alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-  Home 
          -  Training              -  Programs 
            -  Registration 
            -  Payments/Records 
            -  Learning Center                -  FLETC-Talks 
              -  Legal Learning                  -  Videocasts                    -  Terry Frisks 
                  -  Miranda 
                  -  Report Writing 
                  -  Basic Witness Skills 
                  -  Beginning Your Testimony 
                  -  Sponsoring Physical Evidence 
                  -  Sponsoring Audio/Video Recordings and Defendant’s Statements 
                -  Legal Training 
                -  Legal Division Student Handbook 
                -  Legal Learning 
                -  The Informer 
              -  Cybercrime & Technical Investigations 
            -  Seeking Excellence 
          -  Locations 
          -  Resources 
          -  Careers & Internships 
          -  News 
          -  About 

# Videos

## Breadcrumb

            -  Home 

## 4th Amendment

**Terry v. Ohio (FLETC Talk) **- Associate Chief Counsel John Besselman

**Terry Frisks** - Senior Instructor Jenna Solari, LGD, Sgt. Glenn Brogan; USCP, Instructor Jonathan Taber, PTD

**Katz v. United States (FLETC Talk)** - Branch Chief Patrick Walsh, LGD

**Arizona v. Gant (FLETC Talk) **- Senior Instructor George Buck, DMD

**Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (FLETC Talk) -**Branch Chief Paul Sullivan, LGD

**Carroll v. United States (FLETC Talk) **- Senior Instructor Teresa Hoyt, LGD

**Airplane Overflights (FLETC Talk) **- Senior Instructor Robert Cauthen, LGD

**Michigan v. Sitz (FLETC Talk) -**Senior Instructor Ken Anderson, LGD

**New York v. Berger (FLETC Talk)**** -**Deputy Assistant Director Ron Dionne, TMO

**Government Employee Rights (FLETC Talk) -**Deputy Assistant Director Bryan Lemon, MRSD

**O'Connor v. Ortega (Government Workplace Searches) (FLETC Talk) **- Deputy Chief Counsel Trish Besselman

**Michigan v. Long (FLETC Talk) **- Deputy Chief Counsel Trish Besselman

**Minnesota v. Dickerson (FLETC Talk) **- Associate Chief Counsel John Besselman

**New York v. Belton (FLETC Talk) **- Branch Chief Michael Poillucci, DMD

**Florida v. Wells (FLETC Talk) -**  Associate Director for Training Jay Gregorius

**South Dakota v. Opperman (FLETC Talk)** -  Deputy Director William Fallon

**Kyllo v. United States (FLETC Talk)** - Branch Chief Patrick Walsh (LGD)

## **5th Amendment**

**Miranda v. Arizona (FLETC Talk) -**Branch Chief Patrick Walsh, LGD

## Courtroom Testimony

**Report Writing** - Senior Instructor Johnnie Story

**Introduction and Basic Skills** - Senior Instructor John Seaman

**Beginning Your Testimony** - Senior Instructor John Seaman

**Sponsoring Physical Evidence** - Senior Instructor John Seaman

**Sponsoring Audio/Video Recordings and Defendant’s Statements** - Senior Instructor John Seaman

## Use of Force

**Graham v. Connor: Use of Force / Objective Reasonableness Standard (FLETC Talk) -**Senior Instructor Tim Miller, LGD

**Scott v. Harris (FLETC Talk)** - Senior Instructor Tim Miller, LGD

## Indian Law

**Introduction to Indian Law (FLETC Talk)** - Senior Instructor Robert Duncan,  ALG
Before the Third Division,

October 4, 1951

No. 55911.

petition 6789-R (Galveston).

#### Railway Express Agency *v.*United States,

*326Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

At the hearing, petitioner’s witness testified that the appraiser had added the cost of packing to the entered values in order to arrive at the proper dutiable value, although such packing charges were included in the entered values. On the record presented it was held that there was no intention to defraud the Government or to deceive the customs officials. The petition was therefore granted.
No. 57699.

#### Abraham & Straus, A Division of Federated Department Stores, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 205283-K (New York).

*349Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the issue herein is similar in all material respects to that involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the merchandise, consisting of ladies’ kid gloves, in case No. 23821, which the inspector reported “manifested— not found,” was not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Atlantic Data Services, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert W. Howe, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(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 result of operations of
         the Company.

/s/ Robert W. Howe
-----------------------

Robert W. Howe
Chief Executive Officer
February 12, 2003
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 

Darrel L. Smith,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-0702 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

King, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a prisoner, without counsel, who claims

defendant King was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s safety

when King releasing confidential information about plaintiff’s

enemies. Plaintiff moves to compel answers to interrogatories

and production of documents. 

