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

WAYMAN STRICKLAND,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2334 KJM

vs.

CITY OF STOCKTON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

As provided by the stipulation of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this

action is dismissed with prejudice.

DATED: June 26, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006 strickland2.dis

Case 2:04-cv-02334-KJM Document 19 Filed 06/27/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 54573.

#### Ovington’s Gift Shop, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 146387-K.

(Initial No. 141670-K.) Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
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 

Brady Armstrong,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-2136 GEB PAN P

vs. Order

D. L. Runnels, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoJune 14, 2005, plaintiff filed an amended complaint without

the proof of service required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 and Local Rule

5-135. Plaintiff shall file a proof of service within ten days. 

Otherwise this action will proceed on the complaint filed October

12, 2004.

So ordered.

Dated: June 16, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02136-GEB-EFB Document 29 Filed 06/17/05 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD L. ALLEY, No. CIV-S-04-1934 MCE/PAN P 

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

TOM L. CAREY,

Respondent. 

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely

filed a Notice of Appeal of this Court's October 17, 2005, denial

of his Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Before

Petitioner can appeal this decision, a Certificate of

Appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P.

22(b).

A Certificate of Appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

///

Case 2:04-cv-01934-MCE -PAN Document 25 Filed 12/16/05 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

The court must either issue a Certificate of Appealability

indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must

state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. Fed.

R. App. P. 22(b).

For the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s August

31, 2005, Findings and Recommendations, Petitioner has not made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Accordingly, a Certificate of Appealability should not issue in

this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 16, 2005

_________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01934-MCE -PAN Document 25 Filed 12/16/05 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY A. SHARP,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2013 FCD KJM P

vs.

D. ARCAMONE,

Respondent. 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 May 13, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner 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:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02013-FCD-KJM Document 7 Filed 08/02/05 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 May 13, 2005, are adopted in full; and 

2. This action is dismissed.. 

DATED:August 1, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02013-FCD-KJM Document 7 Filed 08/02/05 Page 2 of 2
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-21-00192-CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding

415th District Court of Parker County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV-18-1452

Before Birdwell, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN RE R.W., Relator
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the 

opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus is denied.

Per Curiam

Delivered: August 3, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

TIMOTHY WAYNE GUESS, ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Plaintiff, 

V. Civil Action No. 

ERIC HOLDER, 

U.S. Attorney General, 

Defendant. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

SEP 2 6 2012 

Clerk, u.s. District & Bankruptcy 

Courts for the District of Columbia 

12 1603 

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis 

and his pro se complaint. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint. 

It appears that the plaintiff is serving a term of imprisonment imposed by the United 

States District for the Eastern District of Virginia upon his conviction for various drug and 

weapons offenses. See Compl. at 4, 5. Generally, he alleges that the statutes under which he 

was prosecuted and sentenced were not properly enacted, that the sentencing court lacked subject 

matter jurisdiction over his criminal case, resulting in his false imprisonment. The plaintiff 

brings a claim against the Attorney General under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the 

Federal Bureau ofNarcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and asks the Court to declare the statutes 

invalid and to order his immediate release. 

---- ---....__ 

The Court c~nstrues the complaint as a challenge to the legality of the plaintiffs criminal 

sentence. He must present such a claim to the sentencing court in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 

2255. Taylor v. US. Ed. of Parole, 194 F.2d 882, 883 (D.C. Cir. 1952) (stating that a motion 
under Section 2255 is the proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a statute under 

which a defendant is convicted). Section 2255 provides specifically that: 

[a] prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act 

of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that 

the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws 

of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to 

impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the 

maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral 

attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, 

set aside or correct the sentence. 

28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) (emphasis added). 

Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint. An Order accompanies this 

Memorandum Opinion. 

/:_~/ lu:l j H Uv<Jc____ 

United States District Judge 

DATE:
EXHIBIT 99.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                  PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for
the year ended December 31, 2002, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of Nathaniel Energy
Corporation


Dated  April 14, 2003                       By:  /s/  Stan Abrams
                                                 ---------------------------
                                                 Name:  Stan Abrams
                                                 Title:  Chief Executive Officer
                                                 Nathaniel Energy Corporation
**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Anmore, Inc. for the Quarter Ending June 30, 2006, I, Giorgio Saumat, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Anmore, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that: 

 

1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Anmore, Inc. 

 
| Dated: August 16, 2006 |
|------------------------|

**ANMORE, INC.**

 
| By: | */s/ Giorgio Saumat*Principal Executive Officer andPrincipal Financial Officer |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
|------------------------------------------------------------------------

|**PURSUANT TO**
|---------------

|**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
|---------------------------

|**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
|--------------------------

|**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
|-------------------------------------------------

|
|

|
|

|I, Linda Zecher, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Evolve Software, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Evolve Software, Inc.
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|
|

| |  |  |  |  |  | By: /s/ Linda Zecher
| |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------

| |  |  |  |  |  | Name:  Linda Zecher
| |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------

| |  |  |  |  |  | Title: President and Chief
| |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------------

| |  |  |  |  |  | Executive Officer
| |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------

|
|

|
|

|
|

|
|

|I, Art Taylor, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Evolve Software, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Evolve Software, Inc.
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|
|

| |  |  |  |  |  | By: /s/ Art Taylor
| |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------

| |  |  |  |  |  | Name:  Art Taylor
| |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------

| |  |  |  |  |  | Title: Chief Financial Officer
| |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------------------

| |  |  |  |  |  | and Vice President
| |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------

|
|

|
|

| |  | 
| |  | 

|
|

|
|
Exhibit (13) b.



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

AS ENACTED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F of Komatsu, Ltd. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenji Kinoshita, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (s) 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.



Date: September 19, 2003



|By: /s/ Kenji Kinoshita
|-----------------------
|Kenji Kinoshita        
|Executive Officer      
|Chief Financial Officer



18
## SERVED: AUGUST 30, 1012 30 

## 2:**t~O** 

## ·



# u.s. DEPARTMENT()F TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS .**WASHINGTO~,** DC



## .. :, :IN THE MATTER OF

. ' 

### M & 

### M TANKS, INC. FAA DOCKET No. [TO.BE ASSIGNED], (Civil Penalty Case) · DMS No. FAA-2011-1118 ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

## ..

·,..·

,

# ..


# ·-

')\ 

## .



# .. On October 14, 2011, the FederaLAviation Administration ("Complainant") filed a Complaint. On October 3, 2011, Respondent M & M Tanks, Inc. ("Respondent' 1)had requested a hearing. On August 28, 2012>, Complainant moved to·withdraw its Complaintf!"Citjng - ._ .:.. settlement. .. .., 14 C.P.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during'a

### he~ing, an

### ag~pcy attpmey may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a**he~ring** without the consent ofthe administrative lawjudge. If an agency attorney withdraws the**~omplaint** or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the answer, 'the administratjve**~aw**judge shall dismiss the proceedings under .this subpart witliprejudioe," ;;'?!:.: · ·

. .. .. ..**~** ...
. . . .**-~-** .**~** WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawal ofComplainthavingbeen

## read and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: · · • w·",":r:

### Gwnplainl;lllts&;Witll~l:a~al,,O,f.(;}pmplaint·)J,~~~fl:0i~·,l!~r.eby'~'anted~r:tlnd 2. This proc_eeding be and is hereby dismissed with preiudice. '.•



# ..SO ORDERED.

# .~c~~~ Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative 

### Law Judge Attachment- Service List



# ...


# . . .

## .



# ..


# .. '



## ..
......**~··**



### .•.

.........

### SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: · Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 ·wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WI000 1 ONE COPY Stanford M.J. Manuia, 

### Respondent's Counsel 701 Bishop Street Honolulu, HI 96813 TEL: 808-532-4543 FAX: 808-532-4704 M&M Tanks, Inc., 

### Respondent ATTN: Michael Weitzenhoff 1036 Mikole Street Honolulu, HI 96819 Christopher Merrill, 

### Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel, A WP-7.3 Western-Pacific Region Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 TEL: 310-725-7105 FAX: 310-725-6816 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, 

### Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 Legal Assistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2011-1118 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was byU.S. Mail. For service inperson or by expedited courier, use the following address! Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
No. 51720.

#### Protest 118116-K of Washington State Liquor Control Board (Seattle).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Somerset*(33 C. C. P. A. 138, C. A. D. 328), and that a quantity of liquor amounting to 10 percent or more of the total contents of certain hogsheads was lost in transit from the port of exportation to the port of destination due to breakage, leakage, or damage. In accordance therewith it was held that an allowance should have been made for the loss appearing upon the gauger’s return as verified by the affidavit of the importer. The protest was sustained to this extent.
No. 56415.

protest 162646-K (New York).

#### Wm. Dixon, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

The court noted that the involved merchandise was imported and entered on December 7, 1949, at which time T. D. 49753 was no longer in effect, and that the rate in effect at that time was 7)4 percent under paragraph 13, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 51802). It was held that “There is ample authority, however, to the effect that in cases such as the present, wherein the plaintiff has indicated the correct paragraph under which claim is made and the ascertainment of the correct rate to be applied under that paragraph is not in issue, the protest is sufficiently specific to warrant a judgment applying the correct rate of duty. See *Loblaw Groceterias, Inc.*v. *United States,*22 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 479, T. D. 47481, and cases cited therein. The circumstances of paragraph 13 of the Tariff Act of 1930 were that at no time was there more than one rate of duty applicable thereunder, so that the statement of an erroneous rate would not have confused or misled the collector.” In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of ruby powder similar in all material respects to that the subject of *William Dixon, Inc.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 154, C. D. 1362), the claim for assessment of duty under paragraph 13 was sustained, and the collector was directed to reliquidate the entry at the 7)4 percent rate provided by the modification of said paragraph 13 by T. D. 51802.
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 

James Robert Hruby,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-2254 DFL PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

California Department of

Corrections,

Respondent.

-oOoMarch 17, 2005, an order served on plaintiff was returned by

the postal service as undeliverable. Plaintiff has failed to

comply with Local Rule 83-182(f), which requires that a party

appearing pro se inform the court of any address change.

Accordingly, the court hereby recommends that this action be

dismissed without prejudice. L.R. 83-183(b) (dismissal

appropriate where pro se plaintiff fails to notify court of

current address within 60 days of return of mail by U.S. Postal

Service). 

Case 2:04-cv-02254-DFL-PAN Document 24 Filed 06/03/05 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

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

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: June 2, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02254-DFL-PAN Document 24 Filed 06/03/05 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Lpath, Inc. (“the Company”) on Form10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned,Scott R. Pancoast, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Gary J.G.Atkinson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that, to our knowledge:

 

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

 

(2)               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: November 13, 2007 |   |                    |
|--------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
| /s/ Scott R. Pancoast    |   | /s/ Gary J.G. Atkinson  |
|                     |   |                    |
| Scott R. Pancoast, CEO   |   | Gary J.G. Atkinson, CFO |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7040
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JIMMIE LEE SWANN, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge. (CR-89-140, CA-95-9-1-V) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 18, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmie Lee Swann, Appellant Pro Se. Jerry Wayne Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Swann , Nos. CR-89-140; CA-95-9-1-V (W.D.N.C. Apr. 24, 1996). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED