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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

CANDACE IRON HAWK and ROBERT 

VAN PELT,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BANK2 and DOVENMUEHLE 

MORTGAGE, INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:15-cv-1374-PK

ORDER

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendations in this

case on October 19, 2016. ECF 155. Judge Papak recommended that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ 

motion for attorney’s fees with leave to refile after final resolution of all pending claims in this 

matter and that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions.

Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in 

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate’s findings and recommendations, “the court 

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

or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

Case 3:15-cv-01374-PK Document 159 Filed 11/10/16 Page 1 of 2
PAGE 2 – ORDER

For those portions of a magistrate’s findings and recommendations to which neither party 

has objected, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 

U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended to 

require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”); United 

States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that the court

must review de novo magistrate’s findings and recommendations if objection is made, “but not 

otherwise”). Although in the absence of objections no review is required, the Act “does not 

preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other 

standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 72(b) recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the Court review the magistrate’s 

recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”

No party has objected to Judge Papak’s Findings and Recommendations. Accordingly, 

the Court reviews Judge Papak’s Findings and Recommendations for clear error. Finding no 

clear error, the Court adopts Judge Papak’s Findings and Recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Judge Papak’s Findings and Recommendations (ECF 155). 

Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees (ECF 144) is DENIED with leave to renew after final 

resolution of this case. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (ECF 145) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 10th day of November, 2016.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01374-PK Document 159 Filed 11/10/16 Page 2 of 2
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-19-00784-CV

KARGES-FAULCONBRIDGE, INC.,

Appellant

v.

Keath GARRISON and Kassie Garrison,

Appellees

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CI00853

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 11, 2019

DISMISSED

On November 5, 2019, Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. filed a notice of accelerated appeal 

from the trial court’s order denying Karges-Faulconbridge’s motion to dismiss. The record was 

due November 15, 2019, ten days after the notice of appeal was filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.1(b). 

The Bexar County District Clerk filed a notification stating the clerk’s record was not filed because 

appellant had not paid or made arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee to prepare the record and is not 

entitled to appeal without paying the fee. We therefore ordered Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. to 

provide written proof to this court by November 27, 2019, that the clerk’s fee for preparation of 
04-19-00784-CV

- 2 -

the record has been paid or that it is entitled to appeal without prepayment of the clerk’s fee. We 

advised appellant that if it failed to respond satisfactorily within the time provided, this appeal 

would be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(c). Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. has not 

filed proof of payment or any other response to our order, and the clerk’s record has not been filed. 

We therefore order this appeal dismissed. 

PER CURIAM
#### WATERBURY et al. v. TUCKER & CARTER CORDAGE CO. et al.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

December 2, 1895.)

Action by James M. Waterburj; and John S. Ellis, as executors of the last will of *1135Lawrence Waterbury, against the Tucker & Carter Cordage Company and other defendants, including United States Cordage Company and United States Trust Company.

No opinion. Judgment and orders appealed from affirmed, with costs. All concur.
Exhibit
31.2




I,
Stephen P. Kuchen, certify that:




1.          I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PacificHealth Laboratories,
Inc.;




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;




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 registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;




4.          The
registrant’s other certifying officer 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 registrant 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 registrant 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 registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in the 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 registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and




5.          The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):




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 registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and




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


Date: August
      3, 2009/s/
      Stephen P. KuchenStephen
      P. Kuchen, Chief Financial Officer
Notice of Limited Appearance 

GENTNER F. DRUMMOND 

Attorney General of Oklahoma 

Garry M. Gaskins, II (Okla. Bar No. 20212) 

Solicitor General

STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

313 NE 21st Street 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

Telephone: (405) 521-3921 

Fax: (405) 521-4518 

Garry.Gaskins@oag.ok.gov 

Counsel for Defendant-Intervenor 

State of Oklahoma

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

EUGENE DIVISION 

KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-AA 

NOTICE OF LIMITED 

APPEARANCE 

NOTICE OF LIMITED APPEARANCE 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 561 Filed 09/27/23 Page 1 of 3
Notice of Limited Appearance 

The State of Oklahoma has moved to intervene as a defendant in this case for the limited 

purposes of opposing Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (See Doc. 542), participating in 

settlement negotiations, and objecting to any proposed settlement (if necessary). DefendantIntervenor State of Oklahoma hereby gives notice of the special, limited appearance of Garry M. 