A party may move for an order compelling discovery with

respect to objections or other failure to respond to

interrogatories or requests to produce documents. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 37(a)(2)(B), 33(b)(5), 34(b). 

Case 2:04-cv-00702-MCE -EFB Document 74 Filed 01/06/06 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 makes no showing he served defendant with either

interrogatories or a request to produce documents and that

defendant either objected or failed to respond.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s June 29 and August 10, 2005,

motions are denied.

So ordered.

Dated: January 5, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00702-MCE -EFB Document 74 Filed 01/06/06 Page 2 of 2
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 3/31/2023 1

Signature Requirements 

for an Independent Candidate in New Mexico 

Parker v. Duran (Martha Vázquez, D.N.M. 1:14-cv-617) 

An independent candidate who did not collect enough signatures to 

appear on the general-election ballot filed a federal complaint challenging the signature requirement as improperly greater than the requirement for minor-party candidates. The district court denied the 

plaintiff relief, and the court of appeals affirmed dismissal of the case. 

Subject: Getting on the ballot. Topics: Getting on the ballot; 

equal protection; intervention. 

One week after a timely filing of insufficient ballot-petition signatures, an independent candidate for New Mexico’s public-education commission filed a 

federal complaint in the District of New Mexico against New Mexico’s secretary of state complaining that the signature requirement for independent candidates was improperly greater than the requirement for minor-party candidates.1

 With his complaint, he filed a motion for a temporary restraining order 

and a preliminary injunction.2

Six days after the complaint was filed, Judge Martha Vázquez ruled that 

the plaintiff had not satisfied the criteria for an ex parte temporary restraining 

order.3 One week later, New Mexico’s attorney general moved to intervene on 

behalf of the state,4 a motion Judge Vázquez ultimately granted.5

Five weeks after the complaint was filed, on August 7, 2014, Judge Vázquez 

denied the plaintiff relief: “Plaintiff, as a prospective independent candidate, is 

not similarly situated to a prospective minor-party candidate . . . .”6 Judge 

Vázquez dismissed the action on April 30, 2015.7 The court of appeals affirmed 

the dismissal on April 12, 2016.8

1. Complaint, Parker v. Duran, No. 1:14-cv-617 (D.N.M. July 3, 2014), D.E. 1. 

2. Motion, id. (July 3, 2014), D.E. 2. 

3. Order, id. (July 9, 2014), D.E. 4. 

4. Intervention Motion, id. (July 16, 2014), D.E. 8. 

5. Docket Sheet, id. (July 3, 2014) (D.E. 14). 

6. Opinion at 11, id. (Aug. 7, 2014), D.E. 12, 2014 WL 7653394. 

7. Opinion, id. (Apr. 30, 2015), D.E. 17. 

8. Parker v. Winter, 645 F. App’x 632 (10th Cir. 2016).
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

JULIUS LEE JACKSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S- 04-0983 LKK GGH P

vs.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. On October 5, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery for defendants’ failure to

provide timely responses to plaintiff’s requests for production of documents and for

interrogatories served upon defendants on August 2, 2005. Plaintiff also requested $2500.00 for

the cost of seeking an order.

On October 11, 2005, defendants filed an opposition, conceding that counsel for

defendants had failed to properly calendar the due date of the discovery responses inadvertently,

asking that they be granted an extension of time until October 11, 2005, nunc pro tunc, to serve

plaintiff with their responses/production with respect to plaintiff’s request for production of

documents, a copy of which defendants have included in their opposition as Exhibit B and which

responses/production they indicate have been served upon plaintiff as of October 11, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-00983-LKK -GGH Document 48 Filed 10/21/05 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

Defendants also seek an extension of time, until October 25, 2005, to serve

responses to plaintiff’s interrogatories, averring the need for additional time in order to secure

defendants’ signatures. The court will deny the motion to compel, and because there is no

evidence of bad faith on the part of defendants, will deny the request for sanctions. However, the

court will deem defendants to have waived all objections, except those which are based on a

recognized privilege.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, including his request for sanctions,

filed on October 5, 2005, is denied;

2. Defendants are granted an extension of time, nunc pro tunc, until October 11,

2005 to serve their responses/production in response to plaintiff’s August 2, 2005 production

requests;

3. Defendants are granted an extension of time until October 25, 2005 to serve

their responses to plaintiff’s August 2, 2005 interrogatories; and

4. Defendants are particularly cautioned, in light of their belated responses, to

provide substantive responses to plaintiff’s interrogatories.

