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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Timothy Jackson Seeley

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1800 DFL CMK P

vs.

Theresa A. Schwartz, et al., 

Defendants.

 / ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a “Motion for Leave from the Court in Ordering the Attorney

Generals Office to use Plaintiffs Correct Mailing Address.” Plaintiff’s address of record is PO

Box 2500, Vacaville, CA 95696-2500. 

IT IS ORDERED THAT all parties involved in this action are to use plaintiff’s

address of record for all correspondence in this action. 

DATED: August 8, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01800-DFL-CMK Document 53 Filed 08/10/05 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

Case 2:04-cv-01800-DFL-CMK Document 53 Filed 08/10/05 Page 2 of 2
SERVED APRIL 9, 2010 - oT.rn 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

NEWLY WEDS FOODS, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10SW0003 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMSNO. FAA-2010-0198 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2009SW700272) has been assigned to 

Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. 

Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative L; 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CP10SW0003 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

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 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

John J. Seely, Respondent 

Senior Vice President 

Newly Weds Foods 

1140 W. Fullerton Avenue 

Chicago, IL 60639 

TEL: 773-489-7000 

FAX: 773-489-7799 

James Archier, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASW-7 

Southwest Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Suite 6E 

Fort Worth, TX 76193-0007 

TEL: 817-222-5099 

FAX: 817-222-5945/5092 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Hearing Docket, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building - Room 

2014, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0147 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007AP0147

**European Parliament legislative resolution of 25 April 2007 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector and amending Directives 1999/35/EC and 2002/59/EC (COM(2005)0590 - C6-0056/2006 - 2005/0240(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 074 E , 20/03/2008 P. 0546 - 0547 *

P6_TA(2007)0147

Investigation of accidents ***I

European Parliament legislative resolution of 25 April 2007 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector and amending Directives 1999/35/EC and 2002/59/EC (COM(2005)0590 — C6-0056/2006 — 2005/0240(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2005)0590) [1],

- having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 80(2) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0056/2006),

- having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A6-0079/2007);

1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

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

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
No. 62597.

#### Shippers Trading Co. *v.*United States,

protest 805062-G (B) (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of kidskins the same in ail material respects as those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

Mollison, J.,

dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1480, *supra.*
No. 58575.

protests 225349-K and 225369-K (New York).

#### Otto Kadmon and Langfelder, Homma & Carroll, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Christmas tree ornaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Walco Bead Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 62, C.D. 1445), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 31.1

CASH 4 HOMES 247

Certifications

      I, Gordon Forgey, certify that:

      1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cash 4 Homes 247.

      2.    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder 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 financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

      4.    The Registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for theregistrant and have:

            (a)   designed such disclosure controls andprocedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

            (b)   evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant'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 ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the EvaluationDate;

      5.    The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function): a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which couldadversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for theregistrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

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

Date:   August 19, 2004             /s/ GordonForgey                                                   Gordon Forgey                                                    President and Chief Operating Officer
Exhibit 10.1


 





	 	 

                                                            

                                                           3000
                                         John Deere Road, Toano, VA 23168


Phone: (757) 566-7473 ●
Fax (757) 259-7293


www.lumberliquidators.com





	 	 






 


 


 


November 7, 2016


 


Mr. Dennis R. Knowles


 


		RE:	Offer letter



 


Dear Dennis:


 


On behalf of the Board of Directors of Lumber Liquidators, I
am pleased to offer you the position of Chief Executive Officer of Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. (“Lumber Liquidators”
or the “Company”). The details of the offer are as follows:


 


		·	Title: Chief Executive Officer



 


		·	Location: Toano, Virginia



 


		·	Effective Date: November 9, 2016



 


		·	Terms: All terms of your Offer Letter of Employment dated February 23, 2016 shall remain in full force and effect except as
modified as set out below, which terms shall become effective as of the Effective Date.



 


		·	Annual Base Salary: $625,000.00



 


		·	Incentive Plan: You will be eligible to participate in the Annual Bonus Plan for Executive Management (the “Bonus Plan”).
Your 100% target payout under the Bonus Plan will be equal to 100% of your annual base salary, with the opportunity to earn a maximum
of 200% of your payout based on Lumber Liquidators’ performance against certain financial objectives.



