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

Federal Judicial Center 10/25/2023 1

Filing a Complaint Results in Settled Relief 

Providing a Voting Location 

on an Indian Reservation 

Blackfeet Nation v. Stapleton 

(Dana L. Christensen, D. Mont. 4:20-cv-95) 

On the Friday night before a Columbus Day weekend, an American 

Indian tribe filed a federal complaint alleging that it was improper 

for a county not to provide a voting location on its reservation. The 

case was assigned to a judge on Tuesday, who set the case for hearing 

about a week later, but the case settled on Wednesday. 

Subject: Absentee and early voting. Topics: Poll locations; early 

voting; absentee ballots; Covid-19. 

At 7:20 p.m. on Friday, October 9, 2020, an American Indian tribe filed a federal complaint in the District of Montana against election officials for Montana and its Pondera County seeking relief from “Defendants’ refusal, despite 

timely requests, to establish a site that provides in-person voter registration, 

in-person early voting, and Election Day voting (hereinafter ‘satellite office’) 

on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation.”1

 Among the alleged challenges for reservation voters during the global Covid-19 infectious pandemic were the need 

to travel scores of miles to vote in person and the difficulty voting by mail from 

home for want of residential mail delivery.2

Receiving the case on Tuesday, after the Columbus Day holiday weekend, 

Judge Dana L. Christensen set the case for hearing on October 22.3 On 

Wednesday, the tribe filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, attaching a settlement agreement specifying that the county would provide a voting location on 

the reservation.4 Judge Christensen dismissed the action on the following day.5

1. Complaint at 2, Blackfeet Nation v. Stapleton, No. 4:20-cv-95 (D. Mont. Oct. 9, 2020), 

D.E. 1; Hearing Order at 1, id. (Oct. 14, 2020), D.E. 8. 

2. Complaint, supra note 1, at 2–3. 

3. Hearing Order, supra note 1, at 2 (mentioning a strategic advantage created by the defendants’ not yet appearing in the case). 

4. Voluntary Dismissal, Blackfeet Nation, No. 4:20-cv-95 (D. Mont. Oct. 14, 2020), D.E. 9. 

5. Order, id. (Oct. 15, 2020), D.E. 10.
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 this annual report on Form 10-K of Earle M. Jorgensen Company (EMJ) for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William S. Johnson, as Chief Financial Officer of EMJ, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:



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



(2) Information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
EMJ.



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|Date: June 28, 2005                                  
|                                                     
|/s/    WILLIAM S.
JOHNSON                            
|William S. Johnson                                   
|Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary



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

MICHAEL SHAWN ROCHESTER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0449 DFL KJM P

vs.

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss. On May 11,

2005, the court ordered that petitioner file an opposition to respondent’s motion by June 10, 2005

and warned petitioner that failure to file an opposition could result in dismissal under Rule 41(b)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On June 13, 2005, petitioner requested more time to file

an opposition. Petitioner’s request was granted on June 22 and petitioner was granted until July

22, to file his opposition. Petitioner has not filed an opposition. 

Petitioner has failed to comply with the court’s May 11, 2005 order that petitioner

file an opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss despite being given an extension of time to

do so. Therefore, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

Case 2:04-cv-00449-DFL -KJM Document 9 Filed 08/11/05 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 accordance with the above IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action

be dismissed without prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten days after

service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 10, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

roch0449.frs

Case 2:04-cv-00449-DFL -KJM Document 9 Filed 08/11/05 Page 2 of 2
# Sheet 1

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2017-06	&"Arial,Bold"&10VI RSOCNP - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BJune 2017
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- 

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE EXTENSION OF LAST DAY TO HEAR DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS 

CIV-S-04-889 FCD PAN

Gordon &

Rees LLP

655 University Avenue, Suite 200

Sacramento, California 95825

WILLIAM J. PETERS (SBN: 104787) 

MARK S. POSARD (SBN: 208790) 

GORDON & REES LLP 

655 University Avenue, Suite 200 

Sacramento, California 95825 

Telephone: (916) 565-2900 

Facsimile: (916) 920-4402 

MICHAEL L.SNYDER (Ohio SBN: 0040990) 

DAVID B. CUPAR (Ohio SBN: 0071622) 

McDONALD HOPKINS CO., LPA 

600 Superior Avenue, East, Suite 2100 

Cleveland, OH 44114-2653 

Telephone: (216) 348-5400 

Facsimile: (216) 348-5474David B. Cupar 

Attorneys For: Defendant TRIMAS CORPORATION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

