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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

ALEX WRIGHT, both individually and, in 

addition, on behalf of other similarly 

situated employees, 

Plaintiff,

v. v.

SPECIAL LOGISTICS PORTLAND, 

LLC, a Texas limited liability company, and 

PEOPLEASE LLC, a South Carolina 

limited liability company, 

Defendants. 

No. 3:15-cv-02058-SB

OPINION AND ORDER 

MOSMAN, J., 

On December 11, 2017, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued her Findings and 

Recommendation (F&R) [75], recommending that this Court (i) grant the stipulated motion to 

dismiss Plaintiff’s FLSA claim [69]; (ii) terminate as withdrawn the original joint motion to 

certify the class and collective [53]; (iii) deny as moot Plaintiff’s motion to certify the class as to 

the claims against SLP [58]; (iv) deny as moot the joint motion for court approval of the 

amended settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Peoplease [71]; and (v) dismiss all 

remaining claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Neither party objected. 
2 – OPINION AND ORDER 

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 

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

[75] as my own opinion. I accordingly (i) GRANT the stipulated motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s 

FLSA claim [69]; (ii) TERMINATE AS WITHDRAWN the original joint motion to certify the 

class and collective [53]; (iii) DENY AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motion to certify the class as to the 

claims against SLP [58]; (iv) DENY AS MOOT the joint motion for court approval of the 

amended settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Peoplease [71]; and (v) DISMISS all 

remaining claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this ____ day of January, 2018. 

_______________________

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

Chief United States District Judge 

10th

 /s/ Michael W. Mosman
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2105 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2105

To require the Secretary of the Army to conduct a study of the Niobrara 
River watershed and the operations of Fort Randall Dam and Gavins Point 
 Dam on the Missouri River to determine the feasibility of alleviating 
            certain bank erosion and sedimentation problems.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 21, 1998

  Mr. Daschle (for himself and Mr. Johnson) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 
                            and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Secretary of the Army to conduct a study of the Niobrara 
River watershed and the operations of Fort Randall Dam and Gavins Point 
 Dam on the Missouri River to determine the feasibility of alleviating 
            certain bank erosion and sedimentation problems.

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

SECTION 1. NIOBRARA RIVER AND MISSOURI RIVER SEDIMENTATION STUDY.

