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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WINSTON WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM L. MUNIZ, et al.,

Defendants.

1:16-cv-01936 SAB (PC)

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. ' 1983. 

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity 

jurisdiction, be brought only in A(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all 

defendants reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events 

or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the 

subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if 

there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.@ 28 U.S.C. ' 1391(b).

In this case, none of the defendants reside in this district. The claim arose in Monterey

County, which is in the Northern District of California. Therefore, plaintiff=s claim should have 

been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In the 

interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the 

Case 3:17-cv-00098-TEH Document 2 Filed 01/04/17 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 2

correct district. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 

1974).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2017 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00098-TEH Document 2 Filed 01/04/17 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA   Document 147-1   Filed 04/04/17   Page 1 of 12

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA   Document 147-1   Filed 04/04/17   Page 2 of 12

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA   Document 147-1   Filed 04/04/17   Page 3 of 12

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA   Document 147-1   Filed 04/04/17   Page 4 of 12

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA   Document 147-1   Filed 04/04/17   Page 5 of 12

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA   Document 147-1   Filed 04/04/17   Page 6 of 12

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA   Document 147-1   Filed 04/04/17   Page 7 of 12

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA   Document 147-1   Filed 04/04/17   Page 8 of 12

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA   Document 147-1   Filed 04/04/17   Page 9 of 12

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA   Document 147-1   Filed 04/04/17   Page 10 of 12

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA   Document 147-1   Filed 04/04/17   Page 11 of 12

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA   Document 147-1   Filed 04/04/17   Page 12 of 12
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the condensed consolidated financial statements included in the
Form 10-Q of Dionex Corporation for the quarter ended September 30,
1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           13739
<SECURITIES>                                      5000
<RECEIVABLES>                                    30259
<ALLOWANCES>                                       605
<INVENTORY>                                      11306
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 68698
<PP&E>                                           51360
<DEPRECIATION>                                   17285
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  111057
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            33142
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         39275
<OTHER-SE>                                       35883
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    111057
<SALES>                                          34845
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 34845
<CGS>                                            11031
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    11031
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  25
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   9096
<INCOME-TAX>                                      3047
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               6049
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      6049
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26
        

</TABLE>
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1318 

To allow the refurbishment and operation of a small hydroelectric facility 

in central Montana by adjusting the amount of charges to be paid 

to the United States under the Federal Power Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 15, 2005 

Mr. REHBERG introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To allow the refurbishment and operation of a small hydroelectric facility in central Montana by adjusting the 

amount of charges to be paid to the United States under 

the Federal Power Act, 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. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY 

4 REGULATORY COMMISSION PROJECT. 

5 Notwithstanding the time period specified in section 

6 5 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 798) that would 

7 otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Com8 mission project numbered 12107, the Commission shall 
2 

•HR 1318 IH 

1 extend the preliminary permit for a period of three years 

2 from the current expiration. If such permit has expired, 

3 the Commission shall reinstate the preliminary permit for 

4 a period of three years at the request of the permittee. 

5 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON CERTAIN FEES ASSESSED TO THE 

6 FLINT CREEK PROJECT. 

7 Notwithstanding Section 10(e)(1) of the Federal 

8 Power Act or any other provision of Federal law providing 

9 for the payment to the United States of charges for the 

10 use of its lands for the purpose of operating and maintain11 ing a hydroelectric development licensed by the Federal 

12 Energy Regulatory Commission, any political subdivision 

13 of the State of Montana which holds a Federal Power Act 

14 license in Granite and Deer Lodge Counties, Montana 

15 shall be required to pay the lesser of $25,000 or such an16 nual charge for the use of such lands as the Federal En17 ergy Regulatory Commission and any other department or 

18 agency of the Federal Government may assess, as long as 

19 such political subdivision continues to hold the license for 

20 the project. 

Æ
- 350 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports POPE v . DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES Cite as 311 Neb. 350

Colt M. Pope, appellant, v. Department of Motor Vehicles of the State of Nebraska, appellee. ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed April 15, 2022. No. S-21-206.

supplemental opinion Appeal from the District Court for Clay County: Stephen R. Illingworth , Judge. Former opinion modified. Motion for rehearing overruled. T. Charles James, of Langvardt, Valle & James, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Milissa JohnsonWiles for appellee.
Heavican , C.J., Miller

- Lerman , Cassel , Stacy , Funke , Papik , and Freudenberg , JJ.
Per Curiam. This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by the appellant, Colt M. Pope, concerning our opinion in Pope v. Department of Motor Vehicles , 310 Neb. 971, 969 N.W.2d 903 (2022). We overrule the motion, but modify the opinion as follows: In the analysis section, under the subheading “OTHER ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR,” we modify the fourth para

graph to add as the final sentence the following: “We make Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 06/24/2022 08:06 AM CDT- 351 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports POPE v . DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES Cite as 311 Neb. 350 no comment on any prohibitions or obligations under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-914(6) (Reissue 2014), as Pope has not assigned as error, nor has he argued he was prejudiced by, any purported violation of that statute.” The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified. Former opinion modified. Motion for rehearing overruled.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                      Statement of Chief Financial Officer
         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code

         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the
undersigned, Richard E. Staedtler, the Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of Castle Energy Corporation, hereby certifies that:

I.       The Company's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the three months ended
         March 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
         Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
II.     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company.

Dated:   May 13, 2004                             /S/RICHARD E. STAEDTLER
                                                  -----------------------------
                                                  Richard E. Staedtler
                                                  Chief Financial Officer

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Castle Energy Corporation and will be retained by Castle Energy
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
**Exhibit 34.1**

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Discover Bank 

New Castle, DE 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria, that Discover Bank (the “Bank”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of theSecurities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the asset-backed securities transactions involving credit card receivables conducted by Discover Card Master Trust I and Discover Card Execution Note Trust (the “Platform”) as ofand for the year ended November 30, 2010, excluding the criteria set forth in Items 1122 (d)(1)(iii), (d)(1)(iv), (d)(2)(iii), (d)(2)(iv), (d)(2)(v), (d)(2)(vi), (d)(3)(iii), (d)(3)(iv), (d)(4)(i), (d)(4)(iv), (d)(4)(vi), (d)(4)(vii),(d)(4)(viii), (d)(4)(ix), (d)(4)(x), (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii), (d)(4)(xiii), (d)(4)(xiv), and (d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Bank with respect to the Platform. Appendix A tomanagement’s assertion identifies the individual asset backed-transactions defined by management as constituting the Platform. Management is responsible for the Bank’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is toexpress an opinion on management’s assertion about the Bank’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. 

Ourexamination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, ona test basis, evidence about the Bank’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether the Bank performed those selected activitiesin compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Bank duringthe period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction included in the Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arisingfrom errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Bank during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonablebasis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Bank’s compliance with the servicing criteria. 

Inour opinion, management’s assertion that the Bank complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended November 30, 2010, for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Chicago,IL 

February 14, 2011
NORTHWEST, INC., et al., petitioners, v. Rabbi S. Binyomin GINSBERG.

No. 12-462.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

*2388Petitioner for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended January 31, 2009 of Easy ESL Publishing, Inc. a Delaware corporation (the Company), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual Report), I, Cameron Wong, Chairman, President and Chief Financial 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 Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  2. The information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.   /s/ Cameron Wong ------------------------------ Cameron Wong  President, Secretary Treasurer, Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Director  Date:  April 30, 2009
Earl A. BRYANT, petitioner, v. HUTCHINSON AUTO MALL.

No. 12-1050.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Daniel Eric COBBLE, petitioner, v. Stanley WILLIAMS, Warden, et al.

No. 12-8887.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Georgia, Tattnall County, dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
Sergio CARMONA-MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4628

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed July 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Tokuko H. SYLVESTER, petitioner, v. Jay K. BENARD.

No. 12-8824.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, denied.
109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1400

AN ACT

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties 

for aiming laser pointers at airplanes, 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, 
2

•HR 1400 EH 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Securing Aircraft 

3 Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2005’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST AIMING A LASER POINTER 

5 AT AN AIRCRAFT. 

6 (a) OFFENSE.—Chapter 2 of title 18, United States 

7 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘§ 39. Aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft 

9 ‘‘(a) Whoever knowingly aims the beam of a laser 

10 pointer at an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction 

11 of the United States, or at the flight path of such an air12 craft, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not 

13 more than 5 years, or both. 

14 ‘‘(b) As used in this section, the term ‘laser pointer’ 

15 means any device designed or used to amplify electro16 magnetic radiation by stimulated emission that emits a 

17 beam designed to be used by the operator as a pointer 

18 or highlighter to indicate, mark, or identify a specific posi19 tion, place, item, or object.’’. 

20 (b) AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF SECTIONS.—The 

21 table of sections at the beginning of chapter 2 of title 18, 
3

•HR 1400 EH 

1 United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 

2 following new item:

‘‘39. Aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives December 8, 

2005. 

Attest:

Clerk. 
109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1400

AN ACT

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide 

and for other purposes.penalties for aiming laser pointers at airplanes,
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

                ALPHA TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC., AND SUBSIDIARIES

                      COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
          FOR THE QUARTERS ENDED JANUARY 31, 1999 AND JANUARY 30, 2000

                                  (Unaudited)
                     (In Thousands, Except per Share Data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                January 31,           January 30,
                                                                                   1999                  2000
                                                                           ------------------    ------------------
<S>                                                                           <C>                  <C>
Shares:
     Weighted average common shares outstanding                                         6,932                 6,578

     Net common shares issuable on exercise of
        stock options                                                                       2                   513
                                                                                       ------                ------
Weighted average common and common equivalent
   shares outstanding                                                                   6,934                 7,091
                                                                                       ======                ======
Net income                                                                             $  504                $1,615
                                                                                       ======                ======
Basic and Diluted Net Income Per Share:
         Basic                                                                         $ 0.07                $ 0.25
                                                                                       ======                ======
         Diluted                                                                       $ 0.07                $ 0.23
                                                                                       ======                ======
</TABLE>
Leon Edward PUGH, petitioner, v. Carl HUMPHREY, Warden, et al.

No. 12-7944.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Form of Waiver



 Exhibit 10.2 
 WAIVER 
 In consideration for the benefits I will receive as a result of my employer’s participation in the United
States Department of the Treasury’s TARP Capital Purchase Program, I hereby voluntarily waive any claim against the United States or my employer for any changes to my compensation or benefits that are required to comply with the regulation
issued by the Department of the Treasury as published in the Federal Register on October 20, 2008. 
 I acknowledge that this regulation may require
modification of the compensation, bonus, incentive and other benefit plans, arrangements, policies and agreements (including so-called “golden parachute” agreements) that I have with my employer or in which I participate as they relate to
the period the United States holds any equity or debt securities of my employer acquired through the TARP Capital Purchase Program. 
 This waiver includes
all claims I may have under the laws of the United States or any state related to the requirements imposed by the aforementioned regulation, including without limitation a claim for any compensation or other payments I would otherwise receive, any
challenge to the process by which this regulation was adopted and any tort or constitutional claim about the effect of these regulations on my employment relationship. 
  


					
	DATED: February 6, 2009	 		  	  

		 		  	[Name]
Christian M. ALLMENDINGER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-1271.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
NUCOR CORPORATION, et al., petitioners, v. Quinton BROWN, et al.

No. 12-1127.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.