alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Russell S. GREENE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 00-70922.

U.S. Tax Ct. No. 15225-98.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.1

Decided June 27, 2001.

*607Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4.

MEMORANDUM2

Russell Greene appeals pro se the decision of the Tax Court upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of deficiencies in income tax for tax years 1992 through 1996. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 7482, 7483, and we affirm.

We review the tax court’s conclusions of law de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. *See Boyd Gaming Corp. v. Commissioner,*177 F.3d 1096, 1098 (9th Cir.1999). Because Greene stipulated to the Commissioner’s evidence that he received wages and compensation but did not file tax returns during those years, the Tax Court did not err by holding that Greene was liable for the tax deficiencies pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 61(a) and for statutory penalties pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6651(a)(1). Greene’s contentions that his income was not taxable and that the government lacked authority to assess the deficiency are entirely without merit. *See Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848*F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir.1988).

We reject Greene’s contention that this ease must be remanded because the Tax Court failed to rule on his motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction, which he filed after the Tax Court entered a decision. The government concedes that the Tax Court should have deemed Greene’s motion to dismiss as a motion for reconsideration and decided the motion. Nevertheless, the Tax Court’s failure to do so did not violate Greene’s due process rights since his motion to dismiss raised an entirely meritless contention that the IRS committed procedural irregularities rendering its notice of deficiency invalid. *See Droz v. Commissioner,*48 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir.1995).

We further reject Greene’s contention that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction over him because the IRS issued a notice of deficiency without first sending him a 30-day letter (a form letter designed to inform the taxpayer of the administrative appeal process, *see*26 C.F.R. § 610.105(d)(l)(iv)) or without conducting formal proceedings before the IRS Appeals Division. The Tax Court’s jurisdiction does not depend upon any preliminary proceedings, but requires only issuance of a valid deficiency notice. *See Kantor v. Commissioner,*998 F.2d 1514, 1521 (9th Cir.1993). Because a taxpayer is entitled to a de novo proceeding in the Tax Court upon the filing of a timely petition for review, this court will not look behind a deficiency notice to question the procedures leading to a determination. *Id.*

Accordingly, the decision of the Tax Court is AFFIRMED.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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

RICHARD MANUEL BURGOS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0021 FCD DAD P

vs.

M. YARBOROUGH, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a second amended petition for

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 22, 2005, the court ordered

respondents to file an opposition, if any, to petitioner’s motion to obtain copies of the sealed

documents. Respondents indicate that they do not oppose this request; however, respondents

oppose petitioner’s request for copies of the documents lodged on August 31, 2005. Those

documents include: petitioner’s state court briefs, petition for review, and state habeas petitions;

the orders of the state courts denying the petition for review and state habeas petitions; the

People’s brief to the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District; reporter’s and clerk’s

transcripts; and the sealed documents. Petitioner filed a reply styled, “Motion In Opposition To

Respondents [sic] Refusal To Provide Petitioner All Lodged Documents With The Court,

Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. Section 2250.”

Case 2:04-cv-00021-FCD-DAD Document 54 Filed 10/06/05 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

In light of respondent’s non-opposition, the court will order respondents to

provide petitioner with a copy of the sealed documents; however, the court will not order

respondents to serve copies of the other lodged documents on petitioner. The court is not

persuaded that the documents are necessary in order for petitioner to file his optional traverse. 

Petitioner makes the following assertion:

Petitioner is in need of the record in order to effectively prepare a

defense inorder [sic] to otain [sic] his Liberties under the

protections of due process and equal protection under the United

States Constitution. Petitioner is also in need of the record to

adequately present accurate facts, and exhibits from the certified

record to support his 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 Petition, and legal

claims.

(Pet’r’s Mot. in Opp’n, at 3.) This is vague and fails to inform the court what information

petitioner seeks from the documents and how the information is critical to support petitioner’s

claims. In addition, the court notes that petitioner is seeking copies of documents that were

previously available to him. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondents shall provide petitioner

with a copy of the documents which were sealed pursuant to the court’s September 22, 2005

order.

DATED: October 5, 2005.

DAD:4

burg0021.docs

Case 2:04-cv-00021-FCD-DAD Document 54 Filed 10/06/05 Page 2 of 2
# The Attorney General of Texas July 26, 1979 MARK WHITE AltomoyQenml 

# ztlz2z” *

HonorableJerry Cobb OpinionNo. W-33 Au4on TX. mtr District &CountyAttorney
51W75-2501 P. 0. Box719 Bet Whether a county is ra@8d

Denton,Texas 76201 to pay hoqdtal billa of indigamt m-,w*a Dules. TX. mw r=z at .a joint cityeounty

mnaw Dear Mr.c&b:

mu4hwwmo tIcdam. TX. Tmo2 7lwzm5tol

woumnM.(U(*(00 &a AIll*. Tn. 7uDi WUY55-41*1 You have .add if Dentoh County ls reqondble lor’hospftal care

fumiahd to the reddent indigent& - commiEdoner#aourt haabean tied by the City of Denton to pay the @ensea of 7 to Mated at tha joint city-county hwpN.alorganhd pupuant to utiale 494I-l, V.T.CS. ‘IheeeIv not a ho@tal dbtrict in the county. By statute tha commissioners aourt of eaah ctity b required to q&wida Ia the slpport of paupers. . ..~ddsntrOfth&COUll~.WhOUW

tht b neasruy to bodily health andoomfort, andeqo&lly doe8 it ineMa propa ceru, rttentlan and treatment during riakn.“i Undertikh 9991 ‘gin ‘gp

murt provlds neeew ma&al aara for itv indigenth Attommy lniau Ii-70s 0975); C-999 0-W (1964h S-la6 .Ws4); Attorney Oenual Opinion V-909 (1949)jhoapltal aid to the mt dek 9 paid from the oounty’r general fUn& V.T.C.S. art. 4498, (oommlrdonen aaurt dull pewMa for horpftal In the aounty).#ending lndlgent dak to. & art. 4487, V.T.C.S. aare and treatment d T lu eatablkhad publlc indigent patient admltted to county hoqltal hall ba a Margo upon the oountfl. Than ore, however, pracedurerb whtahabounty” may oantraat wfth a aity to aaume or tire oxpenaar 

### or ‘the troatmont of ind@ntr 1 V.T.C.6. ut. 4494i-L It b our opinion that the Caunty ol Denton & Uabb fu the m IncurrediCtmatJng an hdlgont rddent of the oaunty at the JointaltY-county hemphaL

p. 99. .

Honorable Jerry Cobb - Page Two (Mw-33)

Thus, absent IX

valid contractual arrangement under section S of article 44941-1, V.T.C.S., it is our opiniar that the County of Denton b liable for the expenses incurred In treating an indigent resident of the county at the joint city-counly hospital. SUMMARY Absent valid contractual arrangements Denton County is liable for the medical expenses incurred in the treatment of the county’s resident indigents at the city-county hcqital. vm-w&&

MARK WHITE Attorney General of Texas JOHN W. PAINTER, JR. Pint Assistant Attorney **General** TEDL. HARTLEY Executive Assistant Attorney General Preparedby David 8. Brooks Asdrtant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINION

COMMITTEE C. Robert Heath, Chairman James P. Allison David B. Brooks Walter Davis Susan Garrison Risk Gilpln William G Reid Bruce Youngblood

p. 100
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

MANUEL AYALA, No. CIV S-04-0903-RRB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

ANDREASEN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 3, 2005, the court issued an order determining that this

action was appropriate for service on defendants Andreasen, Bick, Sawkar, Enriquez, Sullwold,

Gutierrez, and Grannis. That order directed plaintiff to submit certain completed forms and

documents for service by the U.S. Marshal. Among documents plaintiff was required to submit

is the completed summons. On November 29, 2005, plaintiff submitted all the required

documents except the completed summons. According to plaintiff, the Clerk of the Court never

forwarded a blank summons with the November 3, 2005, order. The Clerk will be directed to

forward a blank summons form and plaintiff will be provided additional time to submit the

completed form. Thereafter, the court will direct service by the U.S. Marshal.

Case 2:04-cv-00903-JAM -CMK Document 13 Filed 12/07/05 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

Because this action cannot proceed until the court receives the completed

summons, plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of

this action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court orders and rules. See Local

Rule 11-110. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward to plaintiff one blank

summons form; and

2. Within 30 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall submit the

completed summons.

DATED: December 4, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00903-JAM -CMK Document 13 Filed 12/07/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF INTERNATIONAL MULTIFOODS CORPORATION

The following is a list of the Company's subsidiaries as of February 29, 2004, except for unnamed subsidiaries which, considered in the aggregate as a
single subsidiary, would not constitute a significant subsidiary.

|Name of Subsidiary                    |                         | Jurisdiction of
Incorporation 
|------------------------------------- | ----------------------- | ------------------------------
|IMC North America, Inc.               |                         | Delaware                      
|                                      | IMC U.S., Inc.          |                               
|                                      |                         | Multifoods Brands, Inc.       
|                                      |                         | Multifoods Manufacturing, Inc.
|RHM Corporation                       |                         | Nova Scotia                   
|                                      | RHM Management Inc.     |                               
|                                      |                         | RHM Canada LP                 
|                                      |                         |                               
|                                      |                         |                               
|                                      |                         |                               
|                                      |                         |                               
|Fantasia Confections, Inc.            |                         | California                    
|Martha White Foods, Inc.              |                         | Delaware                      
|Multifoods Bakery Distributors, Inc.  |                         | Delaware                      
|Multifoods Bakery International, Inc. |                         | Delaware                      
|                                      | Inversiones 91060, C.A. |                               
|Multifoods, Inc.                      |                         | Delaware                      
|Multifoods, Inc.                      |                         | Minnesota                     

---



QuickLinks
Case 2:04-cv-00009-DFL -KJM   Document 17    Filed 01/31/06   Page 1 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-00009-DFL -KJM   Document 17    Filed 01/31/06   Page 2 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-00009-DFL -KJM   Document 17    Filed 01/31/06   Page 3 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-00009-DFL -KJM   Document 17    Filed 01/31/06   Page 4 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-00009-DFL -KJM   Document 17    Filed 01/31/06   Page 5 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-00009-DFL -KJM   Document 17    Filed 01/31/06   Page 6 of 6

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-21T13:40:37-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-60,847] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on January 29, 2007 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Mid-West Wire Products Incorporated, Ferndale, Michigan. 

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. 

      ( print page 9031)    
Signed in Washington, DC, this 21st day of February 2007. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E7-3462 Filed 2-27-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,428
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        84,230
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,842
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   (1,428)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,734
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,734)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (16,734)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.19)
        






</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION   EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF JOURNAL COMMUNICATIONS,  INC. AS OF AND FOR
THE YEAR ENDED  DECEMBER  31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         10
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  104,434
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    19,875
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               148,954
<PP&E>                                         502,495
<DEPRECIATION>                                 285,797
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 639,070
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          147,979
<BONDS>                                        4,991
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3,600
<OTHER-SE>                                     462,097
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   639,070
<SALES>                                        755,931
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               755,931
<CGS>                                          397,938
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  397,938
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             473
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                115,014
<INCOME-TAX>                                   45,565
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            69,449
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   69,449
<EPS-BASIC>                                  2.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  2.54



</TABLE>
PUBLIC LAW 108–71—AUG. 14, 2003 117 STAT. 887

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1761:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 149 (2003):

July 8, considered and passed House.

July 31, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 108–71

108th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 9350 East

Corporate Hill Drive in Wichita, Kansas, as the ‘‘Garner E. Shriver Post Office

Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

9350 East Corporate Hill Drive in Wichita, Kansas, shall be known

and designated as the ‘‘Garner E. Shriver Post Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Garner

E. Shriver Post Office Building’’.

Approved August 14, 2003.

Aug. 14, 2003

[H.R. 1761]
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 West v. Circle K, et al.

ORDER GRANTING CIRCLE K STORES INC.’S AMENDED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A 

PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND SETTING JOY POWELL’S DEPOSITION FOR JUNE 9, 2005

Ronald C. Specter, Esq. (SBN: 118417) 

Michael H. Artinian, Esq. (SBN: 203443) 

SPECTER & WILLOUGHBY, LLP 

4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 1150 

Newport Beach, CA 92660 

Telephone: (949) 833-9400 

Facsimile: (949) 833-9425 

Attorneys for Defendant, 

CIRCLE K STORES INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

VICKI WEST, individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CIRCLE K STORES, INC., a foreign 

corporation, 

Defendant. 

Case No. CIV.S-04-0438 WBS GGH 

[Proposed] ORDER GRANTING CIRCLE K 

STORES INC.’S AMENDED EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR A PROTECTIVE 

ORDER, AND SETTING JOY POWELL’S 

DEPOSITION FOR JUNE 9, 2005 

Hon. WILLIAM B. SHUBB 

Courtroom 5 

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: 

The amended ex parte application submitted by Defendant Circle K Stores Inc. for a 

protective order allowing Joy Powell’s deposition to take place within 10 days after the discovery 

cut-off deadline came on for hearing via telephonic conference call before this Court. Charles Jones, 

Esq. appeared for Plaintiff. Michael Artinian, Esq. appeared for Defendant. 

After consideration of the papers and arguments of counsel, and all other matters presented to 

the Court, and conferring by telephone with counsel for both sides IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

Defendant’s Amended Ex Parte Application is GRANTED as follows: 

The deposition of Joy Powell shall commence on June 9, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. in defense 

counsel’s office located at 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 1150, Newport Beach, CA 92660. 

Plaintiff’s counsel also indicated to the Court that Plaintiff will be submitting a motion to the 

Case 2:04-cv-00438-WBS-GGH Document 26 Filed 05/19/05 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 West v. Circle K, et al.

ORDER GRANTING CIRCLE K STORES INC.’S AMENDED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A 

PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND SETTING JOY POWELL’S DEPOSITION FOR JUNE 9, 2005

Court requesting leave to amend the complaint to add new class representatives. The Court has 

made no rulings with regard to Plaintiff’s anticipated motion to amend the complaint. However, in 

the event the Court grants Plaintiff’s anticipated motion for leave to amend the Complaint to add 

new class representatives, Defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery 

as to the additional class representatives. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 18, 2005 

APPROVED AS TO FORM: 

__/s/____________________________________ 

Charles Jones, Esq. 

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 

__/s/_____________________________________ 

Michael H. Artinian, Esq. 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

Case 2:04-cv-00438-WBS-GGH Document 26 Filed 05/19/05 Page 2 of 2