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

U.S. BANK, N.A., 

Plaintiff, No.CIV S-04-2458 DFL KJM PS

vs.

GREG POPPIN, et al., ORDER

Defendants. 

 /

On May 13, 2005, defendant Poppin filed a request to stay this action. That

document was not served by defendant on plaintiff or the other defendants who have appeared in

this action. Defendant is advised that every document submitted to the court for consideration

must be served on plaintiff and all other parties who have appeared in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P.

5. Documents not to be served electronically usually are served by placing a copy in the U.S.

mail. If an attorney has filed a document with the court on behalf of any party, then documents

submitted by defendant must be served on that attorney and not on the party. Every document

submitted in hard copy format to the court (e.g., by a defendant proceeding pro se) must include a

certificate stating the date an accurate copy of the document was mailed to a party or that party’s 

attorney and the address to which it was mailed. See Local Rule 5-135(b) and (c).

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02458-DFL -KJM Document 49 Filed 05/18/05 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

It also appears that the motion to stay was filed with no legitimate basis for the

request and, contrary to the boilerplate statement included in the motion, solely for the purpose of

harassing the plaintiff or delaying this action. Cf. Motion to stay filed January 31, 2005 and

Response thereto filed February 3, 2005. The motion is replete with improper references to the

status of defendant Poppin and illusory references to a requirement of administrative exhaustion.

Defendant Poppin is cautioned that failure to properly serve any documents

subsequently filed in this action, failure to include a proper certificate of service with such filing,

or further filing of frivolous pleadings, may result in sanctions, including a recommendation that

default be entered against defendant Poppin. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion to stay is

denied. 

DATED: May 17, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

usbank.35

Case 2:04-cv-02458-DFL -KJM Document 49 Filed 05/18/05 Page 2 of 2
126 STAT. 2382 PUBLIC LAW 112–243—JAN. 10, 2013 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2338: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 158 (2012): 

Nov. 28, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 27, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 112–243 

112th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 600 Florida 

Avenue in Cocoa, Florida, as the ‘‘Harry T. and Harriette Moore Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. HARRY T. AND HARRIETTE MOORE POST OFFICE. 

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

Service located at 600 Florida Avenue in Cocoa, Florida, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Harry T. and Harriette Moore 

Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Harry T. and Harriette Moore Post Office’’. 

Approved January 10, 2013. 

Jan. 10, 2013 

[H.R. 2338] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
#### Stafkings Health Care Systems, Inc., Respondent, v Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Utica-Watertown, Inc., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[635 NYS2d 555]

—Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs *(see, Loafin’ Tree Rest, v Pardi*[appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 985). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oswego County, Hurlbutt, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present— Denman, P. J., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 AND DISMISSING CASE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIV S-04-2048 RRB KJM P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND

DISMISSING CASE

The Court, having reviewed the Findings and

Recommendations filed in this matter, and noting no objections,

hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations

at Docket 88. This matter is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2006.

/S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

BILLY JOE JONES,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case 2:04-cv-02048-RRB -KJM Document 89 Filed 01/13/06 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.01**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18            U.S.C. SECTION** **1350,**

**AS            ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In            connection with the quarterly report of Essential Innovations Technology Corp. (the            “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended January 31, 2008, as            filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the            “Report”), I, Jason McDiarmid, Chief Executive Officer and 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, to the best of            my knowledge and belief:

 

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

             

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

 

 

/s/            Jason McDiarmid

Jason McDiarmid

Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer

March 19, 2008

 

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 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.
#### In the Matter of Commissioner of Social Services, on Behalf of Gary G., Respondent, v Guy M., Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 643]

—On the court’s own motion, it is,

*627Ordered that the unpublished decision and order of this Court dated November 6, 1995, in the above-entitled case, is recalled and vacated; and upon consideration of the reply brief dated October 2, 1995, and filed with this Court on November 13, 1995, the following decision and order is substituted therefor:

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Yancey, J.), dated April 1, 1993, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated August 6, 1992, finding that he had sexually abused his son, *inter alia,*(1) temporarily suspended the father’s visitation with the child pending a recommendation from the child’s therapist, and (2) directed that the father stay away from the child for 12 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated August 6, 1992.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject child was sexually abused by the father *(see, Matter of Tammie Z.,*66 NY2d 1). The court correctly determined that the child’s out-of-court statements had been sufficiently corroborated by the testimony of the child’s maternal grandmother, the child’s caseworker, the child’s therapist, the emergency room pediatrician, and the consulting pediatrician *(see, Matter of Department of Social Servs. [Carol Ann D.J v Warren D.,*195 AD2d 460).

We have examined the father’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Joy, J. P., Hart, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 12.1
 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal
control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: January 16, 2009
    /s/ Yeung Chu Kwong, WilliamName:
    Yeung Chu Kwong, WilliamTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer
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 cause 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, 2018
### Bromide Quat Production

Weneed a b romide quat

. Below is the schematic method for producing this quat

. This material has been produced in a research setting up to the one Kg level. The reaction is a 1:1 mole ratio of an epoxy with an amine and was run at dry ice temperature in order to keep the reactants from volatilizing, but a temp of - 20 will likely work as well. Lab Procedure 

### Bromide Quat A pre - weighed 150 ml cylindrical bottom pressure vessel, capped with a septum, was cooled t o

- 78 °C in a dry i ce/acetone bath under argon. A mine was added (ca. 0.6 mole) was passed through the septum with a needle and condensed as a **liquid** . After quickly determining the mass of the second reactant, 0.531 mole s was weighed into a cylindrical bott om pressure vessel along with an anhydrous solvent with a magnetic stir- bar. After capping the vessel with a septum, the second reactant solution was cooled to - 78°C, in a dry ice/acetone bath, under argon. The a mine (first reactant) vessel was connected via cannula. The argon inlet was removed from the amine vessel and the liquid was slowly warmed to ambient temperature with external heat, the amine liquid transferred rapidly. The septum on the 2L vessel was replaced with a teflon screw- cap and the homogeneous, colorless solution was warmed to 0 °C in an ice bath. After 15 min., a white solid began to form. The reaction was stirred for ~ 5 hr at 0 °C and warmed to ambient temperature overnight. The white hygroscopic solid was filt ered on a buchner funnel and rinsed with diethyl ether (4 volumes, 180 mL each). The top of the buchner funnel was covered with latex rubber sheeting (V WR 56376) to reduce exposure to atmospheric moisture and press out solvent. After drying under suction for 15 min., the white solid was dried at 48 °C overnight under high vacuum, to remove any trace solvent. Removal of trace solvent and unused reactants is important in preventing problems in downstream reactions. The white solid weighed had 89.1% yield. T he compound is very hygroscopic and will take up atmospheric moisture on the bench - top. The reaction has been run at one - third scale with reproducible results. Lowered yields will result if amine gas is lost due to tubing/septum leaks.
## HED Master Label Report Ingredient: Picaridin (070705) Current As of Date: 03/13/2014 **NDC - No Dosage Conversion ; NS - Not Specified** This is a refined report. This is a summary of all use patterns (e.g., use sites, formulations, a.i. percentage, application methods) for this active ingredient (a.i.), and originates from a subset of EPA registered and accepted labels. **Registration Number**  **Accepted**

**Date AI%**  **Form**

**Desc Product Name**  **Homeowner Use**  **Use Group Use Site**  **Application Method Type**  **Application Method**

**Equipment Application Method**  **Timing Product Max** 

**App Rate A. I. Max** 

**App Rate Re - entry** 

**Interval PHI / PGI / PSI** 

85972-1 6/22/2011 20 RTU CENTAURA FLY AND MOSQUITO REPELLENT SPRAY N INDOOR NONFOOD HORSES

(SHOW/RACE/SPECIAL/PONIES) Animal treatment (spray ). Product contai ner. When needed. NS NDC NS PHI: PGI: PSI:
121-90 6/28/2010 5.75 IMPR CUTTER INSECT REPELLENT 5KT N INDOOR RESIDENTIAL HUMAN BODY/CLOTHING WHILE

BEING WORN Human treatment. By hand. When needed. 1 towelette NDC NS PHI: PGI: PSI:
121-91 6/28/2010 15 RTU CUTTER INSECT REPELLENT 15KP N INDOOR RESIDENTIAL HUMAN BODY/CLOTHING WHILE

BEING WORN Spray
. Product contai ner. When needed. NS NDC NS PHI: PGI: PSI:
121-92 6/28/2010 15 RTU CUTTER INSECT REPELLENT 15KA N INDOOR RESIDENTIAL HUMAN BODY/CLOTHING WHILE

BEING WORN Spray
. Product contai ner. When needed. NS NDC NS PHI: PGI: PSI:
121-93 6/28/2010 12 IMPR CUTTER INSECT REPELLENT 12KT N INDOOR RESIDENTIAL HUMAN BODY/CLOTHING WHILE

BEING WORN Clothing treatment. Towelette. When needed. 1 towelette NDC NS PHI: PGI: PSI:
121-93 6/28/2010 12 IMPR CUTTER INSECT REPELLENT 12KT N INDOOR RESIDENTIAL HUMAN BODY/CLOTHING WHILE

BEING WORN Skin contact treatment. Towelette. When needed. NS NDC NS PHI: PGI: PSI:
121-94 6/28/2010 10 RTU CUTTER INSECT REPELLENT 10KP N INDOOR RESIDENTIAL HUMAN BODY/CLOTHING WHILE

BEING WORN Spray
. Product contai ner. When needed. NS NDC NS PHI: PGI: PSI:
121-99 8/27/2008 20 RTU CUTTER INSECT REPELLENT N INDOOR RESIDENTIAL HUMAN BODY/CLOTHING WHILE

BEING WORN Spray
. Product contai ner. When needed. NS NDC NS PHI: PGI: PSI:
39967-50 11/15/2010 20 RTU KBR 3023 ALL-FAMILY INSECT REPELLENT CREAMN INDOOR RESIDENTIAL HUMAN BODY/CLOTHING WHILE

BEING WORN Skin contact treatment. By hand. When needed. NS NDC NS PHI: PGI: PSI:
39967-53 11/15/2010 20 PRL KBR 3023 ALL-FAMILY INSECT REPELLENT SPRAYN INDOOR RESIDENTIAL HUMAN BODY/CLOTHING WHILE

BEING WORN Spray
. Product contai ner. When needed. NS NDC NS PHI: PGI: PSI:
4822-536 1/25/2006 5 RTU KBR 3023 ALL-FAMILYINSECT REPELLENT NONAEROSOL SPRAY N INDOOR RESIDENTIAL HUMAN BODY/CLOTHING WHILE

BEING WORN Spray
. Product contai ner. When needed. NS NDC NS PHI: PGI: PSI:
56575-14 1/6/2009 20 IMPR NATRAPEL 8 HOUR INSECT REPELLENT WIPES N INDOOR RESIDENTIAL HUMAN BODY/CLOTHING WHILE

BEING WORN Skin contact treatment. Towelette. When needed. NS NDC NS PHI: PGI: PSI:
85972-1 6/22/2011 20 RTU CENTAURA FLY AND MOSQUITO REPELLENT SPRAY N INDOOR RESIDENTIAL HUMAN BODY/CLOTHING WHILE

BEING WORN Spray
. Product contai ner. When needed. NS NDC NS PHI: PGI: PSI:



## Page 1 of 1
Before the Second Division,

June 18, 1957

No. 60881.

#### Cerro De Pasco Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 290943-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawbence, J.

After reviewing the record in this case, the court found nothing tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the classification by the collector. The protest was therefore overruled.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Bumgardner and Kelsey Argued at Alexandria, Virginia

YAW AMOAKO FRIMPONG MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 1904-03-4 J UDGE D. ARTHUR KELSEY NOVEMBER 9, 2004 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY Rossie D. Alston, Jr., Judge Joseph W. Kaestner (J. Paul Wa lla; Kaestner & Asso ciates, P.C., on brief), for appellant. Richard B. Smith, Senior Assi stant Attorney General (Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
A jury found Yaw Amoako Frim pong guilty of first-degree mu rder. On appe al, Frimpong claims his short-form indictment

⎯ patterned after the langua ge of Code § 19.2-221

⎯ charged him with second-degree, but not first-degree, murd er. Because the trial co urt erroneously treated the indictment as a first-degree murder charge, Frimpong argues, the court violated his due process rights and prejudiced his right to pl ead guilty to seco nd-degree murder. Frimpong concedes that our recent decision in Walshaw v. Commonwealth , 44 Va. App. ___, 2004 Va. App. LEXIS 483, at *13 (2004), holds th at the statutory shor t-form indictment “clearly charged first-degree murder.” Walshaw also held that this indictment, used for over a century in Virginia, does not viol ate due process principles. Id. at *10-18. It follows that Walshaw undermines Frimpong’s guilty-plea argument, as no defendant has a right to plead

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication. guilty to a lesser-included offense. See generally Code § 19.2-254 (providing that a trial court- 2 - “may refuse to accept a plea of guilty to any le sser offense included in the charge”); Graham v. Commonwealth , 11 Va. App. 133, 137, 397 S.E.2d 270, 272 (1990). Frimpong claims Walshaw was wrongly decided. Under our interpanel accord doctrine, however, we have no authority to overrule a deci sion of another panel of this Court. “The decision of one panel ‘becomes a predicat e for application of the doctrine of stare decisis ’ and cannot be overruled except by the Court of Appeals sitting en banc or by the Virginia Supreme Court.” Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Reed , 40 Va. App. 69, 73, 577 S.E.2d 538, 540 (2003) (citation omitted). “This principle applies not merely to the literal holding of the case, but also to its ratio decidendi — the essential ra tionale in the case that de termines the judgment.” Id. at 73-74, 577 S.E.2d at 540; see also Congdon v. Congdon , 40 Va. App. 255, 265, 578 S.E.2d 833, 838 (2003). Because Walshaw governs this case, we reject Fr impong’s challenge to the statutory short-form indictment and affirm hi s conviction for first-degree murder.

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ROBERT L. JONES, Specialist Five, U. S. Army, Appellant

19 USCMA 124, 39 CMR 124

No. 21,630

February 7, 1969

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Captain John Wall Hanft,*and *Captain Karl J. Uebel*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel David Rarick, Major Edwin P. Wasinger,*and *Captain John C. Lenahan*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

Tried for unpremeditated murder, this appellant stands convicted of involuntary manslaughter, in violation of Article 119, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 919. His sentence included a dishonorable discharge, confinement at hard labor for one year, and reduction in grade to E-l. Responding to the appellant’s plea, the court-martial did not include forfeitures of pay in the sentence. Intermediate appellate action effected no change.

Because section 804 of Title 37, United States Code, provides that pay and allowances do not accrue to an enlisted member of the Army or Air Force who is confined under sentence of a dishonorable discharge “while the execution of the sentence to discharge is suspended,” we are asked:

> 1. Whether the law officer erred to the prejudice of the appellant by failing to advise the court-martial of the provisions of 37 USC § 804.

> 2. Whether the staff judge advocate’s failure to advise the convening authority of the provisions of 37 USC § 804 prejudiced the appellant.

The Court considered the same provision and held moot the same issues in United States v Bolden, 18 USCMA 119, 39 CMR 119, and United States v Grady, 18 USCMA 122, 39 CMR 122. We think they are moot here for the same reasons expressed in those cases.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PU BLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.



### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

**C O U R T O F A P P E A L S**

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 22, 2019

v No. 340389 Wayne Circuit Court

ELLIOTT GUANZALAUS

- GWY SHAFFER, LC No. 17

- 001265

- 01

- FC

Defendant

- Appellant.

Before: L ETICA

, P .J., and C AVANAGH and M ETER , JJ

.

L ETICA

, J. ( concurring )

.

I concur in the judgment and the majority’s analysis, but write separately to make two points. First, although the majority reject s defendant’s challenges to the scoring of his guidelines, I would not address them as he was sentenc ed under the nonbinding judicial guidelines. People v Mitchell

, 454 Mich 145, 176

- 177; 560 NW2d 600 (1997) (“There is no juridical basis for claims of error based on alleged misinterpretation of the guidelines, instructions regarding how the guidelines should be applied, or misapplication of guideline

variables. ”) Second, defendant’s alleged reasonable m istake about his victim’s age is not a

defense in a prosecution for third

- degre e criminal sexual conduct involving a victim between the ages of 13 and 16. People v Cash

, 419 Mich 230; 351 NW2d 822 (1984).

/s/ Anica Letica
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

CHRISTOPHER LEE JENKINS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2520 LKK JFM P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has filed his second request for an extension of time to file objections to

the July 28, 2005 findings and recommendations. Good cause appearing, the request will be

granted. No further extensions of time will be granted.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's May 15, 2006 request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff is granted until June 14, 2006 in which to file objections to the July

28, 2005 findings and recommendations. No further extensions of time will be granted.

DATED: May 23, 2006.

/mp:001; jenk2520.36sec

Case 2:04-cv-02520-LKK -JFM Document 41 Filed 05/24/06 Page 1 of 1