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

PORTER, SCOTT,

WEIBERG & DELEHANT

A PROFE S S IONA L C ORPORA T IO N

350 UN IVER S IT Y AVE ., SUIT E 200

P .O . BO X 255428

SACRAMENTO, CA 95865

(916) 929-1481

www.pswdlaw.com

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

Order Regarding Stipulated Request to Further Modify Status (Pre-Trial) Scheduling Order

00401527.WPD

PORTER, SCOTT, WEIBERG & DELEHANT

A Professional Corporation

Nancy J. Sheehan, SBN 1098419

Brendan J. Begley, SBN 202563

350 University Avenue, Suite 200

Sacramento, California 95825

(916) 929-1481

(916) 927-3706 (facsimile)

Attorney for Defendants: REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LARRY

VANDERHOEF (erroneously sued as LAWRENCE VANDERHOEF), GREG

WARZECKA, PAM GILL-FISHER, ROBERT FRANKS AND LAWRENCE SWANSON

EQUITY LEGAL

Kristen Galles, SBN 148740

10 Rosecrest Avenue

Alexandria, Va 22301

(703) 683-4491

(703) 683-4636 (facsimile)

Attorney for Plaintiffs: MICHAEL D. BURCH AND THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE 

OF MICHAEL D. BURCH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In Re: MICHAEL D. BURCH & SYLVIA

BURCH,

Debtors.

__________________________________/

MICHAEL D. BURCH AND THE

BANKRUPTCY ESTATE OF MICHAEL

D. BURCH,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT

DAVIS; et al., 

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. S. 04-38 WBS/GGH

ORDER REGARDING STIPULATED

REQUEST TO FURTHER MODIFY

STATUS (PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULING)

ORDER

Good cause having been shown, the Court hereby grants the parties’ Stipulated

Request to Further Modify Status (Pre-Trial Scheduling) Order. 

The Status (Pre-Trial) Scheduling Order is further modified as follows:

Last day to file opposition to MSJ: March 6, 2006

Case 2:04-cv-00038-WBS-GGH Document 157 Filed 11/30/05 Page 1 of 2
LAW OFFICES OF

PORTER, SCOTT,

WEIBERG & DELEHANT

A PROFE S S IONA L C ORPORA T IO N

350 UN IVER S IT Y AVE ., SUIT E 200

P .O . BO X 255428

SACRAMENTO, CA 95865

(916) 929-1481

www.pswdlaw.com

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

Order Regarding Stipulated Request to Further Modify Status (Pre-Trial) Scheduling Order

00401527.WPD

Last day to file reply to opposition to MSJ: March 20, 2006 

Hearing on Motions for Summary Judgment: March 27, 2006

Last day to file pretrial statements: July 31, 2006

Final Pretrial Conference: August 14, 2006 at 10:00 a.m.

Trial: October 11, 2006 at 1:30 pm

Dated: November 29, 2005

Case 2:04-cv-00038-WBS-GGH Document 157 Filed 11/30/05 Page 2 of 2
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 this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Ingles Markets, Incorporated (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending September 30,  2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James W. Lanning, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, 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 Company. |
|--|----|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

﻿

| ﻿                              |
|---------------------------------------|
| /s/ James W. Lanning

           |
| James W. Lanning                      |
| Chief Executive Officer and President |
| January 26, 2018                      |

﻿

﻿

The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit of the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and, accordingly, is not being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing). 

			 		

			 		

----
# sec4_attribtable_2019

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2019-06	&"Arial,Bold"&9IV AT - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BMarch 2019
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 17

- 00234

- CR

J AMES S TEVEN C HAMPION

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 4

of Tar rant County (1480031D)

January 3, 2019

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment

of the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

Justice Lee Gabriel
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-93,717-01

EX P ARTE BRIYON SMITH, Ap plicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. D-1-D C-19-300593- A IN THE 167 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM TRAVIS COUNTY

Per curiam . O P I N I O N Applicant was convicted of ag g rava ted assault an d sentenc ed to ten y ear s’ imprisonment. Applicant filed this application for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk f

orwa rded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant conte nds that plea wa s involuntary beca use t he plea

ag ree ment was c onditioned on an ag ree ment for shock probation i f Appli cant successfully completed the initial portion of his sentenc e. Ba sed on the rec ord, the trial court has deter mined that Applicant completed his por tion of the barg ain, but counsel failed to timely file a motion for shock probation. I t also deter mined that the plea a g ree ment was c onditioned on an ag ree ment for shoc k probation. Relief is g rante d. Brady v. United States , 397 U.S

. 7 42 (1970). The judgme nt in cause2

number D-1-D C-19-300593 in the 165 District Court of Travis County is set aside, and Applicant t h is rema nded to the custody of the Sheriff of Travis County to answe r the char g es as set out in the indictment. The trial court shall issue any nece ssary bench war rant within ten day s from the date of this Court’s mandate. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to th e T e xa s D e p a r tm e n t o f Cr iminal J ustice–Corre ctional I nstitut ions Division and the Boa rd of Par dons and Paroles.

