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

LEO ARCHER aka

RICKY THOMAS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2249 MCE KJM P

vs.

SOLANO COUNTY SUPERIOR

COURT, et al.,

 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

On October 12, 2005, the cause came on for status conference. Stephanie

Adraktas appeared for petitioner. Assistant Attorney General Brian Smiley appeared for

respondents. Based on the discussion occurring at the status conference, the court’s file, and

good cause appearing, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDERS and announced them

to the parties in open court:

1. Within sixty days, petitioner shall inform the court in writing whether

petitioner intends to file an amended application for writ of habeas corpus and a motion to stay;

and 

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02249-MCE -KJM Document 10 Filed 10/18/05 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

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to add Assistant Attorney General Brian

Smiley to the service list for this action.

DATED: October 17, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1/kf

arch2249.aho 

Case 2:04-cv-02249-MCE -KJM Document 10 Filed 10/18/05 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLYNIS ALBERTS-WOOD,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-2194-GEB-DAD-PS

vs.

JOSE FREMONDE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Defendants, proceeding pro se, removed this action from

state court by a notice of removal filed on October 15, 2004. 

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On July 21, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings

and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and

which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. 

Case 2:04-cv-02194-GEB-DAD Document 12 Filed 08/15/05 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

Defendants have filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 21,

2005, are adopted in full; 

2. This state civil action is summarily remanded to

the Sacramento County Superior Court; and

3. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

Dated: August 12, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02194-GEB-DAD Document 12 Filed 08/15/05 Page 2 of 2
CERTIFICATION OF				PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER OF				HYBRID DYNAMICS CORPORATION				PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

I, Darren Jensen, Principal Accounting Officer of Hybrid Dynamics Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Report") by the Company fully complies with the requirements of that section.				I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial operations and results of operations of the Company.

| Date:  August 13, 2007                                                                                                                               |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                 |
| By:  /s/ DARREN JENSEN                      |
| Darren Jensen                                                                                                                                             |
| Principal Accounting Officer                                                                                                                              |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 469 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 469

  To require disclosure of the total amount of interest that would be 
    paid over the life of a loan for certain Federal student loans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 16, 2023

  Ms. Ernst (for herself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Hassan, Mr. 
 Manchin, and Mr. Kaine) introduced the following bill; which was read 
 twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
                                Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require disclosure of the total amount of interest that would be 
    paid over the life of a loan for certain Federal student loans.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Student Transparency for 
Understanding Decisions in Education Net Terms Act'' or the ``STUDENT 
Act''.

SEC. 2. INTEREST DISCLOSURE.

    Section 433(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1083(a)) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraphs (18) and (19) as paragraphs 
        (19) and (20), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (17) the following:
            ``(18) the total amount of interest that would be paid over 
        the life of the loan based on a standard 10-year repayment 
        plan;''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.1


 


 


Summary of Employment Arrangement with Erik Wilde, Executive Vice President – NAM Industrial


 


	 	
			1.

				
			Term – Employment at will, beginning July 27, 2016

			



 


	 	
			2.

				
			Compensation - $340,000 annually. Salary is eligible for review in 2017 in accordance with Generac’s normal policies.

			



 


	 	
			3.

				
			Executive Management Incentive Program (EMIP). Employee is eligible to participate in the EMIP with target bonus of 50% of salary opportunity to earn up to 125% of base salary annually. Guaranteed minimum bonus of $100,000 for 2016.

			



 


	 	
			4.

				
			Long-Term Incentive Compensation (LTIP). Employee is eligible to participate in Generac’s LTIP program.

			



 


	 	
			5.

				
			Sign On Equity Grant. Employee received an aggregate amount of $250,000 of Company common stock determined by fair market value at time of grant. All shares are subject to the Company’s Equity Incentive Plan.

			



 


	 	
			6.

				
			Benefits. Employee is eligible for the Generac benefits plan on the same terms as other employees.

			



 


	 	
			7.

				
			Vacation. Vacation will accrue in accordance with the Company's practices.

			



                       


	 	8.	
			Relocation. Moving expenses, temporary living accommodations and associated fees covered.
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

BYRON L. SCOTT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2586 LKK GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has filed his second request for the appointment of counsel. The United

States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent

indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298

(1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of

counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.

1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the

court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s second request for the

appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

Plaintiff’s request for counsel also includes a letter to the court containing

additional requests for relief such as an order directing that defendants treat plaintiff respectfully

and place plaintiff in a cell with a Hebraic Jew. Requests for relief must be made by motion

Case 2:04-cv-02586-LKK -GGH Document 24 Filed 06/17/05 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

rather than by an informal letter to the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7. In addition, unrelated requests

must be made by separate motions. In other words, motions for appointment of counsel must be

filed separately from requests for injunctive relief.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s May 25, 2005 second

request for the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: 6/17/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:bb

scot2586.31

 

Case 2:04-cv-02586-LKK -GGH Document 24 Filed 06/17/05 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Kenneth I. Edmonton,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-2578 LKK PAN P

vs. Order

State of California,

Respondent.

-oOoJune 7, 2005, respondent requested an extension of time to

file and serve a response to the petition. Good cause appearing,

respondent’s request is granted and time is extended until 30

days from the date this order is signed.

So ordered.

Dated: June 16, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02578-JKS Document 9 Filed 06/17/05 Page 1 of 1
Before the Second Division,

January 11, 1943

No. 47895.

#### Protests 472637-G, etc., of John Zimmermann Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664) the claim at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) was sustained.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-12673

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JACQUELINE SUSIE MASON, 

Defendant- Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-20547-JEM-2

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-12673 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 01/30/2024 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 23-12673

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and ROSENBAUM and GRANT, 

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to 

the appeal waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. See 

United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1350-53 (11th Cir. 1993)

(holding that a sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was 

made knowingly and voluntarily, and assessing whether a sentence 

appeal waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily depends on 

whether it was clearly conveyed to the defendant that she was giving up her right to appeal under most circumstances); United States 

v. Grinard-Henry, 399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (waiver of the 

right to appeal includes waiver of the right to appeal difficult or 

debatable legal issues or even blatant error).

USCA11 Case: 23-12673 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 01/30/2024 Page: 2 of 2
Before the Third Division,

December 15, 1955

No. 59558.

protests 171454-K and 171455-K (Los Angeles).

#### Importers Sales Agents and J. L. Westland & Son *v.*United States,

Ekwall, Judge:

These two cases have been consolidated. They involve importations of flavoring extract upon which customs duties were assessed under the provisions of paragraph 24 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and also internal revenue tax under authority of section 2800 (a) (1) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended by the Revenue Act of 1943. Plaintiffs claim that the internal revenue tax was improperly applied.

When the cases were called for hearing at the port of Los Angeles, Calif., Government counsel moved to dismiss on the ground that the duties and charges had not been paid. (Section 515, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. §1515).) The motion was denied by the court, upon the ground that said section 515 is limited to cases of merchandise entered for consumption and that the statute contains no provision requiring that duties and charges must be paid as a condition precedent to filing protests in cases of warehouse entries.

Thereafter, the cases were continued from time to time and have now been submitted by counsel for the plaintiffs upon a statement in open court that he was unable to obtain any evidence and did not expect to be able to obtain any. The cases were, therefore, dismissed for lack of prosecution. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v RONALD J. HAMILTON, Fireman Recruit, U. S. Navy, Appellant

14 USCMA 117, 33 CMR 329

No. 16,834

June 28, 1963

*Lieutenant John*C. *Watson,*USNR, was on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Commander John D. Moroney,*USN, was on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

Tried by special court-martial, the accused, upon his voluntary and provident pleas of guilty, was convicted of absence without leave, missing movement, willful disobedience of a lawful order of a petty officer, and three specifications of making bad checks for past due obligations, in violation, respectively, of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Articles 86, 87, 91, and 123a, 10 USC §§ 886, 887, 891, 923a. He was sentenced to bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of ?50.00 per month for six months, and confinement at hard labor for six months.

Scrutiny of the record discloses that no information in mitigation and extenuation was presented to the court-martial by accused’s nonlawyer counsel. Nevertheless, it appears that accused had, prior to the convening of his court-martial, made restitution in the amount of $1,699.10 for the bad cheeks which he had written and negotiated and that such fact was known to his counsel. His inexplicable silence concerning this evidence, “which would manifestly and materially affect the outcome of the case,” brings the situation here depicted within the ambit of our decision in United States v Rosenblatt, 13 USCMA 28, 32 CMR 28.

The decision of the board of review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Navy. A rehearing on the sentence may be ordered.
Before the Second Division,

November 20, 1946

No. 51421.

#### Protest 108787-K of Caradine Hat Co. (St. Louis).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was agreed that certain items consist of hats which are similar in all material respects to those involved in Abstract 49035. In accordance therewith and following the cited authority the merchandise in question was held dutiable 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2255 LKK PAN P

vs.

JOSEPH SHERMAN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Defendants have requested an extension of time to file a response to plaintiff’s

complaint. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ March 23, 2006 request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading on or before May 1, 2006. 

DATED: April 7, 2006.

12

john2255.36

Case 2:04-cv-02255-LKK -EFB Document 24 Filed 04/07/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          26,101
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,867
<ALLOWANCES>                                       768
<INVENTORY>                                     25,550
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                99,350
<PP&E>                                          98,976
<DEPRECIATION>                                  73,269
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 154,483
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           78,989
<BONDS>                                         34,840
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        26,917
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,366
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   154,483
<SALES>                                         91,533
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               106,344
<CGS>                                           64,293
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,720
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                37,265
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,059
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,674)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,178
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,852)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 24,321
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,469
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.79<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.71<F2>
<FN>
<F1>REPRESENTS EARNINGS PER SHARE - BASIC PER SFAS 128
<F2>REPRESENTS EARNINGS PER SHARE - DILUTED PER SFAS 128
</FN>


</TABLE>
Exhibit 24


POWER OF ATTORNEY


The undersigned does hereby constitute and appoint DOUGLAS A. HABIG, his or her true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, in name, place and stead, to sign the Form 10-K Annual Report of Kimball International, Inc. (and each amendment thereto, if any) pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011 , and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto the attorney-in-fact full power and authority to sign such document on behalf of the undersigned and to make such filing, as fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that the attorney-in-fact, or their substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.


Date: August 16, 2011





/s/ James C. Thyen/s/ Douglas A. HabigJames C. ThyenDouglas A. Habig/s/ Jack R. Wentworth/s/ Christine M. VujovichJack R. WentworthChristine M. Vujovich/s/ Harry W. Bowman/s/ Geoffrey L. StringerHarry W. BowmanGeoffrey L. Stringer/s/ Thomas J. TischhauserThomas J. Tischhauser
No. 59586.

protests 235895-K, etc. (New York).

#### Gimbel Bros., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp. v. United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained,
#### Kate L. Bernstein, Appellant, v M. Kazemi & Co., Inc., et al., Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 788]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered March 1, 1995, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the original complaint and for a default judgment on the supplemental complaint and granted defendants’ cross motion to dismiss, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from an order of the same court and Justice, entered June 19, 1995, which denied plaintiff’s motion for reargument, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

The IAS Court properly granted defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint since the record fails to establish the existence of an enforceable storage contract, any purported oral modification of which would be barred by the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law § 15-301 [1]; *see, Columbia Broadcasting Sys. v Roskin Distribs.,*31 AD2d 22, 25, *ajfd*28 NY2d 559). Moreover, the causes of action alleged are barred by the applicable Statutes of Limitations (CPLR 206; 214 [3]).

The second verified complaint, which sought to add seven new causes of action pertaining to events which allegedly occurred after service of the original complaint, was properly designated a supplemental complaint (CPLR 3025 [b]). Plain*245tiff’s motion for a default judgment thereon was properly denied since defendants promptly rejected the pleading in light of plaintiff’s failure to obtain prior leave of court or to obtain a court order compelling them to accept service (CPLR 3025 [b]; *see, Carp v Marcus,*105 AD2d 584). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.
No. 52041.

#### Wimelbacher & Rice *v.*United States,

protests 707315-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim at 50 percent ad valorem under paragraph 915, plus any additional duty applicable under paragraph 924, was therefore sustained.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 07-1101 

________________________________________________________________________ 

SOCIAL SECURITY 

 Supplementary Agreement 

Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and SWEDEN 

Signed at Stockholm June 22, 2004 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
SWEDEN 

Social Security 

 Supplementary agreement signed at 

 Stockholm June 22, 2004; 

 Entered into force November 1, 2007. 







NOTE: It is noted that subsections (b) and (c) of Article I and all of Article II have been duplicated on this page.