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

DAVID EARL WALKER, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV-S-04-1671 GEB KJM P 

vs.

CORRECTIONAL SERGEANT

K. CLEMENT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER FOR PAYMENT

 / OF INMATE FILING FEE

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

California 95814:

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

pay the statutory filing fee in effect at the time of filing of his action, $150.00. Plaintiff has been

assessed an initial partial filing fee of $10.45 for this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 

Upon payment of that initial partial filing fee, plaintiff will be obligated to make monthly

payments in the amount of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s

trust account. The California Department of Corrections is required to send to the Clerk of the

Court the initial partial filing fee and thereafter payments from plaintiff’s prison trust account

each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00, until the statutory filing fee of $150.00 is

paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

Case 2:04-cv-01671-GEB -KJM Document 10 Filed 05/13/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

collect from plaintiff’s prison trust account an initial partial filing fee in the amount of $10.45

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

by the name and number assigned to this action.

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

designee shall collect from plaintiff's prison trust account the $139.55 balance of the filing fee by

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

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

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

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

the name and number assigned to this action. 

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

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

1515 S Street, Sacramento, California 95814.

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

Department of the court.

DATED: May 12, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

walk1671.cdc

Case 2:04-cv-01671-GEB -KJM Document 10 Filed 05/13/05 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wired Associates Solutions Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Roy
Brown, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
13th day of June, 2007.


/s/ Roy Brown
------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JOHN SCHAUFLER, DOC #H21724, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-1444

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

________________________________ )

Opinion filed June 20, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk 

County; James A. Yancey, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and John C. Fisher, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, Judge.

We affirm the trial court's revocation of John Schaufler's probation and the 

sentences imposed upon revocation without further comment. We note, however, that 

although the trial court recognized at the March 2017 revocation hearing that it should 

not re-adjudicate Schaufler guilty of the original offenses because it had already 

adjudicated him guilty of those offenses in May 2005 when originally imposing 
- 2 -

probation, see Butler v. State, 195 So. 3d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) ("Duplicative 

adjudications of guilt after revocation of probation or community control are superfluous, 

are unauthorized, and can cause undue confusion in future proceedings."), the record 

on appeal nevertheless includes a second written judgment adjudicating him guilty of 

the original offenses. This judgment, which was signed the same day as the revocation 

hearing and accompanies the written sentences imposed following revocation of his 

probation, was entered in error. See id. at 1148-49 ("[T]he circuit court only enters a 

judgment on a violation of probation in those instances when it withheld an adjudication 

of guilt, i.e., withheld judgment, at the time it originally imposed probation." (quoting 

Jackson v. State, 56 So. 3d 65, 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (Altenbernd, J., concurring))). 

Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of Schaufler's probation and the ensuing 

sentences but remand for vacatur of the March 2017 written judgment adjudicating 

Schaufler guilty a second time. 

Affirmed in part; remanded with instructions.

KELLY and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-1018 Directorate ID: 2011-SW-052-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France Model EC 155B, EC155B1, SA-365N1, AS-365N2 and 

AS 365 N3 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 34 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: These actions are intended to prevent the tail rotor from jamming, which could lead to 

reduced or loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $

Labor per Helicopter

(1 x $85/work-hour per 

inspection)

$85

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $425 per year

Total US Fleet Cost $14,450 per year

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Robert Grant
No. 49184.

#### Protest 620776-G of Aliotto & Son (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the cheese in question is similar to the Provolone cheese the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706). In accordance therewith it was held to be properly dutiable upon the basis of the net weight of the cheese as returned by the United States weigher, not including the weight of the strings, less *2%*percent for inedible coverings. Protest sustained to this extent. Abstracts 40880 and 41794 cited.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 17

- 00614

- CV

JUAN R. RIVERA v. BLANCA E. RIVERA
On Appeal from the 319th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2016

- FAM

- 1691

- G

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this caus e on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision certified below for observance. January 25, 20 18
# EUR-Lex - 52007BP0121(02) - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007BP0121(02)

**2. European Parliament decision of 24 April 2007 on closing the accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2005 (C6-0395/2006 - 2006/2162(DEC)) **

*
Official Journal 074 E , 20/03/2008 P. 0234 - 0235 *

2.

European Parliament decision of 24 April 2007 on closing the accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2005 (C6-0395/2006 — 2006/2162(DEC))

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the final annual accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2005 [1],

- having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the final annual accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2005, together with Eurojust's replies [2],

- having regard to the Council's recommendation of 27 February 2007 (5711/2007 — C6-0080/2007),

- having regard to the EC Treaty, and in particular Article 276 thereof, and the EU Treaty, and in particular Article 41 thereof,

- having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities [3], and in particular Article 185 thereof,

- having regard to Council Decision 2002/187/JHA of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime [4], and in particular Article 36 thereof,

- having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 [5], and in particular Article 94 thereof,

- having regard to Rule 71 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the Report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0120/2007),

1. Notes that the final annual accounts of Eurojust for the financial years 2004 and 2005 are as follows:

Source: Eurojust data — This table summarises the data supplied by Eurojust in its annual accounts.

(in 1000 EUR) |

Revenue and expenditure account for the financial years 2004 and 2005 |

| 2005 | 2004 |

Operating revenue

Community subsidies | 11991 | 8726 |

Miscellaneous revenue | 59 | 397 |

Total (a) | 12050 | 9123 |

Operating expenditure

Purchases of goods and services | 4854 | 4476 |

Staff costs | 5149 | 4142 |

Depreciation | 508 | 332 |

Total (b) | 10511 | 8950 |

Outturn for the financial year (a-b) | 1539 | 173 |

2. Approves closing the accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2005;

3. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the administrative director of Eurojust, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

[1] OJ C 266, 31.10.2006, p. 34.

[2] OJ C 312, 19.12.2006, p. 67.

[3] OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1995/2006 (OJ L 390, 30.12.2006, p. 1).

[4] OJ L 63, 6.3.2002, p. 1. Decision as amended by Decision 2003/659/JHA (OJ L 245, 29.9.2003, p. 44).

[5] OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.

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

KENNETH MILLS, No. CIV S-04-2217-DFL-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, 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

Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On October 20, 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 ten 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(d),

Case 2:04-cv-02217-DFL-CMK Document 10 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

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

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 October 20, 2005, are adopted in

full;

2. This action is dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with

court rules and orders; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this action.

DATED: 11/11/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02217-DFL-CMK Document 10 Filed 11/14/05 Page 2 of 2
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4803 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

31143 State Highway 65 in Pengilly, Minnesota, as the ‘‘First Lieutenant Richard Arne Koski Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 25, 2024 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Ms. SMITH) 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 31143 State Highway 65 in Pengilly, Minnesota, as the ‘‘First Lieutenant Richard Arne Koski 

Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. FIRST LIEUTENANT RICHARD ARNE KOSKI 

4 POST OFFICE. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 31143 State Highway 65 in 

7 Pengilly, Minnesota, shall be known and designated as the 

8 ‘‘First Lieutenant Richard Arne Koski Post Office’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4803 IS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘First Lieutenant Rich5 ard Arne Koski Post Office’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
No. 54085.

#### J. S. Hoffman Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 145563-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

SCOTT N. JOHNSON,

NO. CIV. S-04-2571 WBS PAN

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

MARK D. EARL, individually and

d/b/a THE BOARDWALK; JANICE

GARNETT; and DOES 1 through

10, inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

The parties were scheduled for a further status

conference on July 5, 2005. (June 3, 2005 Order). Plaintiff

appeared pro se. Defendants’ counsel, Joseph Clayton Fraulob of

Farrell, Fraulob, & Brown did not appear and did not notify the

court of any reason for his failure to appear. Further,

defendants’ counsel did not file a status report and did not

respond to telephone inquiries by the court and by plaintiff. On

July 6, 2005, this court ordered defendants’ counsel to appear on

July 11, 2005 to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for

his failure to appear. Defendants’ counsel failed to appear on

Case 2:04-cv-02571-WBS-PAN Document 22 Filed 07/13/05 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

that date as well.

Plaintiff, a licensed California attorney, represents

himself. He represented to the court that he spent six hours

preparing for and attending the July 5, 2005 status conference. 

The court finds that time to have been reasonable The rate he

charges other clients is $200 per hour. The court also finds

that rate to be reasonable. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) specifically

permits a court to award attorney’s fees against an attorney who

fails to appear at a scheduling or pretrial conference. Justice

demands that plaintiff be compensated here. Although the court

recognizes that pro se litigants are generally not entitled to

attorney’s fees as a sanction against the other party, this pro

se litigant is an attorney who charges other clients $200 per

hour. Six hours of his otherwise billable time were lost because

defendants’ counsel did not bother to file a status report,

appear at the scheduling conference, or respond to telephone

inquiries. Therefore, the court will award plaintiff $1200. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 16(f), Mr. Fraulob pay plaintiff the sum of

$1200.

DATED: July 12, 2005

Case 2:04-cv-02571-WBS-PAN Document 22 Filed 07/13/05 Page 2 of 2
CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


CHIEF
      FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of California
      News Tech for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, to my knowledge, that:





|(1) | the
              Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of California News Tech for the quarter
              ended June 30, 2006 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
              quarter ended June 30, 2006, fairly presents in all material respects,
              the
              financial condition and results of operations of California News
              Tech.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




By:
            /s/
                Marian MunzName:
            Marian
                MunzTitle:
            Principal
                Executive Officer and DirectorDate:
            August
                14, 2006By:
            /s/
                William WhiteName:
            William
                WhiteTitle:
            Principal
                Financial OfficerDate:
            August
                14, 2006
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

MAXIMILIANO MENDEZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2447 LKK DAD P

vs.

DR. CRAPOTTA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff’s civil rights action was dismissed without prejudice on February 24,

2006, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing the action. In a letter filed

May 24, 2006, plaintiff requests a form to re-open this case on the ground that his administrative

remedies were exhausted while this case was proceeding. Plaintiff is advised that he may not reopen this case, but he may file a new case by submitting a civil rights complaint together with the

$350.00 filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff’s new complaint shall

not include the case number of this closed case. IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court

shall send plaintiff a civil rights complaint form with an in forma pauperis application.

DATED: May 31, 2006.

DAD:13

mend2447.58

Case 2:04-cv-02447-LKK -DAD Document 40 Filed 06/01/06 Page 1 of 1
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. L U IS A N G E L B O T E L L O , a. k. a. Juan R od ri gu ez -J i m enez , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N os . 11- 30222 11- 30224 D . C. N o s . 2 : 1 0 - c r - 0 0 1 5 6 - LRS

2 : 1 0 - c r - 0 0 1 6 0 - LRS ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe E a s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on L onnyR . S uko, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e bruary21, 2012 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , M cK E O W N , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. In these consol i dat ed appeal s, L ui s A ng elB ot el l o app ea l s f rom the 63 -m on th sent ence i m po se d fol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty- pl eaconv i ct i on for bei ng an al i en i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s a f

t e rde port a t i on, i n vi ol a t i on of 8 U . S . C . § 1326, a nd f

r om the 

# FI LED FEB 23 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 30222 2 s ix - m o n th c o n c u rr e n t s e n te n c e im p o s e df o llo w in g r e v o c a tio n o f

s up e rv is e dr e le a s e . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 29 1, and w e a ff i rm B ot e l l o c ont e nds hi s s e nt e nc e s a r e s ubs t ant i ve l yunr e a s onabl e . T he w i thi nG ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e s a r e s ubs t a nt i ve l yr e a s onabl e i n l i ghtof the t ot a l i tyof

the c i r c um s t a nc e s a nd the s e nt e nc i ng f a c t or s s e tf

orth i n 18 U . S . C . §§ 3553( a ) a nd 3 5 8 3 ( e ) . See U

n i ted Sta tes v . Ca r ty , 52 0 F . 3d 98 4, 99 2-93 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( en banc). AF F I RME D.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dion Bloomfield, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 489]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), rendered May 9, 1994, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

It is well settled that the determination of the suppression court, having the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, must be accorded great weight on appeal and its determination should not be disturbed if it is supported by the record *(see, People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759; *People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84; *People v Daniels,*190 AD2d 858).

The hearing court’s determination as to the credibility of the officers’ testimony should not be disturbed *(see, People v Ruiz,*166 AD2d 302; *People v Rodriguez,*164 AD2d 824). Furthermore, the recovery of the gun, which was discarded and abandoned by the defendant during his flight from the police, was lawful *(see, Matter of Jerry C.,*197 AD2d 685; *People v Price,*194 AD2d 634). O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ.,concur.