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

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

COURTNEY J. LINN

Assistant U.S. Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone No. (916) 554-2700

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CIV-S-04-2404 WBS JFM

)

Plaintiff, ) EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR 

) ORDER SETTING STATUS 

v. ) (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) 

) CONFERENCE AND [PROPOSED]

APPROXIMATELY $343,041.70 ) ORDER 

IN U.S. CURRENCY, etc. )

)

)

Defendants. )

______________________________)

)

BUN K. SOUNG )

SEKHARITH BE, )

)

Claimants )

 )

Plaintiff, the United States of America, through its

attorney, Courtney J. Linn, applies ex parte for an order setting

a Status (pretrial scheduling) Conference. 

This is an in rem civil forfeiture action. Bun K. Soung and

Sekharith Be are the claimants to the funds subject to

forfeiture. No other claimants have come forward and the time

for filing a claim has expired. 

Case 2:04-cv-02404-WBS -JFM Document 14 Filed 05/24/05 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 2

The United States requests that the Court set this matter

for an initial Status (pretrial scheduling) Conference. Counsel

for the government has conferred with counsel for the claimants

and each are available on June 20, 2005. 

Dated: 5/19/05 McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

/s/ Courtney J. Linn 

COURTNEY J. LINN

Assistant U.S. Attorney

ORDER

For cause shown, a Status (pretrial scheduling) Scheduling

Conference is hereby set in this matter for June 20, 2005, at

9:00 a.m. in Courtroom No 5. At least seven calendar days prior

to that date, the parties shall submit a joint status report. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 20, 2005

Case 2:04-cv-02404-WBS -JFM Document 14 Filed 05/24/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 21

                 JAMES RIVER CORPORATION of Virginia
                         SUBSIDIARIES (a)(b)
                       as of December 31, 1995

      James  River  Corporation of Virginia, a corporation  organized
under   the  laws  of  Virginia,  has  the  following  majority-owned
subsidiaries:

                                                  Organized Under
   Name                                             the Laws of

Brusara Participacoes, Ltda.                         Brazil

Cartellas S.A.                                       Greece

Celtona B.V.                                         Netherlands

Crown Zellerbach AG Zug                              Switzerland

Crown Zellerbach International, Inc.                 Delaware

Diamond Occidental Forest Inc.                       Delaware

ILC Inc.                                             Virginia

James River Canada Inc.                              Canada

James River de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.                  Mexico

James River Fiber Company                            Virginia

James River International Holdings, Ltd.             Virginia

James River-Marathon, Ltd.                           Ontario

James River New Castle, Inc.                         Delaware

James River Packaging de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.        Mexico

James River Paper Company, Inc.                      Virginia

James River-Pennington, Inc.                         Alabama

James River Timber Corporation                       Alabama


                              				E-9

Exhibit 21 (continued)

                                                  Organized Under
               Name                                 the Laws of

James River Tredegar, Inc.                           Virginia

Jamont N.V.                                          Netherlands

JAMONT Services S.N.C.                               Belgium

Jamont Ireland Ltd.                                  Ireland

Jamont Tisu S.A.                                     Spain

Jamont UK Limited                                    United Kingdom

Jarapar Participacoes, Ltda.                         Brazil

JRF Immobiliere S.A.                                 Belgium

Kaysersberg, S.A.                                    France

Meridian & Bigbee Railroad Company                   Mississippi

MidSouth Lumber Company                              Virginia

Nokian Paperi Oy                                     Finland

Riverside Transportation, Inc.                       Virginia

St. Francis Insurance Company Ltd.                   Bermuda

Servicios James River de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.        Mexico

Sodipan S.A.                                         France

Unikay S.r.L.                                        Italy


(a)  Certain  subsidiaries  which, if considered  in  the  aggregate,
     would not constitute a significant subsidiary are not listed.

(b)  Unconsolidated  affiliates for which the Company owns,  directly
     or  indirectly, 50% or less of the outstanding voting stock  and
     which are not controlled by the Company have been excluded  from
     this listing.
November 1, 1956

Reap. Dec. 8699.

#### Bunge *Corporation*v. *United States.*

Entered at New York, N. Y. [Not published.] Motion by plaintiff.
Case No. 7,898.

#### KNOWLES v. PARROTT.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 93.] 1

Circuit Court. District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1813.

Witness — Competency of Maker in Suit bt In-dorsee against Indorser — Interested Witness.

In an action by the indorsee against the in-dorser of a promissory note, the maker is a com*792petent witness to prove the contract to be usurious, unless he is interested.

[See Bank of Columbia v. French, Case No. 867.]

Assumpsit, against the indorser of Vincent King’s note. The defendant pleaded usury between the maker and the payee; and offered the maker of the note as a witness to prove the usury.

