alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM,

Petitioner

______________________

2020-136

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United 

States District Court for the District of Delaware in No. 

1:14-cv-00091-RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews.

______________________

ON PETITION

______________________

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Lakshmi Arunachalam petitions the court for a writ of 

mandamus, seeking to vacate various orders of this court,

district courts, the United States Court of Federal Claims, 

and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Kronos Incorporated, a defendant in one of the underlying district court 

matters, moves for leave to file an untimely entry of 

appearance.

In July 2020, this court denied Dr. Arunachalam’s

motion to proceed in forma pauperis on the ground that 

the petition appeared frivolous. We explained that the 

petition largely seeks to pursue arguments that this court 

Case: 20-136 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 10/19/2020
2 IN RE: ARUNACHALAM

has already repeatedly rejected, that, at a minimum, she 

lacked a clear and indisputable right to relief in seeking 

to vacate orders in closed cases listed in the caption, and 

that for those cases in the caption that were ongoing or 

recently resolved, Dr. Arunachalam had failed to explain 

why she lacks an alternative means for obtaining relief 

through the course of an appeal. Dr. Arunachalam petitioned for rehearing en banc, which the court denied. Dr. 

Arunachalam then paid the filing fee.

Issuance of a writ of mandamus is a “drastic” remedy, 

“reserved for really extraordinary causes.” Ex parte 

Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 259–60 (1947). To establish mandamus relief, a petitioner must, at a minimum, establish 

that she has a clear and indisputable right to relief and no 

adequate alternative legal channels to obtain that relief. 

See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Columbia, 

542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). For the reasons already 

explained to Dr. Arunachalam in this court’s prior order, 

she has failed to meet that demanding standard. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The petition is denied. 

(2) Kronos’ motion is granted.

(3) All other pending motions are denied.

October 19, 2020 

Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

s31

Case: 20-136 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 10/19/2020
#### IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL A. KINARD.

(Supreme Court Disciplinary No. 651)

(387 SE2d 890)

Per curiam.

Respondent, Michael A. Kinard, was charged with a violation of Standard 65 of State Bar Rule 4-102, for attempting to withdraw, for his personal use, funds from his attorney trust account.

Respondent filed his petition for voluntary discipline and in response the State Bar of Georgia served upon respondent a request for the production of certain documents.

He did not respond to the request and the State Bar of Georgia filed a motion to compel discovery. Respondent failed to comply with the order compelling discovery. Whereupon the Special Master ordered that respondent Kinard’s petition for voluntary discipline be stricken, and the voluntary disciplinary proceeding moved into default. The disciplinary proceeding in this case was filed in this Court on November 17, 1989. Respondent has not filed any document or correspondence of any nature in this Court since the filing date of November 17, 1989. Respondent has ignored all notices, directives and orders of this Court and the State Bar of Georgia since that date.

The Special Master found respondent guilty of the violation of Standards 65 and 68 of Georgia State Bar Rule 4-102.

The Review Panel of the State Disciplinary Board recommends the following:

> [T]hat respondent be suspended from the practice of law in *797the State of Georgia as of ninety (90) days from the date of the Supreme Court order adopting this recommendation unless and until he provides the General Counsel of the State Bar access to records sufficient to comply with the Request for Production of documents filed in this matter by the Office of General Counsel. If the General Counsel certifies to the Supreme Court that Respondent has complied with the Request for Production of Documents, then Respondent shall be allowed to resume the practice of law as of the date of the certification and shall receive a public Reprimand pursuant to Rule 4-102 (b)(3).

Decided February 7, 1990.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Paula J. Frederick, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

In lieu of this recommendation this Court directs that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Georgia unless within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, he complies with the request to produce documents. If within the thirty (30) days, respondent complies with the request, then he is to be suspended for ninety (90) days from the practice of law.

*All the Justices concur.*
#### § 60-999.1 Purpose.

This part displays control numbers assigned to information collection requirements of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. Ch. 35. This part fulfills the PRA requirement that agencies display a current control number for each agency information collection requirement approved by OMB (44 U.S.C. 3507).
§ 51-7.3 Ensuring environmental documents are actually considered in agency determinations. ( a ) 40 CFR 1505.1 of the NEPA regulations contains requirements to ensure adequate consideration of environmental documents in agency decision-making. To implement these requirements, the Committee staff shall: ( 1 ) Consider all relevant environmental documents in evaluating proposals for agency action;
( 2 ) Ensure that all relevant environmental documents, comments and responses accompany the proposal through the agency review processes;
( 3 ) Consider only those alternatives discussed in the relevant environmental documents when evaluating proposals for agency action; and
( 4 ) Where an EIS has been prepared, consider the specific alternative analysis in the EIS when evaluating the proposal which is the subject of the EIS.
( b ) For each of the Committee's actions authorized by the JWOD Act, the following list identifies the point at which the NEPA process begins, the point at which it ends, and the key agency official or office required to consider the relevant environmental documents as a part of their decision-making: ( 1 ) Action: Request.
( 2 ) Start of NEPA process: Upon receipt of request.
( 3 ) Completion of NEPA process: When the deciding official reviews the proposal and makes a determination.
( 4 ) Key official or office required to consider environmental document: When a positive determination is made under § 51-7.2(b), the applicant in conjunction with the Committee staff will prepare the necessary papers.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
130570 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan MARK HADDAD, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 130570 COA: 256659 Wayne CC: 02-243629-NO GEORGE TSOUKALAS, Defendant-Appellant,

and

ALEXANDER HARLAMBOS SAKELLARIS and ALEXANDRA SAKELLARIS, Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 12, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question p resented should be reviewed by this Court prior to the completion of proceedings ordered by the Court of Appeals.

t0522 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 30, 2006

Clerk
```
       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit





No. 99-1368

                          UNITED STATES,

                            Appellee,

                                v.

                     IGNACIO CUSTODIO-ROSIS,

                      Defendant, Appellant.



           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

         [Hon. Daniel R. Dom¡nguez, U.S. District Judge]



                              Before

                    Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
                        Circuit Judges.
                                
                                
                                
                                
     Alexander Zeno on brief for appellant.
     Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jorge E. Vega-Pacheco,
Assistant United States Attorney, and Nelson Perez-Sosa, Assistant
United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.





September 15, 1999



                                
                                
  
            Per Curiam.    Upon careful review of the briefs and
  record, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err
  in basing defendant's sentence on the negotiated drug quantity. 
  See U.S.S.G. � 2D1.1, n.12; United States v. Muniz, 49 F.3d 36,
  39 (1st Cir. 1995).  In the circumstances of this case, we
  cannot say that the district court was required to disregard 
  defendant's earlier assertions of capacity and intent to
  deliver the full quantity.
            We further conclude that the district court did not
  abuse its discretion in quashing the belated subpoenas.  In
  light of defendant's guilty plea and the limited issues
  remaining for the sentencing hearing, defendant's argument
  regarding an entrapment defense is entirely meritless.
            Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
```
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case Number: 22-23115-CIV-MARTINEZ-BECERRA

PANO CALAVRIAS,

Plaintiff, 

v.

QUARANTENA, LLC,

Defendant.

______________________________________/

ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (“Motion

to Amend”). (ECF No. 5). Four days after filing the Complaint, Plaintiff moved to amend the 

Complaint to add additional defendants and corresponding causes of action. (Id. ¶ 8). Defendant

Quarentena, LLC has not yet been served. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that “[a] party may amend its pleading once 

as a matter of course within . . . (A) 21 days after serving it” or (B) “21 days after service of a 

responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e) or (f), whichever is 

earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). “In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with 

the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “The court 

should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. “The thrust of Rule 15(a) is to allow parties 

to have their claims heard on the merits, and accordingly, district courts should liberally grant 

leave to amend when ‘the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a 

proper subject of relief.’” In re Engle Cases, 767 F.3d 1082, 1108 (11th Cir. 2014) (citation 

omitted). 

