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

QUIN DENVIR, Bar #49374

Federal Defender

CAROLYN M. WIGGIN, Bar #182732

Assistant Federal Defender

Designated Counsel for Service

801 I Street, 3rd Floor

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 498-5700

Attorney for Petitioner

VINCENT RODNEY HATCHER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT RODNEY HATCHER,

Petitioner,

v.

TOM L. CAREY,

Respondent.

_______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. Civ. S-04-2596 MCE GGH P

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING

TIME FOR FILING OBJECTIONS TO

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, VINCENT RODNEY HATCHER, and respondent, TOM L. CAREY,

by and through their respective counsel, hereby agree and stipulate as

follows:

1. On August 10, 2005, this Court issued an Order and Findings

and Recommendations in this case. In that Order the Office

of the Federal Defender was appointed to represent Mr.

Hatcher.

2. Objections to the Findings and Recommendations are due on

Case 2:04-cv-02596-MCE -GGH Document 15 Filed 08/30/05 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

27

28

Stip. and [Prpsd] Order Extending Time 2

August 30, 2005.

3. Due to the fact that the Findings and Recommendations pertain

to a complex and important legal question, and due to the

fact that counsel for Petitioner has just been appointed to

this case, both parties seek a 31-day extension of time, or

until September 30, 2005, to file their Objections to the

Findings and Recommendations.

4. Counsel for respondent, Deputy Attorney General Benjamin T.

Rice, has authorized the undersigned to sign this stipulation

electronically on his behalf

Dated: August 17, 2005

Respectfully submitted,

QUIN DENVIR

Federal Defender

Carolyn M. Wiggin 

CAROLYN M. WIGGIN

Assistant Federal Defender

Attorney for Petitioner

VINCENT RODNEY HATCHER

Benjamin T. Rice 

_________________________

BENJAMIN T. RICE

Deputy Attorney General

Attorney for Respondent

TOM L. CAREY

//

//

//

//

Case 2:04-cv-02596-MCE -GGH Document 15 Filed 08/30/05 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

27

28

Stip. and [Prpsd] Order Extending Time 3

ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, and for good cause

shown, the parties’ joint request extend the deadline to file

Objections to the Findings and Recommendations in this matter until

September 30, 2005, is hereby GRANTED. The Objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations are due on September

30, 2005. Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within

ten days after service of the objections.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/30/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

__________________________________

HON. GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

hatch.eot

Case 2:04-cv-02596-MCE -GGH Document 15 Filed 08/30/05 Page 3 of 3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6388

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CLEVE WILLIAM FRAZIER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CR-96-54-BO, CA-99-130-4-BO)

Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 3, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cleve William Frazier, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Cleve William Frazier seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See United States v. Frazier, Nos. CR-96-54-

BO; CA-99-130-4-BO (E.D.N.C. Jan. 31, 2000). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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



I,Fouad
Kallamni,Principal Executive and Accounting Officerof Premier Beverage
Group Corp. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that:



| | · | the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2012 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | · | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and result of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.
| | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | /s/ Fouad Kallamni                         
| | -------------------------------------------
| | Fouad Kallamni                             
| | President                                  
| | (Principal Executive and financial Officer)
| | October 15, 2013
# C_2006316EN.01001001.xml

| 22.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 316/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 316/10

---

UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THE COMBINED NOMENCLATURE (CN)

UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THE COMBINED NOMENCLATURE

(Classification of goods)

(2006/C 316/04)

Publication of Explanatory Notes adopted under Article 10(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987, on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1),

1

The Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities (2) shall be amended as follows:

2

| | Page255


  Insert the following text after the Explanatory Note to ‘6402 99 31 and 6402 99 39’:


  For the purposes of this subheading, it is irrelevant if the heel can be distinguished from the sole or if the heel is an indistinguishable part of the sole (e.g. wedged sole, plateau sole).
  The diagrams below give an example of how to measure:






  A | is the point, where the upper begins |
| --- | --- | --- |
| B | > 3 cm |

Page255

Page255

Insert the following text after the Explanatory Note to ‘6402 99 31 and 6402 99 39’:

Insert the following text after the Explanatory Note to ‘6402 99 31 and 6402 99 39’:

For the purposes of this subheading, it is irrelevant if the heel can be distinguished from the sole or if the heel is an indistinguishable part of the sole (e.g. wedged sole, plateau sole).

The diagrams below give an example of how to measure:

A

is the point, where the upper begins

B

> 3 cm

Image

Image

Image

Image

| | Page 256


  Insert the following text after the Explanatory Note to ‘6403 59 11 to 6403 59 39’:


  The Explanatory Notes to subheading 6402 99 31 apply, mutatis mutandis.’ |
| --- | --- |

Page 256

Page 256

Insert the following text after the Explanatory Note to ‘6403 59 11 to 6403 59 39’:

Insert the following text after the Explanatory Note to ‘6403 59 11 to 6403 59 39’:

The Explanatory Notes to subheading 6402 99 31 apply, mutatis mutandis.’

| | Page 256


  Insert the following text after the Explanatory Note to ‘6403 99 11 to 6403 99 38’:


  The Explanatory Notes to subheading 6402 99 31 apply, mutatis mutandis.’ |
| --- | --- |

Page 256

Page 256

Insert the following text after the Explanatory Note to ‘6403 99 11 to 6403 99 38’:

Insert the following text after the Explanatory Note to ‘6403 99 11 to 6403 99 38’:

The Explanatory Notes to subheading 6402 99 31 apply, mutatis mutandis.’

---

(1)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No /200 (OJ L 179, 1.7.2006, p. 26).

1

(2)  OJ C 50, 28.2.2006, p. 1.

2

---
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-3062

___________________________ Catherine Dahlberg lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. Radisson Blu Mall of America lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: June 10, 2020 Filed: June 15, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before GRASZ, BEAM, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Catherine Dahlberg appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in this employment discrimination action. Having carefully reviewed the

1 The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.record and the arguments on appeal, we conclude the district court did not err in

granting summary judgment. See Torgerson v. City of Rochester , 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (reviewing de novo grant of summary judgment). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BILLY VAUGHAN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2549 DFL DAD P

vs.

TERESA SCHWARTZ,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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 January 17, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner has filed a

letter stating that he wishes to delete his unexhausted claim and proceed on his exhausted claims.

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.

Case 2:04-cv-02549-JAM-DAD Document 13 Filed 02/08/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 17, 2006, are adopted in full;

2. Respondent’s May 4, 2005 motion to dismiss is granted with leave to amend; 

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

second amended petition containing only his exhausted claims; the second amended petition shall

be submitted on the form provided with this order, shall bear the case number assigned to this

action, and shall be labeled “Second Amended Petition” at the top of the first page of the form

petition; no cover page, cover letter, or other material shall precede the first page of the form

petition;

4. Respondent’s answer to the second amended petition shall be filed and served

within thirty days after the second amended petition is served; the answer shall be accompanied

by all transcripts and other documents relevant to the issued presented in the petition;

5. Petitioner’s reply, if any, shall be filed and served within thirty days after the

answer is served; and

6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner a form petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, with the in forma pauperis application form and

instructions removed as unnecessary.

DATED: 2/7/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02549-JAM-DAD Document 13 Filed 02/08/06 Page 2 of 2
T$E StOrte OPTBX/1S Dav id Jar*© Chapmoon Of MfififS 

### -0hl4^^Mk *e skxos



### Q^juw£u^d&~. >4ppQTi\jt/viemt Of Co;MSP. [
- MAR nm CHRISTOPHER. A. PRINEetERKTOPHER.A. PRINE/ 

### .&ThTS THE Zh^Dnsf of flBcgRglZQlS tepp^gn-tofrop °\n-hne appp.o) Prxyerl7raFi fr.n ±v£ oboiie cause J CfWly =fch^" Xffir, 1MDXGENI grvj U^rtfa QQfc rYVnfiS It) 

### felYlPioy QaiiOS£J of gy OUJQ ChxfiMc* ar^A 1r. here (-y fEgu&s± Hag cour+To /fopoTftrf>&^r5^pY/ PCcP£ hlir^gj -ffhm ThliS Pate J6HOf M*n(V

2oi5 nao£R ThR S-tafr£ [S oMere^ -to Osgood 1t>-\ViVs 

### tA^>» fa>,g(hfii-&\ ... . ,-F no re^varse. 

### K_reCTeiygA :ThP. reffrnrlocore mot/on

### ppypq yce&gnt-ty-TAimrr^rnrK^ !TL±k£ 

### ft?.Tfg pce-Senfty-T,Mrnrr^rna-^c4 TOj^g b-bms'county TaTi tN Wfifiis gx/nvy-fr

_ -... . , ..jrrty-taxoft 

## ••ml -(tyggoi-pp r^-fn/go^d rprr^Gf

Exer/A^ m F£bua\726 20B (De^rAnnf-yVtfTg. 

