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 Although plaintiff contends defendant requested a second extension of time to file a 1

motion for summary judgment “simply to waste the court’s time,” this court found good cause

for the request and granted defendant’s request. (May 18, 2006 Order.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES WHITTENBERG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2313 FCD JFM P

vs.

LT. L. ROLL,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 22, 2006 plaintiff filed a document entitled ‘motion for

judgment.” On June 2, 2006, defendant filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion, which

defendant construed as a motion for default judgment. 

In his motion, plaintiff asks the court to enter judgment in his favor because he

believes counsel for defendant has unreasonably delayed this case. Plaintiff has not 1

demonstrated good cause for the entry of default judgment against defendant. Plaintiff has also

failed to meet the requirements of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure so his motion

could be construed as a motion for summary judgment. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957

Case 2:04-cv-02313-FCD-JFM Document 73 Filed 07/28/06 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

(9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1035 (1999); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d

409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff’s motion will be denied without prejudice. 

On May 31, 2006, plaintiff renewed his request for the appointment of counsel. 

Plaintiff’s previous requests were filed on December 22, 2004, March 17, 2005, and July 12,

2005. All requests were denied. In light of those orders, the plaintiff’s May 31, 2006 request

will be denied.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s May 22, 2006 motion is denied without prejudice.

2. Plaintiff’s May 31, 2006 motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 

DATED: July 27, 2006.

001;whit2313.den 

Case 2:04-cv-02313-FCD-JFM Document 73 Filed 07/28/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
31.1





CERTIFICATION





I, Donald
F Mardak, certify that:





1.  I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-KSB of International Monetary
Systems, LTD.;





2.  Based
on my knowledge, this 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;





3.  Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4.  The
small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:





a)  designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under my supervision, to  ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;





b)  evaluated
the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report my 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 small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial
reporting; and





5.  The
small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business
issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting.





Date:
March 31, 2008





By: /s/
Donald F
Mardak


Donald F
Mardak,


Chief
Executive Officer
# List of Appendices

# App A.QA Sample Types

# App B.QA-Optics

# App C.QA-DBPs

# App D.QA-DBP-FP

# App E.QA-Nutrients

# F1.Optical Properties Corrs

# F2.In-situ FDOM Corr (1 of 2)

# F3.In-situ FDOM Corr (2 of 2)

# F4.Source-Finished Corr

# F5.DBPFP-Filtered

# F6.DBPFP-Unfiltered

# G1.Watershed data

# G2.Finished water data

# G3.Jar test data
# EUR-Lex - 52007BP0116(01) - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007BP0116(01)

**1. European Parliament decision of 24 April 2007 on the discharge for the implementation of the budget of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction for the financial year 2005 (C6-0390/2006 - 2006/2157(DEC)) **

*
Official Journal 074 E , 20/03/2008 P. 0202 - 0203 *

1.

European Parliament decision of 24 April 2007 on the discharge for the implementation of the budget of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction for the financial year 2005 (C6-0390/2006 — 2006/2157(DEC))

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction for the financial year 2005 [1],

- having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the final annual accounts of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction for the financial year 2005, together with the Centre'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 (EEC) No 302/93 of 8 February 1993 on the establishment of a European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction [4], and in particular Article 11a 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 and the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0100/2007),

1. Grants the director of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction discharge for the implementation of the Centre'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 Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 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. 43.

[2] OJ C 312, 19.12.2006, p. 86.

[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 36, 12.2.1993, p. 1, Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1651/2003 (OJ L 245, 29.9.2003, p. 30).

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

--------------------------------------------------
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

DAVID COLVIN, Appellant,

vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent. No. 69148



# FILED JAN 1 3 2016
TRACIE K. UNDEMAN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT BY DEPUTY CLERK


### ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is an appeal from a district court order denying a resentence motion to disqualify a judge. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; David B. Barker, Judge.

