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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Alamar Cyril Houston,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1923 RRB PAN P

vs. Order

Thomas L. Carey, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel seeking to

commence a civil rights action. This proceeding was referred to

this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). 

The amended complaint states cognizable claims for relief

against defendants Maes, Williams, Eaton, Mills and Just 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 Maes, Williams, 

Case 2:04-cv-01923-GEB -EFB Document 17 Filed 01/06/06 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

Eaton, Mills and Just.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff four USM-285

forms, one summons, an instruction sheet and one copy of the June

16, 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 six copies of the June 16, 2005, pleading.

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

direct the United States Marshal to serve defendants Maes,

Williams, Eaton, Mills and Just pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 4 without payment of costs. 

Dated: January 5, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01923-GEB -EFB Document 17 Filed 01/06/06 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 

Alamar Cyril Houston,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1923 RRB PAN P

vs. Notice of Submission of Documents

Thomas L. Carey, 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-01923-GEB -EFB Document 17 Filed 01/06/06 Page 3 of 3
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v DONALD A. BRONK, Seaman Recruit, U. S. Navy, Appellant

17 USCMA 293, 38 CMR 91

No. 20,533

November 17, 1967

*Major L. G. Bohlen,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Charles Freeland,*USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Ferguson, Judge:

Tried by special court-martial, the accused pleaded guilty to two specifications of absence without leave and one of breach of restriction, in violation, respectively, of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Articles 86 and 134, 10 USC §§ 886, 934. Although the bad-conduct discharge was imposable solely because the offenses were tried together and the permitted confinement extended to- six months, the president did not state the basis for the additional penalty. Such was error and, under the circumstances of this case, it was prejudicial to fail to do so. United States v Yocom, 17 USCMA 270, 38 CMR 68, this day decided.

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 reassess *294the sentence appropriately or order a rehearing thereon.

Judge Kilday concurs.

Quinn, Chief Judge

(dissenting) :

In my opinion, the instructional omission presents no fair risk of prejudice to the accused.

The accused was charged with two unauthorized absences and breach of restriction. The first absence began on January 26, 1967, and terminated on February 24, 1967; the second absence began on February 27, 1967, and ended on March 19, 1967. At the time of the second absence, the accused was in restriction. From the record of previous convictions, it is apparent the accused committed the first of these offenses shortly after he was released from confinement. It is also apparent that the accused wanted the court-martial to include a discharge in the sentence. His counsel indicated that the accused insisted he make no argument on the sentence. Since the accused got “precisely that which” he himself wanted, I am unable to see how he was prejudiced by the instructional error. United States v Blunk, 17 USCMA 158, 161, 37 CMR 422.

I would affirm the decision of the board of review.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Distributed Energy Systems Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Ambrose L. Schwallie, principal executive officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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

Dated: August 9, 2006



| |  |                            
| |  | ---------------------------
| |  | /S/    AMBROSE L.
SCHWALLIE
| |  | Ambrose L. Schwallie       
| |  | Principal executive officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

Certification of Litigation Trustee Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Information Resources, Inc.Litigation Contingent Payment Rights Trust for the quarterly period ended June 30,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, tothe best of their knowledge:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange 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.

 

 
| /s/ MONICA  M. WEED  |   |
|----------------------|--------|
| Monica M.  Weed      |
| Litigation  Trustee  |
| August 1,  2005 |

 

This certification accompaniesthe Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shallnot, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemedfiled by the Registrant for purposes of § 18 of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended.

 

1

----
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, BY THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSIONER, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MARGARET HAILES, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER, v. FLEMINGTON NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS.

*Mr. Arthur F. Dienst*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Arthur J. Sills*and *Mr. Philip S. Oarchman*for the respondent.'

May 14, 1968.

Denied.
Case *No.*13,231.

#### SPENCER v. The ALIDA.

[13 Leg. Int. 369.]

District Court. S. D. New York.

1856.

Maritime Liens — Supplies—Filing Claim.

[This was a libel for supplies by Louis C. Spencer against the steamboat Alida.]

[Before BETTS, District Judge.]

BY THE COURT.

The leading facts to support the action _ correspond with those in the case of Elmore v. The Alida [Case No. 4,419]. The. suit was commenced October 17, on a bill for milk supplied at daily trips during the month of September, amounting to $38.39; and for potatoes, supplied also daily from September 22 to October 10, amounting to $24.33. The lien particulars were filed October 17, the debt being contracted for each article of supply on the day of its delivery to the boat. The right of. action, therefore, is only preserved by filing a lien specification within ten days thereafter. Two particulars of the debt contracted anterior to the 6th of October can be recovered against the vessel. The lien, therefore, ceased its action by the departure of the boat from this port, if the creditor did not avail himself of the statutory privilege to resuscitate it by filing a lien specification within ten days after that event.

A reference must be had to a commissioner, to ascertain the amount recoverable on these principles.
Archive

| **Keyword Search:****Webcasts:**-  April 18, 2001**Census 2000: An Analysis of the Adjustment Decision**February 20, 2001**Census Undercount Forum**
**Hearing Transcripts:**-  June 27, 2000**Field Hearing: San Diego, California**		[**more**] 
-  Monday, June 26, 2000**Los Angeles Census 2000 Outreach Project Field Hearing**		[**.exe format**] 
**U.S. Census Monitoring Board****Presidential Members**4700 Silver Hill Road											Suite 1250 – 3											Suitland, MD 20746Phone: (301) 457-9900 											Fax: (301) 457-9901 comments@cmbp.census.gov |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-18-00024-CV

Jeffrey M. Templeton, Director and 

Shareholder

v.

RKR Investments Inc., A Nevada 

Corp.; RKR Operations, Inc., a 

Texas Corp.; RKR Technologies, 

LTD., a Texas Limited Partnership; 

and Bob Reece, as Trustee of the 

Bobby Neale Reece Revocable Trust

§

§

§

§

From the 48th District Court

of Tarrant County (048-290383-17)

May 24, 2018

Opinion by Justice Walker

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that appellant Jeffrey M. Templeton shall pay all of the 

costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Sue Walker__________________

 Justice Sue Walker
Before the Third Division,

November, 4, 1948

No. 52659.

protests 64449-K, etc. (New York).

#### P. Beiersdorf & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

April 19, 2024 SC-2023-0827 Ex parte Michael Dale Iervolino. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re:Michael Dale Iervolino v. State of Alabama) (St. Clair Circuit Court: CC20-426; Criminal Appeals: CR-21-0283).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was entered in this cause on April 19, 2024: Writ Denied. No Opinion. Bryan, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Sellers, Mendheim, Stewart, Mitchell, and Cook, JJ., concur. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
No. 47448.

#### Protests 824100-G, etc., of J. W. Hampton, Jr., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 29, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00650-CR

NO. 14-19-00651-CR

JASMYNE LAMARQUE VAUGHN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 178th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1590390 and 1590391

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Jasmyne Lamarque Vaughn appeals his convictions for possession 

of a controlled substance. Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.115(d). Appellant’s 

appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the appeals are frivolous and 

without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating 

why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 
2

807, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised 

of his right to inspect the appellate records and file a pro se response to the brief. See 

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more 

than 60 days have passed and no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the records and counsel’s brief and agree the 

appeals are frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the 

records. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief 

when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. 

State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, the trial court’s judgments are affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and Bourliot.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
No. 64958.

#### Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc., and Alexander Terk Co. *v.*United States,

protests 302736-K and 159357-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of candlesticks and candelabras similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 62036, except that they are silver plated on metals other than nickel silver or copper, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Moffett B. Roller

mroller@rollerbauer.com

Law Offices

ROLLER & BAUER, PLLC

Washington Dulles International Airport

45005 Aviation Drive; Suite 200

Dulles, VA 20166

Phone: 202-331-3300 • Fax: 202-331-3322

Lee A. Bauer

lbauer@rollerbauer.com

February 15, 2013

Mr. Robert Finamore

Foreign Carrier Licensing Division

Office of International Aviation

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Polling Report; Application of ABC Aerolineas, S.A. de C.V., d/b/a Interjet,

to Amend Exemption; Docket DOT-OST-2012-0140

Dear Mr. Finamore:

We have polled the U.S. carriers on the Service List that was attached to the Application

of ABC Aerolineas, S.A. de C.V., d/b/a Interjet, to Amend Exemption that was filed in the above

docket on February 11, 2013. The Application seeks authority for Interjet to operate between Las

Vegas, Nevada, and Monterrey, Mexico.

None of the U.S. carriers on the Service List has any objection to DOT approval of the

Application. Interjet therefore requests expedited approval of the Application so that Interjet can

introduce this new service and provide the public benefits cited in the Application as soon as

possible.

We are serving copies of this letter by email on all parties that were served with the

Application.

Respectfully submitted,

ROLLER & BAUER, PLLC

Attorneys for

ABC Aerolineas, S.A. de C.V., d/b/a Interjet

By: ___________________________

Moffett B. Roller

cc: Service List
### Co urt of A ppeals, State of Michigan 

### ORDER Michael 

### J. Talbo t, C.J. People of MI v Mohammad Masroor Presiding Judge DockctNos. 322280;322281;322282 Al l Court of App ea l s Judges LC Nos. 14 - 000869 - FC ; 14- 000 858-FC; 14 - 000857 -F C
The Court orders that a special panel sha ll be co nve ned pursuant to MCR 7.2 1S(J) to reso lve the conflict betvveen this case and 

### People of Ml 

### v Alexander Jere m y Sreanhouse, _ Mich App _ (D ocket No. 318329, issued October 22, 2015) , co ncerning the standards a ppli cable to review fo r reasonableness of sen te nces constituting departures from the recommendations of the sentencing guidelines , and the extent to which remands are requ ired in cases involving sentencing decisions before 

### Peo ple v Lo ckridge, 4 9 8 Mich 358 ( 20 15 ), was decided. The Court further o r ders that section s IV , V , VI , and VII of th e majority opinion in this case rel eased on November 24. 2015. are VACA TED. MCR 7.215(J)(5 ). Appellant may file a supp lemental brief within 2 1 days o f the Clerk's certification of this o rd er. Appellee may file a su ppl emental brief within 21 days of service of appellant ' s brief.

A true copy ente r ed and certified hy J ero me W . Zim m e r Jr .. Chief C l erk . on 

## DEC 1 7 2015 Dace

# ~.2-**. Ch** **~**
No. 56008.

protest 165382-K (Honolulu).

#### S. J. Major *v.*United States,

’ Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
Before the Third Division,

December 19, 1957

No. 61420.

protests 183086-K, etc. (New York).

#### R. H. Macy & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures or figurines 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 items of merchandise marked with the letter “A” were held dutiable as follows: (a) As to the items entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption prior to May 28, 1950, at 20 percent under paragraph 1547 (a); and (b) as to items entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption subsequent to *524May 28, 1950, at 10 percent under said paragraph 1547 (a), as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52373), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52476).
Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

February 1, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132953 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

THELMA JOHNSON, Personal Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Representative of the Estate of Justices Carl Johnson, Deceased

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 132953 

 COA: 262143 

Genesee CC: 00-069254-NH 

HURLEY MEDICAL GROUP, P.C.,

d/b/a HURLEY MEDICAL CENTER, 

MOONGILMADUGU INBAVAZHVU, M.D.,

 Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

KENNETH JORDAN, M.D.,

 Defendant.
 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of May 30, 2007, the application for leave to appeal the April 13, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in Mullins v 

St Joseph Mercy Hosp (Docket No. 131879). On order of the Court, the case having been 

decided on November 28, 2007, 480 Mich ___ (2007), the application is again considered 

and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the 

judgment of the Court of Appeals because the court erred in invoking the doctrine of 

equitable tolling under these circumstances. Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 473 Mich 

562, 586-587 n 65 (2005). However, because the plaintiff falls within the class of 

plaintiffs entitled to relief identified in our order in Mullins, supra, we REMAND this 

case to the Genesee Circuit Court for entry of an order denying the defendants’ motion 

for summary disposition and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this order and 

the order in Mullins. 

CAVANAGH and WEAVER, JJ., concur in the result. 
 _________________________________________ 

 

 

2

 KELLY, J., concurs and states as follows: 

I concur with the conclusion that our decision in Waltz v Wyse1

 does not bar 

plaintiff’s claim. But, as explained in my statement in Mazumder v Univ of Michigan Bd 

of Regents,2

 given the state of the law when the Court of Appeals rendered its decision, 

resort to the doctrine of equitable tolling was highly appropriate. 

1 Waltz v Wyse, 469 Mich 642 (2004). 

2 Mazumder v Univ of Michigan Bd of Regents, 480 Mich ___ (2008). 

l0129 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

February 1, 2008 

Clerk
##### 



CERTIFICATION 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; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Anthony J. Orlando
    
    
    
    /s/ Craig D. AboltAnthony J. Orlando
    
    
    
    Craig D. AboltChief Executive Officer and President
    
    
    
    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerNovember 9, 2005
    
    
    
    November 9, 2005
ex10-30.htm


 

EXHIBIT 10.30

 

Tenancy Agreement

 

Party A (lessor) Kexuan Yao

Party B (Lessee) Henan Armco & Metawise Trading Co., Ltd

 

The two parties reached a consensus on the following provisions on an equal and voluntary basis:

 

1. Party A is willing to rent the apartment located at 1706/A Jincheng International Plaza No 66 Jingsan Road Zhengzhou to Party B and Party B is willing to take the apartment for use of office.

 

2. Payment of rentals is RMB10, 000 per month and should be paid monthly before each month.

 

3. Lease term is from January 1st 2015 to December 31st 2015

 

4. Party B should observe the law applicable and on its’ own responsibility for the business.

 

5. If any party fails to fulfill its obligation under the agreement set forth herein, the other party may terminate the agreement ahead of time and claim for penalty at RMB 2,000. If party B fails to make the rental payment on time, overdue payment per day would be 1% of the rental.

 

This agreement has two identical copies, with each party holding one; the agreement comes into effect upon signing by both parties.

 

Date: 2014-12-31

 

 

Party A: Kexuan Yao 

Party B : Henan Armco & Metawise Trading Co., Ltd
#### Danwill Co. *v.*United States

No. 7316.

Invoice dated London, England, February 8, 1946.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 13, 1946.

Entry No. 744719.

(Decided June 26, 1947)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson (Sidney Mandell*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto: (Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Comment Info: ================= General Comment:FAA-2013-0671; Dir ID 2013-NM-124-AD