alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Ernest Warren, Jr. OSB 891384 

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 ST A TES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ERIC LEE FLORES, 

Defendant. 

I, Ernest Warren, Jr., do depose and say: 

Case No. 3:16-CR-00051-25-BR 

DECLARATION OF 

ERNEST WARREN, JR. UNOPPOSED MOTION 

FOR A CONTINUANCE 

OF TRIAL DATE AND 

TO FILE MOTIONS 

1. I was appointed to represent defendant Eric Lee Flores on March 17, 2016, by the 

Honorable Anna Brown. 

2. This is defendant's first request to continue the trial date. 

3. The parties have discussed the fact that there are thousands of pages of discovery 

as well as videos and images. Defense Counsel needs time to review discovery, follow 

investigation leads, prepare and file motions, and advise the defendant on legal matters 

4. Assistant United States Attorney Craig Gabriel does object to this request. 

5. I, therefore, would request the Court to grant Motion for a Continuance of Trial 

until after December 6, 2016 because of upcoming appearances including two murder trials 

PAGE I- DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL 

Warren & Sue.arman 

Attorneys at raw 838 SW First Avenue • Suite 500 • Portland. Oregon 97204 

Tel (503) 228-6655 •Fax (503) 228-70 f9 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 380 Filed 04/08/16 Page 1 of 3
before that date. State of Oregon v. Michael Lawson; Case Number 15-CR-26804; and trial date 

September 12, 2016 through September 22, 2016. State of Oregon v. Leo Lee Bums; Case 

Number 15-CR-50276; and trial date November 9, 2016 through November 18, 2016. 

DA TED this'/ day of April, 2016. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 

Isl Ernest Warren, Jr. 

Ernest Warren, Jr. OSB No. 891384 

Attorney for defendant 

PAGE 2-DECLARA TION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL 

Warren & Su2arman 

Attorneys at taw 838 SW First Avenue • Suite 500 • Portland. Oregon 97204 

Tel (503) 228-6655 · Fax (503) 228-70r9 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 380 Filed 04/08/16 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

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

TRIAL DATE AND DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL 

DA TE 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 

1000 S.W. Third Avenue 

Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204 

503-727-1118 

Fax: 503-727-1 11 7 

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

Page I - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

DA TED this _l_ day of April, 2016. 

WARREN & SUGARMAN 

ls/Ernest Warren, Jr. 

Ernest Warren, Jr. OSB No. 891384 

Attorney for Defendant 

Warren & Sue.arman Attorneys al uw 

838 SW Firs! Avenue • Suite 500 • Portland. Oregon 97204 

Tel (503) 228-6655 • Fax (503) 228-70f9 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 380 Filed 04/08/16 Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Asta Funding, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2002 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Gary Stern, Chief
Executive 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) of
             the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
             material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the
             Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of
             operations of the Company for the periods presented.

Dated: February 10, 2003



                                               /S/ Gary Stern
                                               -------------------------
                                                   Gary Stern
                                                   Chief Executive Officer

This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and has not been filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
#### State of New York et al., Appellants, v Philip Morris Incorporated et al., Defendants. Commonwealth Brands, Inc., et al., Nonparty Respondents.

Submitted March 26, 2007;

decided March 29, 2007

Motion by defendants Philip Morris USA Inc. et al. for leave to file a brief and to present oral argument on the appeal herein denied as unnecessary upon the ground that movants are party respondents on this appeal.
# L_2010077EN.01005401.xml

| 24.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 77/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 77/54

---

COMMISSION DECISION

of 19 March 2010

advancing the date for the payment of the second instalment of the restructuring aid granted for the marketing year 2009/2010 under Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006

(notified under document C(2010) 1710)

(2010/176/EU)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), and in particular Article 10(5) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Article 10(5) of Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 allows the Commission to advance the dates for the payment of the aids granted under the temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry established by that Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Article 10(5) of Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 allows the Commission to advance the dates for the payment of the aids granted under the temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry established by that Regulation.

