alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4096 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4096

   To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for the random 
   assignment of certain cases in the district courts of the United 
                                States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 10, 2024

 Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. 
 Shaheen, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Blumenthal, 
 Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Fetterman, Mr. Markey, Mr. Reed, Mr. Van Hollen, 
Mr. Warnock, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Hassan, Ms. Butler, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. 
 Merkley, Ms. Warren, Mr. Kaine, Ms. Smith, Mr. Booker, Mr. Welch, Mr. 
Warner, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. King, Mr. Carper, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Schatz, Ms. 
 Rosen, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Peters, Mr. Coons, 
 Mr. Padilla, Mr. Lujan, and Mr. Casey) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for the random 
   assignment of certain cases in the district courts of the United 
                                States.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``End Judge Shopping Act''.

SEC. 2. DIVISION OF BUSINESS AMONG DISTRICT JUDGES.

    Section 137 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(c) Random Assignment of Other Cases.--
            ``(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `law' 
        includes, with respect to an executive branch or a State or 
        Federal agency, a rule, a regulation, a policy, and an order.
            ``(2) Random assignment.--Any civil action brought for 
        declaratory, injunctive, or other equitable relief seeking 
        (whether facially or as-applied) to challenge the 
        constitutionality or lawfulness of, or to bar, restrain, 
        vacate, set aside, or mandate the enforcement of, any provision 
        of a Federal law on a nationwide basis, or any provision of a 
        State law on a statewide basis in that State, shall be randomly 
        assigned to a judge of the district court in which the civil 
        action is filed.''.
                                 <all>
```
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL BAKER, et al. ) 2:04-cv-0549-GEB-GGH

)

Plaintiffs, ) ORDER

)

v. )

)

ARAMARK UNIFORM AND CAREER )

APPAREL, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

 )

On October 11, 2005, each party filed a consent to

proceed before the Magistrate Judge for all purposes. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(c). 

If the Magistrate Judge accepts the referral, this action

is reassigned to the Magistrate Judge on the date this Order is

filed. See Local Rule 73-305(b) (prescribing “notwithstanding the

consent of all parties, the [United States District] Judge or

Magistrate Judge may reject the referral.”).

Dated: October 20, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00549-DAD Document 158 Filed 10/21/05 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

27

28

2

ACCEPTANCE OF REFERRAL

Pursuant to the parties’ consent and the approval of the

United States District Judge, I accept reassignment of this action

for all further proceedings, including entry of final judgment. 

All documents hereafter filed shall be denominated as 

2:04-cv-0549-GGH. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 10/20/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

baker549.cons

Case 2:04-cv-00549-DAD Document 158 Filed 10/21/05 Page 2 of 2
# Bulletin No. 2017-07

&"Arial,Bold"&12U.S. Standard General LedgerSummary of ChangesDRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2017-07	&"Arial,Bold"&P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout 7/20/17

# Additional Information

&"Arial,Bold"&12U.S. Standard General LedgerSummary of ChangesDRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2017-07	&"Arial,Bold"&P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout 7/20/17
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT

**IN RE: JOHN R. BAILEY, CHESTER COUNTY, MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 15-4-**  **03**

**PETITION OF: THOMAS A. RILEY, JR. :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 144 EM 2016** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, **this 15 th**  **day of September, 2016, the Petition by Thomas A. R iley,** 

**Jr. for Allowance of Subpoena Pursuant to Pa.R.J.A. 170 1 is**  DENIED **. Rule 1701(b)**

**requires special allowance by this Court for the issuance o f a subpoena directed to a** 

**judicial officer to testify as a character witness. Pursua nt to paragraphs 6-8 of the** 

**Petition, Petitioner does not seek to elicit character te stimony from Magisterial Judge** 

**John R. Bailey. As Petitioner has not requested special allowance from this Court to** 

**permit character testimony from a judicial officer, Rul e 1701(b) has no application in this** 

**circumstance.**
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-50279

Summary Calendar

THOMAS GEORGE WICKER, JR., 

 Plaintiff-Third Party Defendant - Appellant

v.

SETERUS, INCORPORATED,

 Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff – Appellee

v.

ROCIO P. WICKER, 

 Third Party Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:17-CV-99

Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Thomas Wicker (“Wicker”) appeals from the district court’s grant of 

Seterus’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing of all of Wicker’s claims 

with prejudice. The district court relied on the doctrine of res judicata in 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 5, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-50279 Document: 00514904718 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2019
No. 18-50279

2

dismissing Wicker’s claims.1 On appeal, Wicker failed to challenge the district 

court’s order on those grounds, either in the opening brief or the reply brief, 

and thus has abandoned them. Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 

1994).

Wicker also appeals the district court’s granting of summary judgment 

as to Seterus’ counterclaim for breach of contract. Wicker admits to breach of 

the contract in his own pleadings. The only possible factual dispute raised by 

Wicker is Seterus’ alleged violation of Wicker’s right to reinstate by failing to 

calculate the reinstatement figure or the remaining payments. However, 

Seterus was not contractually obligated to fulfill either of these requests. 

Additionally, Seterus went beyond its contractual obligation by supplying 

Wicker with the reinstatement amount (although it did not supply, nor was it

required to supply, the monthly payment amount). There is no genuine dispute 

as to any material fact regarding Wicker’s failure to comply with the contract. 

FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a).

Therefore, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

 

1 This case is the fourth case that Wicker has filed arising from the attempted 

foreclosure of the Calle Bonita Property and relating to this same loan agreement. Wicker v. 

Seterus, Inc., No. EP-17-CV-99-DB, 2018 WL 4856771, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2018).

 Case: 18-50279 Document: 00514904718 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2019
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                       TERAYON COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.

                                  CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of Terayon Communication Systems, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Arthur T. Taylor,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof,
solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (3)      the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act
                  of 1934, and

         (4)      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
                  indicated.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: May 10, 2004

                                                 /s/ Arthur T. Taylor
                                                --------------------------------
                                                        Arthur T. Taylor
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION N o. 04
- 15
- 00455
- CR Abraham SANCHEZ , Appellant
v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 290th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014CR7645 Honorable Melisa Skinner , Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Jason Pulliam, Justice Delivered and Filed: August 1 2 , 2015 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION In a plea bargain case, o n April 15, 2015 , Appellant Abraham Sanchez was sentenced on two counts to sixteen

- years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

— Institutional Division in trial court cause number 201 4 CR 7645 . The trial court’s certification states this “is a plea bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” Assuming arguendo that Appellant had a right to appeal, Appellant’s notice of appeal was due not later than May 15 , 201 5 . See T EX . R. A PP . P . 26.2(a); Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal was due not later than June 1,04
- 15
- 00455
- CR

- 2
- 2015 . See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.3; Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at 522. The clerk’s record shows Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on July 20 , 201 5 ; it does not show a motion for new trial or a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal was filed. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.3. In his resp onse to our July 24, 2015 order to show cause why this court has jurisdiction in this appeal, Appellant acknowledges he did not timely file a notice of appeal
. Instead, h e moves this court to grant an out

- of

- time appeal.

“ A timely notice of appeal is nece ssa ry to invoke a court of appeals’ jurisdiction. ” Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at 522; Quintero v. State , No. 04
- 13
- 00073
- CR, 2013 WL 618789, at *1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Feb. 20, 2013, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Appellant co ncedes his notice of appeal was not timely filed. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.2. Even if we construe his motion for permission to file an out - of

- time appeal as a motion for extension of time, it was not timely filed. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.3 ; Quintero , 2013 WL 618789, at *1 . Absent a timely

- filed, written notice of appeal of a criminal conviction, this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at 522; Shute v. State , 744 S.W.2d 96, 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM DO NOT PUBLISH
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0255 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CARL SANGREY,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT** Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until February 6, 202 3 , to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s reply brief. No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 5 2023

01/05/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0255
From: "Chartier, Daniel" <DChartier@eei.org>

To: Kevin Culligan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Kinsman, John" <JKinsman@eei.org>, "Fisher, Emily" <EFisher@eei.org>, "Obenshain, Karen" 

<KObenshain@eei.org>, "Holdsworth, Eric" <EHoldsworth@eei.org>, "Fang, Bill" 

<BFang@eei.org>, "Shea, Quin" <QShea@eei.org>

Date: 05/09/2012 03:42 PM

Subject: Attendance List from NSPS Webinar

Kevin and Bob,

Please find attached the attendance list for today’s webinar as compiled by our conference call vendor.

Again, thanks for taking the time to do this webinar.

All the best,

Dan

______________________

Daniel L. Chartier, Director, Environmental Markets and Air Quality Programs

Edison Electric Institute | 701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20004

202-508-5710 Office | 202-731-5888 Mobile | dchartier@eei.org

Follow EEI on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.

Register now for the EEI Annual Convention!

http://www.eei.org/2012

EPA NSPS 05 09 2012 200P.pdf
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM JOSTENS,
INC. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY 3,
1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-03-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                     6,068
<RECEIVABLES>                                  116,143
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (7,446)
<INVENTORY>                                     92,062
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               252,544
<PP&E>                                         231,747
<DEPRECIATION>                               (157,609)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 390,730
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          246,233
<BONDS>                                          3,600
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,853
<OTHER-SE>                                     114,240
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   390,730
<SALES>                                        742,479
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               742,479
<CGS>                                          351,290
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  351,290
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               291,527
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,245
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,866
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 93,383
<INCOME-TAX>                                    36,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             57,183
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    57,183
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.47


</TABLE>
Exhibit 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

                         INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY
              Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended
                                December 31, 2003


The undersigned directors of INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY, an Indiana
corporation (the "Company"), do hereby constitute and appoint MICHAEL G. MORRIS,
STEPHEN P. SMITH and SUSAN TOMASKY, and each of them, their attorneys-in-fact
and agents, to execute for them, and in their names, and in any and all of their
capacities, the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K, pursuant to Section
13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2003, and any and all amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all
exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and
agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do and perform every act
and thing required or necessary to be done, as fully to all intents and purposes
as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming
all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or any of them, may lawfully do or
cause to be done by virtue hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have signed these presents this
28th day of January, 2004.



   /s/ Karl G. Boyd                        /s/ Susanne M. Moorman
-----------------------------           -------------------------
Karl G. Boyd                            Susanne M. Moorman


   /s/ John E. Ehler                       /s/ Michael G. Morris
-----------------------------           ------------------------
John E. Ehler                           Michael G. Morris


   /s/ Henry W. Fayne                      /s/ Robert P. Powers
-----------------------------           -----------------------
Henry W. Fayne                          Robert P. Powers


   /s/ Thomas M. Hagan                     /s/ John R. Sampson
-----------------------------           ----------------------
Thomas M. Hagan                         John R. Sampson


   /s/ Patrick C. Hale                     /s/ Thomas V. Shockley, III
-----------------------------           ------------------------------
Patrick C. Hale                         Thomas V. Shockley, III


   /s/ David L. Lahrman                    /s/ Susan Tomasky
-----------------------------           --------------------
David L. Lahrman                        Susan Tomasky


   /s/ Marc E. Lewis
Marc E. Lewis
```
Medicare and Medicaid: Many Eligible People Not Enrolled in Qualified
Medicare Beneficiary Program (Letter Report, 01/20/94, GAO/HEHS-94-52).

The Qualified Medicare Beneficiary Program pays many out-of-pocket
expenses for Medicare recipients whose incomes are not quite low enough
to qualify them for regular Medicare benefits.  The number of people
enrolled has steadily increased since the program began in 1989, but a
substantial portion of those eligible have yet to sign up--despite
repeated efforts by government and advocacy groups to publicize the
program.  Many believe that people have not enrolled because of the
perceived welfare stigma associated with means-tested programs and
because of the complicated application process.  Many also believe that
authorizing the Social Security Administration (SSA) to make program
eligibility determinations would help overcome these factors and boost
enrollment.  Although SSA might be able to increase enrollment, GAO
believes that this concept should be tested before it is generally
adopted.  Finally, some state part A buy-in practices delay or preclude
enrollment of Qualified Medicare Beneficiary Program and regular
Medicaid beneficiaries in part A.  This, in turn, can place some
beneficiaries at a disadvantage relative to beneficiaries in other
states.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-94-52
     TITLE:  Medicare and Medicaid: Many Eligible People Not Enrolled in 
             Qualified Medicare Beneficiary Program
      DATE:  01/20/94
   SUBJECT:  Health care programs
             Eligibility determinations
             Medical expense claims
             State-administered programs
             Hospital care services
             Health care costs
             Supplemental security income program
             Health insurance
             Public assistance programs
             Federal social security programs
IDENTIFIER:  Qualified Medicare Beneficiary Program
             Medicare Program
             Medicaid Program
             District of Columbia
             California
             Delaware
             Georgia
             Michigan
             Oklahoma
             Texas
             Washington
             
************************************************************************

We regret that the full text of this item is presently unavailable.

See the GAO FAQ - Section 2.0 for printed copy ordering information.
The FAQ is automatically retrieved with all WAIS search results or 
can be obtained by sending e-mail to: [email protected]
```
In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: July 15, 2016 . 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0691 

Offshore Flight School, Inc. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2014WP910016 

Respondent 

. l \1 

; ··.-

ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY DEADLINE AND PREHEARING CONFERENCE 

On April 4, 2016, the undersigned judge issued an Order Directing the Parties to Meet and 

Confer Regarding Litigation and Scheduling Issues in the above captioned case . 

. On July 13, 2016, the parties submitted a joint report to the undersigned judge in which they, · 

inter alia, proposed discovery be completed by September 9, 2016 and that a telephonic 

prehearing conference be held on September 16, 2016. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §' 13.205(a)(l), (7),"and (8), it is hereby ORDERED: 

1. The parties shall conclude all discovery by September 9, 2016. 

2. The parties shall appear by telephone for a prehearing conference with the undersigned 

judge on September 16, 2016 at 3pm Eastern tiine. 

3. The parties shall access the conference by dialing telephone number 888-204-5984 and 

then inputting access code 6392406 ~hen prompted. 

4. During the conference, the parties shall be prepared to discuss the issues in dispute, the 

litigation schedule, the status of any settlement negotiations, and any other related 

matters. 

~--- D 0 U GLAS M. RA WALD 

Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment: Service List 
SERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 0001 

ONE COPY 

President, Offshore Flight School, Inc., Respondent· 

100 Iolana Place, #A 

Honolulu, HI 96819 

TEL: 808-836-8688 

David Glenn Bettencourt, Respondent's Counsel 

Dillingham Transportation Building, Suite 304 

735 Bishop Street 

Honolulu, HI 96813 

TEL: 808-521-3491 

FAX: 808-521-3494 

Charles Raley, Complainant's Counsel 

Enforcement Division/ AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

TEL: 202-267-3357 

FAX: 202-267-5106 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0691 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address:. Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building_:_Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.