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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JASON PATRICK, DUANE LEO

EHMER, DYLAN ANDERSON, SEAN

ANDERSON, SANDRA LYNN

ANDERSON, DARRYL WILLIAM

THORN, and JAKE RYAN,

Defendants.

3:16-cr-00051-BR

 

SUPPLEMENT TO PROTECTIVE

ORDER (#342)

BROWN, Judge.

For the reasons stated in the Court’s Order (#1691)Granting

in Part the Government’s Motion to Enforce Protective Order, the

Court supplements the Protective Order (#342) issued March 23,

2016, as follows:

Any individual or entity that obtains materials protected by

the Court’s Protective Order (#342) is prohibited from

1 - SUPPLEMENT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER (#342)

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 1692 Filed 01/11/17 Page 1 of 2
disseminating those materials or any information derived

therefrom to any other individual or entity by any means.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 11th day of January, 2017.

 S/ Anna J. Brown 

ANNA J. BROWN

United States District Judge

2 - SUPPLEMENT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER (#342)

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 1692 Filed 01/11/17 Page 2 of 2
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6522** 

HECTOR BONILLA

- ROSADO , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. KUMA DEBOO, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Wheeling
. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 5:11

- cv - 00146

- FPS

- JES )

Submitted : July 19, 2012 Decided: July 23, 2012

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Hector Bonilla

- Rosado, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding preced ent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Hector Bonilla

- Rosado, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition. Because Bonilla

- Rosado fail ed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendations after being given proper notice, he has waived appellate review of those claims. United States v. Midgette , 478 F.3d 616, 621

- 22 (4th Cir. 2007 )
. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the district cou rt. 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 – ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

AMBER D. GILLIAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No. 6:15-cv-2388-SB

ORDER

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and 

Recommendation in this case on March 29, 2017. ECF 24. Judge Beckerman recommended that 

the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision be affirmed. 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).
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 Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the 

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

Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 24. The Commissioner of Social Security’s 

decision is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 13th day of April, 2017.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PATHOGENESIS CORPORATION FOR THE
NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       3,277,265
<SECURITIES>                                36,904,446
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,952,554
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                 14,983,140
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            64,763,608
<PP&E>                                      30,005,813
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,085,487
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              98,189,555
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,002,604
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,407
<OTHER-SE>                                  86,170,544
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                98,189,555
<SALES>                                     40,400,926
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            41,022,789
<CGS>                                        7,762,206
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               50,482,382
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               144,013
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F2>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             515,243
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (8,020,368)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (8,020,368)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (8,020,368)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.49)
<FN>
<F1>THE AMOUNT OF RECEIVABLES REPORTED IS NET OF $2,203,611 OF ALLOWANCES.
<F2>THE TOTAL COSTS INCLUDE LOSS PROVISION OF $111,450.
</FN>



</TABLE>
#### CHRISTIE, Appellant, v. KAHALY, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 13, 1896.)

Action by George Christie against John G. Kahaly.

Frank Moss, for appellant.

Herbert W. Grindal, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion was properly denied because the action was not against the receiver, but the individual. The order appealed from should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
732 A.2d 1157

#### In re Nomination Petition of Daniel P. McELHATTON. Petition of Daniel P. McElhatton.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 13, 1999.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 13 th day of May, 1999, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby DENIED.

Justice NIGRO did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 13 th day of May, 1999, the Petition for Stay of the Order of the Commonwealth Court dated May 7, 1999 and the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County dated April 23,1999 is DENIED.

Justice NIGRO did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheets and consolidated statements of loss and deficit
found on pages F-1 through F-10 of the Company's Form 10-KSB for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 1997, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>          YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                        $   400,949
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  558,759
<PP&E>                            193,004
<DEPRECIATION>                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    751,763
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             226,472
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                        4,012,435
<OTHER-SE>                     (3,487,144)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      751,763
<SALES>                             2,420
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  256,374
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                2,861,420
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 20,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (2,625,046)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                   (2,625,046)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (.15)

</TABLE>
# L_2010161EN.01001101.xml

| 29.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 161/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 161/11

---

Corrigendum to Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 309 of 24 November 2009
  )

On page 75, Article 4(2), first subparagraph:

for:

‘2.   By 14 December 2012, Member States shall communicate ...’,

read:

‘2.   By 26 November 2012, Member States shall communicate ...’.

On page 75, Article 4(3), first subparagraph:

for:

‘3.   By 14 December 2014, the Commission shall submit ...’,

read:

‘3.   By 26 November 2014, the Commission shall submit ...’.

On page 75, Article 4(3), second subparagraph:

for:

‘By 14 December 2018, the Commission shall submit ...’,

read:

‘By 26 November 2018, the Commission shall submit ...’.

On page 75, Article 5(2):

for:

‘2.   By 14 December 2013, Member States shall establish ...’,

read:

‘2.   By 26 November 2013, Member States shall establish ...’.

On page 76, Article 6(4):

for:

‘4.   The measures provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be established by 14 December 2015.’,

read:

‘4.   The measures provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be established by 26 November 2015.’.

On page 76, Article 7(3):

for:

‘... the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, shall develop by 14 December 2012 ...’,

read:

‘... the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, shall develop by 26 November 2012 ...’.

On page 76, Article 8(2), first subparagraph:

for:

‘2.   By 14 December 2016, Member States shall ensure ...’,

read:

‘2.   By 26 November 2016, Member States shall ensure ...’.

On page 80, Article 17, second paragraph:

for:

‘Member States shall notify those provisions to the Commission by 14 December 2012 and ...’,

read:

‘Member States shall notify those provisions to the Commission by 26 November 2012 and ...’.

On page 81, Article 23(1), first subparagraph:

for:

‘1.   Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 14 December 2011.’,

read:

‘1.   Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 26 November 2011.’.

---
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________ NO
. 09
- 1 5
- 00 390
- C V



### ____________________

IN RE THE STATE OF TEXAS

_______________________________________________________ ______________ Original Proceeding County Court at Law No. 2 of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 14
- 05
- 05339
- CV

________________________________________________________ _____________ ORDER
The State of Texas filed a petition for writ of mand amus. The relator is the petitioner in an eminent domain proceeding in Cause No. 14

- 05

- 05339

- CV , State of Texas v. Harper & Manning Investment Properties, LLC. Relator seeks a writ compelling the Honorable Claudia Laird, Judge of the County Court at Law No. 2 of Montgomery County, Texas, to vacate the trial court’s Order Granting Motion to Compel and Order Denying the State’s Motion for Protective Order, and to grant
the State’s Motion for Protective Order

. We note our jurisdiction ov er this matter and the parties. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004).2 Relator filed a motion to stay the challenged order. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(a). Relator alleges that prejudice will result if it is required to disclos e information that Relator contends is protected by the consulting expert privilege before the issues raised in the petition for writ of mandamus can be resolved. The Court finds temporary relief is necessary to prevent undue prejudice. It
is ORDERED that the trial court’s Order on Defendant’s Motion to Compel and the State’s Motion for Protective Order, signed September 11, 2015, in Cause No.
14

- 05

- 05339

- CV , and any discovery, depositions, or production of documents compelled thereby, is STAYED until our Opinion issues or until further order of
this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10( b). No bond is required of the R elator as a condition to any relief herein gr anted. The response of the real party in interest, Harper & Manning Investment Properties, LLC , is due October 5, 2015

. MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF GRANTED.
ORDER ENTERED September 24 , 2015

.

PER CURIAM

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-40475

c/w No. 99-40477

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ERIC JEROME RELIFORD,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:98-CR-67-1

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

March 1, 2000

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and BENAVIDES, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Eric

Jerome Reliford has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief as

required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Reliford

has received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief but has not

filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the

record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly,

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
#### PEOPLE v. RILEY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 18, 1896.)

Proceeding against James Riley.

No opinion. Motion granted.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

          This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from
          Pen  Interconnect,  Inc.  March 31, 2000  financial  statements and is
          qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                         0001000266
<NAME>                        Pen Interconnect, Inc.
<CURRENCY>                    US


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1.00

<CASH>                                         2,031
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               221,522
<PP&E>                                         470,058
<DEPRECIATION>                                 34,969
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 665,611
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,038,807
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    14
<COMMON>                                       209,173
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,582,383
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   665,611
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               612,514
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,191,984)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (612,514)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (1,205,332)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,192,884)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.20)





</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

VICTOR CHARLES FOURSTAR, Jr., 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-30097 

D.C. No. 4:02-cr-00052-DLC-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2020**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Victor Charles Fourstar, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s order 

denying his motion for early termination of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(e)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a motion for 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-30097 

early termination of supervised release. See United States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d 

817, 819 (9th Cir. 2014). Assuming without deciding that Fourstar met the oneyear requirement for early termination, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), Fourstar failed 

to show that he was entitled to early termination of supervision. See United States 

v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552, 559 n.9 (9th Cir. 2006) (it is the defendant’s burden to 

demonstrate that early termination is justified). At the time Fourstar filed his 

motion, he was still in custody for his third violation of supervised release, and the 

record shows that he had never succeeded in complying with the conditions of his 

supervision for more than a few months. Under these circumstances, the district 

court did not abuse its discretion by denying Fourstar’s motion for early 

termination. 

Fourstar’s motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to consolidate and 

to consolidate additional appeals is DENIED. 

We do not consider Fourstar’s renewed motion for appointment of counsel

because the court’s previous order denying his motion for appointment of counsel 

stated that no motions for reconsideration, clarification, or modification of the 

denial would be entertained. 

Fourstar’s remaining arguments lack merit or are beyond the scope of this 

appeal. 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.0



ANTARES PHARMA, INC.



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT

TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)



Each of the undersigned, Roger G. Harrison and Lawrence M. Christian, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of
Antares Pharma, Inc. (the Company), individually and not jointly has executed this Certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Companys Amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 (the Report).



Each of the undersigned hereby certifies 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.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has
executed this Certification as of the 4th day of May 2004.



/s/    Roger G. HarrisonRoger G. Harrison, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer and
President




/s/    Lawrence M. ChristianLawrence M. Christian Chief Financial Officer, Vice
President  Finance and Secretary
George J. Wall, OSB No. 934515 

gwall@eastpdxlaw.com 

1336 East Burnside Street, Suite 130 

Portland, OR 97214 

Telephone: 503-236-0068 

Facsimile: 503-236-0028 

Attorney for Plaintiff, Millicen Huddleston 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MILLICEN HUDDLESTON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration, 

Defendant. 

Civil Action No.: 3:15-CV-02427-MC 

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY FE S 

PER 28 USC 406(b) 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED pursuant to 42 USC 406(b), an attorney fee in the 

amount of $15,500.00 is approved to plaintiffs counsel. If the Office of Hearings 

Operations approves a fee per 42 USC 406(a) counsel will reimburse the plaintiff so that 

the total fee paid by plaintiff from retroactive Title II benefits will not exceed $15,500 00. 

IT IS so ORDERED: '/z .;-/ 1 '6 

I I 

US DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Page 1 - PETITION FOR ORDER AWARDING 

ATTORNEY FEES PER 42 USC 406(b) 

George J. Wal 

Attorney at La 

1336 E Burnside Street Ste 130 

Portland, OR 97 14 

Tel: 503-236-00 8 

Fax: 503-236-0 8