 


		·	Equity Grants: The issuance of any additional equity grants will be reviewed by the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors during the Q1 2017 review process for equity grants. Any such grants shall be at the sole discretion of the Board of
Directors.



 


		·	In your role as CEO, the Board of Directors will consider appointing
you to join the Board, subject to required approvals, at the effective time of the current CEO’s resignation from the Board. 
Should you serve on the Board, in accordance with the Corporate Governance Guidelines and Article III, Section 4 of the Company’s
Bylaws, you agree to promptly tender your resignation from the Board in the event that you are no longer serving as the Company’s
CEO.  



 






    	 	 	 



     


    

 


If you have questions regarding any of the above, please feel
free to contact me.


 


Congratulations on your new role. We look forward to working
with you to further our success.


 


Sincerely,


 


/s/ Nancy M. Taylor


 


Nancy M. Taylor


Chairperson


 


 


 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT and AGREEMENT:  As indicated by my signature
below on this letter, I acknowledge its receipt and my understanding and acceptance of its contents.  I agree that should
I terminate employment with Lumber Liquidators or if my employment is terminated for cause, in addition to other remedies available
to Lumber Liquidators, any monies owed for reimbursement of expenses or other sums pursuant to this letter or the Offer Letter
dated February 23, 2016 may be deducted from any amounts owing to me. 


 


 


 


	Signature:	/s/ Dennis R. Knowles	Date:  	November 7, 2016	 
	 	Dennis R. Knowles	 	 


 


 


 








    	 	2
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-40352 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE LUIS SERRATO-BELMONTEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-00-R-1227-1

-------------------- December 12, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Luis Serrato-Belmontez appeals his guilty–plea conviction and sentence, arising out of his having been found in the United States after having been “denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed” in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Serrato-Belmontez contends his indictment was unconstitutionally vague because it failed to charge him with any

mens rea . Serrato-Belmontez concedes that his argument is foreclosed by this court’s precedent in United States v. GuzmanOcampo , 236 F.3d 233, 236 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 121 S.No. 01-40352 -2- Ct. 2600 (2001), and United States v. Berrios-Centeno , 250 F.3d 294, 299-300 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied , 122 S. Ct. 288 (2001), but he wishes to preserve the argument for review by the Supreme Court. Serrato-Belmontez also claims his prior conviction for transporting aliens did not constitute an “aggravated felony” conviction warranting a 16-level increase in his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). As Serrato-Belmontez concedes, this court has already determined that transporting aliens constitutes an aggravated felony. See United States v. Monjaras-Castaneda , 190 F.3d 326, 331 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied , 528 U.S. 1194 (2000). Serrato-Belmontez seeks only to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
No. 42895.

#### Protest 933150-G of S. Lisk & Bro. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallingeb, J.

It was stipulated that the pencil sharpeners in question are similar to those the subject of Abstract 41633. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 47 (Monday, March 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 11005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4354]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-320-000]


Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

March 5, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 28, 2007, Colorado Interstate Gas 
Company (CIG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First 
Revised Volume No. 1, Forty-Fourth Revised Sheet No. 11A, to become 
effective April 1, 2007.
    CIG states that copies of its filing have been sent to all firm 
customers, interruptible customers, and affected state commissions.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#286e6d7a6b67464441464d7b5d5858475a5c684e4d5a4b064f475e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dd9b988f9e92b3b1b4b3b88ea8adadb2afa99dbbb8afbef3bab2ab">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-4354 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 47897.

#### Protests 508009-G, etc., of Olivier Straw Goods Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Caradine Hat Co.*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664) the harvest hats in question imported prior to February 1, 1936, were held dutiable at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (5), and those entered or withdrawn for consumption subsequent to said date were held dutiable at 12% percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) and T. D. 48075.
No. 56441.

protests 8020-K, etc. (Baltimore).

