alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Richard F. McGinty, OSB 86071 

P.O. Box 12806 

Salem, OR 97309 

503-371-9636 

Fax: 503-371-2879 

richard@mcginty-belcher.com 

Attorney for Plaintiff Nicholas Gray 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

JEANINE DUPREY-CARR, Case No.: 6:15-cv-01340-JR 

Plaintiff, ORDER 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Defendant. 

This Court, having reviewed stipulation of the parties, finds Plaintiff is awarded an EAJA 

attorney fee in the amount of $6,449.50 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and $0 costs and expenses 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920, for at total of 6,449.50, subject to debt owed the US Government 

pursuant to the Treasury Offset Program as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). 

If Plaintiff has no such Treasury debt then the EAJA check shall be made out to 

Plaintiffs attorney and mailed to Plaintiffs attorney's at: PO Box 12806, Salem, OR 97309-

0806. If Plaintiff has a Treasury debt, then the check for any remaining funds after offset of the 

Treasury debt shall be made out to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiffs attorney's office at the 

address stated above. 

Page -1- ORDER 6: 15-cv-O 1340-JR 

Case 6:15-cv-01340-JR Document 30 Filed 02/27/17 Page 1 of 2
Wo

T IS SO ORDERED. 

t?bf~i DA : .hmttaey dl , 2017. 

Presented by: 

Richard F. McGinty OSB #86071 

503-371-9636 

DR~ ~States District Court Magistrate Judge 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Jeanine Duprey-Carr 

Page -2- ORDER 6: 15-cv-01340-JR 

Case 6:15-cv-01340-JR Document 30 Filed 02/27/17 Page 2 of 2
#### EX PARTE PANTAZE.

(Decided April 17, 1913.)

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

A. Latady, for petitioner.

Harsh, Beddow & Fitts, contra.

Per curiam.

Petition denied.
# C_2006324EN.01001101.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 324/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/11

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the space for mounting the rear registration plate of two or three-wheel motor vehicles

COM(2006) 478 final — 2006/0161 (COD)

(2006/C 324/05)

On 27 September 2006, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Committee Bureau instructed the Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption to prepare its work on the subject.

Given the urgent nature of the work, the European Economic and Social Committee appointed Mr Janson as rapporteur-general at its 430th plenary session, held on 26 October 2006, and adopted the following opinion by 104 votes to 0 with 1 abstentions.

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

| 1.1 | A codification of rules that have frequently been amended is also essential if Community law is to be clear and transparent. |
| --- | --- |

1.1

A codification of rules that have frequently been amended is also essential if Community law is to be clear and transparent.

| 1.2 | Codification must be undertaken in full compliance with the normal Community legislative procedure. |
| --- | --- |

1.2

Codification must be undertaken in full compliance with the normal Community legislative procedure.

| 1.3 | The purpose of the proposal is to undertake a codification of Council Directive 93/94/EEC of 29 October 1993 relating to the space for mounting the rear registration plate of two or three-wheel vehicles. The new Directive will supersede the various acts incorporated in it; this proposal fully preserves the content of the acts being codified and hence does no more than bring them together with only such formal amendments as are required by the codification exercise itself. |
| --- | --- |

1.3

The purpose of the proposal is to undertake a codification of Council Directive 93/94/EEC of 29 October 1993 relating to the space for mounting the rear registration plate of two or three-wheel vehicles. The new Directive will supersede the various acts incorporated in it; this proposal fully preserves the content of the acts being codified and hence does no more than bring them together with only such formal amendments as are required by the codification exercise itself.

| 1.4 | The Commission proposal under discussion here is fully consonant with the objective of codification and with the rules involved. The EESC therefore endorses it. |
| --- | --- |

1.4

The Commission proposal under discussion here is fully consonant with the objective of codification and with the rules involved. The EESC therefore endorses it.

Brussels, 17 October 2006.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitrios DIMITRIADIS

---
# EUR-Lex - 52006AP0592 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52006AP0592

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No .../2006 on medicinal products and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (COM(2006)0640 - C6-0356/2006 - 2006/0207(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 317 E , 23/12/2006 P. 0812 - 0812 *

20061223

P6_TA(2006)0592

Medicinal products for paediatric use ***I

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No .../2006 on medicinal products and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (COM(2006)0640 — C6-0356/2006 — 2006/0207(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2006)0640) [1],

- having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0356/2006),

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

- having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A6-0396/2006);

1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

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

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
#### PURCELL, Appellant, v. ARONSON, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

April 30, 1896.)

Action by Ruth Purcell, an infant, etc., against Rudolph Aronson.

M. Strassman, for appellant.

Guggenheimer, Untermeyer & Marshall, for respondent.

DALY, P. J.

The plaintiff’s testimony shows that she was first sent for by a Mr. Chase in *1148the office; that she saw Mr. Aronson, who referred her to Mr. Bond, and Mr. Bond employed her; that Mr. Aronson referred her to Mr. Bond for the work which she was to do. This would be sufficient to make out a case of hiring by Mr. Aronson, and it was' for him to show that he was acting as agent, and was acting within the scope of his authority in hiring her; also, that she was given to understand by some kind of notice that he was only acting on behalf of the company. Whitman v. Johnson, 10 Misc. Rep. 725, 31 N. Y. Supp. 805; Kahn v. Weill, 9 Misc. Rep. 150, 29 N. Y. Supp. 53; Mahony v. Kent, 7 Mise. Rep. 726, 28 N. Y. Supp. 19. It is manifest, from her evidence in this case, that she understood Mr. Aronson was her employer because he was manager of the theater; and it is to prevent parties being misled in parting with their servicies or their property to persons who seek to avoid responsibility on a claim of agency that the rule requires not only agency must be proved, but notice. The record in this case is barren of any proof of that kind. It is not shown that Mr. Aronson had any power to employ a typewriter for the Casino Company. That was the first requisite to a defense of this character. The next, is that there was no proof that he disclosed to her, or that there were circumstances disclosed to her, by which she knew that she was employed by the corporation or for the Casino Company. Defendant failed to establish such notice. In addition to the cases cited, we passed upon the same question in Hespe v. Wyman (Sup.) 37 N. Y. Supp. 652. That leaves the only question whether there was any evidence of employment by Mr. Aronson sufficient to hold him personally. We think that there was evidence of employment by him, and that she might fairly understand that he employed her. We reverse the judgment, and order a new trial, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
1... See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NOS. 2-07-058-CR

2-07-059-CR

JEROME M. HAMILTON APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 396 DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TH

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered appellant’s “Motions To Dismiss Appeal.” The

motions comply with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.2(a). No decision of this court having been delivered before we

received the motions, we grant the motions and dismiss the appeals. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f). 

PER CURIAM

PANEL F: GARDNER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and LIVINGSTON, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: April 3, 2008
#### In the Matter of George D. Rosenbaum, Respondent-Appellant, v Mangiatordi, Corpina and Cavallo, Appellant-Respondent, et al., Respondent.

No opinion. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Carro, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.
(18 Misc. Rep. 473.)

#### SHAPIRO v. JACOVES.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

November 25, 1896.)

Sales—Rights or Seller—Error in Bill Rendered.

A seller is not bound by an error in a bill rendered to the buyer, but may recover the price of the goods sold, though in excess of the amount of the bill.

Appeal from Fifth district court.

Action by Moris Shapiro against Jacob Jacoves for conversion of certain tailor’s cloths, part of lots delivered the defendant on his agreement to pay for or return them. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $191.52 damages, besides costs, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before DALY, P. J., and McADAM and BISCHOFF, JJ.

Jacob Manheim, for appellant.

Moses H. Grossman, Michael Schapp, and Friend, House & Grossman, for respondent.

DALY, P. J.

The terms upon which the defendant received the goods from the plaintiff were disputed, but the justice has found in favor of the plaintiff’s version of the transaction, upon sufficient testimony, and there is no preponderance the other way in favor *92of the defendant. We therefore cannot disturb the finding of fact in that respect, and we are to assume that the defendant agreed to return, upon demand, such of the goods as were not sold. A demand was made upon him at the time that he still had in his possession certain of the goods. What the amount and value of those goods were, whether the plaintiff received them upon such demand, or whether the defendant withheld them, were also questions of fact, which have been determined, upon conflicting evidence, in plaintiff’s favor. The plaintiff swore that the value of the goods not returned was $191.52. Much stress was laid by the defendant upon the fact that the plaintiff rendered two bills, showing the balance due him to be $162.76, and also upon the fact that in the bill of particulars a credit of $191.40 is allowed for goods returned, instead of for cash paid, in accordance with the facts. The plaintiff was not concluded by any error in the bills rendered, and has not recovered for any greater amount than the limit of his bill of particulars. It was objected that he did not specify the goods which he demanded, and which he alleged to have been converted; but it appears that the balance for which'judgment was allowed represented the value of the goods which were not returned, although the specific items of such goods were not given. As they consisted of small pieces and remnants, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the plaintiff to show, with particularity, what remnants and pieces the defendant had on hand at the time of the demand. He did show the total value of the consignments, the amount of cash received as payments, the value of the goods allowed for as returned, and that the balance represented the value of the goods not accounted for. It was within defendant’s power, as he had possession of the goods, and knew what he had sold, and what he had on hand, to have shown what the plaintiff was entitled to reclaim; and, as he did not do so by satisfactory proof, he cannot complain of the finding against him.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
#### Thorpe Electric Supply, Inc., Appellant, v Brian Shannon, Individually and Doing Business as Shannon Electric, Respondent.

— Main, J.

In this action to recover $11,063.24 allegedly owed to plaintiff by defendant for goods sold to defendant, we find that Special Term correctly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. As both parties have noted, summary judgment is a drastic remedy which should be granted only when there is no doubt as to the absence of a triable issue of fact *(Phillips v Kantor & Co.,*31 NY2d 307, 311; *Alfano v First Natl. Bank,*111 AD2d 960, 962). While a question certainly has been raised as to defendant’s credibility, arising from certain statements made in his affidavit, we are nevertheless unwilling to say that defendant’s affidavits should be rejected outright or that as a matter of law his affidavits are inadequate to set up a triable issue of fact *(see, Davis Acoustical Corp. v Matzen Constr.,*57 AD2d 1018, 1019; *cf.*4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY *322Civ Prac ¶ 3212.12). An examination of the record reveals that defendant may indeed have valid objections to at least some of the invoices attached as exhibits to plaintiffs affidavit. Given this, plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment.

Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Casey, Mikoll and Harvey, JJ., concur.
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
 Beltsville Agricultural Research Center: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    USDA Civil Rights Policy StatementSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Kalyn  Alloway

(Kj)
                        Research Support Services

                        




                        
                        ANIMAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
                        Phone: (301) 504-9081
                        
                        
                        Fax: (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
1

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 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

DENA K. COULON, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 

 Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No.: 6:15-cv-01133-KI 

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES 

UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO 

JUSTICE ACT, PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2412(d), AND COSTS, PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. § 1920 

 

 Based upon the parties’ Stipulation for the Award and Payment of Equal Access to 

Justice Act (EAJA) Fees and Costs, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall be awarded attorney 

fees under the EAJA in the amount of SIX THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND SIXTY 

FOUR DOLLARS AND TWENTY FIVE CENTS ($6,964.25), and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 

1920, in the amount of FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS ($400.00), subject to the terms of the 

above-referenced Stipulation, to include the United States Department of the Treasury’s Offset 

Program pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). Any payment shall be delivered to 

Plaintiff’s counsel. 

Dated: September 5, 2017 

Michael W. Mosman 

United States District Judge 

 

 /s/ Michael W. Mosman
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON, PORTLAND DIVISION 

JEFF GRAHAM AND AMY MCCOY, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS 

TRUSTEE, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO 

BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE, SUCCESSOR 

IN INTEREST TO LASALLE BANK, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE 

FOR WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE 

PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATE WMALT 

SERIES 2007-0A3 TRUST and PITE 

DUNCAN, LLP, 

Defendants. 

Case no.: 3: l 5-cv-00990-AC 

GENERAL JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL OF 

DEFENDANT ALDRIDGE PITE, LLP 

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's unopposed motion to dismiss defendant 

Aldridge Pite, LLP, successor by merger to Pite Duncan, LLP. Having reviewed the motion and 

record, this Court ORDERS and ADnIDGES that Aldridge Pite, LLP is dismissed without fees 

or costs to either plaintiffs or Aldridge Pite, LLP. 

r:.!-li_ DATED April~, 1016. 

Presented by: 

Ryan Vanden Brink, OSB 091833 

ryan@intelekia-law.com 

Intelekia Law Group LLC 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

JUDGMENT DISMISSING ALDRIDGE PITE, LLP 

Page I 

Graha1n and McCoy v. US Bank, et al 

INTELEKIA LAW GROUP LLC 

308 SW First Avenue, Suite 325 

Portland, OR 97204 

PH 503.227.8580 FAX 503.296.2518 

Case 3:15-cv-00990-AC Document 40 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON

BRIAN ALAN YESKE,

Plaintiff,

v. 

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY

ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 6:14-cv-01671-KI

JUDGMENT

Max Rae

P.O. Box 7790

Salem, OR 97303

Attorney for Plaintiff

Billy J. Williams

Acting United States Attorney

District of Oregon

Page 1 - JUDGMENT

Case 6:14-cv-01671-KI Document 24 Filed 12/07/15 Page 1 of 2
Janice E. Hebert

Assistant United States Attorney

1000 SW Third Ave., Ste. 600

Portland, OR 97201-2902

Alexis L. Toma

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Office of the General Counsel

Social Security Administration

701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 2900, M/S 221A

Seattle, WA 98104-7075

Attorneys for Defendant

KING, Judge:

The decision of the Commissioner is reversed. This action is remanded to the

Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 7th day of December, 2015. 

 /s/ Garr M. King 

Garr M. King

United States District Judge

Page 2 - JUDGMENT

Case 6:14-cv-01671-KI Document 24 Filed 12/07/15 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
 Innovative Fruit Production, Improvement, and Protection: Kearneysville, WV
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Upcoming Events
                    Recent Events
                        International Workshop The Fruit Microbiome: A New Frontier
                                    Open House 2019Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Kearneysville, West Virginia Appalachian Fruit Research Laboratory Innovative Fruit Production, Improvement, and Protection People & Locations







Stephanie  Kreger
                        Innovative Fruit Production, Improvement, and Protection

                        




                        
                        Administrative Officer
                        Phone: (304) 725-3451
                         ext. 332
                        
                        Fax: (304) 728-7182(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 32.2

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350

Solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned Senior Vice President  Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Nicholas Financial, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months
ended December 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Ralph T Finkenbrink                                    
|Ralph T. Finkenbrink                                       
|Senior Vice President  Finance and Chief Financial Officer
|                                                           
|Dated: February 14, 2007