alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC
Anoka Air, Inc., et al Complainant, 

### v. FAA Docket No.**16~11·12** Metropolitan Airports Commission Respondent.

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME
This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the above

referenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR, Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR, Part 16, subpart B, the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued 

### in this matter is hereby extended to March 15 , 20 16 An extension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this case.

-B yron K. Hu an, A irector

Office of Airport Compliance and

Management AnalysisCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**~** I 

### HEREBY CERTIFY that on .>o.......<:c-t'-"'...LJ<..looo'""'4-'t-+....:.. '2-1_
. 016, I caused to be placed in the United

Counsel for Complainant: Steven M. Taber, Esq. Taber Law Group 13 Atlanta Irvine, CA 92620 Facsimile: (714) 707-4282 Counsel for Respondent: Thomas W. Anderson, Esq. General Counsel Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis , 

### MN 55450 Facsimile: (612) 726

- 5306 Pablo 0. Ntiesch, Esq. Spiegel & McDiarmid 

### LLP 1333 New Hampshire Ave. , NW Washington, DC 20036 Facsimile: (202) 393-2866 Copy to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket ue copy ofthe Notice ofExtension ofTime

FAA Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis , AC0

- 100

# CCJJulwiU~ Claudia Roberts Office ofAirport Compliance

and Management Analysis
No. 62282.

#### H. Ernstberger & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 201499-K, 201741-K, and 224761-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise, facts, and issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 Cust. Ct. 267, C. D. 1834), the collector was directed to reliquidate the entries, assessing duty upon the basis of the unit appraised value per conditioned pound or kilo, multiplied by the total number of conditioned pounds or kilos, as set forth in the invoices.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 9, 2013*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**L.200 U.S. Official Reserve Assets and SDR Allocations 1** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
No. 62280.

#### International Packers, Ltd. *v.*United States,

protest 288797-K (Seattle).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of meats, prepared or preserved, not specially provided for, similar in all material respects to the meat the subject of *United States*v. *Mercantil Distribuidora, S. A., et al.*(45 C. C. P. A. 20, C. A. D. 667), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
BULLETIN 1003 PLATE 2

rr
=
Cy
°
8
a

tray Clintan" sand

Bicis'

81°30"

Bias’

4iro0!

ed Clinton sand
hite Clinton" sand

(Queenston shale)

“Red Medina”

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

41°00"

40°45"

40°30)

811s

CANTON

MASSTLLON

x
NAVARRE

40°48’

40°30"

Bias’

81°30"

KEY MAP SHOWING POSITION OF FENCE DIAGRAM

15 Miles

FENCE DIAGRAM OF THE CANTON. DOVER, MASSILLON, AND NAVARRE QUADRANGLES, OHIO, SHOWING THE RELATIONSHIP OF

THE THREE “CLINTON” SANDS AND THE RELATIVE POSITION OF THE STRATIGRAPHIC UNITS

265153 © - 53 (In Pocket) No. 3
03/09/201 1 11:3 5 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DM S 21001/001 

02/11/201 1 10:0 0 FAl 4S56343505 PEOPLE 13002 

SMifesf 

i ^ A I R L I S E Sm 

Direct Dial: 435.634.3530 

DirecrFax: AiSMi.iSOS 

e-mail: teroertonfglafcyi'i'gst.com 

-••"••-^om/dmsFebnwiyll,2011 

MA FEDERAL EXPRESS 

Federal Aviation Administration 

ATTN; Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wrigkt Building - Suite 2 W1000 

800 liidq>endence Avenue SW 

Washington, PC 20591 

Re: Case No. 2&09NM060124 and 2010NM060020 

Dear Sir/Madam:, 

SlcyWcst Airlines no longer wishes to appeal the projwsed penalty in the abovelisted cases and hereby withdraws its Request^atAHeaiing. 

Sincerely, 

Todd C. Emerson 

Director- Government and Legal Affairs 

TCE/jb 

cc: Jeffrey Harper 

4 U South River Road 

S[. GeoiTfe, Vuih 8*790 

435.634J0OO
[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. 
**Title: Preliminaryreport on the Coalinga oil district, Fresno and Kings counties, California**
 
Report | Plates: OneTwo
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:357
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000958210
 
July 30, 2018
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement(Form S-8, No. 33-58570) pertaining to the 1983 Incentive StockOption Plan of Intrusion Inc., the 1987 Incentive Stock Option Plan ofIntrusion Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-8,No. 333-60928), the Registration Statement (Form S-8,No. 333-57948) pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan ofIntrusion Inc., as amended, the Registration Statement (Form S-8,No. 33-34484), the Registration Statement (Form S-8,No. 333-90408) pertaining to the 1995 Non-employee Director Stock OptionPlan of Intrusion Inc., as amended, the Registration Statement(Form S-8, No. 33-42927) pertaining to the 1997 Employee Stock PurchasePlan of Intrusion Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-8,No. 33-80898) pertaining to the 401(k) Savings Plan ofIntrusion Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-8,No. 333-53813) pertaining to the Essential Communication Corporation 1996Stock Option Plan, and the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-125816)pertaining to the Intrusion Inc. 2005 Stock Incentive Plan of our report datedMarch 29, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements ofIntrusion Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for theyears ended December 31, 2006 and 2005.
| **/s/ KBA Group LLP** |
|-----------------------|
| Dallas, Texas         |
| March 29, 2007        |

 

----
June 28, 1954

No. 58249.

Suit 4766.

#### United States *v.*The Josebra Company.

C. D. 1476. (Appeal dismissed February 11, 1953.) (Note: Suit 4769 was substituted in lieu hereof. See Abstract 58250 in suit 4769, reported below, for final disposition of the case.)
April 21, 1964

No. 68485.

protest 62/16904.

#### Irving Lanchart *v.*United States,

Protest dismissed March 14,1964.

(Not published.) Plaintiff’s application for rehear-

ing denied.
IV 

House Calendar No. 130 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 704 

[Report No. 110–361] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3246) to amend title 40, United 

States Code, to provide a comprehensive regional approach to economic 

and infrastructure development in the most severely economically distressed regions in the Nation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 2, 2007 

Mr. ARCURI, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3246) to amend 

title 40, United States Code, to provide a comprehensive 

regional approach to economic and infrastructure development in the most severely economically distressed regions in the Nation. 

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution 

2 it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3 3246) to amend title 40, United States Code, to provide 

4 a comprehensive regional approach to economic and infra5 structure development in the most severely economically 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HRES 704 RH 

1 distressed regions in the Nation. All points of order 

2 against consideration of the bill are waived except those 

3 arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment 

4 in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Com5 mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure now printed 

6 in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in the re7 port of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolu8 tion, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, 

9 shall be considered as read. All points of order against 

10 provisions of the bill, as amended, are waived. The pre11 vious question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 

12 as amended, to final passage without intervening motion 

13 except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and con14 trolled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 

15 the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; and 

16 (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

17 SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 3246 pursuant 

18 to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the 

19 previous question, the Chair may postpone further consid20 eration of the bill to such time as may be designated by 

21 the Speaker. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

House Calendar No. 130 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 704 

[Report No. 110

–361] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3246) 

tion. verely economically distressed regions in the Naand infrastructure development in the most sea comprehensive regional approach to economic to amend title 40, United States Code, to provide 

OCTOBER 2, 2007 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
From: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: Deirdre Murphy/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Nealson Watkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EP

Date: 12/23/2010 12:14 PM

Subject: RE: Additional CO NAAQS materials

Thanks Heidi. I just talked to Kristal and she is going to check again with folks. She's been waiting to 

hear back from a couple of people. She's going to work on it now. 

From: "King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov>

To: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Deirdre Murphy/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 12/23/2010 11:04 AM

Subject: RE: Additional CO NAAQS materials

Thank you very much, Deirdre and Lydia, I will distribute them immediately.

On monitoring briefing, I suggested to Crystal that we schedule something at EPA’s convenience 1/6, 7 

or 8, but I have not heard back from her. Do you think we could confirm a time, before folks disappear 

for the holiday?

Best regards,

heidi

From: Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 11:01 AM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc: Murphy.Deirdre@epamail.epa.gov; Martin.Karen@epamail.epa.gov; 

Crabtree.Tricia@epamail.epa.gov; Watkins.Nealson@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: Additional CO NAAQS materials 

Heidi,

Deirdre has put together the pdfs of some of the key studies on CO and a technical monitoring memo that 

are cited in the draft proposed rule package. They are attached below. Please let us know if you or folks 

from other agencies would like any other materials that are discussed in the draft proposed rule. 

Lydia

1. Allred et al publications for the late 80s HEI-sponsored controlled human exposure study

 

2. Technical Memo on the CO monitoring network
From: bwulff2@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:15:36 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,

Rebecca Wulff

Cambridge, NY 12816
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-51417

JOHN N. TURNER,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION; WARDEN J. 

GRIMES, Former Warden, Lynaugh Unit, Region Four Director; WARDEN 

WHITFIELD, Lynaugh Unit; WARDEN SWIFT, Lynaugh Unit; DOCTOR 

FNU TALLEY; NURSE PRACTITIONER KEITH SEIDEL; PSYCHOLOGIST 

ROCKY INGRAM; FNU LENHERN, Grievance Officer; FNU FUENTES, 

Infirmary Administrator; FNU CHAVEZ, Safety Office and Risk Management; 

JOHN DOES; JANE DOES; ASSISTANT WARDEN FNU BOWERS,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CV-32

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John N. Turner, Texas prisoner # 713796, moves for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 11, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-51417 Document: 00514550580 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/11/2018
No. 16-51417

2

action against the defendants. Turner’s IFP motion in this court constitutes a 

challenge to the district court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in good 

faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). The district 

court stated that a notice of appeal was placed in the prison mail system on or 

about September 25, 2016, which would constitute a timely filing, but neither 

the district court’s order nor the record as a whole makes clear that the notice 

was addressed to the correct court. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 272-73 

(1988); see also Spotville v. Cain, 149 F.3d 374, 378 (5th Cir. 1998). We 

pretermit that question, see United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th 

Cir. 2000), because Turner does not show that the § 1983 complaint or any 

other claim in this case has arguable merit, see Taylor v. Johnson, 257 F.3d 

470, 472 (5th Cir. 2001); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Therefore, we DENY the IFP motion and sua sponte DISMISS this frivolous 

suit. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; Howard, 707 F.2d at 220; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

The dismissal of the complaint by the district court and the dismissal of 

this appeal as frivolous constitute two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See 

Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Turner is 

WARNED that accumulating a third strike will preclude him from proceeding

IFP in any civil action or appeal while he is incarcerated or detained in any 

facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See

§ 1915(g). 

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; IFP MOTION DENIED; 

SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

 Case: 16-51417 Document: 00514550580 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/11/2018
ORDER OF DEFAULT - 1

Case No. C05-5668 RBL

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOMMA, Official No. 250424, its Engines,

Machinery, Appurtenances, etc.,

In Rem;

and

B.B. MOMMA PACKERS, INC.,

In Personam,

Defendants.

IN ADMIRALTY

Case No. C05-5668 RBL

ORDER OF DEFAULT IN REM

AGAINST F/V MOMMA,

OFFICIAL NO. 250424, AND ALL

PERSONS WITH AN INTEREST

OR CLAIM TO THE VESSEL

WHO HAVE NOT FILED A

CLAIM AND IN PERSONAM

AGAINST B.B. MOMMA

PACKERS, INC.

THIS MATTER having come on for consideration upon motion of Industrial

Resources, Inc. for entry of an order of default in rem against F/V MOMMA, Official

No. 250424, and all persons having an interest in or claim to vessel, but who have not

filed a Rule C (6) claim herein or otherwise answered, and in personam against B.B.

Momma Packers, Inc. and the Court having reviewed the records and files herein and the

affidavit of William D. De Voe, and being otherwise advised in the premises, it is

Case 3:05-cv-05668-RBL Document 46 Filed 12/09/05 Page 1 of 2
ORDER OF DEFAULT - 2

Case No. C05-5668 RBL

ORDERED that the vessel F/V MOMMA, Official No. 250424 and all persons

with an interest in and claim to the defendant vessel who have not filed a claim, answer,

or motion to intervene are in default; and it is further

ORDERED that defendant B.B. Momma Packers, Inc. is in default. 

DATED this 9th day of November, 2005.

A

RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

HOLMES WEDDLE & BARCOTT, P.C.

____________/s/_________________________

William D. De Voe, WSBA # 14292

Attorney for Plaintiff

999 Third Avenue, Suite 2600

Seattle, WA 98104

Case 3:05-cv-05668-RBL Document 46 Filed 12/09/05 Page 2 of 2
#### Edith Imre, Respondent, v Federal Insurance Company, Defendant, and Park 58 Corp., Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 562]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, *320J.), entered on or about January 11, 1995, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Summary judgment was properly denied in view of the existence of triable issues of fact.

Plaintiff occupies a cooperative apartment in a building owned by defendant. She returned from vacation to find her living room filled with a cloud of steam, which had damaged or destroyed works of art and furniture. In opposition to defendant landlord’s motion for summary judgment, plaintiff submitted two affidavits from experienced art and furniture restorers that the damage was hot caused by normal atmospheric or weather conditions, and a report from an engineer who had inspected the premises pointing to a recently repaired living room radiator as the most probable cause of the damage. Plaintiff’s inability to locate the engineer in order to put his observations and conclusions in affidavit form was properly accepted by the court as a reasonable excuse for plaintiff’s failure to submit that proof in admissible form *(see, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562). Since the landlord’s repair of the heating system may have created the defect, proof of notice thereof to the landlord is not required at this juncture to avert dismissal. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.
NEWMAN & NEWMAN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610

Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 274-2800

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

HAYES DECL. IN SUPPORT OF

DEFS' MOTION FOR FEES

[NO. CV06-0204JCC] - Page 1

The Honorable John C. Coughenour

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

JAMES S. GORDON, Jr., a married

individual, d/b/a ‘GORDONWORKS.COM';

OMNI INNOVATIONS, LLC., a

Washington limited liability company,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VIRTUMUNDO, INC, a Delaware

corporation d/b/a

ADNOWLEDGEMAIL.COM;

ADKNOWLEDGE, INC., a Delaware

corporation, d/b/a

ADKNOWLEDGEMAIL.COM; SCOTT

LYNN, an individual; and JOHN DOES,

1-X,

Defendants.

NO. CV06-0204JCC

DECLARATION OF STEVEN M.

HAYES IN SUPPORT OF

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

I, Steven M. Hayes, declare and testify as follows:

1. I am over eighteen years of age, competent to testify to the matters stated in

this declaration, and make this declaration based upon personal knowledge.

2. Since 1974, I have been an attorney licensed to practice in New York State. 

I am admitted the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York; U.S.

Court of Appeals, Fifth and Eleventh Circuits. 

3. I am a principal at the law firm of Hanly Conroy Bierstein Sheridan Fisher

& Hayes LLP located at 112 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016-7416.

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 133 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 1 of 2

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 133

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 133 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 2 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 ORDER FOR SERVICE AND RETURN, 2254 PETITION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MONTE C. HOISINGTON,

Petitioner,

v.

HENRY RICHARDS,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5642RBL

 ORDER FOR SERVICE AND

 RETURN, § 2254 PETITION

(1) The clerk shall arrange for service by certified mail upon respondent, a copy of the

petition, of all documents in support thereof, and of this Order. All costs of service shall be

advanced by the United States. The Clerk shall assemble the necessary documents to effect service. 

The Clerk shall send petitioner a copy of this Order, the General Order.

(2) Within forty-five (45) days after such service, respondent shall file and serve an

 answer in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District

Courts. As part of such answer, respondents should state whether petitioner has exhausted available

state remedies, whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary, and whether there is any issue of abuse

of delay under Rule 9. Respondent shall not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer without

first showing cause as to why an answer is inadequate. Respondent shall file the answer with the

Case 3:05-cv-05642-RBL Document 8 Filed 12/22/05 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

27

28 ORDER FOR SERVICE AND RETURN, 2254 PETITION - 2

Clerk of Court and serve a copy of the answer upon petitioner.

(3) The answer will be treated in accordance with Local Rule CR 7. Accordingly, upon

 receipt of the Answer the Clerk will note the matter for consideration on the fourth Friday after the

answer is filed, petitioner may file and serve a response not later than on the Monday immediately

preceding the Friday appointed for consideration of the matter, and respondent may file and serve a

reply brief not later than on the Thursday immediately preceding the Friday designated for

consideration of the matter.

DATED this 22nd day of December, 2005.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05642-RBL Document 8 Filed 12/22/05 Page 2 of 2