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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT N. JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

JASWINDER SHERGILL, DBA 

SUPER STOP LIQUOR & FOOD,

DONALD EDGER STONE, AND

PATRICIA EDITH BERG, 

Defendants.

___________________________/

NO. CIV-S-04-2201 MCE/KJM 

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND

DISPOSITION

Pursuant to notice from the Voluntary Dispute Resolution

Administrator, the court has determined that this case is

settled. In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 16-160,

dispositional documents are to be filed on or before May 19,

2005. 

Failure to comply with this order may be grounds for the

imposition of sanctions on any and all counsel as well as any

party or parties who cause non-compliance with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 28, 2005

__________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02201-MCE -KJM Document 12 Filed 04/29/05 Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

EDUARDO ALVARADO §

CHAVERRI, et al. §

§ No. 642, 2013

Plaintiffs-Below, §

Appellants, § Court Below: Superior Court 

§ of the State of Delaware in and 

v. § for New Castle County

§

DOLE FOOD COMPANY, §

INC., et. al. § C.A. No. N12C-06-017 ALR

§

Defendants-Below, §

Appellees. §

Submitted: October 15, 2014

Decided: October 20, 2014

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND, RIDGELY, and 

VALIHURA, Justices; and RYAN, Judge, constituting the Court en Banc.

O R D E R

This 20th day of October 2014, the Court, after hearing oral argument 

and upon consideration of the record in this case, has concluded that this 

appeal should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by the 

Superior Court in its Opinion and Order of November 8, 2013;

 

Sitting by designation under Del. Const. art. IV, § 12.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment 

of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice
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

CLAUD CAVINESS, No. CIV.S-04-2388 GEB DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

GORDON R. ENGLAND, Secretary

of the Navy, DEPARTMENT OF

THE NAVY,

Defendants.

____________________________/

This action has been assigned to United States District

Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. and pursuant to Local Rule 72-

302(c)(21) was referred to a Magistrate Judge for all purposes

encompassed by that provision. On August 29, 2006, the matter was

re-assigned to the undersigned. 

On August 15, 2005, defendants moved for summary judgment

in their favor and noticed that motion for hearing on September 21,

2005. On December 22, 2005, plaintiff, now represented by counsel, 

filed a motion to transfer this action to the United States District

Case 2:04-cv-02388-GEB-DAD Document 37 Filed 09/12/06 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

Court for the Northern District of California, noticing the motion

for hearing on January 25, 2006. The then-assigned Magistrate Judge

issued minute orders on January 23, 2006 and February 6, 2006,

vacating the noticed hearings on both motions and submitting them for

decision without oral argument.

In light of the recent reassignment of this matter to the

undersigned and considering the age of this case and that of the

briefing submitted in connection with those motions, the court finds

that at the very least oral argument on the motions may assist the

court. Moreover, given the passage of time, it may be possible that

the parties positions or arguments may have changed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. no. 11)

and plaintiff’s motion to transfer (Doc. no. 24) are denied without

prejudice to being re-noticed for hearing.

2. The parties are directed to re-notice defendants’

motion for summary judgment and plaintiff’s motion to transfer for

hearing on October 27, 2006, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 27 before

the undersigned magistrate judge.

3. Any supplemental briefing in support of the motions by

the moving party shall be filed on or before October 13, 2006. Any

supplemental opposition to either motion shall be filed on or before

October 20, 2006. The parties need not repeat any arguments already

filed with the court and are not required to file supplemental briefs

if they are relying on the arguments previously presented. 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02388-GEB-DAD Document 37 Filed 09/12/06 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

3

4. Any party may arrange telephonic appearance by

contacting Courtroom Deputy Pete Buzo at (916) 930-4128.

DATED: September 11, 2006.

DAD:th

DDad1\orders.prose\caviness2388.set.hearing

Case 2:04-cv-02388-GEB-DAD Document 37 Filed 09/12/06 Page 3 of 3
No. 60857.

#### Kittay & Blitz, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 234565-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of Abstract 59105, the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked with the letter “F” at 10 percent under the provision in paragraph 1528, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trace (T. D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52836), for imitation semiprecious stones, faceted; (2) the items marked with the letters “C” and “D” at 30 percent under the provision in said paragraph, as modified by T. D. 51802, supplemented by T. D. 51898, for imitation semiprecious stones, not faceted; and (3) the items marked with the letter “E” at 30 percent under the same provision in said paragraph, as modified by T. D. 51802 and T. D. 51898, for imitation semiprecious stones, not cut or faceted.
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

 Although plaintiff contends defendant requested a second extension of time to file a 1

motion for summary judgment “simply to waste the court’s time,” this court found good cause

for the request and granted defendant’s request. (May 18, 2006 Order.)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES WHITTENBERG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2313 FCD JFM P

vs.