#### New England Panama Hat Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 44029.

#### Protest 986485-G of Anco Import Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record was held to clearly establish that the imitation semiprecious stones in question are faceted. The claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1528 was therefore sustained.
#### In the Matter of Latisha W. and Another, Children Alleged to be Abused. Richard W. et al., Appellants; Commissioner of Social Services, Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 510]

—In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother and father separately appeal, as limited by their briefs, from so much of an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Greenbaum, J.), entered July 27, 1992, as was predicated upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated June 23, 1992, which, after a hearing, found that they had abused Latisha W. and Samura W. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Commissioner of Social Services established by a preponderance of the evidence that the then 10-year-old Latisha and her 7-year-old sister Samura were abused children within the meaning of Family Court Act § 1012 (e) (iii) and that their father was the perpetrator. Latisha made detailed out-of-court statements to several individuals regarding the abuse which were corroborated by Samura’s out-of-court statements in which she described similar incidents of abuse. It is well established that the out-of-court statements of siblings may properly be used to cross-corroborate one another, as Family Court Act § 1046 (a) (vi) provides that "[a]ny other evidence tending to support the reliability of the previous statements, including, but not limited to the types of evidence defined in this subdivision shall be sufficient corroboration” *(see, Matter of Nicole V.,*71 NY2d 112, 123-124).

In addition, the children’s statements were corroborated by the testimony of a social worker who concluded that they had been sexually abused based, *inter alia,*on the children’s consistent statements regarding the abuse to various individuals over a period of time as well as the children’s bed-wetting and inappropriate sexual behavior *(see, Matter of Nicole V., supra).*

Furthermore, the petitioner established a prima facie case of abuse against the mother, which she failed to rebut *(see, e.g., Matter of Lauren B.,*200 AD2d 740; *Matter of Alan G.,*185 AD2d 319). The petitioner presented evidence that the children informed their mother of the abuse but she failed to protect them and warned them not to tell anyone about the abuse.

*646We have reviewed the appellants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2


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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of m-Wise,  Inc. ("the Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"),  I, Gabriel Kabazo, Chief
Financial  Officer,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

      (1) the Report  fully  comply 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.

Gabriel Kabazo
---------------------------------------
Gabriel Kabazo, Chief Financial Officer

Dated: November 16, 2004
#### In the Matter of James D. Fleet, Appellant, v Geanine Scarola, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 362]

—In a proceeding, *inter alia,*for a temporary child custody determination pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 75-d, the petitioner father appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Leis, J.), dated July 7, 1995, which denied his application to grant him immediate temporary custody of the parties’ infant child and to enjoin the respondent mother from enforcing an order of the Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Florida (Brown, J.), dated May 18, 1995, which, among other things, granted her interim custody of the child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The father, who initiated a custody action in Florida in December 1994, now asks the courts of this State to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 75-d, specifically section 75-d (1) (c)—jurisdiction necessitated by an emergency to protect the child. Given the father’s pending custody action in Florida, the primary question is whether Florida was "exercising jurisdiction * * * in conformity” with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (hereinafter the UCCJA) to preclude New York from exercising jurisdiction (Domestic Relations Law § 75-g [1]; *see, Vanneck v Vanneck,*49 NY2d 602).

*340By its Notice of Simultaneous Proceedings, the Florida court informed the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, that Florida’s jurisdiction was invoked when the father filed a petition in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District in Palm Beach County, Florida, on December 27, 1994, for an order of paternity, custody, primary residence, and child support. The father, in his affidavit in support of the Florida petition, attested that the parties were all Florida residents and that the child’s home State was Florida. Having assumed jurisdiction, the Florida proceeding progressed to the point where, after interrogatories, mediations, and a hearing, the court granted temporary custody to the mother. Therefore, Florida exercised its jurisdiction in this custody matter according to the mandates of the UCCJA.

The father’s allegations in his petition before the Supreme Court to allow New York to assume emergency jurisdiction under Domestic Relations Law § 75-d (1) (c) were unsubstantiated and insufficient for New York to assert jurisdiction *(see, Matter of Hernandez v Collura,*113 AD2d 750, 752; *cf, Matter of Vanessa E.,*190 AD2d 134, 136; *Matter of Maureen S. v Margaret S.,*184 AD2d 159, 162-163). Accordingly, his application was properly denied.

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Joy, J. P., Hart, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.
# ReadMe

# ELM_Sites_Locations_Layers_Pick

# QT

# PP

# PP2

# PPcomb

# OG

# BR

# PI

# NI

# CA

# DA