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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES T. DAVIS,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-0878-GEB-DAD-P

vs.

C/O KISSINGER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed requests for reconsideration

of the magistrate judge’s orders denying his discovery motions, striking his second motion for

summary judgment as out of time, and denying his motion for a “fast-track” settlement

conference. Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 72-303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld

unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that

it does not appear that the magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s requests for reconsideration will be denied.

Plaintiff has also filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3). 

Therein, plaintiff seeks to vacate this court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary

///

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 191 Filed 09/24/09 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

judgment and dismissing his state law claims. Plaintiff’s motion is premature because the court

has not entered a final judgment in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s January 22, 2009, March 20, 2009, and September 3, 2009 requests

for reconsideration (Doc. Nos. 153, 173, and 187) are denied. The orders of the magistrate judge

filed January 8, 2009, March 11, 2009, and August 25, 2009, are affirmed; and

2. Plaintiff’s March 27, 2009 motion to set aside the court’s March 9, 2009 order

(Doc. No. 174) is denied.

Dated: September 24, 2009

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 191 Filed 09/24/09 Page 2 of 2
AMENDED AND RESTATED  CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT
 Company Executive
    Effective Date
   Definitions and Interpretation Rules
 Defined Terms
 Accrued Obligations
 Additional Obligations
  Affiliate 




---



##### 



 Assets 
  the Company 
  Base Compensation  including excluding Base Compensation
  Beneficial Owner  Beneficial Ownership
  Board 
  Cause 
  Change in Control 
  -2-




---



##### 



Asset Sale unless
     Code 
  Committee  Committee provided however
  Company 
 -3-




---



##### 



 Disability 
  Effective Date 
  Employee 
  Employment Termination Date 
  Entity 
  ERISA 
  Exchange Act 
  Excise Tax 
  Executive 
 Expiration Date
  Good Reason  Change in Control Potential Change in Control
    -4-




---



##### 



 Gross-Up Payment 
 -5-




---



##### 



 Highest Base Compensation 
 Incumbent Director 
    Incumbent Directors
   IRS 
  Merger 
  Pension Plan 
  Perquisites 
  Person 
 Potential Change in Control 
   -6-




---



##### 



 Section 409A 
  Section 409A Disability   Section 409A Disability 
  Separation From Service 
  Specified Employee 
  Specified Owner 
      -7-




---



##### 



 Termination of Employment 
  Termination of Employment
  Voting Securities 
 Number and Gender
 Term of Agreement
 Term Expiration Date
 Compensation
 Equity Based Compensation
 -8-




---



##### 



Benefits Following Termination of Employment
 Severance Payment Based Upon Base Compensation
 Pension Plan
 Accident and Health Insurance Benefits Continuation Period
 -9-




---



##### 



Perquisites
 Retiree Medical
 Interest Amount Interest
Amount
 -10-




---



##### 



Gross-Up Payments Total Payments Gross-Up Payment
 Tax Counsel Auditor
   -11-




---



##### 



Legal Fees
 -12-




---



##### 



Time of Benefits Payments
 Termination Procedures And Compensation During Dispute
 Notice of Termination Notice of Termination
 Employment Termination Date Employment Termination Date Employment
Termination Date
 Dispute Concerning Termination
 -13-




---



##### 



Compensation During Dispute
 Withholding
 Death of the Executive
 Amendment
 Miscellaneous
 Agreement Not an Employment Contract
  -14-




---



##### 



Alienation Prohibited
 Severability
 Binding Effect
 Settlement of Disputes Concerning Benefits Under this Agreement; Arbitration AAA
 -15-




---



##### 



No Mitigation
 Other Amounts Due
 Notices
 -16-




---



##### 



Disputed Payments and Refusals to Pay
 Funding Rabbi
Trust
 Governing Law
 Compliance With Section 409A .
 Entire Agreement
 -17-




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 FURMANITE CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/ Michael L. RoseName:
    Michael L. RoseDate:
    December 31, 2008Title:
    PresidentEXECUTIVEBy:
    /s/ Howard C. WadsworthAddress:   2435 N Central ExpresswayRichardson, Texas 75080 -18-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Enviro-Clean
of America Inc. & Subsidiaries and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,136,948
<SECURITIES>                                 2,843,750
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,983,807
<ALLOWANCES>                                   156,349
<INVENTORY>                                  1,938,080
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,100,604
<PP&E>                                       1,435,809
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,095,437
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,669,436
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,646,592
<BONDS>                                      3,454,748
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    175,000
<COMMON>                                         6,608
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,539,444
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,669,436
<SALES>                                     10,942,966
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,942,966
<CGS>                                        6,517,135
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,032,365
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             549,075
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,745,336
<INCOME-TAX>                                   768,367
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,976,969
<DISCONTINUED>                              (2,276,339)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,700,630
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS3923 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
No. 64124.

protests 59/17485 (B) and 59/17485 (C) (Los Angeles).

#### Borneo Sumatra Trading Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 48463.

#### Protests 71847-K, etc., of R. C. Williams & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Case No. 6,300.

#### GEIGER v. The WILLIAM TABER.

[Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHALRES T. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O KISSINGER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:04-cv-0878 TLN DAD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff previously filed with the court a pretrial statement as well as motions in limine 

and other pretrial motions. The court relieved the defendants of having to file their pretrial 

statement in light of the court’s determination that appointment of counsel on plaintiff’s behalf 

appeared to be warranted. See Doc. No. 247. However, despite extensive efforts undertaken to 

identify counsel willing to accept appointment on plaintiff’s behalf, the court has been 

unsuccessful. In addition, the court recently supervised a settlement conference between the 

parties at which a settlement was not reached. Under these circumstances, the court will direct 

plaintiff to continue proceeding pro se and will order defendants to file their pretrial statement

forthwith. 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 261 Filed 09/17/13 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall continue proceeding pro se unless further ordered by the court; and

2. Within thirty days of the date of this order defendants shall file their pretrial statement.

Dated: September 16, 2013

DAD:9

davi0878.pts

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 261 Filed 09/17/13 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6132

MAURICE STEWART,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

S. K. YOUNG, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District

Judge. (CA-03-1227-AM)

Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: June 17, 2004

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maurice Stewart, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Maurice Stewart seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000). The order is appealable only if a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Stewart has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CURRENCY>                                     $US

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                         May-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                           Dec-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1
<CASH>                                       4,418
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  530
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,372
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,142
<PP&E>                                      30,218
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,522
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              75,264
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,148
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                        24
<OTHER-SE>                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                75,264
<SALES>                                     73,787
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            75,006
<CGS>                                       19,808
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               72,462
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,661
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,117)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (253)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (864)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.31)



</TABLE>
21.14
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4293 

To designate the United States courthouse annex located at 310 South 

Main Street in London, Kentucky, as the ‘‘Eugene E. Siler, Jr. United 

States Courthouse Annex’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 8, 2024 

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

referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To designate the United States courthouse annex located 

at 310 South Main Street in London, Kentucky, as the 

‘‘Eugene E. Siler, Jr. United States Courthouse Annex’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EUGENE E. SILER, JR. UNITED STATES COURT4 HOUSE ANNEX. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The United States courthouse 

6 annex located at 310 South Main Street in London, Ken7 tucky, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Eugene E. 

8 Siler, Jr. United States Courthouse Annex’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4293 IS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the United States courthouse annex referred to 

4 in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 

5 ‘‘Eugene E. Siler, Jr. United States Courthouse Annex’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4345 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4345

To amend the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 to reauthorize 
 and expand State-wide assessments and strategies for forest resources.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 15, 2024

    Mr. Hickenlooper (for himself and Mr. Marshall) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 to reauthorize 
 and expand State-wide assessments and strategies for forest resources.

    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 ``Branch Out Implementation Act''.

SEC. 2. STATE-WIDE ASSESSMENTS AND STRATEGIES FOR FOREST RESOURCES 
              FUNDING.

    Section 2A of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 
U.S.C. 2101a) is amended by striking subsection (f) and inserting the 
following:
    ``(f) Funding.--
            ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
        to be appropriated to develop and implement the State-wide 
        assessment and State-wide strategy required by subsection (a) 
        not more than $40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 
        2029.
            ``(2) Additional funding sources.--In addition to funds 
        appropriated for a fiscal year pursuant to paragraph (1), the 
        Secretary may use any other funds made available under this Act 
        to develop and implement the State-wide assessment and State-
        wide strategy required by subsection (a), except that the total 
        amount of combined funding to develop and implement that State-
        wide assessment and State-wide strategy may not exceed 
        $40,000,000 in any fiscal year.''.
                                 <all>
```
!function(){"use strict";var n,e="usa-js-loading";function t(){document.documentElement.classList.remove(e)}document.documentElement.classList.add(e),n=setTimeout(t,8e3),window.addEventListener("load",function e(){window.uswdsPresent&&(clearTimeout(n),t(),window.removeEventListener("load",e,!0))},!0)}();
//# sourceMappingURL=uswds-init.min.js.map
From: jptgilmore@hotmail.com

To: george.wellington@dot.gov

CC: charles.hunnicutt@troutmansanders.com; pat.snyder@troutmansanders.com; 

brent.connor@troutmansanders.com

Subject: United States, Barbados Reach Open-Skies Agreement

Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 01:51:41 +0100

AirOne Ventures Limited : Applications Docket DOT-OST-2010-0134

Mr. Wellington:

I note the July 2 Departmental Press Release DOT 132-10 below.

While this constitutes a material change in the bilateral regime

as it realtes to the above noted applications, I believe my

submissions in those applications deal with such an eventuality.

Accordingly I will not be requesting leave to file further submissions

as a result of this development and thought I should so advise you to

permit your continued deliberations on those applications unimpeded

by concern for any further action on my part. 

I have copied this E-Mail to Counsel to the Applicant and have posted

it on the Docket.

Sincerely,

John P.T. Gilmore

205 – 4250 St. Ambroise

Montreal, Quebec

Canada H4C 3R4

Telephone: 514 716 7665

E-Mail : jptgilmore@hotmail.com
DOT 132-10

Friday, July 2, 2010

Contact: Bill Mosley

Tel.: (202) 366-4570

United States, Barbados Reach Open-Skies Agreement

Representatives of the United States and Barbados have reached an Open-Skies Agreement 

that will liberalize U.S.-Barbados air services for airlines of both countries. Barbados will 

become the 99th U.S. Open-Skies partner. 

“This agreement means the travelers, airlines and economies of both the United States and 

Barbados will benefit from competitive pricing and more convenient service,” said U.S. 

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

Upon signature of the agreement, airlines from both countries will be allowed to select 

routes, destinations and prices for both passenger and cargo service based on consumer 

demand and market conditions. The agreement, which was reached on July 1, provides 

airlines, for the first time, with codesharing and intermodal rights. 

The previous U.S.-Barbados air service agreement, signed in 1982, contained restrictions on 

the cities that carriers could serve and placed limits on charter operations. The new 

agreement will remove these restrictions and provide important enhanced cargo rights.
```
D.C. Pension Benefits: Comparison With Selected State and Local
Government Pension Plans (Letter Report, 11/04/93, GAO/HRD-94-18).

After surveying 40 public employee retirement plans, GAO concludes that
the District of Columbia's retirement plans for police officers,
firefighters, teachers, and judges generally provide benefits that are
comparable to those offered by other public retirement plans. District
police officers and firefighters receive pensions that are slightly
higher (as a percent of final salary) than the average provided by
similar plans, while District teachers' pensions are slightly lower.
District judges' pensions are higher than the average of other plans.
Any comparison of public pension plan benefits is complicated, however,
because survivor benefits, disability benefits, and cost-of-living
adjustment provisions vary among plans.  The District's cost-of-living
adjustment provision--retirement annuities are increased twice yearly by
the full amount of the rise in the consumer price index--is more
generous than provisions of other plans.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  HRD-94-18
     TITLE:  D.C. Pension Benefits: Comparison With Selected State and 
             Local Government Pension Plans
      DATE:  11/04/93
   SUBJECT:  Civil service pensions
             Retirement pensions
             Employee retirement plans
             Government retirement benefits
             Funds management
             Trust revolving funds
             Comparative analysis
             State governments
             Local governments
             Cost of living
IDENTIFIER:  Civil Service Retirement System
             DC Police Officers and Fire Fighters Retirement Fund
             DC Teachers Retirement Fund
             DC Judges Retirement Fund
             
************************************************************************

We regret that the full text of this item is presently unavailable.

See the GAO FAQ - Section 2.0 for printed copy ordering information.
The FAQ is automatically retrieved with all WAIS search results or 
can be obtained by sending e-mail to: [email protected]
```
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

Order Granting Defendants’ Request to File Video Recording

1

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

JAMES M. HUMES

Chief Assistant Attorney General

FRANCES T. GRUNDER

Senior Assistant Attorney General

JAMES E. FLYNN

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

CONSTANCE L. PICCIANO, State Bar No. 66172

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street, Suite 125

Post Office Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 322-6453

Facsimile: (916) 324-5205

Attorneys for Defendants

Cade, Chastain, Gauthreaux, Johnson, Lea, 

Mathews, McKee, Mini, Ramos, and Wheeler

SA2005100283

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN A. MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. VILES, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CIV S-04-0756 LKK JFM P

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST

TO FILE VIDEO

RECORDING

The Court, having considered Defendants’ request for permission to file a video

recording in support of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and good cause having been

found:

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-00756-LKK -JFM Document 43 Filed 11/16/05 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

Order Granting Defendants’ Request to File Video Recording

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: that pursuant to Local Rule 5-133(b) the Clerk is

directed to accept for filing a video recording of December 3, 2002, as an exhibit to Defendants’

Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

DATED: November 16, 2005. 

/mart0756.vdt

Case 2:04-cv-00756-LKK -JFM Document 43 Filed 11/16/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 51651.

#### Protests 633211-G, etc., of Saks & Co., Inc. (New York).

*181Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.