| (2) | Since the necessary financial resources are available in the restructuring fund referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 320/2006, Member States should be given the possibility to advance the date for the payment of the second instalment of the restructuring aid granted in the marketing year 2009/2010 to undertakings, growers and machinery contractors which renounced their quota as of 1 October 2009 to the date of the payment of the first instalment, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Since the necessary financial resources are available in the restructuring fund referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 320/2006, Member States should be given the possibility to advance the date for the payment of the second instalment of the restructuring aid granted in the marketing year 2009/2010 to undertakings, growers and machinery contractors which renounced their quota as of 1 October 2009 to the date of the payment of the first instalment,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

By way of derogation from Article 10(4) of Regulation (EC) No 320/2006, Member States may pay 100 % of the restructuring aid provided for in Article 3 of that Regulation in respect of the marketing year 2009/2010 in one instalment. In such case, the payment shall be due in June 2010.

Member States shall inform the Commission by 31 March 2010 if they want to make use of the possibility provided for in the first paragraph.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 March 2010.

For the Commission

Dacian CIOLOŞ

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 42.

1

---
**Exhibit
      13.(a).1**




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 Annual Report of Blue Square-Israel Ltd. (the “Company”) on
      Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned
      hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:




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.




Date:
                June 25, 2008
            
            By:/s/
                Zeev Vurembrand
              Zeev
                Vurembrand
              Chief
                Executive Officer




Date:
                June 25, 2008
            
            By:/s/
                Dror Moran
              Dror
                Moran
              Chief
                Financial Officer
In The 

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

_________________

NO. 09
- 15
- 00 262
- CV



### _________________
IN RE DAVID ELLIOTT

________________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding

________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION David Elliott petitioned for a writ of mandamus compelling the 356th District Court of Hardin County, Texas, to vacate the temporary order s signed on June 25, 2015, in a recently

- commenced divorce case. See generally Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004 ) ; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. Elliott asks this Court to compel the trial court to sign temporary order s that provide for a standard possession order that includes summer visitation and additional “ makeup visitation ” in Virginia where he resides

. Elliott filed a mot ion requesting that this Court award him a six

- week visitation period in Virgi nia and additional visitation for missed Spring visitation previously agreed to by the parties, as temporary reliefpending the determination of the merits of his mandamus petiti on. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(a). Elliott contends there is insufficient evidence in the record of the hearing on temporary orders to rebut the presumption that a standard possession order should be entered. See generally Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 1 05.001(g) ; 153.252 (West
2014 ). After considering the mandamus petition and the response filed by the real party in interest, the temporary nature of the orders at issue, and the records submitted by the p arties for review by this Court ( which does not include everything the trial court considered in reaching the decision regarding the temporary orders at issue ) , we conclude that the relator has not established that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.253 (West
20 14 ). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and the motion for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8 (a)

. PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM

Submitted on July 15, 2015 Opinion Delivered July 24, 2015 Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson , JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 28, 2020

a0720 

# Order

Clerk July 28, 2020

160420(97)

TOWN CENTERS DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.,

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant

- Appellant,

v SC: 160420

COA: 343247

Macomb CC: 2017

- 003542

- CB

PND INVESTMENTS, LLC, WOLVERINE

BUILDING COMPANY, LLC, MIDTOWN

VILLAGE LOFTS, LLC, and HORIZON BANK,

Successor by Merger wit h WOLVERINE BANK,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

MBANK,

Defendant/Counterplaintiff/Third

- Party Plaintiff

- Appellee,

and

VINCENT DELORENZO and ANGELA

TINERVIA,

Third

- Party Defendants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 27,

2020 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that

reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).

V IVIANO , J., did not participate due to a familial relat ionship with the presiding

circuit court judge in this case
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Fernando Marriaga, Appellant.

*752A review of the affidavit supporting the application for the search warrant demonstrates that there was sufficient information before the issuing Judge to support his determination that probable cause existed to believe that the controlled substances, drug paraphernalia and other items described in the warrant could be found at the address set forth therein *(see, People v Bigelow,*66 NY2d 417; *People v Wirchansky,*41 NY2d 130; *People v Hanlon,*36 NY2d 549, 559). Therefore, the warrant was to be presumed valid, and the burden of proving otherwise fell upon the challenger. As the defendant failed to demonstrate that there was an abuse of discretion by the issuing Judge, the validity of the warrant was properly upheld by the hearing court *(see, People v Manuli,*104 AD2d 386). Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.
United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

May 28, 2010 

Before

 FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

 WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

 TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge 

No. 08-3799 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v.

MARCUS L. WELTON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

On Remand from the 

Supreme Court of the United 

States. 

Order 

 Our prior opinion, 583 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2009), affirmed Welton’s sentence after 

concluding that the principle of Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007), does not 

apply to the career-offender Guideline, U.S.S.G. §4B1.1. While Welton’s petition for 

certiorari was pending, we overruled the panel’s opinion in this case. United States v. 

Corner, 598 F.3d 411 (7th Cir. 2010) (en banc). The Supreme Court then granted 

Welton’s petition and remanded with instructions to reconsider in light of Corner. 

No. 09-8367 (U.S. Mar. 20, 2010). 

 Welton contended in the district court that the principle of Kimbrough applies to 

§4B1.1, and Corner holds that this position is correct. The district court erred in thinking 

otherwise (though the district judge is not responsible for this error, which was based 

on earlier decisions that Corner overruled). In a post-remand filing under Circuit Rule 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 

To be cited only in accordance with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 08-3799 Page 2 

54, the United States contends that the judge’s error was harmless. But the burden of 

demonstrating harmless error is on the prosecutor, and it is not evident to us that the 

district judge was determined to impose the same sentence without regard to the effect 

of Kimbrough on §4B1.1. 

 A remand for resentencing is the best way to find out. If, as the United States 

contends, Corner does not affect Welton’s sentence, the district judge has only to say so. 

But if it does affect the exercise of discretion in sentencing, Welton is entitled to the 

benefit. 

 Welton’s sentence is vacated, and the case is remanded for resentencing 

consistent with Kimbrough and Corner.
DURANGO PUMPING PLANTLatitude: 37.259Longitude: -107.878Elevation: 6461

DURANGO PUMPING PLANT

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Beartown Site Page...



Beartown

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Cascade Site Page...



Cascade

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Cascade #2 Site Page...



Cascade #2

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Idarado Site Page...



Idarado

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Mineral Creek Site Page...



Mineral Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Molas Lake Site Page...



Molas Lake

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Red Mountain Pass Site Page...



Red Mountain Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Scotch Creek Site Page...



Scotch Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Spud Mountain Site Page...



Spud Mountain

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Columbus Basin Site Page...



Columbus Basin
Bruce W. Brewer, OSB No. 925581

brucebrewerusdccases@gmail.com

PO Box 421

West Linn, OR 97068

503-621-6633

Attorney for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

DARLA MARNEY, Case No. 3:15-cv-01759-JE

Plaintiff,

ORDER (EAJA FEES)

vs.

COMMISSIONER,

of Social Security

Administration,

Defendant.

_____________________________________

Based upon the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that, pursuant to the

Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, an attorney fee in the amount of $8,086.90 is

awarded to Plaintiff. It is ordered that the aforementioned attorney fee shall be paid to Plaintiff’s

attorney, dependent upon verification that Plaintiff has no debt which qualifies for offset against

the awarded fees, pursuant to the Treasury Offset Program as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 130

S.Ct. 2521 (2010). If Plaintiff has no such debt, then it is ordered that the check shall be made

payable to Plaintiff’s attorney, Bruce Brewer, and mailed to him at PO Box 421, West Linn, OR

97068. If Plaintiff has such debt, then the check for any remaining funds after offset of the debt

1 - ORDER FOR EAJA FEES
shall be made payable to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff's attorney's mailing address stated

above. There are no costs or expenses to be paid herein.

DATED this _____ day of ______________________, 2017.

____________________________________

The Honorable John Jelderks 

United States District Court Magistrate 

Submitted by:

Bruce W. Brewer, OSB No. 925581

503-621-6633, Attorney for Plaintiff 

2 - ORDER FOR EAJA FEES

10th January , 2018 XXX

/s/ John Jelderks
# L_2010126EN.01002501.xml

| 22.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 126/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 126/25

---

POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EU BAM Rafah/1/2010

of 21 May 2010

extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Border Assistance Mission at the Rafah Crossing Point

(2010/295/CFSP)

THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,

Having regard to Council Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP of 12 December 2005 on establishing a European Union Border Assistance Mission at the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah) (1), and in particular Article 10(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 10(2) of Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC), in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of political control and strategic direction of the EU BAM Rafah mission, including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 10(2) of Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC), in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of political control and strategic direction of the EU BAM Rafah mission, including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.

| (2) | On 11 November 2008, upon a proposal by the Secretary General/High Representative, the PSC appointed by Decision EUBAM Rafah/1/2008 (2) Mr Alain FAUGERAS as Head of Mission of EU BAM Rafah. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 11 November 2008, upon a proposal by the Secretary General/High Representative, the PSC appointed by Decision EUBAM Rafah/1/2008 (2) Mr Alain FAUGERAS as Head of Mission of EU BAM Rafah.

| (3) | On 20 May 2010, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy proposed to the PSC that it extend the mandate of Mr Alain FAUGERAS as Head of Mission of EU BAM Rafah until 24 May 2011, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 20 May 2010, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy proposed to the PSC that it extend the mandate of Mr Alain FAUGERAS as Head of Mission of EU BAM Rafah until 24 May 2011,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The mandate of Mr Alain FAUGERAS as Head of Mission of the European Union Border Assistance Mission at the Rafah Crossing Point is hereby extended from 25 November 2009 until 24 May 2011.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 21 May 2010.

For the Political and Security Committee

The President

C. FERNÁNDEZ-ARIAS

---

(1)  
  OJ L 327, 14.12.2005, p. 28.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 306, 15.11.2008, p. 99.

2

---
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.1

                                           
                                   THIRD AMENDMENT
                                          TO
                           APPLIED MICROSYSTEMS CORPORATION
                             1992 PERFORMANCE STOCK PLAN
                                           

    THIS THIRD AMENDMENT to the APPLIED MICROSYSTEMS CORPORATION 1992
PERFORMANCE STOCK PLAN is adopted as of May 30, 1997, by APPLIED MICROSYSTEMS
CORPORATION, a Washington corporation (the "Company"), subject to approval by
the shareholders of the Company.

The Company's 1992 Performance Stock Plan (the "1992 Plan") is hereby amended as
follows:

    1.   Section 2 of the 1992 Plan is amended by substituting "2,175,317
         shares" in place of "1,775,317 shares." 

    2.   Except as amended hereby, the 1992 Plan as previously amended shall
         remain in full force and effect.


    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed as of the date and
    year first above written.


                             APPLIED MICROSYSTEMS CORPORATION

         
                             By   /s/  A. James Beach
                                 -----------------------
                                  A. James Beach
                                  VICE PRESIDENT, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,
                                  SECRETARY AND TREASURER
                                  (PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER)


                                         -15-
#### In re LORD’S ESTATE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 18, 1896.)

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
FOUNTAIN CREEK BELOW JANITELL RD BELOW COLORADO SPRINGS, COLatitude: 38.803Longitude: -104.795Elevation: 5840

Fountain Creek below Janitell Rd below Colorado Springs, CO

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Glen Cove Site Page...



Glen Cove