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

VAHAN JALADIAN,

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

vs.

C.A. HUGHES, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme

Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent

prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In

certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court

does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of

counsel will therefore be denied.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01304-LKK -CMK Document 42 Filed 12/07/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s November 21, 2005

motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: December 5, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/mp

jala 04cv1304.31

Case 2:04-cv-01304-LKK -CMK Document 42 Filed 12/07/05 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES TAYLOR MURRAY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1367 MCE GGH P

vs.

H.D.S.P. MEDICAL CARE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On November 23, 2005, defendants filed a motion to compel. Plaintiff has not

filed an opposition.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within ten days of the date of this

order, plaintiff shall show cause why defendants’ November 23, 2005, motion to compel should

not be granted.

DATED: 5/2/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

murr1367.osc

Case 2:04-cv-01367-MCE -GGH Document 47 Filed 05/03/06 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

 In a conference call with counsel on August 18, 2005, the court indicated that if either

party sought further resolution of the discovery dispute discussed telephonically on that date, that

party should file a letter brief not exceeding two pages.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAVIER RAIGOZA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1208 GEB KJM

vs.

ARAMARK CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

The discovery cut-off in this action is fast approaching. Now, in a flurry of letter

briefs,1 both sides accuse opposing counsel of unprofessional behavior. This entire tempest

comes about because the parties did not conduct discovery in a timely manner. The court

declines to order depositions of persons not parties to the action who have not been afforded a

timely opportunity to be heard on whether their depositions should be compelled. Defendant

Jacob Vervalin appeared for his deposition and plaintiff’s counsel apparently declined to depose

defendant at that time. The court will thus not compel the deposition of this defendant. With

respect to duly noticed depositions of defendants Michael Brodeur and Bill Vervalin, the

depositions shall be completed no later than the cut-off of discovery. The court finds no basis for

Case 2:04-cv-01208-GEB -KJM Document 60 Filed 08/25/05 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

the contempt order sought by defendants nor for the sanctions sought by either side. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to compel depositions and for sanctions and contempt is

denied.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted in part. The depositions of defendants

Michael Brodeur and Bill Vervalin shall take place no later than August 26, 2005. 

3. Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions and for protective order are denied.

4. Plaintiff’s motion to strike is denied without prejudice to its renewal as an in

limine motion at the time of trial.

DATED: August 25, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

006 raigoza.disc

Case 2:04-cv-01208-GEB -KJM Document 60 Filed 08/25/05 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                         901,773
<SECURITIES>                                 1,193,049
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,584,186
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,679,008
<PP&E>                                         273,670
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,465,792
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          675,126
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  5,000,000
<COMMON>                                    11,861,710
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,465,792
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,758
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,720,275
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                98,684
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,583
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,706,517)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,706,517)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,706,517)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)
        

</TABLE>
No. 50436.

#### Protests 99626-K, etc., of August F. Stauff & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The uncontradicted testimony of two examiners disclosed .that the articles constitute integral parts of an extrusion press. Inasmuch as the articles were conclusively shown to be integral parts of an extrusion press, and since such a press is unquestionably included within the congressional definition of what constitutes a machine tool, the protests were sustained as claimed.
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 

Rowland Dewitt Pugh,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1091 DFL PAN P

vs. Order

A. Stone, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner litigating a civil rights

action. He does not have leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

April 18, 2005, plaintiff submitted summons and requested

the court issue them for service upon the 12 defendants

identified in the court’s March 17, 2005, order.

Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s April 18, 2005, request is 

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01091-DFL-PAN Document 7 Filed 04/27/05 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

granted. The Clerk of Court shall issue the summons and return

them to petitioner.

So ordered.

Dated: April 26, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01091-DFL-PAN Document 7 Filed 04/27/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 57276.

protests 712272-G, etc. (New York).

#### Chase National Bank et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the kidskin plates are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Ford, J., concurred.

Mollison, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1480, *supra.*...
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, 2005 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:

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

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


                                    /s/ Mark I. Gittelman
Date:    November 11, 2005          ____________________________________________
                                    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.
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 on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust V and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding V, L.P. (the  "Partnership")
for the  period  ended  June 25, 2004 as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I, John J.  Fosina,
Controller of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., the General Partner of the Partnership,
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) 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
    Partnership.




                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING V, L.P.

                              By:  MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner


                              By:  /s/ JOHN J. FOSINA
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    John J. Fosina *
                              Title:   Controller, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.








Dated: August 4, 2004
_____________________

*  John J. Fosina functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
   and Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership for purposes of Section 906
   of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
### Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Subpart W

Meeting Documentation : American Petroleum Institute 8 / 17 /10 Date Staff Contact In formation (Name, email, phone #) Name of Organization (Attach list of all attendees names and email s if possible) Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability , reporting requirements, etc.) Written Comments Provided? Did they also submit to Docket? Date sent to

EPA

- CCD

8/17 /10 Roger Fernandez Akachi Imegwu Kate Cardamone Suzanne Waltzer Ragan Tate Br yan Clode, EnCana Reid Smith, B ritish P etroleum Olga Magas, Devon Nina Forehand, ExxonMobil Kenneth Chow, Williams (Midstream) Bill Grygar, Anadarko Mark DePaul, ExxonMobil
Aaron Hutchison, Marathon See following pages No w ritten comments were submitted prior to the meeting.Sarah Bartlett, Williams Greg Wilkins, Marathon
C arol Butero, KinderMorgan Paul Hancock, Marathon Miriam L ev - On, APIcontractor Arun Naik, Shell Peter Dahling, Chevron Kevin Bailey , ExxonMobil Terri Shires, API contractor Karin Ritter, API Michele Schoeppe, API Khary Cauthen, APIAl Collins, Ox y Miriam Conner, Shell

