alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by N i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. STEV EN BI TN ER, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 30170 D . C . N o. 1: 07 -C R -001 43 -R F C -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe D i s tr i c tof

M ont a na R i c ha r d F . C e bul l , C hi e f D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 2, 2010 ** P ort l a nd, O r e gon B efo re: P A E Z , T A L L M A N , an d M . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D e f e nda nt - A ppe l l a ntS t e ve n B i tne rappe a l s the de ni a l of hi s M ot i on f

or C ha nge of

V e nue f i l e d unde rF e de r a l R ul e of C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e 21( b) ( “ R ul e 21 m o tio n ” ) . B itn e rw a s in d ic te d in th e D is tr ic t o f M o n ta n aa n d c h a r g e d w ith



# FI LED MA R 04 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

advert i se m entof chi l d p orno graphy and d i stri bu t i on of chi l d p orno graphy. B i tner, a r es i dentof O re go n, fi l ed the R ul e 21 m ot i on re qu es t i ng the m att erbe transfe rr ed t o the D i stri ctof O re go n. A ft erthe di stri ctcourtdeni ed thatm ot i on , he ent er ed i nt o ac ondi t i ona l pl e aa gr e e m e ntw hi c h a l l ow e d hi m t o appe a l the de ni a l of the mo t i o n . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d a f f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng B i tne r ’ s R ul e 21 m ot i on. I tpr ope r l y i de nt i f i e d a nd appl i e d the f

a c t or s l i s t e d i n P la tt v . Min n e s o ta Mi ni ng & M

anuf ac tur i ng C o. , 37 6 U . S . 24 0, 24 3– 44 (196 4), t o d et erm i ne w hether B i tne r ’ s c a s e s houl d ha ve be e n tr a ns f e rr e d. I ti s notourf

unc t i on t o r e w e i gh the f a c to r s o n c e w e a r e s a tis f ie d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ap p lie d th e ap p r o p r ia te c r ite r ia . I d. a t244–45. AF F I RME D.
Appeal No. 74-139.

#### Sandra Hazen *v.*Irwin Hazen.

*Kirshenbaum & Kirshenbaum, Alfred Factor,*for appellant. *Robert G. Crouchley,*for appellee.

Motion of appellant requesting that either her appeal be sustained, that the controversy be decided solely on the basis of the contentions she has briefed, or that the appellee be ordered to comply with the terms of a prior decree entered in this cause by the Family Court is denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-10317

Summary Calendar

CSA NUTRACEUTICALS GP, L.L.C., a Texas limited liability company,

formerly known as CSA Nutraceuticals, L.L.C.; CSA NUTRACEUTICALS,

L.P., a Texas limited liability partnership

Plaintiffs - Appellants Cross-Appellees

v.

CHUBB CUSTOM INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant - Appellee Cross-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

3:10-CV-2155

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

For the reasons explained by the district court, we find that Chubb Custom

Insurance Company (“Chubb”) had no duty to defend CSA Nutraceuticals GP,

L.L.C., and CSA Nutraceuticals, L.P., (collectively “CSAN”) in the California

state court lawsuit (“the underlying suit”) because the complaints filed in the

underlying suit did not even potentially seek recovery for “bodily injury.” The

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 2, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 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.

 Case: 12-10317 Document: 00512098205 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/02/2013
No. 12-10317

complaints in the underlying suit clearly and unequivocally allege that

consumers were induced to purchase ineffective weight loss products by false

and fraudulent misrepresentations. However, the complaints do not include a

single factual allegation suggesting that any consumer has ever been physically

harmed by the weight loss products. As the district court observed: “Failing to

achieve weight reduction means the body basically did not change. It does not

mean that the body was injured.” R. 1730. Although, as CSAN notes, relief

based on bodily injury was available under the statutes relied upon in the

complaints, this is irrelevant – the focus is on the factual allegations of a

complaint. See, e.g., Farmers Tex. Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 955 S.W.2d 81,

82 (Tex. 1997). Furthermore, Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Nokia, Inc., 268

S.W.3d 487 (Tex. 2008), on which CSAN relies heavily, is plainly inapposite. In

that case, the plaintiffs in an underlying suit sought recovery based on

“biological injury” and specifically described the ways in which their bodies had

allegedly been injured. Here, the plaintiffs in the underlying case alleged that

they were financially harmed by purchasing an ineffective product.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Because we affirm the

district court’s judgment on the ground explained above, we need not reach the

issues presented in Chubb’s cross-appeal.

2

 Case: 12-10317 Document: 00512098205 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/02/2013
#### 1353.100 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes DOC forms that are supplemental to those provided in FAR Part 53.
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

About EDOFFICES

## Award Year

2011-12 MS Excel (150K)

2010-11 MS Excel (157K)

2009-10 MS Excel (112K)

2008-09 MS Excel (91K)

For additional information contact mary.miller@ed.gov

Program Data | OPE Policy Initiatives

|        |
|--------|
|   | Printable view |
|        |

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Transforming Teaching
          - Family and Community Engagement
          - Early Learning

 

|  |
|--|
|  |
|  | Higher Education Policy |  |
|  |

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a GrantEligibility for Grants

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works Clearinghouse

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy ProgramSubscribe to E-Mail Updates

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
#### 19.705 Responsibilities of the contracting officer under the subcontracting assistance program.
#### 1546.704 Authority for use of warranties.

The Contracting Officer shall ensure that the use of a warranty clause in a contract has the concurrence of the Project Officer.

[49 FR 8867, Mar. 8, 1984]
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge Frederick J. Kapala Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 11 C 50389 DATE 12/30/2011

CASE

TITLE

Warren vs. Berner Food & Beverage Inc.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

This case is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii). This case is closed.

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff has filed an employment discrimination lawsuit pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964. Plaintiff has not paid the required filing fee and the court presumes that he wishes to proceed in forma

pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must screen all in forma pauperis cases to determine, among

other things, whether the action states a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

A plaintiff must file suit in federal court within 90 days after the EEOC has closed its file and issued its

right-to-sue letter. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(1). Plaintiff’s complaint reveals that he received his right-to-sue letter

on August 16, 2011. Plaintiff did not file his complaint until December 29, 2011 –more than 90 days after he

received his right-to-sue letter. The notification from the EEOC clearly and unequivocally states: “Your lawsuit

must be filed WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this notice or your right to sue based on this charge will be

lost.” Thus, plaintiff has affirmatively pleaded that his claim is time-barred and, consequently, has failed to state

a claim under Title VII on which relief may be granted. While, “a complaint need not anticipate or overcome

affirmative defenses such as the statute of limitations,” Hollander v. Brown, 457 F.3d 688, 691 n.1 (7th Cir.

2006), dismissal on the basis of an affirmative defense is appropriate if “the plaintiff pleads himself out of court

by admit[ting] all the ingredients of an impenetrable defense.” Covington v. Mitsubishi Motor Mfg. Of Am.,

Inc., 154 F. App’x 523, 524-25 (7th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks omitted) (applying 12(b)(6) standard to

dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). “If the allegations . . . show that relief is barred by the applicable statute

of limitations, the complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215

(2007). Therefore, the court is obliged to dismiss this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii).

11 C 50389 Warren vs. Berner Food & Beverage Inc. Page 1 of 1

Case: 3:11-cv-50389 Document #: 3 Filed: 12/30/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:11
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE>                     5  
<LEGEND>                               
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATION FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 
31, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.                  
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1000                                               
                                                        
<S>                                          <C>                     
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   3-MOS   
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1995          
<PERIOD-START>                              DEC-31-1995         
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1995      
<CASH>                                      2,057,270   
<SECURITIES>                                        0   
<RECEIVABLES>                                  53,000   
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0   
<INVENTORY>                                         0   
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            2,118,202   
<PP&E>                                        663,407   
<DEPRECIATION>                                520,645   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              2,260,964   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         161,645   
<BONDS>                                             0   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0   
<PREFERRED>                                         0   
<COMMON>                                       25,748   
<OTHER-SE>                                  2,073,451   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                2,260,964   
<SALES>                                       150,000   
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              150,000   
<CGS>                                               0   
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 170,999   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0   
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   668   
<INCOME-TAX>                                    1,189   
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (521)   
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (521)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
        


</TABLE>
#### 1850.104-4 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall obtain the NASA Administrator's approval prior to including clause 52.250-1 in a contract.

[80 FR 36722, June 26, 2015]
#### 1432.304-2 Certificate of eligibility.

Guaranteed loan applications shall be authorized and transmitted to the Federal Reserve Board by the AS/PMB, in accordance with FAR 32.304-2(h).
### §1453. Cancellation of certificates issued by Attorney General, the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner; action not to affect citizenship status

The Attorney General is authorized to cancel any certificate of citizenship, certificate of naturalization, copy of a declaration of intention, or other certificate, document or record heretofore issued or made by the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner or hereafter made by the Attorney General if it shall appear to the Attorney General's satisfaction that such document or record was illegally or fraudulently obtained from, or was created through illegality or by fraud practiced upon, him or the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner; but the person for or to whom such document or record has been issued or made shall be given at such person's last-known place of address written notice of the intention to cancel such document or record with the reasons therefor and shall be given at least sixty days in which to show cause why such document or record should not be canceled. The cancellation under this section of any document purporting to show the citizenship status of the person to whom it was issued shall affect only the document and not the citizenship status of the person in whose name the document was issued.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 2, §342, 66 Stat. 263.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 180 days after June 27, 1952, see section 407 of act June 27, 1952, set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.

#### Abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service and Transfer of Functions

For abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service, transfer of functions, and treatment of related references, see note set out under section 1551 of this title.
Case: 1:12-cv-01672 Document #: 27 Filed: 06/25/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:115
Case: 1:12-cv-01672 Document #: 27 Filed: 06/25/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:116
Case: 1:12-cv-01672 Document #: 27 Filed: 06/25/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:117
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the Annual Report of Sparta Commercial Services, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the
“Report”), I, Anthony W. Adler, as Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.





Date:  August
13, 2009





/s/
      Anthony W. AdlerAnthony
      W. AdlerPrincipal
      Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

FIRST TIME VIDEOS LLC, ) 

 ) CASE NO. 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) Judge: 

 v. ) Magistrate: 

 ) 

JOHN DOE, ) [Case pending in the U.S. District Court 

 ) for the Eastern District of Virginia, 

 Defendant. ) No. 2:11-CV-00690] 

 ) 

 ) 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA 

Plaintiff FIRST TIME VIDEOS LLC respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(2)(B), to enter an Order compelling CEQUEL III 

COMMUNICATIONS II, LLC d/b/a CEBRIDGE CONNECTIONS (“Cebridge”) to comply 

with a subpoena duces tecum issued on January 10, 2012, with respect to the above-referenced 

matter currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Plaintiff 

seeks to obtain identifying information associated with internet service account subscribers 

including name, current (and permanent) address, telephone number, e-mail address, and Media 

Access Control address pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum served on Cebridge on January 17, 

2012. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 37.2, after consultation by telephone and good faith attempts to 

resolve differences, the parties resolved one objection by Cebridge. The undersigned counsel for 

First Time Videos LLC and John D. Seiver, counsel for Cebridge held a telephone consultation 

on February 13, 2012 at or around 3:00 p.m. Good faith attempts by the parties were able to 

Case: 1:12-cv-01083 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:1
resolve one of the objections raised by Cebridge, but the parties were unable to reach an accord 

on the remaining objections.

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests an order compelling Cebridge to comply 

with the subpoena. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

FIRST TIME VIDEOS LLC 

DATED: February 15, 2012 

 

By: /s/ Paul Duffy 

 Paul Duffy (Bar No. 6210496) 

 Prenda Law Inc. 

 161 N. Clark St., Suite 3200 

 Chicago, IL 60601 

 Telephone: (312) 880-9160 

 Facsimile: (312) 893-5677 

 E-mail: paduffy@wefightpiracy.com 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 

 

Case: 1:12-cv-01083 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 The undersigned hereby certifies that on February 15, 2012, copies of the foregoing 

document were served via First Class Mail, Postage Prepaid to: 

 John D. Seiver 

 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 

 Suite 800 

 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

 Washington, D.C. 20006-3401 

 Attorney for Cequel III Communications II, LLC d/b/a Cebridge Connections 

 

 By: /s/ Paul Duffy 

 Paul Duffy 

Case: 1:12-cv-01083 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:3
**EXHIBIT32.1**

BRIGGS &STRATTON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Form 10-Q forQuarterly Period Ended October 1, 2006

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Briggs & Stratton Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended October 1, 2006, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John S. Shiely,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the bestof my knowledge:

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ John  S. Shiely |   |   |
|--------------------------|--------|--------|
| John  S. Shiely          |   |   |
| Chief  Executive Officer |   |   |
| November  3, 2006        |   |   |

 

This certificationaccompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### Lawrence A. Wien, Individually and as a Limited Partner of Chelsea-Candide Company, Suing on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Respondent, v Chelsea Theater Center of Brooklyn et al., Defendants, and Max Arons, as President of Associated Musicians of Greater New York, Local 802, American Federation of Musicians, et al., Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered July 12, 1977, which denied the motion of the defendants to dismiss the complaint in this action, unanimously reversed, on the law, to the extent appealed from, without costs and without disbursements, and the motion to dismiss granted. The court at Special Term succinctly and carefully outlined the issues and they need no reiteration. However, we disagree in one area, that is on the question of pre-emption. The action complained of falls within the scope of section 8 (subd [b], par [6]) of the National Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 (US Code, tit 29, § 158, subd [b], par [6] *et seq.)*and its exclusive Federal regulatory scheme. It does not fall within the exceptions to the doctrine enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in *San Diego Unions v Garmon*(359 US 236, 243-244, 247-248). See, also, *Garner v Teamsters Union*(346 US 485) and the statement of Senator Robert A. Taft in colloquy on the floor of the Senate with respect to the problem in the case at bar (93 Cong Rec 6446), cited in *Newspaper Pub. Assn, v Labor Bd.*(345 US 100, 110-111). *Sears, Roebuck & Co. v Carpenters*(436 US 180), which allowed both NLRB and State court action, does not, in our opinion, apply to the situation at bar. There the issue was picketing, and here the issue is featherbedding. Concur-Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Evans and Lane, JJ. [91 Misc 2d 226.]
1836.570 NASA solicitation provisions and contract clause. ( a ) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.236-71, Additive or Deductive Items, in invitations for bids for construction when it is desired to add or deduct bid items to meet available funding.
( b ) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.236-72, Bids with Unit Prices, in invitations for bids for construction when the invitation contemplates unit prices of items.
( c ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.236-73, Hurricane Plan, in solicitations and contracts for construction at sites that experience hurricanes.
( d ) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.236-74, Magnitude of Requirement, in solicitations for construction. Insert the appropriate estimated dollar range in accordance with FAR 36.204.