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

MELVIN LEE WILSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-478 GEB GGH P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On October 28, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for 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 request for the

appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

On August 29, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to compel. On September 20, 2005,

defendant filed a response to this motion. Pursuant to the March 29, 2005, scheduling order, the

discovery cut-off date was July 15, 2005. The motion to compel is denied as untimely.

Case 2:04-cv-00478-GEB-GGH Document 32 Filed 11/08/05 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 October 28, 2005, motion for appointment of counsel is denied;

2. Plaintiff’s August 29, 2005, motion to compel is denied as untimely.

 DATED: 11/7/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:mp

wils0478.35(2)

 

Case 2:04-cv-00478-GEB-GGH Document 32 Filed 11/08/05 Page 2 of 2
**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**

| (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. |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/                Freddie M. Kotek                                    |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Name:  | Freddie                M. Kotek                                        |
| Title: | Chief                Executive Officer of the Managing General Partner |
| Date:  | August                13, 2007                                         |
No. 46702.

#### Protest 69210-K/12431 of Strauss-Eckhardt Co., Inc. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the tablecloths and napkins are the same in all material respects as those the subject of T. D. 50277 (1) the claim at 30 percent under paragraph 911 (b) was sustained.
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 11/1/2023 1

County Differences in Providing Absentee Ballots 

Vanzant v. Brunner (Susan J. Dlott, S.D. Ohio 1:10-cv-596) 

A federal complaint filed two months before the 2010 general election alleged an equal-protection violation because some counties 

were more generous than others in facilitating absentee voting. The 

district judge denied relief. 

Subject: Absentee and early voting. Topics: Absentee ballots; 

equal protection. 

Two months before the 2010 general election, four Ohio voters sued Ohio’s 

secretary of state in the Southern District of Ohio, alleging an equalprotection violation because some counties were more proactive than others 

in sending voters applications for absentee ballots, and some counties were 

more generous than others in paying the postage for absentee applications 

and ballots.1 In a nutshell, the larger counties with urban populations had 

more resources to facilitate absentee voting.2 The plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.3

The court assigned the case to Judge Susan J. Dlott, who held a conference with the parties on the following day.4

 At the conference, the parties 

agreed that the motions could be decided on the briefs alone.5

On September 27, Judge Dlott denied the motions.6

 In the summer of 

2011, the parties stipulated dismissal of the action.7

1. Complaint, Vanzant v. Brunner, No. 1:10-cv-596 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 1, 2010), D.E. 1; see

Mark Niquette, Suit Challenges Ohio’s Absentee-Vote Process, Columbus Dispatch, Sept. 3, 

2010, at 3B (identifying the plaintiffs as registered Republicans). 

2. Interview with Hon. Susan J. Dlott and her law clerk Sarah Fairweather, July 30, 2012. 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Dlott and Sarah Fairweather for this report by telephone. 

3. Motion, Vanzant, No. 1:10-cv-596 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 1, 2010), D.E. 3. 

4. Docket Sheet, id. (Sept. 1, 2010); see Niquette, supra note 1. 

5. Interview with Hon. Susan J. Dlott and her law clerk Sarah Fairweather, July 30, 2012. 

6. Order, Vanzant, No. 1:10-cv-596 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 27, 2010), D.E. 10. 

7. Stipulation, id. (Aug. 9, 2011), D.E. 16.
### ACKNOWLEDGMENT, RELEASE AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT

FOR USE OF

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER FACILIT IES

(This form must be completed ONLY by State and Local Agencies

— Federal Agencies ARE NOT required to submit this form.)

In order to use the t raining facilit ies at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center s (FLETC),

Cheltenham, Maryland the agrees and understands that, I T VOLUNTARILY AND

WILLINGLY ASSUME S THE RISK OF PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF P ROPERTY THAT

MAY OCCUR AS A RESUL T O F PARTICIPATING IN S UCH TRAINING.

The agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the United States, the FLETC,

their officers, agents, employees, affiliates, successors and assigns from and against any and all

losses, liabilities, damages, claims, fines, causes of action deficiencies, costs and expenses

(including reasonable attorneys’ fees and other litigation expenses) based upon, arising out of or

otherwise related to such training.

The also agrees to release the United States and the FLETC from any and all

liabilities, damages, claims, fines, causes of action, including but not limited to negligence, gross

negligence, deficiencies, costs and expenses based upon, arising out of or otherwise related to the

participation in such training, including but not limited to the loss of any property the

may use or bring to the training.

AGENCY NAME*:

AGREED TO:

Date

PRINTED NAME:

TITLE:

Signature

State and Local agencies should mail o r hand carry completed form with original signature to :

ATTN: Cheltenham Training Management

F ederal Law Enforcement Training Center s

Building 50

, 9000 Commo Road , STOP 4000

Cheltenham, MD 20588

- 4000
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MICHAEL J. WYNNE; 1ST AND

TRINITY SUPER MAJORITY, LLC

AND 3RD; AND CONGRESS SUPER

MAJORITY, L.L.C.

,

Appellant s

,

v.

GREGORY S. MILLIGAN, IN HIS

INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS

RECEIVER FOR WC 1ST AND

TRINITY L.P. AND WC 3RD AND

CONGRESS, L.P.; THE ROY F. &

JOANN COLE MITTE FOUNDATION;

RAY CHESTER; STEPHEN WAYNE

LEMMON; AND RHONDA BEAR

MATES

,

Appellee s

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 2 0

- 00 230

- C V

Appeal from the

250th District Court

of Travis County, Texas 1

(TC# D

- 1

- GN

- 20

- 003550 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Michael J. Wynne has filed an agreed notice of settlement and motion to vacate

the trial court ’s judgment and to dismiss as moot this appeal as to himself individually. The motion

indicates it is unopposed, and we have received no objection from any other party to this motion.

