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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

)

)

) 2:04-cv-2191-GEB-GGH

REGINA BLACKHURST, )

) 

Plaintiff, ) ORDER

) 

v. )

)

TRINITY CHURCH, DONNA HARRELL, )

and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On January 3, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement

indicating that the parties had reached a settlement agreement in this

action. On January 24, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion to determine

the scope of her former counsel’s lien and to compel Defendant to

release settlement funds; this motion reveals a dispute has arisen

between Plaintiff’s present and former counsel. (Pl.’s Mem. Supp.

Mot. to Determine Scope and Release Checks 3-4). Plaintiff argues

“[t]his court has ancillary jurisdiction to adjudicate [this] dispute

Case 2:04-cv-02191-GEB-GGH Document 32 Filed 01/30/06 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

2

since it is so closely related to the underlying litigation.” (Id. at

2.)

Since this action is now settled, the issue is whether

“[t]he parties . . . have alleged . . . facts that would justify

federal jurisdiction over the settlement dispute.” O’Connor v.

Colvin, 70 F.3d 530, 532 (9th Cir. 1995). Diversity jurisdiction is

not alleged, “and no statute provides for federal jurisdiction over

this contract dispute.” Id.; see also Jessup v. Luther, 277 F.3d 926,

928 (7th Cir. 2002) (“The settlement is just another contract to be

enforced in the usual way, that is, by a fresh suit.”). The fact that

subject matter jurisdiction existed over the action before it settled

“does not confer jurisdiction.” O’Connor, 70 F.3d at 532.

Since I lack jurisdiction to address the dispute over the

settlement agreement, the action is dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02191-GEB-GGH Document 32 Filed 01/30/06 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 42 (Monday, March 5, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9730-9731]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3788]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-588-837]


Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether 
Assembled or Unassembled, from Japan: Discontinuation of 
Reconsideration of Sunset Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 24, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Goldberger, Kate Johnson, or 
Rebecca Trainor, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14\th\ 
Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
202-482-4136, 202-482-4929, or 202-482-4007, respectively.

Discontinuation of Reconsideration of Sunset Review

    On April 13, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the notice of initiation notice of the reconsideration of the 
sunset review of the antidumping duty order on large newspaper printing 
presses and components thereof, whether assembled or unassembled 
(LNPP), from Japan. See Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components 
Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, From Japan: Reconsideration 
of Sunset Review, 71 FR 19164 (April 13, 2006). This review was 
initiated to reconsider the sunset review of the antidumping duty order 
on LNPP from Japan, which resulted in the revocation of that 
antidumping duty order. See, Large Newspaper Printing Presses and 
Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, from Japan (A-
588-837) and Germany (A-428-821): Notice of Final Results of Five-year 
Sunset Reviews and Revocation of Antidumping Duty Orders, 67 FR 8522 
(February 25, 2002). The Department published its preliminary results 
in the reconsideration of sunset review on November 6, 2006. See Large 
Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or 
Unassembled, from Japan: Preliminary Results of Reconsideration of 
Sunset Review, 71 FR 64927 (November 6, 2006).
    On January 24, 2007, the Court of International Trade (CIT) issued 
its decision in Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. v. United States, Consol. 
Court No. 06-00078, Slip. Op. 07-12 (January 24, 2007), and ordered the 
Department to

[[Page 9731]]

``discontinue any action in regard to a reconsideration'' of the sunset 
review. Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. v. United States. See FULL CITE 
Slip Op. 07-12. In accordance with that is decision, the Department is 
discontinuing action with respect toits reconsideration of the sunset 
review.

    Dated: February 26, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-3788 Filed 3-2-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7765** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JAMES WILLIAM LANG , a/k/a James W. Lang Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Co urt for the Western District of Virginia , at Lynchburg
. Norman K. Moon , Senior District Judge. ( 6:05

- cr - 00031

- nkm

- 1; 6:10

- cv - 80291

- nkm

- mfu )

Submitted : May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
James William Lan g , Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James Willia m Lang seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2006 ) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrat ing that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court d enies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independe ntly reviewed the record and conclude that Lang has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala bility and dismiss the appeal.3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presen ted in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0128 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007AP0128

**European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 April 2007 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on payment services in the internal market and amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2000/12/EC and 2002/65/EC (COM(2005)0603 - C6-0411/2005 - 2005/0245(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 074 E , 20/03/2008 P. 0272 - 0273 *

P6_TA(2007)0128

Payment services in the internal market ***I

European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 April 2007 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on payment services in the internal market and amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2000/12/EC and 2002/65/EC (COM(2005)0603 — C6-0411/2005 — 2005/0245(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and to the Council (COM(2005)0603) [1],

- having regard to Article 251(2), Article 47(2), first and third sentences, and Article 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the proposal was submitted by the Commission (C6-0411/2005),

- having regard to the letter of 1 March 2007 sent to the President of the Parliament by the chairman of the working party set up under Article 29 of Directive 95/46/EC regarding the issues connected with data protection, especially in the operation of the SWIFT system,

- having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0298/2006),

1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
1

00443363.WPD

PORTER, SCOTT, WEIBERG & DELEHANT

A Professional Corporation

Ned P. Telford SBN 79208

André M. Chernay SBN 214890

Laura J. Marabito SBN 232381

350 University Avenue, Suite 200

Sacramento, California 95825

(916) 929-1481 

(916) 927-3706 (facsimile)

ATTORNEYS FOR: Defendants FLEETWOOD MOTOR HOMES 

OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT BARABINO,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAN GAMEL, INC.; FLEETWOOD 

MOTOR HOMES OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

INC., FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES 

INC. 

Defendants.

 /

No. 2:04-cv-2359-MCE-PAN

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR ORDER 

SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONTINUE

TRIAL DATE

The Application for an Order Shortening Time for Hearing on

Defendant FLEETWOOD’s Motion to Continue the trial date brought by

Defendants, FLEETWOOD MOTOR HOMES OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., FLEETWOOD

ENTERPRISES was filed with the Court on July 14, 2006 The Honorable

Judge Morrison C. in Courtroom 3 of the above-entitled court ruled

on defendant FLEETWOOD’s Application. The Court orders as follows:

///

Case 2:04-cv-02359-MCE-EFB Document 106 Filed 07/18/06 Page 1 of 2
2

00443363.WPD

1. Defendant FLEETWOOD Application for an Order Shortening

Time for Hearing on FLEETWOOD ‘s Motion to Continue the trial date

is hereby granted. Defendant FLEETWOOD’s Motion to Continue trial

date is set for hearing on August 7, 2006 in Courtroom 3 at 9:00

a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: July 17, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02359-MCE-EFB Document 106 Filed 07/18/06 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 10457)

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

Entry No. 727324, etc.

(Decided February 27, 1963)

*Broohs & Broohs*for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the appeals for reappraisement, enumerated in the attached schedule, for decision upon stipulation, on the basis of which I find that export value, as defined in section 402 (b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the values of the bicycle tires and tubes, imported from Holland, here involved, and that such values were the invoiced unit prices, as entered.

Judgment will issue 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 Annual Report of Sunway Global Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Liu Bo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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 Company.





A signed original 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.





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities 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.





Dated:     February 24, 2011
By:
/s/ Liu BoLiu BoChief Executive Officer

(principal executive officer)
-79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

38 39 40 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 09/05 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 05 Sep 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL
(Reap. Dec. 8694)

Entry No. 317284.

#### Harry Solodow *v.*United States

(Decided October 31, 1956)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto:

> That the instant appeal for reappraisment consists of knitted rayon underwear clippings (waste) exported from Great Britain.

> That on or about the date of exportation the entered value was equal to the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Great Britain, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, packing included.

> That on or about the date of exportation the foreign value, as such value is defined in Section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, was no higher.

> That the instant appeal for reappraisement be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value is the entered value.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4635 

To require a report and updated guidance on continued risk management 

for pharmaceutical supply chains of Department of Defense. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 8, 2024 

Mr. PETERS (for himself and Ms. ERNST) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require a report and updated guidance on continued 

risk management for pharmaceutical supply chains of 

Department of Defense. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pharmaceutical Risk 

5 Assessment and Mitigation Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4635 IS

1 SEC. 2. REPORT AND UPDATED GUIDANCE ON CONTINUED 

2 RISK MANAGEMENT FOR PHARMACEUTICAL 

3 SUPPLY CHAINS OF DEPARTMENT OF DE4 FENSE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than two years after the 

6 date of the enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary 

7 of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment shall— 

8 (1) submit to the Committees on Armed Serv9 ices of the Senate and the House of Representatives 

10 a report regarding— 

11 (A) existing information streams within 

12 the Federal Government, if any, for excipients 

13 and key starting materials of drugs that may be 

14 used to assess the reliance by the Department 

15 of Defense on high-risk foreign suppliers ana16 lyzed in the report required under section 

17 860(a) of the James M. Inhofe National De18 fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 

19 (Public Law 117–263; 10 U.S.C. 3241 note 

20 prec.); 

21 (B) active pharmaceutical ingredients, final 

22 drug products, and respective excipients and 

23 key starting materials analyzed in such report 

24 that is produced by each manufacturer in a 

25 high-risk foreign country, as determined by the 

26 Secretary of Defense; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4635 IS

1 (C) any limitations on the ability of the 

2 Secretary to— 

3 (i) obtain or analyze the information 

4 identified under subparagraphs (A) and 

5 (B); and 

6 (ii) use data analytics to monitor 

7 vulnerabilities in the pharmaceutical supply 

8 chain of the Department; 

9 (D) how the Secretary plans to address the 

10 limitations identified under subparagraph (C); 

11 and 

12 (E) any recommendations of the Secretary 

13 to address those limitations; and 

14 (2) update risk management guidance developed 

15 by the Under Secretary under section 860(a)(1) of 

16 the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authoriza17 tion Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (Public Law 117–263; 

18 10 U.S.C. 3241 note prec.) to include any relevant 

19 findings identified in paragraph (1). 

20 (b) FDA DETERMINATIONS.—The Department of 

21 Defense shall rely upon determinations of excipients and 

22 key starting materials for final drug products that are 

23 made by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or 

24 that align with FDA regulations. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
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 RAY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0998 LKK EFB P

vs.

C. FERGUSON, et al.,

Defendants. 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 August 28, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

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

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

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-00998-LKK -EFB Document 37 Filed 09/28/06 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 August 28, 2006, are adopted in full;

and

2. Defendants’ November 14, 2005 motion for summary judgment is granted.

DATED: September 27, 2006

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/

Case 2:04-cv-00998-LKK -EFB Document 37 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ASBERRY,

NO. CIV. S-01-2343 LKK/PAN

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO/SANITATION 

DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.

 /

MICHAEL ASBERRY,

NO. CIV. S-04-2467 LKK/PAN

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Pending before the court is defendant’s motion to consolidate

the two above-captioned cases. Having considered the pleadings,

the parties’ papers, and after oral argument, the court concludes

that the above-entitled actions are appropriate candidates for

Case 2:04-cv-02467-LKK -PAN Document 89 Filed 03/06/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

consolidation under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. It appears that consolidation of the actions is likely

to effect a substantial saving of judicial effort and be convenient

for the parties. The two trials, however, shall be bifurcated.

The parties should be aware that consolidation does not merge

the actions into a single action. Alfred Dunhill of London v.

Republic of Cuba, 425 U.S. 682, 735 n.22 (1976). Each action

remains separate and requires entry of a separate judgment. 

9 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2382, pp.

254-55 (1971).

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The actions are CONSOLIDATED;

2. The trials in the above-actions shall be BIFURCATED;

2. Case No. Civ. S-01-2343 is designated as the "master

file";

3. The Clerk is directed to copy the complaint and answer in

case no. Civ. S-04-2467 and to place said copies in the "master

file";

4. The Clerk is directed to administratively close case no.

Civ. S-04-2467; 

5. The parties are directed to file all future pleadings ONLY

in case no. Civ. S-01-2343; and

////

////

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-02467-LKK -PAN Document 89 Filed 03/06/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

6. The Status Conference scheduled for March 20, 2006 is

VACATED. The parties shall be prepared to discuss both cases at

the Pretrial Conference currently scheduled for March 6, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 3, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-02467-LKK -PAN Document 89 Filed 03/06/06 Page 3 of 3
(Reap. Dec. 8710)

Entry Nos. 73528; 79388.

#### Isaac B. Cohen & Sons Corp. *v.*United States

(Decided December 11, 1956)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson ior*the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

These two appeals for reappraisement relate to merchandise described on the invoices as “Mouth Organs,” exported from Germany and entered at the port of New York.

*600The appeals are before me for decision on a written stipulation wherein the parties agree to a set of facts that show export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, and that such statutory values for the items covered by these invoices are the entered unit values, and I so hold.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.