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

NATHAN SAGE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2015 DFL KJM P

vs.

STEVE KRUSE,

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 September 27, 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.

Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and

recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility

to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 83-182(f),

service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.

Case 2:04-cv-02015-DFL -KJM Document 14 Filed 11/14/05 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

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:

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 27, 2005, are adopted in

full; and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice.

DATED: 11/11/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02015-DFL -KJM Document 14 Filed 11/14/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 53561.

protests 109317-K, etc. (Laredo, Los Angeles, and Pembina).

#### E. H. Corrigan et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.

*168Cole, J., dissented on jurisdictional grounds, except as to protest 139041-K. *Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 158, C. D. 1175), *Fuchs Shoe Corp.*v. *United States*(id. 338, Abstract 53250), and *W. R. Zanes & Co.*v. *United States*(id. 339, Abstract 53251) cited.
No. 54057.

#### Schenley Distilleries, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 124954-K, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Eicwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc. v. United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 53567.

protest 134528-K (New York).

#### William E. Quirin *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of sisal handbags similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc..*(36 C. C. P. A. 64, C. A. D. 399), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
|   | 1. | FSTC      shall acquire from Dematco the Acquma Shares at a price of Euros 2.00 per      share, to be paid for by the issue of  1,232,000 new shares of      common stock in FSTC, issued credited fully paid and assessable (“the      Consideration Shares”). |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Dematco      will dispose of the Acquma Shares to FSTC in exchange for the      Consideration Shares. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 1. | the      Acquma Shares in  properly authorised and  issued; |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | the      Acquma Shares are free trading and upon completion of the purchase of the      Acquma Shares will be registered in the name of FSTC or as FSTC shall      direct; and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3. | the      shares in Acquma are tradable andtransferable. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 1. | the      Consideration Shares when issued will be properly authorised and      issued; |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | the      Consideration shares will be registered upon issue in the name of      Dematco  or as Dematcodirects. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Signed | Signed |
|--------|--------|

| T P      RAMSDEN               |                   |   |
|--------------------------------|------------------------|--------|
| On      behalf of              | On      behalf of      |
| Dematco      Group Corporation | First      Corporation |

----
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas October 8, 2021 No. 04-21-00427-CR Christian Israel FRANKLIN , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR6244 Honorable Frank J. Castro, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R A trial court’s certification of the defendant’s right of appeal has been filed in this appeal. The trial court has certified that the underlying criminal case “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” We ORDER the trial court clerk to file an electronic clerk’s record within TEN DAYS of the date of this order containing the following documents: 1. all pre-trial orders and the related pre-trial motions; 2. the Court’s Admonishments, the defendant’s Waiver, Consent to Stipulation of Testimony, and any other stipulations, and all other documents relating to the defendant’s plea bargain; 3. the Judgment; 4. all postjudgment motions and orders; 5. the Notice of Appeal; 6. the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal; and 7. the Criminal Docket Sheet. We DIRECT the clerk of this court to send a copy of this order to the attorneys of record, the trial court clerk, and the court reporter(s) responsible for preparing the reporter’s record in this appeal.All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 8th day of October, 2021.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
No. 57284. protest 199032-K (New York).

#### North Atlantic Seed Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bird’s-foot trefoil seed *(Lotus*corniculatus) similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Transcontinental Seed, Inc.*(Alltransport, *Incorporated)*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 163, C. D. 1462), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 52315.

protests 52469-K and 52466-K (Boston).

#### S. S. Pierce Co. and Romanes & Paterson *v.*United States,

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.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF				CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF				SUNRISE U.S.A. INCORPORATED				PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

I, Omar G. Barrientos, President and Chief Executive Officer of Sunrise U.S.A. Incorporated (the "Company"), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Report") by the Company fully complies with the requirements of that section.				I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial operations and results of operations of the Company.

| Date:  November 10, 2005               |
|---------------------------------------------|
|                                   |
| By:  /s/ OMAR G. BARRIENTOS            |
| Omar G. Barrientos                          |
| Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer |

```

```

----
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 on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax
Credit Fund VI, L.P., Series 11 (the  "Partnership")  for the quarter ended June
30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  I,  Wilfred N.  Cooper,  Jr.,
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner
of the Partnership, hereby certify 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 Partnership.


/s/WILFRED N. COOPER, JR.
-------------------------
Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
August 27, 2004
Case 2:04-cv-01901-LKK -KJM   Document 14    Filed 09/21/05   Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-01901-LKK -KJM   Document 14    Filed 09/21/05   Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-01901-LKK -KJM   Document 14    Filed 09/21/05   Page 3 of 3

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-26T23:36:36-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
No. 52600.

protest 85487-K (New York).

