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

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

COBBLER NEVADA, LLC,

Case No. 3:15-CV-01988-ST

Plaintiff,

CASE MANAGEMENT

v. ORDER

USERS OF POPCORN TIME, et al,

Defendant.

 To facilitate management of this copyright infringement case filed against a defendant

identified only by an Internet Protocol (“IP”) address, the Court orders that: 

1. All discovery and pretrial deadlines are stricken and will be reset after plaintiff 

substitutes the Doe defendant with a properly identified defendant who has been served and filed 

an appearance. 

2. Plaintiff shall file evidence of its ownership of the copyright at issue before proceeding 

with prosecution of this case. 

3. When filing any motion referring to communications with any person that it believes 

maybe the IP address subscriber or alleged infringer, plaintiff shall file copies of those

communications, as well as evidence that the communications were received. 

4. Plaintiff’s first communication with any person that it believes may be the IP address 

subscriber or alleged infringer must include the attached Notice from the Court. 

DATED December 10, 2015 s/ Janice M. Stewart____________

Janice M. Stewart

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01988-ST Document 9 Filed 12/10/15 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NOTICE 

Plaintiff [name] has filed a lawsuit in this Court to enforce its copyright in [name], a major

motion picture. It alleges that an unknown party, identified only by the Internet Protocol (“IP”)

address of [number], has copied and distributed this motion picture without its consent through a

public Popcorn Time network. 

Plaintiff has subpoenaed the Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) to obtain the identity of the

party assigned the ISP account associated with the infringing activity, commonly called the

subscriber. The ISP has identified you as the subscriber. The subscriber may or may not be the same

as the alleged infringer. Therefore, plaintiff is attempting to find out whether you, as the subscriber,

are an innocent third party and, if so, the identity of the alleged infringer. 

It is important that you do not ignore this lawsuit. If you fail to do so, plaintiff may ask the

Court to enter an Order requiring you to take certain action. You are obligated to comply with all

subpoenas and Orders issued by this Court that you receive, whether by mail, personal service or

otherwise. 

If you have questions, you should seek an attorney immediately. If you need help finding an

attorney, you may contact the Oregon State Bar’s Lawyer Referral Service online at

www.oregonstatebar.org or by calling 503-684-3763 (in the Portland metropolitan area) or toll free

elsewhere in Oregon at 800-452-7636. If you cannot afford to hire an attorney, you may file a

Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono counsel found on the Court’s website at 

https://ord.uscourts.gov under Representing Yourself/Pro Bono Program. 

Case 3:15-cv-01988-ST Document 9 Filed 12/10/15 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
 Agricultural Genetic Resources Preservation Research: Fort Collins, CO
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Fort Collins, Colorado Center for Agricultural Resources Research Agricultural Genetic Resources Preservation Research People & Locations







Kolter  Herkstroeter
                        Agricultural Genetic Resources Preservation Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Technician
                        Phone:    
                        
                        
                        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
#### Jacinto Z. Montes Rodriguez, Respondent, v Edward Catalano et al., Appellants.

[949 NYS2d 69]

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from *822an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, Jr., J.), dated October 3, 2011, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

The defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by providing evidence establishing that the plaintiff pedestrian entered a roadway from “between stopped cars,” began crossing the roadway at a “fast” pace, and came into contact with the right, rear side of a moving bus, and thus crossed the roadway in such a manner that the defendant bus driver was unable to avoid contact with the plaintiff (see *Mancia v Metropolitan Tr. Auth. Long Is. Bus,*14 AD3d 665 [2005]; *Blazer v Tri-County Ambulette Serv.,*285 AD2d 575, 576 [2001]; *Carrasco v Monteforte,*266 AD2d 330, 331 [1999]; *Brown v City of New York,*237 AD2d 398, 398-399 [1997]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant bus driver operated the bus in a negligent manner (see *Mancia v Metropolitan Tr. Auth. Long Is. Bus,*14 AD3d at 665). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Belen and Roman, 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
 Agricultural Systems Research: Sidney, MT
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    NPARL
                        NPARL
                                    Pest Management Research
                                    Grasshoppers: Their Biology, Identification and Management:Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






ASRU Personnelheadline bar PandP


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
CASE NO. 12-14-00210-CR

BOBBIE GRUBBS § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS APPELLANT § § VS. § TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS § THE STATE OF TEXAS, §

APPELLEE § TYLER, TEXAS 

### MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE APPELLEE’S BRIEF
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS: COMES NOW The State of Texas , Appellee, by and through her District Attorney, Kenneth B. Florence, and files this motion for leave to file a late Appellee’s Brief. In support of this motion, Appellee shows the court the following:
I. Appellant was convicted in the 273 Judicial District Court of Shelby County, Texas, by a rd jury, of the offense of Capital Murder. The judge assessed punishment at confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division, for Life, without the possibility of Parole.
II. The deadline for filing the Appellee’s Brief was July 3, 2015. That date was the official observance of Independence Day and all county offices were closed. That date has passed.
III. Appellee’s request for an leave to file a late motion for extension of time is based upon the following facts: 1. Appellee is filing the brief today July 13, 2015, which is only 10 days late. 2. This motion is not opposed by defense counsel. 3. The State has not received any extension of time to file despite requesting one from the Court of ACCEPTED 12-14-00210-CR TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 7/14/2015 10:53:13 AM

CATHY LUSK CLERKAppea ls. (The State has not chec ked it’s email in box today or y esterda y , in order to conce ntrate on
g etting the brief f

iled.)
4. The elec ted District Attorney was the only attorney in the office for 4 y ear s, and a new Assistant District Attorney

was just approve d eff

ective June 8, 2015. Wherefor e, Appellee pray s the court g rant the motion fo r l ea v e t o l ate file the Appellee’s
Br ief. Respectf ully submitt ed,

/s/ Kenneth B . Flore nce KENNET H B . FL ORENCE TBA # 00790698 Shelby County Assistant District Attorney 200 San Aug ustine Street Suite 12 Center, Te x as 75935 (936) 598- 2489 (936) 598- 4106

CERTIFIC ATE OF SERVICE
I here by cer

tify that a true and corr ect copy of the State’s Motion for L eave to file a L ate Appellee ’s Brief, as rela ted above, wa s s er v ed upon, Stephen S hires, Attorney for Appellant, 123
San Aug ustine Street, Center, Texas 75935, by fac simil e (936) 598-3031 and E-file Texas, on this the 14 day

of Jul y 2015. t h
/s/ Kenneth B . Flore nce KENNET H B . FL ORENCE
Exhibit 31.2

I, Kenneth T. Myers, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the registrant, Digital Lightwave, 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, 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 registrant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
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 the 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 controls 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 controls over financial reporting.

Date: April 14, 2008



By:

/s/    KENNETH T.
MYERSKenneth T. MyersChief Accounting Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
1 - JUDGMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

STEVEN REDER,

No. 3:15-cv-01212-HZ

 Plaintiff,

JUDGMENT

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Megan J. Brenner, Postmaster General of 

the United States Postal Service,

 Defendant.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this matter is dismissed. All pending motions 

are denied as moot.

DATED this day of , 2016.

__________________________________________

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01212-HZ Document 32 Filed 12/12/16 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7416

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BOBBY JACK DELAUDER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Charles H. Haden II,

District Judge. (CR-93-22)

Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 25, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby Jack DeLauder, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Mullen Frazier,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Huntington, West Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Bobby Jack DeLauder seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying DeLauder’s motion to require the government to allow

him to “demonstrate ordinance.” We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1909 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1909

                  To repeal the telephone excise tax.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 2, 1998

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                  To repeal the telephone excise tax.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF TELEPHONE EXCISE TAX.

    (a) In General.--Effective with respect to amounts paid pursuant to 
bills first rendered on or after January 1, 1999, subchapter B of 
chapter 33 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 4251 et 
seq.) is repealed. For purposes of the proceeding sentence, in the case 
of communications services rendered before December 1, 1998, for which 
a bill has not been rendered before January 1, 1999, a bill shall be 
treated as having been first rendered on December 31, 1998.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Effective January 1, 1999, the table of 
subchapters for such chapter is amended by striking out the items 
relating to subchapter B.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
      10(i)





**Summary
      of Director and Executive Officer Non-Plan Compensation**





**Non-Employee
      Directors**





Non-employee
      directors of the Company are each paid $16,000 per year for their services.
      The
      Chairmen of the Board of Directors and of the Audit Committee, Compensation
      Committee, and Nominating and Governance Committee of the Board each receive
      an
      additional $3,000 per year.





**Executive
      Officers**





The
      annual salaries of the executive officers for 2007 are as follows:





Matthew
      Boyle, President and Chief Executive Officer


--
      British Pounds 142,800





Paul
      A.
      McPartlin, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer


--
      British Pounds 93,500





Annual
      cash bonuses will be determined at the end of the year.








*
      * * *
      *





Further
      information about compensation of directors and executive officers is found
      in
      the Company’s proxy statements on file with the Commission, as well as in
      periodic Form 8-K filings by the Company.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1690 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1690

                     One Hundred Fourteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the sixth day of January, two thousand and fifteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the United States courthouse located at 700 Grant Street in 
  Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, as the ``Joseph F. Weis Jr. United States 
                              Courthouse''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.
    The United States courthouse located at 700 Grant Street in 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated as the ``Joseph 
F. Weis Jr. United States Courthouse''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.
    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Joseph F. Weis 
Jr. United States Courthouse''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### Lobo Equities, Inc., Appellant, v North River Insurance Company, Respondent.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The plaintiffs behavior in this matter involving a lack of response to the defendant’s demands for disclosure and a refusal to timely comply with the several orders issued enforcing such demands was so willful as to warrant the sanction of dismissal of the complaint. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Bracken and Kooper, JJ., concur.