alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON, No. 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB P 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

 

D.L. RUNNELS, et al., 

 ORDER & WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

 Defendants. AD TESTIFICANDUM

 / 

Jamar Floyd Sandley, CDCR # T-52235, a necessary and material witness in a jury trial 

in this case on February 8, 2016, is confined in California Medical Facility (CMF), in the 

custody of the Warden. In order to secure this inmate’s attendance it is necessary that a Writ of 

Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issue commanding the custodian to produce the inmate before 

Judge Troy L. Nunley at the U. S. District Court, Courtroom No. 2, 501 I Street, 15th Floor, 

Sacramento, California 95814, on Monday, February 8, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that: 

1. A Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issue, under the seal of this court, 

commanding the Warden to produce the inmate named above to participate in a 

settlement conference at the time and place above, until completion of the settlement 

conference or as ordered by Judge Claire. 

2. The custodian is ordered to notify the court of any change in custody of this inmate and is 

ordered to provide the new custodian with a copy of this writ. 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM

To: Warden, CMF, 1600 California Dr., Vacaville, CA 95696: 

WE COMMAND you to produce the inmate named above to testify before Judge Nunley at the 

time and place above, until completion of the trial in this matter, or as ordered by the court. 

FURTHER, you have been ordered to notify the court of any change in custody of the inmate 

and have been ordered to provide the new custodian with a copy of this writ. 

DATED: December 17, 2015. 

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 298 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6590
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FRANK PHILLIP KALITA, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:01-cr-00391-JCC) Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 7, 2006 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank Phillip Kalita, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael Edward Rich, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Frank Phillip Kalita, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his request for copies at government expense. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Kalita , No. 1:01-cr-00391-JCC (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 3, 2006; entered Mar. 6, 2006). 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.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7799

JAMES STEVENSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MARTIN J. MCDADE, Superintendent of Custody;

BETTY BAIN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-94-320-5-CT-H)

Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Stevenson, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth F. Parsons, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate

judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Stevenson v.

McDade, No. CA-94-320-5-CT-H (E.D.N.C. Oct. 12, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
Amendment No. 1
                                       To
                               Employment Contract

     The Employment Contract between Justin Industries, Inc. and John S. Justin,
Jr. dated December 14, 1994 ("Contract") is hereby amended, effective December
1, 1997, as follows:

     1.   Employee's term of employment under Paragraph 2 of the Contract is
          hereby extended to November 30, 1998.

     2.   The minimum annual Salary to be paid to Employee under Paragraph 2 of
          the Contract shall be Six Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollars
          ($600,000.00).

     Except as hereinabove amended, the Contract shall remain in force as
     originally written.

     Executed this 18th day of December, 1997.

                                        JUSTIN INDUSTRIES, INC.


                                        By:  /S/ RICHARD J. SAVITZ
                                             Richard J. Savitz
                                             Vice President


                                             /S/ JOHN S. JUSTIN, JR.
                                             John S. Justin, Jr.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4166 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4166

To authorize reimbursement to applicants for uniformed military service 
    for co-payments of medical appointments required as part of the 
          Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) process.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 18, 2024

  Ms. Klobuchar (for herself and Mr. Young) introduced the following 
   bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize reimbursement to applicants for uniformed military service 
    for co-payments of medical appointments required as part of the 
          Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) process.

    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 ``Applicant Medical Reimbursement Act 
of 2024''.

SEC. 2. REIMBURSEMENT OF APPLICANTS FOR UNIFORM MILITARY SERVICE FOR 
              CO-PAYS OF MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS REQUIRED AS PART OF MEPS 
              PROCESS.

    The Secretary of Defense is authorized to reimburse applicants for 
uniformed military service for up to $100 per applicant for co-payment 
costs incurred by such applicants for medical appointments required as 
part of the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) process.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 32.1**





**ESSEX
      PORTFOLIO, L.P** **.**


**Certification
      of Principal Executive Officer**


**Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted**


**Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**








Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of
      Section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), I, Keith R. Guericke,
      Principal Executive Officer, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that
      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
      2006 (the “Form 10-Q”) of Essex Portfolio, L.P. fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and information contained in the Form 10-Q
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of Essex Portfolio, L.P. at the dates of and for the periods
      presented.











Date:
      November 7, 2006    /s/
      Keith R. Guericke


Keith R. Guericke


Chief
      Executive Officer and President,


Director
      and Vice Chairman of the Board,


Essex
      Property Trust, Inc., general partner of


Essex
      Portfolio, L.P.
(Reap. Dec. 8640)

Entry No. 01405.

#### Gallagher & Ascher Co. *v.*United States

(Decided September 7, 1956)

*Wallace & Schwartz*(Barnes, *Richardson & Colburn*by *Edward N. Glad*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *{Henry J. O’Neill,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon an agreed statement of facts entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the invoiced and entered values.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ECEM EUROPEAN CHEMICAL :

MARKETING B.V., : CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiff, : NO. 05-3078

 :

v. :

:

THE PUROLITE COMPANY, :

:

:

Defendant. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 29 day of January 2010, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion in th

Limine to Preclude Evidence of Defendant’s Alleged Damage Estimates (Doc. No. 65),

Defendant’s Response in Opposition to the Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 66), and Defendant’s

Supplemental Brief in Opposition (Doc. No. 80), and for the reasons stated in the Opinion dated

January 29, 2010, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 65) is DENIED. 

BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Joel H. Slomsky, J. 

 JOEL H. SLOMSKY, J
Exhibit 32.1 Certification
of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 Of The United States Code I, J. Patrick
Spainhour, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of The ServiceMaster
Company, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2006, fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained
in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of The ServiceMaster Company. /s/ J.
  Patrick SpainhourJ. Patrick
  SpainhourChairman and
  Chief Executive OfficerNovember 9,
  2006 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
The ServiceMaster Company and will be retained by The ServiceMaster Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 39
Case 2:05-cv-04836-HB Document 113-1 Filed 06/09/08 Page 1 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-04836-HB Document 113-1 Filed 06/09/08 Page 2 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-04836-HB Document 113-1 Filed 06/09/08 Page 3 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-04836-HB Document 113-1 Filed 06/09/08 Page 4 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-04836-HB Document 113-1 Filed 06/09/08 Page 5 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-04836-HB Document 113-1 Filed 06/09/08 Page 6 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-04836-HB Document 113-1 Filed 06/09/08 Page 7 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-04836-HB Document 113-1 Filed 06/09/08 Page 8 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-04836-HB Document 113-1 Filed 06/09/08 Page 9 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-04836-HB Document 113-1 Filed 06/09/08 Page 10 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-04836-HB Document 113-1 Filed 06/09/08 Page 11 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-04836-HB Document 113-1 Filed 06/09/08 Page 12 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-04836-HB Document 113-1 Filed 06/09/08 Page 13 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-04836-HB Document 113-1 Filed 06/09/08 Page 14 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-04836-HB Document 113-1 Filed 06/09/08 Page 15 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-04836-HB Document 113-1 Filed 06/09/08 Page 16 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-04836-HB Document 113-1 Filed 06/09/08 Page 17 of 18
Case 2:05-cv-04836-HB Document 113-1 Filed 06/09/08 Page 18 of 18
For immediate release: Jan. 23, 2015

EKPC To Continue Operating Dale Station Units Until 2016

WINCHESTER, Ky.— East Kentucky Power Cooperative (EKPC) has delayed plans to 

deactivate two coal-fired generating units in Clark County, Ky., until April 2016. The coop did so at the request of its regional bulk power grid operator, PJM Interconnection.

Last year, EKPC had announced plans to deactivate Dale Station Units #3 and #4 by April 

2015 due to the cost-prohibitive measures that would be needed to meet the provisions 

of the federal Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule. But, in late 2014, PJM 

expressed concern about the adequacy of generating resources necessary to maintain 

electric grid reliability, especially during the winter of 2015-16. As a result, PJM 

requested that EKPC delay Dale Station’s closure for one year.

EKPC has obtained the necessary regulatory approvals for the one-year operating 

extension. It will not delay EKPC’s plans to remove coal ash currently stored on the Dale 

Station property and transport it to a permitted coal ash landfill at another Clark County 

power plant.

In April 2014, EKPC made the decision to close Dale Station Units #1 and #2 and begin 

exploring the marketing of those assets. 

PJM Interconnection is a regional transmission operator, ensuring the reliability of the 

high-voltage electric power system serving 61 million people in all or parts of 13 states 

and the District of Columbia.

— END —

East Kentucky Power Cooperative is a not-for-profit, member-owned cooperative

providing wholesale electricity to 16 owner-member distribution cooperatives that serve 

520,000 Kentucky homes, farms, businesses and industries across 87 counties. EKPC 

provides power through coal-fueled plants located in Mason, Clark and Pulaski counties; 

natural gas-fueled peaking units in Clark County; renewable energy plants in Boone, 

Laurel, Greenup, Hardin, Mason and Pendleton counties; and nearly 2,900 miles of 

transmission lines. Together, EKPC and its 16 owner-member cooperatives are known as 

Kentucky's Touchstone Energy Cooperatives. Visit EKPC at www.ekpc.coop.

