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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD DWANE BROOK,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1254 GEB GGH P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, Warden, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

rights action. On June 7, 2005, plaintiff filed his third request for the appointment of counsel. 

Plaintiff’s previous requests were filed on November 12, 2004 and March 8, 2005. All requests

were denied. In light of those orders, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s June 7, 2005

request is denied. 

DATED: 6/30/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:kf

broo1254.31a 

Case 2:04-cv-01254-GGH Document 45 Filed 06/30/05 Page 1 of 1
CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Journal Communications, Inc. of our report dated January 26, 2001,
included in the 2000 Annual Report to Shareholders of Journal Communications,
Inc.

         Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Journal
Communications, Inc. listed in item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility
of the company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based
on our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to
above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a
whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth
therein.

         We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements of Forms S-8 (File Nos. 2-79770 and 333-45408) pertaining to Journal
Communications, Inc. Employees' Individual Retirement Agreement and the Journal
Communications, Inc. Employees' Stock Trust filing of September 8, 2000, with
respect to 15,000,000 units of beneficial interest in said trust, of our report
dated January 26, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
incorporated herein by reference, and our report included in the preceding
paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Journal Communications, Inc.


                                            ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Milwaukee, Wisconsin
March 23, 2001


                                       52
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

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

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection
with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Internet Security Systems, Inc. (the
"Corporation") for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, certifies that:

     (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
Corporation.


/s/ RICHARD MACCHIA
-------------------------------------
Richard Macchia
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
August 13, 2002
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 40 (Thursday, March 1, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 9322]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3603]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-177-000]

Paiute Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

February 23, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 20, 2007, Paiute Pipeline Company 
(Paiute) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1-A, Fourteenth Revised Sheet No. 161, to become 
effective March 1, 2007.
    Paiute states that copies of the filing are being served upon all 
of Paiute's customers and interested State regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
[email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-3603 Filed 2-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
CASE DIGEST: USDA, Food & Nutrition Serv., 73 FLRA 822 (2024) 

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

agreement and § 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations 

Statute (the Statute) in connection with the Agency’s extension of several employees’

details. The Agency filed exceptions alleging the award failed to draw its essence from 

the agreement, was based on a nonfact, and was contrary to law, specifically: the Details 

Act, 5 U.S.C. § 3341; the Office of Personnel Management’s Guide to Processing 

Personnel Actions; and management’s right to assign employees under § 7106(a)(2)(A) 

of the Statute. The Authority dismissed the Details Act exception and denied the 

remaining exceptions.

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.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00246-CV

Winston & Strawn LLP, Appellant

v.

Orient Petroleum (Central Asia) Ltd., Appellee

FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-GN-20-007552, THE HONORABLE JAN SOIFER, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM

The parties have filed a joint motion to abate the appeal until January 17, 2023, to 

allow them to continue with settlement negotiations. We grant the motion and abate this appeal. 

The parties shall submit either a joint status report concerning the status of settlement 

negotiations or a motion to reinstate on or before January 17, 2023. The appeal will remain 

abated until further order of this Court.

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly

Abated

Filed: November 1, 2022
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

Curtis Wilson,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. 04-1105 LKK PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

California Department of 

Corrections, 

Defendant.

-oOoApril 14, 2005, an order served upon plaintiff was returned

by the postal service as undeliverable. Plaintiff has failed to

comply with Local Rule 83-182(d), which requires a party

appearing pro se inform the court of any address change.

Accordingly, the court hereby recommends this action be

dismissed without prejudice. L.R. 83-183(b) (dismissal

appropriate where pro se plaintiff fails to notify court of

current address within 60 days of return of mail by U.S. Postal

Case 2:04-cv-01105-LKK -PAN Document 5 Filed 06/30/05 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

Service). 

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Within 20 days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may

file written objections. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 

The district judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings

and recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: June 29, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01105-LKK -PAN Document 5 Filed 06/30/05 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:04-cv-00969-JAM-JFM   Document 51   Filed 01/28/16   Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00969-JAM-JFM   Document 51   Filed 01/28/16   Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00969-JAM-JFM   Document 51   Filed 01/28/16   Page 3 of 3

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2016-01-29T09:53:22-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
#### Tommy Anthony CRUZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George HERMAN, Warden; Arizona Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 99-17519.

D.C. No. CV-98-00896-SMM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.*

Decided June 21, 2001.

*538Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Petitioner's request for oral arguments is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Tommy Anthony Cruz, a California state prisoner, appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his convictions for second-degree murder and assault. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a), and we affirm.

We review the district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition de novo. See *Dows v. Wood,*211 F.3d 480, 484 (9th Cir.2000). Cruz bears the burden of showing that the state court adjudication of the merits of his claim “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); *Williams v. Taylor,*529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 1523, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000); *Van Tran v. Lindsey,*212 F.3d 1143, 1153-54 (9th Cir.2000) (defining “unreasonable application” as involving situations where the state court has committed clear error).

Cruz contends that his right to due process was violated when the Arizona trial court, at his trial for first degree murder, allowed the reading of jury instructions as to the lesser included offenses of second degree murder and manslaughter, over his objection. We reject Cruz’s contention because a lesser-included offense instruction is available in equal measure to the defense and to the prosecution. *Schmuck v. United States,*489 U.S. 705, 109 S.Ct. 1443, 103 L.Ed.2d 734 (1989). We, therefore, cannot say that the trial court’s decision to include the lesser offense instructions over Cruz’s objection was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of federal law. *Id; Williams,*120 S.Ct. at 1523.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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

JESSE WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1317 MCE GGH P

vs.

J. FANNON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On February 13, 2006, plaintiff filed a request for the court’s assistance in

scheduling a settlement conference. On January 20, 2006, the court filed a scheduling order in

this action. Because discovery has not yet been completed and the time for filing dispositive

motions has not yet run, a settlement conference is premature.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s February 13, 2006,

request for assistance in scheduling a settlement conference is denied.

DATED: 3/1/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:kj

wash1317.ord

Case 2:04-cv-01317-MCE -GGH Document 50 Filed 03/01/06 Page 1 of 1
#### Irvin Emanuel COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-6462.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 31, 2001.

Decided June 11, 2001.

Irvin Emanuel Coleman, pro se. Steven Andrew Witmer, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for appellee.

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Irvin Emanuel Coleman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s *145opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *Coleman v. Angelone,*No. CA-00-707-2 (E.D.Va. Feb. 28, 2001). We deny Coleman’s motion for preparation of a transcript at government expense and 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.*
No. 58023.

protest 218369 (New York).

#### Calvaire *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The uncontradicted testimony, which was supported by a sample of the merchandise (illustrative exhibit 1), established that the article UDder consideration is a plain, ordinary comb used by a woman for her own grooming. On the record presented, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained, the court holding that the combs in question are materially different from the ornamental ones which were the subject of *United States*v. *Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc.*(37 C. C. P. A. 48, C. A. D. 418).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

J une 20 , 2018 

# Order

Clerk June 20 , 2018

156180(66)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 156180

v COA: 330710

Wayne CC: 15

- 004825

- FC

DORIAN LAMARR PRICE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of defendant

- appellant to extend the time

for filing his supplemental brief is GRANTED. The supplemental brief will be accepted

for filing if submitted on or before Ju ly 1 3 , 2018.
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 20-2 Filed 04/19/2006 Page 1 of 13

BLACKWATER SECURITY CONSULTING, LLC et al v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY et al Doc. 20 Att. 1

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 20-2 Filed 04/19/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 20-2 Filed 04/19/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 20-2 Filed 04/19/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 20-2 Filed 04/19/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 20-2 Filed 04/19/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 20-2 Filed 04/19/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 20-2 Filed 04/19/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 20-2 Filed 04/19/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 20-2 Filed 04/19/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 20-2 Filed 04/19/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 20-2 Filed 04/19/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 20-2 Filed 04/19/2006 Page 13 of 13
Analytics

FLETC All Website Data

All Web Site Data

Go to report 

FLETC.gov Web Performance Metrics Mar 1, 2022 - Mar 31, 2022

Total Visits

89,264

%ofTotal: 100.00% (89,264)

Avg. Visit Duration

00:02:11

Avg forView: 00:02:11 (0.00%)

Pageviews

238,139

%ofTotal: 100.00% (238,139)

Unique Visitors

69,809

%ofTotal: 100.00% (69,809)

Avg. Pages / Visit

2.67

Avg forView: 2.67 (0.00%)

Avg. Time on Page

00:01:18

Avg forView: 00:01:18 (0.00%)

