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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES T. DAVIS,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-0878-GEB-DAD-P

vs.

C/O KISSENGER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On December 20, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued an order denying plaintiff’s

May 3, 2004 petition for criminal certification. On May 15, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to set

aside the order denying criminal certification. “Rulings by Magistrate Judges shall be final if no

reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within ten (10) court days calculated from the

date of service of the ruling on the parties.” Local Rule 72-303(b). Plaintiff’s motion to set aside

the ruling served on December 20, 2005, will be denied as untimely.

On May 11, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued an order granting defendants’

request for an extension of time to file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion to

dismiss. On May 23, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the order. Plaintiff’s proof of

service indicates that the motion was delivered to prison authorities for mailing on May 18, 2006,

within ten court days after service of the order in question. A Magistrate Judge’s orders will be

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 46 Filed 07/14/06 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

2

upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Local Rule 72-303(f). Upon review of the

entire file, the court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling was not clearly erroneous or contrary

to law. See Local Rule 6-144(c).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s May 15, 2006 motion to set aside the order denying criminal

certification is denied; and

2. Plaintiff’s May 23, 2006 motion to set aside the order granting defendants an

extension of time is denied.

Dated: July 13, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 46 Filed 07/14/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the Third Division,

April 16, 1958

No. 61835.

#### Bloomingdale Bros., a div. of Fed. Dept. Stores, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 237578-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of decorated earthenware articles, composed of a non-vitrified absorbent body, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. Abstract 51831 followed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew John WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-6207.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2001.

Decided April 19, 2001.

Andrew John Walker, pro se.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Andrew Walker appeals four district court orders pertaining to the court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000) motion as successive. Parties *130are accorded sixty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, *see*Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App.P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr.,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (I960)). As to the first two orders, entered August 23, 2000, and September 7, 2000, respectively, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Walker’s notice of appeal, filed December 9, 2000, was not timely filed.

Walker also challenges in his informal brief the court’s orders entered December 20, 2000, and January 26, 2001, respectively. Although an informal brief may be construed as a notice of appeal, *see Smith v. Barry,*502 U.S. 244, 248, 112 S.Ct. 678, 116 L.Ed.2d 678 (1992), the brief was filed beyond the sixty-day appeal period as to the December 20, 2000, order and, therefore, is likewise untimely. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1). Hence, as to the Walker’s appeal of the district court’s first three orders, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Walker, however, has noted a timely appeal of the court’s January 26, 2001, order denying his second motion for reconsideration. As to that order, we have reviewed the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Walker,*No. CR-80-46; CA-00-2090-Y (D.Md. filed Jan. 26, 2001, entered Jan. 30, 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.

*DISMISSED.*
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 8/23/2023 1

Blaming Candidacy Withdrawal 

on a Voter-Registration Challenge 

Moseley v. Price (T.S. Ellis III, E.D. Va. 1:03-cv-1320) 

A pro se federal complaint alleged that voting-rights violations 

forced the plaintiff to withdraw from a race that he alleged he was 

certain to win. According to the complaint, because he registered to 

vote while he was in the process of moving into a Loudoun County 

residence, his registration card was returned. A radio journalist 

made an issue of it, the county’s circuit court appointed a special 

prosecutor, and the state police investigated the matter. The judge 

dismissed the federal voting-rights claims as without merit and 

dismissed state-law claims without prejudice. 

Subject: Registration procedures. Topics: Registration 

procedures; pro se party; matters for state courts. 

A pro se federal complaint filed in the Eastern District of Virginia’s Alexandria courthouse on October 20, 2003, alleged that voting-rights violations 

forced the plaintiff to withdraw from the race for Loudoun County’s commonwealth attorney—a race he alleged that he was certain to win.1

 According to the complaint, because he registered to vote while he was in the process of moving into a Loudoun County residence, his registration card was 

returned; a radio journalist made an issue of it, the county’s circuit court appointed a special prosecutor, and the state police investigated the matter.2

With his complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining 

order.3

Judge T.S. Ellis III heard and denied the plaintiff’s motion on October 

21.4 On January 22, 2004, Judge Ellis dismissed the plaintiff’s federal votingrights claims as without merit and dismissed state-law claims without prejudice.5

 The court of appeals affirmed his decisions on August 23.6

1. Docket Sheet, Moseley v. Price, No. 1:03-cv-1320 (E.D. Va. Oct. 20, 2003) (D.E. 1); 

Moseley v. Price, 300 F. Supp. 2d 389, 393–94 (E.D. Va. 2004). 

2. Moseley, 300 F. Supp. 2d at 393–94. 

3. Docket Sheet, supra note 1 (D.E. 2). 

4. Id. (D.E. 3). 

5. Moseley, 300 F. Supp. 2d at 389. 

6. Moseley v. Price, 106 F. App’x 873 (4th Cir. 2004).
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                     EXHIBIT 12


                                            MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST IV
                                            MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING IV, L.P.
                                              COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO
                         COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED SECURITIES DISTRIBUTIONS (UNAUDITED)
                                                     (dollars in thousands)



                               FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED           FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                     March 31, 2009                      March 28, 2008
                           ---------------------------------  ---------------------------------
                              MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH     MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH
                                 PREFERRED       PREFERRED          PREFERRED       PREFERRED
                           CAPITAL TRUST IV  FUNDING IV,L.P.  CAPITAL TRUST IV  FUNDING IV,L.P.
                           ----------------- ---------------  ----------------- ---------------

<S>                        <C>                 <C>            <C>               <C>

Earnings                       $  7,340           $  8,555        $  7,340          $   8,587
                               ========           ========        ========           ========


Fixed charges                  $      -           $      -        $      -           $      -

Preferred securities
 distribution
 requirements                     7,120              7,340           7,120              7,340
                               --------           --------        --------           --------

Total combined fixed
 charges and preferred
 securities distribution
 requirements                  $  7,120           $  7,340           7,120           $  7,340
                               ========           ========        ========           ========

Ratio of earnings to
 combined fixed charges
 and preferred securities
 distribution requirements         1.03               1.17            1.03               1.17


</TABLE>
OAENEN HENDERSON 

&COMPANY.L LC 

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS • CONSULTANTS 

June 19, 2012 

Docket Management Facility 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Docket Number FAA-2012-0350 

3818 Bayou Rapides Road Alexandria, LA 71303-2326 

Phone: 318-445-4585 

Toll-Free: 800-738-6800 

I= Sb 

Fax: 318-442-1138 

www.dhc-cpas.com 

I am a private pilot, single engine land, instrument rated. My log book has about 1,100 hours, 750 of 

which are in a high-performance, retractable gear aircraft. 

I fly for both business and pleasure and my last cross country trip was to Jacksonville, Florida to attend a 

college graduation. It was a pleasure for the three of us to fly on "our schedule" and to avoid the 

airlines and airport stress. 

I strongly support the EAA/AOPA Medical exemption request. 

I have a Class Ill physical and before each flight, I check the weather and whether we should go or not. 

The second whether revolves around my state of body and mind- a self-check. The day after my Class 

Ill medical is issued it is obsolete, in that it is up to me on a day to day basis to assess my ability to fly 

safely. Therefore, a driver's license, self assessing system would remove a burden from the tax payer I 

pilot as well as save the Federal Government millions of dollars to administer tests and licenses. 

In lieu of the Class Ill medical the FAA should develop education programs about health and weather 

and perhaps require proof of attendance at Webinars and/or in person seminars. Education is the key 

and should replace the need for a CLASS Ill medical, a rule that has outlived its usefulness. I participate 

in the FAA WINGS program and love it. These classes are very current, very practical and help me on the 

ground as well as in the air. 

Sincerely, 

B&tl.~,~~ )v. 

jacquelyn S. Daenen, CPA. CCIFP • Boyle J. Henderson Jr., CPA • Heather N. Sellers, CPA. CFE, CFF • julius W. Crump III, CPA 

Lucy H. Pearson, CPA • Sara R. O'Brien, CPA • Chrystal L. Mabou, CPA. CITP • Martha M. Cade, CPA
# Exhibit 32.3

Written Statement of
the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

Solely for the purposes of complying
with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
Wisconsin Power and Light Company (the Company), hereby certify, based on our
knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December
31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

/s/ Erroll B. Davis, Jr. Erroll B.
Davis, Jr. Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer

/s/ Eliot G. Protsch Eliot G. Protsch  Chief Financial
Officer

March 11, 2004
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PATTY SCHUMACHER

02-4477

District Court Docket Number

vs.

SODERTON AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT et al

Notice of Appeal Filed 3/24/03

Court Reporter(s)/ESR Operator(s) ESR

Filing Fee:

 Notice of Appeal X Paid Not Paid Seaman

 Docket Fee X Paid Not Paid USA/VI

CJA Appointment (Attach Copy of Order)

 Private Attorney

 Defender Association or Federal Public Defender

 Motion Pending

Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis status, if applicable: (Attach copy of the Order)

 Motion Granted

 Motion Denied

 Motion pending before district judge

Certificate of probable cause (state habeas corpus): (Attach copy of the Order)

 Granted

 Denied

 Pending

CC: 

 

 

 

Defendant's Address (for criminal appeals)

Prepared by : 

 JOE LAVIN,Deputy Clerk Signature/Date

PLEASE APPEND TO THE NOTICE OF APPEAL AND FORWARD TO

THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

notapp.frm

Case 2:02-cv-04477-JG Document 15 Filed 03/24/2003 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORMAN G. MORRALL,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0846 LKK GGH P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, has requested that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), the action is dismissed without prejudice.

