alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

WALLACE T. RUTHERFORD, JR., 3:15-cv-00639-SB

Plaintiff, ORDER

v. 

 

PERS CENTER SALEM OREGON, U.S.

ATTORNEY TREATIES DEPARTMENT 

97205, OREGON JUSTICE 

DEPARTMENT TREATY ATTORNEYS 

97301, and OREGON TREASURY 

DEPARTMENT,

 Defendants.

BROWN, Judge.

Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and

Recommendation (#9) on July 8, 2015, in which she recommends this

Court grant Plaintiff’s Amended Application (#8) for Leave to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis and dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (#2)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) without prejudice to

Plaintiff’s prosecution of the first-filed action, Case No. 

 - 1 ORDER

Case 3:15-cv-00639-SB Document 13 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 3
3:15-cv-00476-SB, including the amendment of Plaintiff’s

Complaint therein to include any related claims or parties. 

On August 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to

the Ninth Circuit from Magistrate Judge Beckerman’s Findings and

Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendation, however, is not a final appealable order, and,

therefore, Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal is premature and does not

deprive this Court of jurisdiction. See Serine v. Peterson, 989

F.2d 371, 372-73 (9th Cir. 1993). See also Burnside v. Jacquez,

731 F.3d 874, 875 (9th Cir. 2013). The matter is now before this

Court 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, this Court is relieved of its

obligation to review the record de novo. See Dawson v. Marshall,

561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). See also United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). 

Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court does not

find any error. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Beckerman's Findings and

Recommendation (#9). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s

Amended Application (#8) for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

 - 2 ORDER

Case 3:15-cv-00639-SB Document 13 Filed 09/10/15 Page 2 of 3
and DISMISSES this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

without prejudice to Plaintiff’s prosecution of the first-filed

action, Case No. 3:15-cv-00476-SB.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 10th day of September, 2015.

/s/ Anna J. Brown

 

ANNA J. BROWN

United States District Judge

 - 3 ORDER

Case 3:15-cv-00639-SB Document 13 Filed 09/10/15 Page 3 of 3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2129

DERRICK ALLEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ESTHER BENNETT; T. CALDWELL, Chief of Police; T. A. BYRD, Assistant 

Chief of Police; R. B. ALDRIDGE, Patrolman; DURHAM COUNTY SHERIFF 

DEPARTMENT; THE CITY OF MEBANE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cv-00184-TDS-LPA)

Submitted: February 17, 2022 Decided: February 22, 2022

Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick Michael Allen, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2129 Doc: 6 Filed: 02/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Allen appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Allen

that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate 

review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v. Duffy, 858 

F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see 

also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Although Allen received proper notice 

and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived 

appellate review because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See Martin, 858 F.3d at 245 (holding 

that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to 

the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to 

alert the district court of the true ground for the objection” (internal quotation marks 

omitted)).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2129 Doc: 6 Filed: 02/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
# C_2006035EN.01001501.xml

| 11.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/15

---

Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2006/C 35/05)

Further to the publication of a notice of impending expiry (1), following which no request for a review was received, the Commission gives notice that the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will shortly expire.

1

This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 (2) on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community.

2

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Potassium permanganate | People's Republic of China | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 299/2001 (OJ L 44, 15.2.2001, p. 4) as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 152/2003 (OJ L 25, 30.1.2003, p. 21) | 16.2.2006 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry

Potassium permanganate

People's Republic of China

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 299/2001 (OJ L 44, 15.2.2001, p. 4) as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 152/2003 (OJ L 25, 30.1.2003, p. 21)

16.2.2006

---

(1)  OJ C 110, 5.5.2005, p. 15.

1

(2)  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ L 340, 23.12.2005, p. 17).

2

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON

DALE RAY BELLAH,

Plaintiff,

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No. 6:15-cv-01361-KI

JUDGMENT

Sherwood J. Reese

Drew L. Johnson, P.C.

1700 Valley River Dr.

Eugene, OR 97401

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Billy J. Williams

United States Attorney

District of Oregon

Page 1 - JUDGMENT

Case 6:15-cv-01361-KI Document 15 Filed 05/25/16 Page 1 of 2
Janice E. Hebert

Assistant United States Attorney

1000 SW Third Ave., Ste. 600

Portland, OR 97204-2902

John C. Lamont

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 25th day of May, 2016. 

 /s/ Garr M. King 

Garr M. King

United States District Judge

PAGE 2 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 6:15-cv-01361-KI Document 15 Filed 05/25/16 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 10.7

                         AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AGREEMENT
                                     between
    Wilf and Paula Shorrocks and Peak Entertainment Ltd. made April 30, 2002

      This Amendment to License Agreement (the "Amendment") amends the License
Agreement, dated April 30, 2002, between Wilf and Paula Shorrocks (as Licensor)
and Peak Entertainment Ltd. (as Licensee) (the "Agreement").

      The purpose of this Amendment is to clarify the terms of payment of
royalties and the guaranteed minimum royalty.

      Section 4.2 of the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

      4.2   The Licensee shall within 30 days of the 30th March, 30th June, 30th
            September and 30th December in each year deliver to the Licensor a
            statement giving particulars of all sales of the Products effected
            by the Licensee since the last statement date (and in respect of the
            first statement; since the date of this Agreement) and showing the
            total royalty payable to the Licensor and at the same time deliver
            to the Licensor a remittance for the greater of the full amount of
            that royalty or an equal quarterly installment of the Guaranteed
            Royalty (less only the pro rata Advance applicable for the relevant
            quarter). The form of the statement is set out in the second
            Schedule.

            Commencing with the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2004, the
            minimum quarterly royalty payment shall be $12,500. Licensor, at its
            sole discretion, shall be entitled to elect, on a quarter by quarter
            basis, to defer receipt of such quarterly payment, and any such
            payment(s) shall accrue until the next quarter. The minimum
            quarterly payment shall be credited against the Guaranteed Royalty.


Dated:  April 14, 2004


/s/ Wilf Shorrocks
-------------------------------------
Wilf Shorrocks



/s/ Paula Shorrocks
-------------------------------------
Paula Shorrocks


PEAK ENTERTAINMENT LTD.

By:   /s/ Phil Ogden
   ----------------------------------
      Phil Ogden, Authorized Officer
Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Sam Kraynek, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of
Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuers other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small
business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting;

5. The small business issuers other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the Equivalent functions);

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;

b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



|      |  |                  
|----- |  | -----------------
|Date: |  | November 15, 2010

|                                     |  |                
|------------------------------------ |  | ---------------
|                                     | 
|By:                                  |  | /s/ Sam Kraynek
|Sam Kraynek, Chief Financial Officer
1 – OPINION AND ORDER 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

EUGENE DIVISION 

BENNY LEE NUSSBAUMER, 

No. 6:15-cv-01473-YY

Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER 

v.

COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION,

 Defendant.

MOSMAN, J., 

On October 4, 2016, Magistrate Judge Youlee You issued her Findings and 

Recommendation (“F&R”) [24], recommending that the Commissioner’s decision to deny Mr. 

Nussbaumer’s application for Disability Insurance Benefits should be REVERSED and 

REMANDED for further proceedings. The Commissioner filed its Objections to the F&R [26] 

on October 20, 2016, and Mr. Nussbaumer filed his Response to the Commissioner’s Objections 

[27] on November 3, 2016.

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 

Case 6:15-cv-01473-YY Document 28 Filed 01/03/17 Page 1 of 2
2 – OPINION AND ORDER 

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 

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 careful review, I agree with Judge You’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 

[24] as my own opinion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 3rd day of January, 2017. 

/s/ Michael W. Mosman_________

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 6:15-cv-01473-YY Document 28 Filed 01/03/17 Page 2 of 2
Filed 2/16/16 P. v. Williams CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CORY B. WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant. D068671

(Super. Ct. No. SCD244308)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,

Dwayne K. Moring, Judge. Affirmed.

Benjamin Kington for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Cory B. Williams entered guilty pleas to two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse

with a minor under age 16. (Pen

. Code

, 1 § 261.5, subd. (d)

. ) In 2014 Williams was

granted probation on various terms and conditions and was ordered to register as a sex

offender under section 290. 006. Williams appealed from his original sentencing.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.2

In case D064768, filed January 29, 2015, this court affirmed the convictions but

struck the residency requirement in the probation conditions. This court also reversed the

order requiring Williams to register as a sex offender and remanded for a new hearing on

the registration issue.

On remand the court held a new hearing

, received additional briefing and the

report of a psychologist. Once again the trial court exercised its discretion to order

Wil liams to register as a sex offender.

Williams filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v

. Wende (1979) 25

Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ) indicating he has not been able to identify any reasonably arguable

issue for r eversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as

required by Wende

.

We offered Williams the opportunity to file his own brief in this appeal. Williams

has not responded. 2

DISCUSSION

As we have noted, counsel has filed a brie f pursuant to Wende , supra, 25 Cal.3d

436 asking this court to review the record for error. Although counsel has not cited

Anders v

. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 ( Anders ), counsel has nevertheless complied

2 Since our previous opinion, contained in the c lerk ' s t ranscript

, discusses the facts

of the underlying offenses, we find it unnecessary to again discuss the facts of those

offenses here.3

with Anders by identifying a possible, but not reasonably arguable issue for reversal on

appeal:

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Williams to register as a

sex offender.

We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende, supra , 25 Cal.3d 436

and Anders, supra , 386 U.S. 738. We have not been able to identify any reasonably

arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Williams on

this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

BENKE, Acting P. J.

O'ROURKE, J

.
EXHIBIT 31.1


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Sanjay Mehrotra, certify that:





1.      I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of SanDisk Corporation for the quarter ended October 3, 2010; and





2.      Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.





Date: September 8, 2011
/s/ Sanjay MehrotraSanjay Mehrotra

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
Order entered March 8, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 20

- 01115

- CV

MINGTEL INC. D/B/A A ZPEN INNOVVATION , Appellant

V.

COMERICA BANK , Appellee

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 19

- 11481

O RDER

Befor e the Court is court reporter Antionette Reagor’ s March 4, 2021

request for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record

. We GRANT the

motion and O RDER the record be filed no later than April 5 , 2021.

/s/ CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE
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







Kimuel  Villanola

(Jay)
                        Facilities Division

                        




                        
                        ELCTRCN HIGH VOLTAGE
                        Phone: (301) 504-9242
                        
                        
                        Fax: (301) 504-5442(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