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

CARL DAVID WHITE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2276 GEB GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s second amended complaint filed

February 23, 2006. For the following reasons, the second amended complaint is dismissed.

On November 2, 2005, the court issued an order and findings and

recommendations addressing the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of defendants Rhodes, Jett,

Prosper, Schroers, Shannon and Ceaglio. The court recommended that the claims against

defendants Prosper and Shannon be dismissed. The court dismissed with leave to amend

plaintiff’s claims against the remaining defendants that imposition of the R suffix caused plaintiff

to suffer from increased risk of safety. The court found that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate

that his increased risk of safety was caused by the R suffix. The court also dismissed plaintiff’s

Case 2:04-cv-02276-GEB-GGH Document 85 Filed 03/23/06 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

2

claims against defendants Ceaglio and Schroers because plaintiff had failed to link these

defendants to the alleged deprivations. The court granted plaintiff thirty days to file an amended

complaint.

Thirty days passed and plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. Accordingly,

on January 19, 2006, the court recommended that the remaining claims against defendants

Rhodes, Jett, Schroers and Ceaglio be dismissed. Plaintiff was granted twenty days to file

objections but failed to do so.

On February 23, 2006, plaintiff filed the pending second amended complaint. The

second amended complaint is dismissed for two reasons. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). First, the second

amended complaint is dismissed because it is untimely. Second, the second amended complaint

is dismissed because it does not cure the pleading defects discussed in the November 2, 2005,

order. The second amended complaint does not link plaintiff’s increased risk of safety to the R

suffix. The second amended complaint also fails to link defendants Ceaglio and Schroers to the

alleged deprivations. 

On March 2, 2006, plaintiff filed a summary judgment motion. This motion is

premature because the court has recommended dismissal of the claims against defendants

Rhodes, Jett, Schroers and Ceaglio. This motion is also premature because a motion to dismiss

on behalf of the remaining defendants is pending.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint filed February 23, 2006, is dismissed;

2. Plaintiff’s March 2, 2006, summary judgment motion is vacated.

DATED: 3/22/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

wh2276.den

Case 2:04-cv-02276-GEB-GGH Document 85 Filed 03/23/06 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 10446)

#### Bruno NY, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 507590.

(Decided February 13, 1963)

*Sharretts, Paley & darter*for tbe plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

Counsel for the respective parties have submitted this appeal for reappraisement for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for tbe parties hereto that tbe merchandise which is the subject of the appeal for reappraisement listed above consists of phonograph records exported from Mexico on or about February 17, 1961.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that phonograph records are not on the list of articles published in T.D. 54521 and are subject to appraisement under the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (Public Law 927 — 84th Congress 2nd Session).

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the prices, at the time of exportation to the United States of the merchandise undei-going reappraisement, at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold oi", in the absence of sales, offered for sale 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, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States, were the prices shown on Schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof for each of the items enumerated therein with or without qualifying words and with or without additional symbols.

*402On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the phonograph records in question is statutory export value and hold that such value therefor is the prices shown in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, for each of the items enumerated therein with or without qualifying words and with or without additional symbols.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 53024.

#### W. Fein *&*Sons *v.*United States,

protest 134289-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

At the trial certain reports, signed by the examiner and attached to each of the invoices, were received in evidence stating that all of the items covered by the invoices in entries 301303 and 348560, and the items marked “X” on the invoices covered by entry 762244, consisted of rabbit fur and hair, not on the skin, and not blown or otherwise processed after removal from the skin. On the record presented the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 as to all of the merchandise covered by entries 301303 and 348560, and as to the items marked “X” on the invoice covered by entry 762244, was sustained. The protest was overruled in all other respects.
# EUR-Lex - 52007BP0136(01) - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007BP0136(01)

**1. European Parliament decision of 24 April 2007 on the discharge for the implementation of the budget of the European Agency for Reconstruction for the financial year 2005 (C6-0388/2006 - 2006/2155(DEC)) **

*
Official Journal 074 E , 20/03/2008 P. 0342 - 0343 *

1.

European Parliament decision of 24 April 2007 on the discharge for the implementation of the budget of the European Agency for Reconstruction for the financial year 2005 (C6-0388/2006 — 2006/2155(DEC))

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Agency for Reconstruction for the financial year 2005 [1],

- having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the final annual accounts of the European Agency for Reconstruction for the financial year 2005, together with the Agency's replies [2],

- having regard to the Council's recommendation of 27 February 2007 (5711/2007 — C6-0080/2007),

- having regard to the EC Treaty, and in particular Article 276 thereof,

- having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities [3], and in particular Article 185 thereof,

- having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2667/2000 of 5 December 2000 on the European Agency for Reconstruction [4], and in particular Article 8 thereof,

- having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 [5], and in particular Article 94 thereof,

- having regard to Rule 71 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the Report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A6-0116/2007),

1. Grants the director of the European Agency for Reconstruction discharge for the implementation of the Agency's budget for the financial year 2005;

2. Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

3. Instructs its President to forward this decision and the resolution that forms an integral part of it to the director of the European Agency for Reconstruction, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

[1] OJ C 266, 31.10.2006, p. 7.

[2] OJ C 312, 19.12.2006, p. 18.

[3] OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1995/2006 (OJ L 390, 30.12.2006, p. 1).

[4] OJ L 306, 7.12.2000, p. 7. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1756/2006 (OJ L 332, 30.11.2006, p. 18).

[5] OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.

--------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT 23.01

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8
(Nos. 333-60430, 333-38696 and 333-151882) and in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-87858,
333-111306 and 333-143198) of Allos Therapeutics, Inc. of our report dated March 3, 2009 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Denver, Colorado
March 3, 2009

---



QuickLinks
**EXHIBIT 23.1**
**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8(333-34746, 333-38020, 333-84958 and 333-121331 ) of our reportsdated March 29, 2005, with respectto consolidated financial statements and schedule of Grant Prideco, Inc., Grant Prideco, Inc.management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Grant Prideco, Inc., included in thisAnnual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004.
     /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Houston, Texas
```

[House Report 113-31]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

113th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     113-31

======================================================================

 
  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL (H.R. 678) TO AUTHORIZE ALL 
  BUREAU OF RECLAMATION CONDUIT FACILITIES FOR HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT 
         UNDER FEDERAL RECLAMATION LAW, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

   April 9, 2013.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

           Mr. Bishop of Utah, from the Committee on Rules, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 140]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 140, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 678, the 
Bureau of Reclamation and Small Conduit Hydropower Development 
and Rural Jobs Act, under a modified open rule. The resolution 
provides one hour of general debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Natural Resources. The resolution waives all 
points of order against consideration of the bill. The 
resolution provides that the bill shall be considered as read. 
The resolution waives all points of order against provisions in 
the bill. The resolution makes in order only those amendments 
that are submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 
dated at least one day before the day of consideration of the 
amendment and pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. 
Each amendment submitted for printing may be offered only by 
the Member who submitted it for printing or the Member's 
designee and shall be considered as read if printed. The 
resolution provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.

                         EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

    Although the resolution waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill, the Committee is not aware of any 
points of order. The waiver is prophylactic in nature.
    Although the resolution waives all points of order against 
provisions in the bill, the Committee is not aware of any 
points of order. The waiver prophylactic in nature.

                                  

```
#### James P. Morrissey, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[634 NYS2d 185]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), entered April 7, 1993, as amended January 3, 1994, as, after a jury trial on the issue of liability finding the defendant Willets Point Contracting Corp. not at fault in the happening of the accident, and upon granting the motion of the defendant City of New York for judgment as a matter of law, is in favor of the defendants City of New York and Willets Point Contracting Corp. and against him dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against those defendants.

Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiff’s challenge to the trial court’s charge to the jury that admissions made by the defendant Peter C. Bonanno regarding the cause of the accident could not be considered when assessing the liability of any of the codefendants is unpreserved for appellate review as he never objected to the charge *(see, Harris v Armstrong,*64 NY2d 700; *Up-Front Indus, v U.S. Indus.,*63 NY2d 1004; *Waddle v Snyder Co.,*149 AD2d 696). In any event, the contention that the trial court’s charge was improper is without merit. The pretrial statements made by Bonanno to the plaintiff concerning the cause of the accident constituted admissions that could be used as evidence against Bonanno at trial *(see,*Richardson, Evidence § 209 [Prince 10th ed]). However, these statements were not admissible against the codefendants Willets Point Contracting Corp. and the City of New York merely because they happened to be joined in the action *(see,*Richardson, Evidence § 232 [Prince 10th ed]; *Stevens v Parker,*99 AD2d 649; *Ellis v Allstate Ins. Co.,*97 AD2d 970; *Jamison v Walker,*48 AD2d 320).

Finally, the trial court did not err or improvidently exercise its discretion in excluding the resident engineer’s report and the accident reconstructionist’s diagram from evidence. The resident engineer’s report constituted inadmissible hearsay, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the accident reconstructionist’s diagram fairly and accurately depicted the scene at the time the accident occurred *(see, Schuster v Town of Hempstead,*130 AD2d 481; *Mooney v Turner,*35 AD2d 674). O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

) No. 72418-5-1 f-3 kJ") c~

Respondent,

v.

DIVISION ONE

CXI 1:>, ~v

SHAWN L. SCHULZE, UNPUBLISHED OPINION

S! 'X-'--'

Appellant. i FILED: JUN 1 5 2015 CO ::•—:

Per Curiam — Shawn Schulze appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty

pleas to 21 counts of first degree identity theft, two counts of attempted first degree

identity theft, and two counts of second degree identity theft. He contends, and the

State concedes, that his sentence on the attempted first degree identity theft convictions

exceeds the statutory maximum sentence and must be reduced to 60 months without

community custody. RCW 9A.28.020(3)(c); RCW 9.94A.411(2); In re Postsentence

Review of Leach, 161 Wn.2d 180, 163 P.3d 782 (2007). Schulze also contends, and

the State again concedes, that his totalsentence on the Second Degree Identity Theft

counts exceeds the statutory maximum and must be remanded for imposition of a

sentence within the statutory maximum and consistent with State v. Boyd, 174 Wn.2d

470, 275 P.3d 321 (2012. We accept the concessions of error and remand for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FOR THE COURT: £pxJ.
No. 44048.

#### Protest 999391-G of L. Oppleman, Inc. (New York).

*269Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was agreed that the merchandise consists of opera or field glasses and that they were not withdrawn from bonded warehouse until after the effective date of the French Trade Agreement. The claim at 35 percent under paragraph 228 (b) and T. D. 48316 was therefore sustained.
Exhibit 10.28


 



CHARLES & COLVARD, LTD.


BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMPENSATION PROGRAM


With Effect as of January 1, 2015







	
Designated non-management members of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Charles & Colvard, Ltd. (the “Company”) shall be compensated as follows:


	 
	
Annual Retainer:

	
$30,000 paid in four quarterly installments in arrears, pro-rated as applicable.


	 	 
	
Additional Annual Retainers:

	
Executive Chairperson of the Board - $100,000 paid in four quarterly installments in arrears, pro-rated as applicable.


	 	 
	 	
Chairperson of the Audit Committee - $15,000 paid in four quarterly installments in arrears, pro-rated as applicable.


	 	 
	 	
Chairperson of Compensation Committee and Nominating and Governance Committee - $7,500 paid in four quarterly installments in arrears, pro-rated as applicable.


	 	 
	 	
Board Committee Members (excluding Committee Chairperson and Executive Chairperson of the Board) - $5,000 paid in four quarterly installments in arrears, pro-rated as applicable.


 


Members of the Board may only receive retainers for serving as a member of two board committees.


	 	 
	
Equity Compensation:

	
Stock option grant upon appointment as a member of the Board by the Board to fill a vacancy in the Board, with a grant date value to be determined by the Board as appropriate considering the time remaining before re-election at the next annual shareholders meeting.


 


Stock option grant upon annual re-election as a director at the annual shareholders’ meeting with a grant date value of $50,000 for Directors and $55,000 for the Executive Chairperson (calculated using the Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing model).


 


Vesting of the stock option awards shall be contingent upon service on the Board of Directors until the next annual shareholders’ meeting following the grant.


	 	
	
Attendance Participation Fee:

	
None.





 


Adopted February 5, 2015 and effective as of January 1, 2015
(A. R. D. 8)

#### M. V. Jenkins *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 339-K, 1170-K, and 645-K.

Second Division, Appellate Term

*553(Decided November 19, 1952)

*Lawrence, Tuttle & Harper (George R. Tuttle*of counsel) for the appellant.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General *(Richard E. FitzGibbon*and *Daniel I. Auster,*special attorneys), for the appellee.

Before Ford and Oliver, Judges

Foed, Judge:

The merchandise covered by this application for review consists of firebrick and similar merchandise imported from Ganada. The merchandise and the issues involved in this application and the merchandise and issues involved in *Jenkins et al.*v. *United States,*34 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 33, C. A. D. 341, and in *United States*v. *Jenkins et al.,*39 C. C. P. A. 158 (Customs), C. A. D. 479, are similar.

In view of the fact that this appeal was tried prior to the decision in the two similar appeals set out above, and in order that certain deficiencies in the present record may be supplied so that the court may be able to make its decision herein coincide with the decisions in the two appeals listed above, counsel for appellant have moved this court to remand this appeal to the trial court with directions to it to grant a new trial.

It appears from the moving papers before us, in the light of the record herein, considered in connection with the record and decision in the two appeals set out above, that the grounds of said motion are well taken. The motion has therefore been granted, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court with instructions to grant a rehearing to the end that the parties to this litigation may be permitted to introduce additional evidence. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v FRANCIS E. VILLARD, Sergeant, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

20 USCMA 131, 42 CMR 323

No. 23,353

November 6, 1970

*Colonel Bertram Jacobson*and *Major Clarence E. Powell*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel James M. Bumgarner*and *Lieutenant Colonel Henry R. Lock-ington*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

The decision of the United States Air Force Court of Military Review is affirmed. United States v Palos, 20 USCMA 104, 42 CMR 296, decided this date.

Judge Darden concurs.

Ferguson, Judge

(dissenting) :

I dissent for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Palos, 20 USCMA 104, 42 CMR 296 (1970).
Exhibit 4.22


 


Execution Copy


 


[Note: Translation from the original written
in Chinese]


 


Power of Attorney


 


I, Ding Haochuan, a
citizen of the People’s Republic of China (“China”), hold a 12.5% equity interest in Beijing eLong Information
Co., Ltd. (the “Company”). I hereby irrevocably agree to authorize eLong, Inc., or any entity or person designated
in writing by eLong, Inc. (including such party’s successor), (the “Authorized Party”) to hold and exercise the
following rights related to this equity interest during the period of validity of this Power of Attorney:


 


Authorize the Authorized
Party to have full rights and authority to represent me, in my name as holder of 12.5% equity interest, according to law and the
company’s articles of incorporation, to exercise any and all shareholder rights, including but not limited to: the right
to convene shareholders’ meetings, receive any notices or procedures regarding shareholders’ meetings, to attend shareholders’
meetings and exercise full voting power as the holder of 12.5% equity interest (including, as my authorized representative, designating
or appointing the Company’s Directors, General Manager, Finance Controller and other senior management, determining dividends,
and other matters), to sell or transfer my 12.5% equity interest in the Company, etc.


 


The Authorized Party
has the right to designate its Directors (or Executive Director) to appoint a person to exercise the rights granted by this Power
of Attorney.


 


This Power of Attorney
shall become binding, effective and enforceable upon my signature. The Power of Attorney shall have a term of 20 years, which may
be automatically extended for successive additional 20 year terms without limit, as long as I remain a holder of any equity interest
in the Company.


 


[remainder of page intentionally left blank]


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


[Power of Attorney signature page]


 


	Authorizing Party: Ding
    Haochuan	 
	Signature:	/s/
    Ding Haochuan	 
	Date:  November
    10, 2014	 


 


	Authorized Party:	 
	eLong, Inc.	 
	Signature of authorized representative:	/s/Sami Farhad	 
	Date: November 10, 2014