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

DONNELL KINNARD,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2472 FCD PAN P

vs.

DAVID RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed March 11, 2005, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and sixty days

leave to file an amended complaint was granted. Sixty days passed and plaintiff did not file an

amended complaint. On May 26, 2005, plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint

within ten days or his case would be dismissed without prejudice. That ten day period has now

expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s

order.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

Case 2:04-cv-02472-FCD-PAN Document 10 Filed 02/28/06 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

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: February 27, 2006. 

/001;kinn2472fta

Case 2:04-cv-02472-FCD-PAN Document 10 Filed 02/28/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the Third Division,

June 1, 1959

No. 63117.

#### T. B. Smith Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 323042-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are similar to those involved in Abstract 57104, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

February 2, 1944

No. 49186.

#### Protest 102861-K of Tara Singh (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that the mufflers in question are similar to those involved in Abstract 45938. the record in which was admitted in evidence herein. In accordance therewith the claim at 60 percent under paragraph 1209 was sustained.
No. 53584.

protests 118817-K, etc. (New York).

#### Yardley of London, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bottles the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Griffon Importing Co.*v. *United States*(36 C. C. P. A. 121, C. A. D. 408), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

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

 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and(b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode), I, S. Jeffrey Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of CanoPetroleum, Inc. (the “Company”), certify that the Company’s QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 (the “Form 10-Q”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:      November  15, 2010 | /s/  S. Jeffrey Johnson  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|
|                                                        |                     |
|                                                        | S.  Jeffrey Johnson      |
|                                                        | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
November 6, 1961

Reap. Dec. 10101.

#### Geo. S. Bush *&*Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Motion by plaintiff.
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

DAVID CHARLES THATCHER, No. 2:04-cv-2547-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

M. PENNER, ET AL., 

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern

District of California local rules.

On April 26, 2006, 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 ten (10) days. 

Plaintiff has filed Objections to the Findings and

Recommendations.

Case 2:04-cv-02547-MCE -CMK Document 35 Filed 05/23/06 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed April 26, 2006,

are adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is granted; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter Judgment 

and close this file.

DATE: May 22, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02547-MCE -CMK Document 35 Filed 05/23/06 Page 2 of 2
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 06-1106 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Communications 

 Memorandum of Understanding 

Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and ITALY 

Signed at Offutt AFB and Rome 

July 20 and November 6, 2006 

with 

Annex 

and 

Agreement Extending the 

Memorandum of Understanding 

 Signed at Offutt AFB and Rome 

 September 27 and November 2, 2011 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
ITALY 

Defense: Communications 

 Memorandum of understanding signed at 

 Offutt AFB and Rome July 20 and 

 November 6, 2006; 

 Entered into force November 6, 2006. 

 With annex. 

 And agreement extending the memorandum of 

 understanding. 

 Signed at Offutt AFB and Rome 

 September 27 and November 2, 2011; 

 Entered into force November 2, 2011. 


NOTE: Page numbers appear to be one page off in listing of Table of Contents. 
























UNCLASSIFIED

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

RENEWAL OF

MORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN THE

DEPARTMENT OF DENSE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

AND THE

MINISTRY OF DEFENSE OF ITALY

CONCERNING

THE MUTUAL EXCHANGE OF MILITARY SATELLITE

COMMUNICATIONS

SERVICES AND SUPPORT

DATED: 06 November 2006

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSITED

Pursuant to section XIV ofthis MOU, a rnewal period offive years from the end

date ofthe original agreement will become effective on last signature.

Signed by the Partieipants:

For theMinistry ofDefvnse

ofthe Republic ofItaly

For the Department ofDefense

ofthe United Stexes ofAmerica:

Signature

Franco

Name

Maj. Gen, ITAF

MOD IT- C4ISvstems Transfor De.

Title

C. Robert Kehler

Name

General, USAF

Comm_ander. USS

Title

SEP 2. t

Date

ROME. ITALY

Location

OFFUTT AFB .NEBRASKA, USA

Location

UNCLASSIFIED

22-
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

KEVIN KING, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1158 MCE KJM P

vs.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme

Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent

prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In

certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v.

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court does not

find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel

will therefore be denied.

Plaintiff has also requested a 60-day extension of time to file an amended

complaint. Good cause appearing, the request will be granted in part.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01158-MCE -KJM Document 13 Filed 06/28/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s June 22, 2005 request for the appointment of counsel is denied;

2. Plaintiff’s June 22, 2005 motion for an extension of time is granted in part; and

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file an

amended complaint.

DATED: June 27, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/bb

king1158.31+

Case 2:04-cv-01158-MCE -KJM Document 13 Filed 06/28/05 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 31.01**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Paul L. Berns, certify that:

 

1.                      I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of Allos Therapeutics, Inc.; and

 

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

 

 
| Date:  | April 27,   2012 | /s/ PAUL   L. BERNS                |
|--------|-----------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|   |                  | Paul L. Berns                           |
|   |                  | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |
|   |                  | *(Principal Executive Officer)*         |

 

----
EXHIBIT 21



SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

AS OF JUNE 30, 2003



|    | 
|--- | 
|1.  | 
|    | 
|2.  | 
|    | 
|3.  | 
|    | 
|4.  | 
|    | 
|5.  | 
|    | 
|6.  | 
|    | 
|7.  | 
|    | 
|8   | 
|    | 
|9   | 
|    | 
|10. | 
|    | 
|11. |
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4634 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4634

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 154 First Avenue East in Jerome, Idaho, as the ``Representative 
                       Maxine Bell Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              July 8, 2024

 Mr. Crapo (for himself and Mr. Risch) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 154 First Avenue East in Jerome, Idaho, as the ``Representative 
                       Maxine Bell Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. REPRESENTATIVE MAXINE BELL POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 154 First Avenue East in Jerome, Idaho, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Representative Maxine Bell Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Representative Maxine Bell Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 51030.

#### Protests 54472-K, etc., of Thomas Young, Inc. (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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jamel Tyler, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 1016]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.), rendered May 20, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf, People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Balletta, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.
NUMBER 13-12-00225-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

LUIS GARCIA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 357th District Court 

of Cameron County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Luis Garcia, attempts to appeal his conviction for driving while 

intoxicated. The trial court has certified that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the 

defendant has NO right of appeal,” and “the defendant has waived the right of appeal.” 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).
2

On August 20, 2012, this Court notified appellant’s counsel of the trial court’s 

certification and ordered counsel to: (1) review the record; (2) determine whether 

appellant has a right to appeal; and (3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings 

as to whether appellant has a right to appeal, or, alternatively, advise this Court as to the 

existence of any amended certification.

Appellant’s counsel failed respond to the order and on October 16, 2012, this 

Court abated the appeal and remanded to the trial court for a hearing to determine why 

counsel failed to comply with this Court's order. The trial court held a hearing on 

November 28, 2012. Counsel’s statements at the hearing do not establish that the 

certification currently on file with this Court is incorrect or that appellant otherwise has a 

right to appeal. On June 24, 2013, the trial court issued an order stating that appellant 

entered into an agreed plea bargain, was sentenced to the terms of the plea agreement, 

and does not have the right to appeal. Accordingly, this case is hereby REINSTATED.

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be 

dismissed if the trial court’s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of 

appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); see TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Accordingly, this 

appeal is DISMISSED. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

25th day of July, 2013.
No. 64910.

#### Lansen-Naeve Corp. and Hermann Scheler et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/4548, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed *379upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United, States*(39 C.C.P.A. 15, C.A.D. 458), the items of merchandise were held dutiable as follows: (a) All items except such items as were imported from the Soviet Zone of Germany and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after August 31, 1951, at 10 percent under said paragraph 1547(a), as modified, supra; and (b) all items imported from the Soviet Zone of Germany and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, after August 31, 1951, at 20 percent under paragraph 1547(a) of the tariff act.
No. 63118.

