alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jack Edwin LEEPER, Jr., Petitioner, v. A. A. BIRZGALIS, M.D., Med. Supt., and Administrative Officials of the Ionia State Hospital, et al., Respondents. Jack Edwin LEEPER, Jr., Petitioner, v. A. A. BIRZGALIS, M.D., Med. Supt., and Elmer King, Charge Attendant, Ionia State Hospital, et al., Respondents.

Civ. A. Nos. 6085, 6159.

United States District Court, W. D. Michigan, S. D.

Oct. 23, 1969.

Jack Edwin Leeper, Jr., in pro. per.

J. Ronald Kaplansky, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lansing, Mich., for defendant.

ORDER

FOX, District Judge.

Petitioner, Jack Edwin Leeper, Jr., seeks the intervention of this court with inspect to alleged violations of his civil and constitutional rights arising out of his confinement in Ionia State Hospital.

Petitioner has filed two actions dealing with his rights while incarcerated in Ionia. In No. 6085, he claims that his mail is being opened by hospital officials and the contents examined, and that some of his outgoing mail is delayed. In No. 6159, he complains of lack of a typewriter for preparing legal papers, and requests the court to order hospital authorities to allow prisoners in his ward to possess such equipment which is sent to them from outsiders. Petitioner claims the above actions interfere with his pursuing his legal remedies.

Petitioner is confined as a criminal sexual psychopath. It is within the discretion of hospital authorities to maintain rules to insure appropriate discipline and treatment in their institution. However, they may not unduly interfere with a prisoner’s pursuit of post-conviction or habeas corpus relief. Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718 (1969).

The court cannot agree that the actions of hospital authorities outlined by plaintiff are so restrictive of his guarantee of access to the judicial process to require intervention at this time.

The pleadings initiating one of these actions, handwritten and quite well done, convince the court that the lack of a typewriter is not a serious obstacle to this petitioner. In addition, hospital officials may well decide that to allow such equipment in petitioner’s particular ward might pose an unwarranted danger to patients or employees.

With respect to censorship of petitioner’s mail, the court finds that such *809action is within the scope of proper disciplinary and security measures. Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 68 S.Ct. 1049, 92 L.Ed. 1356 (1948); United States ex rel. Thompson v. Fay, 197 F.Supp. 855 (D.C.N.Y.1961); Desmond v. Blackwell, 235 F.Supp. 246 (D.C.Pa.1964).

For the above reasons the court finds that petitioner has been accorded all rights to which he was entitled consistent with proper administration by hospital authorities. Petitioner’s actions are hereby dismissed.

It is so ordered.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

George Lagen

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−04056

Honorable Blanche M. Manning

United Continental Holdings, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, July 24, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Blanche M. Manning: Defendants' Motion to

dismiss amended complaint [10] is taken under advisement. Plaintiff to respond by

8/16/2012. Defendants to reply by 8/31/2012. Ruling by mail. Status hearing date of

7/26/2012 is vacated pending disposition of the motion to dismiss. Motion to reset [15] is

moot. Mailed notice (jdh)

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-04056 Document #: 17 Filed: 07/24/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:100
#### Agnes Birnbaum, Respondent, v Simon & Schuster, Inc., et al., Appellants.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on August 3, 1978, unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellants $75 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The appeal from the order entered August 2, 1978 is dismissed, without costs and without disbursements, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment herein. No opinion. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Lupiano, Yesawich and Bloom, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.77

                               SECOND AMENDMENT TO
           PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN MATSUSHITA KOTOBUKI ELECTRONICS
           INDUSTRIES, LTD. AND MAXTOR CORPORATION DATED APRIL 2, 2001

This Second Amendment ("Second Amendment") to Purchase Agreement between
Matsushita Kotobuki Electronics Industries, Ltd., a Japanese corporation, having
its principal place of business at 2131-1 Minamigata, Kawauchi-Cho, Onsen-Gun,
Ehime 791-0395 Japan ("MKE") and Maxtor Corporation, a Delaware corporation,
having its principal place of business at 500 McCarthy Boulevard, Milpitas,
California 95035 ("Maxtor") dated April 2, 2001 ("Purchase Agreement") is
entered into by and between MKE and Maxtor.

