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 DANIEL CEPEDA,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1899 WBS JFM P

vs.

MENDOZA-POWERS, et al.,

 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. By order filed March 9, 2005, petitioner’s

motion to consolidate was granted, petitioner’s amended petition was dismissed, and petitioner

was granted thirty days to file a second amended petition. After receiving an extension of time,

petitioner has now filed a second amended petition. Good cause appearing, respondents will be

directed to file a response to the second amended petition. 

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

1. Respondents are directed to file a response to petitioner’s second amended 

petition within thirty days from the date of this order. See Rule 4, Fed. R. Governing § 2254

Cases. An answer shall be accompanied by all transcripts and other documents relevant to the

issues presented in the second amended petition. See Rule 5, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases;

Case 2:04-cv-01899-LKK -JFM Document 33 Filed 06/20/05 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

3. If the response to the second amended petition is an answer, petitioner’s reply,

if any, shall be filed and served within thirty days after service of the answer; and

4. If the response to the second amended petition is a motion, petitioner’s

opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion shall be filed and served within thirty

days after service of the motion, and respondents’ reply, if any, shall be filed and served within

fifteen days thereafter.

DATED: June 16, 2005.

12

cepe1899.2am

Case 2:04-cv-01899-LKK -JFM Document 33 Filed 06/20/05 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6280
JOAN E. MARCOTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BUREAU OF PRISONS; UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; VIC LOY, Warden Alderson Camp; DONALD CRUMP, Case Manager, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CA-94-271-1) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joan E. Marcott, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Marcott v. Bureau of Prisons , No. CA-94-271-1 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 11, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Before the Third Division,

August 19, 1944

No. 49681.

#### Protests 95777-K, etc., of C. Landriani (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that certain of the merchandise in question consists of grape coloring extract the same as that passed upon in Abstract 49180, which record was incorporated herein. The claim at 15 percent under paragraph 38 was therefore sustained.
No. 50470.

#### Protests 63920-K, etc., of Corporacion Argentina de Productores de Carnes et al. (New York).

*263Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of dog food similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Corporacion Argentina de Productores de Carnes*v. *United States*(32 C. C. P. A. 175, C. A. D. 304), which record was incorporated herein, the protests were sustained as claimed.
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

JAMES P. DeFAZIO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1358 WBS GGH

vs.

HOLLISTER, INC., et al., ORDER

Defendants. 

 /

Certain plaintiffs have indicated that they desire to file documents which

producing defendants have identified as confidential under the protective order entered on

October 1, 2007. Since that order was entered, the Ninth Circuit decided Pintos v.Pacific

Creditors Ass’n., __F.3d__, 2009 WL 1151800 (9th Cir. April 30, 2009), which required

“compelling reasons” (as opposed to good cause) for sealing, if the sealing was to be performed

in connection with a dispositive motion or trial.

Therefore, no later than May 18, 2009, the filing plaintiffs shall identify for the

producing defendants those specific “confidential” documents which they plan to file in

connection with the motions/opposition to summary judgment. Defendants shall, no later than 

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 502 Filed 05/11/09 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

May 25, 2009, file and serve the compelling reasons for requiring the “confidential” documents

to be filed under seal. 

Dated: May 11, 2009.

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

_____________________________

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:ggh:035

defazio.docs

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 502 Filed 05/11/09 Page 2 of 2
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE02998

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION




PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. 1350)




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned
officer of Document Capture Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer’s knowledge and
belief, that:




(1) The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Form
10-K”) of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materials
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Date:
      March 31, 2010/s/DavidP.
      ClarkDavid
      P. ClarkChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Document Capture Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Document
Capture Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 49196.

#### Protests 54046-K, etc., of Lord & Taylor et al. (New York.)

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *Bullocks, Inc.*v *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 110, C. D. 441) the merchandise in question was held not subject to countervailing duty.
No. 66831.

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., of L.A. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 274611-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of horsemeat, fresh, chilled, or frozen, similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 66357, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit
      32.1










CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the quarterly report of General Steel Holdings, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with
      the Commission on November 14, 2006 (the “Report”), I, Zuo Sheng Yu, Chief
      Executive Officer and President 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; and




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










Date:
                November 14, 2006/s/
                Zuo Sheng Yu_________________________________By:
                Zuo Sheng YuTitle:
                Chief Executive Officer and
                President
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

KENNETH DEAN DAWSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1458 MCE JFM P

vs.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On May 19, 2005, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address, and on July 5,

2005, and July 7, 2005, plaintiff filed letters in this action. This civil rights action was closed on

March 15, 2005. Plaintiff is advised that documents filed by plaintiff since the closing date will

be disregarded and no orders will issue in response to future filings. 

DATED: July 21, 2005.

12

daws1458.58

Case 2:04-cv-01458-MCE -JFM Document 24 Filed 07/22/05 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 13.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report
of Chartwell Technology Inc.(the Company) on Form 20-F for the year
ended October 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Darold H. Parken, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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; and
| | -- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

| | Signed"Darold H. Parken"
Darold H. Parken
Chief Executive Officer
April 28, 2004
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
|             | **NEXT** | **PREVIOUS**   | **ITEM LIST** | **TABLE OF CONTENTS** |
|-------------|----------|----------------|---------------|-----------------------|
| **FORWARD** | **BACK** | **NEW SEARCH** |

Library of Congress Country Studies

----

**Do NOT bookmark these search results.**

**Search results are stored in a TEMPORARY file for display purposes.  The temporary file will be purged from our system in a few hours.**

----

## Kyrgyzstan

### KYRGYZSTAN

a country study

Federal Research DivisionLibrary of Congress

Edited byGlenn E. Curtis

Research Completed  March 1996  

*Data as of March 1996  March 1996*

**Do NOT bookmark these search results.**

**Search results are stored in a TEMPORARY file for display purposes.  The temporary file will be purged from our system in a few hours.**
(Reap. Dec. 8249)

#### United States *v.*Glotex Importers Corp.

Entry No. 789796.

(Decided September 3, 1953)

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the plaintiff.

*Fred Bennett*for the defendant.

Ford, Judge:

The appeal listed above has been submitted for decision upon a stipulation to the effect that the market values or prices, at the time of exportation of the involved merchandise, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, were the entered unit prices, less discounts of 20 per centum and *1%*per centum, plus case and packing, as invoiced, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise was no higher.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, I find the proper export value of the nets covered by this appeal to be the entered unit prices, less discounts of 20 per centum and *l)i*per centum, plus case and packing, as invoiced. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)
      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 registrant, 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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
 c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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;
and
 d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant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
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Gordon F. DuGan

Gordon F. DuGanChief Executive Officer
sd-656562 Writer’s Direct Contact +1 (858) 720.7932 WOConnor@mofo.com 12531 HIGH BLUFF DRIVE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92130-2040
TELEPHONE: 858.720.5100 FACSIMILE: 858.720.5125

WWW.MOFO.COM MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP BEIJING , BERLIN , BRUSSELS , DENVER , HONG KONG , LONDON , LOS ANGELES , NEW YORK , NORTHERN VIRGINIA , PALO ALTO , SACRAMENTO , SAN DIEGO , SAN FRANCISCO , SHANGHAI , SINGAPORE , TOKYO , WASHINGTON , D

. C

.

February 12, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations, M-30 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor Washington, DC 20590-0001

Re: FAA Docket ID Nos. FAA-2015-0338, FAA-2015-0334, FAA-2015-0337; Petitions of Pro Drones Canada Inc. for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

Dear Sir or Madam: On February 9, 2015, Pro Drones Canada Inc. (Pro Drones) filed three separate petitions for exemption to operate unmanned aircraft systems under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The Petitions concerned the MD4-200, MD4-1000, and DT-18, and were assigned the fo llowing FAA Docket ID Numbers:

UAS FAA Docket ID MD4-200 FAA-2015-0338 MD4-1000 FAA-2015-0334 DT-18 FAA-2015-0337

Please update the contact information for Pro Dr ones related to these petitions as follows:
Vivien Hériard Dubreuil Pro Drones President www.avyon.com Tel 718-530-3558 vivien@avyon.com C/O William V. O’Conno r William D. Janicki Joanna L. Simon Morrison & Foerster LLP 12531 High Bluff Drive San Diego, CA 92130 Tel (858) 720-5100 WOConnor@mofo.com WJanicki@mofo.com JoannaSimon@mofo.comU.S. Department of Transportation February 12, 2015 Page Two

sd-656562 We look forward to hearing from the FAA regarding Pro Drones’ exemption requests. Sincerely,

William V. O’Connor William D. Janicki Joanna L. Simon Morrison & Foerster LLP 12531 High Bluff Drive, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92130-2040 Telephone: (858) 720-5100 Facsimile: (858) 720-5125 woconnor@mofo.com wjanicki@mofo.com joannasimon@mofo.com
No. 51431.

#### Protests 124497-K, etc., of Equitable Trading Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Etcwald, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 32.1

The following certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Magellan Midstream Holdings, L.P. (the
Partnership) for the quarter ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Don R. Wellendorf, Chief Executive Officer of Magellan Midstream Holdings GP,
LLC, the General Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 results of operations of the Partnership.



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ Don R. Wellendorf                     
|Don R. Wellendorf, Chief Executive Officer
|Date: May 7, 2007                         

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership
and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Part II, Section A, Item 1(d) Operation Process Description **– Processing**  **#1 Tank Charges**

 **#2 Sampling & Testing**
 **#3 Drum or Tote Fill** 

### #4 **Cleanup**
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4564 

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

50 East Derry Road in East Derry, New Hampshire, as the ‘‘Chief 

Edward B. Garone Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 18, 2024 

Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself and Ms. HASSAN) 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 50 East Derry Road in East Derry, New 

Hampshire, as the ‘‘Chief Edward B. Garone 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. CHIEF EDWARD B. GARONE POST OFFICE. 

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

5 Postal Service located at 50 East Derry Road in East 

6 Derry, New Hampshire, shall be known and designated 

7 as the ‘‘Chief Edward B. Garone Post Office’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4564 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 ‘‘Chief Edward B. 

5 Garone Post Office’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548 

B-289880 

April 5, 2002 

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy 

Chairman, Committee on Health, 

 Education, Labor, and Pensions 

United States Senate 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

This is in response to your letter of March 26, 2002, regarding the effective date under 

the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) of a major rule promulgated by 

the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 

Services. 

On January 18, 2002, HHS published in the Federal Register a final rule entitled 

“Medicaid Program; Modification of the Medicaid Upper Payment Limit for Non-State 

Government-Owned or Operated Hospitals.” As published, the final rule had an 

announced effective date of March 19, 2002. 

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) requires that an agency promulgating a major 

rule must delay the effective date for 60 days from the date of publication in the 

Federal Register or receipt of the rule by Congress, whichever is later. 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(3)(A). 

The House of Representatives did not receive the Medicaid rule submission until 

February 14, 2002. Therefore, the final rule did not have the required 60-day delay in 

its effective date to permit review of the rule by Congress under the CRA. On 

March 19, 2002, HHS published a notice in the Federal Register delaying the effective 

date of the Medicaid rule until April 15, 2002, in an attempt to comply with the CRA. 

In your letter, you note that the Senate did not receive the Medicaid rule until 

March 15, 2002. Therefore, you request confirmation of your view that because of the 

March 15, 2002, receipt by the Senate, the Medicaid rule cannot become effective 

until May 14, 2002, 60 days following the Senate’s receipt. 

While section 801(a)(3)(A) uses the phrase “receipt of the rule by Congress” in 

beginning the computation of the 60-day delay provision, section 801(a)(1)(A) 

requires that “Before a rule can take effect, the Federal agency promulgating such 

rule shall submit to each House of Congress and the Comptroller General a 

report ....” 
Page 2

Section 801(a)(1)(A) makes clear that compliance with the requirements of the CRA 

necessitates submission of a rule to both Houses of Congress. Therefore, in this 

instance, the start of the 60-day delay period would have been March 15, 2002, the 

date of receipt by the Senate. Accordingly, we find that the Medicaid rule should not 

be effective under the provisions of the CRA until May 14, 2002. 

Sincerely yours, 

 signed 

Anthony H. Gamboa 

General Counsel