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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

* * *

WEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANY, )

 )

 Plaintiff, )

 ) 2:11-cv-01793-JCM-VCF

v. )

 ) O R D E R 

ROBERT BOSCH TOOL, CORPORATION, )

 )

 Defendant. )

 )

This case has been assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge by random draw. Because his

impartiality might reasonably be questioned, the undersigned must recuse himself from the above

entitled and numbered case. 28 USC § 455 Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Canon 3(C)(1). 

The undersigned had represented Robert Bosch LLC in several of the cases referenced in the footnote

on page 6 of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue or, in the Alternative,

Cross-Motion to Transfer Venue (dkt. 29). Accordingly, this matter is hereby referred to the Clerk of

Court for random reassignment to another Magistrate Judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 26 day of January, 2012. th

 

CAM FERENBACH

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
### §450l. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 450l was editorially reclassified as section 4553 of this title.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000033015
<NAME> ENSERCH CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,212,228
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     40,788
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         959,082
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       970,294
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,182,392
<COMMON>                                             2
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      770,923
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                           (16,001)
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 754,924
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     75,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           802,952
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               1,973
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      242,913
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,304,630
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                3,182,392
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,893,251
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             1,936
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,860,035
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,860,035
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         33,216
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 866
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  34,082
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        37,038
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,892)
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      2,234
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  (7,126)
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         3,455
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          65,773
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 5 (Friday, January 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 1525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00104]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules; Hearing of the Judicial 
Conference

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States, Advisory Committee on 
the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

ACTION: Notice of cancellation of open hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The following remote public hearing on proposed amendments to 
the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure has been canceled: Bankruptcy 
Rules Hearing on January 29, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Secretary, 
Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference 
of the United States, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One 
Columbus Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Telephone (202) 
502-1820, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d98bacb5bcaa9ab6b4b4b0adadbcbc868abcbaabbcadb8aba099b8b6f7acaabab6acabadaaf7beb6af"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="de8cabb2bbad9db1b3b3b7aaaabbbb818dbbbdacbbaabfaca79ebfb1f0abadbdb1abacaaadf0b9b1a8">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Announcements for this hearing were 
previously published in 85 FR 48562.

    Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2073.

    Dated: January 4, 2021.
Rebecca A. Womeldorf,
Chief Counsel, Rules Committee Staff.
[FR Doc. 2021-00104 Filed 1-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### §594. Exemption of minimum quantities

The Secretary may, by regulation, exempt from compliance with the provisions of this chapter (1) any variety or varieties of grapes and plums, and (2) the shipment of such minimum quantities of grapes and plums to any foreign country as he may prescribe.

(Pub. L. 86–687, §4, Sept. 2, 1960, 74 Stat. 734; Pub. L. 87–105, §2, July 26, 1961, 75 Stat. 220.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1961—Pub. L. 87–105 added cl. (1) and designated existing provisions as cl. (2).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FILED
AS PART OF THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>

<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             34,600
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  138,000
<PP&E>                                            185,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                     95,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    347,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             814,000
<BONDS>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                           94,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       (561,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      347,000
<SALES>                                            29,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        0
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                2,350,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 28,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,349,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,349,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,349,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (.26)




</TABLE>
§ 776.10 Informal ethics advice. ( a ) *Advisors.* Covered attorneys may seek informal ethics advice either from the officers named below or from supervisory attorneys in the field. Within the Office of the Judge Advocate General (OJAG) and the Office of the SJA to CMC, the following officials are designated to respond, either orally or in writing, to informal inquiries concerning this rule in the areas of practice indicated: ( 1 ) Director, Criminal Law Division (OJAG Code 20): Military justice matters;
( 2 ) Director, Trial Counsel Assistance Program (TCAP): Trial counsel matters;
( 3 ) Director, Defense Counsel Assistance Program (DCAP): Defense counsel matters;
( 4 ) Director, Legal Assistance Division (OJAG Code 16): Legal assistance matters;
( 5 ) The DSJA to CMC and Head, Research and Civil Law Branch (JAR), Judge Advocate (JA) Division, Headquarters United States Marine Corps (HQMC): Cases involving Marine Corps judge advocates, or civil service and contracted civilian attorneys who perform legal services under the cognizance and supervision of SJA to CMC;
( 6 ) Deputy Chief Judge, Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary: Judicial matters; and
( 7 ) Professional Responsibility Coordinator, Administrative Law Division (OJAG Code 13): All other matters.
( b ) *Limitation.* Informal ethics advice will not normally be provided by JAG/HQMC advisors concerning professional responsibility matters that are then the subject of litigation.
( c ) *Written advice.* A request for informal advice does not relieve the requester of the obligation to comply with subpart B of this part. Although covered attorneys are encouraged to seek advice when in doubt as to their responsibilities, they remain personally accountable for their professional conduct. If, however, an attorney receives written advice on an ethical matter after full disclosure of all relevant facts and reasonably relies on such advice, no adverse action under this part will be taken against the attorney. Written advice may be sought from either a supervisory attorney or the appropriate advisor in paragraph (a) of this section. The JAG is not bound by unwritten advice or by advice provided by personnel who are not supervisory attorneys or advisors. See §§ 776.8(b)(3) and 776.54(c) of this part.
No. 748.

#### E. B. Capps, Administrator, etc. *v.*Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company.

March 8, 1920.

*Mr. James S. Manning*for petitioner.

*Mr. Frederic D.*McKenney, *Mr. J. Spalding Flannery*and *Mr. P. A. Willcox*for respondent.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina denied.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

June 26, 2003

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 03-10594

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 02-01063-CV-ORL-19

OMAR, by and through his next

friend, Kevin Cannon,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOAN LINDSEY, 

GLORIA BABCOCK, et al.,

Defendants-Appellants.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

 (June 26, 2003)

Before DUBINA, MARCUS and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

This is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss on the

grounds of qualified immunity. The suit is filed on behalf of a child removed from

his mother by personnel of the Florida Department of Children and Families. The

complaint alleges constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against these

individuals. The gravamen of the allegations is that these individuals knowingly

and deliberately ignored the physical, mental and emotional harm being caused

this child by the intentional infliction of known cruel and unusual punishment that

shocks the conscience of any reasonable person.

The ruling of the district court denying the motion to dismiss is affirmed for

the reasons set forth in its ORDER of January 14, 2003 which is attached as an

appendix.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (NO. VI)

 MDL 875

JEANETTE MORRIS, individually and as

Personal Representative on behalf of the 

Estate of Michael Morris, 

Plaintiff, 

-vs- Case No. 94-C-216

CBS CORPORATION,

Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER

After extensive pre-trial proceedings as part of MDL-875 in the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania, this matter was remanded to the Court in a trial-ready posture. After the 

remand, the Court held a status conference, in which the parties disagreed on the nature 

and extent of proceedings prior to trial. The Court requested further briefing on these 

issues, which are now before the Court for decision.

The remaining defendant, CBS Corporation, argues that it should be allowed to 

conduct expert and fact discovery and to file case-dispositive motions in limine. 

However, the MDL court already denied CBS‟s motion to re-open discovery. Moreover, 

CBS was subject to a pre-trial scheduling order that directed the parties to file all 

potentially dispositive motions, including motions in limine that could have a caseCase 2:94-cv-00216-RTR Filed 07/28/13 Page 1 of 2 Document 101

Case: 1:12-cv-00596 Document #: 42-11 Filed: 03/31/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:243
- 2 -

dispositive effect, before the MDL court. As Magistrate Judge Crocker noted in a 

remanded case from the same MDL court, the “entire point of transferring this case to the 

MDL court was for „consolidated and coordinated pretrial proceedings.‟ . . . [T]he 

purposes of this transfer or „centralization‟ process are to avoid duplication of discovery, 

to prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and to conserve the resources of the parties, their 

counsel and the judiciary.” ECF No. 100-9, Bushmaker v. Chesterton, No. 09-cv-726-slc 

(W.D. Wis. Nov. 21, 2012), Order at 4 (citing MDL court‟s website, 

http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/panel-info/overview-panel). Revisiting the MDL court‟s 

rulings or excusing a party‟s non-compliance with the MDL court‟s scheduling orders 

would undermine these goals.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. CBS Corporation‟s request for discovery prior to trial is DENIED, except 

as agreed upon by the parties in the Joint Pretrial Status Report;

2. The parties are not permitted to file case-dispositive motions; and

3. On August 7, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. (CST), the Court will initiate a 

conference call to schedule this matter for trial. The parties should also be prepared to 

discuss deadlines for the pretrial schedule the parties set forth in the Joint Pretrial Status 

Report.

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 28th day of July, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

__________________________

HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA 

U.S. District Judge 

Case 2:94-cv-00216-RTR Filed 07/28/13 Page 2 of 2 Document 101

Case: 1:12-cv-00596 Document #: 42-11 Filed: 03/31/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:244
#### Old Oaks Country Club, Respondent, v State University Construction Fund, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Yonkers Contracting Corp. et al., Third-Party Defendants.

In an action, *inter alia,*to enjoin the elimination of industrial wastes in certain waterways and for damages, defendant, State University Construction Fund (hereafter the Fund) appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered June 21, 1978, as determined that it was responsible for the construction operations involved in this action, was obligated to remedy the resulting conditions and was obligated to plaintiff for damages sustained, whether brought about by it or by contractors engaged by it. Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and action remanded to Special Term for further proceedings in accordance herewith. In order to create a college for the performing arts, the Fund acquired some 500 acres of land in Purchase, New York. This land was adjacent to the real property owned by plaintiff, Old Oaks Country Club. Starting in 1968, defendant hired a number of contractors to direct and control all landscaping and highway construction on the project. In 1975 plaintiff commenced the present action against the Fund for monetary damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiff alleged that the construction had caused industrial wastes to flow upon its property and had materially diverted the natural watercourse running through adjacent properties. At the trial, the Fund moved to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that it had delegated responsibility for construction of the project to various independent contractors. The court denied the *816motion, stating that article 8-A of the Education Law does not relieve the Fund of its responsibility to run the project. Thereupon, the court determined that the Fund was liable for all damages incurred by the actions of any contractors or other parties working on the site. The Fund appeals from that portion of the resulting judgment which was entered upon this ruling. In our opinion, the trial court improperly imposed liability on the Fund for the actions of its contractors. It is well settled that, absent inherently dangerous activity, the responsibility of an owner or general contractor does not include responsibility for injuries which arise as a result of the negligent performance of work by subcontractors (see *Scavone v State Univ. Constr. Fund.,*46 AD2d 895; *Horn v State of New York,*31 AD2d 364). Consequently, the Fund can only be forced to answer in damages through a showing that it actually controlled, supervised or directed the construction work on the project (see *Murray v Hofstra Univ.,*40 AD2d 1018). Accordingly, the action is remanded for a trial upon this issue. Latham, J. P., Rabin, Cohalan and Hargett, JJ., concur.
### §6615. Training and education

#### (a) Programs

In furtherance of an action plan, the Secretary may use the National Institute of Food and Agriculture and other appropriate agencies of the Department of Agriculture to develop and conduct education programs that assist businesses, elected or appointed officials, and individuals in rural communities to deal with the effects of a transition from being economically disadvantaged to economic diversification. These programs may include—

(1) community economic analysis and strategic planning;

(2) methods for improving and retooling enterprises now dependent on National Forest System land resources;

(3) methods for expanding enterprises and creating new economic opportunities by emphasizing economic opportunities in other industries or services not dependent on National Forest System land resources; and

(4) assistance in the evaluation, counseling, and enhancement of vocational skills, training in basic and remedial literacy skills, assistance in job seeking skills, and training in starting or operating a business enterprise.

#### (b) Existing educational and training programs

Insofar as practicable, the Secretary shall use existing Federal, State, and private education resources in carrying out these programs.

(Pub. L. 101–624, title XXIII, §2377, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4048; Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(3) [title III, §345(e)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1535, 1501A–204; Pub. L. 110–234, title VII, §7511(c)(26), May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1270; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title VII, §7511(c)(26), June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 2031.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 made identical amendments to this section. The amendments by Pub. L. 110–234 were repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.

#### Amendments

2008—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 110–246, §7511(c)(26), substituted "National Institute of Food and Agriculture" for "Extension Service" in introductory provisions.

1999—Subsec. (a)(2), (3). Pub. L. 106–113, which directed substitution of "National Forest System land resources" for "national forest resources" in pars. (3) and (4), was executed by making the substitution in pars. (2) and (3) to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2008 Amendment

Amendment of this section and repeal of Pub. L. 110–234 by Pub. L. 110–246 effective May 22, 2008, the date of enactment of Pub. L. 110–234, except as otherwise provided, see section 4 of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as an Effective Date note under section 8701 of this title.

Amendment by section 7511(c)(26) of Pub. L. 110–246 effective Oct. 1, 2009, see section 7511(c) of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as a note under section 1522 of this title.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Norman Brabson, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed, without costs of this appeal to either party and matter remitted to Erie Special Term for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum. Memorandum: It was error to dismiss the petition *(Matter of Harris*v. *New York State Bd. of Parole,*7 A D 2d 662). In the interest of justice and to avoid further delay we look upon and treat this petition as a verified petition as required by 7804 (e) CPLR. The respondent may file its answer including therein any objections in point of law in accordance with 7804 (f) CPLR within 20 days. The matter is remitted to Special Term to determine any factual issues raised by the answer as well as the legal problems raised, if any. (Appeal from order of Erie Trial Term denying, without a hearing, application for a show cause order directing respondent to show cause why petitioner is not afforded proper medical treatment.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Vecchio, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. George McMitchell, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the former County Court, Kings County, dated June 13, 1962, which denied after a hearing his application to vacate a judgment of said court, rendered May 12, 1955 after a jury trial, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, petit larceny, and assault in the second degree, and imposing sentence. Appeal dismissed as not timely taken. Nevertheless, we have considered the merits, and, if we were not dismissing the appeal, we would have affirmed the order on the merits in any event. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.