Gaskins, II as an attorney for the State of Oklahoma for those limited purposes. Defendant -

Intervenor State of Oklahoma will no longer be represented by Bryan Cleveland, as he is no longer 

employed by the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office. Mr. Gaskins has registered to use the 

Court’s Electronic Case Filing System (ECF), and pleadings may thus be served electronically 

using ECF. If necessary, notices, orders, or other papers may be sent to Mr. Gaskins at the 

following address: 

Garry M. Gaskins, II 

Office of the Attorney General 

313 NE 21st Street 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

Telephone: (405) 521-3921 

Email: Garry.Gaskins@oag.ok.gov 

Respectfully submitted this 27th day of September 2023. 

/s/ Garry M. Gaskins, II 

Garry M. Gaskins, II (Okla. Bar No. 20212) 

Deputy Solicitor General

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

313 NE 21st Street 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

Telephone: (405) 521-3921 

Fax: (405) 521-4518 

Garry.Gaskins@oag.ok.gov 

Counsel for Defendant-Intervenor 

State of Oklahoma 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 561 Filed 09/27/23 Page 2 of 3
Notice of Limited Appearance 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 27, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the District of Oregon by using the 

CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such to the attorneys of record. 

/s/ Garry M. Gaskins, II 

Garry M. Gaskins, II 

Counsel for State of Oklahoma 

Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 561 Filed 09/27/23 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 14

ITRONICS INC.

CODE OF BUSINESS CONDUCT AND ETHICS

 

March 25, 2004

The Board of Directors of Itronics Inc. has adopted the following Code of BusinessConduct and Ethics (the Code). This Code is applicable to all directors, officers, andother senior management personnel (Management) of Itronics Inc. and its subsidiaries. Thepurpose of this Code is to promote the highest standards of ethical conduct of business.- Management will practice honesty, integrity and good faith in every aspect of dealing    with other Company personnel, shareholders, the public, customers, suppliers and    government authorities. All persons are to be treated with dignity and respect.
- Management will respect and obey all applicable federal, state, and local laws and    regulations. Management will not only follow the letter of the law, but the spirit as    well. 
- Management will do its utmost to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest in our    business dealings. Apparent conflicts of interest are to be disclosed to the appropriate    person promptly. 
- Management will prepare reports and other disclosures to be disseminated to the public    or to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission or other governmental    authorities in a full, fair, accurate, timely, and understandable manner. The needs of our    investors and the investing public will always be the foremost priority in preparing such    reports or disclosures.
- Trading of the Company’s securities will be conducted under all applicable laws and    rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Management will not take unfair advantage    of any publicly undisclosed information it may have regarding the operations of the    Company and its subsidiaries. 
- Each member of Management is responsible to conduct him or herself in accordance with    this Code. Any observed violations are to be reported to the appropriate person promptly.    Violations of this Code subject the individual to disciplinary action and possible    termination.
- Management includes directors, the principal executive officer, the principal accounting    officer or controller, or employees performing similar functions. 

 
The appropriate person to discuss any questions about this Code, observed violations of  the Code, or potential conflicts of interest is the principal executive officer, which is  currently the President of the Company.
# C_2006044EN.01000401.xml

| 22.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/4

---

Publication of decisions by Member States to grant or revoke operating licenses pursuant to Article 13(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 on licensing of air carriers (1)
   (2)

1

2

(2006/C 44/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

GREECE

Operating licences revoked

Category A:   Operating licences without the restriction of Article 5(7)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92

| Name of air carrier | Address of air carrier | Permitted to carry | Decision effective since |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| HELLAS WINGS LTD | Vasileos Pyrrou 1 and Mikras Asias |
| GR-15233 Chalandri — Athens |

Name of air carrier

Address of air carrier

Permitted to carry

Decision effective since

HELLAS WINGS LTD

Vasileos Pyrrou 1 and Mikras Asias

GR-15233 Chalandri — Athens

passengers, mail, cargo

30.1.2006

---

(1)  OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 1.

1

(2)  Communicated to the European Commission before 31.8.2005.

2

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          10,309
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  182,961
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (6,105)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               217,762
<PP&E>                                          49,748
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 850,394
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          123,268
<BONDS>                                        266,982
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           343
<OTHER-SE>                                     445,661
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   850,394
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               428,558
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  253,828
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               133,793
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,016
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,139
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,104
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,035
<DISCONTINUED>                                  22,204
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    36,739
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.05


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1786 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1786

To provide for the conduct of a study and report concerning the ability 
   of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to address the 
     growing threat of viral epidemics and biological and chemical 
                               terrorism.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 17, 1998

 Mr. Faircloth introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
         referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the conduct of a study and report concerning the ability 
   of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to address the 
     growing threat of viral epidemics and biological and chemical 
                               terrorism.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. STUDY CONCERNING THE CAPABILITIES OF THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE 
              CONTROL AND PREVENTION.

    (a) Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
conduct a study concerning the ability of, and resources available to, 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to address the growing 
threats of viral epidemics and biologic and chemical terrorism.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall prepare and 
submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report concerning 
the results of the study conducted under subsection (a), including the 
recommendations of the Secretary for improving the ability and 
resources of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to address 
the growing threats of viral epidemics and biologic and chemical 
terrorism.
                                 <all>
```
*Orders Entered January 19, 2007:*

#### People v Nyx,

No. 127897.

On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been granted, and the briefs and oral arguments of the parties having been considered by the Court, on the Court’s own motion *1281pursuant to MCR 7.316(A)(3), the Court directs each party to file a supplemental brief not later than 42 days after the date of this order specifically addressing the following questions: (1) whether MCL 768.32 satisfies the requirements of both Const 1963, art 1, § 20 that a defendant “be informed of the nature of the accusation” and the “doctrine of both the common law and of our Constitution that a defendant cannot be held to answer a charge not contained in the indictment brought against him,” *Schmuck v United States,*489 US 705, 717 (1989), where the lesser degree offense does not constitute a lesser included offense as defined in *People v Cornell,*466 Mich 335 (2002); (2) more specifically, whether a defendant charged with first-degree criminal sexual conduct is, under Const 1963, art 1, § 20, sufficiently informed that such charge carries with it the possibility that he may be convicted of an uncharged lesser degree of that offense on the basis of any conduct that would suffice to establish an offense of the lesser degree; and (3) most specifically, whether a defendant charged with first-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520b, is, under Const 1963 art 1, § 20, sufficiently informed that such charge carries with it the possibility that he may be convicted of the uncharged offense of second-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520c, where conviction of the latter requires the prosecutor to prove an element that is not at issue to obtain a conviction of the former — i.e., that defendant touched the victim’s “intimate parts ... for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, done for a sexual purpose, or in a sexual manner . . . .” MCL 750.520a(o). Court of Appeals No. 248094.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 3243

_____________________________
R APHAEL P ALMER , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Linda F. McCallum, Judge.

August 27, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , B.L. T HOMAS , and R OBERTS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Raphael Palmer, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### BERTIS KOLLER, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. SABO & RHODES, INC., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

See same case below: 64 *N. J. Super.*324.

*Mr. Paul C. Eemeny*for the petitioners.

*Mr. Eugene Schreiner*and *Mr. David I. Stepacof*for the respondent.

April 17, 1961.

Denied.
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
 Center for Grain and Animal Health Research: Manhattan, KS
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Units
                        Arthropod-Borne Animal Diseases Research Unit
                                    Grain Quality and Structure Research Unit
                                    Hard Winter Wheat Genetics Research Unit
                                    Stored Product Insect & Engineering Research UnitSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Docsheadline bar Business
               Hard Winter Wheat Quality Milling Lab
               Insectary
               Director's Message
               Center Director
               CGAHR Updates
               Research Kernels
               Research Units Located at CGAHR (2)
               CGAHR's Grain Elevator, Scale Room, & Pilot Plant
               USDA's 150th Anniversary
               Center History
               Stored Product Insect and Engineering Research Unit (SPIERU)
               Arthropod-Borne Animal Diseases Research Unit (ABADRU)


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