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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Jeffrey Marshall,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1694 LKK PAN P

vs. Order

Gary R. Stanton, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoNovember 2, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for production

of documents.

Interrogatories, requests for production, requests for

admission, responses and proofs of service thereof “shall not be

filed with the clerk until there is a proceeding in which the

document or proof of service is at issue. When required in a

proceeding, only that part of the request and response that is in 

issue shall be filed.” Local Rules 33-250(c), 34-250(c) & 36-

250(c).

Case 2:04-cv-01694-LKK -EFB Document 73 Filed 11/09/05 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, I take no action on plaintiff’s November 2,

2005, request for production of documents.

So ordered.

Dated: November 8, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01694-LKK -EFB Document 73 Filed 11/09/05 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 8517)

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. W-09605.

(Decided January 12, 1956)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendent.

Mollison, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the export value of the merchandise at the time of exportation to the United States covered by the Appeal to Reappraisement enumerated above at which rime such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States including costs of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States was the entered unit values less the additions made under duress covering non-dutiable charges of items on the invoices for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling and lighterage, etc.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher domestic value for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeal to Reap-praisement enumerated above may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

*504On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the entered unit values, less the additions made under duress covering nondutiable charges of items on the invoices for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling and lighterage,, etc.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
(Reap. Dec. 9501)

#### Universal Importing Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 811685.

(Decided September 4, 1959)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George OoeJvran Douh,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that at the time of the exportation of the earthenware beakers contained in the packages numbered 66 to 80, inclusive, and 85, 86, and 87, such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus, when not included in such price, the cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, at 21 shillings, British Currency, per dozen, less 20%, 5%, and 5%, plus 20%, plus packing.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher foreign value for the merchandise herein at the time of exportation.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this ease may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find that the export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved herein, earthenware beakers contained in the packages numbered 66 to 80, inclusive, and 85, 86, and 87, and that such value is 21 shillings, British currency, per dozen, less 20 per centum, 5 per centum, and 5 per centum, plus 20 per centum, plus packing.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Internet Address (URL)  http://www.epa.gov

Recycled/Recyclable  Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer) FMI Products, LLC

2701 South Harbor Boulevard

Santa Ana, CA 92704

Dear Mr. Klein:

We are pleased to acknowledge that the FMI Products fireplace retrofit device, Pure Fire TM

Catalytic Control Syste m

, as tested in the FMI Craftsman 36 fireplace, meets the Phase 2

qualifying emissions level under the EPA Wood

- burning Fireplace Program

. The FMI

Craftsman 36 firebox meets the equivalency criteria in the Program Partnership Agreement.

This acknowledgement is based on:

• our review of the test report from Myren Consulting Test Laboratories dated

March 5, 20 1 0;

• your submittal of an appropriate Owner's Manual that covers proper operation of

this retrofit device;

• the equivalency of the Craftsman 36 firebox to the Heatilator E36 firebox as

demonstrated in the FMI Products document provided to EPA on August 7,

2012; and

• the I SO

- accredited lab certification letter from PFS Corporation, dated

November 6, 2012.

The retrofit device, as tested in the FMI Craftsman 36 fireplace (widt h : 28.25 inche s ;

height: 21 inches; depth: 16 inches), resulted in an average emissions of 4

. 8 grams of fine

particles (PM 2

.

s) per kilogram of wood burne d

. This P M 2

. 5 emission level is below the EPA

qualifying Phase 2 emission level of 5.1 g/k g

. It represents a 60 percent emission reduction

from a baseline of 12 grams/kg (assumed average emissions for existing fireplaces).

Emission reductions for this retrofit device may vary in other fireplaces.

You may use the qualifying labels and hangtags in accordance with the Partnership

Agreement Guidelines

. Information regarding this retrofit device will be posted on the EPA

Burn Wise website : http://www

. epa

. gov/burnwise/fireplacelist.html#retrofits

.

Thank you for your participation in EPA's Wood

- burning Fireplace Program and your

interest in improving air quality. We recommend that EPA Phase 2 qualified cleaner

fireplace models be considered over other fireplaces and that Phase 2 retrofit devices be

considered for reducing wood smoke pollution from existing fireplaces

.

