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

WILLIE BAILEY, III, 

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-2067-GEB-PAN (JFM)- P

vs.

J. WEDELL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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 April 27, 2006, 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. Plaintiff has not filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and

recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility

to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 83-182(f),

service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.

Case 2:04-cv-02067-GEB-EFB Document 30 Filed 05/15/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

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 April 27, 2006, are adopted in full;

and

2. This action is dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to keep the court apprised of his

current address. See Local Rules 83-192(f) and 11-110.

Dated: May 12, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02067-GEB-EFB Document 30 Filed 05/15/06 Page 2 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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Ronald P. Foster,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-2557 FCD PAN P

vs. Order

M.D. McDonald, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel litigating a

civil rights action. 

The amended complaint states cognizable claims for relief

against defendants McDonald, Davey and Andre pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

1. Service is appropriate for defendants McDonald, Davey

and Andre. 

Case 2:04-cv-02557-RRB-EFB Document 10 Filed 05/26/05 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

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff three USM285 forms, one summons, an instruction sheet and one copy of the 

April 22, 2005, pleading.

3. Within 30 days from service of this order, plaintiff

shall complete the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and

submit it to the court with the completed summons and USM-285

forms and four copies of the April 22, 2005, pleading.

4. Upon receipt of the necessary materials, the court will

direct the United States Marshal to serve defendants McDonald,

Davey and Andre pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4

without payment of costs. 

Dated: May 26, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02557-RRB-EFB Document 10 Filed 05/26/05 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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Ronald P. Foster, 

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-2557 FCD PAN P

vs. Notice of Submission of Documents

M.D. McDonald, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff hereby submits the following documents in

compliance with the court's order filed :

 completed summons form

 completed forms USM-285 

 copies of the 

 Amended Complaint

Dated: 

 _________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-02557-RRB-EFB Document 10 Filed 05/26/05 Page 3 of 3
#### M. T. Johnson, *et ux.,*v. Annie B. Deis, *et vir.*

179 So. 689.

Division A.

Opinion Filed March 3, 1938.

S'. *Colquitt Pardee, Mattie W. Tompkins*and 6". *Colquitt Pardee, Jr.,*for Appellants;

*Thomas A. McNicholas,*for Appellees.

Buford, J.

From a decree of foreclosure of mortgage on homestead in which the answer of the married woman defendant set up the defense that she did not appear before a Notary Public and that no acknowledgment was taken by or before the Notary Public purporting to notarize the mortgage, which decree was in favor of the complainant, appeal was entered bringing the final decree for review here.

The questions presented by the appellant do not comply with Rule 20, but we will not delay the disposition of the cause by requiring the appellant to comply with the rule in this regard.

The questions for our determination are whether or not the evidence, though conflicting, is sufficient to warrant the entry of the final decree.

There was some direct and positive evidence that the Notary Public did not assume to take the acknowledgment of Rosa A. Johnson, wife of M. T. Johnson, although the Notary Public was present when the mortgage was signed *622by M. T. Johnson and that Rosa A. Johnson left the bedroom, where M. T. Johnson lay sick, with the mortgage, pen and ink and immediately returned with the signed mortgage and delivered it to the Notary Public to be delivered to the mortgagee. The certificate of the Notary Public is, as we have heretofore held, *prima facie*evidence of the acknowledgment as stated therein. See Mills v. Hamilton, 121 Fla. 435, 163 So. 857; Smith v. McEwen, 119 Fla. 588, 161 So. 68.

The testimony of Mrs. Johnson was in many respects contradicted by other witnesses and was not convincing.