#### Dunhill Tailored Clothes, Inc. *v.*United States,

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 invoice 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 the entry. The protest was sustained to this extent.
No. 52627.

protests 129532-K, etc. (New York).

#### H. Zimetbaum *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of platinum fox fur skins, undressed, similar in all material respects to those the *224subject of *United States*v. *O. Brager-Larsen*(36 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 388). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was therefore sustained.
No. 52620.

protests 109312-K, etc. (El Paso).

#### Continental Machines, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial the chemist who assayed the ore testified that he found in car SP 26736 (entry No. 656) that the moisture content was 1.2 percent; in car FCN 477 (entry No. 653) that the moisture content was 3.2 percent; and in car FCN 419 (entry No. 659) that the moisture content was 2.6 percent. It was stipulated between counsel as to the percentage of tungsten ore covered by each protest and further stipulated that no allowance for moisture, as indicated above, was made in the customs assay in each of the entries involved. In accordance with the agreed statements of fact and the uneontradicted evidence *222as to the moisture content in each shipment of ore, it was held that an allowance for moisture should have been made in determining the dutiable weight of the tungsten ore, and the collector was directed to rehquidate the entries assessing duty at 50 cents per pound upon the basis of the net weight reported by the Government, less the weight of the moisture, agreed to by both sides.
(Reap. Dec. 10740)

#### Andrew Fisher Cycle Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 1400.

(Decided May 5, 1964)

*Broolcs & Brooks*for tbe plaintiff.

*John*TV. *Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

*540OlxvbR, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement is before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> . IT. IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by ,and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to tbe approval of tbe Court, tbat tbe merchandise covered by tbe appeal to reappraisement herein, consists of tires and tubes and rimbands exported from Holland.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED tbat at the tíme of exportation of tbe instant merchandise to the United States, tbe prices at which such merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for export to the United States; including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States were the invoiced unit prices as entered.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeal to reap-praisement herein may be submitted for decision on this stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts, I find tbat tbe proper basis for appraisement of tbe merchandise in question is statutory export value and hold tbat such value therefor is tbe invoice unit prices, as entered.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
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

THOMAS EUGENE MOORE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1895 MCE EFB PS

vs.

THE AMERICAN TOBACCO 

COMPANY, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On August 24, 2006, plaintiff filed a “Declaration” requesting an extension of

time to file objections to the Findings and Recommendations issued by Magistrate Judge

Gregory H. Hollows on August 14, 2006, in the above-captioned case. After those Findings and

Recommendations issued, this case was re-assigned to the undersigned for all further

proceedings, including the request now before the court. 

Plaintiff was given ten days to file objections to the Findings and

Recommendations but failed to do so. Plaintiff now requests an extension of time until

September 14, 2006, to file his objections. He explains that he was unable to file the objections

within the ten-day time period because he is incarcerated and that he had limited access to the

law library at the time he received the Findings and Recommendations on August 18, 2006. He

Case 2:04-cv-01895-MCE -EFB Document 36 Filed 09/08/06 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

explains that law library access is often limited and that because of this he will need additional

time to research and complete his objections. 

Good cause appearing, the court hereby grants plaintiff’s request for an extension

of time to file objections to the Findings and Recommendations. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall file objections to the Findings and Recommendations no later

than September 14, 2006; and, 

2. No further extensions shall be granted. 

DATED: September 7, 2006.

EFB:mb

Moore1895.eot

Case 2:04-cv-01895-MCE -EFB Document 36 Filed 09/08/06 Page 2 of 2
The KlarifierTM activated by StormKlear

Keeping water clean in and around jobsites just got easier. How is that possible when today’s standards are tougher 

than ever you ask? The KlarifierTM activated by StormKlear is the answer!!

Midwest Construction Products’ KlarifierTM featuring StormKlear’s Dual Biopolymer system incorporates a modified 

sediment retention bag with preloaded Biopolymer injection system inside. While the common sediment retention bag 

of the past works well at taking some sediment out of the water, they do not get the water to today’s compliancy levels.

Case study from Bonita Springs May 6th 2011

Bonita Springs Florida currently has several issues involving keeping their water ways clean. They have been on the 

cutting edge in the use of innovative BMP methods. With many dredge projects shut down due to not being able to get 

their NTUs low enough, and the rainy season on the way, they invited Midwest Construction Products along with their 

local BMP implementation contractor, Sweeperman to come up with a solution. Along with the recent introduction of 

StormKlear to Midwest’s product line the KlarifierTM was designed.
How does it work?