WHEREAS, the Purchase Agreement between MKE and Maxtor is due to terminate on
November 2, 2001 unless otherwise renewed by the parties.

WHEREAS, the parties executed the First Amendment to the Purchase Agreement
effective November 2, 2001 to extend the term of the Purchase Agreement for
another one year period such that the Purchase Agreement will terminate, unless
otherwise renewed by the parties, on November 2, 2002.

WHEREAS, MKE and Maxtor are desirous of continuing their business relationship
contemplated in the Purchase Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1.    The term of the Purchase Agreement shall be further extended such that the
      Purchase Agreement will terminate, unless otherwise renewed by the
      parties, on March 31, 2004.

2.    All of the terms of the Purchase Agreement shall continue to apply to the
      transactions between MKE and Maxtor except for those terms which are
      amended by this Second Amendment.

3.    This Second Amendment shall be effective as of November 2, 2002
      retroactively.

MATSUSHITA KOTOBUKI ELECTRONICS
INDUSTRIES, LTD.                               MAXTOR CORPORATION


By: /s/ Takao Kanamura                         By: /s/ Paul Tufano
    ---------------------------                    ---------------------------
    Takao Kanamura                                 Paul Tufano
Title: Senior Managing Director                 Title:  President and Chief
                                                Executive Officer

Date: February 5, 2003                          Date: February 5, 2003
      -------------------------                       -------------------------
#### 2110.7001 Definitions.

*Investment income,* as used in this subpart, means the net amount on an investment of FEGLI Program funds earned by the contractor after deducting reasonable, necessary, and properly allocated investment expenses.

*Significant event,* as used in this subpart, means any occurrence or anticipated occurrence that might reasonably be expected to have a material effect upon the contractor's ability to meet its obligations under the LIFAR.
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 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc 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 DA VI D S . P E R R YMAN , P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. SA N FRA N CI SCO SH ERI FF D E P A R T M E N T ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 12- 16199 D. C. No . 3 : 0 8 - c v - 0 4 9 7 3 - TE H 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 o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia T he l t on E . H e nde r s on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry11, 2013 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , T A S H IM A , an d W A R D L A W , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C al i forni a s t at e pri soner D avi d S . P erry m an appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct court ’ s j ud gm entdi sm i ss i ng hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 act i on al l egi ng const i tut i on al vi ol a t i ons . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo a 

# FI LED FEB 20 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 16199 2 di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s di s m i s s a l f orf a i l ur e t o e xhaus ta dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s a nd f or c le a re rr o rits f

a c tu a l d e te rm in a tio n s , W y at t v . T e rhune , 3 1 5 F .3 d 1 1 0 8 , 1 1 1 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) , a n d w e a f

f irm . T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed P erry m an’ s a ct i on because P erry m an d id n o t p r o p e r lye x h au s t a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s . Se e W oodf ord v . N go , 5 4 8 U . S. 81 , 85 , 93 -95 (20 06 ) ( ho l di ng that“ prop erexhaust i on ” i s m andat ory and re qu i re s adherence t o adm i ni stra t i ve procedural rul es ). T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otcl earl y e rr i n fi n d i n g th atP errym an ’ s su b m i ssi o n o f a g ri ev an ce t o th e cap t ai n d i d n o tex h au st P e rry m a n ’s a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s . Se e M ar e l la v . T

e rhune , 568 F . 3d 1024, 1027 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( no t i ng thatpri soners m ust“ com pl et e the adm i ni stra t i ve re vi ew proces s i n acc ordance w i th the appl i cabl e proceduralrul es ”) ( q u o t i n gW o o d f o rd , 5 4 8 U .S . a t 8 8 ) ) . W e do notc ons i de rm a tt e r s notdi s t i nc t l yr a i s e d a nd a r gue d i n the ope ni ng b r ie f . Se e P adge t t

v . W r i ght , 58 7 F . 3d 98 3, 98 5 n . 2 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( per c uri am ). AF F I RME D.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