F. S. Key, for plaintiff,

objected. Although the books differ upon the question of competency, yet the case of Walton v. Shelley, 1 Term R. 290, is supported by the best authorities, although .it was overruled by the case of Jordaine v. Laslibrooke, 7 Term R. 001. See Hart v. McIntosh, 1 Esp. 298, and Rich v. Topping, Id. 176. All the American cases coincide with Walton v. Shelley, except one case in the court of appeals in Maryland. Stille v. Lynch, 2 Dali. [2 U. S.] 194; Allen v. Holkins, 1 Day, 17; Baker v. Arnold, 1 Caines, 258, 267; Baring v. Reeder, 1 Hen. & M. 175; Coleman, v. Wise, 2 Johns. 165; Warren v. Merry, 3 Mass. 27; Webb v. Dan-forth, 1 Day, 301. Upon principle, Walton v. Shelley is right. It would destroy the negotiability of paper, if parties were permitted to invalidate their own notes.

Mr. Jones, contra.

The general rule of evidence is, that every person is a good witness, who is not disqualified by infancy, defect of understanding, or interest. The only exception in the old cases, is upon the principle of estoppel by the signature of a deed, either as principal or witness. But the doctrine, so far as it respects witnesses to a deed, has been long exploded. The maxim, “nemo, tur-pitudinem suam allegans, audiendus est,” applies only to parties, not to witnesses. The case of Walton v. Shelley, is sui generis, an exception to the general rule. It is a new principle set up to support negotiable paper; but that the paper is void by usury, in the hands of an innocent holder, is settled law. The only question is, how shall the fact be ascertained? The policy of the law is to detect usury, which the law considers more important than the negotiability of paper. Public policy is therefore in favor of admitting the witness. In the present case, the plaintiff is a party to the usury, and- therefore no principle of policy can operate in his favor.

1

 [Reported by Hon. WUliam Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, contra) was of opinion that the maker of the note was a competent witness, unless interested.

Mr. Key, for plaintiff, then contended that Mr. King was interested; for, if the plaintiff should recover against Parrott, and he pays the money to the plaintiff, Parrott will have a right of action against King, notwithstanding his discharge under the insolvent law, because it will be a new debt arising since his discharge; whereas if the plaintiff is defeated in the present action, Mr. King will be entirely exonerated.

THE COURT, upon that ground (nem. con.) rejected the witness.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 27, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00159

- CR

Alfred CASAREZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appell ee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19

- 0358

- CR

- C

Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez , Justice

Luz Elena D. Ch apa, Justice

Ire ne Rios, Justice

The panel has considered A ppellant’s motion for rehearing ; the m otion is DENIED

. See

T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § 54.0 51(e) , (g) (transfer to adult community supervision) ; Davis v. State

, 195 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“ There is no legislative authority for entertaining

a direct appeal from an order modifying the conditions of community supervision .”).

It is so ORDERED on June 27, 2019

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Report of Independent Registered PublicAccounting Firm on Consolidated Financial Statement Schedule**

 

The Board of DirectorsWitness Systems, Inc.:

 

Under date ofMarch 16, 2006, we reported on the consolidated balance sheets of WitnessSystems, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, andthe related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity andcomprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in thethree-year period ended December 31, 2005, as contained in the annualreport on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005. Inconnection with our audits of the aforementioned consolidated financialstatements, we also audited the related consolidated financial statementschedule as listed in the index under Item 15(a)2 in this Annual Report onForm 10-K. This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of theCompany’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on thisfinancial statement schedule based on our audits.

 

In ouropinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to thebasic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, inall material respects, the information set forth therein.

 
| /s/ KPMG LLP         |   |   |
|----------------------|--------|--------|
|                 |
| Atlanta,  Georgia    |
| March 16,  2006 |

 

----
No. 47367.

#### Protest 10267-K of M. A. Hoenecke (Minneapolis).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed on the basis of the condition in which imported, and that no addition should have been made for the planing, tonguing, and grooving. Protest sustained to this extent.
Evidence Table J3: DISCRETE outcomes for class ANTI-BACTERIAL (ORAL)/RETINOID (TOPICAL)

Trial #

Method Info

Discrete Outcome Name (Units)

Definition/Comments

Between

P-value

Follow- Treatment Comparator

up (wks)

