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

THOMAS A. HIGHTOWER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0887 GEB GGH P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 17, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order

and request to stay the scheduling order. Plaintiff alleged that on March 25, 2006, he was placed

in administrative segregation (ad seg) after being accused of threatening a correctional officer. 

Plaintiff alleged that he did not have access to his legal property.

On May 11, 2006, the court issued an order construing plaintiff’s motion for

injunctive relief as a request for a protective order. The court ordered plaintiff to inform the

court within twenty days whether he had been granted access to his legal property regarding this

action.

On June 2, 2006, plaintiff filed a response to the May 11, 2006, order. Plaintiff

states that on May 16, 2006, he was released from ad seg. Plaintiff states that he was issued all

Case 2:04-cv-00887-GEB-GGH Document 49 Filed 06/21/06 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

of his legal property but for one box, which contains some of his papers regarding the instant

action. Plaintiff states that he was told that this box was in the ad seg property room but there is

no current regular ad seg property officer. It is likely that plaintiff has received this missing box

of property by this time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within ten days of the date of this

order, plaintiff shall inform the court whether he has received his missing box of legal property;

if plaintiff has not received his property, the court will issue further orders.

DATED: 6/20/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

high887.ord(2)

Case 2:04-cv-00887-GEB-GGH Document 49 Filed 06/21/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.1

ESSEX PORTFOLIO, L.P.
                     CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Keith R. Guericke, Chief Executive Officer of Essex Property Trust,
Inc., the general partner of the registrant Essex Portfolio, L.P., certify
that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Essex Portfolio,
L.P.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;

1. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
2. The general partner's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
3. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;
4. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and
5. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

1. The general partner's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the general partner's auditors and the audit committee of the
general partner's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

1. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data; and
2. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

August 9, 2004

By: /s/ KEITH R. GUERICKE

Keith R. Guericke
                  Chief Executive Officer
                  Essex Property Trust, Inc., general partner of
                  Essex Portfolio, L.P.

---

---
#### Christina J. HAYES, Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SERVICES; Calonza Hall; Herbert Bersen; St. Louis County Department of Personnel Services; St. Louis County Civil Service Commission, Appellees.

No. 99-1216.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted April 6, 2001.

Decided April 9, 2001.

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Christina Hayes appeals following the district court’s1 dismissal of her employment discrimination action against several county entities and employees. She challenges only the district court’s failure to grant a motion to amend her complaint that she claims to have filed. There is no indication this motion was ever filed with the district court. We dismiss this appeal for frivolousness. *See*8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

A true copy.

1

. The HONORABLE CAROL E. JACKSON, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 40 (Thursday, March 1, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 9336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3571]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 26, 2007.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (David Tatum, Vice President) 
1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
    1. The Colonial BancGroup, Inc., Montgomery, Alabama; to merge with 
Commercial Bankshares, Inc., and thereby acquire its subsidiary, 
Commercial Bank of Florida, both of Miami, Florida.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 26, 
2007.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E7-3571 Filed 2-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. James Allen CARTER, Appellant.

No. 00-1405.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 9, 2001.

Decided April 9, 2001.

*422Before BEAM, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges, ALSOP,1 District Judge.

1

. The Honorable Donald D. Alsop, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

James Allen Carter pleaded guilty to drug trafficking in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846 and was sentenced to 104 months in prison. Carter appeals his sentence. We affirm.

Carter entered into a plea agreement and stipulation of facts stating that he was responsible for “approximately fifteen kilograms” of cocaine. At sentencing, the presentence investigation report (PSR) specified Carter was responsible for fifteen kilograms of cocaine resulting in a base offense level of 34 under the Sentencing Guidelines. Carter did not object to this drug quantity, nor to any other part of the PSR. The district court2 determined the drug quantity by adopting the PSR’s factual allegations as true and calculated Carter’s guidelines range accordingly. Had Carter been responsible for less than fifteen kilograms, his base offense level would only have been 32. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(4). Carter argues that because fifteen kilograms is the cutoff between two base offense levels, it was plain error for the district court to calculate his sentencing range based on these facts without making a specific evidentiary finding concerning the drug amount.

