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

JEFFREY HOWARD GAUTIER,

Petitioner, 2:04-cv-0721-GEB-GGH-P

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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 March 28, 2006, 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 days. Neither

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00721-GEB-GGH Document 34 Filed 07/03/06 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

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 28, 2006, are adopted in full;

and 

2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed in light of his

death during the pendency of the action.

Dated: June 30, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00721-GEB-GGH Document 34 Filed 07/03/06 Page 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

August 13, 2014

jam 

# Order

Clerk August 13, 2014

149 532 (32)

RANDALL A. RAAR

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 149 532

COA: 319423

KINROSS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY WARDEN

,

Defendant

- Appellee.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The

holding in Smith v Bennett, 365 US 708, 710 (1961), was based in part on the U.S.

Supreme Court's earlier decision in Burns v Ohio, 360 US 252, 253 (1959), which held

that a state cannot “constitutionally require that an indigent defendant in a criminal case

pay a filing fee before permitting him to file a motion for leave to appeal in one of its

courts.” [Emphasis added .] Although Smith v Bennett precludes a court from refusing to

docket and decide a habeas corpus action because of the inability to pay the filing fee,

nothing in the decision mandates that there be a complete waiver of court fees.

Accordingly, the Clerk shall retain plaintiff’s pleadings for an additional 21 days to allow

plaintiff to comply with the Court’s July 2 3 , 2014 order.
Before the Second Division,

December 13, 1961

No. 66282.

#### Sherwin International et al. *v.*United States,

protests 301703-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
AMERICAN EXPRESS CERTIFICATE COMPANY
                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

City of Minneapolis

State of Minnesota

Each of the undersigned as a director of American Express Certificate Company, a
face-amount certificate company registered under the Investment Company Act of
1940, hereby constitutes and appoints Paula R. Meyer, Teresa J. Rasmussen, H.
Bernt von Ohlen and Jeryl A. Millner or any one of them, as his or her
attorney-in-fact and agent, to sign for him or her in his or her name, place and
stead any and all registration statements and amendments thereto (with all
exhibits and other documents required or desirable in connection therewith) that
may be prepared from time to time in connection with said Company's existing or
future face-amount certificate products - whether pursuant to the requirements
of the Securities Act of 1933, the Investment Company Act of 1940 or otherwise -
and periodic reports on Form 10-K, Form 10-Q and Form 8-K required pursuant to
provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and any necessary or
appropriate filings with states or other jurisdictions, and grants to any or all
of them the full power and authority to do and perform each and every act
required or necessary or appropriate in connection with such signatures or
filings.

Signed on this 3rd day of March, 2004



/s/ Rodney P. Burwell                           /s/ Karen M. Bohn
--------------------------                      --------------------------
    Rodney P. Burwell                               Karen M. Bohn


/s/                                             /s/ Kent M. Bergene
--------------------------                      --------------------------
    Jean B. Keffeler                                Kent M. Bergene


/s/ Thomas R. McBurney                          /s/ Paula R. Meyer
--------------------------                      --------------------------
    Thomas R. McBurney                              Paula R. Meyer


/s/ Walter S. Berman
--------------------------
    Walter S. Berman
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 5/29/2023 1

Disqualification of a Candidate for Failure 

to Properly File Papers of Candidacy 

Lawrence v. Board of Election Commissioners 

(Elaine E. Bucklo, N.D. Ill. 1:07-cv-566) 

A would-be candidate filed a federal complaint challenging a requirement that he file with his nomination papers the receipt he received for filing his statement of economic interest. The district 

judge granted summary judgment to the defendants. The claims 

were barred by res judicata because they were not raised in an unsuccessful state-court proceeding on the same matter. Nor was it 

unconstitutional to disqualify as a candidate someone who failed to 

properly file papers of candidacy. 

Subject: Getting on the ballot. Topic: Getting on the ballot. 

On January 30, 2007, a would-be candidate for Chicago alderman in the February 27 election, his campaign committee, and three voters filed a federal 

complaint in the Northern District of Illinois, challenging on its face and as 

applied the constitutionality of a requirement that he file with his nomination papers the receipt he received for filing his statement of economic interest.1

On February 6, Judge Elaine E. Bucklo granted a three-week extension 

request by Illinois’s attorney general to accommodate the attorney general’s 

convenience.2 On February 8, the plaintiffs filed motions for an expedited 

hearing, acknowledging that it was too late to restore the would-be candidate’s name to the February 27 ballot but arguing that he could be added to 

an April 17 runoff election.3 Judge Bucklo granted the motions and set the 

matter for hearing on February 23.4

On February 27, Judge Bucklo granted summary judgment to the defendants.5

 The plaintiffs’ claims were barred by res judicata, because they 

failed to raise them in a state-court proceeding on the same matter in which 

they lost.6 Judge Bucklo also found that it was not unconstitutional for Illi1. Complaint, Lawrence v. Bd. of Election Comm’rs, No. 1:07-cv-566 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 

2007), D.E. 1; Lawrence v. Bd. of Election Comm’rs, 524 F. Supp. 2d 1011, 1013–15 (N.D. Ill. 

2007); see Amended Complaint, Lawrence, No. 1:07-cv-566 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 13, 2007), D.E. 19; 

Amended Complaint, id. (Feb. 12, 2007), D.E. 21; see also Mark Brown, Just Getting on the 

Ballot Is More Than Half the Battle, Chi. Sun-Times, Jan. 11, 2007, at 2. 

2. Minutes, Lawrence, No. 1:07-cv-566 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 6, 2007), D.E. 13; see Extension 

Motion, id. (Feb. 6, 2007), D.E. 11. 

3. Expedited-Hearing Motion, id. (Feb. 8, 2007), D.E. 16; Expedited-Hearing Motion, id.

(Feb. 8, 2007), D.E. 14. 

4. Minutes, id. (Feb. 23, 2007), D.E. 55; Minutes, id. (Feb. 22, 2007), D.E. 43. 

5. Lawrence, 524 F. Supp. 2d 1011; Minutes, Lawrence, No. 1:07-cv-566 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 

2007), D.E. 52. 

6. Lawrence, 524 F. Supp. 2d at 1018–23. 
Disqualification of a Candidate for Failure to Properly File Papers of Candidacy 

2 Federal Judicial Center 5/29/2023 

nois to disqualify as a candidate someone who failed to properly file papers 

of candidacy.7

7. Id. at 1023–27.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
 
                           EARLE M. JORGENSEN COMPANY
 
                     LISTING OF THE COMPANY'S SUBSIDIARIES
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    DATE             STATE/
                                   NATURE OF      ACQUIRED    %    COUNTRY OF
             NAME                  BUSINESS      OR CREATED OWNED INCORPORATION
             ----              ----------------- ---------- ----- -------------
<S>                            <C>               <C>        <C>   <C>
Earle M. Jorgensen (Canada)
 Inc. (formerly Kilsby
 Jorgensen Steel & Aluminum
 Inc.)........................ Metal Distributor  11/13/90   100%    Canada
Stainless Insurance Ltd....... Captive Insurance  03/20/96   100%    Bermuda
</TABLE>
#### Gene Stephen OWENS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-7739.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2001.

Decided April 17, 2001.

Gene Stephen Owens, pro se.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Gene Stephen Owens appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *Owens v. Virginia,*No. CA-00-1396-AM (E.D.Va. Nov. 14, 2000). 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.

*DISMISSED.*
No. 47824.

#### Protest 88837-K of Dan Brechner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the clay ducks in question are similar to those involved in Abstract 47474. In accordance therewith the claim at 45 percent under paragraph 397 was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SACINO BERTOLINO

HALLISSY & RALEY

A Professional Corporation

740 University Ave., Ste. 100

Sacramento, CA 95825-6751

Telephone (916) 649-2214

RICHARD P. BERTOLINO, State Bar Number 091593

Attorney for Defendants MARK FUKUHARA, DOUGLASBURLAND, JOESILVA,STEVEN

LEACH, DAN SALOMON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

_________________________________

OPHTHALMIC IMAGING SYSTEMS, a

California Corporation, 

Plaintiff,

v.

MARK FUKUHARA, an individual,

DOUGLAS BURLAND, an individual,

MICHAEL GERKOVICH, an individual,

STEVEN LEACH, an individual,

EDMUND PETERSON, an individual,

DAN SALOMON, an individual, DALE

BRODSKY, an individual,

EYEPICTURES, INC. a Missouri

Corporation, JUSTICE OPHTHALMICS,

INC., a Tennessee Corporation, ZETA

DEVELOPMENT LABS, INC., a

Tennessee Corporation, JOHNNY

JUSTICE, JR., an individual, DOES ONE

through TEN, 

Defendants.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. CV. S-04-0482 LKK DAD

NOTICE AND SUBSTITUTION OF

ATTORNEY AND ORDER

TO THIS HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendant DAN SALOMAN substitutes Richard P.

Bertolino of Sacino, Bertolino, Hallissy & Raley as his attorney of record in this action in

place of Daniel Maguire of Maguire Law Office, 423 E St., Davis, CA 95616 and Anthony

DeCristoforo of Wilke, Fleury, et.al., 400 Capitol Mall, 22nd Fl., Sacramento, CA 95814. 

Case 2:04-cv-00482-LKK -DAD Document 144 Filed 08/22/05 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 -

Dated: By: /s/ Dan Salomon 

DAN SALOMON

I consent to this substitution. 

Dated: By: /s/ Daniel Maguire

DANIEL MAGUIRE

I consent to this substitution. 

Dated: By: /s/ Anthony DeCristoforo

ANTHONY DECRISTOFORO 

I accept this substitution. 

Dated: By: /s/ Richard P. Bertolino

RICHARD P. BERTOLINO

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 22, 2005 /s/ Lawrence K. Karlton 

HONORABLE LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-00482-LKK -DAD Document 144 Filed 08/22/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust V (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding V, L.P.
for the period ended July 1, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Haig J. Nargesian,
Regular Trustee of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.





                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST V


                              By:  /s/ HAIG J. NARGESIAN
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Haig J. Nargesian *
                              Title:   Regular Trustee









Dated: August 11, 2005
______________________

* Haig J. Nargesian functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Trust for  purposes  of Section  906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
(1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 (2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Partnership.
 MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING V, L.P.By: MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General PartnerBy:
    
    /s/ PETER D. TAUBEName:
    
    Peter D. Taube*Title:
    
    Chief Accounting Officer and Controller,Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
  *
    
    Peter D. Taube functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership for purposes of Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
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

CHARLES T. DAVIS,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-0878-GEB-DAD-P

vs.

C/O KISSINGER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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 July 14, 2009, 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 days. Both parties have 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 

///

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 193 Filed 09/30/09 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

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 July 14, 2009, are adopted in full; and 

2. Defendants’ October 9, 2008, motion for summary judgment (Doc. No 142) is

granted in part and denied in part as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s

failure to protect claims against defendants Baker and Money is denied;

b. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s

inadequate medical care claims against defendants Garrison, Money, and Ingwerson is denied;

c. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s

equal protection claims is denied as to defendants Kissinger, Peery, Qualls, Ingwerson, and

Money, but is granted as to defendants Baker and Garrison;

d. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s supervisory

capacity claims against defendants Ingwerson, Money, and Peery is granted;

e. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s

state law claims against defendants Kissinger and Peery is denied; and

f. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to their

affirmative defense of qualified immunity is denied.

Dated: September 30, 2009

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 193 Filed 09/30/09 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Abgenix, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2004, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

May 10, 2004

 

 
|   |  /s/ RAYMOND M. WITHY, PH.D. |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Raymond M. Withy, Ph.D.                |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer  |
|   | (Principal Executive Officer)          |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Abgenix, Inc. and will be retainedby Abgenix, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

1

----
Case No. 6,728.

#### In re HOUGHTON.

[5 Law Rep. (1842) 321.]

District Court, D. New York.

Ba nkruptct — Fictitious Debt.

F. Sayre, for bankrupt.

P. J. Joachemssen, for creditors.

THE COURT

had decided, on a previous hearing [Case No. 6,727), that the father of the bankrupt being assignee of his estate under a voluntary assignment, could not purchase debts owing by the bankrupt, at a discount, with such trust funds, and hold them as against other creditors for their full face, and it had been referred to a commissioner to take proofs on the allegation by creditors, that the barilu-upt had in his schedule stated his father to be creditor for-the whole amount of obligations known to him to have been so purchased.

THE COURT decided, on the coming in of the proofs, that the preponderance of evidence was, that the obligations had been bought with the funds of the father, and no part of the estate of the bankrupt had been applied in the purchase, and that the father had bought the claims as his own exclusively, and upon such fact it was further decided, that the debts remained good and sub*588sisting against the bankrupt for their full amount in the hands of his father, whatever might be his rights as against the creditors of the bankrupt, and that accordingly the bankrupt properly stated his father to be his •creditor to the full amount of the notes, &c.
EXHIBIT
      32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, the undersigned officer of Getty Realty Corp.(the “ Company ”)
      hereby
      certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





(i)
      the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended
      September 30, 2006 (the “ Report ”)
      fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (subject to the Company's
      position prevailing in regard to the remaining unresolved SEC comment, as more
      fully described in the Report); and





(ii)
      the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated:
      November 2, 2006





BY: /s/
      Thomas J. Stirnweis


(Signature)


THOMAS
      J.
      STIRNWEIS


Vice
      President, Treasurer and


Chief
      Financial Officer








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Getty Realty Corp. and will be retained by Getty Realty Corp. and furnished
      to
      the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
      incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before
      or
      after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in
      such
      filing.