Accordingly, the Clerk of Court shall close this case.

DATED: 6/10/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

mor846.vol

Case 2:04-cv-00846-LKK -GGH Document 12 Filed 06/13/05 Page 1 of 1
15.02 Create a Credit/Debit Adjustment
Motion of BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D. C. ,•-; ::-**~**--**~: .:-~~-**  '--
· .._:_ i.-
...i:,; ·.£**~**; r, --- 1**~:~** -i

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. DOT-OST-1996-1203 for confidential treatment under Rule 12 (Form 41, Schedules B-7)
MOTION OFAMERICANAIRLINES, INC. FOR

CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNDER RULE 12 Communications with respect to this document shouldbe sent to: FRANCIS C. HEIL Managing Director

- Legal and Government Affairs American Airlines, Inc. 1101 17th Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 496-5642 francis.heil@aa.com May 7, 2014Motion of BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D. C.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. for confidential treatment under Rule 12 (Form 41, Schedules B-7) DOT-OST-1996-1203

MOTION OF AMERICANAIRLINES, INC. FOR

CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNDER RULE 12 AmericanAirlines, Inc., under 14 CFR 302.12, hereby
moves that its Form 41, Schedule B-7 for 1Q2014, be accorded confidential treatment and withheld from public disclosure. The information for which confidential treatment is requested pertains to American's airframe and aircraft engine acquisitions and retirements. In accordance with the Department's Final Rule on SubmittingAirline Data via the Internet, 75 Fed. Reg. 41580, 41582, July 16, 2010, we are uploading our confidential report electronicallyto esubmit.rita.dot. On June 5, 1995, by letter of James W. Mitchell, Director, Office ofAirline Statistics, the Department granted confidential treatment for a 10-yearperiod to similar data filed byAmerican. For the reasons stated in that letter, the current submission should also receive confidential treatment for 10 years.2 -
WHEREFORE, Americanmoves that the schedule being submitted electronically to the above-referenced website be withheld from public disclosure under Rule 12 for a period of 10 years.

May 7, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

Francis C. Heil Managing Director

- Legal and Government Affairs American Airlines, Inc.
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

NORMAN TIMOTHY GREGORY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0764 FCD DAD P

vs.

D. RAMEREZ, et al., ORDER REQUIRING

Defendants. STATUS REPORT

 /

This matter has now been at issue for sufficient time that it should be set for trial. 

Plaintiff and defendants shall therefore each submit to the court and serve by mail on all other

parties the following status report:

1. Whether this matter is ready for trial and, if not, why not;

2. Whether additional discovery is deemed necessary and, if so, the nature and

scope of the discovery and the time needed in which to complete it;

3. Whether a pretrial motion is contemplated and, if so, the type of motion and

the time needed to file the motion and complete the time schedule set forth in Local Rule 78-

230(m);

4. A brief narrative statement of the facts that will be offered by oral or

documentary evidence at trial;

Case 2:04-cv-00764-FCD-DAD Document 30 Filed 05/13/05 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

5. A list of exhibits to be offered into evidence at the trial of the case;

6. A list of the names and addresses of the witnesses the party intends to call;

7. A summary of the anticipated testimony of any incarcerated witnesses;

8. The time estimated for trial;

9. Whether either party still requests trial by jury; and

 10. Any other matter, not covered above, which the party desires to call to the

attention of the court.

The parties are informed that they may, if all consent, have this case tried by jury

before a United States Magistrate Judge while preserving their right to appeal to the United

States Court of Appeals. An appropriate form for consent to trial before a magistrate judge is

attached. Any party choosing to consent may complete the form and return it to the clerk of this

court. Neither the magistrate judge nor the district judge handling the case will be notified of the

filing of a consent form unless all parties to the action have consented.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s status report shall be filed and served within thirty days from the

date on which this order is signed. Defendants’ status report shall be filed within thirty days

thereafter. The parties are advised that failure to file a status report in accordance with this order

may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of the action or preclusion of issues

or witnesses.

2. The clerk of the court is directed to send all parties the form “Consent to

Proceed Before United States Magistrate Judge,” together with the instant order.

DATED: May 13, 2005.

DAD:13

greg0764.40

Case 2:04-cv-00764-FCD-DAD Document 30 Filed 05/13/05 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 9,767.

#### MOORE v. DOVE.

[1 Hayw. & H. 161.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. 7, 1843.

Landlord and Tenant — Property Rented foe Another — Liability.

Where a party agreed to rent certain premises and pay the rent for another, he will be liable for the rent without occupying the premises.

[This was an action by James Moore, Sr., against William T. Dove.]

J. Hellen, for plaintiff.

Jos. H. Bradley, for defendant.

1

 [Reported by John A. Hayward, Esq., and George C. Hazleton, Esq.]

This suit was brought for a year’s rent of premises owned by the plaintiff. The declaration contained two counts. The first count alleged that the defendant occupied, possessed and enjoyed the said premises, and promised to pay the said rent. The second count that he, the defendant, promised to pay to the plaintiff for the premises, as much as the premises were~worth, for the use and occupation and possession of said premises; and that he, the defendant, has not paid any part of the rent due. The plea of the defendant was non-assumpsit. Issue was joined, and the jury brought in a verdict for the plaintiff for $92.12. The defendant, by his attorney, moved for a new trial: Because the action was brought for the use and occupation of a tenement, and the only proof offered was that the defendant agreed to rent the same and pay the said rent for another person, and not for his own use, and that he never did occupy the same himself. The defendant, through his attorney, objected to the admissibility of said evidence in this action, but THE COURT overruled the objection, and instructed the jury if they believe the evidence the plaintiff was entitled to recover.

Motion for new trial overruled and judgment entered on the verdict.
No. 55910.

protests 154586-K, etc. (New York).

#### F. L. Smidth & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the rough castings of iron the subject of *United States*v. *The Singer Manufacturing Company*(37 C. C. P. A. 104, C. A. D. 427), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Page1of3

Bulletin No. 2017-16

To: Heads of Government Departments, Agencies, and Others Concerned

Subject: Change to USSGL Supplement Bulletin No. 2017-06, U.S. Standard General Ledger (USSGL)

- A Treasury Financial Manual (TFM) Supplement

1. Purpose-This TFM bulletin notifies agencies that Part 1 and Part 2 of the USSGL Supplement has

been revised for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 and FY 2018.

2. Summary of Changes-The Summary of Changes identifies specific revisions made to the USSGL. The

summary header "Consolidated" refers to all changes to date for FY 2017 and FY 2018.

3. Changes by Part/Section/File

Part 1-FY 2017 Reporting changes to files in Sections IV, V, VI, and VII:

Section IV: Account Attributes for USSGL Proprietary Account and Budgetary Account Reporting

USSGL Attribute Table

Section V: Crosswalks to Standard External Reports for FY 2017 GTAS Reporting

OMB Form and Content:

Balance Sheet

Section VI: Crosswalks to Reclassified Statements for FY 2017

Reclassified Balance Sheet

Section VII: GTAS Validations and Edits for FY 2017 Reporting

Validation Summary

Validation Detail

Edit Summary

Edit Detail
Page2of3

Part 2-FY 2018 Reporting changes to files in Sections I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and

VII:

Section I: Chart of Accounts

Section II: Accounts and Definitions

Section III: Account Transactions

Transactions

T-Accounts

Section IV: Account Attributes for USSGL Proprietary Account and Budgetary Account Reporting

USSGL Attribute Table

Section V: Crosswalks to Standard External Reports for FY 2018 GTAS Reporting

OMB Form and Content:

Balance Sheet

Statement of Net Cost

SF 133: Report on Budget Execution and Budgetary Resources & Schedule P

Budget Program and Financing Schedule

Section VI: Crosswalks to Reclassified Statements for FY 2018

Reclassified Balance Sheet

Section VII: GTAS Validations and Edits for FY 2018 Reporting

Validation Summary

Validation Detail

Edit Summary

Edit Detail

Closing Edits

4. Effective Date

Part 1, requirements for FY 2017, are effective immediately

Part 2, requirements for FY 2018, are effective October 1, 2017
Page3of3

5. Inquiries

Direct questions concerning this bulletin to your agency's USSGL Board representative or:

Jaime M. Saling

 Director, Financial Reports and Analysis Division 

Fiscal Accounting

Bureau of the Fiscal Service

PO Box 1328

Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328

Telephone: 304-480-6485

Fax: 304-480-5176

Date: December 21, 2017
No. 50008.

#### Protest 111250-K of Vidalia Distributing Co. (Louisville).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

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