LT. L. ROLL,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 22, 2006 plaintiff filed a document entitled ‘motion for

judgment.” On June 2, 2006, defendant filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion, which

defendant construed as a motion for default judgment. 

In his motion, plaintiff asks the court to enter judgment in his favor because he

believes counsel for defendant has unreasonably delayed this case. Plaintiff has not 1

demonstrated good cause for the entry of default judgment against defendant. Plaintiff has also

failed to meet the requirements of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure such that his

Case 2:04-cv-02313-FCD-JFM Document 64 Filed 06/16/06 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

motion cannot be construed as a motion for summary judgment. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d

952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1035 (1999); Klingele v. Eikenberry,

849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff’s motion will be denied without prejudice. 

On May 31, 2006, plaintiff renewed his request for the appointment of counsel. 

Plaintiff’s previous requests were filed on December 22, 2004, March 17, 2005, and July 12,

2005. All requests were denied. In light of those orders, the plaintiff’s May 31, 2006 request

will be denied.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s May 22, 2006 motion is denied without prejudice.

2. Plaintiff’s May 31, 2006 motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 

DATED: June 15, 2006.

001;whit2313.den 

Case 2:04-cv-02313-FCD-JFM Document 64 Filed 06/16/06 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

27

28

[Proposed] Order Granting Defendant’s First EOT to Respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction

1

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

ROBERT R. ANDERSON

Chief Assistant Attorney General

FRANCES T. GRUNDER

Senior Assistant Attorney General

MONICA N. ANDERSON

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

DANIEL P. O’DONNELL, State Bar No. 177872

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 324-5810

Fax: (916) 324-5205

Attorneys for Defendants Herrera, Grannis, Fisher,

Providence, Allen, Schwartz, O’Ran, Lee, Thumser,

Bradanick and California Medical Facility

SA2005100247

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 SACRAMENTO DIVISION

GUY T. STRINGHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. LEE, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. CIV S-04-1530 DFL GGH P

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

FIRST REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

Defendant’s first request for an extension of time to file an opposition to Plaintiff’s

Motion for Preliminary Injunction was considered by this Court and, good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, from the date this order is served, Defendant has 20

days to file his response to Plaintiff’s motion. No further extensions

DATED: 6/24/05 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

___________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

stri1530.eot06

Case 2:04-cv-01530-JAM-GGH Document 28 Filed 06/24/05 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

CLARENCE MONTGOMERY, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1529 LKK PAN P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, 

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 July 7, 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 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-01529-LKK -PAN Document 6 Filed 09/01/05 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 July 7, 2005, are adopted in full; and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. 

DATED: August 31, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01529-LKK -PAN Document 6 Filed 09/01/05 Page 2 of 2
Order entered January 8, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00676-CV

IN THE MATTER OF A.L., A JUVENILE

On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. JD-18-00518-X

ORDER

Before the Court is appellee’s January 6, 2021 motion for an extension of 

time to file its brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to 

February 5, 2021. We caution appellee that further extension requests will be 

disfavored.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1

                    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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wired Associates Solutions Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2011 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jacqueline Winwood, 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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
8th day of June, 2011.


/s/  Jacqueline Winwood
---------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
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

STEVEN W. LENTZ, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2617 LKK DAD P

vs.

DR. ATHAUASSIOUS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER FOR PAYMENT

 / OF INMATE FILING FEE

To: The Director of the California Department of Corrections, 1515 S Street, Sacramento,

California 95814:

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is obligated to

pay the statutory filing fee of $150.00 for this action. Plaintiff has been assessed an initial partial

filing fee of $2.12 for this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Upon payment of that

initial partial filing fee, plaintiff will be obligated to make monthly payments in the amount of

twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. The

California Department of Corrections is required to send to the Clerk of the Court the initial

partial filing fee and thereafter payments from plaintiff’s prison trust account each time the

amount in the account exceeds $10.00, until the statutory filing fee of $150.00 is paid in full. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

Case 2:04-cv-02617-LKK -DAD Document 5 Filed 08/22/05 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

Good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Director of the California Department of Corrections or a designee shall

collect from plaintiff’s prison trust account an initial partial filing fee in the amount of $2.12 

and shall forward the amount to the Clerk of the Court. Said payment shall be clearly identified

by the name and number assigned to this action.

