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

1

MICHAEL B. BIGELOW

Attorney at Law

State Bar Number 065211

428 J Street, Suite 350 

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 443-0217

Attorney for Petitioner 

Stanley Green

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANLEY GREEN, ) No. CIV. S-04-1835 MCE CMK P

)

Petitioner )

)

) ORDER

v. )

)

YATES, et al ) 

)

Respondent. )

 )

At the request of counsel, and for good cause shown, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT the status conference heretofore set for

June 22, 2005 at 10:00 AM is rescheduled for August 16,2005, at

10:00 a.m., Redding,California.

DATED: May 23, 2005.

_____________________________________

_

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01835-MCE -CMK Document 11 Filed 05/24/05 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

Case 2:04-cv-01835-MCE -CMK Document 11 Filed 05/24/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 44010.

#### Petition 5999-R of F. W. Woolworth Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The petition was dismissed.
<PAGE>

[TRANSLATION FROM HEBREW]

EXHIBIT 4.(a).30
                                  [State Seal]

         GENERAL LICENSE FOR PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LTD.
         FOR THE PROVISION OF MOBILE RADIO PHONE SERVICES BY THE
                           CELLULAR METHOD (MRP)

                           AMENDMENT NO. 15

By virtue of my power under section 4(e) of the Communications
(Telecommunications and Broadcasting) Law, 5742-1982, I hereby amend the general
licence for the provision of mobile radio phone services by the cellular method
(MRP) granted to Partner Communications Company Ltd. on 7th April 1998 as
follows:

TEMPORARY MEASURE (b)- AMENDMENT OF CLAUSE 75.9

     1.   At the end of clause 75.9, add:

         "except to 1-800 numbers in the special numbering plan, that have been
         allocated for the use of the international operators for the purpose of
         providing international telecommunications message services, as defined
         in the license of the international operator (a)".

                                      (sgd)
              24 October, 2002        Reuven (Ruby) Rivlin
                                      Minister of Communications

     a)   Simultaneous bi-directional transmission of speech as well as
          simultaneous transmission of facsimile messages, in an international
          telecommunications system.

     b)   This temporary measure will be in force until the 1-800 access codes
          that are being used by the international operators for the purpose of
          providing international telecommunications message services will be
          changed, or until article 75.9 will be changed, the earlier of the
          two.
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Katy Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James W. Shaffer, Chief Financial 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, that:




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




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











/s/ James W. Shaffer


James W. Shaffer


Chief Financial Officer


March 31, 2011











The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany this report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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

ANTHONY A. SHARP,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2013 FCD KJM P

vs.

D. ARCAMONE, ORDER AND

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable

to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

In his petition, petitioner does not seek release from custody. Rather, he asks that

the court order the United State Attorney’s Office and the State Attorney General to pursue

criminal charges against respondent. Petitioner also asks that the court have respondent arrested. 

Because the court does not have the authority to grant the relief requested, the court will 

recommend that this matter be dismissed. If petitioner would like any particular agency to

pursue criminal charges against respondent, petitioner may wish to contact that agency directly. 

Case 2:04-cv-02013-FCD-KJM Document 6 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

Petitioner may also wish to consider whether he is able to initiate a separate action by stating a

claim under the federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and otherwise meeting the

requirements applicable to civil rights cases filed by inmates. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; and

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a copy of the complaint form

for use by inmates in filing a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, under 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. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections

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

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 12, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

shar2013.dis

Case 2:04-cv-02013-FCD-KJM Document 6 Filed 05/13/05 Page 2 of 2
Appendix J: Calculation of Avian RQs using LD50 data 

The most sensitive dose-based endpoint is the Bobwhite Quail (178 g) with an LD50 of 258 mg a.i./kg bw. The fprove, over a range of assessed body weights, generated RQs will not exceed LOCs or comparable RQs generate(0.104). Residue concentration of 5.8 ppm for the mouse is for all calculations. The first assessed weight is the California condor, the largest bird assessed, with a mass of 10,104 g: All birds food intake equation (EPA 1993) FI (g/day) = 0.648(10,104 g)0.651  FI = 262 g/day Daily chlorophacinone intake 262 g/day * 5.8 ppm = 1.52 mg a.i./day Weight LD50 adjustment (Mineau et al. 1996) LD50 adj = 258 mg a.i./kg bw * (10,104 g/178 g)(1.15-1)  LD50 adj = 473 mg a.i./kg bw 

LD50 dose to a California condor 473 mg a.i./kg bw * 10.104 kg = 4,779 mg a.i./day 