We review a district court’s determination of drug quantity for clear error. *United States v. Gonzalez-Rodriguez,*239 F.3d 948, 953 (8th Cir.2000). We will only overturn a drug quantity finding if “the entire record definitely and firmly *423convinces us that a mistake has been made.” *Id.*If Carter wished to object to the change from “approximately fifteen kilograms” in the stipulated facts to “fifteen kilograms” „in the PSR, he should have done so when given the opportunity at his sentencing hearing. Without a specific objection from Carter, the court was well within its authority to accept as true the PSR’s factual allegations concerning drug quantity. *See United States v. Montanye,*996 F.2d 190, 193 (8th Cir.1993) (en banc).

Accordingly, we affirm the sentence imposed by the district court.

2

. The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Case 2:02-cv-04456-JD     Document 3      Filed 09/05/2002     Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4215 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4215

  To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to establish new 
            prohibited acts relating to dietary supplements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 30, 2024

 Mr. Durbin (for himself and Mr. Blumenthal) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to establish new 
            prohibited acts relating to dietary supplements.

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

SECTION 1. NEW PROHIBITED ACTS RELATING TO DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 301 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
    ``(jjj) The introduction or delivery for introduction into 
interstate commerce of any product marketed as a dietary supplement 
that does not meet the definition of a dietary supplement under section 
201(ff).
    ``(kkk) The introduction or delivery for introduction into 
interstate commerce of a dietary supplement that has been prepared, 
packed, or held using the assistance of, or at the direction of, a 
person debarred under section 306.''.
    (b) New Import Exclusion.--Section 801(a) of the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 381(a)) is amended in paragraph (3) 
of the third sentence, by striking ``section 301(ll)'' and inserting 
``paragraph (ll), (jjj), or (kkk) of section 301''.
    (c) New Seizure Authorities.--Section 304 of the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 334) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(1), in the first sentence, by 
        striking ``section 301(ll)'' and inserting ``paragraph (ll), 
        (jjj), or (kkk) of section 301''; and
            (2) in subsection (d)(1), in the first sentence, by 
        striking ``or cosmetic'' and inserting ``cosmetic, or product 
        in violation of paragraph (jjj) or (kkk) of section 301''.
                                 <all>
```
STATE OF CONNECTICUT

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

In the matter of

The State ofConnecticut and

Montville Power LLC

)

)

)

)

)

Trading Agreement and Order 8183A

Modification No.3

Whereas, the Commissioner of Environmental Protection ("Commissioner") and Montville Power

LLC (Respondent) having agreed to the terms and conditions set forth in Trading Agreement and

Order 8183A and all previous modification thereto, do now, by mutual agreement, further modify

said modified Trading Agreement and Order as follows:

I. All references to May I, 2009 with respect to the authorization to use emissions

reduction credit trading and/or emission reduction credits and NOx allowances to

comply with the emissions limits of Subsections 22a-174-22(d)(I) through 22a-174-

22(d)(2)(A) ofthe Regulations ofConnecticut State Agencies (Regulations) are hereby

replaced with May 1,2010.

2. Any references to October Ist with respect to the date by which the Respondents shall

estimate and acquire Discrete Emission Reduction Credits (DERCS) and/or allowances

for the non-ozone season shall now include October 1,2009.

3. Any references to May 31, 2007 and May 31, 2008 with respect to calculation and

retirement of non-ozone season DERCs, shall now include May 31, 2009 and May 31,

2010.

4. All references to September I, 2008 with respect to the submission of Future

Compliance Reports are hereby replaced with September I, 2009.

5. No later than May 1,2010, with respect to the emission units identified in Trading

Agreement and Order 8183A and/or its subsequent modifications, the Respondent shall

comply with the requirements of Sections 22a-174-22(d)(l) and 22a-174-22(d)(2)(A) of

the Regulations.

6. All other terms and conditions of Trading Agreement and Order 8183A, as modified,

shall remain in effect.

(Printed on Recycled Paper)

79 Elm Street • Hartford. CT 06106·5127

hup:llwww.ct.gov/dep

All Equal OPPOrll/l1ily Employer
Montville Power LLC 2 Trading Agreement and Order 8183A

Modification No.3

The Respondent hereby consents to the entry ofthis modification to the Trading Agreement

and Order without further notice.

Montville Power LLC

Signature: ':U~ t~.""~=---'~==""''''-----­

Name: 'bk.J:,\ j - ")'>e.::' e.l",..N-• .5

Title: """"-\- M.""" A.,y...'C

Date: 1..1- 1",-"'f

Issued as a modification of a Trading Agreement and Order.

~,J 0'+- 2K-.:Lro'j

girecto~ . Date

Engineering and Enforcement Division

Bureau of Air Management
**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 the Quarterly Report of Patients & Physicians, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three and six-month periods ended June 30,
      2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the "Form 10-QSB"), I, Fred F. Nazem, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that;





(1)  The
      Form
      10-QSB 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




Dated:
              August 14, 2006/s/ Fred
              F.
              NazemFred
              F. Nazem, Chief Executive Officer
1 The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-2389

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the District * of Minnesota. Eulogio Martinez-Arrellano, also * known as Angel Arteaga, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 4, 2004 Filed: March 11, 2004

___________ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Eulogio Martinez-Arrellano pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute in excess of 500 grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court 1 assessed a 2- level role enhancement and sentenced Mr. Martinez-Arrellano to 168 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release.-2- On appeal, Mr. Martinez-Arrellano contests the role enhancement and argues that his sentence should be vacated because of misconduct by his public defender. After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in determining Mr. Martinez-Arrellano’s role in the offense warranted a 2-level enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) (2-level increase if defendant was organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal activity); United States v. Johnson , 47 F.3d 272, 277 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review). We also conclude that Mr. Martinez-Arrellano’s claim regarding misconduct by his public defender is not properly before us. See United States v. Hughes , 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
No. 63077.

#### Mrs. G. Frankel *v.*United States,

protest 58/13357 (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

An examination of the official papers showing that the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, the protest was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
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

KENNARD LEE DAVIS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0821 LKK KJM P

vs.

M. KNOWLES, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 10, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion asking that this

matter be stayed and that plaintiff be given leave to file an amended complaint. On March 27,

2006, plaintiff’s filed a letter in which plaintiff asks to withdraw the motion. Good cause

appearing, plaintiff’s most recent request will be granted.

Plaintiff also asks that the court send plaintiff one USM-285 form. This request

will also be granted. Plaintiff shall complete the form and return it within twenty days of this

order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s January 10, 2006 “motion for continuance; stay of abeyance to

exhaust related claim; motion to amend complaint” is withdrawn;

Case 2:04-cv-00821-LKK -KJM Document 12 Filed 05/02/06 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

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff one USM-285 form. 

Plaintiff shall complete the form with respect to defendant Lopez and return it to the court within

twenty days of this order. 

DATED: May 1, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

davi0821.wit

Case 2:04-cv-00821-LKK -KJM Document 12 Filed 05/02/06 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-136311, 333-117654, 333-88304, 333-51126, 333-41485, and 333-92783 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-155573 on Form S-3 of our reports dated February 27, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of Alliant Energy Corporation and subsidiaries (the “Company”) (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of new accounting standards), and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Alliant Energy Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2008.

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

February 27, 2009
No. 55208.

#### Craig Stanton & Co. and The Little Jones Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 156703-K and 155235-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15409 the court dismissed the protests.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1999
<CASH>                                         193
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  80,384
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               80,577
<PP&E>                                         239
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (35)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 80,781
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          72,845
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       248
<OTHER-SE>                                     7688
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   80,781
<SALES>                                        1,354
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,354
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  8,648
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,536
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,961
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (11,791)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.48)



</TABLE>