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

Kenneth Dean Dawson,

Plaintiff, 2:04-1793-GEB-PAN-P

vs.

U.S. Government, 

Defendant. ORDER

 /

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 November 23, 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. Plaintiff’s copy of the

findings and recommendations was returned, and was re-served on him at his new address

December 2, 2005. 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:

Case 2:04-cv-01793-GEB-PAN Document 21 Filed 01/12/06 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

1. The findings and recommendations filed November 23, 2005, are adopted in

full; and

2. This action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be

granted. 

Dated: January 11, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01793-GEB-PAN Document 21 Filed 01/12/06 Page 2 of 2
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4464 

To require the United States Postal Service to apply certain requirements 

when closing a processing, shipping, delivery, or other facility supporting 

a post office, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 5, 2024 

Mr. ROUNDS (for himself, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, 

Mr. WICKER, Mr. HEINRICH, Mr. CRAMER, Ms. SMITH, and Mr. WELCH) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the United States Postal Service to apply certain 

requirements when closing a processing, shipping, delivery, or other facility supporting a post office, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Postal Processing Pro5 tection Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4464 IS

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS. 

2 Section 404(d) of title 39, United States Code, is 

3 amended— 

4 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘any post of5 fice’’ and inserting ‘‘any post office, or any accept6 ance, processing, shipping, delivery, distribution, or 

7 other facility that is owned or operated by the Postal 

8 Service that supports 1 or more post offices’’; 

9 (2) in paragraph (2)— 

10 (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph 

11 (A), by striking ‘‘a post office’’ and inserting ‘‘a 

12 post office, or an acceptance, processing, ship13 ping, delivery, distribution, or other facility that 

14 is owned or operated by the Postal Service that 

15 supports 1 or more post offices’’; and 

16 (B) in subparagraph (A)(iii), by striking 

17 ‘‘post offices’’ and inserting ‘‘post offices, or ac18 ceptance, processing, shipping, delivery, dis19 tribution, or other facilities that are owned or 

20 operated by the Postal Service that support 1 

21 or more post offices,’’; 

22 (3) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘a post office’’ 

23 and inserting ‘‘a post office, or an acceptance, proc24 essing, shipping, delivery, distribution, or other facil25 ity that is owned or operated by the Postal Service 

26 that supports 1 or more post offices,’’; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 4464 IS

1 (4) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘a post office’’ 

2 and inserting ‘‘a post office, or an acceptance, proc3 essing, shipping, delivery, distribution, or other facil4 ity that is owned or operated by the Postal Service 

5 that supports 1 or more post offices,’’; and 

6 (5) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘any post of7 fice’’ and inserting ‘‘any post office, or any accept8 ance, processing, shipping, delivery, distribution, or 

9 other facility that is owned or operated by the Postal 

10 Service that supports 1 or more post offices,’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
(Reap. Dec. 10726)

#### Naftone, Inc. (Intermediates Division) *v.*United States

Entry No. 982879.

(Decided April 21, 1964)

*Sharretts, Paley & Oar ter*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto that the merchandise, the subject of the above named appeal for reappraisement, consists of a coal tar product classifiable under paragraph 27 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, imported after February 28, 1958, and that this product does not appear on the final list of articles, T.D. 54521, from which the action of the Simplification Act of 1956 is withheld.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the price, at the time ■of exportation to the United States of the merchandise undergoing appraisement, at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold in the principal market of the United States for domestic consumption, packed ready for delivery, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, with allowances made for the addition of profit and general expenses usually made, in ■connection with sales in such max-ket of imported merchandise of the same class or kind as the merchandise undergoing appraisement and the usual costs of transportation and insurance and other usual expenses incurred with respect .to such or similar merchandise from the place of shipment to the place of delivery was $3,849 per pound.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this appeal for reap-praisement be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold United States value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here in question and that such value was $3,849 per pound.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
From: Moulis, Charles

Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:33 PM

To: 'BishopRichardA@JohnDeere.com' Subject: Emergency AECD Language

This is in response to your request regarding penalties for operators that misuse an emergency AECD on a nonroad engine. We expect to include regulatory text like the following to address

such misuse:

§1039.665 (c) Required Information . Manufacturers producing engines equipped with an AECD approved under this section must communicate at least the following information in writing to the operator: (1) Instructions for activating, deactivating, reactivating, reporting AECD use, and request ing resetting of the AECD. (2) Warning that activating the emergency AECD for something other than a qualified emergency situation, failing to disable the emergency AECD after a qualified emergency situation has clearly ended, or failing to notify and repo rt to the manufacturer as required under paragraph (e) of this section, are prohibited acts under federal regulations. The warning must also identify the maximum civil penalty for such violations, according to 40

CFR 1068.101. (3) Notification that the ma nufacturer will send the information from the operator’s report under paragraph (e) of this section to EPA and that federal regulation separately prohibits submitting false information.

Note that the current maximum penalty would be $3,750 per violat ion.
Exhibit (13) a.



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, Masahiro Sakane, President and Chief Executive 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/ Masahiro Sakane           
|----------------------------------
|Masahiro Sakane                   
|President, Chief Executive Officer



17
Exhibit 23



|                                                 |  |            |  |                        |  |                         
|------------------------------------------------ |  | ---------- |  | ---------------------- |  | ------------------------
|[RYDER SCOTT COMPANY PETROLEUM
CONSULTANTS LOGO] |  |            |  | FAX (303) 623-4258    
|                                                 |  |            | 
|621 SEVENTEENTH STREET                           |  | SUITE 1550 |  | DENVER, COLORADO 80293 |  | TELEPHONE (303) 623-9147

CONSENT OF RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.

We consent to the use on the Form 10-K of PrimeEnergy Corporation of our reserve report and all schedules, exhibits, and attachments
thereto incorporated by reference of Form 10-K and to any reference made to us on Form 10-K as a result of such incorporation



Very Truly Yours,/s/ RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.


Denver, Colorado

April 15, 2010



|                           |  |                           |  |                    |  |                   
|-------------------------- |  | ------------------------- |  | ------------------ |  | ------------------
|1100 LOUISIANA, SUITE 3800 |  | HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-5218 |  | TEL (713) 651-9191 |  | FAX (713) 651-0849
|1100, 530-8TH STREET, S.W. |  | CALGARY, ALBERTA T2P 2W2  |  | TEL (403) 262-2799 |  | FAX (403) 262-2790
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Timothy G. Healy, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of EnerNOC, Inc.;

 

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

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant andhave:

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructionscontained in SEC Release No. 34-54942];

 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 

Date: November 13, 2008

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Timothy G. Healy     |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------|
|   |   | Timothy G. Healy              |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer       |
|   |   | (principal executive officer) |

 

----
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________ No. 95-40698 Summary Calendar

_______________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROGER CHARLES BOILES, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

(1:95-CR-37)

_________________________________________________________________ February 26, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

Roger Charles Boiles appeals his conviction for being a
felon in the unlawful possession of a firearm, a vi olation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Boiles maintains that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence and by denying his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional. Our review of the briefs and the record reveals no reversible error; we AFFIRM.
Exhibit 23.2.b



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-18139 and 333-108215 on Form S-3 of Kansas City Power & Light Company of our report dated March 9, 2004 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of new accounting principles), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Kansas City Power & Light Company for the year ended December 31, 2003.

/s/DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
DELOITTE & TOUCHE

Kansas City, Missouri
March 9, 2004
**Exhibit 32.2**

*The following certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated byreference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.*

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Magellan Midstream Holdings, L.P. (the“Partnership”) for the quarter ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John D. Chandler, Chief Financial Officer of Magellan Midstream HoldingsGP, LLC, the General Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 Partnership. 

/s/ John D. Chandler 

John D. Chandler, Chief Financial Officer

Date: August 5, 2008 

*A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*
No. 63594.

protests 322827-K, 322828-K, and 322829-K (San Diego).

#### Britton & Company *v.*United States,

*428Opinion by

Donlon, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is a mixed feed, consisting of a mixture of 80 percent cottonseed flake cake, 10 percent ground milo maize, and 10 percent cottonseed hulls. On the record presented and following *Pioneer Transfer Co.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 101, C.D. 1504), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 46119.

#### Protests 5482-K, etc., of G. Hirsch Sons, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the -court dismissed the protests.
<PAGE>
[TRANSLATION FROM HEBREW]

EXHIBIT 4.(a).28

                                  [State Seal]

             GENERAL LICENSE FOR PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LTD.
             FOR THE PROVISION OF MOBILE RADIO PHONE SERVICES BY THE
                              CELLULAR METHOD (MRP)

                                AMENDMENT NO. 13

By virtue of my power under section 4(e) of the Communications
(Telecommunications and Broadcasting) Law, 5742-1982, and after being presented
with the position of Partner Communications Company Ltd ("The Company"), I
hereby amend the general licence for the provision of mobile radio phone
services by the cellular method (MRP) granted to Partner Communications Company
Ltd. on 7th April 1998 as follows:

AMENDMENT OF CLAUSE 9

         1.       After clause 9.4 shall come:

                  "9.5     Notwithstanding the above, following the winning by
                           the Licensee of Tender No. 1/01, the validity of this
                           License shall be for a period of twenty (20) years
                           that will begin on 19 Shvat 5762 (1 February 2002)".

                                                    (sgd)
                  June, 2002                        Reuven (Ruby) Rivlin
                                                    Minister of Communications
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0006 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007AP0006

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the Council common position with a view to the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations ('ROME II') (9751/7/2006 - C6-0317/2006 - 2003/0168(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 244 E , 18/10/2007 P. 0194 - 0194 *

P6_TA(2007)0006

Law applicable to non-contractual obligations ("ROME II") ***II

European Parliament legislative resolution on the Council common position with a view to the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations ("ROME II") (9751/7/2006 — C6-0317/2006 — 2003/0168(COD))

(Codecision procedure: second reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Council common position (9751/7/2006 — C6-0317/2006) [1],

- having regard to its position at first reading [2] on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2003)0427) [3],

- having regard to the amended Commission proposal (COM(2006)0083) [3],

- having regard to Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Rule 62 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0481/2006),

1. Approves the common position as amended;

2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

[1] OJ C 289 E, 28.11.2006, p. 68.

[2] OJ C 157 E, 6.7.2006, p. 370.

[3] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
No. 54674.

#### The Ambriola Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 156549-K,. etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chestnuts similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Naumes Forwarding Service*v. *United States*(24 Cust. Ct. 93, C. D. 1214), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1646 was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIRECTV, INC., a California ) 2:04-cv-02057-GEB-DAD

corporation, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER CONTINUING STATUS

) (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)

ALLEN VIGGERS, ) CONFERENCE

)

Defendant. )

)

Plaintiff’s November 21, 2005, Status Report states the

default judgment in this matter is currently pending before the

magistrate judge. Therefore, the Status Conference is continued to

February 21, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff shall file a status report

no later than February 7, 2006, in which Plaintiff is only required to

explain the status of the default issue. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: December 5, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-02057-GEB-DAD Document 33 Filed 12/05/05 Page 1 of 1
EUZABE i A. BROWN 

CLERK • S PRENE COURT 

CLERK 

BY 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

No. 83673 

FILED 

- JAN 1 3 2022 

IN THE MATTER OF THE PARENTAL 

RIGHTS AS TO: L. I., MINOR UNDER 

18 YEARS OF AGE. 

CODY B., 

Appellant, 

vs. 

STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT 

OF FAMILY SERVICES; AND L. I., 

MINOR UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE, 

Res • ondents. 

ORDE1? DISMISSING APPEAL 

This pro se appeal was docketed in this court on October 25, 

2021, without payment of the requisite filing fee. On that same day, this 

court issued a notice directing appellant to pay the required filing fee or 

demonstrate compliance with NRAP 24 within 14 days. On November 4, 

2021, appellant filed a letter informing this court that he is unable to pay 

the fee at this time. Later that same day, this court filed an order directing 

appellant to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis with the district 

court in the first instance and file a file-stamped copy of the application in 

this court or pay the filing fee within 30 days. Appellant was cautioned that 

failure to comply would resul t in the dismissal of this appeal. 

On December 2, 2021, appellant filed a motion for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis. On December 15, 2021, this court entered 

another order directing appellant to file the motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis with the district court in the first instance or pay the filing fee 

within 15 days. Appellant was again cautioned again that failure to comply 

SUPREME COuRT 

OF 

NEVADA 

CLERK'S ORDER 

(0) 1947 400).. 
By: 

would result in the dismissal of this appeal. To date, appellant has not paid 

the filing fee or demonstrated that he has complied with NRAP 24. 

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See NRAP 3(a)(2). 

It is so ORDERED. 

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

ELIZABETH A. BROWN 

cc: Hon. Robert Teuton, District Judge, Family Court Division 

Cody B. 

Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division 

Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, Inc. 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

CLERK'S ORDER 

i0) 1947 600) 

9