RQ (1.52 mg a.i./day)/( 4,779 mg a.i./day) = 0.0003 The next assessed weight is the New Mexican Ridge-nosed Rattlesnake, the smallest animal assessed as a bird, wAll birds food intake equation (EPA 1993) FI (g/day) = 0.648(85 g)0.651  FI = 11.7 g/day Daily chlorophacinone intake 11.7 g/day * 5.8 ppm = 0.068 mg a.i./day Weight LD50 adjustment (Mineau et al. 1996) LD50 adj = 258 mg a.i./kg bw * (85 g/178 g)(1.15-1) LD50 adj = 231 mg a.i./kg bw 

LD50 dose to a California condor 231 mg a.i./kg bw * 0.085 kg = 19.6 mg a.i./day 

RQ (0.068mg a.i./day)/( 19.6 mg a.i./day) = 0.0035
1 

### Medina, Dayana

From: Pettyjohn, Mary <PETTYJOHN@adeq.state.ar.us>

Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 8:36 AM

To: Medina, Dayana

Subject: FW: Revised BART FFA - Entergy Arkansas, White Bluff

Attachments: Entergy White Bluff BART FFA - Revised October 2014.pdf

Dayana,

Welcome back!!! Here is Entergy White Bluff’s response to EPA’s August comments.

Mary

From: Triplett, David [mailto:dtripl1@entergy.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 4:30 PM

To: Pettyjohn, Mary

Cc: JOHNSON, GEORGE

Subject: Revised BART FFA - Entergy Arkansas, White Bluff

Mary,

Attached is a PDF copy of the revised BART FFA that we have prepared in response to the comments received from EPA

Region 6 in late August. A hard copy will follow via US mail.

Should you have any questions or concerns, please let us know.

Thanks.

David Triplett, P.E.

Air Lead, Arkansas Environmental Support

Entergy Services, Inc.

8-750-4030 (internal) | (501) 377-4030 (office) | (501) 650-1752 (cell)
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. The court has corrected the date from “August 5, 2005” to match the actual date requested

by defendants in their application.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

LESLIE JAMES JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

LIEUTENANT E. SANDY, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. CIV-S-04-1933 DFL GGH P

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ FIRST REQUEST

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

Good cause appearing, defendants are granted a 30-day extension to file a responsive

pleading. Defendants’ responsive pleading shall be due on or before August 16, 2005.1/

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 7/19/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

jone1933.eot07

Case 2:04-cv-01933-ALA Document 20 Filed 07/19/05 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6807

DANNY ANGEL RODRIGUEZ,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JASON STREEVAL,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (7:20-cv-00194-NKM-JCH)

Submitted: October 28, 2021 Decided: November 2, 2021

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Danny A. Rodriguez, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Bugbee Winn, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Danny A. Rodriguez, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rodriguez v. 

Streeval, No. 7:20-cv-00194-NKM-JCH (W.D. Va. May 11, 2021). As did the district 

court, we note that, to the extent Rodriguez alleges ineffective assistance of counsel or 

challenges the validity of his plea based on representations made by prison officials, such 

challenges would need to be presented in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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-

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

GOUD P. MARAGANI

Trial Attorney, Tax Division

United States Department of Justice

P.O. Box 683, Ben Franklin Station

Washington, DC 20044-0683

Telephone: (202) 307-6513

Facsimile: (202) 307-0054

Email: Goud.P.Maragani@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for the United States of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - AT SACRAMENTO

DAVID S. SAVAGE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Defendant. )

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Counterclaim Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

DAVID S. SAVAGE and PHYLISS SAVAGE, )

)

Counterclaim Defendants. )

)

)

Civil No. CIV.S-04-2316 WBS KJM

JUDGMENT

On February 22, 2006, the Court granted the United States summary judgment against

David S. Savage. It is hereby

ORDERED that judgment is hereby entered in favor of the United States and against

plaintiff and counterclaim defendant David S. Savage (“plaintiff”) on all claims in the abovecaptioned proceeding, and that the plaintiff and counterclaims defendant David S. Savage shall

Case 2:04-cv-02316-WBS -KJM Document 51 Filed 11/02/06 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

27

28 Savage v. United States

[Proposed] Judgment -2- CIV. S-04-2316 WBS KJM

be liable to the United States in the amount of the $126,103.62 plus statutory interest and

accruals from December 31, 2005. 

Dated this 1st day of November, 2006.

Respectfully submitted this 20 day of October, 2006 by: th

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

/s/ Goud P. Maragani 

GOUD P. MARAGANI

Trial Attorney, Tax Division

U.S. Department of Justice

Post Office Box 683

Ben Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044

Telephone: (202) 307-6513

Facsimile: (202) 307-0054

Email: Goud.P.Maragani@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for the United States of America

Case 2:04-cv-02316-WBS -KJM Document 51 Filed 11/02/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 57296.

protest 197624-K (New York).

#### American East Asiatic Trading Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
No. 54642.

#### Ciro of Bond Street, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 130913-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of S. *Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
---

---

Exhibit 4.(a).49



The State of Israel
Ministry of Communications

General License for Partner Communications Ltd. for the Provision of
Mobile Radio Telephone (MRT) Services using the Cellular Method

# Amendment No. 36

By virtue of the powers of the
Minister of Communications under Article 4 (e) of the Communications Law
(Telecommunications and Broadcasts), 5742-1982, that have been delegated to us, by all our
other powers under any law and after further study of the aforesaid in amendment 34 dated
2.3.06, we hereby amend the General License for the provision of mobile radio telephone
(MRT) services using the cellular method granted to Partner on 7 April 1998, as follows:

# Amendment of Annex M

| | 1. | In
the definition of Adult Voice Services in Annex M Article
          1.1, in section (2), the words from for implementation purposes          until
Cellular Portal shall be deleted.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(26 July 2006)

| | (sgd)
Mordechai Mordechai  Director-General | (sgd)
Haim Giron, Adv.Senior Deputy Director-General,Engineering and Licensing
| | --------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CHRISTOPHER TURNER,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00256-CR

Appeal from

27th District Court

of Bell County, Texas

(TC # 69922)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Christopher Turner attempts to appeal from a judgment adjudicating him guilty of 

attempted theft. Finding that Appellant did not timely file his notice of appeal, we dismiss the 

appeal for want of jurisdiction.

A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. Olivo v. State, 

918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). In a criminal case, a defendant’s notice of appeal is 

due within thirty days after the sentence is imposed in open court or the trial court enters an 

appealable order. See TEX.R.APP.P. 26.2(a)(1). The deadline is extended to ninety days after the 

date the sentence is imposed in open court if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. 

See TEX.R.APP.P. 26.2(a)(2). A court of appeals may extend the time to file the notice of appeal 

if, within 15 days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal, the party files in the trial court 

the notice of appeal, and files in the appellate court a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b). 
- 2 -

TEX.R.APP.P. 26.3. When a notice of appeal is filed within the fifteen-day period, but no timely 

motion for extension of time is filed, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction. Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 

522.

The judgment of conviction reflects that sentence was imposed in open court on July 25, 

2016. Appellant did not file a motion for new trial. Therefore, his notice of appeal was due to 

be filed no later than August 24, 2016, thirty days after the date sentence was imposed in open 

court. See TEX.R.APP.P. 26.2(a)(1). Appellant filed his notice of appeal on September 2, 2016, 

but he did not file a motion for extension of time as permitted by Rule 26.3. Because Appellant 

did not timely file his notice of appeal, we are required to dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction.

October 27, 2016

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4594 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4594

To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from promulgating or 
    enforcing rules regarding disclosure of AI-generated content in 
                       political advertisements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 18, 2024

     Mr. Lee (for himself, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Barrasso, and Mr. Budd) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
           Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from promulgating or 
    enforcing rules regarding disclosure of AI-generated content in 
                       political advertisements.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Ending FCC Meddling in Our Elections 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RULES 
              REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF AI-GENERATED CONTENT IN POLITICAL 
              ADVERTISEMENTS.

    (a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``rule'' has the meaning 
given the term in section 804 of title 5, United States Code.
    (b) Prohibition.--The Federal Communications Commission may not 
promulgate or enforce any rule--
            (1) relating to the draft notice of proposed rulemaking 
        circulated by the Chairwoman of the Commission on May 22, 2024, 
        regarding disclosure of the use of artificial intelligence-
        generated content in political advertisements on television, 
        radio, or any other service covered by the proposal; or
            (2) that is substantially similar to a rule described in 
        paragraph (1).
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

CHARLES MAURICE BELGARDE,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 14

- 10490

D.C. No. 2:05

- cr

- 50128

- JAT

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 21 , 2015 **

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges

.

Charles Maurice Belgarde appeals from the 18

- month sentence imposed

upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, and we affirm.

Belgarde contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 28 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 10490

the long period of time between his violation conduct and sentencing, and other

mitigating circumstances . The district court did not abuse its discretion in

imposing Belgarde’s sentence. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

T he within

- Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18

U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circ umstances, including

the speed with which Belgarde violated his supervised release and the need to

protect the public. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 51 ; see also United States v. Garrett , 253

F.3d 443, 449

- 50 (9th Cir. 2001) (court may postpone adjudication of a supervised

release violation until a defendant is released from state custody)

.

In a n untimely pro se reply b rief, Belgarde also argues that the district court

imposed the sentence to punish his violation conduct and previous criminal acts

.

Even if this argument were properly before the court, it would fail because it is not

supported by the record.

AFFIRMED.