Bounce Rate

53.33%

Avg forView: 53.33% (0.00%)

Top Pages

Page Title Pageviews

Bounce

Rate

Frontpage | Federal Law Enforcement Training Cente

rs

30,002 38.17%

Search the Training Catalog | Federal Law Enforcem

ent Training Centers

28,946 35.75%

Glynco, Georgia | Federal Law Enforcement Training

Centers

13,275 45.00%

Search | Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers 5,458 50.26%

Basic Programs | Federal Law Enforcement Training

Centers

4,922 30.84%

PEB Scores for Age and Gender | Federal Law Enforc

ement Training Centers

4,063 11.33%

Glynco Campus Life | Federal Law Enforcement Trai

ning Centers

4,012 46.98%

Locations | Federal Law Enforcement Training Cente

rs

4,004 45.57%

Artesia, New Mexico | Federal Law Enforcement Trai

ning Centers

3,723 41.15%

Criminal Investigator Training Program | Federal Law

Enforcement Training Centers

3,261 65.44%

Visits by Social Network

Social Network Sessions

Facebook 451

LinkedIn 46

Instagram 39

Twitter 31

YouTube 25

reddit 14

Yelp 6

Quora 5

Instagram Stories 1

Snapchat 1

Visits by Source

New vs. Returned Visitors

google (direct) bing dhs.gov

usajobs.gov Other

9.1%

22.2% 59%

New Visitor Returning Visitor

18%

82%

© 2022 Google

All Users

100.00% Sessions

Analytics

FLETC All Website Data

All Web Site Data

Go to report 

FLETC.gov Search Performance Metrics Mar 1, 2022 - Mar 31, 2022

Visits to FLETC.gov

89,264

%ofTotal: 100.00% (89,264)

Total Internal Searches

1

%ofTotal: 100.00% (1)

Total External Searches (Google)

59,464

%ofTotal: 66.62% (89,264)

Top Internal Searches by Search Term

Search Term

Total Unique

Searches

Organic

Searches

cache:rKmbgPOB2gEJ:https://www.fletc.gov

omplete-practice-exam-set-pdf

1 1

Top External Searches (Google - as reported)

Page Title Sessions

Frontpage | Federal Law Enforcement Training Cent

ers

9,861

Glynco, Georgia | Federal Law Enforcement Training

Centers

2,892

Search the Training Catalog | Federal Law Enforcem

ent Training Centers

2,283

Execution of a Search Warrant (I) (MP3) | Federal La

w Enforcement Training Centers

2,201

Criminal Investigator Training Program | Federal La

w Enforcement Training Centers

1,467

PEB Scores for Age and Gender | Federal Law Enfor

cement Training Centers

1,277

Locations | Federal Law Enforcement Training Cent

ers

1,019

FedBizOpps | Federal Law Enforcement Training Ce

nters

964

Use of Force - Part II | Federal Law Enforcement Tra

ining Centers

904

P.O.S.T. Certification | Federal Law Enforcement Tr

ning Centers

888

New vs. Returned Visitors

Avg. Visits per Visitor

New Visitor Returning Visitor

18%

82%

1 2 Other

15.3%

12.8%

72%

© 2022 Google

All Users

100.00% Sessions
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Internet Security Systems, Inc. (the
"Corporation") for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the
Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of the Board of the Corporation,
certifies that:

      (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 Corporation.

/s/ THOMAS E. NOONAN
--------------------------------------------------
Thomas E. Noonan
Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer

August 9, 2004

                                                                              33
April 25, 1960

No. 64134-A.

Suit 4994.

#### James Loudon *&*Co., Inc., and Arcadia Metal Products Inc. *v.*United States.

C.D. 2054 affirmed January 19, 1960. C.A.D. 731.
No. 50439.

#### Protests 73874-K/90671, etc. of Thomas Tully Co. et al. (Chicago and Minneapolis).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
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

TOMMY ROY KEETON,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-0697-GEB-JFM-P

vs.

SERGEANT CAROLL, 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 August 22, 2005, 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 twenty days. 

Case 2:04-cv-00697-ALA Document 49 Filed 09/28/05 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

Neither party has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 22,

2005 are adopted in full; and 

2. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Carver are

dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Dated: September 28, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00697-ALA Document 49 Filed 09/28/05 Page 2 of 2