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

LESHANE J. HOLMES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1308 DFL PAN P

vs.

STEVE TEER,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 22, 2006, plaintiff filed a document styled “Plaintiff’s Motion for

Admissions of Authenticity of Documents pursuant to Rule 36(a), Fed.R. of C.P., and Rule 402

and Article X of the Fed.R. of Evidence.” The court construes this as a request for admissions

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36. Plaintiff is informed that court permission is not necessary for

discovery requests and that neither discovery requests served on an opposing party nor the

opposing party's responses should be filed until such time as a party becomes dissatisfied with a

response and seeks relief from the court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Discovery requests between the parties shall not be filed with the court unless, and until, they are

at issue. The document filed by plaintiff on June 22, 2006 will be disregarded.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01308-JKS-EFB Document 29 Filed 07/28/06 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

On June 30, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion in limine. The time for filing motions

in limine will be set, as appropriate, in a pretrial order issued after pretrial conference on the

papers, which is presently set for December 8, 2006. Plaintiff’s motion in limine is premature

and will be denied without prejudice to its renewal at a later stage of these proceedings.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s June 22, 2006 motion is construed as a request for admissions and,

so construed, will be disregarded. Plaintiff is cautioned that further filing of discovery requests

or responses, except as required by rule of court, may result in an order of sanctions, including,

but not limited to, a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

2. Plaintiff’s June 30, 2006 motion in limine is denied without prejudice to its

renewal at a later stage of these proceedings.

DATED: July 27, 2006.

12

holm1308.mos

Case 2:04-cv-01308-JKS-EFB Document 29 Filed 07/28/06 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 13,768.

#### Ex Parte TAWS.

[2 Wash. C. C. 353.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. Term, 1809.

Jail — Safety of Prisoner — Discretion of Jailer.

The court will not interfere with the jailer, who has custody of a prisoner under process, in the exercise of the discretion vested in him, as to the security of his prisoner; unless it appears that he has misconducted himself, by an abuse of that discretion, for the purposes of oppression.

The court was applied to for a habeas corpus, for the purpose of inquiring into the cause of the petitioner’s confinement, without the privilege being allowed him of the yard adjoining the debtors’ apartment. It appeared by affidavits, that Taws was confined, on process from the district court, to recover the penalty for violating the embargo, in which he was held to bail in twenty thousand dollars. That he had been permitted the use of the yard, until, in consequence of some threats that he would escape, the jailer thought it prudent to keep him in a room of the debtors’ apartment, which did not appear to be an uncomfortable one. It also appeared, that the wall surrounding the yard, was not very secure.

1

 [Originally published from the MSS. of Hon. Bushrod Washington, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, under the supervision of Richard Peters, Jr., Esq.]

BY THE COURT.

We do not think it right to interfere with the jailer in the exercise of the discretion vested in him, as to the security of his prisoners; unless it appeared that he misused it for purposes of oppression, of which there is no evidence in this case.
Case 2:05-cv-05730-NS Document 1 Filed 10/28/05 Page 1 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-05730-NS Document 1 Filed 10/28/05 Page 2 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-05730-NS Document 1 Filed 10/28/05 Page 3 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-05730-NS Document 1 Filed 10/28/05 Page 4 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-05730-NS Document 1 Filed 10/28/05 Page 5 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-05730-NS Document 1 Filed 10/28/05 Page 6 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-05730-NS Document 1 Filed 10/28/05 Page 7 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-05730-NS Document 1 Filed 10/28/05 Page 8 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-05730-NS Document 1 Filed 10/28/05 Page 9 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-05730-NS Document 1 Filed 10/28/05 Page 10 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-05730-NS Document 1 Filed 10/28/05 Page 11 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-05730-NS Document 1 Filed 10/28/05 Page 12 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-05730-NS Document 1 Filed 10/28/05 Page 13 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-05730-NS Document 1 Filed 10/28/05 Page 14 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-05730-NS Document 1 Filed 10/28/05 Page 15 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-05730-NS Document 1 Filed 10/28/05 Page 16 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-05730-NS Document 1 Filed 10/28/05 Page 17 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-05730-NS Document 1 Filed 10/28/05 Page 18 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-05730-NS Document 1 Filed 10/28/05 Page 19 of 20
Case 2:05-cv-05730-NS Document 1 Filed 10/28/05 Page 20 of 20
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 11 (a).  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

