alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 29-3 Filed 08/08/2003 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 29-3 Filed 08/08/2003 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 29-3 Filed 08/08/2003 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 29-3 Filed 08/08/2003 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 29-3 Filed 08/08/2003 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 29-3 Filed 08/08/2003 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 29-3 Filed 08/08/2003 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 29-3 Filed 08/08/2003 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 29-3 Filed 08/08/2003 Page 9 of 9
**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 Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. (the Company) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christopher J. Zyda, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date: August 9, 2005     By: /s/ CHRISTOPHER J. ZYDA         Christopher J. Zyda    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)       A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toLuminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. and will be retained by Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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

TODD W. AVARA, No. CIV S-04-1044 MCE DAD P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

WARDEN ADAMS, et al.,

Respondents.

_________________________/

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an

application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. 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 March 24, 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-01044-ALA Document 19 Filed 05/06/05 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 March 24, 2005,

are adopted in full;

2. Petitioner’s November 15, 2004 motion requesting a stay

is granted;

3. Petitioner is ordered to present all unexhausted claims

to the California Supreme Court in a state habeas corpus petition

to be filed within thirty days;

4. This action is stayed and the Clerk of the Court is

directed to administratively close the case;

5. Petitioner is ordered to file and serve a status report

in this case on the first court day of each month; and

6. Petitioner is ordered to file and serve a motion to lift

the stay of this action, along with a proposed amended petition

containing all of petitioner’s exhausted claims, within thirty

days after petitioner is served with the California Supreme

Court’s order disposing of petitioner’s state exhaustion

petition.

DATED: May 5, 2005

__________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01044-ALA Document 19 Filed 05/06/05 Page 2 of 2
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11640-11641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04851]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property 
at the McKinney National Airport in McKinney, Texas

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release airport property.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the 
release of land at the McKinney National Airport under the provisions 
of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act 
for the 21st Century (AIR 21).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 4, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to 
the FAA at the following address: Mr. Cameron Bryan, Acting Manager,

[[Page 11641]]

Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, 
Texas Airports Development Office, ASW-650, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, 
Fort Worth, Texas 76177.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be 
mailed or delivered to Mr. Ken Wiegand, Airport Manager, at the 
following address: P.O. Box 517, McKinney, Texas 75070.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Mekhail, Program Manager, 
Federal Aviation Administration, Texas Airports Development Office, 
ASW-650, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177, Telephone: (817) 
222-5663, email: Anthony.Mekhail@faa.gov.
    The request to release property may be reviewed in person at this 
same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the 
request to release property at the McKinney National Airport under the 
provisions of the AIR 21.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    City of McKinney requests the release of 0.166 acress and 0.064 of 
non-aeronautical airport property. The property is located on the south 
side of the airport near FM 546. The property to be released will be 
sold and revenues shall be used to fund enhance development, operations 
and maintenance of the airport. Any person may inspect the request in 
person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, 
notice and other documents relevant to the application in person at the 
McKinney National Airport, telephone number (972) 562-4053.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 28, 2016.
Ignacio Flores,
Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-04851 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration

October 21, 2016 Mr. David Gat Acting Director, Certification Israel Aerospace Industries BedekAviation Group Ben Gurion International Airport, 70100 ISRAEL Dear Mr. Gat: Transport Airplane Directorate 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton, Washington 98057-3356

ExemptionNo. 9792A Regulatory DocketNo. FAA-2008-0158

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. Itexplains the basis for our decision and describes its effect. 

### The Basis for OurDecision Byletter dated January 15, 2016, you petitionedthe Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), on behalfofIsrael Aerospace Industries (IAI), for an exemption from the requirements of §§ 25.785G), 25.813(b), 25.857(e), and 25.1447(c)(l) ofTitle 14, Code ofFederal Regulations (14 CFR). The request seeks relieffrom these requirements in order to carry up to two non-crewmembers (commonly referred to as supernumeraries) aft ofthe flight deck on Boeing Model 737-700 airplanes which have been converted from a passengerto freighter configuration (Bedek Special Freighter). The request also seeks to allow the supernumeraries access into the Class E cargo compartment during flight for the purpose of attending to cargo. Yourrequest for reliefis similar in all respects to the reliefgranted in IAI Exemption No. 9792, and your petition indicated that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting that exemption. Therefore, in a letter dated September 16, 2016, the FAA notified youthat your petition would be processed as a request for amendment to that exemption. 

### Our Decision The FAAhas determined thatthejustificationfor the issuance ofExemption No. 9792 remains valid with respect to this amendment and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained in 49 U
.S.C. 40113 and 44701 , which the FAAAdministrator hasdelegated to me, I hereby amend Exemption 9792 to include Boeing 737-700 airplanes among that exemption's affected models. The Effect ofOur Decision Our decision amends ExemptionNo
. 9792 to include Boeing Model 737-700 airplanes. This amendment will allow IAI to convert Boeing Model 737-700 passenger airplanes to freighters with a Class E main deck cargo compartment with provisions for the carriage of supernumeraries
. Such conversions are subjectto the same conditions and limitations as required for other models under Exemption No. 9792. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, ExemptionNo. 9792
. Sincerely,

Michael Kaszycki Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate Aircraft Certification Service 2
No. 60034.

#### O. L. Anderson *v.*United States,

protest 261893-K/6808 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (a) of the rules of this court, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
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

WILLIAM A. ROMERO,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0459 MCE CMK P

vs.

D. RUNNELS, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

On August 2, 2005, petitioner submitted a “reply to opposition to application to

hold habeas petition in abeyance.” That document was not served on respondent. Petitioner is

advised that every document submitted to the court for consideration must be served on

respondent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5; Rule 11, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. Documents not to be

served electronically are usually served by placing a copy in the U.S. Mail. If an attorney has

filed a document with the court on behalf of respondent, then documents submitted by petitioner

must be served on that attorney and not on the respondent himself. Every document submitted

conventionally to the court (e.g., by a prisoner proceeding pro se) must include a certificate

stating the date an accurate copy of the document was mailed to respondent or his attorney and

the address to which it was mailed. See Local Rule 5-135(b) and (c).

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00459-MCE-CMK Document 21 Filed 08/11/05 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 within fifteen days from the date of

this order petitioner shall serve a copy of the August 2, 2005 “reply to opposition to application

to hold habeas petition in abeyance” and file proper proof of said service. Petitioner is cautioned

that failure to comply with this order may result in imposition of sanctions. 

DATED: August 10, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00459-MCE-CMK Document 21 Filed 08/11/05 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

JOHNATHAN WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1335 LKK KJM P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff asks that this action be

consolidated with CIV-S-05-0982 FCD KJM P. It appears that case was opened in error. On

May 11, 2005, the court granted plaintiff leave to file a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Plaintiff

filed the complaint, but, instead of filing the complaint in this action, the Clerk of the Court

opened a new action. The court will not consolidate cases, however, the court will order that the

complaint filed in CIV-S-05-0982 FCD KJM P be removed from that case and filed in this

action. After this occurs, the court will rule on plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis

and screen plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01335-LKK -KJM Document 18 Filed 10/26/05 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:

1. Plaintiff’s June 8, 2005 motion to consolidate is denied.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to remove the complaint filed in 

CIV-S-05-0982 FCD KJM P and file it in this action. 

DATED: October 25, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

will1335.mtc

Case 2:04-cv-01335-LKK -KJM Document 18 Filed 10/26/05 Page 2 of 2
|   | Exhibit 23, Form 10-K |
|--------|-----------------------|

|   | Kansas City Life Insurance Company |
|--------|------------------------------------|

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board        of Directors

Kansas        City Life Insurance Company:

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board        of Directors

Kansas        City Life Insurance Company:

We        consent to the use of our report dated February 29, 2008, with respect to the consolidated        balance sheets of Kansas City Life Insurance Company and subsidiaries (the Company) as of        December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of income,        stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period        ended December 31, 2007, and all related financial statement schedules, and the        effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007,        included herein. Our report dated February 29, 2008 on the consolidated fiancial statements        also contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company adopted American        Institue of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Statement of Position (SOP) 05-1,*Accounting by Insurance Enterprises for Deferred Acquisition Costs in        Connection with Modifications or Exchanges in Insurance        Contracts*, effective January 1, 2007 and Financial Accounting        Standards Board (FASB) Interpretation (FIN) No. 48,*Accounting for        Uncertainty in Income Taxes – an interpretation of FASB Statement        109*, effective January 1, 2007.

