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

JAFAR AFSHAR,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1088 LKK JFM P

vs.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On May 17, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to compel. Said motion is set for

hearing before the undersigned on June 23, 2005 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom # 26. On June 20,

2005, the parties filed a document which they represent to be a joint discovery stipulation

pursuant to Local Rule 37-251. The parties have not satisfied the meet and confer requirements

of that rule.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. On June 23, 2005, at 11:00 a.m., the parties shall meet and confer in person

concerning the matters at issue in plaintiff’s May 17, 2005 motion to compel;

2. Said meeting shall take place at the United States Courthouse, 501 I Street,

Sacramento, California; 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01088-LKK -JFM Document 39 Filed 06/22/05 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 parties shall forthwith contact Connie Farnsworth, Courtroom Deputy, to

obtain a specific location within the courthouse for the meeting required by this order;

4. Within five days from June 23, 2005, the parties shall file a joint stipulation

reporting on the results of the conference required by this order; and

5. Plaintiff’s motion to compel shall be reset for hearing, if necessary, by

subsequent court order.

DATED: June 21, 2005. 

12

afsh1088.251

Case 2:04-cv-01088-LKK -JFM Document 39 Filed 06/22/05 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

DAMON ALLGIRE, No. CIV-S-04-1680 MCE/GGH P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

WARDEN R.A. CASTRO, ET AL., 

Defendants.

 /

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 June 17, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings

and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days.

///

Case 2:04-cv-01680-MCE -GGH Document 13 Filed 09/07/05 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

Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and

recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 17, 2005,

are adopted in full; 

2. Defendants Schwarzenegger, Hickman, and Runnels are

dismissed from this action, and defendant J.S. Woodford is

dismissed as a defendant in her individual capacity for money

damages; and

3. This action shall proceed against defendant Woodford in

her official capacity only as to plaintiff’s claims for

prospective injunctive relief.

DATED: September 7, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01680-MCE -GGH Document 13 Filed 09/07/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 47890.

#### Protests 805643-G, etc., of Milo Harding Co. (Los Angeles)

Opinion by

Hínchelos, J.

Some testimony was introduced at the trial tending to show that the paper in question was surface-coated paper. In accordance with stipulation a sample was submitted to the United States chemist. This report showed that said sample is surface-coated paper. In accordance therewith the claim’ under paragraph 1405 was sustained.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to 18 United States Code § 1350

The undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 of Jafra Worldwide Holdings (Lux) S.àr.l.
(the Company) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained
in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |  |                                                        
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ MICHAEL A. DIGREGORIO                              
| |  | Michael A. DiGregorio                                  
| |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer      
| |  | of the Advisory Committee (Principal Financial Officer)

August 14, 2003

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

59
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.2



                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 Keane, Inc. (the
"Company) for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, John
J. Leahy, Senior Vice President - Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.



Dated:   March 21, 2003                         /s/ John J. Leahy
                                                --------------------------------
                                                John J. Leahy
                                                Senior Vice President and
                                                Chief Financial Officer







                                       1
No. 53014.

#### Amdeita Leather Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 95995-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
(Reap. Dec. 10092)

#### Samincorp South American Minerals *&*Merchandise Corporation *v.*United States

Entry No. 8929, etc.

(Decided November 1, 1961)

*B. John Shepard*for the plaintiff.

*William S. Orrick, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> *501It is hereby consented by and between the attorneys herein:

> 1. That the merchandise involved herein consisted of Sodium Perborate exported from Holland during 1958, 1959 and 1960.

> 2. That the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Holland, in the usual wholesale quantities, and in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption was $10.63 per 100 lbs.

> 3. That such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Holland for export to the United States, in the usual wholesale quantities, and in the ordinary course of trade.

> 4. The defendant abandons all claims to merchandise other than the Sodium Perborate contained in the said appeals for reappraisement involved herein.

> 5. The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the schedule annexed hereto are consolidated.

