alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2503 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2503

                   To suspend the duty on Iprodione.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 2005

 Mr. McCrery introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   To suspend the duty on Iprodione.

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

SECTION 1. IPRODIONE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.01.51 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Iprodione) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``4.9%'' and inserting ``free''; and
            (2) by striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/
        2008''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
### §3274. Authorization of appropriations

There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter, such sums to remain available until expended.

(Pub. L. 89–560, §4, Sept. 7, 1966, 80 Stat. 706.)
________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

MITCHELL, BRISSO, 

DELANEY & VRIEZE 

814 Seventh Street 

P.O. Drawer 1008 

Eureka, CA 95502 

Brian Edward Claypool 

The Claypool Law Firm 

Attorneys at Law 

633 W. Fifth Street, Suite 5880 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 

Tel: (213) 488-2042 

Fax: (213) 489-4798 

E-Mail: becesq@aol.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Nancy K. Delaney, SBN 70617 

Nicholas R. Kloeppel, SBN 186165 

MITCHELL, BRISSO, DELANEY & VRIEZE 

Attorneys at Law 

814 Seventh Street 

P. O. Drawer 1008 

Eureka, CA 95502 

Tel: (707) 443-5643 

Fax: (707) 444-9586 

E-Mail: kradford@mitchelllawfirm.com

Attorneys for Defendants 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Estate of CHRISTOPHER BURGESS, 

MARGORIE BURGESS, as Guardian of 

LEE ALLEN CONOBOY, and CASEY 

LEE BURGESS, 

 Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

OFFICER TERRY LILES, CHIEF MURL 

HARPHAM, PROBATION OFFICER 

STEVE SCHAENING, PROBATION 

OFFICER PETRINA FENNELL, 

PROBATION OFFICER ANDREW 

McLAUGHLIN, DEPUTY SHERIFF JON 

SYLVIA, THE CITY OF EUREKA, THE 

COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, THE 

EUREKA POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE 

DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF 

HUMBOLDT COUNTY PAUL V. 

GALLEGOS, THE HUMBOLDT 

COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE AND 

CASE NO.: CV 08-4029-SI 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

Case 3:08-cv-04029-SI Document 42 Filed 03/22/10 Page 1 of 2
________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

MITCHELL, BRISSO, 

DELANEY & VRIEZE 

814 Seventh Street 

P.O. Drawer 1008 

Eureka, CA 95502 

VARIOUS DOE DEFENDANTS, 1 – X 

INCLUSIVE, 

 Defendants. 

The parties to this action represent, stipulate and jointly respectfully request the 

following: 

 That the Case Management Conference presently scheduled for March 19, 2010, 

be rescheduled to July 9, 2010. This request is being made due to scheduling conflicts of 

counsel. 

DATED: March 18, 2010 THE CLAYPOOL LAW FIRM 

 By: /s/ 

 Brian Edward Claypool 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

DATED: March 18, 2010 MITCHELL, BRISSO, DELANEY & VRIEZE 

 By: /s/ 

 Nancy K. Delaney 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

* * * * * 

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that the Case Management Conference scheduled for March 19, 

2010, is continued to July 9, 2010. 

DATED: _______________ 

______________________________________ 

 HONORABLE SUSAN ILLSTON 

 United States District Court 

Case 3:08-cv-04029-SI Document 42 Filed 03/22/10 Page 2 of 2
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MARCH 16, 2010

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-12501

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-00651-CV-ORL-35-DAB

LAFAYETTE WALKER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF ORLANDO,

a Florida Municipal Corporation,

EDWARD MICHAEL,

STANLEY KLEM,

NATHAN FARRIS,

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(March 16, 2010)
Before EDMONDSON and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and BARBOUR, District

*

Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Walker (Plaintiff) was present at a block party after midnight where several

men appeared and began firing shots in the air. The police were called. Officer

Edward Michael (Defendant Michael) was the first police officer on the scene, and

he confronted Plaintiff and some others, ordering them to get on the ground.

Plaintiff was reluctant to do so and said so. Plaintiff claims that Defendant

Michael then repeatedly struck him in the head, neck, and back with the butt of a

service rifle, in violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Plaintiff sued

Defendant Michael for these acts and the City of Orlando (Defendant City) for

permitting a custom or practice that led to constitutional violations. The district

court granted both Defendants’ motions for summary judgment.

The appeal presents these issues:

Whether the district court erroneously concluded that Defendant

Michael had qualified immunity for his actions.

Honorable William Henry Barbour, Jr., United States District Judge for the Southern *

District of Mississippi, sitting by designation.

2
Whether the district court erroneously concluded that Defendant City

was not liable for Defendant Michael’s acts.

Briefly stated, we see this case as presenting an emergency situation (gun

shots in the night) and a police officer’s reaction to a confusing situation --

including Plaintiff’s reluctance to comply with police instructions -- that involved

potential danger. For background, see United States v. Holloway, 290 F.3d 1331,

1334–41 (11th Cir. 2002) (describing how emergency situations affect what is

reasonable for police to do). Given the circumstances, the district court concluded

that the force applied -- which, by the way, caused no serious physical injury --

1

was not excessive and that placing Plaintiff in a patrol car for a good many minutes

was not unreasonable. And because the district court correctly concluded that

Defendant Michael had not violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, the Defendant

City cannot be held liable in this case.

We see no reversible error.

AFFIRMED.

 We accept that the extent of physical injury is not conclusive about the presence or 1

absence of constitutional violation. See Wilkins v. Gaddy, 129 S. Ct. ____ , 2010 WL 596513

(Feb. 22, 2010) (Eighth Amendment case). But a lack of serious injury can illustrate how much

force was actually used. 

3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\JLALL\CASES\CIVIL\08-2577\90Dismissal.wpd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Sevan Minasian,

Plaintiff,

v.

Federal Express Corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 08-2577 JL

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The parties hereto, by their counsel, having advised the court that they have agreed

to a settlement of this cause, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this cause of action be

dismissed with prejudice; provided, however that if any party hereto shall certify to this

court, within ninety days, with proof of service thereof, that the agreed consideration for

said settlement has not been delivered over, the foregoing order shall stand vacated and

this cause shall forthwith be restored to the calendar to be set for trial.

DATED: January 21, 2010

__________________________________

 James Larson

 Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02577-JL Document 35 Filed 01/21/10 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN STROM,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CRESCENT CITY OF,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-04708 SI

SECOND

PRETRIAL PREPARATION ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED pursuant to F.R.C.P. and the Local Rules of this Court:

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE: August 24, , 2010 at 3:30 PM.

JURY TRIAL DATE: September 7, 2010, 2010 at 8:30 AM., Courtroom 10, 19th floor.

TRIAL LENGTH is estimated to be days.

SPECIAL DISCOVERY AND PRETRIAL PROVISIONS: 

The Court adjusted the trial schedule as indicated above.

This case shall be referred to a magistrate-judge for settlement purposes. The settlement conference shall

occur in July 2010.

The pretrial conference SHALL be attended by trial counsel prepared to discuss all aspects of the case,

including settlement. Parties SHALL conform to the attached instructions. Plaintiff is ORDERED to

serve a copy of this order on any party subsequently joined in this action.

Dated: 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04708-SI Document 78 Filed 06/15/10 Page 1 of 1
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Sixteenth census of the UnitedStates: 1940: population: the labor force (sample statistics): employment andfamily characteristics of women**
 
Chapters: 0405
 
SuDoc Number:C 3.940-2:P 81/18
Item Number:0198 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001104411
 
August 19, 2019
#### In the Matter of Joseph Colavito, Appellant, v New York City Civil Service Commission et al., Respondents.

[716 NYS2d 387]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise *95Gruner Gans, J.), entered July 19, 1999, which dismissed the petition pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging respondent’s grading of a civil service exam for the position of blacksmith, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner took the written part of the examination on April 7, 1990 and the practical part in February 1991. Thereafter, petitioner received notice of his failing grade. On May 8, 1991 an eligible list for the position was established; and on May 8, 1995 the eligible list expired (Civil Service Law § 56).

