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

RICHARD E. WILMSHURST, 

Plaintiff,

v.

BILL LOCKYER, Attorney General,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; SUPERIOR

COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF

CALAVERAS

Defendants. 

CIV-S-04-0988 DFL-KJM

ORDER

On July 12, 2005, plaintiff Richard Wilmshurst, proceeding

pro se, filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”)

against defendant Bill Lockyer, the attorney general of

California, in which he seeks to prohibit Lockyer and his agents

from coming within 150 feet of him. Plaintiff alleges that he

was wrongfully assaulted and arrested by agents of the California

Attorney General’s Office while attending a speech given by

Lockyer on June 29, 2005. (Mot. at 3-4.) The TRO is necessary,

plaintiff contends, to protect him from future harm and to

protect the jurisdiction of the court over this case. (Id. at 4-

Case 2:04-cv-00988-DFL -KJM Document 77 Filed 07/13/05 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

5.) 

The court finds plaintiff’s arguments insufficient to

justify the issuance of a TRO because he fails to articulate a

substantial likelihood of imminent, irreparable harm. Plaintiff

seeks a TRO request preventing Lockyer or his agents from coming

within 150 feet of him, yet plaintiff’s submitted evidence shows

that it was he who sought out Lockyer, not the other way around. 

Even accepting plaintiff’s allegations as true, his evidence does

not show that he faces a real and imminent threat of future harm. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s TRO request is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 7/13/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00988-DFL -KJM Document 77 Filed 07/13/05 Page 2 of 2
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals2986802-APR-201209:19 AM
No. 50931.

#### Protests 881111-G, etc., of B. N. Gupta Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
EPA/Polysius Meeting on NESHAP and NSPS

Meeting Date: October 28, 2009

Location: Polysius Corporation 180 Interstate North Parkway Atlanta, GA 30339 Research Triangle Park, NC

Participants:

NAME AFFILIATION PHONE NUMBER Keith Barnett US EPA 919-541-5605 Elineth Torres US EPA 919-541-4347 David Read Florida Department of Environmental Protection 850-414-7268

Al Linero Florida Department of Environmental Protection 850-921-9523

Mark S. Terry Polysius 770-980-5013 Detlev Vupper Polysius +49 25 25 99 2333 Dietmar Schulz Polysius +49 25 25 99 2229 Sebastian Frie Polysius +49 25 25 99 2665 Wendy Greene SCDHEC 843-953-0150 Whit Hoover SCDHEC 843-953-0150 Mike Laney RTI International 919-316-3413 Mark Mueller Polysius 770-980-5029 Michael Herziger Polysius 770-980-5076 Veronica Barringer South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 803-898-4127

Melissa Poage South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 803-898-3235

Neil Ballantyne Polysius 770-980-5926 Uwe Eschenhorst Polysius 770-980-5092 Alexandra Baskette Polysius 770-980-5004 Taruna Vanjani Georgia Environmental Protection Department 404-362-2523

Heather Abrams US EPA Region 4 404-562-9185 Sara Waterson US EPA Region 4 404-562-9061 Elizabeth Munsey Georgia Environmental Protection Department 404-363-7103Participants met to discuss issues and st atus of the NESHAP and NSPS for Portland cement manufacturing. During the Meeting the Polysius personnel presented general information on their company and some of their experience with various types of mercury and NOx emissions controls.

Some of the key issues raised by the Polysius pers onnel related to the s ite specific effects of raw materials and fuels on NOx emissions a nd controls. They also raised questions on the achievability of the proposed mercur y and total hydrocarbon emission limits, and question on disposal of wastes from mercury controls. Al Linero of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection gave a presentation on the possibilities of using dust shuttling for reduc ing mercury emissions.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40369

c/w No. 04-40379

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERTO CARBAJAL-HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-161-ALL

USDC No. 1:03-CR-861-ALL

--------------------

Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roberto Carbajal-Hernandez (“Carbajal”) appeals from his

guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation as

well as from the revocation of supervised release relating to a

prior illegal reentry conviction. He argues that the “felony”

and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and

(2) are unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s

decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and
No. 04-40369

c/w No. 04-40379

-2-

Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). He therefore

reasons that both the instant conviction as well as his prior

illegal reentry conviction must be reduced to convictions under

the lesser included offense found in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2).

A defendant may not use the revocation of supervised release

to challenge his sentence for the underlying offense based on

Apprendi for the first time. United States v. Moody, 277 F.3d

719, 720-21 (5th Cir. 2001). Therefore, Carbajal may not

challenge his prior illegal reentry conviction in the appeal of

the revocation of his supervised release. See id.

Regardless, as Carbajal acknowledges, his attack on 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 226-27 (1998), but he seeks to preserve it for

Supreme Court review. Apprendi did not overrule

Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90; United

States v. Mancia-Perez, 331 F.3d 464, 470 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 124 S. Ct. 358 (2003). Accordingly, this court must

follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court

itself determines to overrule it.” Mancia-Perez, 331 F.3d at 470

(internal quotation and citation omitted). Moreover, in United

States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464, 465-66 (5th Cir.), petition for

cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004) (No. 04-5263), this court held

that “Blakely does not extend to the federal Guidelines.” A

panel of this court cannot overrule a prior panel’s decision in

the absence of an intervening contrary or superseding decision by
No. 04-40369

c/w No. 04-40379

-3-

this court sitting en banc or by the United States Supreme Court. 

United States v. Lipscomb, 299 F.3d 303, 313 n.34 (5th Cir.

2002). Accordingly, the judgments of the district court are

AFFIRMED.
1

[PROPOSED] ORDER

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALBERT BOLT 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

MERRIMACK PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.S-04-893 WBS DAD 

[ORDER 

This matter having come before the Court upon the parties Joint Application for Order 

Shortening Time on Plaintiff Albert D. Bolt’s Motion for Certification of this Court’s June 17, 

2005, Judgment and September 21, 2005, Order Granting Further Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2202 

for Registration in the District of Massachusetts, and Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s Motion 

for Stay and Approval of Security Pending Appeal, and the Court, being duly advised on the 

merits, finds said Application well-taken and it is hereby GRANTED. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Stay and Approval of 

Security Pending Appeal and Plaintiff’s Motion for Certification of this Court’s June 17, 2005, 

Judgment and September 21, 2005, Order Granting Further Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2202 for 

Registration in the District of Massachusetts shall be heard on Nov. 28, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. 

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion shall be due on _Nov. 21, 2005.. Plaintiff’s Reply 

Brief shall be due on _Nov. 21, 2005. It is further ORDERED that counsel for Merrimack may 

participate in this hearing via telephone, with no prejudice to counsel for Bolt’s right to appear in 

person. 

 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:04-cv-00893-WBS-DAD Document 127 Filed 11/21/05 Page 1 of 2
2

[PROPOSED] ORDER

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

SO ORDERED 

Dated: November 18, 2005 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:04-cv-00893-WBS-DAD Document 127 Filed 11/21/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 50437.

#### Protest 961189-G of J. T. Steeb & Co., Inc. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In Abstract 49680 the court overruled the protests after pointing out that “the plaintiffs did not move to set aside the submission.” Precisely the same situation prevailed with respect to the present protest, no motion to set aside the submission having been made. An examination of the papers disclosing no reason for disturbing the decision of the collector, which was held presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. ER07-488-000] 

                    On February 20, 2007, the Commission issued a “Notice of Filing” in the above-captioned proceeding.                     *Combined Notice of Filings #2,*                     February 20, 2007. By this notice the comment period has been extended to and including March 5, 2007.                 

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E7-3594 Filed 2-28-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
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 September 30, 2008 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.


|                        |  |                                         
|----------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------
|                       
|Date: November 14, 2008 |  | /s/
      Mark I. Gittelman             
|                        |  | 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.

---
No. 58504.

protests 155812-K, etc. (San Francisco).

#### Pacific Floor Products et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the linoleum the subject of *United States*v. *Pacific Overseas Co., W. J. Byrnes & Co.*(42 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 559), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2000
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          21,660
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  108,663
<ALLOWANCES>                                       416
<INVENTORY>                                    205,016
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               340,545
<PP&E>                                         151,692
<DEPRECIATION>                                  56,651
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 464,374
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          175,397
<BONDS>                                        282,943
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (14,365)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   464,374
<SALES>                                        938,252
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               938,252
<CGS>                                          662,803
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  662,803
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               123,566
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,201
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,595
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,796
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,809
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             23,987
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,987
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<PAGE 1>
                                                          EXHIBIT 4


                  NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION CORP.
                         AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
                  -------------------------------------------
                INSTRUMENTS DEFINING RIGHTS OF SECURITY HOLDERS
                             INCLUDING INDENTURES


     The following instruments of Navistar International Transportation Corp.
and its principal subsidiary Navistar Financial Corporation defining the
rights of security holders are incorporated herein by reference.

     4.1  Indenture, dated as of March 1, 1968, between Navistar
          International Transportation Corp. and Manufacturers Hanover
          Trust Company, as Trustee, and succeeded by FIDATA Trust Company
          of New York, as successor Trustee, for 6 1/4% Sinking Fund
          Debentures due 1998 for $50,000,000.  Filed on Registration
          No. 2-28150. 

     4.2  Indenture, dated as of  June 15, 1974, between Navistar
          International Transportation Corp. and Harris Trust and Savings
          Bank, as Trustee, and succeeded by Commerce Union Bank, now
          known as Sovran Bank/Central South, as successor Trustee,
          for 9% Sinking Fund Debentures due 2004  for $150,000,000.
          Filed on Registration No. 2-51111. 

     4.3  Indenture, dated as of  November 15, 1993, between Navistar
          Financial Corporation and Bank of America, Illinois formerly
          known as Continental Bank, National Association, as Trustee,
          for 8 7/8% Senior Subordinated Notes due 1998 for $100,000,000.
          Filed on Registration No. 33-50541.

     4.4  Indenture, dated as of May 30, 1997, by and between Navistar
          Financial Corporation and The Fuji Bank and Trust Company, as
          Trustee, for 9% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2002 for
          $100,000,000.  Filed on Registration No. 333-30167.