### API / EPA Meeting USEPA OAR Offices, 1310 L Street, Washington DC

August 17 , 20 10 2 : 0 0 pm EDT List of Issues Discussed Subpart W 1. API requested an update from EPA on the expected tim efram e for OMB review 2. API inquired of EPA on whether or not Subpart W was submitted to OMB as a final rule or a re

- proposal 3. API solicited feedback from EPA on comments API submitted during comment period on proposed f acility definition for onshore production industry segment 4. API requested feedback from EPA on the interaction s between the Natural GasStar volunteer program and the subpart W rule 5. API offered to work cooperatively with EPA on related future projects 6. API in quired of EPA on whether or not BAMM would be allowed for subpart W 7. API solicited feedback from EPA on cost estimates submitted
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 6664

BASIR MATEEN RAZZAK , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. ACKOYT, Nurse Practitioner; A. GRIZZARD; CCS CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, MEDICAL AGENCY; FORSYTH COUNTY DETENTION CENTER SERVICE BUREAU , Defendants

– Appellees, and DR. RHOADES, Defendant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Loretta Copeland Biggs , District Judge. ( 1:15

- cv - 01016

- LCB

- LPA )

Submitted : September 29, 2017 Decided: October 6, 2017

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Basir Mateen Razzak, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Basir Mateen Razzak seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Razzak’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement,” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007), and the party asserting appellate jurisdiction carries the burden of proving it, Wheeling Hosp., Inc. v. Health Plan

o

f the Upper Ohio Valley, Inc. , 683 F.3d 577, 583

- 84 (4th Cir. 2012). In a civil case like Razzak’s , the notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). When the appellant is incarcerated, the notice of appeal is considered filed on the date it was properly delivered to prison officials for mailing. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 267 (1988). The timely filing of a motion to alter or amend judgment tolls the start of the time to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv). “A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). In this case, the district court dismissed Razzak’s complaint on February 22, 2016. Razzak filed a motion to alter or amend judgment that was dated March 4, 2016, but was not filed on the district court’s docket until March 31, 2016. Razzak then filed a notice of appeal on April 18, 2016, well after the expiration of the appeal period, unless the motion to alter or amend judgment tolled the start of that period. We previously remanded for the limited purpose of determining when Razzak delivered his motion to alter or amend judgment to prison officials for mailing, explaining that, unless that motion was timely filed to toll the appeal period, his appeal was untimely. On remand, Razzak refused to4 respond to the district court’s inquiry regarding when he filed the motion to alter or amend judgment. We therefore conc lude that Razzak has failed to carry his burden to establish appellate jurisdiction, and we dismiss Razzak’s appeal as untimely. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this c ourt and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, Brian J. Martin,
President (chief executive officer) of the managing owner, Prudential Securities Futures Management Inc. (the Managing Owner), of World Monitor TrustSeries C (Series C), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | Series Cs Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 26, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Series C.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                       |  |  |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 
|/s/ Brian J. Martin                                                                    |  |  |  | 
|                                                                                       |  |  |  | 
|Brian J. Martin President (chief executive officer) of the Managing Owner May 10, 2004 |  |
-  Home 
          -  Training              -  Programs                -  Training Catalog 
              -  Basic Programs 
              -  Program Modifications 
              -  Requalifications 
            -  Registration 
            -  Payments/Records 
            -  Learning Center 
            -  Seeking Excellence 
          -  Locations 
          -  Resources 
          -  Careers & Internships 
          -  News 
          -  About 

# Basic Programs

## Breadcrumb

            -  Home 

The following programs are designated as either Center Basic or Center Integrated Basic training and are designed for full-time law enforcement agents or officers from our Partner Organizations (PO). Each PO sets its own standards for recruiting new employees and designating who will attend basic training at FLETC.

Registration is through the Federal agency employing or sponsoring the trainee. The employing agency will notify the trainee of their class dates.

Attending a basic program at FLETC is typically a requirement for employment with a U.S. federal agency. To search for law enforcement employment opportunities with a federal agency, please visit USAJobs.gov.

Basic Instructor training program information can be found in the Training Catalog below. These programs include the:
                  - Law Enforcement Instructor Training Program (LEITP)
                  - Firearms Instructor Training Program (FITP)
                  - Law Enforcement Driver Instructor Training Program (LEDITP)
                  - Law Enforcement Fitness Coordinator Training Program (LEFCTP)
                  - Law Enforcement Control Tactics Instructor Training Program (LECTITP)
No. 60827.

#### Elite Sales Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 300877-K and 301258-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of constituent and integral parts of toilet-box assemblies the same in all material respects as those the subject of *The Durst Mfg. Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(36 Cust. Ct. 220, C. D. 1778), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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 Quarterly Report of Cyco.net,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB for the  period  ended  September  30,  2003,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  each of
the  undersigned,  in the capacities and on the dates  indicated  below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

      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  operation of the
Company.


Date: November 17, 2003                    By:  /s/  Richard A. Urrea
                                                ---------------------
                                                 Richard A. Urrea
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT
32.1**
 
 **ESSEX
PORTFOLIO, L.P.**
 
 CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
 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 quarterly report of Essex
Portfolio, L.P. on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 (the "Report"), I, Keith R. Guericke,
Principal Executive Officer **** of Essex
Property Trust, Inc., the general partner of the registrant Essex Portfolio,
L.P., hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18,
Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
knowledge:
 
 (1)
      the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
      as applicable, 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
      at the dates and for the periods indicated.
 
 
 
 Date: May 10, 2005
    /s/
      Keith R. GuerickeKeith R. GuerickeChief
      Executive Officer, Director andVice Chairman of the Board, EssexProperty Trust, Inc., general partner ofEssex
      Portfolio, L.P.