Case 1:22-cv-23115-JEM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 1 of 2
2

“District courts within the Eleventh Circuit disagree whether a plaintiff may amend the 

complaint once as a matter of course before serving it upon a defendant.” Harrison v. Mr James 

Blackledge & United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., No. 19-civ-1811, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237378, 

*3–4 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 20, 2019) (collecting cases). Because Plaintiff is moving to amend, the Court 

need not decide that issue. See Thompson v. Carnival Corp., 20-cv- 22217, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

239045, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 17, 2021) (“Plaintiff forfeited that right [to file an amended pleading 

as a matter of course] when she filed a motion seeking leave to amend.”). 

In moving to amend, Plaintiff did not attach his proposed amended complaint. “A party 

who moves to amend a pleading shall attach the original of the amendment to the motion in the 

manner prescribed by Section 3I(1) of the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures.” S.D. L.R. 15.1. 

After careful consideration, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, (ECF No. 5), is

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may refile his motion to amend, attaching his 

proposed amended pleading, on or before October 10, 2022. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, 5th day of October, 2022.

____________________________________

JOSE E. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies provided to: 

All Counsel of Record 

Case 1:22-cv-23115-JEM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2022 Page 2 of 2
#### § 302-4.1 What is a permanent change of station (PCS)?

A permanent change of station (PCS) is an assignment of a new appointee to an official station or the transfer of an employee from one official station to another on a permanent basis.
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.728 Replies. ( a ) A complainant shall file and serve a reply within 10 calendar days of service of the answer, unless otherwise directed by the Commission. The reply shall contain statements of relevant, material facts and legal arguments that respond to the factual allegations and legal arguments made by the defendant. Other allegations or arguments will not be considered by the Commission.
( b ) Failure to reply will not be deemed an admission of any allegations contained in the responsive pleading, except with respect to any affirmative defense set forth therein. Failure to reply to an affirmative defense shall be deemed an admission of such affirmative defense and of any facts supporting such affirmative defense that are not specifically contradicted in the complaint.
( c ) The reply shall include legal analysis relevant to the claims and arguments set forth therein.
( d ) The reply shall include an information designation containing: ( 1 ) The name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have information relevant to the proceeding and addressed in the reply, along with the subjects of that information, excluding individuals otherwise identified in the complaint, answer, reply, or exhibits thereto, and individuals employed by another party; and
( 2 ) A copy—or a description by category and location—of all relevant documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control that are addressed in the reply, excluding documents submitted with the complaint or answer.
[83 FR 44832, Sept. 4, 2018]
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7469** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. STEPHEN D. SATCHER , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt
. Alexander Williams, Jr. , District Judge. ( 8:00

- cr - 00105

- AW

- 1; 8:12

- cv - 01679

- AW )

Submitted : November 21, 2013 Decided: November 26, 2013

Before KING, DUNCAN, a nd DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Stephen D. Satcher, Appellant Pro Se. Odessa Palmer Jackson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Stephen D. Satcher seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion as untimely . We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court ’ s final judgment or order, Fed . R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirem ent.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court ’ s order was entered on the docket

on November 29, 2012 . The notice of appeal was filed on September 12, 2013
. * Because Satcher failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny Satcher’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988).3 argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.959 Computation of average terrain elevation. Except as otherwise specified in § 90.309(a)(4) of this chapter, average terrain elevation must be calculated by computer using elevations from a 30 second point or better topographic data file. The file must be identified. If a 30 second point data file is used, the elevation data must be processed for intermediate points using interpolation techniques; otherwise, the nearest point may be used. In cases of dispute, average terrain elevation determinations can also be done manually, if the results differ significantly from the computer derived averages. ( a ) Radial average terrain elevation is calculated as the average of the elevation along a straight line path from 3 to 16 kilometers (2 and 10 miles) extending radially from the antenna site. If a portion of the radial path extends over foreign territory or water, such portion must not be included in the computation of average elevation unless the radial path again passes over United States land between 16 and 134 kilometers (10 and 83 miles) away from the station. At least 50 evenly spaced data points for each radial should be used in the computation.
( b ) Average terrain elevation is the average of the eight radial average terrain elevations (for the eight cardinal radials).
( c ) For locations in Dade and Broward Counties, Florida, the method prescribed above may be used or average terrain elevation may be assumed to be 3 meters (10 feet).
[70 FR 19306, Apr. 13, 2005]
ATTENTION 

