alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 

 

GAYDA AIRTH, CIV-S-04-2536-DFL/GGH

PATRICIA M. KEANE, CIV-S-04-2537-DFL/GGH

JACK STEVENSON, CIV-S-04-2538-DFF/GGH

ANDREW CARELTON, CIV-S-04-2539-DFL/GGH

Plaintiff(s),

vs. 

THOMPSON FINANCIAL CO., INC.,

THE THOMPSON CORPORATION a

Corporation, and does 1 -5, inclusive,

Defendant(s).

______________________________________/

 Defendant filed a discovery motion on June 8, 2005 set for hearing June 30,

2005 @ 10:00 a.m.. Notwithstanding the three days specified by E.D. Cal. L.R. 37-251 the joint

statement shall be filed in no later than five court days before the scheduled hearing.

Notwithstanding E.D. Cal. L.R. 5-133(f), if the joint statement is more than 25 pages, or the

attachments are longer than 50 pages, the copy shall be hand delivered or sent by overnight mail

to chambers on the day of filing. The filing deadline, accordingly, will be June 23, 2005.

The dispute may be organized by category, with specific discovery items attached,

if appropriate, as an exhibit. For each disputed category or individual item, include: (1) the

specific disputed discovery category or item; (2) the response; (3) the moving party’s position;

and (4) the opposition. E.D.Cal. L.R. 37-251(c)(3). Do not file separate briefing. Id.

Privilege objections must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). Except in

extraordinary circumstances, the party claiming privilege may not submit a post-hearing privilege

log. The failure properly to support a privilege objection with a privilege log may be deemed to

waive it. 

The moving party is responsible for filing the joint statement. The opposing party

nevertheless must timely draft and submit its portion. Failure of either party to use best efforts to

ensure timely filing will be cause for sanctions. 

Dated: 6/13/05 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 ___________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

U.S. Magistrate Judge

airth.ord

Case 2:04-cv-02536-DFL-GGH Document 8 Filed 06/14/05 Page 1 of 1
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲

▲ ▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/01

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL
No. 53028.

#### C. F. Hathaway & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 850994-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

By virtue of the decision in *United States*v. *American Viscose Corporation*(30 C. C. P. A. 240, C. A. D. 239), the protests were dismissed.
EXHIBIT 23.2

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  of our  report,  dated  April 8, 2000,
included in this Form 10-KSB in the previously filed  Registration  Statement of
Sitestar Corporation and subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File No. 333-50946, effective
November 30, 2000).



/s/  MERDINGER, FRUCHTER, ROSEN & CORSO, P.C.

MERDINGER, FRUCHTER, ROSEN & CORSO, P.C.

Los Angeles, California
April 16, 2001
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued our reports datedMarch 6, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule and internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of OpenTV Corp. and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2008. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the previously filed Registration Statements of OpenTV Corp. on Form S-3 (No. 333-115374, effective May 11, 2004), and on Forms S-8 (No. 333-37196, effectiveMay 17, 2000, No. 333-42892, effective August 2, 2000, No. 333-52180, effective December 19, 2000, No. 333-74026, effective November 27, 2001, No. 333-115373, effective May 11, 2004, No. 333-130560,effective December 21, 2005, and No 333-145720, effective August 27, 2007). 

/s/    GRANT THORNTON LLP 

San Francisco, California 

March 6, 2009
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4527 

To amend title 5, United States Code, with respect to the judicial review 

of agency interpretations of statutory and regulatory provisions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 12, 2024 

Mr. SCHMITT introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, with respect to the 

judicial review of agency interpretations of statutory and 

regulatory provisions. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Separation of Powers 

5 Restoration Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF STATUTORY AND REGU7 LATORY INTERPRETATIONS. 

8 Section 706 of title 5, United States Code, is amend9 ed— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4527 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘To the extent necessary’’ and 

2 inserting ‘‘(a) To the extent necessary’’; 

3 (2) in subsection (a), as so designated— 

4 (A) by striking ‘‘decide all relevant ques5 tions of law, interpret constitutional and statu6 tory provisions, and’’; and 

7 (B) by inserting after ‘‘of the terms of an 

8 agency action’’ the following: ‘‘and decide de 

9 novo all relevant questions of law, including the 

10 interpretation of constitutional and statutory 

11 provisions, and rules made by agencies. If the 

12 reviewing court determines that a statutory or 

13 regulatory provision relevant to its decision con14 tains a gap or ambiguity, the court shall not in15 terpret that gap or ambiguity as an implicit del16 egation to the agency of legislative rule making 

17 authority and shall not rely on the gap or ambi18 guity as a justification for interpreting agency 

19 authority expansively or for deferring to the 

20 agency’s interpretation on the question of law. 

21 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 

22 this subsection shall apply in any action for ju23 dicial review of agency action authorized under 

24 any provision of law. No law may exempt any 

25 such civil action from the application of this 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4527 IS

1 section except by specific reference to this sec2 tion’’; 

3 (3) by striking ‘‘The reviewing court shall—’’ 

4 and inserting the following: 

5 ‘‘(b) The reviewing court shall—’’; and 

6 (4) by striking ‘‘In making the foregoing deter7 minations’’ and inserting the following: 

8 ‘‘(c) In making the foregoing determinations’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Before the Second Division,

December 18, 1953

No. 57705.

#### Edward P. Paul & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

petition 6927-R (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

At the trial, petitioner’s president testified that the involved importation was purchased by him in Naples and was cleared through customs under his supervision; that he made inquiries as to the prices at which this merchandise was sold to all purchasers; that his firm had been importing similar merchandise for some time and the prices did not vary; and that before appraisement the examiner called his attention to the fact that other importers of lamp bases were paying $1.50, whereas petitioner had paid only $1.05. The witness further testified that he returned to Naples, visited the manufacturer and exporter, and checked the merchandise for which he had paid $1.05 with that which had been sold for $1.50 and found “It was entirely different. It had more decorations. It was a richly-made lamp. It had nothing to do with ours.” On the record presented, it was held that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
32.2 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 Commonwealth Income & Growth Fund V,
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Kimberly A. Springsteen-Abbott, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:




(1)
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 result of operations of the
Company.







/s/Kimberly A.
      Springsteen-AbbottKimberly
      A. Springsteen-AbbottChief
      Financial OfficerAugust
      14, 2008
Exhibit 32
  CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to, and as required by, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that the Annual Report of Nathaniel Energy Corporation (the “Company”) on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.    Dated: April 15, 2005
    
    _____________________________George A. Cretecos
      Chief Operating Officer
      (Principal Executive Officer
      and Principal Accounting
Officer)
No. 47374.

#### Protests 46347-K, etc., of Border Brokerage Co., Inc. (Seattle).

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*(6 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. Protests sustained to this extent.
Exhibit







Exhibit 10.7



Amendment Number 1
to the


ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY


ANNUAL INCENTIVE PLAN


(As Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2014)




WHEREAS, Erie Indemnity Company (the “Company”) established the Annual Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) effective March 2, 2004, and most recently amended the Plan by a restatement effective January 1, 2014,  that was approved by shareholders on April 15, 2014, and
WHEREAS, under Section 14 of the Plan, the board of directors of the Company reserved authority to amend the Plan, and
WHEREAS, the board of directors desires to amend the provision of the Plan allowing for the deferral of payment of awards,
NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows, effective August 1, 2016:
1.Section 11(b) of the Plan is amended to read as follows:
                        (b)        Deferral.  A Participant may elect to defer all or a portion (in whole percentages) of his or her vested interest in a Company Incentive Award or an Individual Incentive Award, in accordance with the terms of a deferral agreement entered into between the Participant and the Company pursuant to the Deferred Compensation Plan of Erie Indemnity Company, as it may be amended from time to time (the "Deferred Compensation Plan") or the Erie Indemnity Company Incentive Compensation Deferral Plan, as it may be amended from time to time (the “Deferral Plan”), to the extent the Participant is eligible to participate in the Deferred Compensation Plan or the Deferral Plan, as applicable.  An election to defer must be made before the beginning of the Performance Period to which the award relates, except as otherwise allowed under the Deferred Compensation Plan or the Deferral Plan for a new employee or newly-promoted employee.  No amount in excess of the amount of the Company or Individual Incentive Award deferred shall be payable to the Participant for such deferral, except as may be based upon either an actual or deemed reasonable rate of interest or on one or more actual or deemed investment vehicles as made available from time to time by the Company pursuant to the Deferred Compensation Plan or Deferral Plan.


[Continues with signature on next page.]







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Directors of the Company has caused this document to be executed this 1st day of August, 2016.




ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY






By /s/ Gregory J. Gutting            
Gregory J. Gutting
Executive Vice President and 
Chief Financial Officer












2
# C_2006056EN.01000101.xml

| 8.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/1

---

Declaration by the Netherlands in accordance with Article 5 and Article 97 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community

(2006/C 56/01)

The Netherlands Government wishes to inform you of the following:

In accordance with Article 5 and Article 97 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, Member States are required to specify the social security legislation to which this Regulation applies and to notify it to you.

The Netherlands Government wishes to amend one point of the declaration

On 1 January 2005 the Childcare Act entered into force. The financing of childcare is borne by three parties: parents, government and employers. A precondition for a means-tested government contribution towards childcare costs is that both parents must be in employment or in receipt of benefit. The contribution paid by the government must be classified as a family allowance.

The above gives rise to the following amendment:

Legislation and schemes referred to in Article 4(1) and (2) of the Regulation

Legislation and schemes referred to in Article 4(1) and (2) of the Regulation

Family allowances:

| — | ‘Law of 9 July 2004 (Netherlands Official Gazette 2004, 455) regulating matters relating to contributions towards the costs of childcare and safeguards concerning the quality of childcare (Childcare Act)’. |
| --- | --- |

—

‘Law of 9 July 2004 (Netherlands Official Gazette 2004, 455) regulating matters relating to contributions towards the costs of childcare and safeguards concerning the quality of childcare (Childcare Act)’.