For more information, contact:
Nick Comer, External Affairs Manager

Office (general): (859) 744-4812, ext. 450

Office (direct): (859) 745-9450

Mobile: (859) 333-8735

nick.comer@ekpc.coop
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8690-8691]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3396]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 
Binational Panel Reviews: Notice of Termination of Panel Review

AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade 
Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Consent Motion to Terminate the Panel Review of the 
Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review made by the International Trade Administration, respecting 
Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico, Secretariat File No. 
USA-MEX-2006-1904-06.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Notice of Consent Motion to Terminate the 
Panel Review by the complainants, the panel review is terminated as of 
February 21, 2007. A panel has not been appointed to this panel review. 
Pursuant to Rule 71(2) of the Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 
Binational Panel Review, this panel review is terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caratina L. Alston, United States 
Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, 
Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade 
Agreement (``Agreement'') establishes a

[[Page 8691]]

mechanism to replace domestic judicial review of final determinations 
in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a 
NAFTA country with review by independent binational panels. When a 
Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is established to act in 
place of national courts to review expeditiously the final 
determination to determine whether it conforms with the antidumping or 
countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination.
    Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on 
January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of 
Canada and the Government of Mexico established Rules of Procedure for 
Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews (``Rules''). These Rules were 
published in the Federal Register on February 23, 1994 (59 FR 8686). 
The panel review in this matter was requested and terminated pursuant 
to these Rules.

     Dated: February 21, 2007.
Caratina L. Alston,
United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. E7-3396 Filed 2-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4239 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4239

   To require the head of each agency to submit to Congress and make 
   publicly available information relating to the implementation of 
                         Executive Order 14019.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 2, 2024

  Mr. Hagerty introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require the head of each agency to submit to Congress and make 
   publicly available information relating to the implementation of 
                         Executive Order 14019.

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

SECTION 1. AGENCY INFORMATION.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Agency.--The term ``agency''--
                    (A) has the meaning given the term in section 3502 
                of title 44, United States Code; and
                    (B) does not include an independent regulatory 
                agency (as defined in section 3502 of title 44, United 
                States Code).
            (2) Implementation plan.--The term ``implementation plan'' 
        means--
                    (A) a strategic plan of an agency required under 
                section 3(b) of Executive Order 14019 (86 Fed. Reg. 
                13623; relating to promoting access to voting); and
                    (B) any other plan of an agency for implementing 
                Executive Order 14019 (86 Fed. Reg. 13623; relating to 
                promoting access to voting).
    (b) Agency Requirement.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the head of each agency shall submit to Congress 
and make publicly available a report that includes--
            (1) a copy of each implementation plan of the agency;
            (2) a status update and timeline on the implementation of 
        each implementation plan of the agency; and
            (3) the date on which the head of the agency expects to 
        substantially complete the implementation of each 
        implementation plan of the agency.
                                 <all>
```
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4160 

To limit the closure or consolidation of any United States Postal Service 

processing and distribution center in States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 18, 2024 

Ms. LUMMIS (for herself, Ms. HASSAN, Mr. BARRASSO, and Mrs. SHAHEEN) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To limit the closure or consolidation of any United States 

Postal Service processing and distribution center in 

States, 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 ‘‘Postal Operations Stay 

5 Timely and Local Act’’ or the ‘‘POSTAL Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON CLOSING OR CONSOLIDATING 

7 POSTAL SERVICE PROCESSING AND DIS8 TRIBUTION CENTERS IN STATES. 

9 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4160 IS

1 (1) PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION CENTER.— 

2 The term ‘‘processing and distribution center’’ 

3 means a central mail facility that— 

4 (A) distributes and dispatches part or all 

5 of both incoming mail and outgoing mail for a 

6 designated service area; 

7 (B) provides instructions on the prepara8 tion of collection mail, dispatch schedules, and 

9 sorting plan requirements to mailers; and 

10 (C) is a sectional center facility, a general 

11 mail facility, or a dedicated mail processing fa12 cility without a station or branch. 

13 (2) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means a State 

14 or the District of Columbia. 

15 (b) LIMITATION.—The United States Postal Service 

16 may not close, consolidate, downgrade, or take any other 

17 similar action with respect to a processing and distribution 

18 center in a State if such action would result in there being 

19 no processing and distribution center located in that State 

20 or would negatively impact mail delivery. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
No. 49157.

#### Protests 8905-K, etc, of Marks & Rosenfeld, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the articles in question consist of glass candlesticks not designed for electrical illumination, and that they are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Marks*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 66, C. D. 795). The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 218 (c) and T. D. 49458 was sustained.