alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES SANFORD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DEL TACO, INC. dba DEL TACO 

#140; YUTAKA MIURA and MARY 

MIURA; and DOES 1 through 10, 

Defendant. 

/

No. Civ. S-04-1337 DFL CMK 

O R D E R 

JAMES SANFORD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DEL TACO, INC. dba DEL TACO 

#140; YUTAKA MIURA and MARY 

MIURA; and DOES 1 through 10, 

Defendant. 

/

No. Civ. S-06-1635 GEB GGH 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:04-cv-01337-DFL-CMK Document 121 Filed 09/22/06 Page 1 of 2
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

Examination of the above-entitled actions reveals that they 

are not related within the meaning of Local Rule 83-123(a) (E.D. 

Cal. 1997). Although the two cases involve the same parties, 

counsel and premises, the issues they present are entirely 

distinct. Therefore, the court finds that the two cases are NOT 

RELATED. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 22, 2006 

 /s/ David F. Levi___________

 DAVID F. LEVI 

United States District Judge 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:04-cv-01337-DFL-CMK Document 121 Filed 09/22/06 Page 2 of 2
APPENDIX 5A. AHAM DATA SUBMITTAL 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

5A.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 5A-1
 

5A.2 AHAM COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHER DATA SUBMITTAL ............... 5A-1
 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 5A.2.1	 AHAM Commercial Clothes Washer Shipments, Average Energy and 

Water Use, and Incremental Cost Data Submittal ...................................... 5A-2 

5A-i 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 69.1
APPENDIX 5A. AHAM DATA SUBMITTAL 

5A.1 INTRODUCTION 

This appendix presents the shipments and incremental cost data submitted to the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) in 

support of the engineering analysis for this rulemaking. Information was provided for 

commercial clothes washers (CCWs) in response to data request sheets generated by DOE and 

provided to AHAM. See chapter 5 of the technical support document (TSD) for details of the 

engineering analysis for which these data were used. 

5A.2 AHAM COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHER DATA SUBMITTAL 

AHAM supplied shipments, average energy and water use, and incremental cost data to 

DOE, representing the aggregated inputs from manufacturers which produce the significant 

majority of CCWs. 

Figure 5A.2.1 reproduces the tables of CCW data submitted to DOE by AHAM. The 

first table, designated Part I in AHAM's submittal, contains the annual shipments data along with 

the shipment-weighted average modified energy factor (MEF) and water factor (WF) from 2002 

to 2005. 

Part II provides average energy and water use for a baseline CCW with an MEF of 1.26. 

Part III contains shipment-weighted incremental costs for two efficiency levels: 

MEF=1.42/WF=9.5 and MEF=2.0/WF=5.5. Data were not provided at other efficiency levels 

due to confidentiality concerns. 

5A-1
 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 69.1
 

 

Figure 5A.2.1	 AHAM Commercial Clothes Washer Shipments, Average Energy and 

Water Use, and Incremental Cost Data Submittal 

Commercial Clothes Washers (CCW) 

Part I: Annual Shipments & Shipment-Weighted MEF and WF - Vertical and Horizontal Axis Combined 

YEAR TOTAL 

SHIPMENTS MEF WF 

2002 175,187 1.30 11.77 

2003 190,720 1.33 11.42 

2004 178,382 1.33 11.33 

2005 177,394 1.41 10.91 

Part II: Average Energy and Water Use for Vertical Axis CCW with MEF of 1.26 

MEF TYPE Average 

 WF 

Average 

cu.ft 

Average 

Hot Water 

 kWh/cycle 

Average 

Machine 

kWh/cycle 

Average 

Dryer 

kWh/cycle 

Average 

Standby

W 

Average 

 Water use

gallons/cycle 

1.26 V 11.1 3.1 0.87 0.18 1.38 * 34.3 

* insufficient data reported 

Part III: Aggregated Shipment-Weighted Incremental Cost to go from current 1.26 MEF standard to levels indicated below 

MEF: 1.42 1.6 1.72 1.8 2 2.2 

Water Factor: 9.5 8.5 8 7.5 5.5 5.1 

Shipment-Weighted 

Incremental Cost: $74.63 * * * $316.35 * 

* insufficient data reported 

5A-2
 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 69.1
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), I, James R. Latimer, III, Chief Executive Officer of Cano Petroleum, Inc. (the “Company”), certify that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010 (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date:      February 14,   2011 | /s/   James R. Latimer, III |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                                                              |                             |
|                                                              | James   R. Latimer, III     |
|                                                              | Chief   Executive Officer        |

 

----
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to 18 United States Code § 1350 The undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2005 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/ RONALD B. CLARKRonald B. ClarkChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) May 16, 2005 56
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10(ii)




February 8, 2002



Mr. Robert D. Bates
Executive Vice President
Jefferson Pilot Financial
8801 Indian Hills Drive
Omaha, NE  68114-4066

Dear Bob:

In accord with our conversations and in recognition of your willingness to
continue in your leadership position at Benefit Partners through year-end 2003,
we will provide the following compensation related items:

     1.   Your annual base salary plus bonus earned for calendar year 2003
          service will be guaranteed to be not less than $700 thousand dollars.

     2.   We will grant you 100,000 options in JP stock on 2/11/02 for your
          continued service in 2002 and 2003, which shall vest as follows:

          a)   For completed service:
               at 12/31/02 . . . . . 20% (i.e. 20,000 options)
               at 12/31/03 . . . . . 20%

          b)   For achieving Benefit Partners earnings growth:
               at 12/31/02, for growth in 2002 of earnings over 2001 earnings
               of $44.5 mln:

                    $47 mln = 0% vesting   |
                    $50 mln = 15% vesting  |   prorated in between
                    $53 mln = 30% vesting  |

               at 12/31/03, for growth in 2003 of earnings over 2001 earnings
               of $44.5 mln:

                    $49 mln = 0% vesting   |
                    $54 mln = 15% vesting  |   prorated in between
                    $59 mln = 30% vesting  |

Bob, you have made a major contribution to JP's success over the past two years
and are a very valued member of our Senior Management team. We would be honored
to have your continued leadership of Benefit Partners. If this meets with your
approval please sign one copy for our files and return to me.

Best personal regards.

Sincerely,

/s/ David A. Stonecipher
David A. Stonecipher

DAS/gp

/s/ Robert D. Bates



                                      E-4
Statement ofthe Air and Radiation I’IanagementAdministration Department ofthe Environment for the Public Hearing Relating to Proposed New Regulation .05-1 under COMAR 26.11.10 Control ofIron and Steel Production Installations concerning Carbon Monoxide Emissions held on July 13, 2005 Baltimore, MD My name is Husain Waheed. I am a Public Health Engineer in Regulation Development Division ofthe Air and Radiation Management Administration, Department ofthe Environment.

This public hearing is being heldpursuantto the requirements of40 CFR Section 51.102 and Sections 2-301 et.seq. ofthe EnvironmentArticle, Annotated Code ofMaryland. It is also being held in conformance with the State Administrative Procedures Actunderthe State GovernmentArticle, beginning at Section 10-101. Notice ofthis hearing appeared in the: Maryland Registeron June 10, 2005; Baltimore Sun onJune 10, 2005; Saint Mary’s Enterprise on June 10, 2005; CumberlandTimes-News on June 10, 2005; FrederickNews-Post on June 10, 2005; Salisbury Daily Times on June 10, 2005; and the WashingtonPost on June 9, 2005. Copies ofthese notices were submitted forthe record. Copies ofthe proposed new regulation and supporting documents were submitted for review to the State Clearinghouse and are also submitted atthis time into the hearing record. Copies ofthe proposed new regulation and supporting documents were made available forpublic inspection atthe Air and Radiation Management Administration offices in Baltimore, Cumberland, and Salisbury, and at all local health departments or local air quality control offices. The purpose oftoday’s hearing is to give the public an opportunity to comment on proposed new Regulation .05-1 under COMAR 26.11.10. Summary This amendmentreestablishes carbon monoxide emission standards forbasic oxygen furnaces located at steel mills. The previous regulation was deleted because it contained an inappropriate control method for these furnaces. The proposed requirement limits the carbon monoxide concentration in the effluent gases to 1 percent. The amendment also clarifies testing requirements to demonstrate compliance with the emission standards.This action will have no impact on the Department or affected sources. This new regulation will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a revision to Maryland’s State Implementation.
Consideration ofComments The Departmentwill consider all comments before making a decision to adopt this new regulation.

L:\.AQPlanning and Monitoring\Regulation Development Division\Hearing Materials\Hearing Statements\Hearing Stmt

- 26. 11.10 Carbon Monoxide amendments.doc
No. 41786.

#### Protests 750048-G, etc., of G. & G. Wholesale Grocers et al. (New York).

*324Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 40880 it was held that an allowance should have been made in the weight of the cheese to compensate for the inedible covering on the outside.
No. 59582.

protests 129967-K and 129970-K (Philadelphia).