In this case the decree should be affirmed upon authority of McKee, *et al.,*v. First National Bank & Trust Co. in Orlando, 118 Fla. 505, 159 Sou. 669, and cases therein cited, in which we said:

> “The weight and sufficiency of the evidence on the issue of whether or npt the mortgage had been properly executed and acknowledged was one within the province of the Chancellor to decide, the evidence being conflicting and there being evidence on which the Chancellor was amply warranted in deciding in favor of the complainant. Under the circumstances shown of record, it cannot be said that the Chancellor’s findings are clearly wrong, therefore they should not be disturbed as insufficient to support the decree appealed from in this case. Columbus Hotel Corp. v. Hotel Management Co., 116 Fla. 464, 156 Sou. Rep 893, and cases cited.”

It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., and Terrell, J., concur.

Wi-iitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
# C_2008162EN.01008701.xml

| 25.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 162/87 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 162/87

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters (Recast)

COM(2007) 858 final — 2007/0292 (COD)

(2008/C 162/21)

On 30 January 2008 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters (Recast)

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters (Recast)

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the contents of the proposal and has already set out its views on the subject in its earlier opinion, adopted on 24 February 1971 (1), and in the opinion CESE 196/1995, adopted on 23 February 1995 (2), it decided, at its 442nd plenary session, held on 13 and 14 February 2008 (meeting of 13 February), by 133 votes to 2 with 2 abstentions to issue an opinion endorsing the proposal and to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned documents.

1

2

Brussels, 13 February 2008.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

---

(1)  Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Council Directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters (OJ C 36 of 19.4.1971, p. 14).

1

(2)  Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending Council Directive 80/777/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters — COM(1994) 423 final (OJ C 110 of 2.5.1995, p. 55).

2

---
No. 49225.

#### Protests 17081-K, etc., of E. W. J. Hearty, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial it was stipulated between counsel that the issue is the same as that involved in *United States*v. *E. W. J. Hearty, Inc.*(31 C. C. P. A. 106, C. A. D. 257), the record in which case was incorporated herein. Certain of th'e items were therefore held dutiable upon the weight of the meat alone, as set forth in schedule attached to decision herein. The collector was directed to make refund of duties accordingly.
Order entered January 8 , 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 20 - 00676 - CV IN THE MATTER OF A.L., A JUVENILE On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. JD - 18 - 00518 - X

ORDER Before the Court is appellee’s January 6, 2021 motion for an extension of time to file its brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to February 5, 2021 . We caution appellee th at further extens ion requests will be disfavored.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: February 1, 2010
    /s/ Heath B. ClarkeHeath B. ClarkeChief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer) and Chairman/s/ Brenda AgiusBrenda AgiusChief Financial Officer
(principal financial and accounting officer) and Secretary
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4978 

To prohibit certain businesses and persons from purchasing real estate 

adjacent to covered Federal land in the United States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2024 

Ms. LUMMIS (for herself, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. COTTON, and Mr. CRAPO) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To prohibit certain businesses and persons from purchasing 

real estate adjacent to covered Federal land in the 

United States, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘No American Land 

5 for Communist China Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4978 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF THE PURCHASE OF REAL ESTATE 

2 LOCATED ADJACENT TO COVERED FEDERAL 

3 LAND IN THE UNITED STATES BY NATIONALS 

4 OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA. 

5 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

6 (1) COVERED FEDERAL LAND.—The term ‘‘cov7 ered Federal land’’ means— 

8 (A) land owned by the United States that 

9 is under the jurisdiction of— 

10 (i) the Secretary of the Interior; 

11 (ii) the Secretary of Defense; or 

12 (iii) the Secretary of Agriculture, with 

13 respect to land managed by the Forest 

14 Service; or 

15 (B) land that is Indian country (as defined 

16 in section 1151 of title 18, United States 

17 Code). 

18 (2) UNITED STATES.—The term ‘‘United 

19 States’’ means the several States, the District of Co20 lumbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Com21 monwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Amer22 ican Samoa, Guam, the United States Virgin Is23 lands, and any other territory or possession of the 

24 United States. 

25 (b) PROHIBITION.—Notwithstanding any other provi26 sion of law, the President shall take such actions as may 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4978 IS

1 be necessary to prohibit the purchase of real estate located 

2 adjacent to covered Federal land in the United States 

3 by— 

4 (1) any agent of the Government of the Peo5 ple’s Republic of China; or 

6 (2) any business with respect to which the Gov7 ernment of the People’s Republic of China, directly 

8 or indirectly through any contract, arrangement, un9 derstanding, relationship, or otherwise, owns 25 per10 cent or more of the equity interests of the business. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOSEPH R. LEAMAN, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

16 USCMA 189, 36 CMR 345

*190No. 19,161

April 8, 1966

*Captain L. G. Bohlen,*USMC, argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. *Commander Walter F. Brown,*USN, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel J. E. Hanthorn,*USMC, argued the cause for Appellee, United States. *Lieutenant Jean E. Van Slate,*USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Ferguson, Judge:

Tried before a general court-martial convened by the Commanding Officer, Third Marine Division, the accused was convicted of absence without leave and escape from confinement, in violation, respectively, of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Articles 86 and 95, 10 USC §§ 886, 895. He was sentenced to bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of $70.00 per month for twelve months, and confinement at hard labor for twelve months. The convening authority approved the sentence. The board of review, however, affirmed a punishment of bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement at hard labor for six months. We granted review on the issues whether the court-martial which tried the accused was duly constituted, in that it was appointed by Colonel'Andrew I. Lyman, purporting to act as Commanding Officer, Third Marine Division, and whether the board of review .erred in affirming a sentence which included forfeitures in excess of those adjudged and approved below.

The question regarding the constitution of the general court-martial which tried accused is resolved by our decision in United States v Kugima, 16 USCMA 183, 36 CMR 339, this day decided. As to the approval of excessive forfeitures, the United States concedes error and declares “the Board of Review unintentionally approved a sentence greater than that awarded the accused by the court-martial and approved by the convening authority.” Our examination of the board’s opinion indicates the Government is entirely correct. The matter was purely inadvertent and no question of commutation was involved. Cf. United States v Monett, *19116 USCMA 179, 36 CMR 335. The Government prays the case be remanded to the board for correction of this defect. We so order.

The decision of the board of review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Navy. The board may appropriately take action to reduce to legal limits the sentence which it previously affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Kil-DAY concur.
Exhibit 32.2
                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 of m-Wise,  Inc. ("the Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"),  I, Gabriel Kabazo, Chief
Financial  Officer,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

      (1) the Report fully comply 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.

By: /s/Gabriel Kabazo
---------------------
Gabriel Kabazo, Chief Financial Officer

Dated: November 13, 2006
<PAGE>

Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF JONES, JENSEN & COMPANY


We hereby consent to the use of our audit report dated April 14, 2000 in this
Form 10-KSB/A of 2-Infinity.com, Inc. (formerly Lakota Technologies, Inc.) and
Subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 1999, which is part of this Form
10-KSB/A and all references to our firm included in this Form 10-KSB/A.

/s/ Jones, Jensen & Company

Jones, Jensen & Company
Salt Lake City, Utah
June 16, 2000
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Polanco, Also Known as Luis Rives, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 168]

—Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Howard Bell, J.), rendered April 30, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years and also convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a concurrent term of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The prosecutor’s summation comments in connection with police failure to seize and voucher defendant’s clothing in this case, in contrast to procedures that might be followed in the investigation of a different crime, constituted appropriate response to defense summation comments on the identical issue *(People v Marks,*6 NY2d 67, *cert denied*362 US 912). We reject defendant’s argument that the prosecutor’s comments invited speculation on matters of punishment, and we find that the court’s charge adequately covered the subject.

Based on testimony concerning a drive-by identification procedure, the trial court properly referred to this procedure as a prior identification of defendant, to be considered together with all other competent evidence and factors relevant to determination of a proper identification. Defendant did not preserve by appropriate and timely objection his current additional claims of error regarding the trial court’s jury charge on identification (CPL 470.05). Were we to review those claims in the interest of justice, we would find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.
446 A.2d 687

#### Commonwealth v. John Doe a/k/a Eddy a/k/a Leisey, Appellant.

Submitted June 1, 1981.

Lynn Erickson Ober, for appellant; Charles Guthrie, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before ROWLEY, McEWEN and MONTEMURO, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Docket No. FAA-2015-1988
Case 2:04-mc-00269-DFL-GGH Document 18 Filed 09/28/05 Page 1 of 3Case 2:04-mc-00269-DFL-GGH Document 18 Filed 09/28/05 Page 2 of 3Case 2:04-mc-00269-DFL-GGH Document 18 Filed 09/28/05 Page 3 of 3
No. 50497.

#### Protest 69570-K of H. P. Lambert Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of dog food similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Corporacion Argentina de Productores de Carnes*v. *United States*(32 C. C. P. A. 175, C. A. D. 304), which record was incorporated herein, the protest was sustained as claimed.
No. 63115.

#### Reliance International Mfg., Ltd. *v.*United States,

protests 323458-K, 254382-K, and 287555-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, *J.*

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that tbe merchandise consists of harness hardware for use with harness for dogs the same in all material respects as that involved in *International Expediters, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 230, C.D. 1868), the claim of plaintiff was sustained.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Shaw, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 465]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Skloot Bamberger, J.) rendered October 14,1993, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of rape in the first and third degrees and sodomy in the first and third degrees, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years on each first-degree conviction and 2 to 4 years on each third-degree conviction, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved as a matter of law *(People v*Gray, 86 NY2d 10), and in any event without merit. Defendant also failed to preserve by timely objection or other means of making his claim known that the trial court was biased against him *(People v Burke,*211 AD2d 598, *lv denied*85 NY2d 907), which, were we to review it, we would find it to be a speculative, gender-biased attack on the trial court. Defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict on the ground of newly discovered evidence was properly denied since the proffered evidence was not new, there was no reasonable probability that it would have affected the outcome, there was an absence of due diligence in defendant’s presentation of the evidence, and the evidence, if believed, was at best cumulative, collateral and nonmaterial *(see, People v Suarez,*98 AD2d 678; *People v Batista,*172 AD2d 386, *lv denied*78 NY2d 961). By not seeking relief pursuant to CPL 440.10, defendant has failed to present a record adequate to review trial counsel’s purported tactical ineffectiveness *(People v Love,*57 NY2d 998, 1000; *People v Brown,*45 NY2d 852, 854). His claim that he was deprived of his right to testify before the Grand Jury, due to counsel’s neglect, is completely dehors the record and thus not susceptible to review.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.
[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: E7-4376]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


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

    The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Region IV Regulatory 
Fairness Board and the SBA Office of the National Ombudsman will hold a 
public hearing on Wednesday, March 14, 2007, at 10 a.m. The meeting 
will take place at Wake Tech CC Business & Industry Center (BIC), 
Millpond Village, 3434 Kildaire Farm Road, Room 118, Cary, NC 27518. 
The purpose of the meeting is to receive comments and testimony from 
small business owners, small government entities, and small non-profit 
organizations concerning regulatory enforcement and compliance actions 
taken by Federal agencies.
    Anyone wishing to attend or to make a presentation must contact 
Mike Ernandes, in writing or by fax, in order to be placed on the 
agenda. Mike Ernandes, Public Information Officer, SBA, Charlotte 
District Office, 6302 Fairview Road, Suite 300, Charlotte, NC 28210-
2227, phone (704) 344-6588, Ext. 1135 and fax (202) 401-4637, e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#480521232d662d3a2629262c2d3b083b2a29662f273e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aee3c7c5cb80cbdcc0cfc0cacbddeeddcccf80c9c1d8">[email protected]</span></a>.
    For more information, see our Web site at http://www.sba.gov/ombudsman.

Matthew Teague,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E7-4376 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>