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

DARREL L. SMITH, No. 2:04-CV-0702-MCE-PAN-P 

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

CHARLES KING, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed

this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No.

262.

On August 31, 2005, the magistrate judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which

contained notice to all parties that any Objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty (20)

days. 

Case 2:04-cv-00702-MCE -EFB Document 81 Filed 03/03/06 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

Plaintiff has filed Objections to the Findings and

Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed August 31, 2005,

are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s June 28, 2005, motion is denied. 

DATED: March 2, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00702-MCE -EFB Document 81 Filed 03/03/06 Page 2 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH A. SOMERS, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0698 DFL KJM P

vs.

TERESA SCHWARTZ, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 27, 2005, he filed a motion for an order directing

prison officials at Avenal State Prison to return his electric typewriter, without which he is

unable, he claims, to communicate effectively with this court or with the outside world. 

Petitioner had filed a similar motion in July 2004 while he was housed at California Medical

Facility, which was resolved when officials returned his typewriter to him. 

An inmate has a constitutionally protected right of meaningful access to the

courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 820-21 (1977). This right encompasses more than

access to an adequate law library: it includes access to “paper and pen to draft legal documents.”

Id. at 824-25; see also Gluth v. Kangas, 951 F.2d 1504, 1510 (9th Cir. 1991). In this case, as

before, petitioner alleges that a disability makes it impossible “to write, prepare and deliver

Case 2:04-cv-00698-JKS-KJM Document 25 Filed 11/21/05 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

2

acceptable court papers” without his electric typewriter. Motion at 4. He does not allege,

however, that he has any current court deadlines in this case; indeed, with the filing of his reply

to respondent’s answer, the case is now submitted. Accordingly, petitioner has made no showing

that his right of access to this court in this case has been undermined by the confiscation of his

typewriter.

This court’s jurisdiction in a habeas case is limited to determining whether

petitioner is in custody in violation of the United States Constitution. See Estelle v. McGuire,

502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). In aid of that jurisdiction, the court may consider impediments to

petitioner’s ability to litigate the underlying case. The pendency of this habeas petition does not,

however, authorize this court to adjudicate petitioner’s claims of retaliation and violations of the

Americans With Disabilities Act. See Bogovich v. Sandoval, 189 F.3d 999, 1002 (9th Cir. 

1999) (discussing differences between habeas and claims under the ADA); Moran v. Sondalle,

218 F.3d 647, 650-51 (7th Cir. 2000) (discussing differences between habeas and civil rights

actions). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s July 27, 2005 motion

for an order directing the return of his typewriter is denied. 

DATED: November 18, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

some0698.tw

Case 2:04-cv-00698-JKS-KJM Document 25 Filed 11/21/05 Page 2 of 2
Payment Collection RIA SIA Zero Dollar Total

March 2017 30,510 84,884 3,192 188 - 118,774

April 2017 31,420 85,192 2,578 180 7 119,377

May 2017 33,017 82,593 2,711 130 - 118,451

Totals 94,947 252,669 8,481 498 7 356,602

 -

 50,000

 100,000

 150,000

 200,000

 250,000

 300,000

 350,000

 400,000

# of transactions

Transaction Type

IPAC Transaction Count

March 2017

April 2017

May 2017

Totals
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

FELIX J. MELENDEZ, 

Appellant, 

v.

Case No. 5D22-2796

LT Case No. 2019-DR-013840

CAROLINE MELENDEZ, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/

Opinion filed May 16, 2023 

Nonfinal Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Brevard County, 

Jigisa Patel-Dookhoo, Judge.

Keith McCarter, of McCarter Law 

Offices, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

David Diaz, of Diaz Family Law 

Firm, P.A., Mount Dora, for

Appellee.

PER CURIAM. 

Appellant, Felix J. Melendez, appeals numerous orders entered by the

trial court subsequently to the final judgment dissolving the marriage of the 

parties.
2

We affirm the order denying Appellant’s motion for contempt and the 

separate order temporarily suspending Appellant’s time-sharing with the 

parties’ three minor children on the authority of Applegate v. Barnett Bank of 

Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979). As to the remaining orders, we 

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The orders were either (1) rendered more 

than thirty days before the notice of appeal was filed or (2) not appealable 

under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. Lastly, even if we treat the 

appeal of these remaining orders as a petition seeking certiorari relief,1 no 

irreparable harm has been shown. 

AFFIRMED, in part; DISMISSED, in part. 

LAMBERT, C.J., EDWARDS and SOUD, JJ., concur.

1 See Fla. R. App. P. 9.040(c).
Before the First Division,

October 31, 1947

No. 51993.

#### C. J. Tower *&*Sons *v.*United States,

protests 129426-K, etc. (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the “Aloxite” passed upon in *United States*v. *C. J. Tower & Sons*(35 C. C. P. A. 22, C. A. D. 366), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1672 was sustained.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. CP06-421-000] 

The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) is holding a public meeting for Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation's (Transco's) proposed Potomac Expansion Project. The project would consist of the construction of about 20 miles of new 42-inch-diameter pipeline in three loops located in Campbell, Pittsylvania, and Fairfax Counties, Virginia; and various aboveground facilities, including a proposed pig launcher/receiver facility at milepost 1,586.17 in Fairfax County, Virginia. 

The meeting will be on Friday, March 2, 2007, at 7 p.m. (EST) in the Virginia Run Community Center, 15355 Wetherburn Court, Centreville, VA 20120. 

                    This event is posted on the Commission's calendar located at                     *http://www.ferc.gov/​EventCalendar/​EventsList.aspx*                     along with other related information. For additional information, please contact the Commission's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208-FERC.                 

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E7-3490 Filed 2-27-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                          50,710
<SECURITIES>                                    33,545
<RECEIVABLES>                                  177,627
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          26,735
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 288,617
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          480,154
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,992,374
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   288,617
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  355,409
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (355,809)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (305,809)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
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

 / 

Dewayne McGee Richardson, CDCR # T-32684, a necessary and material witness in a 

jury trial in this case on February 8, 2016, is confined in North Kern State Prison (NKSP), 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, NKSP, P.O. Box 567, Delano, CA 93216-0567: 

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 294 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATION**

          The undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:

(1) The accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2006, 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 accompanying Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| Date:  December 8, 2006 |   | /s/ William P. Murnane                |
|------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                         |   |                                       |
|                         |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                         |   |                                  |
|                         |   |                                  |
| Date:  December 8, 2006 |   | /s/ Douglas W. Keller                 |
|                         |   |                                       |
|                         |   | Principal   Financial Officer         |
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Walter Maurice Savage,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-1079 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

State of California, et al.,

Respondents.

-oOoJuly 22, 2005, petitioner requested an extension of time to

oppose respondents’ motion to dismiss. Good cause appearing,

petitioner’s request is granted and time is extended until 30

days from the date this order is signed.

So ordered.

Dated: July 28, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01079-MCE -PAN Document 15 Filed 07/29/05 Page 1 of 1
### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Ma y 9 , 2 005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1592 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock et No. 0 4- 20 36 6- CR-J AL UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us LUIS OSPINA, D ef en da nt- A ppe lla nt.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ A ppe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D ist ri ct

Co urt f or the So uth er n D ist ri ct of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 9 , 200 5) Before CA RNE S, MAR CUS and GO DBO LD , C ircuit Judg es PE R CU RIA M: Da vid J. Joffe, retained counsel for L uis Ospina in th is direct crim inal ap pe al , ha s m ove d to w ith dr awf ro m f urthe r re pr es en ta tio n of

the appe lla nt a nd2

fi le d abr ie f pur sua nt t o A nde rs v. Ca lif or nia , 386 U
. S. 738 , 87 S
. Ct
. 139 6, 18 L. Ed. 2d 49 3 (1967). O ur independent review of the entire r ecord re veals that
co unse l’ s a sse ssm en t of

the r el at ive m er it of

the appe al is co rr ec t. B ec au se ind ep en de nt e xa m ina tio n of the e nti re r ec or d r ev ea ls n o a rg uable iss ue s of m er it,
co unse l’ s m oti on t o w ith dr awis GRA NTE D , a nd O spi na ’ s c onvi ct ion a nd sentence are AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JULIO C. NOVOA, M.D.,

Appellant,

§

§

§

No. 08-12-00254-CV

Appeal from the

34th District Court

v.

§

of El Paso County, Texas

DALIA DE LA RIVA, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT 

AND NEXT FRIEND OF DANIELLA 

DE LA RIVA, A MINOR,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

(TC# 2009-1494)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is a motion filed by Appellant, Julio C. Novoa, M.D., to dismiss 

the appeal because the parties have settled all disputes between them. TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1. We 

grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. The motion does not reflect that the parties have made 

any agreement regarding costs. Accordingly, costs are taxed against Appellant. See 

TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(d) (absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the 

appellant).

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

January 29, 2014

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4219 

To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to eliminate 

a requirement that certain individuals be related by blood or marriage 

to be eligible for farm loans as a qualified beginning farmer or rancher, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 1, 2024 

Mr. WELCH (for himself, Mr. SANDERS, and Ms. SMITH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 

Act to eliminate a requirement that certain individuals 

be related by blood or marriage to be eligible for farm 

loans as a qualified beginning farmer or rancher, 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 ‘‘Future Farmers and 

5 Ranchers of Tomorrow Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4219 IS

1 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR FARM LOANS AS A QUALIFIED BE2 GINNING FARMER OR RANCHER. 

3 Section 343(a)(11) of the Consolidated Farm and 

4 Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1991(a)(11)) is amend5 ed— 

6 (1) by striking subparagraph (C); and 

7 (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) 

8 through (G) as subparagraphs (C) through (F), re9 spectively. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
_____________________ AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,427
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,838
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,786
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,722
<PP&E>                                           2,626
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,341
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,014
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,414
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,928
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,284
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,014
<SALES>                                          9,326
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,413
<CGS>                                            6,211
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,619
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  85
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,793
<INCOME-TAX>                                       594
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,199
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,199
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .61
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**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 European Micro Holdings, Inc. (the
      “ Company ”)
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2001 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report ”),
      the
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:




1.  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




2.  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.




Date:
                  October
                  16, 2006
              By:
              */s/
                Jay P.
                Nash*Name:Jay
                      P. Nash
                    Title:Chief
                      Financial Officer


A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, 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 European Micro Holdings, Inc. and will
      be
      retained by European Micro Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 50934.

#### Protests 121244-K, etc., of Balfour, Guthrie & Co., Ltd., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 54647.

#### Max Schuster *v.*United States,

protests 147848-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the-merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those-the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.