alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Wheat, Sorghum and Forage Research: Lincoln, NE
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Lincoln, Nebraska Wheat, Sorghum and Forage Research People & Locations







William F Anderson
                        Wheat, Sorghum and Forage Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Aid
                        Phone: (402) 472-5987
                        
                        
                        Fax: (402) 472-4020(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

ADAM BERGER and 

MARK PATRICK, 

Plaintiffs, No. 3:14-cv-01661-PK

v. 

 

DIRECTV, INC. and 

DIRECTV, LLC, ORDER

 Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Papak issued a Findings and Recommendation [33] on March 6, 2015, 

in which he recommends that this Court deny in part and grant in part Defendants’ Motion to 

Dismiss [15]. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were 

timely filed, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt, 

1 – ORDER

Case 3:14-cv-01661-PK Document 35 Filed 04/16/15 Page 1 of 2
840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate 

Judge's report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de 

novo, I find no error.

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak’s Findings & Recommendation [33], and 

therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [15] is denied in part and granted in part.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this day of , 2015.

 

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge

2 – ORDER

Case 3:14-cv-01661-PK Document 35 Filed 04/16/15 Page 2 of 2
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Mandan, North Dakota
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Michael J Eberle
                        Location Support Staff

                        




                        
                        Maintenance Mechanic Supervisor
                        Phone: (701) 667-3075
                        
                        
                        Fax: (701) 667-3054(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
##### 



Exhibit 23.2 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of the statements of reserves and references to
us appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Infinity, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
2004 and in the Companys registration statements on Form S-8 (including Nos. 333-31950,
333-117390, 333-107838, 333-96691, 333-71590 and 333-44898) and Form S-3 (including Nos. 333-15723,
333-52742, 333-122702, 333-121648, 333-112849, 333-69292 and 333-96671), any prospectuses or
amendments or supplements thereto, and in any amendment to any of the foregoing. NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.By:

/s/ Frederic D. SewellFrederic D. SewellChairman and Chief Executive Officer Dallas, Texas
March 30, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                5
<CIK>                                           0000823072
<NAME>                               THE TIREX CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                             1
<CURRENCY>                                             USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                1
<CASH>                                                     2,793
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                              109,961
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         843,078
<PP&E>                                                 2,351,032
<DEPRECIATION>                                           127,234
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         3,287,384
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  1,558,727
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                 151,133
<OTHER-SE>                                              (984,972)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           3,287,384
<SALES>                                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                               0
<CGS>                                                      2,264
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              2,264
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       5,548,824
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        89,397
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (5,548,829)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (5,548,829)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (5,548,829)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                 (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               (.06)


</TABLE>
Filed by sedaredgar.com - Supatcha Resources Inc. - Exhibit 10.3






LAURENCE SOOKOCHOFF, P. Eng.

 

CONSENT OF GEOLOGICAL
CONSULTANT


I hereby consent to the inclusion and reference of the
following report to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission: 

	 	1. 	
      Report entitled "Geological Report of the Bonanza
      Property for Supatcha Resources Inc" dated December 12,
  2007



In addition, I consent to the reference to me under the heading
"Experts" in the Registration Statement on Form SB-2. 

Dated the 27th day of December, 2007
 

__________________________________________
LAURENCE
SOOKOCHOFF, P. Eng.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDREW GUY MORET,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

POORNIMA RANGANATHAN; ANDREA

DAILEY,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

OREGON STATE HOSPITAL,

Defendant. No. 21

- 35424

D.C. No. 6:18

- cv

- 01105

- MK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2022 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Andrew Guy Moret appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 25 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 2 1

- 35424

judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations arising

from the involuntary administration of medication during his pretrial detention.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. JL Beverage

Co., LLC v. Jim Beam Brands Co. , 828 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 2016). We

affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Moret’s due

process claims relating to the involuntary administration of medication after his

administrative hearing because Moret received all of the process he was due

. See

Washington v. Harper , 494 U.S. 210 , 235 (1990) (holding that due process requires

an evidentiary hearing before an independent decisionmaker when a prisoner

challenges the involuntary administration of medication) ; U.S. v. Loughner , 672

F.3d 731, 752 (9th Cir. 2012 ) ( Harper’s due process protections apply to pretrial

detainees).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Moret’s due

process claims related to the involuntary administration of medication before his

administrative hearing because it would not have been clear to every reasonable

official that the involunt ary administration of medication before a hearing was

unlawful under the circumstances. See Pearson v. Callahan , 555 U.S. 223, 232

(2009) (“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a

clearly established constitutional right. ”); Foster v. Runnels , 554 F.3d 807, 8153 2 1

- 35424

(9th Cir. 2009) (“A right is clearly established when its contours are sufficiently

defined, such that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing

violates that right.” (internal quotation mark s omi tted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Moret’s motion to

reinstate his claims against defendants because Moret failed to demonstrate any

basis for such relief. See Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales , U.S.A. , 833

F.2d 208, 211 (9th Cir. 1987) (requirements for relief from judgment under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2)).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Linton, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 371]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marras, J.), dated November 17, 2009, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender and a sexually violent offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to downwardly depart from the presumptive risk level, since the defendant failed to establish a ground for a downward departure by a preponderance of the evidence *(see*Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [2006]; *People v Fernandez,*91 AD3d 737 [2012]; *People v Wyatt,*89 AD3d 112, 129-130 [2011], *lv denied*18 NY3d 803 [2012]).

Although a defendant in a SORA proceeding may be entitled to the appointment of an expert upon a court’s finding that expert services are necessary *(see*County Law § 722-c), the Supreme Court here did not err in declining the defendant’s *963request for the appointment of a psychiatrist to assist him in seeking a downward departure. The defendant did not establish that appointment of an expert was necessary. Moreover, the denial of the defendant’s request did not violate his right to due process of law *(cf. Ross v Moffitt,*417 US 600, 616 [1974]). Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
#### John A. Kamping, Appellant *v.*John A. Horan, Respondent.

(Argued October 22, 1890;

decided December 2, 1890.)

Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made January 29,1889, which reversed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and granted a new trial.

*John A. Kamping*appellant in person.

*Raphael J. Moses*for respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur.

Order affirmed and judgment absolute on stipulation for defendant.
Exhibit 32.3

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 Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Sam KraynekChief Financial OfficerAugust 14, 2009
# C_2005151EN.01000301.xml

| 22.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/3

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.3431 — Sonoco/Ahlstrom

(pursuant to Article 15 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(2005/C 151/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 18 May 2004, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 by which the undertakings Sonoco Luxembourg S.à r.l. (Luxembourg), belonging to Sonoco Products Company (‘Sonoco’, US), and Ahlstrom Holding GmbH (Germany), belonging to Ahlstrom Corporation (‘Ahlstrom’, Finland), acquire joint control of the undertaking Sonoco — JV S.à r.l. (‘the JV’, Luxembourg), a newly created company constituting a joint venture.

Upon examination of the evidence submitted by the parties to the proposed concentration and after conducting a market investigation, the Commission concluded that the concentration raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and with the EEA Agreement. Commitments submitted by the parties that modified the original concentration plan were considered not sufficient to prevent serious doubts at that stage, following an initial market test. The Commission therefore initiated proceedings in accordance with Article 6(1)c of the Merger Regulation.

On 6 August 2004 the parties offered alternative commitments that modified the original concentration plan, which were also market tested. On 25 August 2004 another set of commitments were offered, which were closer to the initial commitments presented in Phase I. Having by this stage undertaken a detailed market analysis and following comments from market participants, the relevant Commission service considered that the serious doubts had been removed. Accordingly, no statement of objections was sent to the parties. No queries were raised before the Hearing Officer by the parties or other companies as to the market test. The case does not call for any particular comments as regards the right to be heard.

Brussels, 27 September 2004.

Karen WILLIAMS

---
#### PEOPLE ex rel. HABERMAN et al. v. JAMES et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April, 1896.)

Proceeding on the relation of Frederick Haberman and others against David H. James and others.

No opinion. Motion denied. See 39 N. Y. Supp. 313.
EXHIBIT 11

                    CATALINA LIGHTING, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                   EXHIBIT 11

              SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                 Years ended September 30,
                                                            ---------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2000                1999                1998
                                                            -----------------    ----------------   -----------------
<S>                                                               <C>                <C>                  <C>
Net income                                                        $2,845,000         $ 6,489,000          $1,102,000

Interest on convertible subordinated notes, net of
  income taxes                                                       250,000             424,000                   -
                                                            -----------------    ----------------   -----------------

Net income for diluted earnings
  per share                                                       $3,095,000         $ 6,913,000          $1,102,000
                                                            =================    ================   =================

Weighted average number of common shares
  outstanding during the year                                      7,607,000           7,252,000           7,128,000

Weighted average number of shares repurchased
    during the year                                                 (533,000)           (197,000)                  -

Shares issuable upon conversion of convertible
  subordinated notes                                                 748,000           1,138,000                   -

Common equivalent shares determined using the
   "Treasury Stock" method representing shares
   issuable upon exercise of stock options and warrants and
   shares issuable under contractual agreements                       597,000             495,000             349,000
                                                            -----------------    ----------------   -----------------

Weighted average number of shares
  used in calculation of diluted earnings
  per share                                                        8,419,000           8,688,000           7,477,000
                                                            =================    ================   =================

Diluted earnings per share                                            $ 0.37              $ 0.80              $ 0.15
                                                            =================    ================   =================
</TABLE>

Note
----

Subordinated  notes  convertible  into 1,040,000 common shares were not included
for the year ended September 30, 1998 because their effect was anti-dilutive.