alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 – OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

MICHAEL EVANS, 

No. 6:15-cv-00500-JE

Petitioner, 

OPINION AND ORDER

v.

GUY HILL, Superintendent,

Respondent.

MOSMAN, J.,

On February 23, 2016, Magistrate Judge Jelderks issued his Findings and 

Recommendation (F&R) [21], recommending Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [1] 

should be DISMISSED. No objections to the Findings and Recommendation were filed.

DISCUSSION

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may 

file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, 

but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to 

make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or 

recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court 

is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of 

the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R 

Case 6:15-cv-00500-JE Document 23 Filed 03/18/16 Page 1 of 2
2 – OPINION AND ORDER

depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, 

or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Upon review, I agree with Judge Jelderks’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [21]

as my own opinion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 18th day of March, 2016.

/s/ Michael W. Mosman ______

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

Chief United States District Judge

Case 6:15-cv-00500-JE Document 23 Filed 03/18/16 Page 2 of 2
Ii "

No. 94-538 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1995 APRIL BENTON, Plaintiff and Appellant,-vROBERT C. SNOW, Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the ThirteenthJudicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone, The Honorable Russell K. Fillner, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:

Filed: For Appellant: April Benton, pro se For Respondent: K. KentKoolen, Moulton, Bellingham, Longo&Mather, Billings, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: May 11, 1995 Decided: August 10, ]995

Clerk

# ..
Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a jury verdict in the Thirteenth Judicial DistrictCourt, Yellowstone County, awardingApril Benton damage of $7,491 sustained in an automobile accident. We affirm. The following issue is dispositive of the case: Is there substantial evidence to support the juryverdict? April Benton (Benton) was a passenger In an automobile involved in a collision in Billings, Montana, on the night of October 4, 1991. Robert Snow (Snow), the driver of the send automobile involved in the collision, filed a Rule 68 offer of judgment inthe amount of $7,500, whichBentonrejected. At trial, Snowadmittednegligencebut challengedcausationanddamages. The juryreturned a verdict for Benton in the amount of $7,491. Much of the testimonyat trial includingBillingsneurologist Dr. Patrick Cahill and Dr. Charles Hatsell from Texas included statements that Benton's injuries could not have come from the accident in Billings. Dr. Cahill testified that psychological factors were the cause of Benton's continuing complaints. While the transcript of the proceedings is lengthy, Benton's argument on appeal consists of the following: Plaintiff was permanently injured as a result of a vehicle accident[s] from which defendant admits liability. Plaintiff was unsuccessful in obtaining a fair and just amount of compensation as a result of a trial in which defendant perjured himself on the witness stand, covered up evidence, and caused the plaintiff's judg[e]ment to be that of one unjust. Such contentions are without a basis in the record. Benton is a
2

# .'

pro se litigant but that does not excuse her from filing an appropriatebriefas requiredbyRule 23 1 M.R.App.P. Appellanthas presented no issues for reviewI no brief with legal argument
-- despite seeking an extension of time from this Court within which to accomplish those appeal requirements. Snow argues on appeal that the jury verdict was appropriate anda reviewof the record shows that thedamages awardedtoBenton were based upon substantial evidence presented during the proceedings. We conclude that thejuryverdict is supportedby substantial evidence. We affirm. Pursuant to Section II Paragraph 3(c) I Montana Supreme Court 1988 Internal OperatingRules l this decision shall not be citedas precedent and shallbepublishedbyits filingas a public document with the Clerk of this Court and by a report of its result to the West Publishing Company.



# Md4{f/# JUStl es 3
Exhibit 24.1
 POWER OF ATTORNEY
  Name
    
    Title
    
    Date/s/ John D. Johnson

John D. Johnson
    
    Chief Executive Officer 
(principal
executive officer)
    
    October 9, 2008/s/ John Schmitz

John Schmitz
    
    Executive Vice President & 
Chief
Financial Officer

(principal financial officer)
    
    October 9, 2008/s/ Michael Toelle

Michael Toelle
    
    Chairman of the Board
    
    October 8, 2008/s/ Bruce Anderson

Bruce Anderson
    
    Director
    
    October 8, 2008/s/ Donald Anthony

Donald Anthony
    
    Director
    
    October 8, 2008/s/ Robert Bass

Robert Bass
    
    Director
    
    October 8, 2008/s/Dennis Carlson

Dennis Carlson
    
    Director
    
    October 8, 2008/s/ Curt Eischens

Curt Eischens
    
    Director
    
    October 8, 2008/s/ Steve Fritel

Steve Fritel
    
    Director
    
    October 8, 2008




---



##### 



Name
    
    Title
    
    Date/s/ Robert Grabarski

Robert Grabarski
    
    Director
    
    October 8, 2008/s/ Jerry Hasnedl

Jerry Hasnedl
    
    Director
    
    October 8, 2008/s/ David Kayser

David Kayser
    
    Director
    
    October 8, 2008/s/ James Kile

James Kile
    
    Director
    
    October 8, 2008/s/ Randy Knecht

Randy Knecht
    
    Director
    
    October 8, 2008/s/ Michael Mulcahey

Michael Mulcahey
    
    Director
    
    October 8, 2008/s/ Richard Owen

Richard Owen
    
    Director
    
    October 8, 2008/s/ Steve Riegel

Steve Riegel
    
    Director
    
    October 8, 2008/s/ Daniel Schurr

Daniel Schurr
    
    Director
    
    October 8, 2008/s/ Duane Stenzel

Duane Stenzel
    
    Director
    
    October 8, 2008
 2
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 177 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 177

 To provide for a special application of section 1034 of the Internal 
                         Revenue Code of 1986.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 21, 1997

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for a special application of section 1034 of the Internal 
                         Revenue Code of 1986.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in the case of 
Rita Bennington--
            (1) who purchased her new principal residence (within the 
        meaning of section 1034 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) 
        in January 1992, and
            (2) who was unable to meet the requirements of such section 
        with respect to the sale of an old principal residence until 
        May 1994, because of unexpected delays caused by Hurricane 
        Iniki,
the Secretary of the Treasury, in the administration of section 1034 of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, shall apply subsection (a) of such 
section by substituting ``2.5 years'' for ``2 years'' each place it 
appears.
                                 <all>
```
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**917 KA 10-01432** 
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHARLES M. THOMAS, SR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID R. JUERGENS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., A.J.), rendered April 21, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the third degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the case is held, the decision is reserved and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of robbery in the third degree (Penal Law § 160.05). Contrary to defendant’s contention, he is not entitled to summary reversal of the conviction based upon the People’s posttrial loss of the recording of the robbery victim’s 911 call that was admitted in evidence at trial ( see People v Yavru-Sakuk , 98 NY2d 56, 59). The content of the 911 call, however, is significant to several of the contentions raised on appeal, and the information contained in the missing recording cannot otherwise be obtained from the record on appeal ( cf. People v Melendez , 71 AD3d 530, 531, affd 16 NY3d 869; Yavru-Sakuk , 98 NY2d at 61). Inasmuch as the present record on appeal does not permit us to review those contentions, we hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to Supreme Court to conduct a reconstruction hearing with respect to the missing recording ( see People v Glass , 43 NY2d 283, 286; People v Lopez , 176 AD2d 218, 219; see also People v Fullen , 118 AD3d 1297, 1298).

Entered: October 3, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
David D. Park, OSB #803358

ELLIOTT & PARK, P.C.

Abernethy House

324 S. Abernethy Street

Portland, Oregon 97239-8529

Telephone: (503) 227-1690

Facsimile: (503) 274-8384

E-mail: dave@elliott-park.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CHRISTOPH K. LaDUE and SHELLEY J. LaDUE,

co-administrators of the ESTATE OF CHRISTOPH

KARL LaDUE, JR., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF TALENT, ET AL., 

Defendants.

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Case No. 1:14-cv-01421-MC

SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

That Christoph K. LaDue and Shelley J. LaDue, co-administrators of the Estate

of Christoph Karl LaDue, Jr. (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), do hereby acknowledge full

and final satisfaction of that certain Consent Judgment Against Defendants ZIW, LLC,

Charles Burton Ritchie and Benjamin Galecki (hereinafter the “Consent Judgment”)

rendered by this Court in the above-styled cause on July 12, 2018, and recorded in the

1 - SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT ELLIOTT & PARK, P.C.

Attorneys at Law

Abernethy House

324 S. Abernethy Street

Portland, Oregon 97239-8529

(503) 227-1690

Fax: (503) 274-8384

Case 1:14-cv-01421-MC Document 291 Filed 11/05/20 Page 1 of 2
Official Records of Escambia County, Florida, in Book 7941, Page 393, and in Book

7941, Page 614. Plaintiffs hereby acknowledge that said Consent Judgment has been

paid in full, and Plaintiffs hereby cancel, satisfy and discharge said Consent Judgment. 

The clerk of court is hereby authorized and directed to note the full and complete

satisfaction and cancellation of said Consent Judgment. 

DATED this 5th day of November, 2020.

s/ David D. Park 

David D. Park, OSB #803358

ELLIOTT & PARK, P.C.

324 S. Abernethy Street

Portland, OR 97239-8529

Telephone: (503) 227-1690

E-mail: dave@elliott-park.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs and Co-Administrators

Christoph K. LaDue and Shelley J. LaDue

2 - SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT ELLIOTT & PARK, P.C.

Attorneys at Law

Abernethy House

324 S. Abernethy Street

Portland, Oregon 97239-8529

(503) 227-1690

Fax: (503) 274-8384

Case 1:14-cv-01421-MC Document 291 Filed 11/05/20 Page 2 of 2
1 – ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

ANGELA NAILS, 

Plaintiff, No. 3:15-cv-1032-JE

v. 

 

ERIC BEACH, ORDER

 Defendant.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Jelderks issued a Findings and Recommendation [9] on August 18, 

2015, in which he recommends that this Court grant Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis [1], deny Plaintiff’s motion for pro bono counsel [4], and dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint 

[2]. 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, 

Case 3:15-cv-01032-JE Document 13 Filed 09/17/15 Page 1 of 2
2 – ORDER

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 Jelderk’s Findings & Recommendation [9], and 

therefore, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis [1] is granted, Plaintiff’s motion 

for pro bono counsel [4] is denied, and Plaintiff’s complaint [2] is dismissed. Plaintiff is given 30 

days to file an amended complaint curing the defects described in the Findings & 

Recommendation if she wishes to proceed in this action. If Plaintiff fails to file such an amended 

complaint, the case will be dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this ____________ day of __________________________ , 2015.

________________________________________________ 

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01032-JE Document 13 Filed 09/17/15 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 160 (Monday, August 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 47156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18015]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Consortium for Battery Innovation

    Notice is hereby given that, on June 28, 2021, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Consortium for Battery Innovation 