DATED: 10/21/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

jack0983.dsc

Case 2:04-cv-00983-LKK -GGH Document 48 Filed 10/21/05 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

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY JOSEPH THOMAS,

Petitioner,

v.

A.K. SCRIBNER, Warden,

Respondent.

CIV S 04-0733 MCE PAN P

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Respondent has requested an enlargement of time in which to file a response to Petitioner’s

amended petition.

1. GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, Respondent’s request for an enlargement of time is

is hereby granted; and

2. Respondent’s response to the amended petition is due within thirty days of the date

of this order.

Dated: June 21, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00733-MCE -DAD Document 37 Filed 06/21/05 Page 1 of 1
# AVS

Quality Management System Title: Domestic New Action Worksheet with S8 QPM# AIR-ANM..Q3G-F7 Date: December 17, 2008 Revision 1 

## Record ofContacts 

# .7011-0033 FOMSDocketNo.FAA-~

__ - _ With whom outside the FAA ha5lhis proposal been dis<:ussOO (e.g.. ATA. RAA, ALPA, etc.)? Orgauil.lltiOD Person Contacted Dalf .-\T.-\. GrcJ!.lbrd~·-C:lbin 11-"I~ i\Rj[)Ek ::'l12H120U9 ,\TA Ngu~'cn, Relic T - Cabin IFE 

### .-\RIIlEI{ ;:;/18/200'1 

### I Organization 

### I Person Contacted 

### I 01111'

UNCONTROLLED COpy WHEN DOWNLOADED Check Ihe Masl~r List 10Verify That This is lI,e Corrl!cl Revision Sefore Use
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Print a Receipt From Card Transaction Query

To print a paper receipt from the Card Transaction Query page, complete the following steps:

1. Enter the pertinent card details to process a card payment.

2. The View Card Transaction History Details page displays. Click Print Sale Receipt as 

shown in Figure 1 to print a paper receipt. Click Return Home.

Figure 1. View Card Transaction History Details, Print Sale Receipt

• Previous enables you to return to the previous page.

• Refund Transaction is also enabled. An Approved Receipt prints for the approved 

transaction.

• Print Sale Receipt remains enabled so that you can reprint additional receipts as 

needed.

Additional Buttons
No. 51664.

#### Protests 988436-G/11653, etc., of Blue Grass Liquor Company et al. (New Orleans).

*184Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the merchandise and the issues herein are the same as those involved in *Wines & Spirits (Hawaiii), Ltd.*v. *United States*(25 C. C. P. A. 235, T. D. 49338) and *Hotel Waldorf Astoria Corp.*v. *United States*(26 id. 88, T. D. 49627), wherein it was held that bottles containing liquors subject to specific rates of duty and not permitted to be reused as containers were properly classified at one-third of the rates provided by paragraph 217, by virtue of paragraph 810. In accordance therewith and following the authorities cited the bottles were held dutiable as assessed.
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Strategic Internet
Investments, Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending
December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"). I, Abbas Salih, Chief Financial Officer of the
company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge
and belief:

|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 Company.

|Date: | March
      31, 2008 |  | /s/
      Abbas Salih     
|----- | -------------------- |  | --------------------------
|      |                      |  | Abbas Salih, CFO, Director

---
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 386 

To require the Secretary of the Navy to notify Congress of pending action 

to strike from the Naval Vessel Register any naval vessel that is a 

viable candidate for artificial reefing, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. RUBIO introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of the Navy to notify Congress 

of pending action to strike from the Naval Vessel Register any naval vessel that is a viable candidate for 

artificial reefing, 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 ‘‘Re-using Equipment 

5 for Environmental Fortification Act of 2023’’ or the 

6 ‘‘REEF Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 386 IS

1 SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION OF PENDING AC2 TION TO STRIKE FROM THE NAVAL VESSEL 

3 REGISTER NAVAL VESSELS THAT ARE VIABLE 

4 CANDIDATES FOR ARTIFICIAL REEFING. 

5 (a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con6 gress that the Secretary of the Navy should explore and 

7 solicit artificial reefing opportunities with appropriate en8 tities for any naval vessel planned for retirement before 

9 initiating any plans to dispose of the vessel. 

10 (b) NOTIFICATION.—Not later than 90 days before 

11 the date on which a naval vessel that is a viable candidate 

12 for artificial reefing is to be stricken from the Naval Vessel 

13 Register, the Secretary of the Navy shall notify Congress 

14 of such pending action. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1
                              ESSEX PORTFOLIO, L.P.

        SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND
                          PREFERRED UNIT DISTRIBUTIONS
                          (in thousands, except ratios)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                               SIX MONTHS ENDED      YEAR ENDED       YEAR ENDED      YEAR ENDED
                                                  JUNE 30,          DECEMBER 31,     DECEMBER 31,     DECEMBER 31,
                                                    1998              1997              1996             1995
                                               ----------------     ------------     ------------     ---------
<S>                                               <C>                <C>              <C>              <C>    
EARNINGS:
  Income before minority interests                $19,660            $34,146          $14,970          $14,244
  Interest expense                                  9,014             12,659           11,442           10,928
  Amortization of deferred financing costs            341                509              639            1,355
                                                  -------            -------          -------          -------
  TOTAL EARNINGS                                  $29,015            $47,314          $27,051          $26,527
                                                  -------            -------          -------          -------


FIXED CHARGES:
  Interest expense                                $ 9,014            $12,659          $11,442          $10,928
  Convertible preferred unit distributions            875              2,681              635               --
  Perpetual preferred unit distributions            2,214                 --               --               --
  Amortization of deferred financing costs            341                509              639            1,355
  Capitalized interest                              1,775              1,276              115               92
                                                  -------            -------          -------          -------
  TOTAL FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED
    UNIT DISTRIBUTIONS                            $14,219            $17,125          $12,831          $12,375

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
  (EXCLUDING PREFERRED UNIT DISTRIBUTIONS)           2.61X              3.28X            2.22X            2.14X
                                                  =======            =======          =======          =======

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED
  CHARGES AND PREFERRED DISTRIBUTIONS                2.04X              2.76X            2.11X            2.14X
                                                  =======            =======          =======          =======
</TABLE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-418

_____________________________

DARIUS T. MIDDLETON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Michael C. Overstreet, Judge.

October 16, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, C.J., and B.L. THOMAS and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and M. J. Lord, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
# FLRA.GOV

- OPM’s Tim Curry Joins FLRA/FMCS March 27, 2024 Town Hall to discuss Labor-Management Forums &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.flra.gov/system/files/webfm/FLRA%20Agency-wide/Public%20Affairs/Press%20Releases/240319 - Press Release - FMCS-FLRA Town Hall 3-27-2024 Panelist Addition.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;OPM’s Tim Curry Joins FLRA/FMCS March 27, 2024 Town Hall to discuss Labor-Management Forums&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
- FLRA/FMCS Public Town Hall – March 27, 2024 The FLRA and Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) announce a Joint Agency Public Town Hall on March 27, 2024 at 1:00pm Eastern
- President Biden Issues Executive Order Promoting Labor-Management Forums President Biden Issues Executive Order Promoting Labor-Management Forums
- FLRA's FSIP issues a proposed rule to update its regulations to establish revised methods by which the public may obtain and submit documents during FSIP Proceedings FLRA’s Federal Service Impasses Panel (FSIP) Issues a Proposed Rule Updating itsRegulations to Establish Revised Methods by which the Public May Obtain Specific Formsfrom FSIP, and then File, or Formally Submit, those Forms and other Documents duringthe Course of FSIP Proceedings
- The FLRA Issues a Final Rule Reflecting Certain Address and Phone Number Changes and Eliminating the Requirement That Parties File 4 Copies of Documents The FLRA Issues a Final Rule Reflecting Certain Address and Phone Number Changesand Eliminating the Requirement That Parties File 4 Copies of Documents
- President Biden Announces Intent to Nominate Anne Wagner to be a Member of the FLRA President Biden Announces Intent to Nominate Anne Wagner to be a Member of the FLRA
- The FLRA Issues Final Rule Regarding Revisions to its Privacy Act Regulations. The FLRA Issues Final Rule Regarding Revisions to its Privacy Act Regulations
- The FLRA Issues a Final Rule Regarding In-Person Filing with the Authority’s Office of Case Intake and Publication The FLRA Issues a Final Rule Regarding In-Person Filing with the Authority’s Office of Case Intake and Publication
- FLRA’s Revised Negotiability Regulations Take Effect and the FLRA Releases a Training Video about the Regulatory Revisions FLRA’s Revised Negotiability Regulations Take Effect and the FLRA Releases a Training Video about the Regulatory Revisions
- FLRA Proposes Revisions to Privacy Regulations FLRA Proposes Revisions to Privacy Regulations