alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7177

JERRY ADAM HELMS, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PATRICK CONROY; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE

OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA02-68-PJM)

Submitted: November 18, 2004 Decided: November 29, 2004

Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Adam Helms, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Adam Helms, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion,

in which he sought reconsideration of the district court’s denial

of his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v.

Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Helms has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. To the extent Helms’ notice

of appeal and informal brief could be construed as a motion for

authorization to file a second or successive § 2254 petition, we

deny such authorization. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d

200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 3 -

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 281 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 281

To authorize testimony and representation of employees of the Senate in 
                United States v. Alphonso Michael Espy.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 23, 1998

    Mr. Lott (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To authorize testimony and representation of employees of the Senate in 
                United States v. Alphonso Michael Espy.

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Alphonso Michael Espy, Criminal Case 
        No. 97-0335, pending in the United States District Court for the 
        District of Columbia, a trial subpoena has been served upon Galen 
        Fountain and Jo Nobles, employees of the Senate, and Leslie Chalmers 
        Tagg, formerly an employee of the Senate;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent employees of the Senate with respect to 
        any subpoena, order, or request for testimony relating to their official 
        responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and Rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial process, be taken from 
        such control or possession but by permission of the Senate; and
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistently with 
        the privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Galen Fountain, Jo Nobles, Leslie Chalmers Tagg, and 
any other employee from whom testimony may be required, are authorized 
to testify in the case of United States v. Alphonso Michael Espy, 
except concerning matters for which a privilege should be asserted.
    Sec. 2. That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent 
Galen Fountain, Jo Nobles, Leslie Chalmers Tagg, and any other employee 
of the Senate, in connection with testimony in United States v. 
Alphonso Michael Espy.
                                 <all>
```
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

DARREL WAYNE VANDERGRIFF

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

TONY GAMBONE, et al.,

CASE NUMBER: C06-5381RBL

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried

and the jury has rendered its verdict.

 XX Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been

tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

 IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

That Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution is GRANTED; and

Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.

 September 23, 2008 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Date Clerk

 s/CM Gonzalez 

Deputy Clerk
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

WAYNE RICHARDSON

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

SANDRA CARTER, et al.

CASE NUMBER: C06-5324FDB/KLS

 

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been

tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

 XX Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues

have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

 IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. 

2. Defendant's motion is GRANTED.

3. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and to count this as a dismissal

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

 October 3, 2007 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Clerk

 s/ D. Forbes 

 By, Deputy Clerk

 

Case 3:06-cv-05324-FDB Document 39 Filed 10/03/07 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 54-6 Filed 10/31/11 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 54-6 Filed 10/31/11 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 54-6 Filed 10/31/11 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 54-6 Filed 10/31/11 Page 4 of 4
01 

02 

03 

04 

05 

06 

07 

08 

09 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22

ORDER STRIKING MOTION TO 

AMEND AND DENYING MOTION 

TO APPOINT COUNSEL - 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

CURTIS S. THOMPSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

OFFICER BURACH, et al., 

Defendants. 

____________________________________

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. C05-2064-JLR-MAT 

ORDER STRIKING MOTION TO 

AMEND AND DENYING MOTION 

TO APPOINT COUNSEL 

 

 This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before the 

Court are plaintiff’s motions to amend his complaint and to appoint counsel. The Court, 

having reviewed plaintiff’s motions, and the balance of the record, does hereby ORDER as 

follows: 

 (1) Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint (Dkt. No. 151) is STRICKEN. 

Plaintiff seeks to add defendants to this action by way of the instant motion to amend. 

However, plaintiff failed to submit a proposed amended complaint in conjunction with his 

motion. Plaintiff was previously advised that the Court would strike any motion to amend 

which was not accompanied by a proposed amended complaint. (See Dkt. No. 108.) 

 (2) Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 151) is DENIED. There is no 

Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR Document 152 Filed 10/18/10 Page 1 of 2
01 

02 

03 

04 

05 

06 

07 

08 

09 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22

ORDER STRIKING MOTION TO 

AMEND AND DENYING MOTION 

TO APPOINT COUNSEL - 2 

right to have counsel appointed in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although the Court, 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), can request counsel to represent a party proceeding in forma 

pauperis, the Court may do so only in exceptional circumstances. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 

F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984); 

Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980). A finding of exceptional circumstances 

requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the 

plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. 

Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. 

 Plaintiff has neither demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits nor shown that, 

in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved, he is unable to articulate his claims pro se. 

Thus, plaintiff has not demonstrated that this case involves exceptional circumstances which 

warrant appointment of counsel at the present time. 

 (3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for 

defendants, and to the Honorable James L. Robart. 

 DATED this 18th day of October, 2010. 

A

Mary Alice Theiler 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-02064-JLR Document 152 Filed 10/18/10 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-mj-00370-PKS Document 6 Filed 07/13/06 Page 1 of 1
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 TAXATION OF COSTS -- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MARVIN DAVIS AND SALINA MCCOY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

OFFICER JAMES KELLER and OFFICER

MIKE RAYBORN,

Defendants.

Case No. C02-2440RSM

TAXATION OF COSTS

Costs in the above-entitled action are hereby taxed against PLAINTIFFS MARVIN DAVIS and

SALINA MCCOY and on behalf of DEFENDANTS KING COUNTY AND CITY OF BURIEN in the

amount of $1,762.70.

Dated this 26th day of JANUARY, 2006 .

A

Bruce Rifkin

Clerk, U.S. District Court

Case 2:02-cv-02440-RSM Document 248 Filed 01/26/06 Page 1 of 1
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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

SUNITA BALLARD, TASHA BOWEN,

DEBRA DOYLE, ERIKA FORBES,

REBECCA KLINGMAN, DEVRA SAWYER

a\k\a ALANI WORRELL, LISA SIMMONS,

and CINDY WELLS, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES, INC., a Delaware

corporation, ELTON EDUCATION, INC., a

Washington corporation d/b/a BRYMAN

COLLEGE; TIMOTHY ALLEN; a

Washington State resident,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5256 FDB

ORDER GRANTING CORINTHIAN

COLLEGES INC,’S MOTION TO

COMPEL ARBITRATION OF

DEBRA DOYLE

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to compel Plaintiff Debra Doyle

to submit her claims to arbitration and dismiss her from this action. After reviewing all materials

submitted by the parties and relied upon for authority, the Court is fully informed and hereby grants

the motion to compel arbitration.

This action is related to and mirrors three other cases currently before this Court, Fisher et al

v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., C05-5412; Reed v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al., C05-5601; and

Case 3:06-cv-05256-FDB Document 13 Filed 06/28/06 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 ORDER - 2

Anderson et al. V. Corinthian Colleges Inc., et al., C06-5157. In Fisher et al., C05-5412, this Court

determined that twenty-one select plaintiffs were subject to arbitration provisions contained in their

written enrollment agreements. The Court entered an Order August, 9, 2005 [Dkt #23] compelling

said plaintiffs to submit their claims to arbitration and dismissing their claims from the action pursuant

to the terms of the arbitration provisions. Subsequently, an additional plaintiff was found to be

subject to arbitration and dismissed from the action by Stipulated Order of Dismissal [Dkt #33]. In

the present action, Plaintiffs have not responded to the motion to compel arbitration of Debra Doyle’s

claims. Local Rule 7(b)(2) of the Western District of Washington provides that failure to file papers

in opposition may be deemed by the Court as an admission that the motion has merit. In light of the

Court’s prior consideration of the validity of the arbitration provisions and the Plaintiff’s failure to

respond, the Court finds Debra Doyle subject to arbitration. 

ACCORDINGLY,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Corinthian Colleges, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration of Debra Doyle [Dkt. #3] is

GRANTED and her claims dismissed from this action.

DATED this 28th day of June, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05256-FDB Document 13 Filed 06/28/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 23.2

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the use of our report dated February 5, 2010, with respect to the balance sheets of Decker Coal Company (A Joint
Venture) as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related statements of earnings (loss) and comprehensive income (loss), joint venture deficit, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2009, which report appears in the December 31, 2009 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cloud Peak Energy, Inc.

/s/ KPMG LLP Omaha, Nebraska
March 15, 2010


---



QuickLinks
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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

AKLILUTA GIRMU, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. C05-1798-MJB

)

v. )

) ORDER 

NORTHWEST BASEBALL UMPIRES )

ASSOCIATION, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

On October 27, 2005, Plaintiff lodged a pro se employment discrimination complaint in

this Court pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to employ him as an umpire because of his national origin,

which is East African. Plaintiff alleges that he was called and told “I was not going to be given a

job because English is my second language.” Dkt. # 6. Plaintiff has been granted leave to

proceed in forma pauperis. This matter is currently before the Court on Plaintiff’s Application

for Court Appointed Counsel. Dkt. #2.

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, and the record in its entirety, the Court finds and

ORDERS:

(1) Plaintiff’s case is referred to the Screening Committee of this Court’s pro bono

panel. The Committee shall review the case and make its recommendation to the Court, in

accordance with the plan and rules for the pro bono panel.

Case 2:05-cv-01798-MJP Document 8 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 1 of 2

Girmu v. Northwest Baseball Umpires Association Doc. 8

Dockets.Justia.com
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 - 2

(2) Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. #2) shall be RE-NOTED for

consideration on December 16, 2005, to allow the pro bono panel time to make its

recommendation.

DATED this 4th day of November, 2005.

AMONICA J. BENTON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01798-MJP Document 8 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 2 of 2
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 288

Authorizing the printing of the Report of the Task Force on Economic

Sanctions.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 6 (legislative day, OCTOBER 2), 1998

Mr. MCCONNELL submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Rules and Administration

RESOLUTION

Authorizing the printing of the Report of the Task Force

on Economic Sanctions.

1 Resolved, That the ‘‘Report of the Task Force on

2 Economic Sanctions’’, be printed as a Senate document,

3 and that there be printed 300 additional copies of such

4 document for the use of the Task Force on Economic

5 Sanctions.

Æ
*

 After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R.

34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This

Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be

cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUL 10 2002

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

CARL DIXON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

RICHARD SOARES and KEN

SALAZAR, Attorney General for the

State of Colorado,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 02-1093

(D.C. No. 99-D-528)

(D. Colorado)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before EBEL, LUCERO and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

Carl Dixon appeals pro se from the denial of his petition for habeas corpus

relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dixon was convicted in Colorado state court of

first degree felony murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. His § 2254

petition argues five grounds for relief: (1) that he did not voluntarily waive his
- 2 -

right to testify; (2) that no probable cause existed for the issuance of a search

warrant; (3) that evidence irrelevant to the crime charged erroneously was

admitted; (4) that a prior inconsistent statement of a witness erroneously was

excluded; and (5) that the evidence was insufficient to convict.

The magistrate judge recommended denial of the first, third, and fourth

claims on the merits, of the second claim as not cognizable in habeas because it

was fully litigated in state court, and of the fifth claim as procedurally barred. 

After carefully evaluating Dixon’s claims, the district court adopted the

magistrate’s recommendation.

For substantially the reasons given by the district court, we GRANT

Dixon’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, DENY a certificate of appealability,

and DISMISS the appeal.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel

Circuit Judge
Before the First Division,

January 21, 1954

No. 57786.

petition 6962-R (New York).

#### Picker International Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The uncontradicted testimony showed that petitioner had made previous importations of these craniographs and that its broker always sought information from the appraiser prior to entry .concerning the proper value of the merchandise; that, prior to the importation in question, petitioner “switched” its import business to a new company, and the entry under consideration was the first ever made by the broker in this instance; and that as soon as petitioner learned that the value stated on the entry was too low, proper adjustment was made. Government counsel stated that “we had the case investigated, and we are satisfied to ask no questions and rest.” On the record presented, the court was satisfied that there was no intent to defraud the revenue of the United States, or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case, or to der ceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
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

DUANE THORN RAY,

Petitioner,

v.

DOUGLAS WADDINGTON,

Respondent.

Case No. C06-5260 RBL/KLS

 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, and the General Order. The clerk will also send

a courtesy copy of the petition to the Washington State Attorney General’s Office Criminal Justice

Division. 

(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, respondent 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

Case 3:06-cv-05260-RBL Document 14 Filed 12/07/06 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 ORDER FOR SERVICE AND RETURN, 2254 PETITION - 2

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

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 7th day of December, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05260-RBL Document 14 Filed 12/07/06 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

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

DOMINI BOONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF

SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants. 

Case No. C06-857RSL

ORDER DENYING MOTION

 FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the

December 20, 2006 order denying plaintiff’s motion to compel and dismissing plaintiff’s

complaint. Plaintiff filed this timely motion on January 5, 2007.

“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny such motions

in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or

legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable

diligence.” Local Rule 7(h). In this case, plaintiff has not shown manifest error in the prior

ruling or shown new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to the Court’s

attention earlier with reasonable diligence. 

Case 2:06-cv-00857-RSL Document 37 Filed 01/10/07 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

1

 Plaintiff erroneously filed the same motion for reconsideration twice, so her motion for

reconsideration also appears at Dkt. #35.

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION -2-

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #33)1 is DENIED.

DATED this 10th day of January, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00857-RSL Document 37 Filed 01/10/07 Page 2 of 2
No. 52763.

#### S. S. Kresge Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 123059-K, etc. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.