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

 By order filed May 31, 2006, plaintiff was given an additional period of thirty days in 1

which to file and serve objections. Plaintiff’s objections were timely filed on June 5, 2006. It

does not appear that the findings and recommendations were served on defendants. Plaintiff is

advised that every document submitted to the court for consideration must be served on

defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. Plaintiff is required to serve all documents in this action

conventionally in accordance with the relevant provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. See Local Rule 5-

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE BRIDGETTE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0436 DFL PAN P

vs.

D. RUNNELS, 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 May 5, 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 thirty days. Plaintiff has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations and a supporting declaration.1

Case 2:04-cv-00436-DFL-EFB Document 71 Filed 09/29/06 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

135(b). Since an attorney has filed a document with the court on behalf of defendants,

documents submitted by plaintiff must be served on that attorney and not on the defendant. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 5(b)(1). Conventional service is usually accomplished by mailing a copy of the

document to the attorney’s address of record. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(B). Plaintiff must

include with every document filed in this action a certificate stating the date an accurate copy of

the document was mailed to defendants’ attorney and the address to which it was mailed. See

Local Rule 5-135(b) and (c).

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 5, 2006, are adopted in full; and

2. Defendants’ November 16, 2005 motion for summary judgment is granted and

judgment is entered in their favor. 

DATED: 9/28/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

/brid0436.805

Case 2:04-cv-00436-DFL-EFB Document 71 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VAHAN JALADIAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1304 LKK CMK P

vs.

C.A. HUGHES, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On September 15, 2005, plaintiff filed a “motion for extensions of time to compel

defendants for productions of documents/interrogaties [sic].” That document was not served on

defendants. Plaintiff is advised that every document submitted to the court for consideration

must be served on defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. Documents not to be served electronically are

usually served by placing a copy in the U.S. mail. If an attorney has filed a document with the

court on behalf of any defendants, then documents submitted by plaintiff must be served on that

attorney and not on the defendants. Every document submitted conventionally to the court (e.g.,

by a prisoner proceeding pro se) must include a certificate stating the date an accurate copy of

the document was mailed to defendants or their attorney and the address to which it was mailed. 

See Local Rule 5-135(b) and (c).

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01304-LKK -CMK Document 27 Filed 09/22/05 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s September 15, 2005

“motion for extensions of time to compel defendants for productions of documents/interrogaties

[sic]” is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to properly serve any

documents subsequently filed in this action, and failure to include a proper certificate of service

with such filing, may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

DATED: September 21, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01304-LKK -CMK Document 27 Filed 09/22/05 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMENDED JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

Gelco Services, Incorporated,

v. CASE NUMBER: 2:04-CV-814 DFL PAN

EAI International, et al.,

XX -- Decision by the Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues

have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered. 

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

THAT JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED, for Plaintiff in the amount $185,179.35,

plus prejudgment interest at the rate of 1.50 percent and post judgment interest at the rate of

3.82 percent, in accordance with the court’s order of 11/2/2005. 

Jack L. Wagner,

Clerk of the Court

ENTERED: December 12, 2005 by: /s/ L. Reader, Deputy Clerk

FILED

December 12, 2005

CLERK, US DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF

CAL IFO RNIA

DEPUTY CLERK

Case 2:04-cv-00814-DFL-PAN Document 43 Filed 12/12/05 Page 1 of 1
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 

Glenn T. Mason,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1123 FCD PAN P

vs. Order

M. Sandham, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoGood cause appearing, the court hereby orders that:

1. The June 1, 2005, findings and recommendations are

vacated.

2. Plaintiff’s May 27 and June 16, 2005, motions to amend

are denied because plaintiff fails to submit an amended pleading

complete in itself to present all claims. Plaintiff may amend as

of right before any defendant serves a responsive pleading. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 15(a). Amended pleading will supersede prior

pleading.

