alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Kai Christopher CHRISTMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John W. SUTHERS, Ex. Dir. D.O.C.; Robert W. Furlong; and Attorney General of the State of Colorado, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 00-1439.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

April 20, 2001.

*717Before SEYMOUR, McKAY, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

McKAY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs 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); 10th Cir.R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Petitioner was serving an indeterminate sentence in the Colorado penal system when he escaped from the Colorado State Hospital. While on the lam, he was convicted of child molestation in California, where he served time and was later paroled. California then returned him to the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections. Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition with the federal district court of Colorado, arguing that Colorado has no authority to further incarcerate him in light of a “discharge” letter he had received from the Colorado State Hospital at some point after his escape. The court denied the habeas petition and Petitioner’s subsequent requests for a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Petitioner appeals all three district court orders.

Throughout these proceedings, Petitioner’s claims appear to have been treated as though brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Given the nature of his claims, however, we note that, technically, they should have proceeded under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as an attack on the execution of his sentence. *See Montez v. McKinna,*208 F.3d 862, 865 (10th Cir.2000). Either way, the consequences are the same in the instant case: Petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability prior to being heard on appeal. *See id.*at 868-69. A court will issue a certificate “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Petitioner could do so by demonstrating that his claims warrant fur*718ther proceedings, “subject to a different resolution on appeal,” or are debatable among reasonable jurists. *Montez,*208 F.3d at 869. We agree with the district court that Petitioner has failed to make the necessary showing. Accordingly, we DENY Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS his ha-beas appeal. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.

*

 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.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC
SPA RENTAL, LLC, d/b/a/MSI AVIATION, Complainant,


### v. SOMERSET- PULASKI COUNTY AIRPORT BOARD, Respondent. FAADocket No. 16-13-02

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME
This matter is before the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted AirportEriforcementProceedings, 14 CFRPart 16. Pursuant to 14 CFRPart 16, subpart B, the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to November 18,2014. Ao extension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this case.

Ra'ndall S. Fiertz Director, Airport Compliance and Management Aoalysis 

# cr DateCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 5, 2014, I caused to be placed inthe United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy oftheNotice ofExtension ofTime to November 18,2014 for FAA DocketNo. 16-13-02 addressed to: Counsel for Complainant: Komad Kuczak 130 West Second Street, Suite 1010 Dayton, OH 45402
Counsel for Respondent: Rachel Owsley Bethany 

### A. Breetz Stites & Harbison, PLLC 400 West Market Street, Suite 1800 Louisville, KY 40202
Hand delivered to: FAAPart 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-100 

# (7

.

[' ;}
.

__· - -- '**~!** / 

# tC/!Puf {ll 

# 1cl audia Roberts Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis
Exhibit 23

                      Independent Auditors' Consent


The Board of Directors
International Multifoods Corporation

We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-51399 on Form S-8 relating to the Employees' Voluntary Investment
and Savings Plan of International Multifoods Corporation, No. 333-34173
on Form S-8 relating to the Stock Purchase Plan of Robin Hood Multifoods
Inc., No 2-84236 on Form S-8 relating to the 1983 Stock Option Incentive
Plan of International Multifoods Corporation, No. 33-6223 on Form S-8
relating to the 1986 Stock Option Incentive Plan of International
Multifoods Corporation, No. 33-30979 on Form S-8 relating to the Amended
and Restated 1989 Stock-Based Incentive Plan of International Multifoods
Corporation, No. 333-34171 on Form S-8 and No. 333-69387 on Form S-8
relating to the 1997 Stock-Based Incentive Plan of International
Multifoods Corporation, No. 333-64075 on Form S-8 relating to the
Consulting Agreement between International Multifoods Corporation and
Daryl Schaller and No. 33-65221 on Form S-3 relating to certain debt
securities of International Multifoods Corporation of our reports dated
March 27, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
International Multifoods Corporation and subsidiaries as of February 29,
2000 and February 28, 1999 and the related consolidated statements of
operations, cash flows, and shareholders' equity, and related financial
statement schedule for each of the fiscal years in the three-year period
ended February 29, 2000, which reports appear or are incorporated by
reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
February 29, 2000, of International Multifoods Corporation.



/s/ KPMG LLP


Minneapolis, Minnesota
May 15, 2000
(Reap. Dec. 10980)

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

Entry No. CE 1909, etc.

(Decided May 13, 1965)

*Stein & Shostale*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Nichols, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in the schedule, attached hereto and made a part hereof, are before me on the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That as to the merchandise marked “V” and initialed EP by Erank L. Pierce on the invoices accompanying the entries covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases, which is incorporated herein, the market values and the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale or sold for exportation to the United States, on the dates of exportation thereof to the United States, to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, such prices including the cost of all containers *659and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the ex factory invoiced unit values, net packed.

> 2. That as to any of the merchandise covered by this stipulation which is included in the Final List of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521, 93 Treas. Dec. 14, issued January 20, 1958, pursuant to See. 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, there were no higher foreign values for such or similar merchandise on the dates of exportation involved herein.

> 3. That the footwear covered by the entries, the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases, is unlike any footwear manufactured or produced in the United States.

> 4. That the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases may be deemed submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation, which is limited to the merchandise and the issues described hereinabove, and abandoned in all other respects.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) or 402a (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 70 Stat. 943, is the proper basis for determination of the value of the merchandise represented by the items marked with the letter “V” and the initials of the examiner on the invoices accompanying the entries covered by these appeals and that such value is represented by the ex-factory invoiced unit values, net, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
----

Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 September 2006 — Baltussen and Others v Commission

(Case T-13/00) (1)

(2006/C 261/61)

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Second Chamber Extended Composition has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

----

(1)OJ C 135, 13.5.2000.

----
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY BARBARIN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0894 RRB KJM P

vs.

A.K. SCRIBNER,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

On December 12, 2005, respondent filed his answer to the petition for a writ of

habeas corpus electronically. The answer itself consists of five pages, while the supporting

memorandum of points and authorities is sixty pages long. 

Under Local Rule 5-133 (f), respondent was required to provide a courtesy copy

of his memorandum to chambers no later than the business day following the filing. He has not

done so.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent must comply with Local Rule 

5-133 (f) within thirty days of the date of this order.

DATED: December 29, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2/barb0894.cc

Case 2:04-cv-00894-MDS Document 31 Filed 12/29/05 Page 1 of 1
1 The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-4070

___________ State of Minnesota, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Philander Dermont Jenkins, Jr., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: October 7, 2005 Filed: October 12, 2005

___________ Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Philander Dermont Jenkins sought to remove a criminal case pending against him in Hennepin County, Minnesota, to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. The district court 1 summarily remanded the action to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4). This appeal followed. We note our authority to review whether the district court erred in denying removal under section 1443, see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), and we agree with the district-2- court that Jenkins failed to show sufficient grounds to support his invocation of section 1443, see 28 U.S.C. § 1443; Georgia v. Rachel , 384 U.S. 780, 792, 797-99 (1966); City of Greenwood v. Peacock , 384 U.S. 808, 826-27, 832 (1966). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
#### Albert MILLER, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patricia BAILEY; David M. Hinds; Joseph E. Swanton; Hashemee Sayd, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-6140.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2001.

Decided April 18, 2001.

*126Albert Miller, III, pro se. Burén Riley Shields, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Kari Russwurm Johnson, Cran-fill, Sumner *&*Hartzog, L.L.P., Raleigh, NC, for appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Albert Miller, III, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Miller v. Bailey,*No. CA-00-172-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Nov. 20, 2000). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### Stanley COOPER, Sheila T. Cooper, Richard C. Stein, as Trustee of the Trusts for the benefit of Michael Cooper, Richard C. Stein, as Trustee of the trust for the benefit of Adam Cooper, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Richard K. GOTTLIEB, Charles G. Berg, Alan Andreini, Defendants-Appellees, Gerald L. Parsky, William E. Simon, Michael J. Sacks, J. Michael Bell, Elizabeth Cole, Peter Ackerman, John H. Long, Jr., WSGP International, Inc., WSGP-Partners, L.P., WSGP-Limited Partnership, WSGP-USP, Inc., Aurora 1800 Partners, L.P., Century City 1800 Partners, L.P., Wespar Insurance Brokerage Inc., Southwest Venture Partners II, BMG Partners, Inc., W. Ross Reucassell, Raymond F. Sebastian, IGI-BOLER Inc., Boler Petroleum Corporation, The International Group, Inc., (Delaware), The International Group, Inc. (Canada), Defendants.

No. 00-9255.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 17, 2001.

Edward Cherney, New York, NY, for appellants.

Richard T. Joffe, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP; Dean J. Kitchens, on the brief, New York, NY, for appellees.

Present WINTER, STRAUB and POOLER, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

AFTER ARGUMENT AND UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Plaintiffs Appellants Stanley Cooper, Sheila T. Cooper, and Richard C. Stein as trustee of the trusts for the benefit of Michael Cooper and Adam Cooper (collectively the “Coopers”) appeal from an order entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (John G. Koeltl, *Judge*), granting summary judgment to Defendants Appel-lees Richard K. Gottlieb, Charles G. Berg, and Alan Andreini (the “defendants”). The Coopers brought this action alleging *29that the defendants, three corporate directors of U.S. Petroleum (“USP”), breached a December 22, 1987 Voting Agreement under which the defendants were given proxies to vote the Coopers’ shares of stock in USP. The Coopers alleged that as a result of the defendants’ actions, they lost the value of their shares in USP, which was subsequently dissolved in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. The Coopers sought $100 million in compensatory damages and $100 million in punitive damages.

For substantially the reasons stated in the District Court’s thorough Opinion and Order of September 4, 2000, we affirm the grant of summary judgment for the defendants. We agree with the District Court that the defendants could not have violated the Voting Agreement because they never voted the Coopers’ shares. Under the Voting Agreement, liability attaches only when the voters vote shares and do so in a manner that is grossly negligent or constitutes willful misconduct.

We have' considered all of the appellants’ claims on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court. Appellants and their counsel are advised that the Court deems this appeal to be frivolous. Save for a petition for rehearing and rehearing in banc in this Court and the seeking of relief in the Supreme Court of the United States, any further litigation in this matter may be subject to sanctions.
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

 Defendants.

No. 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB-P

ORDER

On June 2, 2015, the Court issued an order in response to Plaintiff’s motions seeking to 

obtain the appearance of numerous incarcerated witnesses at trial, and for both him and the 

incarcerated witnesses to appear at trial via video or telephonic conference. (ECF No. 285.) 

The June 2, 2015, Order found that the number of witnesses proposed by Plaintiff would 

be an undue waste of time and needlessly present cumulative evidence to the jury in violation of 

Fed. R. Evid. 403. The Order further provided that Plaintiff should submit a motion, with 

accompanying affidavits, to obtain the attendance of a maximum of five incarcerated witnesses at 

trial. The Court also denied Plaintiff’s motions for him and the incarcerated witnesses to appear 

via video or telephonic conference. 

On June 25, 2015, Plaintiff submitted objections to the Court’s Order. (ECF No. 288.) It 

appears Plaintiff again objects to his and the incarcerated witnesses having to appear in person at 

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 289 Filed 07/01/15 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

2

trial. The objection is noted and the request is again denied; the Court will issue the necessary 

writs to ensure their appearance at trial.

Plaintiff also objects to having “to submit (5) more Motions with Affidavits of Plaintiff’s 

selection” of the incarcerated witnesses to testify, and requests further clarification. Plaintiff may 

submit one motion stating which five witnesses are to testify. Together with that motion, Plaintiff 

may either refile the necessary affidavits, specific to the five witnesses, or clearly reference which 

are the correct affidavits already filed in “Plaintiff’s Motion / Affidavit Re: Attendance of 

Incarcerated Witnesses to Appear At Jury Trial,” ECF No. 282. Plaintiff shall file such a motion 

and/or affidavits within 7 days of the date of this order. 

Dated: June 30, 2015

 

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 289 Filed 07/01/15 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JULIAN and MARTHA MICHALIK :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4888

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04288-PBT Document 8 Filed 10/02/2002 Page 1 of 1
Amendment to YRC Worldwide Inc. Transferred Executives' Supplemental Retirement



 Exhibit 10.4 
 AMENDMENT 
 YRC WORLDWIDE INC. TRANSFERRED EXECUTIVES’ 
 SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN 
 (Effective January 1, 2006) 
 THIS AGREEMENT is entered
into by YRC Worldwide Inc. (the “Company”) this 1st day of July, 2008. 
 WITNESSETH: 
 WHEREAS, the Company maintains the YRC Worldwide Inc. Transferred Executives’ Supplemental Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) for
the benefit of the employees of the Company and its participating affiliates; 
 WHEREAS, Section 5.1 of the Plan provides that
the Company, through action of its Board of Directors or the Board of Directors delegated representative, may amend the Plan at any time; 
 WHEREAS, the Company has determined to amend the Plan to freeze future benefit accruals; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the
Company agrees that the Plan is amended, effective July 1, 2008, as set forth below: 
 1. Add the following sentence to the end of
Section 2.1: 
 Notwithstanding any other provision of the SRP to the contrary, no Eligible Employee shall become a Participant on or
after July 1, 2008. 
 2. Add a new Section 3.1(vii) to the end of Section 3.1 immediately following Section 3.1(vi):

 (vii) notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan to the contrary, a Participant’s Compensation shall not include any amounts
earned on or after July 1, 2008 and, for purposes of benefit accrual, a Participant’s Service shall not include any period beginning on or after July 1, 2008. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Sponsor has caused this Agreement to be executed on the
1st day of July, 2008. 
  

			
	YRC WORLDWIDE INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Harold D. Marshall

		 	Harold D. Marshall,
		 	Vice President-Employee Benefits
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VALENTIN TRUJILLO,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0789 WBS DAD P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondents’ July 19, 2005, request for leave to file a supplemental answer is

granted;

2. Petitioner may file and serve a reply within thirty days after service of this

order; and

3. The Clerk shall file the twenty three-page supplemental answer attached to

respondents’ July 19, 2005 request.

DATED: July 21, 2005.

DAD:13

truj0789.suppans

Case 2:04-cv-00789-MCE -DAD Document 15 Filed 07/21/05 Page 1 of 1
November 6, 1957

No. 61329.

protests 245003-K, 245004-K, and 245005-K.

#### Baron Tube Co. and John S. James *v.*United States,

C. D. 1910. Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

CHARLES T. DAVIS, Case No. 2:04-CIV-0878 GEB DAD P

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING

v. DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR AN

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A

C/O KISSENGER, et al., RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Defendants.

 /

Good cause appearing, defendants’ March 30, 2006 request for an extension of

time to file their responsive pleading is granted. Defendants’ responsive pleading is due on or

before May 1, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 31, 2006.

/davi0878.extresp

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 23 Filed 04/03/06 Page 1 of 1