,153,712
  June                      6,193,470            6,179,444            6,154,480
  July                      6,190,338            6,178,783            6,150,730
  August                    6,194,308            6,178,894            6,146,180
  September                 6,195,952            6,177,911            6,154,427
  October                   6,192,890            6,175,032            6,154,517
  November                  6,191,226            6,177,879            6,160,637
  December                  6,189,469            6,177,905            6,162,436

    Weighted average
    number of shares
    outstanding for
    the year                6,188,489            6,173,294            6,152,155



Income before
nonrecurring item         $42,315,000           41,738,000           38,858,000

Postemployment
benefits, net                       -                    -            1,481,000

Net income                $42,315,000           41,738,000           37,377,000


Per common share:
  Income before
  nonrecurring item       $      6.84                 6.76                 6.32

  Postemployment
  benefits, net                     -                    -                  .24

Net income                $      6.84                 6.76                 6.08
</TABLE>
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

U.S. BANK, N.A., 

Plaintiff, No.CIV S-04-2458 DFL KJM PS

vs.

GREG POPPIN, et al., ORDER

Defendants. 

 /

On July 6, 2005, plaintiff requested entry of default against defendants Heineman

and Johnson. These defendants have filed a motion to dismiss, which is still pending. Although

findings and recommendations regarding the motion to dismiss were filed May 17, 2005, no final

order by the district judge has yet issued. Under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 12(a)(4)(A), no

responsive pleading is due until after resolution of the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s request for

entry of default accordingly is premature and is hereby DENIED. 

DATED: July 19, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6 usbank.def

Case 2:04-cv-02458-DFL -KJM Document 62 Filed 07/20/05 Page 1 of 1
(Reap. Dec. 8684)

Entry No. 2032.

#### W. R. Zanes & Co. of La., Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided October 17, 1956)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Olivee, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to electric motors exported from England and entered at the port of New Orleans, La.

The case has been submitted on stipulated facts which establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value for these electric motors is the appraised unit values, less 10 per centum, packed, and I so hold.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23 - 0211 CITY OF MISSOULA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SCOTT ANTHONY CHARLIE,

Defendant and Appellant .

**G RANT**  Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until October 6 , 2023 , to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court August 30 2023

08/30/2023
Case Number: DA 23-0211
Blueprint







Exhibit 10.8(a)







AMENDMENT NO. 1


 



TO THE


 



YUMA ENERGY, INC.


 



2014 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN


 


This
Amendment No. 1 to the Yuma Energy, Inc. 2014 Long-Term Incentive
Plan (the “Plan”) was approved and adopted by the Board
of Directors of Yuma Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on
June 16, 2016, subject to approval by the shareholders of the
Company, which was obtained on October 26, 2016. Accordingly, the
Plan is hereby amended, effective as of October 26, 2016, as
follows:


 


 




1.

Section 2.10 of the
Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following:






 


“Company”
means Yuma Energy, Inc., a Delaware
corporation.”


 


 




2.

The first sentence
of Section 3.1 of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and
replaced with the following:






 


“Subject to
the limitations set forth herein, 4,990,000 shares of Common Stock
are reserved for issuance pursuant to Awards made under this
Plan.”


 


 




3.

Section 4.1(a) of
the Plan be deleted in their entirety and replaced with the
following:






 


“(a) Subject
to Article XII, (i) the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock
made subject to the grant of Options and/or SARs to any Eligible
Employee in any calendar year may not exceed 1,500,000 and (ii) the
maximum aggregate number of shares that may be issued under this
Plan through Incentive Stock Options is
1,000,000.”


 


 




4.

Section 4.1(b) of
the Plan be deleted in their entirety and replaced with the
following:






 


 “(b)
Subject to Article XII, the aggregate number of shares of Common
Stock made subject to the grant of Restricted Stock Awards,
Restricted Stock Unit Awards, Performance Unit Awards, Performance
Bonus Awards, Stock Awards and Other Incentive Awards to any
Eligible Employee in any calendar year may not exceed
700,000.”


 


In all
other respects, the Plan remains unchanged and in full force and
effect, and such Plan as hereby amended is approved and
adopted.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment No. 1
to the Plan has been executed to be effective as of October 26,
2016.


 


 


YUMA
ENERGY, INC.


 


 


By:
/s/ Sam L.
Banks


Name:
Sam L. Banks
No. 57294.

protest 197155-K (New York).

#### American Express Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case the court was unable to find anything to' overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.