    The Secretary of the Army shall conduct a study of the Niobrara 
River watershed and the operations of Fort Randall Dam and Gavins Point 
Dam on the Missouri River to determine the feasibility of alleviating 
the bank erosion, sedimentation, and related problems in the lower 
Niobrara River and the Missouri River below Fort Randall Dam.
                                 <all>
```
Ernest Warren, Jr. OSB 891384 

E-Mail: e.watTen@warrenpdxlaw.com 

Warren & Sugarman 

Suite 500, 838 SW First Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97204 

Tel: (503) 228-6655 

Fax: (503) 228-7019 

Attorney for Defendant Eric Lee Flores 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 3:16-CR-00051-25-BR 

v. 

ERIC LEE FLORES, 

Plaintiff, 

Defendant. 

AMENDED MOTION 

FOR CONTINUANCE 

OF TRIAL DATE 

IN COMPLIANCE with the conferral order, Eric Lee Flores by and through his attorney, 

Ernest Warren, Jr., conferred with the government before filing this motion and respectfully 

requests that this Honorable Court continue the trial date for the above-captioned case from the 

date now scheduled September 7, 2016 to December 6, 2016. 

FURTHERMORE, the defendant, shall agree that the period of time reflected in 

this continuance is excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7) from the time period within 

which trial must commence as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(l). 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITIED the 5111 day of May 2016 

IS/ Ernest Warren, Jr. 

Ernest Warren, Jr. OSB No. 891384 

Attorney for defendant 

Page 1 - AMENDED MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE 

Warren & Sue:arman 

Attorneys at t::aw 

838 SW First Avenue • Suite 500 • Portland. Oregon 97204 

Tel (503) 228-6655 • Fax (503) 228-701 9 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 519 Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have served a certified true copy of the AMENDED MOTION TO 

CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF AMENDED 

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE in the attached matter upon the parties listed below 

by notice of electronic filing using the CM/ECF System as follows: 

Ethan D. Knight 

Craig J. Gabriel 

Geoffrey A. Barrow 

U.S. Attorney's Office 

District of Oregon 

l 000 S. W. Third A venue 

Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204 

503-727-1118 

Fax: 503-727-1117 

and filed the original with the Court on the date listed below. 

Page 1- Certificat e of Se rvice 

DATED this 5111 day of May, 2016. 

WARREN & SUGARMAN 

ls/Ernest Wan-en, Jr. 

Ernest Warren, Jr. OSB No. 891384 

Attorney for Defendant 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 519 Filed 05/05/16 Page 2 of 2
|Exhibit 32.1
|------------

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

To the knowledge of each of the undersigned, this Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Blonder Tongue Laboratories, Inc. for the applicable reporting period.

|                   |     |                                         
|------------------ | --- | ----------------------------------------
|Date: May 14, 2009 | By: | /s/ James A. Luksch                     
|                   |     | James A. Luksch, Chief Executive Officer
|                  
|                  
|                  
|                   | By: | /s/ Eric Skolnik                        
|                   |     | Eric Skolnik, Chief Financial Officer   



---
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
 Range Management Research: Las Cruces, NM
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Comprehensive Publications
                    Research SummarySearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Las Cruces, New Mexico Range Management Research Docs





- Landscape Toolbox
- Long Term Agricultural Research
- EcoTrends
- Long Term Ecological Research
- Ecological Site Descriptions
- Monitoring & Assessment
- Southwest Climate Hub
- Land Potential Knowledge System
- National Ecological Observatory Network
- JournalMap
- Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM)
- Data Catalogs

Training Materials & Programsheadline bar We believe in providing a diverse array of training opportunites and materials to help resource managers and land owners learn, understand, and apply successful monitoring and assessment techniques. These include instructor-led and online courses, webinars, videos, and wikis. VideosWebinarsPresentationsMethod Guide


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
# L_2009198EN.01005601.xml

| 30.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 198/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 198/56

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 27 July 2009

appointing one Spanish member of the Committee of the Regions

(2009/577/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Spanish Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 24 January 2006, the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 24 January 2006, the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010 (1).

| (2) | A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the resignation of Mr Manuel CHAVES GONZÁLES, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the resignation of Mr Manuel CHAVES GONZÁLES,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following is hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions as a member for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2010:

Mr José Antonio GRIŇÁN MARTÍNEZ, Presidente de la Junta de Andalucía.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 27 July 2009.

For the Council

The President

C. BILDT

---

(1)  
  OJ L 56, 25.2.2006, p. 75.

1

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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         559,174
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,665,492
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (993,452)
<INVENTORY>                                  7,978,993
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,747,735
<PP&E>                                      15,290,667
<DEPRECIATION>                             (6,217,152)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,304,072
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,563,364
<BONDS>                                      3,389,567
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    25,183,731
<OTHER-SE>                                (14,832,590)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,304,072
<SALES>                                      9,204,674
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,204,674
<CGS>                                        6,499,410
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,134,858
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,378
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             221,815
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                334,213
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            334,213