The template for the Phase 2 qualified fireplace retrofit hangtag has been forwarded to you by

separate e

- mail. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (919) 541

-

5383.

Sincerely,

Thomas N. Braverman



### EPA Wood

- Burning Fireplace Program Liaison

Innovative Programs and Outreach OFFICE OF

AIR QUALITY PLANNING

AND STANDARDS 

### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711

December 20, 2012Internet Address (URL)  http://www.epa.gov

Recycled/Recyclable  Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer) 

### Figure: (1)



# Approved EPA Hangtag

PureFire Wood Burning Fireplace Retro

- Fit Device

2
<PAGE>
                                                                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


         In connection with the Annual Report of Diversified Thermal Solutions,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, B. Grant Hunter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



March 28, 2005                           /s/ B. Grant Hunter
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         B. Grant Hunter
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer
No. 46127.

#### Protests 13343-K, etc., of Joseph Berliner & Co. et al. (Philadelphia, etc.).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400! the court dismissed the protests.
No. 6665.

#### BLOCH BROTHERS vs. L. R. FERCHAUD & GERARD A. ROBERT.

Syllabus.

1. Where a detailed account showing a balance due has been rendered and received, and the debtor does not within a reasonable time challenge its correctness, but on the contrary promises 'to pay and simply requests the indulgence of time, it thereby becomes an account stated, the equivalent of an acknowledgment and settlement between the parties.

2. An objection that an account contains usurious charges comes too late when made for the first time more than a year after the account has attained the dignity of an account stated.

Appeal from the 27th Judicial District 'Court, Parish of St. James, No. 2980. Honorable Charles T. Wortham, Judge.

P. E. Edrington, Jr., for plaintiff and appellant.

Le Bourgeois & Coe, for defendant and appellee.

His Honor, EMILE GODCHAUX,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

This is a suit for a balance of account due for advances made by plaintiff to defendant in 1913 for the cultivation and harvesting by the latter of a rice crop during that year. The only contested item of the account is one of $133.87, being a commission of 2 1-2 per cent which, in addition to the conventional interest of 8 per cent, is charged upon the amount of said advances. This item was stricken from the account by the trial Court and plaintiff seeks by this appeal to have it reinstated.

*370The record discloses that a detailed account of these advances was rendered to and received by defendant in October, 1913, and that it was not until the answer was filed in this proceeding, nearly two years later, that defendant challenged its correctness. Moreover, the unoontradicted testimony, corroborated 'by defendants’ letters, establishes that defendants agreed to pay the balance shown thereon to be due and simply requested the indulgence of time within which to do so.

Under such circumstances the account became an “account stated,” the equivalent of an acknowledgment and settlement between the parties.

James vs. Fellows & Co., 20 A., 116.

Blanc vs. Scruggs, 26 A., 208.

Robinson vs. Day, 7 A., 201.

Bloom vs. Kerns, 30 A., 1263.

Sentell vs. Kennedy, 29 A., 679.

Allen vs. Nettles, 39 A., 790.

Flower & King vs. O’Bannon, 43 A., 1043.

Leeds & Co. in Liquidation, 49 A., 501.

Danneman & Charlton vs. Charlton, 113 La., 287.

It is now too late to entertain the charge that any item of the account is usurious. Any complaint on that score should have been urged within the year after the account had attained the dignity of an “account stated.”

Allen vs. Nettles, supra.

Flower & King vs. O’Bannon, supra.

Leeds & Co., in Liquidation, supra.

Danneman & Charlton vs. Charlton, supra.

The judgment is accordingly amended and to that end it is now decreed' that it be increased in principal to the *371sum of $172.40 'and as thus amended it is affirmed at defendants’ costs in both Courts.

Opinion and decree, May 8th, 1916.

Rehearing refused, June 26th, 1916.

Amended.
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

CARL DAVID WHITE, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2276 GEB GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff

seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On February 17, 2005, the court ordered the United States Marshal to serve the

complaint on defendants. Process directed to defendant Gonzales was returned unserved because

“per CDC personnel svc, unable to locate def. returned unexecuted.” Plaintiff must provide

additional information to serve this defendant. Plaintiff shall promptly seek such information

through discovery, the California Public Records Act, Calif. Gov’t. Code § 6250, et seq., or other

means available to plaintiff. If access to the required information is denied or unreasonably

delayed, plaintiff may seek judicial intervention.

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02276-GEB-GGH Document 24 Filed 06/10/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send to plaintiff one USM-285 form,

along with an instruction sheet and a copy of the amended complaint filed December 20, 2004;

and

2. Within sixty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and

submit the attached Notice of Submission of Documents to the court, with the following

documents:

a. One completed USM-285 form for defendant Gonzales; 

b. Two copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed December 20,

2004; and

c. One completed summons form (if not previously provided) 

or show good cause why he cannot provide such information.

DATED: 6/9/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:bb

whit2276.8e(2)

 

Case 2:04-cv-02276-GEB-GGH Document 24 Filed 06/10/05 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL DAVID WHITE, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2276 GEB GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants.

 / OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court’s

order filed :

 One completed summons form

 One completed USM-285 form

 Two copies of the December 20, 2004 

 Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-02276-GEB-GGH Document 24 Filed 06/10/05 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit
      23.2.b




**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**




We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
      No. 333-108215 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement No. 333-132935
      on Form S-4 of our reports dated February 27, 2007, relating to the
      consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of Kansas
      City Power & Light Company and subsidiaries (which report expresses an
      unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the adoption
      of new accounting standards), and management’s report on the effectiveness of
      internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report
      on
      Form 10-K of Kansas City Power & Light Company and subsidiaries for the
      year ended December 31, 2006.






/s/DELOITTE
      & TOUCHE LLP




Kansas
      City, Missouri


February 27,
      2007
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Scott R. Pancoast,Chief Executive Officer certify that: 

 

1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-QSB of Lpath, Inc. (the “Registrant”);

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport.

 

4.             The Registrant’s other certifying officersand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theRegistrant and have:

 

a)     Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theRegistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of theRegistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)     Disclosed in this report any change in theRegistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theRegistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.             The Registrant’s other certifying officersand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)   All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theRegistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: May 12, 2006 | By:    | /s/  Scott R. Pancoast   |   |
|--------------------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|               |   | Scott  R. Pancoast       |
|               |   | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT  31.3 CERTIFICATION

I, Peter A. Schniper, Chief Financial Officer , certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Suncoast
Naturals, Inc.;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

     3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial
information included in this quarterly report fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

     4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:
         a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
         b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
         c) Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

     5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing
theequivalent functions):
         a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
         b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

     6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Dated: August 12, 2004   /s/ PETER A. SCHNIPER
                        -----------------------
                        Peter A. Schniper
                        Chief Financial Officer
No. 58988.

protests 968970-G, etc. (New York).

#### M. Segerman et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of lambskin plates the same in all material respects as those the subject of *A. S. Gold & Bro., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 1643), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Pord, J., concurred.

Mollison, J.,

dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1643, *supra.*
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

WESLEY RUSSELL, SR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2244 FCD GGH P

vs.

CHARLES PLUMMER, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

By order filed on March 30, 2005, respondent was directed to file proof of having

served, within fifteen (15) days, the January 31, 2005 motion to dismiss petitioner’s application

for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 at the following address, apparently

petitioner’s current location:

Wesley Russell

P 10876 E-139

Deuel Vocational Institute

P.O. Box 600

Tracy, CA 94378-0600

Respondent has failed to file proof of service of the pending motion to dismiss. 

 Respondent must show cause, within ten (10) days, why the undersigned should not vacate the

motion to dismiss from the court’s calendar.

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-02244-FCD-GGH Document 16 Filed 05/19/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 5/18/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

russ2244.osc

Case 2:04-cv-02244-FCD-GGH Document 16 Filed 05/19/05 Page 2 of 2