#### Schenley Import Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 130, C. A. D. 508) and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4694 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4694

To provide an exemption from certain Jones Act restrictions for vessels 
    that arrive at or depart from the Helen Delich Bentley Port of 
                   Baltimore, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 11 (legislative day, July 10), 2024

    Mr. Lee introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide an exemption from certain Jones Act restrictions for vessels 
    that arrive at or depart from the Helen Delich Bentley Port of 
                   Baltimore, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Baltimore Recovery Act''.

SEC. 2. TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FROM JONES ACT RESTRICTIONS FOR VESSELS 
              ARRIVING AT OR DEPARTING FROM THE PORT OF BALTIMORE.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding sections 12112, 12103, and 55102 
of title 46, United States Code, any vessel that, after the date of 
enactment of this Act, arrives at or departs from the Helen Delich 
Bentley Port of Baltimore shall be exempt from the requirements of such 
sections.
    (b) Applicability.--This section, and any exemption under this 
section, shall cease to have effect on the day that is 5 years after 
the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
No. 50455.

#### Protest 111817-K/12671 of Standard Fruit & Steamship Co. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial counsel for the Government moved to dismiss the protest as untimely. An examination of the entry papers disclosed that the entry was liquidated on February 22, 1944, and the protest was not filed until May 1, 1944. Under the provisions of section 514, the last day upon which protest may legally be filed expired on April 22. The motion of Government to dismiss was therefore granted.
EXHIBIT
32.1   PATIENT PORTAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.








Certification
of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)











I, Kevin
Kelly, President, and Director "principal executive officer") of Patient Portal
Technologies, Inc. (the "Registrant"), certify that to the best of my knowledge,
based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
March 31, 2008 of the Registrant (the "Report"):





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)[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 financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant.








Dated:
      5/14/08
            /s/ KEVIN
      KELLYKevin
      KellyPresident
      and Director
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

FRED GRAVES,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1272 DFL GGH P

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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 21, 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 twenty days. Neither

party has 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:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01272-DFL-GGH Document 17 Filed 08/23/05 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

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 21, 2005, are adopted in full;

and 

2. Respondent’s September 29, 2004, motion to dismiss is granted, and this

action is dismissed.

DATED: 8/22/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01272-DFL-GGH Document 17 Filed 08/23/05 Page 2 of 2
32.2 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
 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 Commonwealth Income & Growth Fund V, (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kimberly A. Springsteen-Abbott, Principal 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:
 
 (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/Kimberly A. Springsteen-AbbottKimberly A. Springsteen-AbbottPrincipal Financial OfficerMay 17, 2010
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHARON HOPE, ) NO. CV S-04-2223 GEB CMK

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER

v. ) 

)

OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, OHANA )

HOTELS-RESORTS, OUTRIGGER HOTELS- )

RESORTS, )

Defendants. )

)

The Declaration of Stewart C. Altemus, filed on April 28,

2005, as an attachment to the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in

Opposition to Outrigger Hotels-Resorts’ Motion to Dismiss, is stricken

because it did not include “copies of . . . search results that

[Altemus] obtained.”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02223-GEB-CMK Document 31 Filed 05/12/05 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4737 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4737

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
     at 220 North Hatcher Avenue in Purcellville, Virginia, as the 
    ``Secretary of State Madeleine Albright Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 23, 2024

 Mr. Kaine (for himself and Mr. Warner) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
     at 220 North Hatcher Avenue in Purcellville, Virginia, as the 
    ``Secretary of State Madeleine Albright Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SECRETARY OF STATE MADELEINE ALBRIGHT POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 220 North Hatcher Avenue in Purcellville, Virginia, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Secretary of State Madeleine Albright 
Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Secretary 
of State Madeleine Albright Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 4.4.(a).97


The State of Israel
 Ministry of Communications
  General License for Partner Communications Ltd. for the Provision of
 Mobile Radio Telephone (MRT) Services using the Cellular Method
 
 Amendment No. 81
 
 By virtue of the authority 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 and after having considered the arguments of Partner Communications Company Ltd. (hereinafter: “Partner”), we hereby amend the General License for the provision of mobile radio telephone (MRT) services using the cellular method granted to Partner on 7 April 1998,  as follows:
 
 Amendment

of Appendix N
1.
In Appendix N:a.
In article 6.3, after "The Hosting Licensee shall give" shall come "at least once a day,"; and after "for the Premium Service" shall come (hereinafter "Premium records file")".b.
In article 7.2, after "the available balance of the Subscriber" shall come "or at the latest upon receipt of the Premium records file".
  (December 30, 2014)
 
 (sgd)
 ________________
 Avi Berger
 Director General
No. 44030.

#### Protests 833279-G, etc., of Franklin Lamp Mfg. Co. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The beads in question were held dutiable at 35 percent, under paragraph 1503 as claimed. Abstract 35536 followed.