Sheep Grazing in This Area

Livestock Protection Dogs in Use

Sheep farmers use livestock protection dogs to protect their sheep by scaring off predators. The dogs are here to protect the 

sheep. If you do not appear to be a threat to the sheep, most of the time, the dogs will just watch you pass by.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

United States Department of Agriculture • Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Program Aid No. 2109 • Issued March 2012

Please Avoid Conflict With Livestock 

Protection Dogs.

Do:

4 Keep your dog on a leash and never allow your dog to run toward or 

harass the livestock protection dog(s) or sheep. 

4 Remain calm if a livestock protection dog approaches.

4 Tell the livestock protection dog “No” or “Go back to the sheep” in a firm 

voice. 

4 If you are on a bike, stop, dismount, and put the bike between you and the 

dog(s). Walk your bike until well past the sheep. 

4 Keep your distance from the sheep and choose the least disruptive route 

around them. 

4 Contact the dog’s owner immediately if you see a livestock protection dog 

that has left the property or is away from the sheep.

Don’t:

4 Chase or harass the sheep or dog(s).

4 Approach the dog(s) or sheep.

4 Try to outrun the dog(s).

4 Throw things at the dog(s).

4 Make quick movements.

4 Feed the dog(s).

4 Attempt to befriend or pet the dog(s).

4 Assume the dog is lost and take it with you.

If you have questions about livestock protection dogs or other wildlife damage management issues, please call Wildlife 

Services—a program within the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS)—at 1-866-4-USDA-WS (1-866-487-3297), or visit the APHIS Web site at www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

UNISONE STRATEGIC IP, INC.,

Appellant

v.

LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,

Appellee

______________________ 

2017-2471

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. CBM2016-

00025.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

DANIEL LUKE GEYSER, Geyser, PC, Dallas, TX, argued 

for appellant. Also represented by DOUGLAS D. GEYSER, 

Stris & Maher LLP, Los Angeles, CA. 

 MICHAEL KIKLIS, Bass, Berry & Sims, PLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by BRIAN 

IVERSON, MATTHEW ZAPADKA. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 
ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, O’MALLEY and 

STOLL, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

December 10, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
PMN Substance B Estimated Composition 

PMN substance B is the sodium salt of a sulfated branched and linear alcohol 

propoxylate. The branched and linear alcohol propoxylate is defined by CAS 

number 958238-75-0. The branched and linear alcohol propoxylate is sulfated 

using standard methods and then neutralized with aqueous sodium hydroxide. 

Water may be added to adjust the viscosity of the final product. This makes a 

20% to 70% active material, most preferred 27-30% active, (PMN substance B) 

in water.

After sulfation and neutralization to make PMN Substance B, there remains a 

small amount of free oil (non sulfated propoxylate) remaining. This will vary with 

the sulfation severity. In laboratory experiments this is typically less than 3%.

REPRESENTATIVE STRUCTURES

PMN Substance B (100% active basis)

R-O-(CH2CH(CH3)O)nSO3Na

n = targeted 4 or 8 but may range from 1 to 20, actual 

distribution 1 to 30

R = C14 to C15 branched and linear alcohol

The material is described by CAS # 958238-82-9

97-99%

R-O-(CH2CH(CH3)O)nH

n = targeted 4 or 8 but may range from 1 to 20, actual 

distribution 1 to 30

R = C14 to C15 branched and linear alkane

The material is described by CAS # 958238-75-0

≤3%