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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

AUTOMATA PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEEANNA SPICHER,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:16-797-AC

ORDER

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation in 

this case on November 29, 2016. ECF 30. Judge Acosta recommended that Plaintiff’s motion for 

attorney’s fees and bill of costs be granted. No party has filed objections.

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 3:16-cv-00797-AC Document 33 Filed 12/19/16 Page 1 of 2
PAGE 2 – ORDER

If no party objects, 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 review is not required in the absence of objections, 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 findings 

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

No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory 

Committee and reviews Judge Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the 

face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Acosta’s 

Findings and Recommendation, ECF 30. Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees (ECF 25) and bill 

of costs (ECF 24) are GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of 

$1,484.95 and costs in the amount of $455 in costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 19th day of December, 2016.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00797-AC Document 33 Filed 12/19/16 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

EUGENE DNISION 

MARCIA J. ROBESON, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

SELCO GROUP INC.; SELCO 

COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION; and TED 

RUBIN, 

Defendants. 

AIKEN, Judge: 

No. 6:16-cv-00557-JR 

ORDER 

On Februmy22, 2017, Magistrate Judge Russo filed Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") 

recommending this Court grant defendants' motion for summary judgment. The F&R is now before 

me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. I review de novo those 

portions of the F&R to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b)(3); Holder v. Holder, 392 F.3d 1009, 1022 (9th Cir. 2004). 

I -ORDER 
Following a de nova review, I find no error. I ADOPT Judge Russo's F&R (doc. 34). 

Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 19) is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED°(zP Ill LA~ 

Dated this~ day of.:;;;1~7. 

AnnAiken 

United States District Judge 

2-0RDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 3:16-cr-00054-BR 

v. DETENTION ORDER 

(Violation of Probation/Supervised Release) 

ERIC F. OELKERS 

After a preliminary hearing (or waiver thereof) pursuant to FRCrP 32.l(a)(l) and/or 

FRCrP 46( c) and 18 USC § 3143 (violation of probation or supervised release), the court finds that 

there is probable cause to hold defendant for a revocation hearing and that defendant has not met 

his/her burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that he/she will not flee nor pose a 

danger to another person or to the community. 

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to 18 USC § 3142(i)(2)-( 4) that: 

1. Defendant is detained pending a probation/supervised release revocation hearing; 

2. Defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a 

corrections facility separated, as far as practicable, from persons awaiting or 

serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal; 

3. Defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with 

his counsel; 

4. The superintendent of the corrections facility in which defendant is confined shall 

make the defendant available to the United States Marshal for the purpose of 

appearance in connection with any court proceeding. 

Dated: July 12, 2018 

United S1tates Magistrate Judge 

DETENTION ORDER 

Case 3:16-cr-00054-BR Document 47 Filed 07/12/18 Page 1 of 1
Historical Record of Chairpersons 

for the 

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group 

Person FY Time Frame 

Operating Procedures 

Signed 

Bruce Moore (USBR) 1997 10/1/96 - 9/30/97 

Robert A. Winfree (NPS) 1998 10/1/97 - 9/30/98 May 13, 1998 

Bruce Moore (USBR) 1999 2/18/99 - 3/16/99 

Bill Persons (AGFD) 1999 4/10/99 - 7/20/99 June 21, 1999 

Rick Johnson (SW Rivers) 2000 10/1/99 - 9/30/00 September 7, 2001 

Rick Johnson 2001 10/1/00 - 9/30/01 

Kurt Dongoske (Hopi) 2002 10/1/01 - 9/30/02 

Kurt Dongoske 2003 10/1/02 - 9/30/03 

Norm Henderson (NPS) 2004 10/1/03 - 9/30/04 

Norm Henderson 2005 10/1/04 - 9/30/05 

Kurt Dongoske (CREDA) 2006 10/1/05 - 9/30/06 

(P:\gcamp\TWG\Record of TWG Chairs.doc)
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1937

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain chemicals used in the formulation

of anti-cancer drugs.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 3, 1998

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. BOXER) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain chemicals used

in the formulation of anti-cancer drugs.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.17 4-Chloropyridine hydrochloride (CAS No. 7379–35–

3) (provided for in subheading 2933.39.61) ............. Free No change No change On or before

12/31/1999 ’’.
2

•S 1937 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 this section applies with respect to goods entered, or with3 drawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the

4 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
# C_2009185EN.01000401.xml

| 7.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 185/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5063 — BLG Italia/ICO/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 185/04

On 24 July 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5063. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5063. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
IUnited States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-3567

___________________________

In re: Mirapex Products Liability Litigation

------------------------------

Kathryn Gillette; Raif Szczepanski

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Pfizer, Inc.; Pharmacia Corporation;

Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: April 12, 2017

Filed: April 17, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before RILEY, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Kathryn Gillette and Raif Szczepanski appeal the district court’s adverse grant

1

of summary judgment in their diversity action for damages based on a prescription

drug’s alleged side effect on Gillette. Having carefully reviewed the record and the

parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that summary judgment was properly

granted for the reasons stated by the district court. See Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690

F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo,

viewing record in light most favorable to nonmovant); Integrity Floorcovering, Inc.

v. Broan-Nutone, LLC, 521 F.3d 914, 917 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court’s

determination of state law is reviewed de novo). Accordingly, the judgment is 2

affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Franklin L.

Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

We do not consider allegations or claims that were not mentioned below. See 2

Stone v. Harry, 364 F. 3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2001) (stating general rule that claims

not presented in district court may not be advanced for first time on appeal).

-2-
#### State op Connecticut *v.*Toussaint Adams

*Donald H. Clark,*in support of the petition.

*Robert E. Beach, Jr.,*office of the chief state’s attorney, in opposition.

Submitted July 7

decided July 23, 1975

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Session of the Superior Court is denied.
UNITED STATES COURTS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DESIGNATION OF A DISTRICT JUDGE

FOR SERVICE IN ANOTHER DISTRICT WITHIN THE NINTH CIRCUIT

For the Purpose of Presiding Over a Specific Motion

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 292(b), I hereby designate the Honorable John 

Coughenour, United States Senior District Judge for the Western District of 

Washington to perform the duties of United States District Judge temporarily for 

the District of Oregon to hear a pending motion in the specific case USA v. Bundy, 

et al., Case No. 3:16-cr-00051, and all matters related thereto. 

May 17, 2017

Sidney R. Thomas

Chief Judge

cc: Hon. John Coughenour

Hon. Ricardo Martinez, Chief Judge, Western District of Washington

Hon. Michael Mosman, Chief Judge, District of Oregon

William McCool, Clerk of Court, Western District of Washington

Mary Moran, Clerk of Court, District of Oregon

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 2100 Filed 05/17/17 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CANDY WESTPHAL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Conunissioner, Social Security 

Administration, 

Defendant. 

BROWN, Judge. 

3:15-cv-01904-AC 

ORDER 

Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and 

Recommendation (#19) on December 27, 2016, in which he recommends 

this Court reverse and remand the Commissioner's decision denying 

Plaintiff's application for supplemental security income benefits 

and disability insurance benefits for the immediate calculation 

and award of benefits. The matter is now before this Court 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (B) and Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 72(b). 

1 ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-01904-AC Document 21 Filed 01/25/17 Page 1 of 2
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and 

Recommendation were timely filed, this Court is relieved of its 

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

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

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

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

find any error. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and 

Recommendation (#19). Accordingly, the Court REVERSES the 

decision of the Commissioner and REMANDS this matter pursuant to 

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for the immediate calculation 

and award of benefits. 

IT IS 

DATED 

SO ORDERED. 

this ;.c;""" day 

2 ORDER 

of January, 2017. 

ANNA~ United States District Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-01904-AC Document 21 Filed 01/25/17 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

v. 

Shawna Cox 

Case No. 3:16CR00051-07-BR 

MODIFICATION OF RELEASE 

CONDITIONS 

IT IS ORDERED THAT that the defendant's pretrial release conditions, specifically her 

location monitoring restrictions are modified. The defendant is subject to a Curfew as 

directed by Pretrial Services, rather than the previously ordered Home Detention restriction. 

An additional condition of the defendant's release is as follows: 

• The defendant shall not make or publish any public statements, by any means, that 

encourage unlawful activity or reference her case or co-defendants. 

All other previously ordered conditions ofrelease remain in effect. 

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 2'1 day of ffl/J.Nch , 2016. 

Submitted by U.S. Pretrial Services 

o ·able Robeti E. Jones 

nior U.S. District Judge 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 355 Filed 03/29/16 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

ROBERT WAGNER, No. 6:15-cv-01612-YY

Petitioner, 

v.

JEFF PREMO, ORDER

Respondent. 

HERNANDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge You issued a Findings & Recommendation (#63) on October 3, 2018, in

which she recommends the Court deny Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus and deny a

certificate of appealability. Petitioner has timely filed objections to the Findings &

Recommendation. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). 

When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings &

Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the

1 - ORDER
Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th

Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

I have carefully considered Petitioner's objections and conclude there is no basis to

modify the Findings & Recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the

record de novo and find no other errors in the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation

except for one mistaken reference to Matthews instead of Robinson at page 4, in the second

sentence of the second full paragraph. There, Judge You stated that "Matthews heard the man

say, 'What's up cuz?' and recognized the voice as Petitioner's." F&R at 4. The record, however,

makes clear that it was Robinson who heard the statement, not Matthews. ECF 20-1 at 210-11. 

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge You's Findings & Recommendation [63], and

therefore, Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus [1] is denied. Because Petitioner fails to

make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, I deny a certificate of

appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this day of , 2018. 

 

MARCO A. HERNANDEZ

United States District Judge

2 - ORDER
Southern Paiute Vegetation a

Cultural Resource Monitorin

Program

Charley Bulletts

Southern Paiute Consortium
‐

Monitoring Program

• History• Process• Schedule

Site 2014 2015 2016 

South Canyon beach, archaeology beach, cultural* beach, archaeology beach, 

Nankoweap archaeology plants, cultural archaeology plants, Lava/Chuar archaeology archaeologyTanner archaeology archaeologyBedrock plants, cultural

Deer Creek beach, archaeology,

plants

beach, archaeology,plants

beach, archaeology,plants

beach, plants

Kanab Creek beach, archaeology beach, archaeology beach, archaeology beach, 

plants

Vulcan’s Anvil cultural plants, cultural cultural cultura

Whitmore beach, archaeology beach, archaeology beach, archaeology beach, 

Pre Parashant archae

Ompi cultural Cultural cultural culturaSpring Canyon archaeology, plants plants, cultural archaeology, plants plants, 

Indian Canyon archaeology Cultural archaeology cultura

Pumpkin Spring spring, cultural spring, cultural spring, cultural spring, 

Ledges archaeology, spring archaeology, spring

Granite Park cultural Cultural cultural cultura
Beach at South Canyon

2011 2013 201

Photos monitoring trips show an increase in sediment as vegetation change and the effects of the tamarisk b
Beach at South Canyon

Sediment change at the gully of the beach at South

Canyon, showing sand bank deposits, photos from 

(left) and 2015 (right).
Kanab Creek

Sand deposits above Kanab Creek show an

increase in deposition. Photos from 2013 (left

2015 (right).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6683

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

ARTHUR LEE HAIRSTON, SR., 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, 

Chief District Judge. (3:00-cr-00024-JPB-1) 

Submitted: September 10, 2009 Decided: September 14, 2009 

Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas 

Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., appeals the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying his petition for a writ of audita querela. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United 

States v. Hairston, No. 3:00-cr-00024-JPB-1 (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 30, 

2009). We deny Hairston’s motions for appointment of counsel 

and a certificate of appealability. 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. 

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 11



                              DATAWORKS CORPORATION
          STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                   (UNAUDITED)
                  (In Thousands, Except Per Share Information)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           THREE MONTHS ENDED          NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                              SEPTEMBER 30,               SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                         ----------------------      ----------------------
                                                           1997          1996          1997          1996
                                                         --------      --------      --------      --------
<S>                                                      <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>   
Primary:
Average shares outstanding                                 13,870        11,312        13,765        11,206
Net effect of dilutive stock  options - based on
the treasury stock method using average market price         --            --            --             542
                                                         --------      --------      --------      --------
Totals                                                     13,870        11,312        13,765        11,748
                                                         ========      ========      ========      ========

Net income (loss)                                        $ (9,190)     $ (1,010)     $ (5,861)     $  2,049
                                                         ========      ========      ========      ========

Per share information:
   Net income (loss)                                     $   (.66)     $   (.09)     $   (.43)     $    .17
                                                         ========      ========      ========      ========
</TABLE>



Fully dilutive effect of stock options on per share amounts for the three and
nine month periods ended September 30, 1997 and 1996, has not been presented
since any reduction of less than 3% in the aggregate need not be considered as
dilution.



                                       14
Order entered July 30 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 01549
- CR LADALE CUBIT, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Caus e No. F11
- 34970
- K 

### O RDER
The Court REINSTATES this appeal. On April 24, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the reporter’s record has not been filed in this appeal. Although court reporter Janice Garrett filed, on May 22, 2013, a request for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record, she did not tender the reporter’s record with the extension request

. On July 22, 2013, we received the reporter’s record. Accordingly, in the interest of expediting the appeal, we VACATE the April 24, 2013 order requiring findings. Because Ms. Garrett did not tender the reporter’s record by the July 1, 2013 date specified in her extension request, we DENY that request as moot.On the Court’s own motion, we consider the reporter’s record re ceived on July 22, 2013 properly filed. Appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE