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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

PATRICK L. GUILLORY, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. C06-747-MJP-MJB

)

v. )

)

SNOHOMISH COUNTY JAIL, et al. ) ORDER DENYING MOTION 

) FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

)

Defendants. )

_________________________________ )

The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel,

Defendants’ response in opposition, and the balance of the record, does hereby find and

ORDER:

(1) Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. #33) is DENIED. There is

no 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.
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 APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

PAGE - 2

Plaintiff has not been granted in forma pauperis status in this case. Therefore, he

fails to satisfy the financial prerequisite for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(1). 

(2) The Clerk shall send copies of this Order to Plaintiff, to counsel for

Defendants, and to the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman.

DATED this 4th day of January, 2007.

AMONICA J. BENTON

United States Magistrate Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION FROM THE COMPANY'S FIRST FISCAL
QUARTER 10-Q
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-03-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-01-1997
<CASH>                                          14,256
<SECURITIES>                                    27,040
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,571
<ALLOWANCES>                                       754
<INVENTORY>                                     11,484
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                86,191
<PP&E>                                          38,888
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,855
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 104,363
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,272
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                      85,046
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   104,363
<SALES>                                         27,913
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,913
<CGS>                                           11,343
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,343
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,311
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    756
<INCOME-TAX>                                        76
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                680
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       680
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-90,647-02

EX P ARTE NASARIO VASQUEZ, Re lator
ON AP P LICATION FOR AWRIT OF M ANDAM US CAUSE NO. 1464140-B IN THE 208T H DISTRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R
Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamu s p u rsuant to the orig inal jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habea s corpus in the 208 District Court of Har ris County , and that the habea s application was forwa rded to this T H Court without Relator ever rec eiving a copy of any filed answe rs, motions, and finding s of fac t and conclusions of law
. In these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. Respondent, the District Clerk of Har ris County , is order ed to file a response as to whether copies of all pleading s, aff idavits, and order s filed relating to Relator' s habea s applications were mailed or delivered to Relator, and if not, why not.2

I f such documents have not been mailed or delivere d to Re l at o r, t h e cler k shall forwa

rd any documents descr ibed i n Ru l e 7 3 .4(b)( 2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedur e to Relator immediately
. I f such documents have been mailed or delivere d to R el at o r, t he cler k shall submit proof of the date upon which such documents wer e mailed or delivere d. This application for leave to file a writ of mandamus shall be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitt ed the appropr iate response . Such response shall be submitted within 30 day s of the date of this order.

Filed: Mar ch 11, 2020 Do not publish
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6170

JACOB MUHAMMAD FARRAKHAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD MOATS, Warden; MUHAMMAD SALAAM, Islamic

Chaplain; RICHARD LANHAM,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-95-

1081-AMD)

Submitted: June 11, 1996 Decided: August 2, 1996

Before HALL, LUTTIG, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jacob Muhammad Farrakhan, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran,

Jr., Attorney General, Richard M. Kastendieck, 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:

Appellant appeals the district court's order disposing of only

one of his claims raised in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is

not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over

final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory

and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable

interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We 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.

DISMISSED
No. 61152.

protests 287746-K, etc. (New York).

#### General Preserve Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bitter orange pulp the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *T. M. Duche & Sons, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(44 C. C. P. A 60, C. A. D. 638), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
----

| 1. | I      have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Penn West Energy Trust;      and |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a      material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the      statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements      were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this      report. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/      William E. AndrewWilliam E. AndrewChief Executive Officer of Penn WestPetroleumLtd. |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 25, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 73386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23504]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 25, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 18, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
76 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, 
Docket Nos. MC2024-16, CP2024-16.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-23504 Filed 10-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
No. 57534.

#### M. Kopit Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 124165-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of platinum fox fur skins, undressed, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *O. Brager-Larsen*(36 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 388). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was therefore sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 307 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 307

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the ongoing prosecution 
               of 13 members of Iran's Jewish community.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 13, 2000

 Mr. Gilman (for himself, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Hastert, and Mr. Gejdenson) 
 submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to 
                the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the ongoing prosecution 
               of 13 members of Iran's Jewish community.

Whereas on the eve of the Jewish holiday of Passover in 1999, 13 Jews, including 
        community and religious leaders in the cities of Shiraz and Isfahan, 
        were arrested by the authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran and 
        accused of spying for the United States and Israel;
Whereas no evidence has been brought forth to substantiate these arrests, and no 
        formal charges have been lodged after more than a year of consideration;
Whereas the Secretary of State has identified the case of the 13 Jews in Shiraz 
        as ``one of the barometers of U.S.-Iran relations'';
Whereas countless nations have expressed their concern for these individuals and 
        especially their human rights under the rule of law;
Whereas Iran must show signs of respecting human rights as a prerequisite for 
        improving its relationship with the United States; and
Whereas President Khatami was elected on a platform of moderation and reform: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the Clinton Administration 
should--
            (1) condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the arrest 
        and continued prosecution of the 13 Iranian Jews;
            (2) demand that these fabricated charges be dropped 
        immediately and individuals released forthwith; and
            (3) ensure that Iran's treatment of this case is a 
        benchmark for determining the nature of current and future 
        United States-Iran relations.
                                 <all>
```
IV

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 134

Expressing the sense of Congress with regard to ‘‘In Memory’’ Day.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 16, 1999

Mr. FILNER submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Government Reform

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress with regard to ‘‘In

Memory’’ Day.

Whereas many of the individuals who served in the Armed

Forces and in civilian roles in Vietnam during the Vietnam War have since died, in part as the result of illnesses and conditions associated with service in Vietnam

during that war;

Whereas these men and women, whose ultimate health conditions had a basis in their service in Vietnam during the

Vietnam War, sacrificed their lives for their country in a

very real sense;

Whereas under criteria established by the Department of Defense, the deaths of these men and women do not qualify

as Vietnam War deaths;
2

•HCON 134 IH

Whereas under Department guidelines, these men and women

also do not meet the criteria for eligibility to have their

names inscribed on the Memorial Wall of the Vietnam

Veterans Memorial in the District of Columbia;

Whereas ‘‘In Memory’’ Day was established several years ago

in order to honor the Americans who gave their lives in

service to their country as a result of service in Vietnam

but had not otherwise been honored for doing so;

Whereas ‘‘In Memory’’ Day is now a project of the Vietnam

Veterans Memorial Fund;

Whereas to date 633 Americans have met the criteria for eligibility to be honored by the ‘‘In Memory’’ Program; and

Whereas the Americans who have been named by the ‘‘In

Memory’’ Program are honored each year during a ceremony at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial: Now, therefore,

be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That Congress supports the goals and ideas

3 of ‘‘In Memory’’ Day to honor the men and women of the

4 United States whose deaths had a basis in their service

5 in Vietnam during the Vietnam conflict and who are there6 by true examples of patriotism and sacrifice to the Nation.

Æ
Artisoft, Inc. and Subsidiaries
                  EXHIBIT 11. COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                    (in thousands, except per share amounts)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               Three Months Ended            Six Months Ended    
                                                   December 31,               December 31,       
                                               --------------------        --------------------  
                                                  1996       1996            1996        1995    
                                                  ----       ----            ----        ----    
<S>                                            <C>        <C>              <C>         <C>       
Net Loss                                       $ (1,950)  $ (13,234)       $ (5,335)   $(12,770) 
                                               ========   =========        ========    ========  
Weighted Average Shares:                                                                       
   Common shares outstanding                     14,536      14,464          14,530      14,452  
                                                                                                 
   Common Equivalent shares representing                                                         
   shares issuable upon exercise of stock                                                        
   options (1)                                     --          --              --           413  
                                               --------   ---------        --------    --------  
       Total weighted average shares -                                                           
           primary                               14,536      14,464          14,530      14,865  
                                                                                                 
Primary net loss per common and                                                                
equivalent share (2)                           $   (.13)  $    (.91)       $   (.37)   $   (.86) 
                                               ========   =========        ========    ========  
</TABLE>

------
Notes:

(1)    Amount calculated using the treasury stock method and fair market values.
(2)    Primary and fully diluted net income per common and equivalent shares are
       the same
                                       18
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION FURNISHED PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of SWS Group, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 24, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth R. Hanks, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 2, 2004 |  | /S/ Kenneth R. Hanks   
|                       |  | Kenneth R. Hanks       
|                       |  | Chief Financial Officer

|
|
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 587 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 587

     Expressing the sense of the House of the Representatives that 
 legislation to renew or grant fast track trade negotiating authority 
 should not be considered by the House of Representatives in the 110th 
                               Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2007

 Mr. Kildee (for himself, Ms. Sutton, Ms. Kaptur, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. 
   Sherman, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Allen, Mr. 
 Grijalva, Mr. Hare, Mr. Ellison, Ms. Solis, Mr. Goode, Mr. Visclosky, 
Mr. Braley of Iowa, Mr. Oberstar, Ms. Woolsey, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of 
California, Mr. Mollohan, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. DeFazio, Ms. 
Lee, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. Filner, Mr. Pallone, and Mr. 
 Cohen) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Expressing the sense of the House of the Representatives that 
 legislation to renew or grant fast track trade negotiating authority 
 should not be considered by the House of Representatives in the 110th 
                               Congress.

Whereas ``fast track'' trade negotiating authority provided by the Trade Act of 
        2002 expired on July 1, 2007;
Whereas altering the name of fast track authority to ``trade promotion 
        authority'' in the Trade Act of 2002 was an attempt to mischaracterize 
        the use of this authority to conceal the harm unfair trade policies have 
        on hard-working Americans;
Whereas the United States has entered into free trade agreements under the 
        recently expired fast track authority with Singapore, Chile, Australia, 
        Morocco, Bahrain, and Oman, as well as five Central American countries--
        Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Guatemala--and the 
        Dominican Republic;
Whereas the United States has signed free trade agreements with Peru, Colombia, 
        Panama, and South Korea under the recently expired Fast Track 
        legislation;
Whereas the United States' trade deficit in goods and services has skyrocketed 
        under the recently expired fast track authority from $423,700,000,000 in 
        2002 to $758,500,000,000 in 2006--an increase of 79 percent;
Whereas the United States lost 1,062,000 manufacturing jobs from 2002 through 
        2006; and
Whereas Congress has the constitutional authority and responsibility to oversee 
        the Nation's trade policy: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
the House of Representatives should not consider legislative proposals 
to grant ``fast track'' or any other form of expedited trade 
negotiating authority during the 110th Congress.
                                 <all>
```
No. 67662.

#### Westerman Mfg. Co. *v.*United States,

protests 59/4394, 60/11661, and 59/33718 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of nylon watch bands similar in use to manufactures of silk and following the principles set forth in *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 CCPA 47, C.A.D. 727), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Order entered June 29, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00567-CV

DARLENE C. AMRHEIN, Appellant

V.

ATTORNEY LENNIE F. BOLLINGER, AND WORMINTON & BOLLINGER LAW 

FIRM, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 006-02654-2017

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s June 19, 2018 “supplement to notice of appeal and docket 

statements as needed to supplement issues.” It appears appellant is concerned about the record 

being filed and her ability to meet deadlines in this Court.

We note the record is not due until September 11, 2018, and the briefing deadlines are not 

triggered until the complete appellate record is filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.1(a), 38.6(a). 

Accordingly, to the extent appellant seeks an extension of time to file her brief, we DENY the 

request as premature.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE