alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 5/29/2023 1

Voter Registrations Voided 

Because a Deputy Registrar Was Dismissed 

Johnson v. Helander 

(Charles R. Norgle, Sr., N.D. Ill. 1:00-cv-6926) 

A high-school student filed a federal complaint to validate highschool voter registrations that had been voided because of sloppy 

work by a deputy registrar. The district judge denied class certification, and he denied immediate injunctive relief. The county attorney presented evidence that the plaintiff had received notice of his 

voided registration in time to cure it. 

Subject: Nullifying registrations. Topics: Registration 

procedures; student registration; class action. 

The high-school son of North Chicago’s mayor filed a federal complaint 

against Lake County’s clerk on the Sunday before the 2000 general election, 

seeking validation of his and some of his classmates’ voter registrations.1 The 

deputy registrar who had registered them was dismissed for submitting “inaccurate, incomplete and unverifiable” registration applications, so the clerk 

voided, at the close of the registration period, applications submitted by the 

dismissed deputy registrar, including the plaintiff’s.2 The complaint sought a 

temporary restraining order allowing the plaintiff and his classmates to vote.3

On the day that the complaint was filed, Judge Charles R. Norgle, Sr., denied class certification and denied immediate injunctive relief.4

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, 

Assistant Lake County State’s Attorney Daniel Jasica argued that a clerk’s 

office employee tried to contact [the plaintiff] by phone well before the [October 10 registration] deadline and that [the plaintiff] had received and 

signed for a letter on Oct. 8 telling him about the need to register again. 

Moreover, four of the 14 other students in the same group as [the plaintiff] 

did formally register to vote.5

On January 25, 2001, Judge Norgle granted the parties’ stipulated dismissal.6

1. Complaint, Johnson v. Helander, No. 1:00-cv-6926 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 6, 2000), D.E. 1; see

Dave McKinney, Teen Sues Lake Clerk to Regain Voting Right, Chi. Sun-Times, Nov. 6, 2000, 

at 21. 

2. See Complaint, supra note 1; see also McKinney, supra note 1; Evan Osnos & Rummana Hussain, N. Chicago Teens Lose in Bid to Cast Ballots, Chi. Trib., Nov. 7, 2000, at 1. 

3. Complaint, supra note 1. 

4. Minutes, Johnson, No. 1:00-cv-6926 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 6, 2000), D.E. 9; see Osnos & 

Hussain, supra note 2. 

5. Steve Warmbir, N. Chicago Teen Loses Suit Over Registration, Chi. Sun-Times, Nov. 7, 

2000, at 8. 

6. Minutes, Johnson, No. 1:00-cv-6926 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2001), D.E. 11; Docket Sheet, id.

(Nov. 6, 2000) (noting a January 8, 2001, dismissal stipulation).
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 421 

To prohibit Federal funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and to 

require a GAO study regarding Federal funds previously provided to 

such institute or to entities affiliated with the Chinese Government. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 14, 2023 

Ms. ERNST introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To prohibit Federal funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and to require a GAO study regarding Federal funds 

previously provided to such institute or to entities affiliated with the Chinese Government. 

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 ‘‘Defund the Wuhan 

5 Institute of Virology Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 421 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDING TO THE 

2 WUHAN INSTITUTE OF VIROLOGY. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—No funds authorized or appro4 priated by Federal law may be made available to the 

5 Wuhan Institute of Virology for any purpose. 

6 (b) GAO STUDY AND REPORT.—Not later than 2 

7 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 

8 Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct 

9 a study and submit a report to Congress regarding the 

10 amount of Federal funds that were awarded or indirectly 

11 provided (whether purposely or inadvertently) during the 

12 15-year period immediately preceding such date of enact13 ment to— 

14 (1) the Wuhan Institute of Virology, including 

15 affiliated researchers; 

16 (2) the People’s Republic of China; 

17 (3) the Chinese Communist Party; or 

18 (4) any agency or instrumentality of the entities 

19 listed in paragraphs (1) through (3). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
(Reap. Dec. 10388)

Entry No. 35364, etc.

#### Bruce Duncan Co., Inc., a/c Anchor Products, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided December 4, 1962)

*Stein & Shostalc*for tbe plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted on the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for tbe respective parties hereto, subject to tbe approval of tbe Court, that tbe merchandise covered by tbe appeals for reappraisement enumerated in tbe attached Schedule of Cases, consists of merchandise exported from Japan; and that, at tbe time of exportation thereof to tbe United States, tbe market value or tbe price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in tbe principal markets of tbe country from which exported, in tbe usual wholesale quantity and in tbe ordinary course of trade, for exportation to tbe United States, including the cost of all containers and covering of whatever nature,and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing tbe merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the appraised unit values, but not including the buying commission to Shin Bi Bussan Company, as stated on the invoices.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the merchandise the subject of this stipulation is not included in the list of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521, as provided for in Sec. 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, and that said merchandise is subject to appraisement under Sec. 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals for reap-praisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases may be deemed submitted for a decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts, I find that tlie export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 70 Stat. 943, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise covered *475by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached schedule and that such value is represented by the appraised unit values, but not including the buying commission to Shin Bi Bussan Company, as stated on the invoices.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 47838.

#### Protests 872152-G, etc., of Olivier Straw Goods Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 47291 the merchandise in question was held dutiable at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) 1, Tariff Act of 1930, as claimed.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

(Sacramento Division)

ANDY ADAMS and HEATHER ADAMS,

husband and wife, et. al., 

Plaintiffs,

 

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et. al.,

Defendants.

Civil No. CIV. S-04-0979-JAM-CMK

WRIT OF EXECUTION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff, 

v.

PATRICK MCCAULEY AND PATRICIA

MCCAULEY

 Defendants. 

TO: THE UNITED STATES MARSHALL’S SERVICE

You are directed to enforce the judgment described below with your costs as provided by law.

1. Judgment Creditor: 

Case 2:04-cv-00979-JAM -CMK Document 215 Filed 02/26/10 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

Ohm Ranch, a California Partnership

10470 Tyler Road

Red Bluff, CA 96080

2. Judgment Debtor:

Donna Gordy

570 El Cerrito Drive

Red Bluff, CA 96080

3. Address of Property upon which the judgment is to be enforced:

570 El Cerrito Drive

Red Bluff, CA 96080

4. Legal Description of property upon which the judgment is to be enforced:

LOT 17 OF WESTDALE SUBDIVISION, AS THE SAME IS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN

THE TEHAMA COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE JUNE 5, 1959, IN BOOK "M" OF MAPS AT

PAGES 4 AND 5. APN: 031-063-17

5. Judgment Entered on:

April 6, 2009

6. Amount of Judgment:

$366,333.93

7. The estimated value of the dwelling is $130,000.00.

8. The following persons are known to claim an interest in the property:

Donna Gordy

570 El Cerrito Drive

Red Bluff, CA 96080

Charles Miller

1445 Scottsdale Way

Red Bluff, CA 96080-3641

First Federal Credit Union

106 L Street, Suite F

Sacramento, CA 95814

DATED: February 25, 2010

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00979-JAM -CMK Document 215 Filed 02/26/10 Page 2 of 2
No. 53514.

protests 114377-K, etc. (El Paso and Los Angeles).

#### Henry S. Beach et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
1 The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-1791

___________ Alfonso A. Waldron, Jr., * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. The Boeing Company; International * Association of Machinists and * [UNPUBLISHED] Aerospace Workers, Lodge 837, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: May 6, 2005 Filed: May 11, 2005

___________ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Alfonso A. Waldron, Jr., appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his action claiming employment discrimination and Labor Management Relations Act violations, by his former employer and his union. Having carefully reviewed the record and considered Waldron’s arguments, see Jacob-Mua v.-2- Veneman , 289 F.3d 517, 520 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review), we find no basis for reversal. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny as moot the Boeing Company’s motion to strike.

______________________________
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Warren THOMAS, Sr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-6247.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2001.

Decided April 19, 2001.

Warren Thomas, Sr., pro se. Harold Watson Gowdy, III, Office of the United *133States Attorney, Greenville, SC, for appel-lee.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Warren Thomas, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Thomas,*Nos. CR-95-S70; CA-99-S947-7-20 (D.S.C. filed Jan. 2, 2001; entered Jan. 4, 2001). 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.*
SAR Comparisons

We have chosen to submit data available for a surrogate substance.

T est data was completed on a coco fatty acid derived material (Berol R648, Ethoquad

I MC1214/25

, Ethoquad MC1214/25 ) . The PMN chemical substance is manufactured with a

new process, synthesis starting from a synthetic C12

- 14 fatty alcohol but the resulting

chemistry is similar. Coco has alkyl chains that are primarily C12 and C14.

Figure 1 Figure 2
#### Charles T. KILWAY, Claimant-Appellant, v. Hershel W. GOBER, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-7052.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 18, 2000.

Before CLEVENGER, BRYSON, and LINN, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

*ORDER*

Charles T. Kilway moves without opposition to vacate and set aside the court’s October 13, 2000 decision and judgment in this matter and remand this matter to the United States Court of Appeals for Veter*917ans Claims for readjudication consistent with the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) The mandate issued on November 27, 2000 is recalled, and the appeal is reinstated.

(3) The decision and judgment in this matter are hereby vacated. The case is remanded to allow the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to consider the application of the revised statute to Mr. nil-way’s case.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>


       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                             DEC-31-1995

<CASH>                                                6,822,336 
<SECURITIES>                                                0   
<RECEIVABLES>                                           425,843 
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0   
<INVENTORY>                                                 0   
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      7,248,179 
<PP&E>                                               16,407,029 
<DEPRECIATION>                                       10,916,302 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       13,090,076 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   494,591 
<BONDS>                                               2,834,574 
<COMMON>                                                    0   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0   
<PREFERRED>                                                 0   
<OTHER-SE>                                            7,345,912 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         13,090,076 
<SALES>                                               4,348,517 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      4,663,663 
<CGS>                                                       0   
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         1,884,216 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         95,813 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      342,698 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       2,340,936 
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0   
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   1,553,443 
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0   
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0   
<CHANGES>                                                   0   
<NET-INCOME>                                          1,553,443 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             76.10 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             76.10 

        


</TABLE>
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, No. CIV S-04-0878 GEB DAD P

vs.

C/O KISSENGER, et al.

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On January 18, 2006, the court directed the United States Marshal to serve

plaintiff’s complaint on nine defendants, including Correctional Officer Baker. The Marshal was

directed to request a waiver of service of summons from each defendant before attempting

personal service. If a waiver of service was not returned by any defendant within sixty days, the

Marshal was instructed to effect personal service on that defendant in accordance with the

provisions of Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 566(c) and

thereafter to file the return of service with evidence of any attempts to secure a waiver of service

of summons and of all costs incurred in effecting personal service.

On June 22, 2006, the United States Marshal filed a return of service showing that

defendant Baker did not return the waiver of service of summons that was first mailed to him on

January 31, 2006, and then forwarded to him at a new address on February 15, 2006. The return

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 47 Filed 07/17/06 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 service shows that personal service was effected on June 17, 2006, and that the Marshal

incurred costs of $222.03 in effecting personal service on defendant Baker.

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows: 

An individual, corporation, or association that is subject to service

under subdivision (e), (f), or (h) and that receives notice of an

action in the manner provided in this paragraph has a duty to avoid

unnecessary costs of serving the summons. . . .

. . . .

If a defendant located within the United States fails to comply with

a request for waiver made by a plaintiff located within the United

States, the court shall impose the costs subsequently incurred in

effecting service on the defendant unless good cause for the failure

be shown.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2).

The court finds that defendant Baker was given the opportunity required by Rule

4(d)(2) to waive service and failed to comply with the request. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within fourteen days from the date of this order defendant Baker shall pay to

the United States Marshal the sum of $222.03, unless within the fourteen-day period defendant

files a written statement showing good cause for his failure to waive service. The fourteen-day

period will not be extended.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the United

States Marshal.

DATED: July 14, 2006.

DAD:13:bb

davi0878.tax

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 47 Filed 07/17/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
      10.20

     

    Summary
      of Loan Agreement - Loans from Nansun Rural Credit

     

    Weifang
      Yuhe Poultry Co., Ltd (“Weifang”) entered into three loan agreements with Nansun
      Rural Credit on November 28 2005, May 17, 2007 and March 23, 2007. Interest
      rates for the loan agreements range from 9.22% to 10.51% per annum. Nansun
      Rural
      Credit also provided four loans to Weifang Taihong Feed Co., Ltd. (“Taihong”)
      from November 28, 2005, to December 5, 2007 at the interest rates range from
      9.22% to 10.51% per annum. Loans from Nansun Rural Credit totaled $8,203,333
      and
      had a total outstanding principal balance of $8,544,331 as of March 31, 2008.
      Weifang and Taihong are obligated under the loan agreements to pay interest
      monthly and repay the loan on the maturity dates from November 28, 2008 to
      May
      17, 2010. The loans are used for financing of working capital. All loans are
      secured by the land and building of Weifang and Taihong with a net book
      of $11,842,626 at December 31, 2007 and $12,204,202 as of March 31,
      2008.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE DECEMBER
31, 1999 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          37,906
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,018
<ALLOWANCES>                                       725
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,020
<PP&E>                                           3,293
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,238
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,258
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,011
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           130
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,258
<SALES>                                         25,151
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,151
<CGS>                                           19,518
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,518
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,927
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (2,294)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  19
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (997)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (387)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (610)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)


</TABLE>