As such, we will grant the motion and render judgment vacating the trial court’s judgment as to

1 We hear this case on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 41.3.2 Wynne individually and dismiss this appeal as to Wynne individually. See T EX .R.A PP .P.

42.1(a)(2)(A).

July 30, 2021

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
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

SILVIO PASOVIO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1385 GEB DAD P

vs.

WARDEN STRATON, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed July 26, 2005, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days

leave to file an amended complaint was granted. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to do so

would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an

amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule

11-110.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

Case 2:04-cv-01385-GEB-DAD Document 6 Filed 09/07/05 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

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: September 7, 2005.

DAD:lg

paso1385.fta

Case 2:04-cv-01385-GEB-DAD Document 6 Filed 09/07/05 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7523

JAMAL NATHAN GETHERS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, 

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00538-LMB-JFA)

Submitted: March 31, 2020 Decided: May 15, 2020

Before MOTZ, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamal Nathan Gethers, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jamal Nathan Gethers seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition as untimely and denying reconsideration. The orders are 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)(2018). 

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the 

constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773–74

(2017). But when the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 

U.S. 134, 140–41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

The district court found Gethers’s petition to be time barred. And Gethers’s 

informal brief fails to show that this dispositive procedural ruling is debatable. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 50430.

#### Protest 63144-K of Bazetta, Ltd. (New York).

*254Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoice should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on the entry. The protest was sustained to this extent.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**Certification**

 

I, Bonnie M. Klein, Vice President and Treasurer of BCSB Bancorp, Inc., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of BCSB Bancorp, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: April 6, 2005
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sherwood Brands, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2002 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Christopher J. Willi, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S)1350, as adopted pursuant to (S)906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

 

Dated: December 12, 2003

 

 
|   | /s/ Christopher J. Willi              |   |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   | Christopher J. Willi                  |   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer and Secretary |

 

1

----
EXHIBIT 99.2
         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE ACT
         ------------------------------------------------

     I, Thomas Gelfand hereby certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Bliss
Essentials Corp.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
to the period covered by this quarterly report.

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
material respects our financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

4. The other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) and we have:

a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
    material information relating to Bliss Essentials Corp., including
    its subsidiaries, if any, is made known to us by others within
    those entities, particularly during the period in which this
    quarterly report is being prepared;

b)  evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and
    procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
    filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)  presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
    effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
    our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.  The other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to our auditors and the audit committee of our
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)  that there were no significant deficiencies in the design or
    operation of internal controls which could adversely affect our
    ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
    and have further advised our auditors that there we are not aware
    of any material weaknesses in our internal controls; and

b)  that there was no fraud, whether or not material, that involved
    our management or other employees who have a significant role in
    our internal controls; and

6.  The other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly
that there were no significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation.

                                   BLISS ESSENTIALS CORP., Registrant

Dated: August 6, 2004               /s/ Thomas Gelfand
                                   -------------------------------------
                                   By: Thomas Gelfand, Chief Executive
                                   Officer, President and Chairman of
                                   the Board of Directors
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 8/13/2023 1

Pro Se Suit to Nullify All Absentee Ballots 

Freeman v. McKnight 

(Gary L. Sharpe, N.D.N.Y. 1:07-cv-1123) 

A candidate who earned more voting-booth votes than his opponent, but who trailed after absentee ballots were counted, filed a pro 

se action to nullify absentee ballots because their mailing envelopes 

had been discarded so timely mailing could not be verified. The 

judge determined that the plaintiff had not provided the defendants 

with proper notice or shown entitlement to immediate injunctive 

relief. 

Subject: Absentee and early voting. Topics: Absentee ballots; pro 

se party; enjoining certification. 

On October 24, 2007, a candidate for the Democratic primary election for a 

seat in Albany County’s legislature filed a pro se federal complaint in the 

Northern District of New York, seeking the invalidation of all absentee ballots so that he would be declared the winner of the primary election.1

There are thirty-nine seats in Albany’s legislature.2 The plaintiff was four 

votes ahead of the incumbent after the September-18-election-day votes were 

counted.3 After absentee ballots were counted, however, the incumbent was 

ahead 282 to 278.4 Before he filed the federal action, the candidate plaintiff 

filed an action in state court to nullify all of the absentee ballots because their 

mailing envelopes had been discarded so mailing by the required deadline 

could not be verified.5

On October 30, the plaintiff filed a motion for an order to show cause.6

On November 2, Judge Gary L. Sharpe denied the motion because the plaintiff had neither provided the defendants with proper notice nor shown entitlement to immediate injunctive relief.7

 On February 7, 2008, Judge Sharpe 

granted the defendants summary judgment.8

1. Complaint, Freeman v. McKnight, No. 1:07-cv-1123 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2007), D.E. 1. 

2. Albany County Legislature, www.albanycounty.com/government/departments/countylegislature. 

3. See Jordan Carleo-Evangelist, Party Backing No Sure Thing, Albany Times Union, 

Sept. 20, 2007, at D1. 

4. See Carol DeMare, Loser in Primary Challenges Results, Albany Times Union, Oct. 3, 

2007, at D6. 

5. See Complaint, supra note 1; DeMare, supra note 4. 

6. Motion, Freeman, No. 1:07-cv-1123 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2007), D.E. 4. 

7. Order, id. (Nov. 2, 2007), D.E. 5. 

8. Order, id. (Feb. 7, 2008), D.E. 10.