 

/s/KPMG        LLP

KPMG        LLP

 

 

Kansas        City, Missouri

February        29, 2008

 

 

/s/KPMG        LLP

KPMG        LLP

Kansas        City, MO

February        29, 2008
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

BOUTIN DENTINO GIBSON

DI GIUSTO HODELL INC.

Chris Gibson, Esq., SBN 073353

555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1500

Sacramento, CA 95814

915/321-4444

Attorney for plaintiff

CONCRETE WASHOUT SYSTEMS, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONCRETE WASHOUT SYSTEMS, INC. ) CASE NO. CIV. S-04-1005 WBS/DAD

a California corporation, )

) STIPULATION AND ORDER

) CONTINUING HEARING ON 

Plaintiff, ) MOTION TO COMPEL

)

 vs. ) Date: April 22, 2005

) Time: 10:00 a.m.

MINEGAR ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, ) Judge: Hon. Dale A. Drozd

INC., a California corporation, PETER J. ) Courtroom: 27

MINEGAR, and DOES 1-10, )

)

Defendants. )

)

______________________________________)

Plaintiff CONCRETE WASHOUT SYSTEMS, INC. and defendants MINEGAR

ENVIRONMENTALSYSTEMS,INC.andPETERJ.MINEGAR,throughtheirrespectiveundersigned

counsel, hereby stipulate and agree that, in accordance with the Court’s Order modifying the Status

(Pretrial Scheduling) Ordersigned April 14, 2005, the hearing on plaintiff’s motion to compel which is

currently scheduled for April 22, 2005, at 10:00 a.m., shall be continued to May 6, 2005, at 10:00 a.m.

Dated: April 15, 2005. BOUTIN DENTINO GIBSON DI GIUSTO

HODELL INC.

By: s/Michael E. Chase 

Michael E. Chase

Attorney for plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-01005-WBS-DAD Document 41 Filed 04/19/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dated: April 15, 2005. SHARTSIS, FRIESE & GINSBURG LLP

By: s/Erick C. Howard 

Erick C. Howard

Attorneys for defendants

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 18, 2005.

Ddad1/orders.civil/concrete1005.stipord

Case 2:04-cv-01005-WBS-DAD Document 41 Filed 04/19/05 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Essex
Portfolio, L.P. report for the nine months ended September 30, 1999
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          21,160
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,971
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                55,740
<PP&E>                                       1,146,329
<DEPRECIATION>                                  92,774
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,129,526
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,462
<BONDS>                                        436,663
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     620,829
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,129,526
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               106,535
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   49,704
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,633
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,744
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,454
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             37,454
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     90
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    41,583
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.66


</TABLE>
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10547

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOE MCDONALD

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-174-ALL

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Joe McDonald has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). McDonald has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 18, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6607

LINDA ANN TYLER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GLORIA JEAN RACKLEY; E. RICHARD BAZZLE, Warden

of Leath Correctional Institution; CHARLES

KEARNEY, JR., Captain; DIANE HAMRICK, Lieutenant; MELISSA WHITT; BERNICE WIGGLETON, Major;

BARBARA L. PARTILEDGE, Officer; R. IRBY, Mental Health Counselor; DIANE LITWER, Grievance

Coordinator; RANCE COBB, Principal; BETTY

FLEMING, Sergeant; V. C. HILL, Lieutenant;

BARBARA SHUMATE, of Operations at Leath Correctional Institution; T. J. PHILSON, Captain;

SHERRI CHANDLER, Administrative Assistant,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CA-99-2845-4-22BF)

Submitted: September 21, 2000 Decided: September 28, 2000

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Linda Ann Tyler, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, BURNS,

MCDONALD, BRADFORD, PATRICK & TINSLEY, Greenwood, South Carolina,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Linda Ann Tyler appeals from the denial of her motion for

appointment of counsel. We grant Appellees’ motion to dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here

appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory

or collateral order.

Thus, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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