alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 9/13/2023 1

Winner Take All in the Electoral College 

Gordon v. Cheney (Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., D.D.C. 1:05-cv-6) 

Two days before the U.S. Senate was to count presidential electoral 

votes, a pro se plaintiff filed a federal complaint seeking to enjoin 

the count on the ground that electoral votes in several states were 

improperly allocated according to a winner-take-all rule. Two days 

later, the court denied immediate relief. 

Subject: Voting irregularities. Topics: Electoral College; 

enjoining certification; pro se party. 

On January 4, 2005, two days before the Vice President, as president of the 

Senate, was to count the electoral votes for his and President Bush’s reelection, a pro se plaintiff affiliated with the Green Party filed a federal complaint 

in the district court for the District of Columbia seeking to enjoin the count 

on the ground that electoral votes in several states were improperly allocated 

according to a winner-take-all rule.1

 With his complaint, the plaintiff filed a 

motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.2

Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., denied the plaintiff immediate relief on January 6: “it is apparent from [the motion’s] face that plaintiff has not, and cannot, meet the rigorous requirements for obtaining such an extraordinary 

remedy.”3 On March 22, the plaintiff dismissed the action voluntarily.4

The plaintiff filed a similar pro se action on July 28, 2008.5 On March 26, 

2009, Judge Kennedy granted to Vice President Biden Vice President Cheney’s motion to dismiss the action.6

 “The problem for [the plaintiff], among 

others, is that his claims are predicated on allegations of wrongdoing by third 

parties.”7

1. Complaint, Gordon v. Cheney, No. 1:05-cv-6 (D.D.C. Jan. 4, 2005), D.E. 1. 

2. Motion, id. (Jan. 4, 2005), D.E. 3. 

On November 2, 2004, the plaintiff filed a federal pro se challenge to the District of Columbia’s allocation of electoral votes, Complaint, Gordon v. Williams, No. 1:04-cv-1904 

(D.D.C. Nov. 2, 2004), D.E. 1, which the court dismissed on May 11, 2005, for failure to 

prosecute it, Order, id. (May 11, 2005), D.E. 5. See Notice of Related Case, Gordon, No. 1:05-

cv-6 (D.D.C. Jan. 4, 2005), D.E. 2. 

3. Order, Gordon, No. 1:05-cv-6 (D.D.C. Jan. 6, 2005), D.E. 4. 

disability 

4. Stipulation, Gordon, No. 1:05-cv-6 (D.D.C. Mar. 22, 2005), D.E. 9. 

5. Complaint, Gordon v. Cheney, No. 1:08-cv-1294 (D.D.C. July 28, 2008), D.E. 1; Gordon v. Biden, 606 F. Supp. 2d 11, 12 & n.1 (D.D.C. 2009); see Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, Gordon, No. 1:08-cv-1294 (D.D.C. July 30, 

2008), D.E. 3; Notice of Related Case, id. (July 28, 2008), D.E. 2. 

6. Gordon, 606 F. Supp. 2d at 12, aff’d, 364 F. App’x 651 (D.C. Cir. 2010). 

7. Id. at 14.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ANTHONY ROY CAMPBELL : CIVIL ACTION

:

 v. :

:

MICHAEL CHERTOFF et al. : No. 05-2041 

ORDER

AND NOW, this 31st day of August, 2005, upon

consideration of Campbell's petition for writ of habeas corpus

(docket entry # 1), the Government's response (docket entry # 5),

Campbell's reply (docket entry # 9), and the July 29, 2005 Report

and Recommendation of the Honorable David R. Strawbridge (docket

entry # 7), and the Court finding that, in his petition, Campbell

contends that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service

should release him while he pursues his appeal of our July 12,

2004 denial of his motion for a stay and for habeas corpus in

Civ. No. 04-2016, and the Court further finding that our Court of

Appeals in its decision in App. No. 04-3274 on August 29, 2005

concluded that Campbell was not entitled to relief and vacated

its stay of Campbell's removal, thereby mooting the instant

petition and that, in any event, Judge Strawbridge's cogent

analysis (to which Campbell interposed no objections)

demonstrates that Campbell's legal claim would have been

meritless, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and

ADOPTED;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED;

3. A certificate of appealability shall NOT ISSUE;

and

Case 2:05-cv-02041-SD Document 10 Filed 09/01/05 Page 1 of 2
-2-

4. The Clerk shall CLOSE this matter statistically.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Stewart Dalzell, J. 

Case 2:05-cv-02041-SD Document 10 Filed 09/01/05 Page 2 of 2
**Part 2, Section V: USSGL Crosswalks to Standard External Reports**

This section includes crosswalks for use in Fiscal Year 2021 GTAS Reporting. These crosswalks map USSGL accounts to external reports in accordance with current reporting guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), and the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service).

Each report crosswalk lists the proper USSGL accounts and applicable attributes for each line and/or column on the reports. Attributes identify information subsidiary to the basic 6-digit USSGL accounts. This subsidiary information is necessary to meet external reporting requirements. See Section IV for additional information on attributes.

All crosswalks require pre-closing USSGL account balances.

The following are crosswalks from the USSGL Chart of Accounts to standard external reports required by OMB and Fiscal Service:

Page 1 of 1

# image1.png
Case No. 9,715.

#### MONROE v. HARKNESS.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 157.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1803.

Injunction — Violation—Attachment fob Contempt.

1

 [Reported by Hod William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

[This was a suit by Thomas Monroe, superintendent of the city, against Samuel Harkness.] Attachment for violating an- injunction. A rule granted yesterday, on complainant’s affidavit, to show cause why an attachment of contempt should not issue, for violating the injunction in proceeding towards completing a two-story wooden house. Upon further testimony in support of the rule it was made absolute, and an attachment was issued returnable immediately.

[Cited in Wilcox Silver-Plate Co. v. Schimmel, 59 Mich. 528, 26 N. W. 694.

[A similar attachment was issued against William Bradley. See Case No. 9,713.]
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 36 (Friday, February 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8244-8245]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3086]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i> 10811]


Illinois Disaster <greek-i> IL-00007

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Illinois (FEMA-
1681-DR), dated February 9, 2007.
    Incident: Severe Winter Storm.
    Incident Period: November 30, 2006 through December 1, 2006.
    Effective Date: February 9, 2007.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: April 10, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business

[[Page 8245]]

Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, US Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 
6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on February 9, 2007, Private 
Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a 
governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address 
listed above or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties:
    Bond, Calhoun, Christian, De Witt, Fayette, Jersey, Logan, Macon, 
Macoupin, Madison, Mclean, Monroe, Montgomery, Piatt, Saint Clair, 
Sangamon, Shelby, Woodford.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit             5.250
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit             4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is: 10811.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Roger B. Garland,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-3086 Filed 2-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
No. 58965.

protests 221666-K and 208204-K (New York).

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

*340Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of novelty figures, composed wholly or in chief value of papier maché, the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 57018, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 58522.

protests 220120-K, etc. (New York).

#### James Barclay & Co., Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 130, C. A. D. 508) and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the .plaintiffs was sustained.
**Exhibit 10.26**

 

**SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN AGREEMENT**

**[Applicable to VPs Pre 1-1-02]**

 

This Supplemental Retirement Plan (“SRP”) Agreement is made this ____ day of ____________, 2003, by and between ________________________ (the “Officer”) and Alliant Energy Corporation (the “Company”).

**W I T N E S S E T H****:**

**WHEREAS,**Alliant Energy wishes to provide supplemental retirement benefits to a select group of senior executive personnel, including the Officer, to ensure the overall effectiveness of the Company’s executive compensation program and that the Company will be able to attract, retain, and motivate qualified senior executive personnel; 

**WHEREAS,**the Company and the Officer have heretofore entered into one or more agreements (the “Prior Agreements”) providing supplemental retirement, deferred compensation or similar benefits, which Prior Agreements are identified in Appendix A hereto; and

**WHEREAS,** the Company and the Officer wish to enter into this Agreement, which shall amend, restate, supersede and replace any Prior Agreements;

**NOW, THEREFORE,** the parties agree as follows:

**ARTICLE I**

**SCOPE OF AGREEMENT**

**1.1**         **Effect on Prior Agreements****.**  This Agreement shall supersede and replace the Prior Agreements, effective as of the date of this Agreement, and the parties shall thereafter have no further rights or obligations under the Prior Agreements.

**1.2**         **Effect on Change of Control Agreements****.**  If the Officer is a party to an agreement which is binding on the Company and which takes effect in the event of a change incontrol, such agreement shall supersede and control over the provisions of this Agreement in the event of any conflict between the two.

 

----
<PAGE>
                                                               Exhibit 24(c)

               AMERIPRISE CERTIFICATE COMPANY
                     POWER OF ATTORNEY

City of Minneapolis

State of Minnesota

Each of the undersigned as an officer of Ameriprise Certificate
Company, a face-amount certificate company registered under the
Investment Company Act of 1940, hereby constitutes and appoints Paula R.
Meyer, Scott R. Plummer, and Christopher O. Petersen or any one of them,
as his attorney-in-fact and agent, to sign for him in his name, place
and stead any and all registration statements and amendments thereto
(with all exhibits and other documents required or desirable in
connection therewith) that may be prepared from time to time in
connection with said Company's existing or future face-amount
certificate products, and periodic reports on Form 10-K, Form 10-Q and
Form 8-K required pursuant to provisions of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and any necessary or appropriate states or other jurisdictions,
and grants to any or all of them the full power and authority to do and
perform each and every act required or necessary or appropriate in
connection with such signatures or filings.

Signed on this 9th day of February, 2006
               ---



/s/ Brian J. McGrane
----------------------------
Brian J. McGrane



/s/ David K. Stewart
----------------------------
David K. Stewart
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERTA MUNDAY,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S- 04-0593 FCD/PAN

v. ORDER

PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________/

On December 9, 2005, plaintiff’s counsel, Roxanne R. Fritz, 

was ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $300.00 and to show

cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to

prosecute. The court ordered counsel to pay the sanctions by

December 23, 2005 and to file her response to the Order to Show

Cause on or before January 6, 2006, and to appear at a hearing

set for January 13, 2006 at 10:00 a.m.

A review of the docket shows that Ms. Fritz neither paid the

ordered sanctions nor filed a response to the order to show

cause. 

Accordingly, the court makes the following orders:

1. The Order to Show Cause hearing set for January 13,

2006 is VACATED; and

Case 2:04-cv-00593-FCD-PAN Document 56 Filed 01/11/06 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

2

2. Plaintiff's case is dismissed for failure to prosecute,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), and for repeated failures to

respond to this court's orders, Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963

F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992). With respect to

dismissal for failure to follow court orders, the court

has reviewed the five factors set forth in Ferdik and

finds that each warrants dismissal of plaintiff's case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 11, 2006.

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00593-FCD-PAN Document 56 Filed 01/11/06 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFREDA JOHNSON-RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0736 DFL JFM PS

vs.

EASTERN DISTRICT 

OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On June 8, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. On June 22, 2005, the

findings and recommendations were re-served on plaintiff. Ten days have now passed and no

objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that: 

Case 2:04-cv-00736-DFL -JFM Document 42 Filed 11/14/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 8, 2005, are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s April 4, 2005 motion for new trial be denied. 

DATED: 11/11/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00736-DFL -JFM Document 42 Filed 11/14/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2


                            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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust V and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding V, L.P. (the  "Partnership")
for the  period  ended  March 28, 2008 as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I, Gary Carlin,
Controller of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., the General Partner of the Partnership,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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
    Partnership.




                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING V, L.P.

                              By:  MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner


                              By:  /s/ GARY CARLIN
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Gary Carlin *
                              Title:   Controller, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.








Dated: May 9, 2008
_____________________

*  Gary Carlin functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
   and Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership for purposes of Section 906
   of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Nick Hutson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
Date: 11/28/2011 02:59 PM Subject: FW: E.O. 12866 Meeting on the EGU MACT Rule

Hi, Attached are the handouts from this meeting.

Regards,
Cortney

-----Original Appointment----- From: Echols, Mabel E. Subject: E.O. 12866 Meeting on the EGU MACT Rule When: Monday, November 28, 2011 1:00 PM-1:30 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where: 10103 NEOB

This meeting was requested by Many Warner, Environmental Defense Fund.

2060AP52_2011_11_28_EDF_Handout2.pdf

2060AP52_2011_11_28_EDF_Handout1.pdf

2060AP52_2011_11_28_EDF_Handout5.pdf

2060AP52_2011_11_28_EDF_Handout4.pdf

2060AP52_2011_11_28_EDF_Handout3.pdf
No. 47337.

#### Protest 894162-G of American Import Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

Following Abstract 47336, which was incorporated herein, the shuttlecocks in question were held not dutiable either directly or by similitude under paragraph 1502. The court stated that the testimony given in the cited case, however, that a ball is used “frequently” or “interchangeably” with a shuttlecock, does not establish that in the game of badminton the nets and racquets are “ordinarily” used in conjunction with balls. As the plaintiff *370has not, in the opinion of the court, established that “the nets and racquets in question are used in ordinary cases, commonly, or usually in conjunction with balls,” the protest was also overruled as to these items.
(Reap. Dec. 10700)

#### Imports, Incorporated *v.*United States

Entry No. 58096, etc.

(Decided April 1, 1964)

*Stein & Shostah*for tlie plaintiff.

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

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties herein:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as to the merchandise manufactured by Towa Yakuhin Kogyo, K.K., and by Yamamoto Rubber Co. covered by the entries the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases, which is incorporated herein, that, on the date of exportation thereof to the United States, the market value Or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and 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 invoice unit values ex factory, net packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that as to any of the merchandise on the invoices covered by the entries the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases which is included in the list of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521 as provided for in Sec. 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress which is subject to appraisement under See. 402 of the Tariff Act of I960 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 19S8, that there were no higher foreign values for such or similar merchandise on the dates of exportation involved herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the footwear covered by the entries, the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases, is unlike any articles manufactured or produced in the United States.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals for re-appraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases may be deemed submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold export value, as that value is defined in section 402a (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise herein *481involved and that such value was the invoice unit value, ex-factory, net, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
No. 65446.

#### Alaska Reefer Fisheries et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/24735, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of fish netting similar in all material respects to that involved in Abstract 63947, the merchandise was held dutiable at 25 percent under the provision in paragraph 923, as modified, for cotton fishing nets, by similitude. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of synthetic cord or twine similar in all material respects to the component material of the fish nets involved in said Abstract 63947, were held dutiable, depending upon the date of entry, at 35 percent under paragraph 912 of the act as synthetic cord or twine, similar in use to cotton cords, or at 33, 31%, or 30 percent under said paragraph, as modified.