======

     Instruments defining the rights of holders of other unregistered long-
term debt of Navistar and its subsidiaries have been omitted from this
exhibit index because the amount of debt authorized under any such instrument
does not exceed 10% of the total assets of the Registrant and its
consolidated subsidiaries.  The Registrant agrees to furnish a copy of any
such instrument to the Commission upon request.















                              E-2
Record of Ex Parte Contacts

Docket No. FAA
- 2011
- 1229 Directorate Identifier: 2011
- NM
- 132
- AD
**With whom outside the FAA has this AD**  **action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder,**  **manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAM**  **A, etc)?** ( You might need to submit a separate record to the Rules Docket . T he AD Manual defines “

**Ex Parte Contacts** .”

) ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE RESPONSE The Boeing Company Tom Croslin May 17, 2011 No response ATA Jo e White Ju ne 7, 2011 Nonconcur. Attach a record of comments.

Other/Additional Information: Mr. Joe White (ATA) stated that the McDonnell Douglas airplane fuel tanks are low flammability. He felt there was no need for addres sing ignition sources in such tanks, since there has not been any explosion of the DC9 MD80 MD90 airplane fuel tank, and the risk assessment should support his position.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

View and Print an Item Detail Report Offline 

To view and print an Item Detail report, complete the following steps:

1. From the Check Processing tab, select Batch Management. The Search Batch page 

appears.

2. Select or enter the batch search conditions you would like to view.

Under Batch Search Conditions, optional

• Select the OTC Endpoint you want to Edit a batch for by checking the under the 

Select column.

Under Created On Date, optional

• Enter the From and To date range.

• The From and To Created On Date must be entered in MM/DD/YYYY format.

• The Created On Date range cannot exceed 30 days. Additionally, if more than a 

1,000 batches are created within 30 days, then only the most recent 1,000 batches 

appear.

• If you run a search with the default From and To Created On Date range values, the 

search results include the most recent 30 days of batches that you have access to 

view. If more than 1,000 batches are created within the 30 days, then only the most 

recent 1,000 batches appear.

• If you run a search without specifying any criterion (with the exception of the Batch 

ID field), the search results include the most recent 30 days of batches that you have 

access to view. If more than 1,000 batches are created within 30 days, then only the 

most recent 1,000 batches appear.

• Enter the Batch ID, optional.

• Enter the Cashier ID, optional.

If the only search criteria entered is a valid Batch ID, then only a single result appears 

regardless of other search criteria specified.

Under Batch Status, optional

• Select the Status you want to view by checking the Open or Closed box 

under the Select column.

3. Select Search. The View Batches page appears.

4. Select the Batch ID hyperlink. The Batch and Item Details page appears.

Application Tips

Application Tip
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

2

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

5. Select the Item ID of each scanned check. An image of the check and details of the 

check appear in the window. 

6. Select Print Item. The Item Detail Report appears.

7. Under Export as, 

• Select Word, Excel, RTF, or PDF

• Select Download

Or

• Select Print PDF Report

• Select Previous to return to the previous page.

• Select Cancel to cancel the transaction. No data will be saved.

Additional Buttons
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4336 

To prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from using Federal funds 

to establish the ICE Secure Docket Card program and to prohibit the 

use of documentation issued in connection with immigration proceedings 

to establish eligibility for Federal public benefits. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 14, 2024 

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

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from using 

Federal funds to establish the ICE Secure Docket Card 

program and to prohibit the use of documentation issued 

in connection with immigration proceedings to establish 

eligibility for Federal public benefits. 

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 ‘‘No Taxpayer Funds 

5 for Illegal Immigrant Identity Cards Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PURPOSES. 

7 The purposes of this Act are— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4336 IS

1 (1) to prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Secu2 rity from using Federal funds to establish the ICE 

3 Secure Docket Card program or any other Federal 

4 program that issues free identity cards to aliens who 

5 are unlawfully present in the United States. 

6 SEC. 3. PROHIBITIONS. 

7 (a) ICE SECURE DOCKET CARD.—Notwithstanding 

8 any other provision of law, no Federal funds may be used 

9 to establish, implement, or otherwise support the activities 

10 of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Se11 cure Docket Card program or of any other similar pro12 gram of the Department of Homeland Security. 

13 (b) PROOF OF IDENTIFICATION.—No documentation, 

14 in any form, which was issued for the primary purpose 

15 of providing access to information regarding the status of 

16 an individual’s immigration proceedings, may be used as 

17 proof of identification for the purpose of establishing eligi18 bility for any Federal public benefit (as defined in section 

19 401(c) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Oppor20 tunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1611(c))). 

21 SEC. 4. REPORT. 

22 Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment 

23 of this Act, the Inspector General of the Department of 

24 Homeland Security shall submit a report to the Committee 

25 on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 4336 IS

1 Senate and the Committee on Homeland Security of the 

2 House of Representatives that describes the establish3 ment, operation, and any costs associated with the ICE 

4 Secure Docket Card program or any other Federal pro5 gram that issues free identity cards to aliens who are un6 lawfully present in the United States. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB