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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Julius Jones

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0950 LKK CMK P

vs.

Dave Runnells, Warden, et al., 

Respondents.

 / ORDER

On October 6, 2005, this court ordered petitioner to, within two weeks, either file

an amended petition or to file a statement that he will stand on his existing petition. Petitioner

has responded to the court’s order. 

In his response, petitioner’s counsel, Victor Holtom, states that he will no longer

be able to represent Mr. Jones due to other professional and personal involvements. He requests

that the court allow him to make arrangements to secure the appointment of replacement counsel

for Mr. Jones through the Federal Public Defender’s Office. The court will grant Mr. Holtom’s

request. Any substitution of attorneys must comply with Local Rule 83-182. 

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-00950-LKK -CMK Document 25 Filed 11/02/05 Page 1 of 3
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

2

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Within 30 days of the date that this order is filed, petitioner shall file a motion

for substitution of counsel which complies with Local Rule 83-182; and

2. Within 30 days after the date of appearance of substitute counsel, the new

counsel shall inform the court whether petitioner will stand on his existing petition and

supplemental points and authorities, file an amended petition that will proceed on exhausted

claims only, or file an amended petition containing exhausted claims and a request for a stay

pending exhaustion. 

DATED: November 1, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00950-LKK -CMK Document 25 Filed 11/02/05 Page 2 of 3
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

Case 2:04-cv-00950-LKK -CMK Document 25 Filed 11/02/05 Page 3 of 3
No. 46690.

#### Protests 974724-G, etc., of C. S. Emery & Co. (St. Albans).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed only on the net footage imported. The protests were sustained to that extent.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

A.R. NEJAD ENTERPRISES, INC. : CIVIL ACTION

 :

v. :

 :

HOME DECORATORS COLLECTION, INC.: No. 05-04442-JF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Fullam, Sr. J. April 6, 2006

Plaintiff alleges that it designs and sells a

particular type of oriental rug, that it owns the copyright on

the design of the rug, and that the defendant has, without

permission, copied the design and is selling the rug as its own. 

Plaintiff’s complaint asserts claims under the Copyright Act, the

Lanham Act, and the common law of unfair competition. The

defendant has filed a motion to dismiss all of the complaint

except the Copyright Act claim. 

At this stage, we are concerned only with the

sufficiency of plaintiff’s pleading. If, as plaintiff alleges,

it owns a copyright on the design of the rug, the mere copying of

that design by the defendant would not violate the Lanham Act,

and plaintiff’s remedies would be confined to the Copyright Act. 

Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23,

156 L. Ed. 2d 18 (2003). On the other hand, if plaintiff is not

the owner of a valid copyright on the design of the rug (as

distinguished from the catalog in which the rug is pictured),

plaintiff would need to show that its unregistered trademark has

Case 2:05-cv-04442-JF Document 24 Filed 04/06/06 Page 1 of 3
2

acquired secondary meaning in order to prevail under the Lanham

Act. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc., 529 U.S. 205,

146 L. Ed. 2d 182 (2000).

In ruling upon defendant’s motion to dismiss the

complaint, I must draw all inferences in favor of the plaintiff. 

While the complaint is not a model of clarity, I believe it

contains sufficient averments to pass muster under either theory;

and pleading in the alternative is permissible. More

specifically, if plaintiff is unable to prove a valid copyright

in the design of the rug in question, but can prove that its

distinctive design has acquired secondary meaning connoting

plaintiff’s source of the product, plaintiff may be able to

prevail on its Lanham Act claim. When the facts are more fully

developed, summary judgment limiting plaintiff’s claims may well

be appropriate, but I do not believe dismissal under Rule

12(b)(6) can be justified on the present state of the record.

An Order follows.

Case 2:05-cv-04442-JF Document 24 Filed 04/06/06 Page 2 of 3
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

A.R. NEJAD ENTERPRISES, INC. : CIVIL ACTION

 :

v. :

 :

HOME DECORATORS COLLECTION, INC.: No. 05-04442-JF

ORDER

AND NOW, this 6th day of April 2006, upon

consideration of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss plaintiff’s

complaint, IT IS ORDERED:

That the motion is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ John P. Fullam 

John P. Fullam, Sr. J.

Case 2:05-cv-04442-JF Document 24 Filed 04/06/06 Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 21


                        List of Subsidiaries of INTERCO

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 

                                                        Jurisdiction of
   Name of Subsidiary                                    Incorporation
   ------------------                                   ---------------
<S>                                                      <C> 
Action Transport, Inc.                                   Delaware

Action Industries, Inc.                                  Virginia

Broyhill Furniture Industries, Inc.                      North Carolina

Broyhill Transport, Inc.                                 North Carolina

Fayette Enterprises, Inc.                                Mississippi

Gordon's, Inc.                                           Delaware

Interco Receivables Corp.                                Delaware

Interfashions Industries, Inc., S.A.                     Costa Rica

Lane Advertising, Inc.                                   Virginia

The Lane Company, Incorporated                           Virginia

Textilera Tres Rios, S.A.                                Costa Rica

Thomasville Furniture Latin America, S.A.                Panama

Thomasville Furniture Industries, Inc.                   Pennsylvania

Thomasville Home Furnishings, Inc.                       Delaware

Thomasville Upholstery, Inc.                             Delaware
</TABLE>
No. 52922.