Deliver ed: May

18, 2022 Do not publish
' ; c .I , ;• ," ~ 

-

' · ~ . . ·· CI '1?-.I tTTEF or! 

: ·~1G J~!7 ;~l/-~~~ ~~=~~-i~: ;~:; ·=·!nr .. 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Sccrclarv 

Oepartn1cnt of Transportation 

1200 New Jcrsev A venue. SE 

Washington. D.C. 20590 

Dear Secretary LaHood : 

VV!~SH NGTO i'J , iJC 205 10 24W 

.June 6. 201 2 

I am writing today to express my support for the Tupelo Airport Authority's 

application to the Department ofTransportation's Smn11 Community Air Service 

Development Program. 

cQi;J r·.t:T rr:r: cr., 

RULES r\f-.! 0 

.ADf.;jt\ijSTRt, T:Oh: 

Air service improvements are important to economic development in Northeast 

Mississippi. A grant from the Small Community Air Service Development Program will 

help to enhance Mississippians' awareness of services offered at the Tupelo Regional 

Airport. 

I hope that you will give full consideration to this application. Please do not 

hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further assistance. 

TC/l\\ 

S10-120620-016 
June 5. 2012 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Sec retary, U.S. Department ofTransportation 

400 Seventh Street, SW 

Washington. D.C. 20590-000 I 

Dear Ray. 

-,. · •: :( :· 

! ' > :l (,I t• < 

I \VOuld like to express my support for the Tupelo Airport Authority's application for a 

Small Community Air Service Development Program Grant 

Funding from the U.S . Department of Transportation in the amount of $75,000 will allow 

the Authority to de velop a new marketing campaign which will promote Silver Airways for 

Tupelo Regional Airport and emphasis upcoming changes to air service and customer 

convenience. ln addition, the Authority will reach out to the community through an aggressive 

campaign to publicize the value of fl ying locally from Tupelo. It is projected that the proposed 

efforts will allow the Tupelo Airport Authority to boost airport performance to the level that they 

\vill no longer require an Essential Air Service subsidy. 

I hope that you will give lhe Tupe lo Airport Authority's application every consideration. 

Should additional infonnation be required from my office, please contact Bevin Wilkinson of my 

staff at (228) 604-23 83 . 

With best wishes, I am 

R.FW/BW 

S10-120613-003 

r' O i1:; ..... -:.n: l ' ~ ! ',' ::~·~ ~ .. ·.:: • . 

(~ I t( ~ .: • ~ ') : (! 

