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

JEROME M. VARANINI, ESQ. (State Bar No. 58531)

TRIMBLE, SHERINIAN & VARANINI

2500 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 350 (95833)

P.O. BOX 590

SACRAMENTO, CA 95812-0590

TELEPHONE: (916) 444-8271

Attorney for Defendants Deborah Petteway, P.A.,

Karina Purcell, R.N. and David L. Shepard, M.D. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Jeffrey Marshall,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Solano County Sheriff’s,

Department, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________/

CASE NO. S-04-1657 DFL PAN P

[PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Court having received and accepted the stipulation by Plaintiff

and Defendants to this case requesting a dismissal of this matter with

prejudice as to said Defendants hereby orders this case dismissed with

prejudice as to Defendants Deborah Petteway, P.A., Karina Purcell, R.N.,

and David L. Shepard, M.D. and that said dismissal shall take effect

immediately.

Dated: February 24, 2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01657-AK Document 91 Filed 02/27/06 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Stephan Wiggins, a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 953]

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Bruce Kaplan, J.), entered November 18, 1994, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements.

Application by appellant’s assigned counsel to withdraw is granted *(see, Matter of Wise Servs.,*131 AD2d 306). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6177

DAVID MEYERS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. J. D. BENTLEY; SGT. J. B. HALL; J. FANNIN; M. L. COUNTS; WALTER SWINEY; C. R. STANLEY; F. STANLEY; A. CLEVINGER; OFFICER STANLEY; JR. OFFICER WELLS; SGT. WILLIAMS; C. STALLARD; GERALDINE BAKER BAKER; OFFICER GWEN; MAJOR TATE; CAPTAIN D. STILL; CAPTAIN BLEVINS; OFFICER MCCOWAN; J. B. MESSER; S. ESCOFFERY; T. DORTON; FL. OFFICER LEWIS; SGT. MEADE; MARCUS ELAM; A. DAVID ROBINSON; PAUL HAYMES; HENRY PONTON; S. BRYAN; CURTIS PARR; P. SYKES; J. GIBSON; J. ARTRIP; DR. EDWARD BONKYE; KAREN STAPLETON; J. BLEDSOE; DR. FOX; C. DICKENSON; OFFICER CATERON; OFFICER BENTLEY , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United Sta tes District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. James P. Jones , District Judge. ( 7:18

- cv
- 00051

- JPJ

- PMS )

Submitted : June 13, 2019 Decided: June 25, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 David Meyers, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: David Meyers, a Virginia inmate, has filed a notice of appeal. While we grant Meyers’ motion for leave to proc eed without prepayment of fees under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because is it uncontested that Meyers has had three civil actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, he must show that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury i n order to proceed in a civil action or appeal without prepayment of the filing fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2012). We have considered Meyers’ allegations and conc lude that he has sufficiently shown that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury and he may proceed under the PLRA without prepayment of fees. “The effect of a notice of appeal is determined at the time it is filed.” Trinidad Corp. v. Maru , 7 81 F. 2 d 1360, 1362 (9th Cir. 1986). A proper notice of appeal is filed “after the entry of the judgment or order appealed from.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Here, Meyers seeks to appeal an order denying his motion to seal. When Meyers filed
the notice of appeal, there was no order denying a motion to seal, nor was there a pending motion to seal. There being no appealable order when the appeal was filed , we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed without prep ayment of fees under the PLRA, but dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We also deny Meyers’ motion for injunctive relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions4 are adequately presented in the materials before thi s court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
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

MATTHEW B. CRAMER, et al.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2441 MCE GGH P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed March 22, 2005, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days

leave to file an amended complaint was granted. The thirty day period has now expired, and

plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02441-MCE -GGH Document 12 Filed 06/10/05 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

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 6/9/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cram2441.fta

Case 2:04-cv-02441-MCE -GGH Document 12 Filed 06/10/05 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 10196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3998]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-310-000]


Mojave Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

March 1, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 26, 2007, Mojave Pipeline Company 
(Mojave) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1, Seventeenth Revised Sheet No. 11, to become 
effective March 1, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b7f1f2e5f4f8d9dbded9d2e4c2c7c7d8c5c3f7d1d2c5d499d0d8c1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d0969582939fbebcb9beb583a5a0a0bfa2a490b6b5a2b3feb7bfa6">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-3998 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 31.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer



(Section 302 Certification)



I, Beth Sanders, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of 1st Centennial Bancorp;



2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(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) 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



(c) 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



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(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.



Date: March 24, 2004



|                                                
|------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Beth Sanders                                
|                                                
|Executive Vice-President/Chief Financial Officer
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-10,319-16

EX PARTE HERSHELL FRANKS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 278414-I IN THE 177TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated

robbery and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

In his present application, Applicant raises three grounds. This application, however,

presents a more serious question. This Court’s records reflect that Applicant has filed eight prior

applications pertaining to this conviction. It is obvious from the record that Applicant continues to

raise issues that have been presented and rejected in previous applications or that should have been
2

presented in previous applications. The writ of habeas corpus is not to be lightly or easily abused. 

Sanders v. U.S., 373 U.S. 1 (1963); Ex parte Carr, 511 S.W.2d 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). 

Because of his repetitive claims, we hold that Applicant’s claims are barred from review under

Article 11.07, § 4, and are waived and abandoned by his abuse of the writ. This application is

dismissed.

Therefore, we instruct the Honorable Abel Acosta, Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals,

not to accept or file the instant application for a writ of habeas corpus, or any future application

pertaining to this conviction unless Applicant is able to show in such an application that any claims

presented have not been raised previously and that they could not have been presented in a previous

application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Bilton, 602 S.W.2d 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).

Copies of this order shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Filed: July 29, 2015

Do not publish
Before the Third Division,

November 26, 1947

No. 52056.

#### Western Fruit Distributers *v.*United States,

protest 121985-K (Detroit).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation that the merchandise consists of rhubarb similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(19 Cust. Ct. 12, C. D. 1060) the claim at 35 percent under paragraph 752 was sustained.
No. 46755.

Suit 4360.

#### *United States*v. *Dyson Shipping Co., Inc., et al.*

C. D. 457 affirmed. C. A. D. 184.
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

ROBERT ALLAN PETERSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2345 FCD GGH P

vs.

A. TEDFORD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On August 23, 2005, plaintiff filed a letter with the court stating that jail officials

continue to forward money to the court from his trust account even though the filing fee has been

paid. Court records indicate that as of August 26, 2005, plaintiff had paid $133 toward the $150

filing fee. Because plaintiff still owes $13 toward the filing fee, his request for an order directing

jail officials to stop withdrawing money from his trust account is denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s August 23, 2005, request

for an order directing jail officials to stop withdrawing money from his trust account is denied.

DATED: 10/4/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

pet2345.inf UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02345-FCD-GGH Document 25 Filed 10/04/05 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 10289]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4077]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Reporting Requirements Submitted for OMB Review.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to 
publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that the 
agency has made such a submission.

DATES: Submit comments on or before April 6, 2007. If you intend to 
comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB 
Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.
    Copies: Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and 
other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the 
Agency Clearance Officer.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency 
Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 
3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20416; and <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#347055425d506b665b47405f5146745b59561a515b441a535b42"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c084a1b6a9a49f92afb3b4aba5b280afada2eea5afb0eea7afb6">[email protected]</span></a>, fax number 202-395-7285 Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance 
Officer, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9df7fcfeece8f8f1f4f3f8b3eaf5f4e9f8ddeefffcb3faf2eb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ddb7bcbeaca8b8b1b4b3b8f3aab5b4a9b89daebfbcf3bab2ab">[email protected]</span></a> (202) 205-7044.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Federal Agency Comment Form.
    Form No: 1993.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Description of Respondents: Small Business Owners and Farmers.
    Annual Responses: 400.
    Annual Burden: 300.

Jacqueline White,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
[FR Doc. E7-4077 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 54073.

#### Schenley Distilleries, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 132804-K (Indianapolis).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

CERTIFICATION

I, S.Jeffrey Johnson, certify that:

1.             I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q/Aof Cano Petroleum, Inc.;

2.             Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.           The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)           designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)           evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

(c)           disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

4.           The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

(a)           allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)           anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| December 26, 2006         |
|--------------------------------|
|                           |
| /s/ S. Jeffrey  Johnson        |   |
| S. Jeffrey  Johnson            |
| Chief Executive  Officer       |
| (Principal  Executive Officer) |

 

----
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Joel Whitney,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-2683 DFL PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Scott Kernan, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner prosecuting this civil rights

action without counsel. 

April 13, 2005, the court dismissed plaintiff’s claims

against defendant Kernan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, with

leave to amend. The court informed plaintiff he could proceed

against defendants Simonson, Baker and Mesa by submitting

materials for service of process within 15 days, but the court

would construe his election so to proceed as consent to dismissal

of his claims against defendant Kernan without leave to amend. 

Case 2:04-cv-02683-DFL-PAN Document 8 Filed 05/23/05 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

May 6, 2005, plaintiff submitted materials for service of

defendants Simonson, Baker and Mesa. I find plaintiff has

consented to dismissal of claims against defendant Kernan without

leave to amend. 

Accordingly, the court hereby recommends that claims against

defendant Kernan be dismissed without prejudice. 

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: May 22, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02683-DFL-PAN Document 8 Filed 05/23/05 Page 2 of 2