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   334,213
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
Ii 

" 

No. 94-538 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1995 

APRIL BENTON, 

Plaintiff and Appellant, 

-vROBERT C. SNOW, 

Defendant and Respondent. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Yellowstone, 

The Honorable Russell K. Fillner, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

Filed: 

For Appellant: 

April Benton, pro se 

For Respondent: 

K. Kent Koolen, Moulton, Bellingham, Longo & Mather, 

Billings, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: May 11, 1995 

Decided: August 10, ]995 

Clerk 
.. 

Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

This is an appeal from a jury verdict in the Thirteenth 

Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, awarding April Benton 

damage of $7,491 sustained in an automobile accident. We affirm. 

The following issue is dispositive of the case: 

Is there substantial evidence to support the jury verdict? 

April Benton (Benton) was a passenger In an automobile 

involved in a collision in Billings, Montana, on the night of 

October 4, 1991. Robert Snow (Snow), the driver of the send 

automobile involved in the collision, filed a Rule 68 offer of 

judgment in the amount of $7,500, which Benton rejected. At trial, 

Snow admitted negligence but challenged causation and damages. The 

jury returned a verdict for Benton in the amount of $7,491. 

Much of the testimony at trial including Billings neurologist 

Dr. Patrick Cahill and Dr. Charles Hatsell from Texas included 

statements that Benton's injuries could not have come from the 

accident in Billings. Dr. Cahill testified that psychological 

factors were the cause of Benton's continuing complaints. 

While the transcript of the proceedings is lengthy, Benton's 

argument on appeal consists of the following: 

Plaintiff was permanently injured as a result of a 

vehicle accident[s] from which defendant admits 

liability. 

Plaintiff was unsuccessful in obtaining a fair and 

just amount of compensation as a result of a trial in 

which defendant perjured himself on the witness stand, 

covered up evidence, and caused the plaintiff's 

judg[e]ment to be that of one unjust. 

Such contentions are without a basis in the record. Benton is a 

2 
.' 

pro se litigant but that does not excuse her from filing an 

appropriate brief as required by Rule 23 1 M.R.App.P. Appellant has 

presented no issues for review I no brief with legal argument --

despite seeking an extension of time from this Court within which 

to accomplish those appeal requirements. 

Snow argues on appeal that the jury verdict was appropriate 

and a review of the record shows that the damages awarded to Benton 

were based upon substantial evidence presented during the 

proceedings. 

We conclude that the jury verdict is supported by substantial 

evidence. We affirm. 

Pursuant to Section II Paragraph 3(c) I Montana Supreme Court 

1988 Internal Operating Rules l this decision shall not be cited as 

precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document 

with the Clerk of this Court and by a report of its result to the 

West Publishing Company. 

Md4{f/# JUStl es 

3
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.4

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.4

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Communications & Power Industries,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 3, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Joel Littman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



/s/ Joel Littman


Joel Littman
Chief Financial Officer
February 12, 2003
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eliseo Rodriguez, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (C. Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), rendered on June 23, 1983, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v*
      *194
      *Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Carro, Asch and Milonas, JJ.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has det ermined that this opinion should not be published and is not

precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________________

No. 95-60736

(Summary Calendar)

_________________________

FRANCISCO GRACIA-LEDESMA,

Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondent.

____________________________________________________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(A17 941 893)

__________________________________________________

August 7, 1996

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

After Gracia-Ledesma, a native citizen of Mexico, pled guilty to knowingly investing $20,800

in a scheme to possess more than 50 pounds of marijuana, the Immigration and Naturalization Service

(INS) initiated deportati on proceedings. Gracia-Ledesma conceded deportability and moved for a2

waiver of deportati on under §212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Immigration Judge

denied the waiver, and that decision was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. GraciaLedesma was granted a stay of deportation pending review and now appeals.

Pending this appeal, the President signed into law the “Antiterrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) on April 24, 1996. Section 440 of that act eliminates judicial review

of any final deportati on order against an alien who is deportable by reason of having committed any

one of a number of certain enumerated offenses. 8 U.S.C. §1105(a)(a)(10). Those offenses include,

a mo ng others, any aggravated felony conviction, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2)(iii) or any controlled

substances conviction, 8 U.S.C. §1251(a)(2)(B).

This court has recently held that Section 440 is presumed to retroactively bar judicial review

of a pending appeal from a BIA decision denying §212(c) discret io nary relief unless the petitioner

shows that one or more of his substantive rights is curtailed by the jurisdictional bar. See MendezRosas v. I.N.S.

,

__ F.3d

__, 1996 WL350716 at *4319 (5th Cir. June 26, 1996). Where a petitioner’s

sole ground of appeal is t he allegat io n that the BIA abused its discretion in determining that the

petitioner did not merit a favorable exercise of discretionary relief under §212(c), he has not shown

that his substantive rights have been cur t ailed, and has not rebutted the presumption that judicial

review is retroactively barred. See id

.

Gracia-Ledesma does not challenge the fact that he is an alien properly found deportable by

reason of his conviction relating to a controlled substance under 8 U.S.C. §1251(a)(1)(B), and his

sole ground of appeal is the allegation that the BIA abused its discretion in determining that he did

not merit a favorable exercise of discretionary relief under §212(c). We therefore find that §440(a)3

of the AEDPA applies retroactively to Gracia-Ledesma’s pending appeal and we must DISMISS for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.