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

ALONZO REED, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2471 FCD GGH P

vs.

ROY A. CASTRO, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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 May 6, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Case 2:04-cv-02471-FCD-GGH Document 14 Filed 07/06/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 6, 2005, are adopted in full; and

2. Respondent’s February 11, 2004 motion to dismiss is granted and the petition

is dismissed with prejudice.

DATED:July 5, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02471-FCD-GGH Document 14 Filed 07/06/05 Page 2 of 2
================================================================================

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  Tamarack  Ventures,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended  October 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 results   of operations
          of the Company.


Date:  December 15, 2004

/s/ Robert Reukl
------------------------------------
Robert Reukl, Treasurer and Director
Principal Financial Officer
Order entered December 1 3 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05 - 13 - 00958 - CV LAKEITH AMIR - SHARIF, Appellant V. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY & PROTECTIVE SERVICES, Appellee On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Co urt Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF - 09 - 7655 

### O RDER
We DENY appellant’s December 10, 2013 motion to supplement the record. Pursuant to this Court order dated December 2, 2013, a ppellant shall file his brief on or before JANUARY 31, 2014 . We caution appellant that if he fails to file a brief on or before JANUARY 31, 2014 , the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution without further notice

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8(a)(1). /s/ DAVID LEWIS JUSTICE
# C_2007238EN.01002101.xml

| 10.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/21

---

Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2007/C 238/10)

Further to the publication of a notice of impending expiry (1), following which no duly substantiated request for a review was received, the Commission gives notice that the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will shortly expire.

1

This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (2).

2

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Polyester staple fibres | Belarus | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 1799/2002 (OJ L 274, 11.10.2002, p. 1) extended by the same regulation to polyester filament tow originating in Belarus | 12.10.2007 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry

Polyester staple fibres

Belarus

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 1799/2002 (OJ L 274, 11.10.2002, p. 1) extended by the same regulation to polyester filament tow originating in Belarus

12.10.2007

---

(1)  OJ C 16, 24.1.2007, p. 5.

1

(2)  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ L 340, 23.12.2005, p. 17).

2

---
No. 59605.

protest 169618-K (New York).

#### Kaufmann Department Stores, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
### Inthe matter of TGIFREIGHT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 

# RECEIVED DEC 1 72013 

## HEARING DOCKET ) 

### ) ) ) ) ) 

### FAADocketNo. CP10NM0012 DMS No. FAA-2010-1079

WITHDRAWAL OF NOTICE OF APPEAL 

### Complainant hereby withdraws its Notice ofAppeal previously filed on November 8, 2013.

Dated: December 12,2013 Respectfully submitted, Peter Lynch Assistant ChiefCounsel

for Enforcement 

# By:cQ

Charles Raley, Attorney Enforcement Division, AGC-300 Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Phone: (202) 267-3357 Facsimile: (202) 267-5106Certificate ofService I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by certified-mail, a copy of Complainant's Withdrawal ofNotice ofAppeal 

### In the Matter ofTGIFreight, Docket No. CP10NM0012, addressed to: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attn: HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 In addition, I hereby certify that on this date I have sentby certified mail one copy ofthe foregoing document to: Rebecca J. Hozubin, Esq. Wilkerson Hozubin 310 K Street, Suite 405 Anchorage, AK 99501 Fax: 907-276-5291

Dated: December 12,2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000

<S>                               <C>                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS             12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1999        DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                    OCT-01-1999        JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                      DEC-31-1999        DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      0             53,018
<SECURITIES>                                0              8,582
<RECEIVABLES>                               0            213,767
<ALLOWANCES>                                0                  0
<INVENTORY>                                 0                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            0            297,460
<PP&E>                                      0             87,589
<DEPRECIATION>                              0            (60,259)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              0            514,825
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       0             89,267
<BONDS>                                     0                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0                  0
<PREFERRED>                                 0                  0
<COMMON>                                    0              7,208
<OTHER-SE>                                  0            415,591
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                0            514,825
<SALES>                                     0                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      220,022          1,041,092
<CGS>                                       0                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         227,856            924,626
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          258              1,480
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (5,744)           122,813
<INCOME-TAX>                            2,581             49,739
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         0                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                              0                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0                  0
<CHANGES>                                   0                  0
<NET-INCOME>                           (3,163)            73,074
<EPS-BASIC>                             (0.04)              1.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (0.04)              1.01


</TABLE>
DARRYL MYLES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-1030

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 2, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Dawn Caloca-Johnson, Judge.

Darryl Myles, pro se; Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Mark G. Hanson, 

Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, C.J., CLARK and MARSTILLER, JJ., CONCUR.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than March 29, 2007.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta**                     (David Tatum, Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:                

*1. Bill Blanton*, Alpharetta, Georgia, as an individual, and a group acting in concert consisting of Bill Blanton, Alpharetta; Gilbert T. Jones, Sr., Jane Jones, Jewels Jones, Brandy Jones, and Barbe Jones, all of Comer; Paula M. Allen, of Dahlonega; Areatha J. Keesey, of Oakwood; Kathy L. Cooper, John Cooper, Tyler Cooper, and Donn H. Cooper, all of Flowery Branch; Robert Allen, of Manchester; Shelley Palmour Anderson, Lanny W. Dunagan, Ann M. Palmour, Wendell A. Turner, Howard Bridges, Rebecca Harrison, James H. McBride, James E. Palmour, Kim Hunter, Victoria Leigh Hunter, Paden Dunagan, C. Danny Dunagan, all of Gainesville; and David C. Harwell, LaVerne Harwell, Douglas F. Harwell, Alice Lipscomb, and Franklin D. Harwell, Jr., all of Winder; all of Georgia, to acquire control of NBOG Bancorporation, Inc., Gainesville, Georgia, and thereby acquire control of The National Bank of Gainesville, Gainesville, Georgia.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 12, 2007.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E7-4793 Filed 3-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
No. 54675.

#### Domenico D’Angiola, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 159612-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chestnuts similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Naumes Forwarding Service*v. *United States*(24 Cust. Ct. 93, C. D. 1214), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1646 was sustained.
446 A.2d 686

#### Commonwealth v. Brewington, Appellant.

Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Aug. 23, 1982.

Argued September 9, 1981.

Kalvin Kahn, for appellant; Maureen Brennan, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before HESTER, McEWEN and SHERTZ, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

SHERTZ, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
(Reap. Dec. 10470)

#### John *C. Rogers &*Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 16426.

(Decided April 1, 1963)

*Dechert, Price <& Rhoads*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to a certain commodity, identified herein as “2-Methyl-4-Chlorophenoxy Acetic Acid, 95% Minimum Assay,” exported from Denmark on November 26,1960, and entered at the port of Philadelphia.

Stipulated facts, upon which the case is before me, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise imquestion is American selling price, as defined in section 402 (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and that such statutory value therefor is 69 cents per pound, net, packed, and I so hold.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
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

TERRY MONTGOMERY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2116 FCD DAD P

vs.

W.A. DUNCAN, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner has requested an extension of time to file and serve an opposition to the

respondents’ May 31, 2005 motion to dismiss. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s June 23, 2005 and June 29, 2005 requests for an extension of time

are granted; and

2. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and

serve an opposition to respondents’ May 31, 2005 motion to dismiss.

DATED: July 5, 2005.

DAD/bb/4

mont2116.111

Case 2:04-cv-02116-FCD-DAD Document 14 Filed 07/05/05 Page 1 of 1
DENN-12.31.2014-Ex.10.27














___________________________________________________________________________
Deferred Stock Unit                            Denny’s Corporation
Award Certificate                            ID: 13-3487402
203 East Main Street
Spartanburg, SC 29319
___________________________________________________________________________ 






You have been awarded deferred stock units under the Denny’s Corporation 2012 Omnibus
Incentive Plan entitling you to receive shares of Denny’s Corporation $.01 par value common
stock at a future time under the terms indicated below:




Effective Date of Award:                    ____________________


Number of Deferred Stock Units Awarded:        ____________________units


Payment Rate:                        1-for-1 basis


Payment Date:                        ____________________


		
	Vesting Schedule:
	100% vested ___________ (1st 


anniversary of effective date
of award)
___________________________________________________________________________


No right or interest in this award may be pledged, encumbered, or hypothecated to or in favor
of any party other than Denny’s Corporation (the “Company”), or shall be subject to any lien,
obligation, or liability to any party other than the Company.  This award is not assignable or
transferable by you other than by will or the laws of descent and distribution.


This award is governed by the terms of the Denny’s Corporation 2012 Omnibus Incentive 
Plan.
___________________________________________________________________________






_____________________                               ________________
For Denny’s Corporation                               Date
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

JASON DONNELL WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0050 DFL JFM P

vs.

MULE CREEK STATE PRISON,

Facility “C” Administration of

Department of Corrections, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed October 14, 2005, this court directed plaintiff to file

a pretrial statement on or before June 23, 2006. In addition, by order filed June 16, 2006,

plaintiff was directed to serve a copy of his June 1, 2006 notice of change of address and

opposition to defendants’ March 22, 2006 motion for summary judgment on counsel for

defendants and to file within ten days a certificate of service attesting thereto. Plaintiff has filed

neither a pretrial statement nor a certificate of service attesting to compliance with the June 16,

2006 order. The court will therefore recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Local Rule 11-110.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00050-DFL -JFM Document 45 Filed 08/15/06 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

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants are relieved from filing a pretrial statement.

2. The pretrial conference set for July 14, 2006 is vacated; 

3. The jury trial set for October 2, 2006 at 8:30 a.m. before the Honorable David

F. Levi is vacated; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Local Rule 11-110.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 14, 2006.

12

will0050..fpt

Case 2:04-cv-00050-DFL -JFM Document 45 Filed 08/15/06 Page 2 of 2
May 27, 2015 

 

Mr. Bradley Shepherd 

9434 200th Street East 

Graham, WA 98338 

Dear Mr. Shepherd: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your April 20, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket 

(No. FAA-2015-1075), but we are unable to process your request any further. The 

information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For 

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

BRYAN R. LOVE,

Petitioner

v.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 

CHESTER COUNTY,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 70 MM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4

th day of November, 2022, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or 

Extraordinary Relief is DENIED.
No. 51021.

#### Protests 68923-K, etc., of Mutual Supply Co. et al. (Los Angeles)

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of dried, unsalted fish the same in all material respects as that passed upon in Abstract 50242. In accordance therewith the merchandise was held dutiable as claimed.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4865 

To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to expedite geothermal exploration 

and development in previously studied or developed areas. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 30, 2024 

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO (for herself and Ms. MURKOWSKI) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to expedite geothermal exploration and development in previously studied or developed areas. 

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 ‘‘Streamlining Thermal 

5 Energy through Advanced Mechanisms Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘STEAM Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. NEPA REVIEW. 

8 Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 

9 U.S.C. 15942) is amended— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4865 IS

1 (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘, or the 

2 Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et 

3 seq.) for the purpose of exploration or development 

4 of geothermal resources’’ after ‘‘or gas’’; and 

5 (2) in subsection (b)— 

6 (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘or gas’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘, gas, or geothermal’’; and 

8 (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘or gas’’ 

9 and inserting ‘‘, gas, or geothermal’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS