alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 54697.

#### J. & H. Baer, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 151666-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

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

JOHN ANTHONY VELLA, No. CIV-S-04-2399 MCE/KJM P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, ET AL., 

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an

application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. 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 May 4, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations herein which were served on petitioner and which

contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-02399-MCE -KJM Document 9 Filed 06/02/05 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

 In his objections, petitioner asks that the court stay this matter until petitioner exhausts 1

state court remedies with respect to his claims. However, under Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509

(1982), a habeas application containing any unexhausted claims must be dismissed. When the

court dismisses a habeas application containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims, the

court can grant the petitioner leave to file an amended application containing only exhausted

claims. Then, the court can proceed on the exhausted claims, or possibly stay the exhausted

claims pending further exhaustion. However, because all of petitioner’s claims are unexhausted,

the Supreme Court, through Rose, demands that this entire action be dismissed.

2

Petitioner has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.1

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 4, 2005, are

adopted in full; and

2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is

dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.

DATED: June 2, 2005

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02399-MCE -KJM Document 9 Filed 06/02/05 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 6,344.

#### GEORGETOWN v. BEATTY

[1 Cranch, C. C. 234.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1804.

Pleading — Amendment op Wkit and Declaration.

The writ and declaration may be amended by substituting the corporate name of the plaintiff, for “The Corporation of Georgetown,” on payment of all costs; and a continuance and leave to plead de novo.

[This was an action on debt by the corporation of Georgetown against C. A. Beatty.]

Special demurrer. The plaintiffs had leave to amend the writ and declaration, by stating the plaintiffs to be (instead of “The Corporation of Georgetown”) “The Mayor, Recorder, Aldermen and Common Council of Georgetown,” that being their corporate name; and by an averment that the bond was made to them by the name of “The Corporation of Georgetown,” — on payment of all antecedent costs, and continuance, and rule to plead de novo. See the ease of Tibbs v. Parrott [Case No. 14,022], at July term, 1804.

FITZHUGH, Circuit Judge, absent
#W_Helpful_question_Link
{
	text-decoration: none;
	float:left;
	color:#000!important;
}

#W_Helpful_question_Div
{
	width:180px;
	font-size:12px
}
#W_Helpful_Star
{
	background-color:ffffcc;
	float:left
}
#W_Helpful_yesORno
{
	width:150px;
	padding:10px;
	background-color:#FAF8CC;
	border: 1px solid #D8D5D4;
	border-top: none;
	position:absolute
}
#W_Helpful_yes
{
	border: 1px solid  #ccc;
	width:50px;
	float:left;
	margin-left:20px;
	background-color:white;	
	align:center;
}
#W_Helpful_no
{
	border: 1px solid  #ccc;
	width:50px;
	float:left;
	margin-left:15px;
	background-color:white;
	align:center;
	
}
#W_Helpful_comment
{
	width:150px;
	padding:10px;
	background-color:#FAF8CC;
	border: 1px solid #D8D5D4;
	border-top: none;position:absolute;
	z-index: 2;
}
#W_Helpful_helpful-input
{
	height:110px;
	width:140px;
	padding:5px;
	border:1px solid #888;
	overflow:auto;
}
#W_Helpful_comment-submit
{
	width:70px;
	background-color:white;
	text-align:center;
}
#W_Helpful_comment-skip
{
	width:70px;
	background-color:white;
	text-align:center;
}
#W_Helpful_confirm
{
	width:150px;
	padding:10px;
	background-color:#FAF8CC;
	border: 1px solid #D8D5D4; 
	border-top: none;
	position:absolute;
	z-index: 2;
}
hr
{
	width=150px
}
#xyzYes
{
	font-size:12px;
	margin-top:-10px;
	padding-left:5px;"
}
#xyzNo
{
	font-size:12px;
	margin-top:-10px;
	padding-left:5px;"
}
p.feedback
{
	font-size:12px;
	text-align:Center
}
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT

To the Board of Directors

1stCentennial Bancorp

Redlands, California

We hereby consent to the use in the Form 10-K/A, Amendment No. 1, for 1stCentennial Bancorp of our report dated February 1, 2006 with respect to the consolidated statements of condition of 1st Centennial Bancorp and subsidiary as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of
earnings, shareholders equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005.



|                                
|--------------------------------
|/s/ Hutchinson and Bloodgood LLP
|Glendale, California            
|October 23, 2006
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan



### December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 

### 129752 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 129752 COA: 261428 Wayne CC: 01-008224 TYRONE V. ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e September 23, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

p1219 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 27, 2005

Clerk
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 The Magistrate Judge based his ruling upon the November 23, 2005 Findings and

Recommendations (“F&R”), recommending dismissal of petitioner’s claims in their entirety as

untimely. On March 9, 2006, the court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s F&R, in part, finding that

petitioner raised potentially valid arguments for equitable tolling as to his claim for juror

misconduct. However, to the extent that petitioner’s motions dismissed in the March 1, 2006

Order relate to the litigation of this claim, there are alternative and independent grounds that

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIONELL THOLMER, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2491 FCD PAN P

vs.

C. M. HARRISON, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

On March 20, 2006, petitioner filed a a document styled as objections to the

magistrate judge order filed March 1, 2006, denying several motions filed by petitioner. Good

cause appearing, this court construes petitioner’s objections as a request for reconsideration of

the magistrate judge’s March 1, 2006 order. Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 72-303(f), a magistrate

judge’s orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon review of the

entire file, the court finds that it does not appear that the magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly

erroneous or contrary to law.1

Case 2:04-cv-02491-FCD-EFB Document 48 Filed 06/07/06 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 support the Magistrate Judge’s March 1, 2006 Order.

2

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the

magistrate judge filed Mach 1, 2006, is affirmed. 

DATED:June 7, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02491-FCD-EFB Document 48 Filed 06/07/06 Page 2 of 2
- 1 - 

STIP AND ORDER TO DISMISS 

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

FRANK N. DARRAS #128904 

MICHAEL B. HORROW #162917 

SHERNOFF BIDART & DARRAS, LLP 

600 South Indian Hill Boulevard 

Claremont, CA 91711 

Telephone: (909) 621-4935 

Facsimile: (909) 625-6915 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PATRICK SCUDERO, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF 

NORTH AMERICA, 

Defendant 

Case No.: CIV.S-04-2133 DFL DAD 

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE 

ACTION WITH PREJUDICE 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BY AND BETWEEN plaintiff PATRICK SCUDERO 

and defendant LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, and their 

attorneys of record, that the parties have resolved this matter in its entirety. 

/ / / 

/ / 

Case 2:04-cv-02133-DFL-DAD Document 13 Filed 04/27/05 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

STIP AND ORDER TO DISMISS 

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

IT IS HEREBY AGREED that the complaint and any counterclaim on file herein 

shall be dismissed with prejudice, each side to bear their own attorney fees and costs. 

Dated: April 15, 2005 SHERNOFF BIDART & DARRAS, LLP 

 

FRANK N. DARRAS 

Attorneys for Plaintiff: PATRICK SCUDERO 

Dated: April ___, 2005 SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP 

 

CAROLYN A. KNOX 

Attorneys for Defendant 

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH 

AMERICA, 

O R D E R 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 4/26/2005 /s/ David F. Levi 

DAVID F. LEVI 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-02133-DFL-DAD Document 13 Filed 04/27/05 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:04-cv-02133-DFL-DAD Document 13 Filed 04/27/05 Page 3 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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LONNIE L. HODGES, )

) CIV. S-04-2535 GEB KJM

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER CONTINUING STATUS

) (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)

COUNTY OF SHASTA; CITY OF REDDING; ) CONFERENCE

LARRY F. MOTY Chief of Polica; ) 

JIM POPE, Shasta County Sheriff; )

DEPUTY PAT LANHAM; OFFICER ZUFALL; )

OFFICER FREDRICK; OFFICER BEEMAN; )

CORPORAL BULLINGTON; OFFICER )

MAGLEBY; OFFICER ZALES; OFFICER )

ZALESNY; OFFICER WILKES; OFFICER )

SCHULTZ; OFFICER MORAVEC; OFFICER )

FREDRICK; OFFICER OSTROWSKI; )

Doe Officers 1-15, inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

)

The Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) filed March 18, 2005,

continued the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference in this action

to May 9, 2005, and required the parties to file a joint status report

no later than April 25, 2005. Although no joint status report was

filed as required, on March 29, 2005, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a

Response to Order to Show Cause in which he stated “We have now . . .

effected service. The parties are in the process of preparing the

Joint Statement and request a two week postponement of the Pretrial

Conference [sic] so we may adequately comply.” (Response to OSC at

2.) Therefore, the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is

Case 2:04-cv-02535-GEB -KJM Document 7 Filed 04/27/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 The failure of one or more of the parties to

participate in the preparation of the jJoint status report does

not excuse the other parties from their obligation to timely file

a status report in accordance with this Order. In the event a

party fails to participate as ordered, the party timely

submitting the status report shall include a declaration

explaining why it was unable to obtain the cooperation of the

other party or parties. 

2

continued to June 6, 2005, at 9:00 a.m. A joint status report shall

be filed no later than May 23, 2005.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02535-GEB -KJM Document 7 Filed 04/27/05 Page 2 of 2
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to 18 United States Code § 1350 The undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2005 of Jafra Worldwide Holdings (Lux) S.àr.l. (the Company) filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in
such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. /s/ GARY ESHLEMANGary EshlemanChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer) May 16, 2005 57
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

 No. 05-3684

___________

Comcast, of Illinois X, LLC, An *

Illinois Limited Liability Company, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

TKA Electronics, Inc., *

*

Defendant, *

*

Thomas Abboud, individually, *

*

Appellant, *

*

Cathy Vigneri, individually; Kim *

Abboud, individually; Raymond *

Vigneri, individually; Terry Abboud, *

individually, *

*

Defendants. *

___________

Appeals from the United States

 No. 05-3739 District Court for the

___________ District of Nebraska

Comcast, of Illinois X, LLC, An *

Illinois Limited Liability Company, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *
1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska. 

-2-

*

TKA Electronics, Inc.; Thomas *

Abboud, individually, *

*

Defendant, *

*

Cathy Vigneri, individually, *

*

Appellant, *

*

Kim Abboud, individually, *

*

Defendant, *

*

Raymond Vigneri, individually, *

*

Appellant, *

*

Terry Abboud, individually, *

*

Defendant. *

___________

Submitted: December 29, 2006

Filed: January 8, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated cases, Thomas Abboud and Raymond and Cathy Vigneri

appeal the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment in an action brought
-3-

against them under 47 U.S.C. § 553(c). Because they have provided no basis for

reversal, see Iowa Network Servs., Inc. v. Qwest Corp., 466 F.3d 1091, 1094 (8th Cir.

2006) (summary judgment standard of review), we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

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

 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and(b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode), I, Michael J. Ricketts, Senior Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of Cano Petroleum, Inc. (the “Company”), certify that the Company’sQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010(the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| Date:      November  15, 2010 | /s/  Michael J. Ricketts                           |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                                                        |                                               |
|                                                        | Michael  J. Ricketts                               |
|                                                        | Senior  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
No. 42916.

#### Protest 7915-K of International Non-Staining Cement Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

The record disclosed that full allowance was made for the 70 bags of cement that were short shipped, but that a clerical error was made in the report of the weigher. The protest was accordingly sustained.
Required Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Boilers ID U1B and U2B

Boiler ID Pollutant Monitoring Reporting Recordkeeping U1B PM EPA Method 5/17 Stack Test,

CAM using Opacity and ESP secondary current and Voltages Report CAM excursions and excess emissions, semiannual compliance certification Keep records of all monitoring data until year 2020

SO2 Continuous Emission Monitor Report Excess emissions, semiannual compliance certification Keep records of all monitoring data until year 2020

CO Continuous Emission Monitor Report Excess emissions, semiannual compliance certification Keep records of all monitoring data until year 2020

U2B PM EPA Method 5/17 Stack Test,

Opacity and ESP secondary current and Voltages Report CAM excursions and excess emissions, semiannual compliance certification Keep records of all monitoring data until year 2020

SO2 Continuous Emission Monitor Report Excess emissions, semiannual compliance certification Keep records of all monitoring data until year 2020

CO Continuous Emission Monitor Report Excess emissions, semiannual compliance certification Keep records of all monitoring data until year 2020 SRP Coronado Generating Station
#### Ruby M. Weeks *vs.*Ernest H. Johnson State Tax Assessor

Cumberland.

Opinion, June 18, 1951.

*Robert K. Miles,*

*Adelbert L. Miles,*for petitioner.

*Alexander A. LaFleur,*

*Boyd L. Bailey,*for respondent.

Sitting: Murchie, C. J., Thaxter, Fellows, Merrill, Nulty, Williamson, JJ.

*372Thaxter, J.

The issue in this case is the same as we had before us in the case just decided of *Gould*v. *Johnson, State Tax Assessor.*

In the instant case an inheritance tax of $457.98 was assessed by Ernest H. Johnson, State Tax Assessor, on certain United States Savings Bonds, series E, as assets of the estate of James N. O. Boe, late of Portland, who died September 1, 1948. All the bonds were bought by James N. O. Boe with his own money. They were issued between February 1942 and June 1945. $1,000 face amount of these bonds were issued in the joint names of James N. O. Boe or Miss Ruby M. Weeks. $5,275 face amount were issued in the names of James N. O. Boe, P.O.D. Miss Ruby Weeks.

For purposes of assessment of inheritance tax all of these bonds, whether payable to James N. O. Boe or Ruby Weeks as joint owners, or payable in beneficiary form to James N. O. Boe, P.O.D. Ruby Weeks, are the same. They are issued only in registered form; and can be transferred *inter vivos*only on complying with the federal statutes and regulations. Regulation A 315.45 and 315.46. The agreed statement alleges that the decedent shortly after the E bonds were purchased by him delivered them to Miss Ruby Weeks, stating in effect that he was giving them to her; and she accepted said bonds and retained them in her custody. Such attempted transfer of title was, however, ineffectual because of noncompliance with United States Treasury Regulations; and the status of the bonds was just the same as if no such attempted transfer had been made.

Under the doctrine of *Harvey*v. *Rackliffe,*141 Me. 169, there was here a contract between the United States and the deceased, James N. O. Boe, by which the United States agreed to pay the bonds on the death of James N. O. Boe to the petitioner, Ruby M. Weeks. The rights of Miss Weeks arise solely from contract and not from grant or gift. The question is whether these bonds were subject to an inheri*373tance tax by the State of Maine as assets of the estate of James N. O. Boe. This question has already been answered by the case of *Hallett*v. *Bailey,*143 Me. 1, 54 A. (2nd) 533, and *Gould*v. *Johnson, State Tax Assessor,*recently decided. The instant case is reported to the Law Court by the Probate Court for Cumberland County in accordance with 1944 R. S., Chap. 142, Sec. 30, and in accordance with the stipulation in such report the entry will be

*Case remanded to the Probate Court for Denial of Abatement and Dismissal of Petition.*
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

CHARLES MAURICE BELGARDE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-10490

D.C. No. 2:05-cr-50128-JAT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 21, 2015**

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Charles Maurice Belgarde appeals from the 18-month sentence imposed 

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

§ 1291, and we affirm.

Belgarde contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 28 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-10490

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

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

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

The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 

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

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

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

F.3d 443, 449-50 (9th Cir. 2001) (court may postpone adjudication of a supervised 

release violation until a defendant is released from state custody). 

In an untimely pro se reply brief, Belgarde also argues that the district court

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

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

supported by the record. 

AFFIRMED.