Comparison Attribute: Number of patient Attribute: Number of patients

Vitamin A + oxytetracycline Vehicle + oxytetracycline J.01.02

Side effects Erythema alone 11 NS

Desquamation alone 3

Erythema + desquamation 52

Itching or pain 4

Erythema alone 10

Desquamation alone 6

Erythema + desquamation 7

Itching or pain 2

Vomiting or nausea 2

Diarrhea 0

Fatigue 0

57

Parallel 

N=238

È

Vomiting or nausea 0

Diarrhea 0

fatigue 0

Side effects Any side effects 66 NS

No side effects 13

Any side effects 25

No side effects 54

Comedones change Worse 2 NS

No change 2

0-49% reduction 11

50-74% reduction 20

Worse 6

No change 16

0-49% reduction 19

50-74% reduction 25

75-100%, reduction 34

Mid (8)

75-100%, reduction 65

Papules change Worse 5 NS

No change 9

0-49% reduction 13

50-74% reduction 25

Worse 8

No change 8

0--49% reduction 21

50-74% reduction 32

75-100%, reduction 31

Mid (8)

75-100%, reduction 48

Pustules change Worse 2 NS

No change 11

0-49% reduction 

50-74% reduction 13

Worse 2

No change 5

0-49% reduction 9

50-74% reduction 24

75-100%, reduction 60

Mid (8)

75-100%, reduction 74

TRIAL: -presence of positive or negative methodological features (see Summary Table). "Mild/mod," etc., -our assessment of entry severity of study patients. "P"- to parallel study, "S"-split face design. BETWEEN 

P-VALUE: comparison between Target and Comparator arms.

Evidence Table J DISCRETE: Page 1 of 1

ÈÍ
No. 46736.

#### Protest 813155-G/10639 of Reardon Co. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

At the hearing the appraiser’s and collector’s letters were admitted in evidence. These letters stating that the plain empty paper bags in question should have been advisorily classified at 35 percent under paragraph 1413, the protest was sustained.
EXHIBIT
31.1




I,
Michael Schaffer, certify that:




I have
reviewed this Annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Case Financial,
Inc;




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 report;




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;




The
registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) 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 company, 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 company'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 company's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
company's internal control over financial reporting;




The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
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.






/s/ Michael
      Schaffer
              Michael
      Schaffer
              Chief
      Executive Officer
              January
      13, 2009
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7388

In Re: TYRONE LORENZO ROBINSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:05-cv-03198-SB) Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 27, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Lorenzo Robinson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Tyrone Lorenzo Robinson petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to schedule a trial date in his action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). We conclude that Robinson is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). The relief sought by Robinson is not available by way of mandamus and, to the extent Robinson alleges undue delay by the district court, we find there has been no undue delay in the handling of Robinson’s case on remand. Accordingly, although we grant Robinson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Hon Kit Ng, President, Secretary and Treasurer of Broad Scope Enterprises, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)	the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Broad Scope Enterprises, Inc. for the three-month period ended January 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)	the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Broad Scope Enterprises, Inc.

|Dated: March 16, 2004 |  |                                                              
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  |                                                              
|                      |  |                                                              
|                      |  | /s/ Hon Kit Ng                                               
|                      |  | Hon Kit Ng                                                   
|                      |  | President, Secretary and Treasurer,                          
|                      |  | (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
|                      |  |                                                              
|                      |  |                                                              
|                      |  |                                                              
|                      |  |                                                              
|                      |  |                                                              
|                      |  |                                                              



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Broad Scope Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Broad Scope Enterprises, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 8.1

                             LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                           Subsidiary Name(1)                                 Jurisdiction of Incorporation

<S>                                                                        <C>
Apex Victory Limited                                                       British Virgin Islands

The Cable Leasing Partnership                                              Hong Kong

Cable Network Communications Limited                                       Hong Kong

Hong Kong Cable Enterprises Limited (formerly Global Media In Force        Hong Kong
         Limited)

Hong Kong Cable Television Limited                                         Hong Kong

i-CABLE China Limited                                                      British Virgin Islands

i-CABLE Cineplex Limited                                                   Hong Kong

i-CABLE Network Limited                                                    Hong Kong

i-CABLE Satellite Television Limited                                       Hong Kong

i-CABLE Ventures Limited                                                   British Virgin Islands

i-CABLE WebServe Limited                                                   Hong Kong

Kreuger Assets Limited                                                     British Virgin Islands

Maspon Company Limited                                                     Hong Kong

Moscan Assets Limited                                                      British Virgin Islands

The Network Leasing Partnership                                            Hong Kong

New Television and Firm International Limited                              Hong Kong

Rediffusion Engineering Limited                                            Hong Kong

Rediffusion (Hong Kong) Limited                                            Hong Kong

Rediffusion Satellite Services Limited                                     Hong Kong

Riddlewood Company Limited                                                 Hong Kong

Wisdom Global Holdings Limited                                             British Virgin Islands
</TABLE>

------------------
1. All subsidiaries do business under their legal name.