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

For purposes of consistency, the court maintains the 1

same captioning originally used in the this matter. (See May 13,

2005 Mem. & Order Re: Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and

Motion For Declaratory Relief). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

BLUE MAGIC PRODUCTS, INC.,

(BOYD FLOTATION, INC., ALLEGED

SUCCESSOR OR ASSIGN), 

NO. CIV. S-00-1155 WBS JFM

Plaintiff, NO. CIV. S-04-2398 WBS JFM

 

v. ORDER

BLUE MAGIC, INC., et al., (THE

RECTORSEAL CORPORATION,

SUCCESSOR),

Defendant.

______________________________

BOYD FLOTATION, INC.,

Plaintiff

v.

THE RECTORSEAL CORPORATION,

Defendant.1

----oo0oo----

On May 13, 2005 the court issued an order authorizing

Rectorseal Corporation (“Rectorseal”) to recover its reasonable

Case 2:04-cv-02398-WBS -JFM Document 48 Filed 08/29/05 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

27

28

2

attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs incurred in case Nos. 00-

1155 and 04-2398. (May 13, 2005 Mem. & Order Re: Motion to

Enforce Settlement Agreement & Mot. for Declaratory Relief (“May

13, 2005 Mem. & Order”) at 15). On or about June 10, 2005,

Rectorseal filed a motion to recover attorneys’ fees, expenses,

and costs. On August 11, 2005, the court issued an order denying

Rectorseal its costs, but awarding Rectorseal attorneys’ fees in

the amount of $63,112.56. Rectorseal has submitted a proposed

order for entry of judgment for these attorneys’ fees, “plus

interest at 3.9%.” (Def.’s J. Entry at 1). Plaintiff Boyd

Flotation, Inc. (“Boyd Flotation”) objects to the proposed order.

Boyd Flotation correctly notes that the proposed order

is not required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

58(a)(1)(c), the rule which governs entry of judgment. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 58(a)(1)(c)(“a separate document is not required for an

order disposing of a motion . . . for attorney[s’] fees. . .

.”)(empahasis addded). The court sees no reason to order entry

of a separate judgment for attorneys’ fees. Therefore,

Rectorseal’s proposed order is rejected.

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Rectorseal’s request for

an order for an entry of a separate judgment for attorneys’ fees

be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. 

DATED: August 26, 2005

Case 2:04-cv-02398-WBS -JFM Document 48 Filed 08/29/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 41801.

#### Protest 974199-G of Chong Kee Trading Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

In accordance with the amended report of the appraiser fish packed in lard was held dutiable under paragraph 718 (b) as claimed.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 47 (Monday, March 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11032-11033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4435]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1678-DR]


Oklahoma; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-1678-DR), dated February 1, 2007, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: March 5, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Oklahoma is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the catastrophe declared a

[[Page 11033]]

major disaster by the President in his declaration of February 1, 2007:

Cleveland and McClain Counties for Public Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, 
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, 
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs; 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison,
Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Management and Director of FEMA.
[FR Doc. E7-4435 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
1

Filed 11/10/21 P. v. Dixon CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Tehama)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

THOMAS MICHAEL DIXON,

Defendant and Appellant.

C092203

(Super. Ct. No. NCR98273)

Defendant Thomas Michael Dixon appeals from the trial court’s order on remand

denying his request that the court strike his firearm sentencing enhancement. In this 

court’s unpublished opinion upholding a judgment entered after defendant’s guilty plea to 

second degree murder, we remanded defendant’s case “for the limited purpose of: (1) 

determining whether defendant had an adequate opportunity to make a record of 

information that will be relevant to the Board of Parole Hearings in fulfilling its statutory 

obligations under Penal Code section 3051, and if not, to afford defendant and the People 

the opportunity to present evidence relevant to that eventual youthful offender parole 
2

hearing; and (2) allowing the trial court to exercise its sentencing discretion and 

determine whether to strike defendant’s sentencing enhancement consistent with the new 

authority granted by Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (c).” (People v. Dixon

(Jan. 24, 2019, C085151) [nonpub. opn.].)

However, as agreed to by the parties and confirmed by this court’s review of the 

record, on remand, the trial court only conducted the second inquiry. We agree with the 

parties that another remand directing the trial court to complete the first inquiry is

required.

DISPOSITION

The matter is remanded and the trial court directed to determine whether defendant 

had an adequate opportunity to make a record of information that will be relevant to the 

Board of Parole Hearings in fulfilling its statutory obligations under Penal Code section 

3051, and if not, to afford defendant and the People the opportunity to present evidence 

relevant to that eventual youthful offender parole hearing. The judgment is otherwise 

affirmed.

 /s/

HOCH, J.

We concur:

 /s/

MURRAY, Acting P. J.

 /s/

KRAUSE, J.
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 MARSHALL GATES,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2632 MCE JFM P 

vs.

WARDEN MARSHALL,

Respondent. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed June 3, 2005, petitioner’s application was dismissed and thirty

days’ leave to file an amended application was granted. The thirty day period has now expired,

and petitioner has not filed an amended application or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

Accordingly, 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 twenty

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

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

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

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02632-MCE-JFM Document 7 Filed 07/22/05 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

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

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

DATED: July 21, 2005.

/001;gate2632.fta

Case 2:04-cv-02632-MCE-JFM Document 7 Filed 07/22/05 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 10762)

#### Kurt Orban Company, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 1045; 1574.

(Decided June 3, 1964)

*Sharretts, Paley & Garter*for the plaintiff.

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

Lawrence , Judge:

The above-enumerated appeals for a reap-praisement present the question of the proper dutiable value of certain wire strand, imported from Japan.

The parties hereto have stipulated and agreed as follows:

> That the merchandise covered by the appeals to reappraisement enumerated above consist of wire strand exported from Japan during the period beginning October 1, 1958 and ending December 31, 1958; that wire strand is not identified in the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54521, effective February 27, 1958; that on or immediately preceding the date of exportation of each shipment of wire strand covered by each of the appeals to reappraisement enumerated above, the prices at which wire strand, such as or similar to the wire strand described on the invoices covered by the instant appeals to reappraisement were freely sold, *578or in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal market of Japan in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was $268. per metric ton for wire strand of % inch diameter and %6 inch diameter (United States funds).

Upon, the agreed facts of record, the court finds and holds that export Value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (19 U.S.C. § 1401a (b)), is the proper basis of value for the wire strand in issue and that said value is $268 per metric ton for wire strand of %-inch diameter and %6-inch diameter (United States funds).

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating
to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Mark J. DeCesarisMark J. DeCesarisacting Chief Financial 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

ARNOLD J. FLEMING, 2:04-cv-2347-MCE-DAD-P

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

DR. LINDNER,

Defendant.

 /

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 December 5, 2005, the magistrate judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which

contained notice to all parties that any Objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty (20)

days. 

Case 2:04-cv-02347-MCE -DAD Document 33 Filed 01/25/06 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

Plaintiff has filed Objections to the Findings and

Recommendations, and defendant has filed a reply.

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 December 5, 2005,

are adopted in full;

2. Defendant’s October 3, 2005 Motion to Dismiss is

granted;

3. Plaintiff’s October 19, 2005 Motion for Injunctive

Relief is denied; and

4. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure

to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to bringing

the action.

DATED: January 24, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 2:04-cv-02347-MCE -DAD Document 33 Filed 01/25/06 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 8832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3384]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 5693]


Notice of Proposal To Extend the Memorandum of Understanding 
Between the Government of the United States of America and the 
Government of the Republic of Guatemala Concerning the Imposition of 
Import Restrictions on Archaeological Objects and Materials from the 
Pre-Columbian Cultures of Guatemala

    The Government of the Republic of Guatemala has informed the 
Government of the United States of its interest in an extension of the 
Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States 
of America and the Government of the Republic of Guatemala Concerning 
the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Objects and 
Materials from the Pre-Columbian Cultures of Guatemala which entered 
into force on September 29, 1997, and was extended on September 29, 
2002.
    Pursuant to the authority vested in the Assistant Secretary for 
Educational and Cultural Affairs, and pursuant to the requirement under 
19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(1), an extension of this Memorandum of Understanding 
is hereby proposed.
    Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(2), the views and recommendations of 
the Cultural Property Advisory Committee regarding this proposal will 
be requested.
    A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding, the designated list of 
restricted categories of material, and related information can be found 
at the following Web site: http://exchanges.state.gov/culprop.

Dina Habib Powell,
Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of 
State.
 [FR Doc. E7-3384 Filed 2-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,909,048
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,456,788
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,945,800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,053,001
<PP&E>                                       3,132,409
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,809,552
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,375,858
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,355,309
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       242,756
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,777,793
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,375,858
<SALES>                                     13,025,631
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,025,631
<CGS>                                       11,262,144
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,262,144
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,865,458
<INCOME-TAX>                                   317,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,548,158
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.76
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-34746, No.333-38020, No. 333-84958 and No. 333-121331 on Forms S-8 of our reports dated March 1, 2007,relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of GrantPrideco, Inc. and subsidiaries (which report expresses an unqualified opinion on those financialstatements and financial statement schedule and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding theCompany’s adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 123(R), *Share-based Payment,*on January 1, 2006) and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Grant Prideco, Inc. for the year endedDecember 31, 2006./s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPHouston, Texas
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

NO. CIV. S-04-2470 LKK/KJM

Plaintiff,

v.

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11550 O R D E R

MUSHROOM TRAIL, GRASS VALLEY,

NEVADA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA,

APN: 53-130-31, INCLUDING ALL

APPURTENANCES AND IMPROVEMENTS

THERETO,

Defendant.

 /

The court is in receipt of claimant’s response to the order

to show cause and motion to continue the hearing on the

government’s motion for summary judgement. The court is also in

receipt of the government’s response and the parties’ cross-reply

briefs.

A hearing on this case was scheduled for November 7, 2005, at

10:00 a.m., on the Law and Motion Calendar of this court pursuant

to the government’s motion for summary judgment. Local Rule 78-

230(c) for the Eastern District of California specifies that an

Case 2:04-cv-02470-LKK -KJM Document 33 Filed 10/31/05 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

opposition or statement of non-opposition to the granting of the

motion shall be in writing and shall be served and filed not less

than fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing. Claimant has failed

to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition. 

The court hereby ORDERS as follows: 

1. The hearing on the motion for summary judgment presently

before the court is CONTINUED to December 12, 2005, where it will

be called on the court’s regularly scheduled Law and Motion

Calendar, beginning at 10:00 a.m. 

2. Claimant’s counsel is directed to file and serve the

opposition no later than November 28, 2005 at 4:00 p.m. The

government’s reply brief, if any, is due not later than December

5, 2005. 

3. As for the claimant’s response to the order to show cause,

the court finds that no good cause has been shown. Therefore, the

court ORDERS that counsel for claimant is SANCTIONED in the amount

of one hundred and fifty ($150.00) dollars. This sum shall be paid

to the Clerk of the Court no later than thirty (30) days from the

effective date of this order. Counsel shall file an affidavit

accompanying the payment of this sanction which states that it is

paid personally by counsel, out of personal funds, and is not and

will not be billed, directly or indirectly, to the client or in any

way made the responsibility of the client as attorneys' fees or

costs. 

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-02470-LKK -KJM Document 33 Filed 10/31/05 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. Should claimant’s counsel fail to file an opposition by

November 28, 2005, the court will impose other sanctions which may

include more substantial monetary sanctions and/or dismissal of the

claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 31, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-02470-LKK -KJM Document 33 Filed 10/31/05 Page 3 of 3