VINOO JAIN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TRIMAS CORPORATION, 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. CIV. S-04-889 FCD PAN 

ORDER RE EXTENSION OF LAST DAY 

TO HEAR DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS 

“AS MODIFIED” 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, based upon good cause showing and a stipulation between 

the parties, and in light of plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Proceedings set for hearing on September 

23, 2005, the cut-off date for this Court to hear dispositive motions, currently set for August 12, 

2005, is extended to December 2, 2005. As a result of this extension the final pretrial conference 

is RESET to Friday, February 10, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. The joint pretrial statement shall be filed on 

or before February 3, 2006. The jury trial is RESET to Tuesday, April 18, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. 

DATED: August 15, 2005 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

 FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-00889-FCD-PAN Document 31 Filed 08/15/05 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- 

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE EXTENSION OF LAST DAY TO HEAR DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS 

CIV-S-04-889 FCD PAN

Gordon &

Rees LLP

655 University Avenue, Suite 200

Sacramento, California 95825

 

MHCO\1018248\21936.1 

Case 2:04-cv-00889-FCD-PAN Document 31 Filed 08/15/05 Page 2 of 2
LISTING OF SUBSIDIARIES
                                        

                                                                 Percentage
                                                                 of Voting
                                                   Place of      Securities
                    Name                         Organization      Owned
--------------------------------------------     ------------    ----------

Significant subsidiaries of the company:

  Acme Brick Company                               Delaware         100%
  American Tile Supply, Inc.                       Delaware         100%
  Featherlite Building Products Corporation        Delaware         100%
  Footwear Management Company                      Delaware         100%
     d/b/a Justin Boot Company
     d/b/a Nocona Boot Company
     d/b/a Tony Lama Company, Inc.
     d/b/a Chippewa Shoe Company
  Justin Management Company                        Delaware         100%
     d/b/a Justin Management Company
     d/b/a Northland Publishing Company, Inc.
  Tradewinds Technologies, Inc.                    Delaware         100%

  All other subsidiaries are omitted from this list because they do not,
considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, constitute a significant
subsidiary.  All wholly-owned subsidiaries are included in the consolidated
financial statements.
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350


Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, Nelson A. Locke,
the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Amstar Financial Services, Inc.. (the
"Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.


/s/ Nelson A. Locke
--------------------
Nelson A. Locke

March 5, 2008

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Registrant and will be retained by
Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
Case 2:04-cv-00655-LKK -KJM   Document 55    Filed 04/28/06   Page 1 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-00655-LKK -KJM   Document 55    Filed 04/28/06   Page 2 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-00655-LKK -KJM   Document 55    Filed 04/28/06   Page 3 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-00655-LKK -KJM   Document 55    Filed 04/28/06   Page 4 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-00655-LKK -KJM   Document 55    Filed 04/28/06   Page 5 of 5

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-27T20:51:52-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 28, 2010

s0621 

# Order

June 28, 2010

139349

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139349 COA: 291649 Genesee CC: 88-039224-FC MELISSA L. CHAPMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 12, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4137 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4137

 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to count a period of 
    receipt of outpatient observation services in a hospital toward 
  satisfying the 3-day inpatient hospital requirement for coverage of 
           skilled nursing facility services under Medicare.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 17, 2024

Mr. Brown (for himself, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Whitehouse) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to count a period of 
    receipt of outpatient observation services in a hospital toward 
  satisfying the 3-day inpatient hospital requirement for coverage of 
           skilled nursing facility services under Medicare.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Improving Access to Medicare 
Coverage Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. COUNTING A PERIOD OF RECEIPT OF OUTPATIENT OBSERVATION SERVICES 
              IN A HOSPITAL TOWARD THE 3-DAY INPATIENT HOSPITAL 
              REQUIREMENT FOR COVERAGE OF SKILLED NURSING FACILITY 
              SERVICES UNDER MEDICARE.

    (a) In General.--Section 1861(i) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395x(i)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``For 
purposes of this subsection, an individual receiving outpatient 
observation services shall be deemed to be an inpatient during such 
period, and the date such individual ceases receiving such services 
shall be deemed the hospital discharge date (unless such individual is 
admitted as a hospital inpatient at the end of such period).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to receipt of outpatient observation services beginning on or 
after January 1, 2024, but applies to a period of post-hospital 
extended care services that was completed before the date of the 
enactment of this Act only if an administrative appeal is or has been 
made with respect to such services not later than 90 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act. Notwithstanding any other provision 
of law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may implement such 
amendment through an interim final regulation, program instruction, or 
otherwise.
                                 <all>
```
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Strategic Internet
Investments, Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending
December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"). I, Ralph Shearing, Chief Executive 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: | May
      17, 2006 |  | /s/
      Ralph Shearing     
|----- | ------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|      |                    |  | Ralph Shearing, CEO, Director

---
# Cover

# Table 1

# Table 2

# Table 3

# Table 4

# Symbols

# Historical Note
CASE DIGEST: U.S. Dep’t of VA, Winston-Salem, N.C., 73 FLRA 794 (2024) 

The Arbitrator issued an award finding the Agency violated the parties’ 

agreement by failing to take certain actions before denying the grievant a career-ladder 

promotion. The Arbitrator awarded a make-whole remedy and retained jurisdiction to 

resolve any disputes regarding the remedy. The Union asked the Arbitrator to clarify 

whether the make-whole remedy included backpay for lost overtime opportunities. The 

Arbitrator then issued another award (the supplemental award), finding her retained 

jurisdiction included the overtime issue and that the make-whole remedy included 

backpay for any overtime opportunities the grievant missed due to the Agency’s contract 

violations. The Agency excepted to the supplemental award on exceeded-authority, 

fair-hearing, nonfact, and contrary-to-law grounds. The Authority denied the Agency’s 

exceptions because they did not demonstrate the supplemental award was deficient. 

This case digest is a summary of a decision issued by the Federal Labor Relations 

Authority, with a short description of the issues and facts of the case. Descriptions 

contained in this case digest are for informational purposes only, do not constitute legal 

precedent, and are not intended to be a substitute for the opinion of the Authority.
No. 55901.

protest 78563-K (New York).

#### Burroughs Wellcome & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as the estrogenic hormone passed upon in *Roche-Organon*v. *United States*(35 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 378). The claim at 10 percent under paragraph 34 was therefore sustained.
- Bureau of the Fiscal Service
- Intra-Governmental Payment and Collection
- Metric Resources
- IPAC Stats for May 2020

# IPAC Transaction Count May 2020

Table may scroll on smaller screens 

Last modified 06/03/20
Exhibit 12.3

WISCONSIN POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED
CHARGES AND RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES   AND PREFERRED DIVIDEND
REQUIREMENTS

|                                                  | Years Ended December 31,
|------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------
|                                                  |                         
|                                                  | 2005                    
|                                                  |                         
|                                                  | (dollars in millions)   
|EARNINGS:                                         |                         
|Net income                                        | $105.1                  
|Income taxes                                      | 60.9                    
|                                                  |                         
|Income before income taxes                        | 166.0                   
|                                                 
|Fixed charges as defined                          | 73.9                    
|                                                 
|Adjustment for undistributed equity earnings      | (1.6)                   
|                                                  |                         
|Total earnings as defined                         | $238.3                  
|                                                  |                         
|                                                 
|FIXED CHARGES :                                  
|Interest expense                                  | $40.4                   
|Estimated interest component of rent expense      | 33.5                    
|                                                  |                         
|Total fixed charges as defined                    | $73.9                   
|                                                  |                         
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (Unaudited)    | 3.22                    
|                                                  |                         
|Preferred dividend requirements (pre-tax basis) * | $5.2                    
|                                                  |                         
|Fixed charges and preferred dividend requirements | $79.1                   
|                                                  |                         
|Ratio of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and  
|Preferred Dividend Requirements (Unaudited)       | 3.01                    
|                                                  |                         

* Preferred dividend requirements
(pre-tax basis) are computed by dividing the preferred dividend requirements by one
hundred percent minus the annual effective income tax rate.
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.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

The Commission gives notice that it has formally requested that the parties to the below listed agreement provide additional information pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 40304(d). This action prevents the agreement from becoming effective as originally scheduled. 

*Agreement No.:*                     011275-022.                 

*Title:*                     Australia/United States Discussion Agreement.                 

*Parties:*                     A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S, Safmarine Container Lines NV, Hamburg-Südamerikanische Dampfschifffahrtsgesellschaft KG, and Hapag-Lloyd AG.                 

Dated: February 21, 2007. 

By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission. 

Bryant L. VanBrakle, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E7-3270 Filed 2-26-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P