### cnThfeTW?, l>y o¥ £015 

### chm? Id ££ h^rri by mz the np-ft/A*^ bofeffl -foriM flppoftftrryn-f cf GxcSJ onrii It 4ppi?pCS 3D fhTS CCt/H- fhar4h^ nnatFori Should hft G^fit-e^ Qftnredi AoditiS S& ofHgr-edi 

### cttHge M%

## "To 1storam- ca*±o£/foy^is 2/2^/3 ThoflX\Q,< -fip oHim nog, po.eftgfficn ov i j^ft 

### UxkJLjfl&pte fTu?. irSaxoo^ogJ ZT)—lot



### frrr ^ fY^y ja) seoJ> n^ q v& £sx ffrpoB- P^ tiS

Sl^^rp^nA fv£^h£ STS TmvS in&. ^c

Co ^ 'tf^

P X/i VI y 9 3»

& 8f

&-•

-\J iiiiii

ifl w O V4 & W Q O r-
Exhibit 32(b)

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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Magellan Midstream Holdings, L.P. (the
Partnership) for the quarter ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John D. Chandler, Chief Financial Officer of Magellan Midstream Holdings GP, LLC,
the General Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|                                         
|/s/ John D. Chandler                     
|John D. Chandler, Chief Financial Officer
|Date: May 9, 2006                        

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and
will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
(Reap. Dec. 10082)

#### A. *W.*Ronald, Inc. Dorf International, Ltd. *v.*United States

Entry No. WH 64732.

(Decided October 5, 1961)

*Melvin E. Lazar*for the plaintiffs.

*William E. Orrick, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to certain sunglasses, exported from Italy and entered at the port of New York.

Stipulated facts, upon which the case has been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1980, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (91 Treas. Dec. 295, T.D. 54165), and that such statutory value therefor is $4.41 per dozen, packed, and I so hold.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
**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**
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of CHAAS Acquisitions, LLC (the "Company")
        on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
        Alan C.
        Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
        U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
        that:
 
 (1)
        The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)
        The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 
 /s/
        ALAN C. JOHNSON
 Alan
        C.
        Johnson
 President
        and Chief Executive Officer
 (Principal
        Executive Officer)
 November
        14, 2005
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

TERRY MONTGOMERY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2116 FCD DAD P

vs.

W.A. DUNCAN, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

By order filed on March 6, 2006, the Honorable Frank Damrell, Jr. denied

respondents’ motion to dismiss the habeas petition as untimely, and ordered respondents to file

their answer to petitioner’s second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus within thirty

days. Respondents have failed to file their answer. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that within twenty days from the date of this order, respondents shall file a response explaining

why they have failed to comply with the court’s order and why sanctions should not be imposed.

DATED: April 19, 2006.

DAD:4

mont2116.osc

Case 2:04-cv-02116-FCD-DAD Document 23 Filed 04/19/06 Page 1 of 1
| 1. | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2011, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2011, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: May 23, 2011 | By:    | /s/ Yongqing Ma                |   |
|--------------------|--------|-------------------------------------|--------|
|               |   | Yongqing Ma                         |   |
|               |   | Chief Financial Officer             |   |
|               |   |  (Principal Financial Officer) |   |

----
Exhibit
32


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350








In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of the smaller reporting
company of Hybrid Dynamics Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark
Klein, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:





(1) 
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) 
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.








By: /s/
MARK
KLEIN


Mark
Klein


Chief
Executive Officer


Hybrid
Dynamics Corporation




Date: 
May 13, 2009
No. 61875.

#### Arthur J. Humphreys *v.*United States,

protests 226863-K, etc. (Seattle).

*537Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of yellow cedar the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Border Brokerage Co. et al.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 179, C. D. 1923), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALAMAR CYRIL HOUSTON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1923 RRB PAN P

vs.

THOMAS L. CAREY, et al.,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Defendants’ first request for an enlargement of time to file a response to

Plaintiff’s amended complaint was considered by this Court, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants have until May 24, 2006, within

which to file a response.

DATED: May 4, 2006.

/hous1923.ext

Case 2:04-cv-01923-GEB -EFB Document 26 Filed 05/05/06 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELLIS CLAY HOLLIS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2574 MCE GGH P

vs.

DAVID L. RUNNELS, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner’s counsel has requested an extension of time to file an amended petition

pursuant to the court’s order of February 1, 2005. Petitioner’s April 19, 2005 request is not made

in accordance with the local rules in that the request does not include either a lodged proposed

order via ECF in .pdf format or a proposed order emailed in wordprocessing format. In order for

the court to consider petitioner’s counsel’s request, counsel must comply with Local Rule 5-

137(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/25/05 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:009

holl2574.ord

Case 2:04-cv-02574-MCE -GGH Document 14 Filed 04/25/05 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:04-cv-02347-MCE -DAD   Document 40    Filed 03/27/06   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-23T16:50:18-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
No. 58974.

protests 227523-K, etc. (New York).

#### Compass Instrument & Optical Co. et al. *v.*United States,

*342Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protests were dismissed, and the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).