IRWIN FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
           YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,                     2000      1999       1998
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                  <C>       <C>       <C>
AVERAGE NUMBER OF SHARES OUTSTANDING                  20,973    21,530       21,732
                                                     =======   =======   ==========

NET INCOME                                           $35,666   $33,156   $   30,503
                                                     =======   =======   ==========

BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE                             $  1.70   $  1.54   $     1.40
                                                     =======   =======   ==========

DILUTED SHARES OUTSTANDING:
  Average number of shares outstanding
                                                      20,973    21,530       21,732
  Assumed conversion of preferred shares (Note 1)        261
  Assumed conversion of convertible trust
          preferred shares (Note 1)                       78
  Assumed exercise of stock options (Note 2)
                                                         281       356          407
                                                     -------   -------   ----------
  Total shares                                        21,593    21,886       22,139
                                                     =======   =======   ==========

  Net income                                         $35,666
  Add back interest on convertible shares (Note 1)       295
                                                     -------
NET INCOME                                           $35,961   $33,156   $   30,503
                                                     =======   =======   ==========
DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE                           $  1.67   $  1.51   $     1.38
                                                     =======   =======   ==========
</TABLE>


(1) The dilutive effect of convertible shares is based on the if converted
    method.

(2) The dilutive effect of stock options is based on the Treasury Stock method.
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 State

          - [Public Notice 5694] 

                    The Government of the Republic of Mali has informed the Government of the United States of its interest in an extension of the Memorandum of                           ( print page 8833)                        Understanding between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Mali Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Material from the Region of the Niger River Valley and the Bandiagara Escarpment (Cliff) which entered into force on September 19, 1997, and was extended on September 19, 2002.                 

Pursuant to the authority vested in the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, and pursuant to the requirement under 19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(1), an extension of this Memorandum of Understanding is hereby proposed. 

Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(2), the views and recommendations of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee regarding this proposal will be requested. 

                    A copy of this Memorandum of Understanding, the designated list of restricted categories of material, and related information can be found at the following Web site:                     *http://exchanges.state.gov/​culprop*.                 

Dina Habib Powell, 

Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. E7-3377 Filed 2-26-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
Exhibit 22

# Independent
Auditors Consent

The Board of DirectorsFurniture
Brands International, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by
reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-65714, 333-6990, 333-39355, 333-80189 and
333-100133 on Form S-8 of Furniture Brands International, Inc. of our report dated
January 28, 2004, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Furniture Brands
International, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders equity, and cash flows and the
related schedule for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003,
which report appears in the December 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of Furniture
Brands International, Inc.

Our report refers to a change in
accounting for goodwill and other intangible assets.

KPMG LLP

St. Louis, MissouriMarch 12, 2004
No. 48491.

#### Protest 98488-K of Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The evidence conclusively established that the merchandise consists of figures and] other articles composed in chief value of lead, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, or colored with gold lacquer, and that the entry was made subsequent to the effective date of said trade agreement. In accordance therewith the protest was sustained as to this item.
Record of Discussion 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate ldenti fier: -AD 

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

Airlines 4 America Robert Ireland I Z,ft't/1.0 ta.f No response. 

Other/Additional information:
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

Jeffrey Marshall,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Solano County Sheriff, et

al.,

Defendants.

No. Civ. S 04-1657 DFL PAN P

Order

-oOoApril 13, 2005, the court directed plaintiff to submit

information for serving process on defendant Solano County

Sheriff. He has not. Accordingly, plaintiff shall show cause,

within 10 days, why his claims against defendant Solano County

Sheriff should not be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (requiring

service of summons and complaint upon defendant within 120 days

of the filing of the complaint). 

So ordered.