#### Decorative Crafts, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 139435-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of earthenware articles similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 51676, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 57999.

protests 145601-K, etc. (Boston).

#### Walter Hart, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

*456Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that for duty purposes the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159. Said T. D. 53159 was issued following the decision in *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 168, C. D. 1365), affirmed in *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492), wherein the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rate applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed “Clean Content under T. D. 53159” in the schedule attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 2SUPPLEMENT&"Arial,Regular"		&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2020 ReportingSection VII&"Arial,Regular"

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2020-10	&"Arial,Bold"VII ESR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"March 2020
Case Ho. 15,023.

#### UNITED STATES v. The ECLIPSE.

[See The Eclipse. Case No. 4,269.]
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 1176

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. TRACIE L. GREEN, a/k/a Tracie Ledora Mitchem

- Green , Defendant

- Appellant , and
CARDINAL PINES HOMEOWNERS ’ ASSOCIATION, INC.; PALMETTO CITIZENS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION , Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. ( 3:22

- cv - 04215

- SAL )

Submitted : September 28, 2023 Decided: October 2, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1176 Doc: 17 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 1 of 32 Tracie L. Green , Appellant Pro Se. John S. Kay , HUTCHENS LAW FIRM , Columbia, South Caroli na, for Appellee

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1176 Doc: 17 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM:
Tracie L. Green seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and remanding Appellee’s action against h er to the state court from which it was removed. The district court remanded the case after determining that it lacked subj ect matter jurisdiction. “Congress has placed broad restrictions on the power of federal appellate courts to review district court orders remanding removed cases to state
court.” Doe v. Blair , 819 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omi tted);

see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (providing that remand orders generally are “not reviewable on appeal or otherwise”). Section 1447(d) prohibits us from reviewing remand orders based on the grounds specified in § 1447(c), including “a district court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc. , 519 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). We look to the substance of a remand order to
determine whether it was issued under § 1447(c). Doe , 819 F.3 d at 67. Here, the district court remanded the case after having expressly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We are therefore without jurisdiction to review the
remand order. See id. at 66. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Green ’s motion to seal documents. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

argumen t would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 23-1176 Doc: 17 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
|  Name      of Entity                                        |   | State      of Incorporation/Jurisdiction |   |  Doing      Business As                  |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
| § Southern      Indiana Gas and Electric Company, Inc. |   | Indiana                                  |   | Vectren      Energy Delivery of Indiana, Inc. |
| § Indiana      Gas Company, Inc.                       |   | Indiana,      Ohio                       |   | Vectren      Energy Delivery of Indiana, Inc. |
| § Vectren      Energy Delivery of Ohio, Inc.           |   | Ohio                                     |   |                                          |
Case No. 7,860.

#### KITTY v. McPHERSON.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 172.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

May Term, 1831.

Slavery — Manumission.

A slave manumitted by will, after a term of service, is not free until the term of service has expired; but the court will continue the injunction originally granted to prevent the removal of the petitioner trom the jurisdiction of the court, unlef" the defendant will give bond to the United States with good security, that he will not suffer or permit her to be so removed.

The petitioner claimed her freedom under the will of Mary Brooke, who directed that she should be free in the year 1840.

Mr. Key, for petitioner,

contended that she is now free, as her hire for the intermediate time is bequeathed to a particular legatee; and that the intention of the testatrix is to govern the case.

Mr. Wallach, contra.

If she is now free, who can compel her to serve till her time of freedom shall arrive? But the petitioner never was the property of Mary Brooke. He then prayed the court to instruct the jury, that, if they should believe from the evidence that the petitioner was 'not the property of Mary Brooke at the time of her death, they must find a verdict .for the defendant [Samuel McPherson]; and that, if they found that the petitioner was the property of Mary Brooke at the time of her death, still the petitioner is not entitled to freedom until the-day of -, 1840, the time limited by the will.

1

 (Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

gave the first part of the instruction, and recommended, as to the other part, that they should find specially, if such should be their opinion, that the petitioner was the property of Mary Brooke at the time of her death, and will be entitled to her freedom on the - day of-, 1840.

And the jury found according to that recommendation.

Whereupon, THE COURT ordered the original injunction to be continued, restraining the defendant from removing the petitioner from the jurisdiction of this court, unless the defendant would give bond and good security in the penalty of $600, not to remove the petitioner. &c., which bond and security were given; but judgment at law was ordered to be entered up for the defendant upon the verdict.
No. 66298.

#### F. W. Myers & Co., Inc., for a/c Ayerst Laboratories, Incorporated, et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/20667, etc. (Ogdensburg).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of “5-Ethyl-5-phenyl-hexahydropyrimidine-4:6-dione,” the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 
32.1






CERTIFICATION
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 Annual Report of SoftNet Technology Corp. on Form 10-K/A for
the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James Booth, Chief Executive
Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge
and belief:




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:
      January 14, 2009
                    By:
                    /s/ James
      BoothJames
      BoothChief
      Executive Officer
Before the Second Division,

May 20, 1968

No. P68/238.

protests 60/4507, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Vera Loree, Importer *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of blocked or trimmed palm leaf harvest hats similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Bailey-Mora Co., Inc., a/c Vera Lou, Inc., et al.*v. *United*
      *1042
      *States*(54 Cust. Ct. 55, C.D. 2508), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**EXHIBIT31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Robert C. Buhrmaster, certify that:

1.                 I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K of Jostens, Inc.;

2.                 Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                 Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a)               designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring this period in which this report is being prepared;

b)              evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)               disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)               all significantdeficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)              anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Date: March 31, 2004 | /s/ Robert C. Buhrmaster                             |
|---------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                      | Robert C.  Buhrmaster                                |
|                      | *Chairman  of the Board and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

79

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

REV. MARTIN FRY : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP, et al. : NO. 02-2780

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 19th day of March, 2003, upon consideration of Defendants’ motion for

partial judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 50, presented orally in court, with

respect to that portion of Plaintiffs’ case regarding Defendants’ failure to permit him access to his

heart medication, and upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ reply thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that

Defendants’ motion is DENIED. 

The legal issues raised by Defendants may be briefed by the parties in a motion to mold

the verdict, after a verdict is entered, if the jury awards damages based on the alleged denial of

heart medication.

BY THE COURT:

___________________________________

JACOB P. HART

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-02780-MK Document 47 Filed 03/20/2003 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersignedhereby certifies, in his capacity as Chief Financial Officer of American BankNote Holographics, Inc. (the “Company”), that the Quarterly Report of theCompany on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of theperiod covered by the Report and the results of operations of the Company forthe period covered by the Report.
|                    | By: /s/ Mark J. Bonney                                 |   |
|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                    | Mark J. Bonney                                         |
|                    | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer  and |
|                    | Chief Accounting  Officer                              |
|                    |                                                   |
| Date: November 14, 2006 |                                                   |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to AmericanBank Note Holographics, Inc. and will be retained by American Bank NoteHolographics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

----
Case 2:02-cv-20138-HB Document 15 Filed 05/07/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-20138-HB Document 15 Filed 05/07/2008 Page 2 of 2
No. 62546.

#### Frederic Henjes, Jr., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 328600-K (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
    
    
    FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDEDMarch 31, 2010
    
    
    March 31, 2009MERRILL LYNCH
    
    
    MERRILL LYNCH
    
    
    MERRILL LYNCH
    
    
    MERRILL LYNCHPREFERRED
    
    
    PREFERRED
    
    
    PREFERRED
    
    
    PREFERREDCAPITAL TRUST V
    
    
    FUNDING V, L.P.
    
    
    CAPITAL TRUST V
    
    

FUNDING V, L.P.Earnings
    
    $
    15,949
    
    
    $
    18,582
    
    
    $
    15,949
    
    
    $
    18,589Fixed charges
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    Preferred securities
distribution
requirements
    
    
    15,470
    
    
    
    15,949
    
    
    
    15,470
    
    
    
    15,949Total combined fixed
charges and preferred
securities distribution
requirements
    
    $
    15,470
    
    
    $
    15,949
    
    
    $
    15,470
    
    
    $
    15,949Ratio of earnings to
combined fixed charges
and preferred securities
distribution requirements
    
    
    1.03
    
    
    
    1.17
    
    
    
    1.03
    
    
    
    1.17
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

HENRY ASTA, :

Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION

: NO. 05-4719 

vs. :

:

ROHM AND HAAS CO., :

Defendant. :

 O R D E R

AND NOW, TO WIT: This 2d day of October 2006, it having been

reported that the issues between the parties in the above action

have been settled and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the

provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure

of this Court, it is

ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice,

pursuant to agreement of counsel without costs.

The Court will retain jurisdiction for 90 days to hear

motions to vacate, modify, or strike from the record, for cause

shown, the entry of the order of dismissal. Local Rule of Civil

Procedure 41.1(b); see Sawka v. Healtheast, Inc., 989 F.2d 138

(3d Cir. 1993).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Eduardo C. Robreno 

 Eduardo C. Robreno, J. 

 

Case 2:05-cv-04719-ER Document 26 Filed 10/03/06 Page 1 of 1