.. ; Sincerelv vours, 

~~~ 

·, ',·. : ., .. ~ .. ,_,: ... ·
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

608 

CA 15-01829 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CARNI, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN 

WILSON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, 

PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

 

AND MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WILSON TEACHERS’ ASSOCIATION, 

RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

HARRIS BEACH, PLLC, BUFFALO (TRACIE L. LOPARDI OF COUNSEL), FOR

PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

RICHARD E. CASAGRANDE, LATHAM (ANTHONY J. BROCK OF COUNSEL), FOR

RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order (denominated order and judgment) of the

Supreme Court, Niagara County (Mark Montour, J.), entered March 20,

2015 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75. The order denied

the petition to stay arbitration and granted the cross petition to

compel arbitration. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs. 

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order denying its

petition pursuant to CPLR article 75 seeking a permanent stay of

arbitration and granting respondent’s cross petition for an order

compelling arbitration. Respondent demanded arbitration concerning

the transfer of a physical education teacher from the high school to

the elementary school. The sole issue on appeal is whether the

parties “have agreed to arbitrate the dispute at issue” pursuant to

their collective bargaining agreement (CBA) (Matter of City of

Johnstown [Johnstown Police Benevolent Assn.], 99 NY2d 273, 278; see

Matter of Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth. v Niagara Frontier Transp.

Auth. Superior Officers Assn., 71 AD3d 1389, 1390, lv denied 14 NY3d

712). “Our review of that question is limited to the language of the

grievance and the demand for arbitration, as well as to the reasonable

inferences that may be drawn therefrom” (Niagara Frontier Transp.

Auth., 71 AD3d at 1390). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, Supreme

Court properly determined that, because the CBA contains a broad

arbitration clause, and there is a reasonable relationship between the

subject matter of the dispute, i.e., the transfer of a teacher to

another position, and the general subject matter of the CBA, “ ‘it is

for the arbitrator to determine whether the subject matter of the
-2- 608 

CA 15-01829 

dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration provisions of the

[CBA]’ ” (Matter of County of Herkimer v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn.,

Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, 124 AD3d 1370, 1371; see generally

Matter of Board of Educ. of Watertown City Sch. Dist. [Watertown Educ.

Assn.], 93 NY2d 132, 143).

Entered: June 17, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Before the First Division,

February 8, 1951

No. 55222.

#### Sandoz Chemical Works, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 151655-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cedilanid substance and digilanid substance the same in all material respects as the commodity passed upon in *Sandoz Chemical Works, Inc.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 115, C. D. 1273), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS3761 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1882

BUTCH JOHNSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PALMETTO CITIZENS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (3:14-cv-01568-TLW)

Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 23, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Butch Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Butch Johnson appeals the district court’s order adopting 

the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss, after a 28 

U.S.C. § 1915 (2012) review, Johnson’s claims alleging breach of 

contract and unfair trade practices by Palmetto Citizens Federal 

Credit Union. We affirm.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate 

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review 

of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have 

been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. 

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas 

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Moreover, we limit our review to 

the issues raised in the appellant’s informal brief. See 4th 

Cir. R. 34(b). Johnson waived appellate review of the district 

court’s dispositive holdings by failing to file specific 

objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after 

receiving proper notice, and by failing to challenge the 

district court’s dispositive holdings in his informal brief. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
No. 50016.

#### Petition 6489-R of J. J. Kagan (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

The petition having been formally abandoned was dismissed by the court.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1612 

To expand the definition of highway safety improvement project under section 

148 of title 23, United States Code, to include education integrated 

into an approved State strategic highway safety plan, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 20, 2017 

Mr. HATCH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To expand the definition of highway safety improvement 

project under section 148 of title 23, United States Code, 

to include education integrated into an approved State 

strategic highway safety plan, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Highway Safety Edu5 cation Improvement Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. 

7 Section 148 of title 23, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1612 IS

1 (1) in subsection (a)(4)(B)— 

2 (A) by redesignating clause (xxviii) as 

3 clause (xxix); 

4 (B) by inserting after clause (xxvii) the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘(xxviii) Education, as part of an ap7 proved State strategic highway safety plan, 

8 except that the total amount of funds that 

9 may be used by a State in a fiscal year for 

10 projects under this clause may not exceed 

11 10 percent of the amount allocated to the 

12 State for the highway safety improvement 

13 program under this section for such fiscal 

14 year, after the set asides for metropolitan 

15 transportation planning under section 134 

16 and the congestion mitigation and air qual17 ity improvement program under section 

18 149.’’; and 

19 (C) in clause (xxix), as redesignated, by 

20 striking ‘‘A physical infrastructure safety 

21 project’’ and inserting ‘‘An infrastructure safety 

22 project’’; and 

23 (2) in subsection (g)(1), by striking ‘‘increases 

24 over the most recent 2-year period for which data 

25 are available’’ and inserting ‘‘does not decrease durVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:29 Jul 29, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1612.IS S1612

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1612 IS

1 ing the most recent 2-year period for which data are 

2 available compared to the immediately preceding 2- 

3 year period, and exceeds the national fatality rate on 

4 rural roads’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
Before the First Division,

June 19, 1963

No. 67824.

#### P. L. Thomas & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/21089, etc. (New York).

*331Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of coffee stirrers similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 67164, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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

VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0776 LKK EFB P

vs.

D. L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner, without counsel, seeking relief for alleged civil rights violations. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 16, 2007, plaintiff filed a request for disclosure of discovery.

Interrogatories, requests for production, requests for admission, responses and proofs of

service thereof “shall not be filed with the clerk until there is a proceeding in which the

document or proof of service is at issue. When required in a proceeding, only that part of the

request and response that is in issue shall be filed.” Local Rules 33-250(c), 34-250(c) & 36-

250(c).

Accordingly, the court takes no action on plaintiff’s March 16, 2007, request. 

So ordered. 

Dated: May 14, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 90 Filed 05/15/07 Page 1 of 1
#### Jerry L. JARRETT, Appellant, v. Larry NORRIS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Max Mobley, Director of Treatment, Arkansas Department of Correction; John Byus, Director of Medical Treatment, Arkansas Department of Correction (originally sued as Byse); Correctional Medical Services (originally sued as C.M.S.); Michael Young, Dr., Assistant Director Diagnostic Medicine, Arkansas Department of Correction; *439Brickman, Medical Director, Diagnostic Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction; Mogho, Dr., Medical Assistant Director, Diagnostic Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction; Charlie Walls, Medical Supervisor, Sebastian County Sheriff’s Office, Ap-pellees.

No. 00-2953EA.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted June 7, 2001.

Filed June 25, 2001.

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Jerry Jarrett appeals the District Court’s1 dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies as required under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (West Supp.2000). The District Court did not err. Although Jarrett submitted numerous grievances regarding his medical care, he did not present proof that he fully exhausted as to all of the claims in his complaint. See *Graves v. Norris,*218 F.3d 884, 885 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam); *McAlphin v. Morgan,*216 F.3d 680, 682 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam); *Hartsfield v. Vidor,*199 F.3d 305, 309 (6th Cir.1999).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
No. 53502.

protest 889463-G (Portland, Oreg.).

#### Meier & Frank Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protest was dismissed.
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration

December 7, 2012, 2012 Federal Aviation Administration Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Eastern Region Regional Counsel

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591
Re: In the Matter ofClifford Press DocketNo. FAA-2011-1006 Dear Sir or Madam, 

# RECEIVED DEC 1 22012 

# HEARING 

# DOCKET 1 Aviation Plaza Room 561 Jamaica. NY 11434 Telephone: (718) 553-3255 Facsimile: (718) 995-5699

Enclosed please find a venue request that was sent to the Administrative Law Judge and opposing counsel on November 30, 2012. Kindly enter same on the docket. Sincerely, ALFRED R. JOHNSON, JR. REGIONAL COUNSELU.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration 

### November 30, 2012 Eastern Region Regional Counsel Telephone: 718 553-3255 Facsimile: 718 995-5699



### VIA FACSIMILE (202) 366-7536 The Honorable J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: Inthe Matter ofClifford Press, FAA-2011-1006 Dear Judge Sullivan, 1 Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434



### In accordance with your Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures, the Acting Administrator hereby requests that the hearing in the above-captioned matter take place in New York, preferably, New York City or Islip. Sincerely, Alfred R. Johnson, Jr. Regional Counsel
By:

# UA!Vrv~"**rp&L(1;~1rrwLJ'-** NL Judith L. Vaughan 

# j• Attorney
cc: Kathleen Yodice, via facsimile (301) 695-2151CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby declares that the attached document was served this dayuponthe following recipients:
VIAFIRST CLASS MAIL/ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 Washington, DC 20591

VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Kathleen A. Yodice Yodice Associates 411 Aviation Way, Suite 245 Frederick, MD 21701
The Honorable J.E. Sullivan,AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200New JerseyAvenue, S.E. Washington, DC20590

December 7, 2012
Part 1

SUPPLEMENT

LineNo.

USSGLAcct. USSGL Account Title Begin/End Fed/NonFed Exch/Nonexch Budgetary Impact Indicat

7.13 7.13 320100 Appropriations Outstanding - Warrants Issued E F7.13 320600 Appropriations Outstanding - Adjustments E F

10

This line is calculated. Equals sum of lines 4, 5.9, 6.5, 7.1315, 8.9, and 9.

Ending Net Position BalanceWarrants Issued (RC41) (for use by Treasury General Fund only)

USSGL Crosswalk - Reclassified Statement of Changes in Net Position

Bulletin No. 2014-07 Draft VI - 47 IR
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

RICHARD MANUEL BURGOS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0021 FCD DAD P

vs.

M. YARBOROUGH, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner has requested an extension of time to file and serve a traverse pursuant

to the court’s order of March 22, 2005. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s October 17, 2005 request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and

serve a traverse.

DATED: October 21, 2005.

DAD/bb

burg0021.111t

Case 2:04-cv-00021-FCD-DAD Document 57 Filed 10/21/05 Page 1 of 1