Christopher V Langone

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−02073

Honorable John A. Nordberg

Patrick Kaiser, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, July 23, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Charles R. Norgle, Sr: Motion to dismiss is due

on or before 8/17/2012. Response is due on or before 8/31/2012. Reply is due on or before

9/10/2012. Discovery is stayed pending ruling on motion to dismiss. Status hearing set for

October 17, 2012 before the Honorable John A. Nordberg is stricken. Mailed notice(ewf, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-02073 Document #: 9 Filed: 07/23/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:44
The Office of the General Counsel is under the supervision of the General Counsel, who serves as principal adviser to the Secretary on all legal matters affecting Departmental programs and activities. The Office has three legal practice areas, each of which is headed by a Deputy General Counsel, and an operations management staff, headed by an Executive Officer. The Office's seven Divisions are organized under these areas as follows:

## Immediate Office of the General Counsel

## Program Service

      - Division of Educational Equity
      - Division of Elementary, Secondary, Adult, and Vocational Education

## Departmental Law and Postsecondary Education

      - Division of Business and Administrative Law
      - Division of Postsecondary Education

## Ethics, Legislative, and Regulatory Services

      - Division of Legislative Counsel
      - Division of Regulatory Services
      - Ethics Division

In performing its responsibilities, the Office of the General Counsel:

- Provides legal advice and services to the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and the Principal Officers of the U.S. Department of Education, as well as any other person authorized to request that advice or those services.
- Prepares or reviews for legal form and effect public documents, rules, and Federal Register Notices issued by the Department, and legal instruments entered into by the Department.
- Represents the Secretary, the Department, or any of its officers or units in court or administrative litigation, except for administrative proceedings initiated by the Office for Civil Rights.
- Serves as liaison to other Federal agencies in connection with legal matters involving the Department.
- Drafts legislative proposals originating in the Department and reviews the legal aspects of proposed or pending legislation.
- Leads and manages the regulatory function of the Department and drafts selected regulations.
- Prepares or reviews pleadings, briefs, memoranda, and other legal documents for proceedings involving the Department or requested by other Government agencies for use in proceedings, except for administrative proceedings initiated by the Office for Civil Rights.
- Coordinates and manages the Department's ethics program and provides Department-wide ethics advice and training.
- Serves as the Department's Claims Officer under the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees Claims Act of 1964.
##### 



Exhibit 99.3

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE)

In connection with the Annual Report of Del Taco Restaurant Properties I (the
Partnership) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each
of the undersigned officers of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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
Partnership.

|      |  |               |  |                                                                                           
|----- |  | ------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: |  | March 7, 2003 |  | /s/ Kevin K. Moriarty

Kevin K. Moriarty
Director, Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer   
|     
|Date: |  | March 7, 2003 |  | /s/ Robert J. Terrano

Robert J. Terrano
Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CFO PURSUANT TO SECURITIES
ACT RULES 13A-14 AND 15D-14 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of the Partnership;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
periods covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.

    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and
15d-14) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants independent
registered public accounting firm and the audit committee of theregistrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function)
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date: March 17, 2006
    
    /s/ Robert J. TerranoRobert J. TerranoExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
##### 



Exhibit 3.2(g)
 AMENDED AND RESTATED
 LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AGREEMENT
OF
MILAGRO RANCH, LLC
 Agreement Company Member
 Act
  1. Name .
 2. Member .
 Name
    
    AddressDole Berry Company, LLC
    
    One Dole DriveWestlake Village, CA 91362
 3. Certificates .
 4. Purposes .
 5. Term .