> 6. The appeals for reappraisement so consolidated are hereby submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such value in each case was $10.63 per 100 pounds. As to all other merchandise and all other claims, the appeals are dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Order filed April 3, 2020 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00760-CR

____________

RAUL BAHENA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 177th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1552218

ORDER

This court has determined, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the originals of State’s Exhibit 18 and 

State’s Exhibit 19.
The clerk of the 177th District Court is directed to deliver to the Clerk of this 

court the original of State’s Exhibit 18 and State’s Exhibit 19, on or before April 

15, 2020. The Clerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe the 

original exhibits; to deliver them to the justices of this court for their inspection; 

and, upon completion of inspection, to return the originals of State’s Exhibit 18 

and State’s Exhibit 19.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and Hassan.
No. 55254.

#### Albert Bonnier Publishing House et al. *v.*United States,

protests 159061-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 32.01

                            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 Essential Innovations Technology
Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended July 31, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Jason McDiarmid, Chief Executive Officer 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 the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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.




/s/ Jason McDiarmid
------------------------
Jason McDiarmid
Chief Executive Officer
September 14, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v RICHARD LEE COLTON, Fireman Apprentice, U. S. Coast Guard, Appellant

No. 27,873

June 21, 1974

*Lieutenant James B. Ellis, II,*USCG, was on the pleading for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Nesbit G Lofton,*USCG, was on the pleading for Appellee, United States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER Curiam:

Review was granted in this case on two related issues. First, was the U. S. Coast Guard Court of Military Review in error by holding that a convening authority has no duty to ascertain the availability of individually requested military counsel from another service. Second, did the Commandant of the U. S. Coast Guard interfere with the convening authority in the performance of his judicial function in violation of Articles 37(a) and 98, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 837(a) and 898, by requiring that an accused’s request for individual military counsel from another service be forwarded to Coast Guard Headquarters, rather than to the commanding officer of the requested counsel in accordance with paragraph 48 *b*(2), Manual fqr Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Rev), and then refusing to forward the request.

In United States v Johnson, 23 USCMA —, 48 CMR — (June 21, 1974), we held that a convening authority was required, in the words of paragraph 48 *b,*MCM, to forward a request for a determination of the availability of a military lawyer from another armed force "to the commanding officer or head of the organization, activity, or agency with which the requested counsel is on duty.” The U. S. Coast Guard Court of Military Review was in error in this case by deciding to the contrary. Nevertheless, as the appellant in this case was represented at trial by a civilian lawyer, "where an accused has in fact been represented at trial ... by either civilian or individual military counsel, the minimum demands of Article 38(b), UCMJ, have been complied with, and a rehearing is unwarranted.” United States v Johnson, supra at —, 48 CMR at —.

As the rights of the appellant are not in question in the second granted issue, it is dismissed as having been improvidently granted.

The decision of the U. S. Coast Guard Court of Military Review as to the findings and sentence is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 47 (Monday, March 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 11016]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4389]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-327-000]


TransColorado Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

March 6, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 1, 2007, TransColorado Gas Transmission 
Company (TransColorado) tendered for filing its Annual Fuel Gas 
Reimbursement Percentage (FGRP) report pursuant to Section 12.9 of the 
General Terms and Conditions of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised 
Volume No. 1. TransColorado also included 6th Revised Sheet No. 20 in 
this filing.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#44020116070b2a282d2a21173134342b363004222136276a232b32"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="53151601101c3d3f3a3d36002623233c212713353621307d343c25">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-4389 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
MEMORANDUM 

TO: SSI NSPS AND EG DOCKET 

FROM: AMY LAMSON, RISK AND BENEFITS GROUP 

SUBJECT: HEALTH INCIDENCES FOR SSI FINAL RULE 

DATE: 2/18/2011 

Due to time limitations under the court-ordered schedule, we were unable to fully update 

the RIAs for the SSI NSPS and EG for the final rule. We provide this memo to the docket as 

documentation of the estimated health incidences to support the information in the 

communication materials. These health incidences were calculated using the methodology 

described in the proposal RIA using the emission reductions estimated for the final rule, which is 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html . 

Summary of Reductions in Health Incidences from PM2.5 for the Final SSI NSPS and EG in 2015* 

 Final MACT Floor 

Avoided Premature Mortality 

Pope et al. 2 

Laden et al. 6 

Avoided Morbidity 

Chronic Bronchitis 2 

Acute Myocardial Infarction 4 

Hospital Admissions, Respiratory 1 

Hospital Admissions, Cardiovascular 1 

Emergency Room Visits, Respiratory 2 

Acute Bronchitis 4 

Work Loss Days 320 

Asthma Exacerbation 42 

MRAD 1,900 

Lower Respiratory Symptoms 46 

Upper Respiratory Symptoms 35 

* These health incidences are 81% lower than those shown in the proposal RIA for this rule.
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

ROBERT ALLAN PETERSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2226 LKK GGH P

vs.

NATHAN BURNETTE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On August 8, 2005, this court ordered the United States Marshal to serve

defendants with the amended complaint filed February 16, 2005. On October 4, 2005,

defendants Burnette, Deaux and Sacramento County filed an answer to the February 16, 2005,

amended complaint.

On August 16, 2005, the Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton directed the undersigned

to order defendants to file a response to the amended complaint filed June 22, 2005.

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02226-LKK -GGH Document 31 Filed 10/27/05 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 HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty days of the date of

this order, defendants Burnette, Deaux and Sacramento County shall file a response to the

amended complaint filed June 22, 2005.

DATED: 10/26/05 

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

pet2226.am

Case 2:04-cv-02226-LKK -GGH Document 31 Filed 10/27/05 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

27

28

 1

Gay L. Carroll, SBN 203803 

Law Offices of Gay Carroll 

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 900 

Sacramento, California 95814 

(916) 443-3553 

Fax: (916) 443-2424 

Larry Schapiro, SBN 052953 

1119 West Street 

Woodland, California 95695-4644 

Phone: (530) 666-2757 

Fax: (530) 666-1143 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHELLE M., DONALD M., 

SR. and DONALD M., JR., by and 

through his guardian ad litem, 

DONALD M., SR., 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

DUNSMUIR JOINT UNION 

SCHOOL DISTRICT, ROBERT 

MORRIS, individually, 

CHRISTOPHER RAINE, 

individually, ANTHONY 

PAGANINI, individually, PAULA 

SCHMITT, individually, and 

DOES 1 through 15, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2:04-cv-2411 MCE PAN 

ORDER 

[Local Rule 6-144] 

Case 2:04-cv-02411-MCE -EFB Document 38 Filed 01/05/06 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

 2

ORDER

Having considered plaintiffs’ ex parte application for an extension of the discovery cutoff date and finding good cause therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the date for all discovery, with the exception of expert 

discovery, shall be completed by March 13, 2006. The remaining portion of paragraph IV., 

Discovery, of the Pretrial (Status) Scheduling Order shall remain the same. 

Dated: January 4, 2006

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-02411-MCE -EFB Document 38 Filed 01/05/06 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STOCKTON EXECUTIVE LIMOUSINE

CHARTER SERVICE, INC.,

NO. CIV. S-04-1999 LKK/PAN

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER RE DISPOSAL

DOCUMENTS AFTER

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, et al., NOTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT

Defendants.

 /

Counsel for defendant Crew Transport Services, Inc. has

informed the court that the parties have settled the abovecaptioned case with respect to plaintiff’s claims against Crew

Transport. The court now orders that the dispositional documents

disposing of the case as to that defendant be filed no later than

thirty (30) days from the effective date of this order.

////

////

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-01999-LKK -EFB Document 56 Filed 02/22/06 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

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY BE GROUNDS FOR THE

IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS ON ANY AND ALL COUNSEL OR PARTIES WHO

CONTRIBUTED TO THE VIOLATION OF THIS ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 22, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01999-LKK -EFB Document 56 Filed 02/22/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.01   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 Welwind Energy International Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Tammy-Lynn McNabb, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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.      /s/ Tammy-Lynn McNabb By: Tammy-Lynn McNabb Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  Dated: August 20, 2010  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v TERRY L. SALESMAN, Airman, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

20 USCMA 131, 42 CMR 323

*132No. 23,370

November 6, 1970

*Colonel Bertram Jacobson*and *Major Frank T. Moniz*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

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

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

The decision of the United States Air Force Court of Military Review is affirmed. United States v Palos, 20 USCMA 104, 42 CMR 296, decided this date.

Judge Darden concurs.

Ferguson, Judge

(dissenting) :

I dissent for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Palos, 20 USCMA 104, 42 CMR 296 (1970).