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

27

28

REQUEST TO ATTEND STATUS CONFERENCE BY

TELEPHONE AND ORDER THEREON

BRIAN C. LEIGHTON, CA BAR # 090907

Attorney at Law

701 Pollasky Avenue

Clovis, California 93612

Telephone: (559) 297-6190

Facsimile: (559) 297-6194

E-mail: bleighton@arrial.net

E-mail: kbarker@arrival.net

Attorney for JULIE WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JULIE WHITE, ) CASE NO. C-01-20985 JF (RS)

)

Plaintiff, ) REQUEST TO ATTEND STATUS

) CONFERENCE BY TELEPHONE

v. ) AND ORDER THEREON

)

DIGEX INCORPORATED, and )

DOES 1 through 10, ) DATE: March 31, 2006

) TIME: 10:30 a.m.

Defendants. ) CTRM: Three, Hon. J. Fogel

__________________________________________)

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-10(a), Plaintiff, JULIE WHITE (“White” or “Plaintiff”), requests

permission to participate in the Status Conference scheduled for March 31, 2006, at 10:30 a.m. by

telephone.

Plaintiff will be represented at the Status Conference by Brian C. Leighton, whose telephone

number is (559) 297-6190. Counsel will make arrangements with the Court’s teleconference services

for the telephonic appearance. 

DATED: March 10, 2006 __/S/ BRIAN C. LEIGHTON______ __

BRIAN C. LEIGHTON, attorney for Plaintiff

**E-filed 3/38/06**

Case 5:01-cv-20985-JF Document 88 Filed 03/28/06 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

27

28

REQUEST TO ATTEND STATUS CONFERENCE BY

TELEPHONE AND ORDER THEREON 2

ORDER

Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff may appear at the

Status Conference, set for March 31, 2006 at 10:30 a.m., by telephone.

DATE:_______________________ ________________________________________

The Honorable Jeremy Fogel

United States District Court Judge

Please contact Court Call at 866-582-6878 to arrange for the appearance. 3/28/06

Case 5:01-cv-20985-JF Document 88 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 25, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20280-20281]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10135]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Issuance of Permit for Incidental Take of Threatened Species

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    On February 9, 1995, a notice was published in the Federal Register 
(60 FR 7785) that an application had been filed with the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (Service) by Heritage Arts Foundation, Inc., St. 
George, Utah, for a permit to incidentally take, pursuant to section 
10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), threatened desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) 
in conjunction with operation of an access road to the Tuacahn School 
and Performing Arts Center in Padre Canyon, town of Ivins, Washington 
County, Utah, pursuant to an implementation agreement which implements 
the Heritage Arts Foundation's Habitat Conservation Plan. Thirty-seven 
comments were received. Thirty-six commenters expressed support for 
issuance of the incidental take permit, and one commenter opposed 
issuance of any incidental take permits in this area and questioned the 
evaluation of alternatives to, and impacts of, the proposal. These 
comments have been addressed and are incorporated into the final 
environmental assessment.
    Notice is hereby given that on March 31, 1995, as authorized by the 
provisions of the Act, the Service issued an incidental take permit 
(PRT-798634) to the above-named party subject to certain conditions set 
forth therein. The permit was granted only after it was determined that 
it was applied for in good faith, that by granting the permit it will 
not be to the disadvantage of the threatened species, and that it will 
be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in the Act, as 
amended.
    Additional information on this permit action may be obtained by 
contacting the Assistant Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 145 East 1300 South, Suite 404, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114, 
telephone (801) 524-5001, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 
weekdays.

     [[Page 20281]] Dated: April 19, 1995.
Terry T. Terrell,
Deputy Regional Director, Denver, Colorado.
[FR Doc. 95-10135 Filed 4-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD CARTER,

Petitioner,

v.

DEBBIE ASUNCION,

Respondent.

Case No. 16-cv-07167-JD 

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION

Re: Dkt. No. 18

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, it is hereby ordered that respondent’s request for an 

extension of time (Docket No. 18) is GRANTED. Respondent shall file the briefing by February

17, 2018. Petitioner is again reminded that he must file the supplemental briefing as discussed in 

the October 26, 2017, Order. Plaintiff must address if the case is timely and if this is a mixed 

petition and found to be timely, if he seeks a stay or to proceed with the exhausted claims.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2018

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

 

1

The general rule is that a federal district court must dismiss a federal habeas petition containing 

any claim for which state remedies have not been exhausted. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 

522 (1982). When faced with a post-AEDPA mixed petition, the Court must sua sponte inform 

the habeas petitioner of the mixed petition deficiency and provide him an opportunity to amend 

the mixed petition by striking unexhausted claims as an alternative to the Court dismissing the 

petition. Jefferson v. Budge, 419 F.3d 1013, 1016 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Rhines v. Weber, 544 

U.S. 269, 277 (2005)) (court’s erroneous dismissal of mixed petition entitled petitioner to 

equitable tolling of one-year AEDPA statute of limitations from the date the first habeas petition 

was dismissed until the date the second habeas petition was filed). Petitioner may also seek to 

stay the petition while he exhausts the remaining claims. 
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD CARTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEBBIE ASUNCION,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-07167-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 18, 2018, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Harold Carter

G13886

P.O. Box 5101

Delano, CA 93216 

Dated: January 18, 2018

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO
Opinion filed June 5, 2015

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

No. 11-14-00200-CV

___________

OMEGA PRESTON, Appellant

V.

SANDRA HODGE, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 21609

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

Appellant, Omega Preston, has filed in this court a motion for dismissal and 

nonsuit. In the motion, Appellant requests that this “cause be dismissed with 

prejudice.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Appellant has certified that Appellee

does not oppose the motion.

The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

June 5, 2015 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
Eric Michael REDDEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-1369

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed July 26, 2019

Eric Michael Redden, Malone, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Eric Michael Redden appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse.

Redden's claim below was simple. He alleged that he was eighteen years old at the time of the crime. He pled no contest and was sentenced to twelve years in prison. His counsel knew his age, but failed to tell him about the possibility of a youthful offender disposition under section 958.04, Florida Statutes (2018). If counsel had advised him of that possibility, Redden alleged that he would have negotiated for a youthful offender sentence. This type of claim can warrant an evidentiary hearing. *See, e.g.*, *Carswell v. State*, 845 So.2d 263, 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (reversing for evidentiary hearing on claim that counsel failed to advise defendant of eligibility for sentencing under Youthful Offender Act).

The postconviction court denied relief, concluding that the sentencing court made it clear that it would not impose a youthful offender sentence due to the nature of the charges. *See**Gordon v. State*, 863 So.2d 1215, 1223 (Fla. 2003) (explaining counsel cannot be deemed to be ineffective for failing to raise claim that would have been futile). However, the court attached no records to its order to support that conclusion. Rule 3.850(f)(5) instructs that "[i]f the denial is based on the records in the case, a copy of that portion of the files and records that conclusively shows that the defendant is entitled to no relief shall be attached to the final order."

As a result, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing or for the attachment of records supporting the denial. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, LAMBERT and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
James MCLYNAS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Laura MCLYNAS, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1931

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 24, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FAST TRAK INVESTMENT COMPANY, 

LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD P SAX, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:17-cv-00257-KAW 

ORDER REQUIRING A SECOND 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING 

DAMAGES

Re: Dkt. No. 72

On May 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed a supplemental brief regarding the damages it sustained 

due to Defendant’s breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. (Dkt. No. 72.) On June 7, 

2018, Defendant filed a response in which he objected to the claim for damages on the grounds 

that Plaintiff did not explain how the damages were calculated. (Dkt. No. 73.) This objection is 

well taken, as Plaintiff provides no explanation of how the purported $345,407.62 was calculated, 

despite being instructed to do so at the May 3, 2018 hearing. (Dkt. No. 72 at 2.) 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to file a second supplemental brief on or before July 3, 

2018, that includes a robust explanation of how the damages were calculated, including an 

identification of the funds that should have been disbursed from the primary and secondary cases. 

This is Plaintiff’s final opportunity to brief the damages issue, and the failure to sufficiently 

explain the calculation will result in the undersigned making a damages determination of its own

based on the incomplete information provided. Additionally, Plaintiff is advised against seeking 

the recovery of the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with any of its supplemental 

briefs.

///

///
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Defendant may file a response on or before July 13, 2018.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2018

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge
|  | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities and 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. |
|--|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                 September 22, 2006 | By:    | * /s/*Paul                Mann                                                          |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                          |   | Paul                Mann                                                                     |
|                                          |   | President,                Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial                Officer |
Adam PETERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4214

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# L_2018119EN.01003901.xml

| 15.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 119/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 119/39

---

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION (CFSP) 2018/713

of 14 May 2018

implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, and repealing Decision 2011/137/CFSP (1), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 31 July 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 31 July 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333.

| (2) | On 18 April 2018 and 29 April 2018, the United Nations Security Council Committee established pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 (2011) updated the list of vessels subject to restrictive measures. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 18 April 2018 and 29 April 2018, the United Nations Security Council Committee established pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 (2011) updated the list of vessels subject to restrictive measures.

| (3) | Annex V to Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Annex V to Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Annex V to Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 14 May 2018.

For the Council

The President

E. ZAHARIEVA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 206, 1.8.2015, p. 34.

1

---

ANNEX

In section B (Entities) of Annex V to Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333, entry 1 (concerning the vessel Nadine) and entry 2 (concerning the vessel Lynn S) are deleted.

---
Exhibit 70

- Filed Under Seal -

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 285-71 Filed 10/18/18 Page 1 of 1
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


Certification of Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the Annual Report of Apolo Gold & Energy Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter
Bojtos, Chief Executive 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 the
best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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.

October 13, 2008                   /s/ Peter Bojtos
----------------                   -----------------------------------
                                   Peter Bojtos
                                   Chief Executive Officer

<PAGE>
Victor Colton ALLEN v. STATE

CR-17-0019

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 30, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Daniel DEESE

No. 2018-KP-1934

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 28, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. CHARLES**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to show he was denied access to the courts by an arbitrary *565and unjustified enforcement of the uniform rules governing the filing of applications in the court of appeal, and thus shows no error in the court of appeal's denial of writs on technical grounds. La.C.Cr.P. art. 912.1(C).

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

GUIDRY, J., recused.
Exhibit 32.1


Certification of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) of United States 12 Month Natural Gas Fund, LP (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Nicholas D. Gerber, the President and Chief Executive Officer of United States Commodity Funds LLC, General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:





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





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





Date: March 30, 2011
By:
/s/ Nicholas D. GerberName:

Title:
Nicholas D. Gerber

President and Chief Executive Officer

United States Commodity Funds LLC,

General Partner of United States 12 Month Natural Gas Fund, LP
EX PARTE James Calvin FRAZIER

CR-17-0102

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 29, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
Sharon L. CULBERTSON, Appellant, v. CHRISTIANA TRUST, a Division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, Not in Its Individual Capacity, but Solely as Owner Trustee on Behalf of RBSHD 2013-1 Trust ; James S. Culbertson; Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc., as Assignee of HSBC Card Services, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-4641

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed July 3, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 7 I 0 0 90

. THE CHI LDREN’S DEFENSE FUND et al

. v

. K AL E E M
MCI NTYRE et a l

.

Kal eem M cIn t y re, i n di vi d u al l y an d as t h e ad m i ni s t rat o r o f t h e es tat e of Is ab el l a M cIn t y re To b i n , fi led a co m pl ai n t fo r d i s g org em en t an d co n s t ru ct i v e t ru s t

, s eek i n g
t h e ret u rn o f ch ari tab l e co n t ri b u t i o ns t h at a p ri or es tat e ad m in i s t rat o r h ad m ad e t o Th e Ch i ld ren ’ s Defen s e Fu n d an d M o reh o u s e Co l l eg e o n t h e gro u n d th at t h o s e

co n tri b u t i o n s were n o t au t h o ri zed u n d er t h e d eced en t ’ s wi l l . Th e t ri al co u rt d en i ed

t h e o rg an i zat i o n s ’ m o t i o n s t o d i s m i s s, an d t hey n ow s eek i n terl o cu t o ry rev i ew i n t h i s Co u rt

.

Ou r St at e Co n s ti t u t i o n gran t s t h e Geo rg i a Su p rem e Co u rt j u ri s d i ct i o n o v er
ap p eal s i n “ [a] l l cas es i n v o lv in g wi l l s .” G a. Co n s t

. o f 1 9 8 3

, A rt

. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (3 ). “ Th e G e o r g ia Su p rem e Co u rt h as i n t erp ret ed t h i s l an g uag e to m ean o n l y t h o s e

cas es wh ere t h e v al id i t y o r co n s t ru ct i on o f a wi l l i s t h e m ai n i ss u e o n ap p eal .” In r e Es t a t e o f Fa r ka s , 3 2 5 Ga. A p p. 4 7 7, 4 7 8 (1 ) (7 5 3 SE2 d 1 3 7 ) (2 0 1 3 )

. B e c a u s e i t

ap p ears t hat th e co n s tru ct i on o f t h e d eced en t ’ s wi l l i s a m ai n i ss u e i n th i s ap p l i cat i o n,
t h e ap p l i cat i o n i s h ereb y

TRANSFERRED t o t h e Su p rem e Co u rt

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. December 08, 2016

12/08/2016