This article 78 proceeding was commenced in November 1998 and petitioner served a verified supplemental petition in January 1999. The petition, essentially challenging respondent’s grading of the practical part of the examination, was properly dismissed. Where a claimant seeks to be placed on a special eligible list for a civil service position, he must commence a proceeding before the list expires, challenging the validity of the list itself (see, *Matter of Deas v Levitt,*73 NY2d 525, 527, *cert denied*493 US 933; *see also, Matter of City of New York v New York State Div. of Human Rights,*93 NY2d 768). Concur— Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AARON L. STRIBLING, AKA Aaron 

Lamont Stribling, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

E. WILSON, Correctional Officer in 

individual and official capacity, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-16504 

D.C. No. 

1:17-cv-01275-AWI-BAM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 21, 2019**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. 

California state prisoner Aaron L. Stribling, AKA Aaron Lamont Stribling, 

appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

action alleging that he was wrongfully deprived of personal property. We have 

 

* 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

MAY 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Belanus v. Clark, 796 

F.3d 1021, 1024 (9th Cir. 2015) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Watison v. 

Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Stribling’s Fourteenth Amendment due 

process claim because Stribling failed to allege facts sufficient to show that a 

meaningful post-deprivation remedy was unavailable to him. See Hudson v. 

Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (holding an unauthorized intentional deprivation 

of property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural 

protections of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a 

meaningful post-deprivation remedy is available); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 

816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (“California [l]aw provides an adequate post-deprivation 

remedy for any property deprivations.”).

To the extent that Stribling alleged that the deprivation of his property 

violated the Fourth and Eighth Amendments, the district court properly dismissed 

these claims because Stribling failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible 

claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a 

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim 

to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted)); see also Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 806 (9th Cir. 1989) (Fourth 
3 

Amendment does not protect an inmate from the seizure or conversion of his 

property). 

AFFIRMED.
### §§4587, 4588. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 4587, Pub. L. 91–616, title V, §503, formerly §504, as added Pub. L. 94–371, §7, July 26, 1976, 90 Stat. 1039; amended Pub. L. 95–622, title I, §110(d), Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3420; Pub. L. 96–180, §16, Jan. 2, 1980, 93 Stat. 1305; renumbered and amended Pub. L. 97–35, title IX, §965(b), (c), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 594, which provided for designation of National Alcohol Research Centers, was redesignated section 511 of the Public Health Service Act by Pub. L. 98–24, §2(b)(9), Apr. 26, 1983, 97 Stat. 179, and is classified to section 290bb–1 of this title.

A prior section 4587, Pub. L. 91–616, title V, §503, as added Pub. L. 94–371, §7, July 26, 1976, 90 Stat. 1039; amended Pub. L. 96–180, §15, Jan. 2, 1980, 93 Stat. 1305, which related to authorization of appropriations, was renumbered section 504 of Pub. L. 91–616 and classified to section 4588 of this title.

A prior section 503 of Pub. L. 91–616, title V, Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1855, was renumbered 603 by section 7 of Pub. L. 94–371, and is classified to section 4593 of this title.

Section 4588, Pub. L. 91–616, title V, §504, formerly §503, as added Pub. L. 94–371, §7, July 26, 1976, 90 Stat. 1039; amended Pub. L. 96–180, §15, Jan. 2, 1980, 93 Stat. 1305; renumbered and amended Pub. L. 97–35, title IX, §965(a), (c), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 594; Pub. L. 97–414, §9(e), Jan. 4, 1983, 96 Stat. 2064, which authorized appropriations for carrying out research on alcohol abuse and alcoholism, was redesignated section 512 of the Public Health Service Act by Pub. L. 98–24, §2(b)(9), Apr. 26, 1983, 97 Stat. 179, and is classified to section 290bb–2 of this title.

A prior section 4588, Pub. L. 91–616, title V, §504, as added Pub. L. 94–371, §7, July 26, 1976, 90 Stat. 1039; amended Pub. L. 95–622, title I, §110(d), Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3420; Pub. L. 96–180, §16, Jan. 2, 1980, 93 Stat. 1305, relating to National Alcohol Research Centers, was renumbered section 503 of Pub. L. 91–616 and classified to section 4587 of this title.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Falcon Fabrics, Inc., Respondent, and Penn-Rayon Corp., Appellant.

Order entered on January 9, 1962 unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

          - 26 CFR Parts 1 and 301 
          - [REG-101282-04] 
          - RIN 1545-BD06 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking. 

      ( print page 71758)    

# SUMMARY:

This document cancels a public hearing on proposed regulations concerning the definition and tax treatment of a stapled foreign corporation, which generally is treated for tax purposes as a domestic corporation under section 269B of the Internal Revenue Code. 

# DATES:

The public hearing originally scheduled for December 15, 2004 at 10 a.m., is cancelled. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LaNita Van Dyke of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedures and Administration), at (202) 622-7180 (not a toll-free number). 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing that appeared in the                     **Federal Register**                     on Tuesday, September 7, 2004, (69 FR 54067), announced that a public hearing was scheduled for December 15, 2004, at 10 a.m., in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The subject of the public hearing is under section 269B of the Internal Revenue Code.                 

The public comment period for these regulations expired on December 6, 2004. The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing, instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to submit a request to speak and an outline of the topics to be addressed. As of Tuesday, December 7, 2004, no one has requested to speak. Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for December 15, 2004, is cancelled. 

Cynthia E. Grigsby, 

Acting Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedures and Administration). 

[FR Doc. 04-27160 Filed 12-7-04; 3:13 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE A

BEST AYAILABLE CONTROL

TECHNOLOGY DETERMINATION

PURSUANT TO CONSENT DECREE

Take notice that the North Dakota Department of Health has reevaluated a proposed Best

Available Control Technology Determination for the reduction of nitrogen oxides emissions

from the Milton R. Young Station near Center, North Dakota. The Best Available Control

Technology (BACT) Determination was made in response, and in accordance with, the Consent

Decree in the case of the United States of America and the State of North Dakota versus

Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. and Square Butte Electric Power Cooperative, Civil Action

No.: 1:06-CY-034.

In June of 2008, the Department made a preliminary determination that high dust, low dust and

tail end selective catalytic reduction were not technically feasible at the M.R. Young Station.

Based on the public comments, the Department determined that low dust and tail end SCR are

technically feasible. Cost estimates have been provided for low dust and tail end SCR. The

Department's preliminary determination is that low dust and tail end SCR do not represent

BACT. The Department is seeking comments on those cost estimates and its reasoning for the

rejection of low dust and tail end SCR as BACT. Comments will be considered, evaluated, and

the BACT determination issued pursuant to the Consent Decree. Comments shall be considered,

but dispute resolution is limited to the disputing parties as set forth in the Consent Decree

approved by the Court.
A thirty-day public comment period regarding the cost estimates and the Department's

preliminary decision re~arding low dust and tail end SCR will begin April 11, 2010 and end on

May 10, 2010. Comments shall be directed in writing to the North Dakota Department of

Health, Terry L. O'Clair, Director, Division of Air Quality, 918 E Divide Avenue, 2nd Floor,

Bismarck, North Dakota 58501-1947. The cost estimates, the Department's evaluation and

supporting data are available for review at the Department of Health in Bismarck and at

www.health.state.nd.us/AQ/notices.htm. A copy ofthese documents may be obtained by writing

the Department of Health at the above-mentioned address or contact the Department at

(701)328-5188.

Dated this daYOf~O

Terry L. O'Clair, P.E.

Director

Division ofAir Quality
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES W. FORSYTHE, M.D., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ERIC HOLDER, et al.,

Respondent. /

No. CV-08-5160 MMC

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

() Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues

have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

(X) Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The

issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED Dr. Gunderson’s motion to dismiss is

hereby GRANTED, and the Second Amended Complaint is, as against said defendant,

hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court has previously dismissed the

Forsythe’s claims against all other defendants.

Dated: January 25, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Tracy Lucero

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:08-cv-05160-MMC Document 95 Filed 01/25/10 Page 1 of 1