Case 2:04-cv-01123-FCD-EFB Document 18 Filed 06/21/05 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

Dated: June 21, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01123-FCD-EFB Document 18 Filed 06/21/05 Page 2 of 2
* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

Summary Calendar

No. 95-50884

_______________________

AUGUST BUTLER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS LOCAL #81; NATIONAL

ELEVATOR INDUSTRY EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM; NATIONAL ELEVATOR INDUSTRY,

INC.; INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS; MONTGOMERY

ELEVATOR COMPANY; OMNI ELEVATOR SERVICE CO.; DOVER ELEVATOR COL; A1 ELEVATOR SERVICE; OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY; SCHLINDER ELEVATOR

CORP.; ESCO ELEVATOR, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(SA-93-CV-305)

_________________________________________________________________ July 11, 1997

Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

August Butler filed suit alleging that eleven defendants

had discriminated against him in violation of Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et. seq. As to all2

the defendan ts except the International Union of Elevator

Constructors Local Union #81, the district court adopted the

magistrate judge’s recommendation that Butler’s claims be dismissed

without prejudice. Butler’s EEOC complaint named Local Union #81

as the only respondent, thus the district court concluded that

Butler had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to the

other eleven defen dants. S ee 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). The

district court also granted summary judgment for Local Union #81 on

the grounds that Butler had not produced any evidence that its

actions were racially motivated.

Pursuing his appeal pro se and in forma pauperis, Butler

alleges numerous points of error, arguing that the district court

erred by dismissing his claims on exhaustion grounds, denying

motions to compel discovery, and denying relief from the judgment

“when fraud and perjury had been perpetrated upon the district

court.”

Having re viewed the briefs and the record, we find no

error in the re solution of this case by the magistrate judge and

the district court. For essentially the reasons articulated in its

orders, the decisions of the district court are

AFFIRMED.
July 28, 2015 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Petition to amend Exemption No. 12029, regulatory Docket No. F AA-2015-1292 for the purpose of 

additional sUAS. 

Dear Administrator, 

Please accept this document as a formal request to amend the existing section 333 exemption of 

Jonathan Cook I Windshear Media LLC (exemption # 12029) to add the following sUAS: 

• DJI Matrice 100 

The associated manuals and maintenance documents have also been uploaded. If you have any 

questions, concerns, or require any further documentation, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cook 

Winds hear Media LLC 

jcook.g. \\1 ndshearmedJl!_.com
Exhibit 32.2

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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Elite Pharmaceuticals,  Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),  I, Mark I. Gittelman,  Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer 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:

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

         (2) The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
         material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company
         as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of
         the Company for the periods presented.


                                        /s/ Mark I. Gittelman
Date:    August 10, 2007                _________________________________
                                        Mark I. Gittelman
                                        Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of
                                        Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


This  certification  has been  furnished  solely  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Elite  Pharmaceuticals,   Inc.  and  will  be  retained  by  Elite
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40368

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RONALD ZUR BURLING,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:95-CR-30-01

- - - - - - - - - -

February 21, 1997

Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ronald Zur Burling pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and

abetting wire fraud through a check kiting scheme. On appeal,

Burling argues that the district court erred in holding him

accountable for $149,170 in the check-kiting scheme. The

guideline applicable to cases involving fraud is § 2F1.1. The

amount of loss under § 2F1.1(b) is based on a defendant’s

relevant conduct, which in the case of a jointly undertaken

criminal activity, whether charged as a conspiracy or not, 
No. 96-40368

- 2 -

includes “all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others

in furtherance of jointly undertaken criminal activity.” 

§ 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). In determining what amount was reasonably

foreseeable to a particular defendant, the court should consider

the defendant’s relationship role in the conspiracy and his

relationship with the coconspirators. United States v. Scurlock,

52 F.3d 531, 539-40 (5th Cir. 1995).

From the evidence presented at the sentencing hearing, the

district court found that Burling knew that Small kited checks as

part of his regular business operations, that Burling had

participated in such schemes personally, and that Burling

actively and passively misled the individuals cashing Small’s

checks. These findings are not clearly erroneous. See United

States v. Wimbish, 980 F.2d 312, 313 (5th Cir. 1992), cert.

denied, 508 U.S. 919(1993). 

AFFIRMED.
June 18, 1963

No. 67850.

#### W. J. Byrnes & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 61/16623.

Motion of Government for rehearing granted.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.2

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

         As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation of our report dated September 27, 1999, included in this Form
10-K, into the Company's previously filed Registration Statement No.
33-18723, No. 333-28815, No. 333-65755, No. 333-74471, No. 333-79933, No.
333-31272 and No. 333-39022.



                             /S/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Minneapolis, Minnesota
    September 28, 2000



                                       45
NACAA ENFORCEMENT & COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE 

Conference Call 

Wednesday, March 6, 2013 

12:30 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time 

Call-In Number: (866) 365-4406 Access Code: 1398016# 

Press *6 to mute your line and *7 to un-mute it 

AGENDA 

12:30 p.m. – 1:15 p.m. NACAA and EPA 

1. Roll Call 

2. EPA’s Proposed Response to the Sierra Club’s Petition Regarding Exemptions for 

Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction (SSM) Emissions in State SIPs (Phil Lorang, EPA 

OAQPS, and Geoffrey Wilcox, EPA OGC)* 

1:15 – 2:00 p.m. NACAA-only

3. Report on High Priority Violations Policy Discussions with EPA (Randy Stewart, South 

Carolina) 

4. Report on EPA’s Meeting on Federally Reportable Violations Policy and Next Steps 

(Eddie Terrill, OK) 

5. Discussion Regarding Whether NACAA Should Submit Comments on EPA’s SSM SIP 

Proposal (Eddie Terrill, OK and Richard Stedman, Monterey, CA)* 

6. Announcement of next call: The next call is scheduled for Wednesday, May 1, 2013,

from 12:30 – 2:00 pm Eastern; call in 866-365-4406, access code 1398016#. 

 

NEXT CALL: May 1, 2013 

* Proposal posted at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-02-22/pdf/2013-03734.pdf. 

Website with the fact sheet, petition, legal memo and prepublication FR notice is at 

http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/sipstatus/emissions.html. 

Questions developed by NACAA staff posted at 

http://airweb.timberlakepublishing.com/rc_files/5494/Questions_for_EPA_on_Proposed_SSM_Petition_Response

.pdf
J,,IED 314,,,

i9 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

o ~~~ Q WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

yrqC PROS'-G< 

AUG 2 7 2013 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Mr. J. R. Stroble 

Director, National TRU Program 

Carlsbad Field Office 

U.S. Department of Energy 

P.O. Box 3090 

Carlsbad, NM 88221 

Dear Mr. Stroble: 

This is in response to your August 26, 2013, request for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 

(EPA's) concurrence with the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) draft expansion memo to the Central 

Characterization Project (CCP) characterizing transuranic (TRU) waste at the Savannah River Site 

(SRS). Your request is in accordance with the Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) procedures that are 

intended to ensure that DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) site certifications correlate 

appropriately with EPA approvals for waste characterization activities at DOE TRU waste generator 

sites. We concur that DOE's latest draft expansion memo comports with all of EPA's existing approvals 

for CH TRU waste (debris, soils, and solids) and RH TRU debris waste at SRS including the addition of 

RH waste stream SR-RH-221H.01 (EPA approval August 20, 2013 See A-98-49; II-A4-177 in the EPA 

Air pocket). 

EPA issued a baseline approval of the SRS-CCP's CH TRU waste characterization program on July 10, 

2006 (See A-98-49; II-A4-64 in the EPA Air pocket) and the RH TRU (non BCL) waste 

characterization program on April 18, 2012 (See A-98-49; II-A4-161 in the EPA Air pocket). EPA has 

also received and reviewed quarterly tiering reports covering Tier 2 changes to the waste 

characterization program implemented by CCP at SRS and have found all changes made to be 

acceptable. 

Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to review the draft expansion memo for SRS-CCP. If 

you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at 202-343-9422 or Rajani Joglekar at 202-343- 

9462. 

Sincerely, 

a52 l 

Edward Feltcorn 

Center for Waste Management and Regulations 

Intemet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable o Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100 0/6 Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
cc: 

Joe Franco, CBFO 

Norma Castaneda, CBFO 

Marcus Pinzel, CBFO 

Site Documents
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

View an OTC Endpoint

To view an OTC Endpoint, complete the following steps:

1. From the Administration tab, select Manage Organizations>Organization 

Hierarchy>View. The View Organization page appears.