2. Thereafter, the Director of the California Department of Corrections or a

designee shall collect from plaintiff's prison trust account the $147.88 balance of the filing fee by

collecting monthly payments from plaintiff's prison trust account in an amount equal to twenty

percent (20%) of the preceding month's income credited to the prisoner's trust account and

forwarding payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds

$10.00 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The payments shall be clearly identified by

the name and number assigned to this action. 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order and a copy of

plaintiff's signed in forma pauperis affidavit on Director, California Department of Corrections,

1515 S Street, Sacramento, California 95814.

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Financial

Department of the court.

DATED: August 22, 2005.

DAD:4

lent2617.cdc

Case 2:04-cv-02617-LKK -DAD Document 5 Filed 08/22/05 Page 2 of 2
December 14, 1955

No. 59589.

protest 224445-K.

#### D. C. Andrews & Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

C. D. 1732. 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEMIAN TREVOR O’KEEFE,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

NO. CIV. S-04-1695 WBS GGH PS

ORDER

Currently pending before the court is defendants’ summary judgment motion,

filed April 10, 2006. The pretrial and trial dates must be vacated pending a ruling on that

motion.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The pretrial conference, currently set for October 5, 2006, is vacated.

3. The October 31, 2006 jury trial is vacated.

DATED: 8/4/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

__________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH/076

O'Keeffe.vac.wpd

Case 2:04-cv-01695-GGH Document 37 Filed 08/04/06 Page 1 of 1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRIAN ROSS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

U.S. BANK NA, as Trustee for the LXS

2007-7N Trust Fund, a National

Association; BAC HOME LOANS

SERVICING, LP, a Texas Limited

Partnership; ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN

CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR

EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE,

LIEN OR INTEREST IN THE

PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE

COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO

PLAINTIFF’S TITLE THERETO;

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-56291

D.C. No. 3:12-cv-02640-BENJMA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 21, 2015

Pasadena, California

FILED

OCT 30 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Before: RAWLINSON and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges and PONSOR,

** Senior

District Judge.

 

Appellant Brian Ross (Ross) challenges the district court’s dismissal of his

federal complaint alleging that U.S. Bank improperly sought foreclosure of his

property. 

The district court properly dismissed Ross’ federal complaint based on

collateral estoppel. Ross’ federal claims are merely the same challenge premised

on different legal theories to the foreclosure action that was conclusively resolved

in state court. See Mills v. U.S. Bank, 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 896 (2008)

(articulating that “a former judgment . . . is a collateral estoppel on issues which

were raised, even though some factual matters or legal arguments which could

have been presented were not”) (citations omitted) (emphasis in the original); see

also Evans v. Celotex Corp., 194 Cal.App.3d 741, 746-47 (1987) (stating that

“[c]ollateral estoppel bars relitigation of the same issues; it does not require

identity of legal theories or causes of action. If it did, there would be no end to

litigation for injuries arising out of the same facts, as long as a party could offer

another legal theory by which the same issue might be differently decided”)

(citation omitted).

 ** The Honorable Michael A. Ponsor, Senior District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for Massachusetts, sitting by designation.

2
Ross’ argument that collateral estoppel is inapplicable because U.S. Bank

was not a party to the state action is unavailing. See DKN Holdings LLC v.

Faerber, 352 P.3d 378, 387 (Cal. 2015) (recognizing that “[o]nly the party against

whom the doctrine is invoked must be bound by the prior proceeding. . . .”)

(citation omitted) (emphasis in the original).

AFFIRMED.

3
No. 52003.

#### Hughes Fawcett, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 56065-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries involved. The protests were sustained to this extent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,625
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,772
<ALLOWANCES>                                       137
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,392
<PP&E>                                          55,879
<DEPRECIATION>                                (36,742)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,475
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,324
<BONDS>                                       (19,217)<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           761
<OTHER-SE>                                         173<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,475
<SALES>                                         11,763
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,520
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,278
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,358
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,108)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        30
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,138)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,138)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.38)
<FN>
<F1>LT DEBT
<F2>RETAINED EARNINGS (2,859), TREASURY STOCK (7,870) AND ADDITIONAL PAID-IN CAPITAL (10,902)
</FN>


</TABLE>
No. 59023.

protest 239299-K (C) (New York).

#### Dorf International, Ltd. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the issues and facts herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the 138 crates of fresh cucumbers reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.
No. 41788.

#### Protests 679993-G, etc., of Paolo Alonge & Bro. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 40880 it was held that an allowance should have been añade in the weight of the cheese to compensate for the inedible covering on the -outside.
-79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

 38

 39

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

09/05

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 05 Sep 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL