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

PATRICK RONALD HOLLEY, No. CIV-S-04-2006 MCE/PAN P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, ET AL.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed

this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

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 June 21, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings

and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-02006-MCE -EFB Document 18 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

Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and

recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 21, 2005,

are adopted in full; and

2. Claims against the California Department of Corrections

and the California Medical Facility are dismissed without

prejudice. 

DATE: August 15, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02006-MCE -EFB Document 18 Filed 08/15/05 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection with the quarterly report of AMP Productions, Ltd. on Form 10-QSB
for  the  quarter  ended  December  31,  2005  as  filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas E. Mills, Chief
Executive  Officer,  President,  and  Chief  Financial  Officer  of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:

(1)     The  Report  fully  complies  with  the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  as  amended;  and

(2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results of operations of the Company.

Date:  January  31,  2006     By  /s/  Thomas  E.  Mills
                                  Thomas  E.  Mills
                                  President  &  Chief  Financial  Officer
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





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax Credit Fund VI, L.P., Series 12 (the “Partnership”) for the quarters ended December 31, 2006, September 30, 2006 and June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership’s general partner, hereby certify that:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that such provisions require the audit report of Local Limited Partnership financial statements to refer to the auditing standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board for the Partnership’s annual financial statements and except that the Report is a cumulative report covering each of the quarters ended December 31, September 30 and June 30, 2006 and





2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.











/s/Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.


Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.


President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.


Date: August 26, 2011
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

Timothy Jackson Seeley

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1800 DFL CMK P

vs.

Teresa A. Schwartz, et al.,

Defendants.

 / ORDER

On June 11, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion titled “Opposition to the Court’s Order

in Denieing [sic] Plaintiffs [sic] Motion for an Extension of Time.” In his motion plaintiff

sought reconsideration of the undersigned’s June 24, 2005 order denying plaintiff’s request for an

extension of time without prejudice due to failure to serve the motion on defendants. However,

in his June 11, 2005 filing, plaintiff also recognizes that although he may have mailed a separate

copy of his earlier request for an extension to defendant’s counsel, he failed to follow proper

procedure and demonstrate to the court that he had indeed served defendants with his motion. 

In his July 11, 2005 filing, plaintiff included a copy of his previous motion for an

extension of time and included a proper certificate of service. Accordingly, the undersigned

construes plaintiff’s July 11, 2005 motion as a motion renewing his request for an extension of

Case 2:04-cv-01800-DFL-CMK Document 48 Filed 07/18/05 Page 1 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

2

time to reply to defendant’s motion to dismiss. The undersigned also notes that in his July 11,

2005 motion, plaintiff informs the court that the California Medical Facility has had a new

address for the past two years and advises the court and defendants to address legal mail to him at

the new address. Should plaintiff wish to change his address of record, he must file a proper

change of address with the court. 

IT IS ORDERED that good cause appearing, plaintiff’s request for an extension to

file a response to defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from

the date this order is served to respond to defendants’ motion.

DATED: July 15, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01800-DFL-CMK Document 48 Filed 07/18/05 Page 2 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

Case 2:04-cv-01800-DFL-CMK Document 48 Filed 07/18/05 Page 3 of 3
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm—KPMG LLP**

The Board of Directors 

OpenTV Corp.: 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein the registration statements (No. 333-74026, No. 333-52180, No. 333-42892, No. 333-37196, No. 333-102944, No. 333-115373, No. 333-130560, and No. 333-145720) on Form S-8 and (No. 333-115374) on Form S-3 of OpenTVCorp. of our report dated March 30, 2006 except for note 6, as to which the date is March 11, 2008, with respect to the consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and comprehensive loss, and cash flows of OpenTV Corp.and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2005, and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of OpenTV Corp. 

/s/    KPMG LLP 

San Francisco, California 

March 11, 2008
No. 65502.

#### Sears, Roebuck and Co. *v.*United States,

protest 60/4633 (Seattle).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 49208.

#### Protests 711911-G (B), etc., of Irving Trust Co. et al. (New York).

*258Opinion by

Colb, J.

The merchandise was assessed and claimed dutiable at the same rates and under the same paragraphs as similar merchandise covered by the decision in *Quong Yuen Shing Co.*v. *United States*(31 C. C. P. A. 43, C. A. D. 247). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of said cited case the merchandise at bar was found to contain salt and was therefore excluded from par. 5 (chemical compounds). The protests were 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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

Robert Elmer Barber,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-1844 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

McGregor W. Scott, et al.,

Respondents.

-oOoSeptember 2, 2004, petitioner filed a motion to determine

whether venue for his habeas action lay in this court. December

6, 2004, petitioner submitted a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus and since petitioner did not put any case number in the

caption, the Clerk of the Court opened a new case. December 22,

2004, the court determined venue is proper in this court and gave

petitioner 30 days to submit an application for a writ of habeas

corpus in this case. February 1, 2005, this file was closed

because petitioner did not submit a habeas petition. March 30, 

Case 2:04-cv-01844-MCE -EFB Document 14 Filed 05/27/05 Page 1 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

2

2005, a different magistrate determined the December 6 habeas

petition should have been filed in this case and directed the

Clerk of the Court to make that petition part of this file.

Examination of the in forma pauperis affidavit reveals 

petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. Leave to

proceed in forma pauperis is granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

A judge “entertaining an application for a writ of habeas

corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing

the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted,

unless it appears from the application that the applicant or

person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

Petitioner may be entitled to relief.

I therefore vacate the February 1, 2005, order to close this

file, grant petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis and

direct respondent to respond to petitioner’s application within

60 days. See Rule 4, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. An answer

shall be accompanied by any and all transcripts or other

documents relevant to the determination of the issues presented

in the application. See Rule 5, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. 

Petitioner’s reply, if any, shall be filed and served within 30

days of service of an answer. If the response to petitioner’s

application is a motion, petitioner’s opposition or statement of

non-opposition shall be filed and served within 30 days of

service of the motion, and respondent’s reply, if any, shall be

filed within 15 days thereafter. The Clerk of the Court shall

serve a copy of this order together with a copy of petitioner’s

Case 2:04-cv-01844-MCE -EFB Document 14 Filed 05/27/05 Page 2 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

3

December 6, 2004, petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on Jo Graves, Senior Assistant Attorney

General for the State of California.

Dated: May 26, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01844-MCE -EFB Document 14 Filed 05/27/05 Page 3 of 3
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andre Addison, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 1001]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), rendered September 1, 1994, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, burglary in the third degree (five counts), criminal mischief in the third degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree (ten counts), petit larceny (six counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, criminal trespass in the second degree, and attempted criminal trespass in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.
(Reap. Dec. 10103)

#### Gallagher & Ascher Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 6492, etc.

(Decided November 13, 1961)

*Jolm B. Alfieri*for the plaintiff.

*William H. Orrick, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement listed in the schedule of cases, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into by the respective parties:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by counsel for the respective parties herein, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise involved in the appeals for reappraisement attached hereto in the annexed Schedule and made a part hereof, consists of polyvinyl chloride exported from Italy.

> That at the time of the exportation thereof, such or similar merchandise was not being freely offered for sale for home consumption in Italy, or for export to the United States, or for sale in the principal markets of the United States, in accordance with Sections 402(c), (d) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

> That at the time of the exportation thereof, the basis of appraisement should have been the “cost of production” as defined in Section 402(f) of the aforesaid Tariff Act.

> That said “cost of production” is represented by the invoice value of each importation covered by the appeals for reappraisement set forth in the Schedule annexed hereto, less non-dutiable charges for Inland Freight, freight and insurance.

> That the appeals for reappraisement in the Schedule annexed hereto are submitted for decision upon the foregoing stipulation.

On tbs agreed facts, I find and hold cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise *515here involved and that such value for the importations covered by the appeals herein is represented by the invoice value in each case, less nondutiable charges for inland freight, freight, and insurance.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 03-626.3 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DIPLOMATIC PROPERTIES 

 Memorandum of Understanding 

Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and KAZAKHSTAN 

Signed at Almaty October 3, 2002 

 with 

Exhibits 
 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.” 
KAZAKHSTAN 

Diplomatic Properties 

Memorandum of understanding signed at 

 Almaty October 3, 2002; 

 Entered into force June 26, 2003. 

 With exhibits. 


Note: At the present time, the Treaty Office does not have the Russian and Kazakh texts of this Memorandum of Understanding. If the Russian and Kazakh 

become available, they will be added to this publication.
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 * This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTINA PARKS, )

) 02:04-cv-1947-GEB-KJM

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE )

COMPANY, METLIFE DISABILITY, )

THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION LONG )

TERM DISABILITY PLAN, EMPLOYEE )

BENEFITS MANAGER/PLAN )

ADMINISTRATOR--PROGRESSIVE )

CORPORATION, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Plaintiff has noticed a motion for hearing on December 5,

2005, in which Plaintiff seeks leave to conduct discovery. However,

the Rule 16 scheduling order (“Scheduling Order”), filed on June 7,

2005, prescribes that “[t]he last hearing date for motions seeking

leave to conduct additional discovery [was] November 7, 2005, at 9:00

a.m.” (Scheduling Order at 2.) Since Plaintiff’s motion is untimely,

it is denied. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,

Case 2:04-cv-01947-GEB -KJM Document 14 Filed 11/16/05 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

610 n.7 (9th Cir. 1992)(stating that a district court may deny any

late-filed motion solely on the ground of untimeliness). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 16, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-01947-GEB -KJM Document 14 Filed 11/16/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 42890.

#### Protests 819899-G, etc., of Bruce Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10242-10243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4093]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-923-1310-FI; WYW151267]


Wyoming: Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and 
Gas Lease

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of proposed reinstatement of terminated oil and gas 
lease.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 
3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a 
petition for reinstatement from Windsor Wyoming LLC, Discovery 
Exploration, Inc., Krislen Energy, LC, and The Dean Sanditen Marital 
Trust for competitive oil and gas lease WYW151267 for land in Park 
County, Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by 
all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Pamela J. 
Lewis, Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at (307) 775-6176.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessees have agreed to the amended lease 
terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10 per acre or fraction 
thereof, per year and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively. The lessees have 
paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the 
Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessees 
have met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out 
in Sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 
U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to 
reinstate lease WYW151267 effective October 1, 2006, under the original 
terms and conditions of the lease and the

[[Page 10243]]

increased rental and royalty rates cited above. BLM has not issued a 
valid lease affecting the lands.

Pamela J. Lewis,
Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication.
[FR Doc. E7-4093 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN LEE VARNUM,

Petitioner,

v.

RICHARD KIRKLAND,

Respondent.

No. 2:04-cv-2659 GEB CKD P (TEMP)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. On December 16, 2008, United States Magistrate Judge Charlene 

H. Sorrentino issued findings and recommendations which recommended that petitioner’s habeas 

petition be denied. By order dated January 21, 2009, those findings and recommendations were 

adopted by the assigned district judge and judgment was entered accordingly. Subsequently, a 

certificate of appealability was issued by the district court on petitioner’s claim that his 

confession was unconstitutionally admitted into evidence at his trial. 

Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal and a request for the appointment of counsel. His 

request for counsel was granted and counsel was appointed to represent him. The United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied petitioner’s appeal by order dated April 29, 2011. 

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02659-GEB-CKD Document 43 Filed 11/25/15 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

On August 19, 2015, petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 60(b). Good cause appearing, respondent will be ordered to file a response to that motion 

within thirty days.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Respondent shall file a response to petitioner’s August 19, 2015 motion for relief from 

judgment within thirty days from the date of this order.

2. Petitioner may file a reply to respondent’s response within fourteen days from the 

filing of the response.

Dated: November 24, 2015

Varnum2659.60b

du

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02659-GEB-CKD Document 43 Filed 11/25/15 Page 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 7, 2015 

# Order

July 7, 2015

149872

- 3 (67)

150042

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 149872

v COA: 317158

Wayne CC: 13

- 001620

- AR

SEAN HARRIS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 149873

v COA: 317272

Wayne CC: 13

- 001620

- AR

WILLIAM LITTLE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 150042

v COA: 316072

Wayne CC: 13

- 001041

- FH

NEVIN HUGHES,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff

- appellee to extend the time

for filing its brief on appeal is GRANTED. The brief submitted on June 25, 2015, is

accepted for filing.
No. 60876.

#### John Runbold *v.*United States,

protest 276406-K (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

The protest was dismissed.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site.(Historical purposes)

**Title:**  Monitoring & evaluation report

 
1995,1996, 1997, 1998, 1999

 
SuDoc Number: A 13.157/6:W 72/
Item Number: 0084-L-09 (online)

CGP system Number: 00055766