---



##### 



6. Principal Business Office .
 7. Registered Office .
 8. Registered Agent .
 9. Limited Liability .
 10. Admission of Additional Members .
 11. Capital Contribution .
 12. Additional Contributions .
 13. Allocation of Profits and Losses .
 14. Distributions .
 15. Classification for Tax Purposes .
 16. Management .
 2




---



##### 



17. Officers . Officers
 18. Other Business .
 19. Exculpation and Indemnification . Covered Person
 3




---



##### 



20. Assignments .
 21. Resignation .
 22. Dissolution .
 Termination Event
   4




---



##### 



23. Separability of Provisions .
 24. Entire Agreement .
 25. Governing Law .
 26. Amendments .
 27. Sole Benefit of the Member .
 th
 MEMBERDole Berry Company, LLCBy:
Name:
    
    /s/ Jeffrey Conner

Jeffrey ConnerTitle:
    
    Vice President and Secretary
 5
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 26 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR UNVEILING 

4 OF AMERICAN PRISONERS OF WAR/MISSING 

5 IN ACTION (POW/MIA) CHAIR OF HONOR. 

6 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—Emancipation Hall in the 

7 Capitol Visitor Center is authorized to be used for an 

8 event on November 8, 2017, to unveil the American Pris9 oners of War/Missing in Action (POW/MIA) Chair of 

10 Honor. 

11 (b) PREPARATIONS.—Physical preparations for the 

12 conduct of the ceremony described in subsection (a) shall 

13 be carried out in accordance with such conditions as may 

14 be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol. 

Passed the Senate October 16, 2017. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 26 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the 

(POW/MIA) Chair of Honor. American Prisoners of War/Missing in Action Capitol Visitor Center for the unveiling of the
## Deputy Secretary

## Chief of Staff, Office of the Deputy Secretary

Top
225.371-1 Scope. ( a ) This section applies to contracts that involve contractor personnel supporting U.S. Armed Forces deployed outside the United States in— ( 1 ) Contingency operations;
( 2 ) Humanitarian or peacekeeping operations; or
( 3 ) Other military operations or military exercises, when designated by the combatant commander.
( b ) Any of the types of operations listed in paragraph (a) of this section may include stability operations such as— ( 1 ) Establishment or maintenance of a safe and secure environment; or
( 2 ) Provision of emergency infrastructure reconstruction, humanitarian relief, or essential governmental services (until feasible to transition to local government).
[80 FR 36901, June 26, 2015]
#### 1901.101 Purpose.

This subpart establishes the Broadcasting Board of Governors Acquisition Regulation as Chapter 19 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations System (48 CFR chapter 19) and states the relationship of the IAAR to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 48 CFR chapter 1.
225.7014 Restrictions on military construction. ( a ) For restriction on award of military construction contracts to be performed in the United States outlying areas in the Pacific and on Kwajalein Atoll, or in countries bordering the Arabian Gulf, *see* 236.273(a).
( b ) For restriction on acquisition of steel for use in military construction projects, *see* 236.274.
[74 FR 2417, Jan. 15, 2009, as amended at 79 FR 44316, July 31, 2014; 80 FR 15911, Mar. 26, 2015]
February 14, 1975.

M. P. No. 75-16.

#### Lindy Construction & Development Corp. *et al. v.*Donald E. Wilcox.

*Arcaro, Belilove & Kolodney, Abraham Belilove,*for petitioners. *Joseph J. McCair,*Asst. City Solicitor, for City of Warwick Zoning Board of Review. *Lynch, Walsh & Cobleigh, John D. Lynch,*for respondent.

Motion to stay the order of the Superior Court entered on January 17, 1975 is denied. Petition for writ of certiorari is denied. An adequate remedy is provided by way of appeal. G. L. 1956 (1968 Reenactment) §9-24-7. See *Wright*v. *Wright,*82 R. I. 67, 105 A.2d 809 (1954). 1 Kent, *R. I. Civ. Prac.,*§65.5.