alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert T. IRVIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James E. WALTON, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-6655.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 7, 2001.

Before RALPH B. GUY, JR., BOGGS, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

Robert T. Irvin, a Tennessee resident proceeding pro se, appeals a district court order dismissing his civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

Seeking six million dollars in compensatory damages and twelve million dollars in punitive damages, Irvin sued Montgomery County, Tennessee, Circuit Judge James E. Walton. Irvin alleged that Walton violated his constitutional rights when he dismissed Irvin’s state court case and forbade Irvin from filing any more similar lawsuits. The district court granted Irvin in forma pauperis status and dismissed the complaint as frivolous. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). After an earlier appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the district court construed Irvin’s February 24, 1998, “Motion for Enlargement of Time Within Which to Obtain Filing Fee of One Hundred and Five Dollars” as a notice of appeal.

On appeal, Irvin argues that Judge Walton denied him his constitutional right to petition the government for justice.

Upon de novo review, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Irvin’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). *See McGore v. Wrigglesworth,*114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir.1997). A judge performing his or her judicial functions is absolutely immune from suits seeking monetary damages. *See Mireles v. Waco,*502 U.S. 9, 9-10, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (per curiam); *Barrett v. Harrington,*130 F.3d 246, 254 (6th Cir.1997). Irvin alleged that Walton denied *282him his constitutional rights when the judge dismissed Irvin’s state court case. Nothing in Irvin’s complaint or his brief on appeal suggests that Walton acted in a non-judicial capacity or without jurisdiction. Accordingly, he is absolutely immune from Irvin’s suit seeking monetary damages. Irvin’s complaint was frivolous because it lacked an arguable basis in law. *See Neitzke v. Williams,*490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s order. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
September 14, 2012


 


I, Aaron M. Riccelli, am lending Innovative
Designs, Inc the amount of $50,000 Dollars, for a period of 120 days, at an interest rate of 10%. Repayment of $55,000 interest
included will be made by January 14, 2013.


 


	/s/ Aaron Riccelli	 
	Aaron Riccelli	 
	 	 
	/s/ Joseph Riccelli	 
	Joseph Riccelli
No. P69/58.

protests 68/22855 and 67/52035 (New York).

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Maletz, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of nodding head animals similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Wilson’s Customs Clearance, Inc.*v. *United States*(59 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 3061), and that said merchandise is wholly or in chief value of iron or steel, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. P66/308. —

#### Latama, Inc., et al. *v.*United States, protests 61/7501, etc. (New York).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “A” and “B” covered by the foregoing protests consist of knives and forks similar in all material respects to those the subject of *National Carloading Corp.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 178, C.D. 2529), except that the items marked “B” are with handles other than nickel silver or steel, the claims of the plaintiffs were sustained.
#### STARFLIGHT BOATS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-5072.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 30, 2001.

ORDER

The appellant having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the rules, it is

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
1 of 1

EPA’s Potential Reinterpretation of the Clean Water Act Provision Regarding Tribal 

Authority – Meeting with the Water Committee of the Environmental Council of the States

Thursday, July 17, 2014

2:00 – 3:00 p.m. EDT

Meeting Summary

EPA Presenters: Fred Leutner, EPA Office of Science and Technology

Tod Siegal. EPA Office of General Counsel

Participants: Representatives from 20 states

Staff from the Association of Clean Water Administrators

Staff from the Association of State Drinking Water Agencies

The topic of the potential reinterpretation of the tribal authority provision of the Clean Water Act 

was one of several on the agenda. Fred Leutner then provided an overview of the potential EPA 

action to reinterpret the tribal authority provision of the Clean Water Act. In advance of the 

meeting, EPA provided a copy of the EPA letter from Betsy Southerland, dated June 18, 2014, 

available at EPA’s website at 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqslibrary/tribal.cfm. 

The meeting continued with an opportunity for questions and comments from participants. The 

following is a list of questions and comments received from participants during the meeting. For each of 

the questions, the EPA presenters provided responses that were consistent with the presentation materials 

and other information available at 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqslibrary/tribal.cfm. Views and comments 

were acknowledged, and will be considered by EPA in developing the proposed rule. 

 One participant expressed concern about whether the potential reinterpretation would 

affect tribes in the state of Oklahoma.

 One participant asked how many tribes nationally have been found eligible for TAS for 

the water quality standards program.

 One participant asked about the legal justification for the reinterpretations, and how it 

relates to EPA’s views expressed in its 1991 TAS rulemaking.
From: jebpro@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:50:33 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Jim Booze

Fresno, CA 93710
Exhibit 32.1



Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350



Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Smart & Final Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that
the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended October 9, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ Etienne Snollaerts              
|Etienne Snollaerts November 16, 2005
Before the Second Division,

March 2, 1960

No. 63876.

protest 58/9306 (New York).

#### The Durst Manufacturing Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of constituent and integral parts of toilet-box assemblies *366the same in all material respects as those the subject of *The Durst Mfg. Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(36 Cust. Ct. 220, C.D. 1778), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Third Division

February 18, 1957

No. 60512.

#### J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 247103-K-

Donlon, Judge:

The plaintiff’s motion, filed with the court December 18, 1956, purports to be for an order granting rehearing in the above protest and, on such rehearing, requests that the submission be set aside and a new trial granted. Judgment adverse to plaintiff’s protest claim, overruling the protest, was entered November 21, 1956.

In support of plaintiff’s motion, George W. Israel, Esq., trial counsel associated with plaintiff’s attorney of record, has filed his affidavit. There is notation on the filed original that copy of the motion and affidavit were received December 18, 1956, by the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Customs Section, counsel for defendant. Although permitted by rule to file and serve objections within 15 days after service of such copy, defendant has not filed objections.

Plaintiff’s motion, in form, is for rehearing of the protest claim. As the affidavit makes clear, the motion actually is for leave to reopen the case and set aside the judgment, so that plaintiff may amend its pleadings in order to present for adjudication an issue that was not claimed in the protest that was before the court at the time of adjudication.

This would not be rehearing. The scope of rehearing and its purpose are limited. Rehearing is not what plaintiff seeks, but something else under the guise of a rehearing.

We do not pass on the issue as to whether or not this court has the power to set aside a judgment and reopen a case, for the sole purpose of permitting plaintiff to amend its protest in order to make a new claim. That issue is now before our appeals court in the appeal from *Shell Oil Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*36 Cust. Ct. 413, Abstract 59875.1 It suffices to hold, as we do, that such broad equity powers should be exercised only when the interest of justice so requires. Plaintiff’s counsel concedes that entry of these goods was not consummated until after the date-on which the preferences, under the treaty with Czechoslovakia, had been terminated. This is not such a showing as moves us to invoke the remedy in equity which plaintiff’s motion seeks.

Motion for rehearing is denied.

1

 Abstract 59875 was affirmed on February 8, 1957 *(United States v. Shell Oil Co., Inc., et al.,*44 C. C. P. A. 54, C. A. D. 637).
#### Kelvin J. HURDLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Department of Environmental Quality, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-1053.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 29, 2001.

Decided July 16, 2001.

Kelvin J. Hurdle, pro se. Martha Murphey Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for appellee.

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

*198PER CURIAM.

Kelvin J. Hurdle seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment against him on his Title VII claims. *See*42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 *&*Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion, and the materials submitted by the parties and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *Hurdle v. Virginia,*No. CA-00-836 (E.D.Va. Jan. 5, 2001). We deny Hurdle’s motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site.(Historical purposes)

**Title:**  Unlimited horizons :design and development of the U-2

 
PDF,Mobi, epub

 
SuDoc Number: NAS 1.120:2014-620

Item Number: 0830-I (online)

 
CGP system Number: 000956926
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

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO PAY FINE - 1

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway , Suite 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

MAGISTRATE JUDGE DONOHUE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

VICKIE BROWN,

Defendant.

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR06-5081

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF

TIME TO PAY FINE

 Upon stipulation of the parties to extend the time to pay the fine, the Court finds that

such an extension would serve the ends of justice and outweighs the interest of the public

therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the fine be extended until March 30, 2007.

DONE this 10th day of October, 2006.AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge

/s______________________________ /s_________________________________

Miriam Schwartz Capt. Glenn Templeton

Attorney for Defendant Special Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:06-cr-05081-JPD Document 11 Filed 10/10/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 60552.

#### Glensder Textile Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 278697-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of articles of wearing apparel in chief value of silk similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 68475.

protests 61/8870 and 61/6241 (Honolulu).

#### Pan Pacific Traders, Incorporated, and American Customs Brokerage Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of plastic friction tape similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 66860, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
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

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE 1

JUDGE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

RICHARD HERALD WALTON,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR05-5343RBL

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

OF TRIAL DATE AND PRETRIAL

MOTIONS DEADLINE

Upon the stipulation of the parties to continue the trial date in the abovecaptioned case, the Court finds that such a continuance would serve the ends of justice

and outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, and that

failure to grant the requested continuance would deny the defendant the reasonable time 

necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, 

therefore,

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:05-cr-05343-RBL Document 12 Filed 06/15/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE 2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date be continued to August 29, 2005

@ 9:30 a.m. with a Pretrial Motions deadline of July 8, 2005. The pretrial conference

is scheduled for August 11 at 10:30 a.m.

 The period of delay resulting from this continuance from June 27, to August 29, 2005,

is hereby excluded for speedy trial purposes under 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(A) and (B).

IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of June, 2005. ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented By:

/s/ 

Miriam F. Schwartz

Attorney for Defendant

/s/ 

William H. Redkey Jr.

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:05-cr-05343-RBL Document 12 Filed 06/15/05 Page 2 of 2
Hummingbird

Springs Wilderness

Big Horn

Mountains

Wilderness

Harquahala

Mountains

Wilderness

Hells Canyon

Wilderness

Hassayampa

River Canyon

Wilderness

Castle Creek

Wilderness

Mohave County

Yavapai County

Yavapai

Marico

County

pa County

La Paz County

Maricopa County

White Tank

Mountains

Regional Park

Lake

Pleasant

Regional

Park

Prescott

Prescott

Valley

Cordes

Junction

Yarnell

BLACK

CANYON

CITY

NEW

RIVER

WICKENBURG

PEORIA

SURPRISE

BUCKEYE

GOODYEAR

PHOENIX

GLENDALE

Bureau of Land Management

Phoenix District Office

Phoenix, AZ

October 2009

Note: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

conducts land use planning only in the areas administered

by BLM. BLM has no planning authority under the

municipal or county planning legislation of the State

of Arizona.

No warranty is made by BLM for the use of this map

for purposes not intended by BLM, or to the accuracy,

reliability or completeness of the information shown.

Spatial information may not meet National Map Accuracy

standards. This information may be updated without

notification.

Note: Land Status legend located on Map 1

Map 3

Bradshaw-Harquahala

Planning Area

Split Estate Minerals

0 5 10 15

Miles

BLM Wilderness

USFS Wilderness

Interstate

Major Road

Major River, Streams or Wash

Highway

Agua Fria National

Monument Planning Area

Bradshaw Harquahala

Planning Area

Federally Administered

Mineral Resources Located on

Non Federally Administered Surface

Federal All Mineral

Federal Oil & Gas

Federal Other Mineral
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE

(Reyes, et al., CR 06-5005FDB) - 1

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

601 UNION STREET, SUITE 5100

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3903

(206) 553-7970

Judge Franklin D. Burgess

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) NO. CR 06-5005FDB

)

Plaintiff, ) ORDER

) GRANTING UNOPPOSED

v. ) MOTION TO CONTINUE

) TRIAL DATE

TOMAS ZEA REYES, and )

ANTONIA CAZARES, )

)

Defendants. ) 

______________________________________)

Upon the stipulation and motion of the Defendants to continue the trial and pretrial

motions due date in the above-captioned case, and based upon the facts set forth in the

motion, which are hereby adopted as findings of the Court and incorporated by reference,

the Court finds that a failure to grant the continuance would deny counsel the reasonable

time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence,

within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(B)(ii). The Court further finds that such a

continuance would serve the ends of justice and outweigh the best interests of the public

and the Defendants in a speedy trial; therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date be continued to October 2, 2006. 

The period of delay resulting from this continuance from June 26, 2006 up to and

including the new trial date of October 2, 2006, is hereby excluded for speedy trial

purposes under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) and (B) for the purpose of computing the time

limitations imposed by the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161-3174.

Case 3:06-cr-05005-RBL Document 38 Filed 05/15/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE

(Reyes, et al., CR 06-5005FDB) - 2

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

601 UNION STREET, SUITE 5100

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3903

(206) 553-7970

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pretrial motions due date be extended to July

17, 2006. The pretrial conference is set for September 21, 2006 at 2:00 pm. 

DONE this 15th day of May, 2006. 

A

HON. FRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

_/S/______________________

RONALD HESLOP

Attorney for Defendant

Tomas Zea Reyes

_/S/______________________

MATT RENDA

Attorney for Defendant

Antonia Cazares

Case 3:06-cr-05005-RBL Document 38 Filed 05/15/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32**Section 1350 Certification**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (“Section 906”), John D. Kavazanjian and Robert W. Fishback, the President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer and Vice President — Finance and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of UltralifeBatteries, Inc., certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September29, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Ultralife Batteries, Inc.A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to UltralifeBatteries, Inc. and will be retained by Ultralife Batteries, Inc. and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.        Date: November 7, 2007/s/ John D. Kavazanjian   John D. Kavazanjian   President and Chief Executive Officer      Date: November 7, 2007/s/ Robert W. Fishback   Robert W. Fishback   Vice President – Finance andChief Financial Officer