Dated: May 10, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01657-AK Document 22 Filed 05/11/05 Page 1 of 1
**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**

|  | • | the                Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30,                2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the                date                hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section                13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--|---------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | • | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company                for the periods presented therein. |
|--|---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
No. 48488.

#### Protests 959351-G, etc., of Butler Bros. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Poliowing the authorities cited in Abstract 15400-the court dismissed the protests.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bob Harry FOWLER, a/k/a Richard B. Fowler, a/k/a Slim Fowler, a/k/a Richard Bob Fowler, a/k/a Bob Harris Fowler, a/k/a Georgia Slim, a/k/a Georgia Slim Fowler, a/k/a Georgia Fowler, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-6223.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2001.

Decided April 19, 2001.

Bob Harry Fowler, pro se. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, SC, for appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

*132PER CURIAM.

Bob Harry Fowler seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000) and his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Fowler,*Nos. CR-97-487; CA-00-1415-6 (D.S.C. Oct. 25 and Nov. 29, 2000). 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.*
No. 51981.

#### Artistic Weaving Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 87505-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-20629

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

XAVIER OMAR MARTINEZ LAYTON, also known as Omar Xavier Martinez,

also known as Xavier O. Martinez, also known as Xavier Omar Martinez-Layton,

also known as Xavier Omar Martinez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CR-203-1

Before JOLLY, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Xavier Omar

Martinez Layton has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Martinez Layton has

filed a response. Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and

Martinez Layton’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 22, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 09-20629 Document: 00511150278 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2010
No. 09-20629

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 09-20629 Document: 00511150278 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2010
Before the Third Division,

April 29, 1953

No. 57282.

protests 82606-K, etc. (Boston, Los Angeles, and New York).

#### T. D. Downing Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

When this case was called for trial, it was submitted, and the right to reopen or set aside the submission was abandoned. An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification, the protests were overruled. (T. *M. Duche & Sons*v. *United States,*39 C. C. P. A. 186, C. A. D. 485, certiorari denied, *T. M. Duche & Sons, Inc.*v. *United States,*344 U. S. 830, followed.)
No. 56413.

protests 151640-K, etc. (New York).

#### International Hormones, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Katy Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David J. Feldman, Chief Executive Officer 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) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2)           the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.











/s/ David J. Feldman


David J. Feldman


Chief Executive Officer


March 31, 2011











The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany this report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 2:02-cv-20143-HB Document 4 Filed 10/27/2003 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-20143-HB Document 4 Filed 10/27/2003 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-20143-HB Document 4 Filed 10/27/2003 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-20143-HB Document 4 Filed 10/27/2003 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-20143-HB Document 4 Filed 10/27/2003 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-20143-HB Document 4 Filed 10/27/2003 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-20143-HB Document 4 Filed 10/27/2003 Page 7 of 7
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

TIMMY O’NEIL CHARITY, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0444 GEB GGH P

vs.

THOMAS CARROLL, Warden, et al., ORDER

Defendant.

 /

On August 10, 2005, this court filed, inter alia, an order to show cause as to one of

the defendants in this action, Thomas Carroll, Warden of Delaware Correctional Center, directing

him to show cause why he should not be found in default and why a default judgment should not

be entered against him in this action wherein plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment. The

undersigned noted that defendant Carroll had apparently signed a waiver on October 26, 2004,

filed in this court on November 5, 2005, indicating that he was aware a judgment may be entered

against him should he fail to file an answer to plaintiff’s amended complaint or a motion in

response under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant Carroll was given 30

days to show cause why he had filed neither an answer nor a responsive motion. Defendant has

failed to file anything in response to the order and the time for doing so has expired.

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-00444-GEB-GGH Document 20 Filed 10/13/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Thomas Carroll, having failed to file an answer or a responsive

motion under Rule 12 to plaintiff’s amended complaint and having failed, subsequently, to

discharge this court’s order to show cause, filed on August 10, 2005, is deemed to be in default

in this action; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter a judgment of default against

defendant Carroll.

DATED: 10/13/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

char0444.def

Case 2:04-cv-00444-GEB-GGH Document 20 Filed 10/13/05 Page 2 of 2