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

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

Civil Case No. 

(to be assigned by Clerk of the Court} 

(Enter full name af plaintiff(s)) 

COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff(s), 

(Enter full name of ALL defendant(s)) 

Defendant(s). 

I. PARTIES 

List your name, address, and telephone number below, and the same infonnationfor each 

defendant. Make sure that the defendant(s) listed below are identical to those contained in the 

caption of the complaint. Attach additional sheets of paper ifnecessmy 

Plaintiff 

COMPLAINT 

Revised: July 20, 20 l 0 

\ 

Page 1 

3:15-cv-01812-BR

Case 3:15-cv-01812-BR Document 2 Filed 09/25/15 Page 1 of 5
Defendant No. 1 

f (e«'>e'i\ 

~,Vjt( 

Ca5e_S 

Defendant No. 2 

Defendant No. 3 

Defendant No. 4 

Telephone No. 

Street Address: ----------------

City, State & Zip Code: ___________ _ 

Telephone No. 

Street Address: ----------------

City, State & Zip Code: ___________ _ 

Telephone No. 

II. JURISDICTION 

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Only two types of cases can be heard in 

federal court: cases involving a federal question and cases involving diversity of citizenship of the 

parties. A case involving the United States Constitution or federal laws or treaties is a federal 

question case. A case in which a citizen of one state sues a citizen of another state and the amount 

in damages claimed is more than $75,000 is a diversity of citizenship case. 

A. What is the basis for federal court jurisdiction (check all that apply) 

~deral Question 0 Diversity of Citizenship 

COMPLAINT Page 2 

Revised: July 20, 20 l 0 

Case 3:15-cv-01812-BR Document 2 Filed 09/25/15 Page 2 of 5
C. If the basis for jurisdiction is Diversity of Citizenship, what is the state of citizenship of each 

party? c 

Pl•;miffM "'"'of citi=ohip _l::g (/ ( ~ /,1~~; Ct ff'. f ' 7 

Defendant(s) state( s) ofcitizenship c; 5 ~ r if) =e VI e.___sz:v tJf/ir<::_ t 

F0 rrw4 td 

III. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 

Claim I 

COMPLAINT Page 3 

Revised: July 20, 2010 

Case 3:15-cv-01812-BR Document 2 Filed 09/25/15 Page 3 of 5
Claim II 

State here as briefly as possible the facts of your case. Describe how each defendant was 

involved, when the conduct occurred, and any injuries you have suffered as a result. It is not 

necessmy to give any legal arguments or cite any cases or statutes. 

Claim III 

State here as briefly as possible the (acts ofyour case. Describe how each defendant 

was involved, when the conduct occurred, and any injuries you have suffered as a result. It is not 

necessmy to give any legal arguments or cite any cases or statutes. 

(If you have additional claims, describe them 011 another piece of paper, using the same outline.) 

COMPLAINT 

Revised: July 20, 2010 

Page 4 

Case 3:15-cv-01812-BR Document 2 Filed 09/25/15 Page 4 of 5
COMPLAINT 

Revised: July 20, 20 I 0 

IV. RELIEF 

Page 5 

Case 3:15-cv-01812-BR Document 2 Filed 09/25/15 Page 5 of 5
Action Item: Improving the Development and Transmission of Minority Reports by D. Kubly 

Background 

A recent TWG minority report on the draft GCDAMP Monitoring and Research Plan 

(http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/mtgs/06dec05/Attach_07e.pdf) was delivered at the 

AMWG meeting and placed in front of AMWG members in violation of the standard operating 

procedures of the AMWG to deliver materials in advance of the meeting. The authors of the 

minority report are not identified and it is not clear from the report whether or not all six 

minority report group members were involved in development of the document. In response to 

the minority report, the AMWG passed the following motion: 

AMWG approves the Monitoring and Research Plan (MRP) as a working document to help 

guide preparation of the FY08-09 workplan and budget; and recommends to the Secretary of the 

Interior the GCMRC be charged with (1) addressing the concerns listed in the TWG Minority 

report in a final FY07-11 document, and (2) bringing that document to the AMWG for further 

consideration in summer 2007. 

GCMRC responded to the AMWG motion by consulting independently with three TWG 

members they believed had been responsible for developing the minority report. No other 

dissenting TWG members were consulted, and issues raised by those members were not 

addressed. 

This is a failure of the intended protocols for development and transmission of minority reports. 

Proposal 

To improve the development and transmission of minority reports, the TWG should consider 

clarifying and modifying its operating procedures. Several changes should be considered: 

(1) All dissenting members to a vote of the TWG that passes by a required majority should 

be offered the opportunity to be included in the development of a minority report 

(2) The minority report group should elect a chair who will be responsible for 

communication with other minority group members and with the TWG Chair 

(3) Minority group members who participate in the development of the minority report and 

who agree with its provisions should be clearly identified in the report 

(4) The minority report should be transmitted to the AMWG through the TWG Chair or CoChair in the timeframe and manner identified in AMWG operating procedures 

(5) When action is required of GCMRC or any other GCDAMP group to satisfy the 

provisions of a minority report included in a motion by AMWG, that group should ensure 

that it communicates with the minority group as a whole and not individually 

(6) Majority group members should be given an equal opportunity to draft a report and 

submit it through the TWG Chair to identify what they consider to be the strengths of the 

proposal sanctioned by the majority
Page 1 – ORDER AND OPINION 

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 3:15-cr-00462-AA 

 ORDER AND OPINION 

v. 

 

TRAVIS MILLER, 

 

 Defendant, 

AIKEN, District Judge: 

A federal defendant who has been convicted and sentenced to a term of 

imprisonment is committed to the custody of the BOP. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(a). The BOP 

“shall designate the place of the prisoner's imprisonment.” 18 U.S.C. § 

3621(b); see United States v. Ceballos, 671 F.3d 852, 855 (9th Cir. 2011) (recognizing 

that the BOP “has the statutory authority to choose the locations where prisoners 

serve their sentence”). 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621(b) and 3624(c), the BOP has discretion to place 

an inmate in a residential reentry center (“RRC”) and/or home confinement. See 

Case 3:15-cr-00462-AA Document 50 Filed 01/15/21 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 – ORDER AND OPINION 

Sacora v. Thomas, 628 F.3d 1059, 1061–62 (9th Cir. 2010) (recognizing that these two 

“statutory provisions govern the BOP's authority to place inmates in its custody in 

RRCs”). Section 3621(b) authorizes the BOP to “designate the place of the prisoner's 

imprisonment” upon consideration of, in pertinent part, “any statement by the court 

that imposed the sentence concerning the purposes for which the sentence to 

imprisonment was determined to be warranted; or recommending a type of penal or 

correctional facility as appropriate.” 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621(b)(4)(A)–(B). 

BOP has additionaly authority to transfer defendant to home confinement 

immediately under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) 

Act, Pub. L. No. 116- 136, § 12003, 134 Stat. 281 (2020). In passing the CARES Act, 

Congress expanded the authority of the Bureau of Prisons to utilize the home 

confinement authorized by 18 U.S.C. 3624(c) to address the exigencies and dangers 

of crowded prisons during a pandemic. 

 The Court notes that Mr. Miller does have extremely concerning underlying 

health issues which could very well be life threatening in the face of the current global 

pandemic of the 2019 novel coronavirus. Also important to the Court is Mr. Miller’s 

record while incarcerated and the hundreds of hours of programming that this 

engaged to rehabilitate himself. Mr. Miller has a relatively short amount of time 

remaining on his sentence and would greatly benefit from an extended placement in 

community corrections through the BOP. 

Case 3:15-cr-00462-AA Document 50 Filed 01/15/21 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 – ORDER AND OPINION 

Accordingly, the Court formally recommends to the BOP and the Warden at 

FCI Sheridan that defendant be transferred to community corrections immediately 

or as a soon as possible. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated this _____ day of January 2021. 

_______________________ 

Ann Aiken 

United States District Judge 

15th

/s/Ann Aiken

Case 3:15-cr-00462-AA Document 50 Filed 01/15/21 Page 3 of 3
#### WELLS AMUSEMENT CO. V. WHEELER.

(December 21, 1912.)

Appeal from Birmingham City Court.

Heard before Hon. Chas. W. Ferguson.

Tillman, Bradley & Morrow and Frank M. Dominick, for appellants. W. T. Edwards, for appellee.

Mayfield, J.

— Affirmed on the facts under the authority of *Cobb v.*Malone, 92 Ala. 630.

All concur.
### FOR PUBLICATION 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  J OSEPH C ARVER , Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 06-35176

v. D.C. No.



#  J OSEPH L EHMAN ; K IMBERLY A CKER ; CV-04-05570-RBL V ICTORIA R OBERTS ; S IX TO BE ORDER N AMED D EFENDANTS ,

Defendants-Appellees. 

# 

Filed August 26, 2008
Before: Stephen Reinhardt, Richard C. Tallman, and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges.

ORDER
The opinion filed on June 9, 2008 and appearing at 528 F.3d 659 is withdrawn. It may not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit.
Plaintiff-Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing and Defendants-Appellants’ Petition for Rehearing En Banc are DENIED as moot.

11669PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO
The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          16,068
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,134
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (370)
<INVENTORY>                                      6,384
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,985
<PP&E>                                           9,702
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,694)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,037
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,766
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            17
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,188
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,037
<SALES>                                         20,227
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,227
<CGS>                                           12,870
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,870
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,864
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    17
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  41
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,810)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,812)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,812)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.51)
        

</TABLE>
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting

March 14-15, 2001

List of Attachments

No. Title Author / Presenter

1 Attendance Sheets

2 Updated instructions for the discussion forum Mike Liszewski

3 Memo: Rate Adder Process (from BOR to WAPA) Randy Peterson

4 Strategic Plan Mary Orton

5 Rework of Riparian Issue Paper Mary Orton

6 Comments and Response Table from Feb. meeting Mary Orton

7 Flip Charts Mary Orton

8 AMP Strategic Plan, History of the Adaptive

Management Program

Mary Orton

9 GCD AMP Strengths, Weaknesses, Opps... Mary Orton

10 Institutional Scope - NPS Randy Peterson

11 A Narrative of Desired Future Resource Conditions for

the Colorado River Ecosystem in Grand Canyon

Matt & Andre

12a

12b

AMP Narrative of Desired Resources

AMP Desired Future Resource Conditions - Section

Development Alternative and Integration Process

Documents

Gary Burton

13a

13b

13c

13d

13e

Snowmap

Snow Water - WY 2001

Colorado River Basin Precipitation

Projected April 2001 GC Hourly Releases as of 3/01

Glen Canyon Releases - Oct 2000 - Dec 2001

Tom Ryan

14 Summation of March 2000 Grand Canyon Modified

Delivery Schedule

Mike Liszewski

15a

15b

Briefing Schedule & Executive Summaries

PowerPoint Presentation (?)

Tom Czapla

16 LIDAR tables Mike Liszewski

17 River Trip Attendance List Barry Gold

18a

18b

GCD AMP Communication Process Diagram

GCMRC PEP Diagram

Dennis Kubly

19 Status and Trends of Lees Ferry Trout Fishery

(PowerPoint presentation)

Bill Persons

20a

20b

TCD Workshop - Preliminary Summary of Findings

PowerPoint presentation

Dennis Kubly

21 KAWG response (Chris Karas doc. Christine Karas
# C_2006222EN.01000901.xml

| 15.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/9

---

Planned closure of complaint 2002/5367

(2006/C 222/06)

The Commission services have completed their investigation of mass complaint case 2002/5367 concerning the planned extension of Frankfurt Airport in Germany. A text detailing the results of the assessment has been published in German on the internet:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/complaints/multiple_complaints/doc/2002-5367_prop-to-close-the-case_de.pdf.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000824482
<NAME> HICKORY LENDERS, LTD.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          36,981
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,537,357
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           84,494
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,452,863
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,537,357
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,492
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                54,644
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (48,152)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (48,152)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (48,152)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (11.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (11.46)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.10


 


Joint
Statement


  


Whereas:


 


1、Shanghai Jiamu
Investment Management Co., Ltd. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the listed company Tantech Holdings Ltd;


 


2、Shanghai Jiamu
Investment Management Co., Ltd., Zhengyu Wang and Hangzhou Wangbo Investment Management Co., Ltd. signed relevant VIE documents
on July 3, 2017, making Hangzhou Wangbo Investment Management Co., Ltd. a VIE entity of Tantech Holdings Ltd;


 


3、Wang Zhengyu
has transferred all the shares ( 95%) of Party C to Xinyang Wang on the November 3, 2019; Wangfeng Yan remains the 5% shareholder
of Hangzhou Wangbo Investment Management Co., Ltd.;


 


4、Shanghai Jiamu
Investment Management Co., Ltd., Zhengyu Wang and Hangzhou Wangbo Investment Management Co., Ltd. have signed a Termination Agreement
on May 15, 2020, confirming that the relevant VIE documents (Except the Power of Attorney signed by Yan Wangfeng) signed on July
3, 2017 is terminated on December 10, 2019;


 


5、Xinyang Wang
has signed new VIE documents with all parties on December 10, 2019. Wangfeng Yan has signed a new VIE document with all parties
on May 15, 2020 (the effectiveness dates back to December 10, 2019), maintaining Hangzhou Wangbo Investment Management Co., Ltd.
as the VIE entity of Tantech Holdings Ltd;


  


The parties hereby make the following declarations:


 


1. All parties promise
to strictly implement the existing VIE document. During the validity of the VIE document, all parties will strictly abide by the
relevant decisions of the board of directors of Tantech Holdings Ltd.


 


2. If any party or parties
are inconsistent with the opinions of the board of directors of Tantech Holdings Ltd, they will unconditionally obey the resolution
of the board of directors of Tantech Holdings Ltd, and the board of directors of Tantech Holdings Ltd shall have the final decision-making
power at any time and under any circumstances.


  


The
effectiveness of this Joint Statement dates back to December 10, 2019.


  


Each declaring parties:



  


1、 Hangzhou Wangbo
Investment Management Co., Ltd. (stamp)


  



     


     


    




 


2、Shanghai Jiamu
Investment Management Co., Ltd.(stamp)


  


3、Xinyang Wang(signature)


 


Shareholder of Hangzhou
Wangbo Investment Management Co., Ltd.


  


4、Wangfeng Yan(signature)


 


Shareholder of Hangzhou
Wangbo Investment Management Co., Ltd.


 


Legal representative of
Hangzhou Wangbo Investment Management Co., Ltd.


 


5、Zhengyu Wang(signature)


 


Designated Person of Hangzhou
Suyuan Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd.


 


Trustee of Xinyang Wang
and Wangfeng Yan


   


Date: May 15,
2020
# C_2006127EN.01001401.xml

| 31.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/14

---

List of authorities required to notify draft technical regulations (in addition to the central governments of the Member States)

(Article 1, point 11 of Directive 98/34/EC (1))

(Article 1, point 11 of Directive 98/34/EC (1

(2006/C 127/07)

Belgium

Régions/Gewesten (3)

Communautés/Gemeenschappen (3)

Czech Republic

Kraje (14)

Denmark

—

Germany

Länder (16)

Estonia

—

Greece

Perifereia (13)

Spain

Comunidades autónomas (17)

France

Régions (including overseas departments) (26)

Ireland

IE Domain services

UCD Computing centre

Italy

Regioni (20)

Banca d'Italia

Commissione nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (CONSOB)

Istituto per la Vigilanza delle Assicurazioni private e di interesse collettivo (ISVAP)

Autorità per le garanzie nelle comunicazioni

Garante per la tutela delle persone e di altri soggetti rispetto al trattamento dei dati personali

Autorità per l'informatica nella pubblica amministrazione (AIPA)

Cyprus

—

Latvia

—

Lithuania

—

Luxembourg

—

Hungary

—

Malta

—

Netherlands

Bedrijfslichamen ingevolge de Wet op de bedrijfsorganisatie

Austria

Bundesländer (9)

Poland

Terenowe organy administracji rządowej (16)

Organy samorządu terytorialnego

Portugal

Regiões autónomas (2)

Slovenia

—

Slovakia

Vyššie územné celky (samosprávne kraje) (8)

Finland

Ahvenanmaan maakunta/Ålands landskap (1)

Sweden

—

United Kingdom

Nations (4)

Gibraltar (only for information society services)

---

(1)  OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37 ; Directive as amended by Directive 98/48/EC (OJ L 217, 5.8.1998, p. 18).

1

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         332,381
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,891,375
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (758,082)
<INVENTORY>                                  8,702,176
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,282,550
<PP&E>                                      15,968,035
<DEPRECIATION>                             (4,856,718)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,415,382
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,163,354
<BONDS>                                      4,112,868
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    15,573,434
<OTHER-SE>                                (10,434,273)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,415,382
<SALES>                                      7,608,260
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,608,260
<CGS>                                        2,848,469
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,848,469
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,040
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             428,324
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,735,772)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,735,772)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,735,772)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.29)
        

</TABLE>
Alan Stuart Graf, OSB # 92317 

alangraf@aracnet.com 

208 Pine St 

Floyd, VA 24091 

Telephone: 540-745-2519 

Fax: 931-964-3127 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

JOSE L. DIAZ-REYES 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

6:15-CV-00034-HZ 

ORDER FOR EAJA 

ATTORNEY FEES 

Based upon the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded 

attorney fees in the amount of $3,742.22. Subject to any offset allowed under the Treasury 

Offset Program, as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 139 S. Ct. 2521 (2010), payment of this award 

shall be made payable to Plaintiff's attorney: 

Alan Stuart Graf, PC, 208 Pine St., Floyd VA 24091. 

It is so ORDERED. 

Dated this� day of January, 2016 

�'§�EZ· 

Prepared as to form United States District Judge 

I sf Alan Graf 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

ORDER FOR EAJA FEES-1 

Case 6:15-cv-00034-HZ Document 26 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 1