Contaminated water is pumped from the construction area with a standard jobsite dewatering pump at a rate of 800 to 

1000 gallons per minute. The outflow hose of the pump is connected to the Klarifier’s Activation Injection Port. The 

Activation Injection Port is part of the Klarifier’s injection baffle system designed specifically to agitate, dose, and 

activate the StormKlear Dual Biopolymer system.
The treated water is then cast through a specialized baffle system that helps agitate the water. The water is then forced 

through a geofilter envelope where the sediment is then contained within the specialized sediment retention bag.

As the bag fills, clean treated water is then forced out of the bag returning to the contaminated area. The picture below 

shows a Bonita Springs city official filling a sample bottle of water coming out of the bag.

How did we measure success?
Background NTU numbers on this project were around 5. Water at the intake measured 162 the first test and 187 the 

second test taken 10 minutes later. After 2 minutes of running, water measured 43. After 10 minutes of running, water 

measured 9. After 20 minutes of running water was an astounding 3.2 NTUs!! We came in 1 under base, SUCCESS!!

Actual numbers on all tests and a testimonial on how they thought it worked will be provided by Bonita Springs next 

week.

This particular KlarifierTM is a 7.5’x15’ bag made from Midwest Construction Products Geoforce Non Woven geotextile

with 300 grams of DBP-2100 and 300 grams StormKlear Gelfloc pre-sewn pouches inside our polyester coated nonpermeable activation injection system. The KlarifierTM can be made and preloaded to job specific variables! More 

information, Specifications, and test data to follow.

www.midwestconstruct.com www.ipafes.com www.gabionbaskets.net
#### Larry Alvaro, Inc., Doing Business as L.A. Contracting, Appellant, v Charles Chow, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[633 NYS2d 643]

—White, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Hughes, J.), entered July 11, 1994 in Albany County, upon a decision of the court in favor of plaintiff.

Plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant Charles Chow to repair fire damage to Chow’s commercial property at 134 State Street in the City of Albany. The contract provided that Chow would pay plaintiff the "Contract Sum” of $29,000; however, the following paragraph indicated that $9,000 of the sum was due from Chow’s fire insurance settlement and $20,000 was due from the lessee’s fire insurance settlement. After the repairs were complete and having received only $3,000 on account from Chow, plaintiff filed a mechanic’s lien and commenced this action to foreclose its lien against the property and to collect any outstanding balance from Chow.

After a nonjury trial, Supreme Court found that the contract was ambiguous as to Chow’s personal liability, interpreted the contract to limit Chow’s liability to $9,000 of which $3,000 had *753been paid, and granted judgment accordingly. Finding that plaintiff had failed to establish that Chow had agreed to pay the entire $29,000, Supreme Court dismissed so much of the complaint as sought to foreclose the mechanic’s lien. Plaintiff appeals, contending that it is entitled to foreclose upon said lien.

In accordance with Lien Law § 4, it is well settled that, except in the case of fraud, an owner cannot be compelled to pay, or his property subjected to, a lien in excess of the sum contracted to be paid for the improvement *(see, Hownor Assocs. v Washington Sq. Professional Bldg.,*63 AD2d 573; *see also,*Jensen, Mechanics’ Liens § 78, at 67 [4th ed]). Here, that sum is $29,000. The contractual paragraph apportioning the responsibility for payment between defendant and his tenant does not reduce defendant’s liability as it does not limit the amount to be expended in repairing the damage but, instead, is merely an attempt to limit the liability of defendant as between him and his tenant *(see, Wahle, Phillips Co. v Fifty-Ninth St.-Madison Ave. Co.,*153 App Div 17, 22, *affd*214 NY 684).

Accordingly, as Supreme Court found that the contract was fully and satisfactorily performed and that defendant had consented to the improvements, it should have allowed plaintiff to foreclose its mechanic’s lien for the unpaid balance *{see,*Lien Law § 3).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, with costs, by reversing so much thereof as dismissed that portion of the complaint seeking to foreclose a mechanic’s lien; judgment of foreclosure granted and matter remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision; and, as so modified, affirmed.
Before the Third Division,

June 13, 1957

No. 60874.

#### Cornelius B. Bretsch *v.*United States,

protest 270106-K (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

The protest was dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bobby Boomer, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 367]

—Appeal by the de*352fendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mastro, J.), rendered December 10, 1993, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence $167 recovered from his person by the police at the time he was arrested is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. "In cases involving possession of illegal drugs with the intent to sell, '[ejvidence of money found on the defendant’s person at the time of his arrest [is] probative of [his] intent’ ” and therefore, properly admissible into evidence *(People v Woodson,*198 AD2d 535, quoting *People v Rivera,*177 AD2d 662, 663).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.