(``CBI'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Specifically, Boab Metals, Perth, WA, AUSTRALIA; Inbatec, Hagen, 
GERMANY; Jiangsu New Chunxing Resource Recycling Co. Ltd, Shanghai, 
CHINA; Penox, Ohrdruf, GERMANY; Ramcar Technology, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, 
PHILIPPINES; Sorfin Yoshimura, Woodbury, NY, USA; and Stryten 
Manufacturing, Alpharetta, GA, USA have been added as parties to this 
venture.
    Also, Recylex, GERMANY and Orzel Bialy, POLAND have withdrawn as 
parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and CBI intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On May 28, 2019, CBI filed its original notification pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 21, 
2019 (84 FR 29241).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on January 15, 
2021. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on February 12, 2021 (86 FR 9372).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-18015 Filed 8-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 159 (Friday, August 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 46859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17876]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Advisory Council, September 
09, 2021, 10:00 a.m. to September 10, 2021, 12:45 p.m., National 
Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, 
Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the Federal Register on 
August 09, 2021, FR Doc 2021-16952, 86 FR 43557.
    The meeting notice is amended to change and adjust the Opening and 
Closing times on the Subcommittees and Executive Sessions. The meeting 
is partially Closed to the public.

    Dated: August 17, 2021.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-17876 Filed 8-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
# EUR-Lex - 52006AP0371 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52006AP0371

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision amending and extending Decision 2001/923/EC establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (the 'Pericles' programme) (COM(2006)0243 - C6-0179/2006 - 2006/0078(CNS)) **

*
Official Journal 306 E , 15/12/2006 P. 0264 - 0264 *

P6_TA(2006)0371

Pericles programme *

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision amending and extending Decision 2001/923/EC establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (the "Pericles" programme) (COM(2006)0243 — C6-0179/2006 — 2006/0078(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2006)0243) [1],

- having regard to Article 123(4), third sentence of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0179/2006),

- having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A6-0276/2006),

1. Approves the Commission proposal;

2. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3. Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

4. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
#### GROSS, Appellant, v. MOORE et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

December 18, 1895.)

Action by John L. Gross against William L. Moore and another.

C. Brainerd, for appellant.

H. ICettell, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

We do not understand the practice which has been pursued in the ease at bar. There is nothing in the record to indicate the character of the action, as it commences, after the formal statement, with a so-called “interlocutory decree,” and it also contains another interlocutory decree appointing a referee. The referee reported, and a motion was made to confirm the report, and from the order thereupon entered the appeal was taken. It seems to us that the proper practice would have been at least to have printed the judgment roll, and, upon the coming in of the referee’s report, to have entered a final judgment, and to appeal from such final judgment. There is nothing in the Code which authorizes the practice which has been pursued in the case at bar. The appeal should be dismissed.
# EUR-Lex - 52006AP0572 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52006AP0572

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the elimination of controls performed at the frontiers of Member States in the field of road and inland waterway transport (codified version) (COM(2006)0432 - C6-0261/2006 - 2006/0146(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 317 E , 23/12/2006 P. 0599 - 0599 *

20061223

P6_TA(2006)0572

Elimination of controls at the frontiers of Member States (road and inland waterway transport) (codified version) ***I

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the elimination of controls performed at the frontiers of Member States in the field of road and inland waterway transport (codified version) (COM(2006)0432 — C6-0261/2006 — 2006/0146(COD))

(Codecision procedure: codification)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2006)0432) [1],

- having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 71 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0261/2006),

- having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 — Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts [2],

- having regard to Rules 80, 51 and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0459/2006);

1. Approves the Commission proposal;

2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

[2] OJ C 102, 4.4.1996, p. 2.

--------------------------------------------------
<PAGE>
                                       

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
GETCHELL GOLD CORPORATION:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 
33-24401, 2-93585, 33-24414, 33-31226, 33-32572, 33-37085, 33-39067, 
33-43602, 33-45342, 33-56046, 33-57761, 33-74020, and 33-22005) on Form S-8 
of Getchell Gold Corporation of our report dated February 12, 1997, except as 
to Note 14, which is as of February 14, 1997, relating to the consolidated 
balance sheets of Getchell Gold Corporation and subsidiary as of December 31, 
1996 and 1995, and the related consolidated statements of operations, 
stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 1996, the 
six months ended December 31, 1995 and each of the years in the two-year 
period ended June 30, 1995, which report appears in the December 31, 1996 
annual report on Form 10-K of Getchell Gold Corporation.

                                             KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP 


Denver, Colorado
March 4, 1997
#### In re DISBARMENT OF ATTORNEY.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

December 18, 1895.)

An application for the removal and disbarment of an attorney.

No opinión. The attorney suspended for six months.