When our initial review of the notice of appeal and documents before this court revealed a potential jurisdictional defect, we ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, we noted that no statute or court rule provides for an appeal from an order denying a motion to disqualify a judge. See Castillo v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990). Appellant's response indicates that the motion to disqualify is intertwined with a motion to withdraw a plea. However, appellant does not identify any statute or court rule allowing for an appeal from an order denying a

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1047A ce -01 1 07

I 

### *

### motion to disqualify a judge. Accordingly, we conclude that we lack

jurisdiction over this appeal and

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 1

Douglas

Cherry Gibbons

cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge Alan J. Butte11 & Associates Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk David Colvin

1 

### \Are note that intermediate orders may be reviewed on appeal from a final judgment. NRS 177.045.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 

### 2

47-a
# EUR-Lex - 52007DP0001 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007DP0001

**Decision of the European Parliament on the composition of committees **

*
Official Journal 244 E , 18/10/2007 P. 0118 - 0118 *

P6_TA(2007)0001

Composition of committees

Decision of the European Parliament on the composition of committees

The European Parliament,

- having regard to Rules 174 and 177 of its Rules of Procedure,

A. whereas there is a need for continuity in its business, and more specifically the business of its committees and subcommittees,

B. whereas, following accession, the new Romanian and Bulgarian Members are entitled to sit in the European Parliament and on its bodies in full enjoyment of their rights,

1. Decides to maintain, on an exceptional and temporary basis, the current composition of the committees and subcommittees;

2. Decides that the seats which had been set aside for observers until 31 December 2006 on these bodies now be allocated to the Bulgarian and Romanian Members as full members;

3. Decides that this decision will expire at the end of the part-session of 31 January to 1 February 2007.

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

Gerald Collins,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-2132 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

California State, et al.,

Respondents.

-oOoApril 8, 2005, the court informed petitioner that since he

challenged the same conviction in this proceeding as by a

separate petition, Civ. S 04-2049 MCE PAN, to change his pleading

he must make an appropriate motion in the other case and close

this file.

April 14, 2005, petitioner moved to amend the petition in

this action.

Petitioner’s April 14, 2005, motion is denied. 

So ordered.

Case 2:04-cv-02132-MCE -PAN Document 10 Filed 05/27/05 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

Dated: May 26, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02132-MCE -PAN Document 10 Filed 05/27/05 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 47 (Monday, March 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 11076]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4378]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Public Federal Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Hearing; Region 
III Regulatory Fairness Board

    The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Region III Regulatory 
Fairness Board and the SBA Office of the National Ombudsman will hold a 
National Regulatory Fairness Hearing on Friday, March 16, 2007, at 10 
a.m. The forum will take place at the EPA East Building, Ceremonial 
Hearing Room, 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 1153, Washington, DC 
20460. The purpose of the meeting is for Business Organizations, Trade 
Associations, Chambers of Commerce and related organizations serving 
small business concerns to report experiences regarding unfair or 
excessive Federal regulatory enforcement issues affecting their 
members.
    For further information, please contact Martin Gold. Martin Gold, 
SBA, Deputy National Ombudsman, 409 3rd Street, Suite 7125, Washington, 
DC 20416, phone (202) 205-7549 and fax (202) 401-4432, e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#85c8e4f7f1ecebabe2eae9e1c5f6e7e4abe2eaf3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fcb19d8e889592d29b939098bc8f9e9dd29b938a">[email protected]</span></a>.
    For more information, see our Web site at http://www.sba.gov/ombudsman.

Matthew Teague,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E7-4378 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 21-0258

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

DAVID LAWRENCE PITTSLEY, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File 

Opening Brief and Declaration in Support, and good cause appearing;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time 

to and including July 12, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s 

Opening Brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 27 2022

06/27/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0258
EX-10.16



 Exhibit 10.16 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE 
 Nancy Ridge
Technology Center, L.P., a California limited partnership (“Lessor”), and Cidara Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation, (“Lessee”), hereby amend the Lease dated June 9, 2014 (the “Original Lease”), as amended by
that certain First Amendment to Lease dated as of January 6, 2015 (the “First Amendment”; the Original Lease as so amended, the “Lease”), for Suites #101 thru #103 at 6310 Nancy Ridge Drive, San Diego, CA 92121
(“Premises”) as follows effective February 15, 2015 (the “Expansion Date”): 
  

	 	1)	Premises: Commencing on the Expansion Date the Premises will be expanded to include all of Suite #103 at 6330 Nancy Ridge Drive (which is approximately 5,827 square feet), thereby increasing the Premises
to approximately 18,985 square feet and increasing Lessee’s Share to ten and eighty-five hundredths percent (10.85%). Effective as of the Expansion Date the provisions of Section 1 of the First Amendment shall be of no further force and effect.


  

	 	2)	Increase in Base Rent: Commencing on the Expansion Date, the Base Rent shall increase to $37,829.00 per month to reflect Lessee’s expansion into #103 in its entirety. 


 

	 	3)	Confidentiality: The terms of the Lease are confidential. No party to the Lease shall disclose any of the terms of the Lease to any other party, provided that Lessee may disclose such terms to
Lessee’s employees, directors, officers, agents and proposed transferees. 

  

	 	4)	No Default: To each party’s knowledge, neither party is currently in Default or Breach of any of the terms or conditions of the Lease. 


 

	 	5)	Authority to Execute: Each person executing this Second Amendment to Lease represents and warrants to all parties that he or she is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Second Amendment to Lease on
behalf of that party. 

 All other terms and conditions of the Lease shall remain in full force and effect. All capitalized terms used herein
but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Lease. 
  

									
	 Lessor:
				Nancy Ridge Technology Center, L.P., a California Limited Partnership
	By:				Nancy Ridge Technology Center, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company,
					its General Partner
				
	By:		 /s/ Chris Loughridge
				
					Chris Loughridge, its Manager				
			
	Lessee:				Cidara Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation
				
	By:		 /s/ Kevin Forrest
				
					Kevin Forrest, Chief Operating Officer
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

No. 21-10720 Summary Calendar

United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee ,

versus
Raul Perez, III
Defendant—Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:20-cr-145-3

Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: * The attorney appointed to represent Raul Perez, III, has moved for leave to withdraw and has file d a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Perez has not filed a response. We ha ve reviewed counsel’s brief and the

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 10, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-10720 Document: 00516233658 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2022No. 21-10720

2 relevant portions of the record reflecte d therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED

. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Case: 21-10720 Document: 00516233658 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2022
October 7, 1959

Reap. Dec. 9520.

#### C. A. Andres *&*Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Motion by plaintiffs.
No. 60890.

#### Browne Vintners Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 255851-K etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the issues and facts herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351), and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
No. 60895.

#### Joseph C. Murray & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 271745-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, effective July 1, 1955, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
ORIX (LOGO)

February 18, 2000

PricewaterhouseCoopers
2001 Ross Avenue
Suite 1800
Dallas, Texas 75201-2997

As of and for the year ended December 31, 1999, ORIX Real Estate Capital Markets
("ORECM"),  which was doing business as Bane One Mortgage Capital  Markets,  LLC
until July 12,  1999,  has complied in all  material  respects  with the minimum
servicing  standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers  Association of America's
Uniform Single  Attestation  Program for Mortgage Bankers ("USAP") (except,  for
commercial loan and multifamily loan servicing,  minimum servicing standards V.4
and VI. 1., which the MBA has interpreted as inapplicable to such servicing.) As
of and for this same period,  ORECM had in effect a fidelity bond and errors and
omissions policy in the amount of $25 million.

The Company has  established  and maintains  custodial  accounts with  federally
insured  depository  institutions  in accordance  with the servicing  agreements
requirement for Eligible Accounts. Custodial balances are invested in accordance
with the servicing agreements requirement for Permitted  Investments.  Permitted
Investments  may include  commercial  paper and money  market  mutual funds with
non-federally  insured  financial  institutions  which meet the  minimum  rating
requirements specified by the applicable servicing agreement.

Edgar L. Smith, II
Chief Operating Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, 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.

December 21, 2018

p 1217 

# Order

Clerk December 21, 2018

154384(28)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 154384

COA: 333652

Shiawassee CC: 15

- 007177

- FH

NOEL MARCIAL HADLEY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for demand for certification of compiled laws is

DENIED.