2. Select the OTC Endpoint you would like to view. The View OTC Endpoint page appears as 

shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. View OTC Endpoint

• Click Previous to return to the previous page.

• Click Return Home to return to the OTCnet Home Page.

Additional Buttons
en 

\.U 

z 

-J 

September 16, 2013 

a:: Docket FAA-2012-0740 

602-685-4000 

Fax: 888-228-4659 

410 N. 44th St. 

Suite 700 

Phoenix, AZ 85008 

www.mesa-air.com 

Docket Management Facility 

US Department ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Exemption No. 10599- Request for Update 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

On August 10, 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) granted Exemption No. 10599 

in response to Mesa Airlines, Inc. letter dated June 29, 2012 request for exemption from 

certain sections ofTitle 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The exemption was granted 

until August 31, 2014 unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

On July 15, 2013, the FAA published the Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for 

Air Carrier Operations Final Rule which renumbered or removed certain regulations that 

impact this exemption. Therefore, Mesa Airlines, Inc. respectfully requests the FAA update 

Exemption No. 10599 to reflect the correct regulatory references. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or require additional 

information. 

Sincerely, 

1i:i~O~ Director of Training, Mesa Airlines, Inc. 

602-685-6639 

Mickey.moman@mesa-air.com 

Cc: Captain Mike Ferverda, Sr. V.P. Flight Operations, Mesa Airlines, Inc. 

Captain Alvin Isaacs, Certificate Chief Pilot, Mesa Airlines, Inc. 

Captain Rebecca Barbaria, Manager Flight Standards, Mesa Airlines, Inc.
<HTML>
<HEAD><TITLE>Help Using CSV Files - Vegetables Final Estimates 2003-2007</title></head>
<BODY bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+3"><b>Help Using CSV Files</b></font size>
<P>
<font size="+2"><b>Vegetables Final Estimates 2003-2007</b></font size>  -  Released December 31, 2008, by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S. Department of Agriculture.<br>
<P>
<P>
You have downloaded "comma-separated value" (CSV) files which contain delimited-record representations of the tables in the report referenced above.  These CSV files can be imported into spreadsheets, or can be processed easily by other types of software.
<P>
The file<b> indxvege.htm</b> is among the files you have downloaded.  It contains table descriptions and file names for the CSV files.
<P>
Each line in a given CSV file represents one line in the published table (exception: there is a separate line for each footnote, regardless of how the footnotes are presented in the published table).
<P>
The first two values on the line are not part of the table.  The first value is a table number.  The second value is a line "type", as follows:
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE>
       t = title line<BR>
       h = column heading line<BR>
       u = units definition line<BR>
       d = data line<BR>
       c = the horizontal "closing" line (___) at the bottom of the table<BR>
       f = footnote
</blockquote>
<P>
<b>Examples:</b>
<P>
  <b>Title Line</b><br>
  195,"t","Crop Summary:  Area Planted and Harvested, United States, 2000-2001"<br>
<P>
  <b>Column Heading Lines</b><br>
  195,"h","","Area Planted","Area Planted","Area Harvested","Area Harvested"<br>
  195,"h","Crop","","","",""<br>
  195,"h","","2000","2001","2000","2001"<br>
  195,"h","","","","",""<br>
<P>
  <b>Units Definition Line</b><br>
  195,"u","","1,000 Acres","1,000 Acres","1,000 Acres","1,000 Acres"<br>
<P>
  <b>Data Lines</b><br>
  195,"d","","","","",""<br>
  195,"d","Grains & Hay","","","",""<br>
  195,"d","  Corn for Grain 2/","79545.0","","72732.0",""<br>
<P>
  <b>Closing Line</b><br>
  195,"c",""<br>
<P>
  <b>Footnote</b><br>
  195,"f","2/ Area planted for all purposes."
</body>
</html>
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of Internet Security Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) for theperiod ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Senior VicePresident Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certifies that:

 

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

 

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ RICHARD MACCHIA                         |   |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|
| Richard Macchia                             |
| Senior Vice President  Finance and          |
| Administration and Chief  Financial Officer |

 

November 9, 2005

----