#### Erlanger Textile Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 58/3530 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise, facts, and issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 Cust. Ct. 267, C.D. 1834), the collector was directed to reliquidate the entries, assessing duty upon the basis of the unit appraised value per conditioned pound or kilo, multiplied by the total number of conditioned pounds or kilos, as set forth in the invoices.
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09

- 12

- 00 482

- CV



### _________________

GREGORY C. LENTZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ASSIGNEE OF HMG

SERVICES, L.L.C., AND/OR DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF LIGHTHOUSE

HOSPICE PARTNERS, LLC, A TEXAS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

, Appellant

V.

LIGHTHOUSE HOSPICE MANAGEMENT, LLC AND HARDEN HC TEXAS

HOLDCO, LLC , Appellee s

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 284th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 12

- 05

- 05207 CV

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The appellant, Gregory C. Lentz, individually and as a ssignee of HMG Services,

L.L.C., and/or derivatively on behalf of Lighthouse Hospice Partners, LLC, a Texas

limited liability company , filed a motion to dismiss this appeal with prejudice . The

motion is voluntarily made by the appellant prior to any decision of this Court. See Tex.2

R. App. P. 42 .1(a)(1). No other party filed notice of appeal. We grant the motion and

dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

________________________________ HOLLIS HORTON

Justice

Opinion Delivered November 15, 2012

Before Ga ultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.
# STATEOFLOUISIANA

STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JOHN COUSIN NO. 2023 KW 1280 

### MARCH 13, 

### 2024

In Re: John Cousin, 

### applying for 

### supervisory writs, 

### 22nd

Judicial District Court, Parish of 

### St. 

## Tammany, No. 

### 265831.
BEFORE: GUIDRY, C.J., CHUTZ AND LANIER, JJ.

WRIT DENIED ON THE SHOWING MADE. 

### Relator failed to include a 

### copy of the bill of 

### information or 

### indictment, the motion 

### filed in the district court, 

### the district court' s 

### ruling on the motion, the state' s response 

### if 

### any, all pertinent minute entries and/or transcripts, and any other portions of the 

### district court record that might support the claims raised 

### in the writ application. Supplementation of this writ application 

## and/oran application for rehearing will notbe considered. See 

### Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rules 2-18.7 & 4- 9. 

## Any future 

## filing on this 

### issue should 

### include the entire contents of this application, 

## themissing items notedabove, and 

## acopyofthis ruling. JMG WRC WIL



### OURT OFAPPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT



### PUTY CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT
**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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Cano Petroleum, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Michael J. Ricketts, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to myknowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company, asof, and for, the periods presented in the Report.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

Theforegoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to theForm 10-QSB pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B andSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 202 (subsections (a) and(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and,accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is notincorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made beforeor after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language insuch filing.

 

 
| February  14, 2006 | /s/  Michael J. Ricketts |   |
|--------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|               | Michael  J. Ricketts     |
|               | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

1

----
```

[112th Congress Public Law 235]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 126 STAT. 1626]]

Public Law 112-235
112th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To extend the Public Interest Declassification Act of 2000 until 2014 
      and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Dec. 28, 2012 -  [S. 3564]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Public Interest 
Declassification Board Reauthorization Act of 2012. 50 USC 401 note.>> 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Public Interest Declassification 
Board Reauthorization Act of 2012''.
SEC. 2. PUBLIC INTEREST DECLASSIFICATION BOARD.

    (a) Subsequent Appointment.--Section 703(c)(2)(D) of the Public 
Interest Declassification Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-567; 50 U.S.C. 435 
note) is amended by striking the period at the end and inserting ``from 
the date of the appointment.''.
    (b) Vacancy.--Section 703(c)(3) of the Public Interest 
Declassification Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-567; 50 U.S.C. 435 note) is 
amended by striking ``A member of the Board appointed to fill a vacancy 
before the expiration of a term shall serve for the remainder of the 
term.''.
    (c) Extension of Sunset.--Section 710(b) of the Public Interest 
Declassification Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-567; 50 U.S.C. 435 note) is 
amended by striking ``2012.'' inserting ``2014.''.

    Approved December 28, 2012.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 3564:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 158 (2012):
            Dec. 11, considered and passed Senate.
            Dec. 19, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```