---
**Exhibit32**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Lpath, Inc. (“the Company”) on Form10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, ScottR. Pancoast, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Gary J.G. Atkinson,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, to our knowledge:

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| Dated: August 13, 2007  |   |                     |
|-------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                    |   |                     |
| /s/ Scott R.  Pancoast  |   | /s/ Gary J.G.  Atkinson  |
| Scott R.  Pancoast, CEO |   | Gary J.G.  Atkinson, CFO |

 

----
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-60744 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARMAND DWIGHT WILLIAMS, also known as Armoand Dwight Williams, also known as Manuel Dwight Williams,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:99-CR-2-1-WS

- - - - - - - - - - November 10, 2000

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Armand Dwight Williams appeals his conviction of sexual abuse,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2242(2)(A). Williams, a member of the

Choctaw Indian tribe, h ad been accused of engaging in sexual

intercourse with an adult Choctaw female, whom he knew at the time

to be “incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct.”

Williams contends that the eviden ce was insufficient to

support his conviction, in that the conviction depended on the

victim’s testimony that she had been as leep throughout Williams’No. 99-60744

-2-

actions of taking off her shorts and initiating sexual intercourse

with her. Because Williams failed to move for a judgment of

acquittal at the close of the evidence, this court reviews the

sufficiency of the evidence only for plain error, meaning that the

conviction will be reversed only to avoid a “manifest miscarriage

of justice.” See United States v. Parker , 133 F.3d 322, 328 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied

, 523 U.S. 1142 (1998). Because the evidence

was sufficient to authorize the jury to determine that the victim

testified truthfully when she maintained that she had been sleeping

w hen she awoke to realize that Williams was sexually penetrat ing

her, no manifest miscarriage of justice is apparent.

The conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
March 22, 2016

U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave.,

Washington, DC 20590 

Request for amendment to FAA 333 UAS Exemption

Exemption No. 12592

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-2411

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Pursuant to the Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 

2012 (the "Reform Act"), Christopher Teren (the "applicant"), operator of an 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems ("UAS") seeks an amendment his existing 333 

exemption as listed and described below.

Applicant 

Christopher Teren

400 False Bay Drive 

Friday Harbor, WA 98250

1. Additional Aircraft

Christopher Teren would like to add additional UAS aircraft to the existing 

exemption. He would like to add all of the aircraft on the FAA Approved 

Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Make/Model under Section 333 list, Updated 

March 4, 2016 – Regulatory Docket FAA-2007-3330

Thank you for your consideration. 

Christopher	Teren
#### In the Matter of Veronica McKithen, on Behalf of Kwasi Solomon, an Infant, Appellant. Erie County Department of Social Services, Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 580]

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and application granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the application of petitioner for leave to file a late notice of claim on behalf of her infant son against the County of Erie. The Erie County Department of Social Services had custody of the child at all relevant times herein and had placed him, along with his siblings, with foster parents. According to the proposed notice of claim, the two-year-old child was injured while at a day-care center where the foster parents had placed him. The *1020child was confined to the hospital for two months and was placed in a body cast from the chest down. After the incident, the County immediately removed the children from the foster parents’ residence and placed them in another home.

The County failed to establish that it would be prejudiced if leave to file the late notice of claim were granted. The proposed notice of claim sets forth the pertinent allegations, including the nature of the claim and the manner in which it arose. We conclude that, under the particular circumstances of this case, the court abused its discretion by denying the application *(see, Maurice W. v Onondaga County Dept, of Social Servs.,*186 AD2d 986). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Howe, J.—Late Notice of Claim.) Present—Green, J. P., Law-ton, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.
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 Plaintiff explains to the court that the motion is currently

scheduled to be heard on September 21, 2005.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ASBERRY,

Plaintiff,

v. NO. CIV. S-04-2467 LKK/PAN

CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

Defendant.

 /

The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s ex parte application

to extend the discovery cut-off date of September 1, 2005. Good

cause appearing, the court hereby extends the discovery cut-off

date for the sole purpose of allowing the magistrate judge to hear

plaintiff’s motion for a protective order to establish a reasonable

expert fee.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 7, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-02467-LKK -PAN Document 70 Filed 09/07/05 Page 1 of 1
(Reap. Dec. 8238)

#### Allied Food Corporation of America *v.*United States

Entry No. M-1324.

(Decided June 30, 1953)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*375Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the Acting Assistant Attorney General and the attorneys for the plaintiff, that the merchandise covered by the instant appeal to reappraisement consists of guava jelly imported from Cuba.

> That the merchandise and issues involved in the instant appeal to reappraisement are similar in all material respects to the merchandise and issues involved in *Allied Food Corporation of America*v. *United States,*R. D. 8135.

> That on or about the date of exportation of the merchandise herein involved, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale in the principal markets of Cuba either for home consumption or for export to the United States.

> That the United States value of the merchandise covered by the instant appeal to reappraisement, as such value is defined in Section 402 (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is $6.58 per case, net, packed.

> That the record in *Allied Food Corporation of America*v. *United States,*R. D. 8135, be incorporated in the record in the instant appeal to reappraisement and that such appeal is submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the United States value, as that value is defined in section 402 (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by-section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was $6.58 per case, net, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.