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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE A. LOPEZ and DIANA

LOPEZ,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE 

INSURANCE COMPANY; JOSE A. 

LOPEZ, JR. and MARDIERON

SILAS MCCORMICK, 

Defendants.

____________________________/

No. CIV-S-04-1447 MCE/GGH

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND

DISPOSITION

Pursuant to the representations of the attorney for

plaintiffs, the court has determined that this case is settled.

In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 16-160,

dispositional documents are to be filed on or before July 22,

2005. 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01447-MCE -GGH Document 60 Filed 07/05/05 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

2

Failure to comply with this order may be grounds for the

imposition of sanctions on any and all counsel as well as any

party or parties who cause non-compliance with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 5, 2005

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01447-MCE -GGH Document 60 Filed 07/05/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 51689.

#### Protest 129831-K of Chas. Hall, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the merchandise consists of earthenware articles composed of a nonvitrified absorbent body, not artificially colored and composed wholly of clay, which articles are painted, colored, tinted, stained, enameled, gilded, printed, ornamented, or decorated. In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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

REGINALD M. BRYANT, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0991 DFL DAD P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, 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 December 14, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff has also filed a proposed second

amended complaint.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. In his proposed second amended

complaint, plaintiff names a new defendant and attacks the family visiting program indirectly. 

Case 2:04-cv-00991-DFL-DAD Document 19 Filed 02/08/06 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

Plaintiff argues that his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection are

being violated by conflicting provisions of state law that have rendered his ability to participate

in family visiting “unconstitutionally untenable.” On the basis of the alleged conflicts in state

law, plaintiff seeks to prohibit prison officials from applying the family visiting program to him

as interpreted by the defendant. Plaintiff’s new articulation of his family visiting claim does not

appear to be the claim plaintiff exhausted in his inmate appeal. In any event, plaintiff’s

allegations concerning state law do not cure the fundamental defects of his federal due process

and equal protection claims. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 14, 2005, are adopted in

full;

2. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state

law claims; and

3. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a federal claim

upon which relief may be granted.

DATED: 2/8/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00991-DFL-DAD Document 19 Filed 02/08/06 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:  | November                9, 2007                                        |
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated August 31, 2001, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of K-tel
International, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2001. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of K-tel International, Inc. on
Forms S-8 (File No. 33-18723 effective November 25, 1987, File No. 333-28815 effective June 5, 1997, File No. 333-65755 effective October 6, 1998, File
No. 333-74471 effective March 12, 1999, File No. 333-31272 effective February 28, 2000, and File No. 333-39022 effective June 9, 2000) and on Form S-3 (File No. 333-79933 effective
June 3, 1999).

/S/
GRANT THORNTON LLP

Minneapolis,
Minnesota
October 12, 2001

---

QuickLinks
Before the Third Division,

June 26, 1968

No. P68/302.

protests 65/8563, etc. (Philadelphia).

#### F. B. Vandegrift & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

*1056Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protects consists of calcined clay, referred to as “Molochite” similar in all material respects to that the subject of *F. B. Vandegrift & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 245, C.D. 2539), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 96-4086SI

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern

v. * District of Iowa.

*

Miguel Angel Reyna-Segovia, * [PUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

_____________

 Submitted: September 12, 1997

Filed: September 17, 1997

_____________

Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

The Government charged Miguel Angel Reyna-Segovia with conspiracy to

distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 (1994).

Reyna-Segovia initially pleaded guilty to the charge, but then, against the repeated

advice of counsel, moved to withdraw his plea. The district court found Reyna-Segovia

met his burden on the factors warranting withdrawal, and granted the motion. See

United States v. Prior, 107 F.3d 654, 657 (8th Cir. 1997), petition for cert. filed, No.

96-8478 (U.S. Apr. 3, 1997). At trial, co-conspirators testified about their drug

activity with Reyna-Segovia. Based on this testimony, the jury convicted ReynaSegovia and at sentencing the district court attributed more methamphetamine to him
-2-

than the plea agreement had. Having lost his gamble with the jury and having received

a longer sentence, Reyna-Segovia contends on appeal the district court should have

denied his motion to withdraw his plea. According to Reyna-Segovia, the district court

should have disbelieved him at the withdrawal hearing and should have warned him a

jury would likely convict him. We disagree. Reyna-Segovia received the withdrawal

he sought, and now must accept the consequences of his request. Cf. United States v.

Owens, 902 F.2d 1154, 1157 (4th Cir. 1990). More appropriately, Reyna-Segovia

challenges his jury conviction on several grounds. We reject them all. Given the

overwhelming evidence against Reyna-Segovia, a reasonable jury could easily find him

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. McMurray, 34 F.3d 1405, 1412

(8th Cir. 1994). Because the Government’s use of a paid informant was permissible,

see United States v. King, 803 F.2d 387, 390-91 (8th Cir. 1986) (per curiam), the

prosecutor did not commit misconduct at Reyna-Segovia’s trial. See United States v.

Flores-Mireles, 112 F.3d 337, 341 (8th Cir. 1997). Lastly, Reyna-Segovia should raise

his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel collaterally rather than on direct

appeal. See United States v. Kenyon, 7 F.3d 783, 785 (8th Cir. 1993). We thus affirm

Reyna-Segovia’s conviction.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,469
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          11,702
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                24,454
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      9,428
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          52,547
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            52,784
<LOANS>                                        188,271
<ALLOWANCE>                                        544
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 298,997
<DEPOSITS>                                     242,810
<SHORT-TERM>                                        96
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              6,300
<LONG-TERM>                                        480
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,182
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,128
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 298,997
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 10,244
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,951
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                15,195
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               9,008
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,051
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,144
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       11
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,365
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,017
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,017
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,547
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .49
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     2.9
<LOANS-NON>                                         97
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     97
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   536
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        3
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  544
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               544
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            544
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 23.1


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 pertaining to the 1996 Incentive Stock Plan, the 1998 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, the 1998 Director Option Plan, and the 1999 Nonstatutory Stock
Option Plan, of Abgenix, Inc., of our report dated October 6, 2000 with respect
to the financial statements of ImmGenics Pharmaceuticals Inc., included in this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Abgenix, Inc. for the period ended September
30, 2000.

Vancouver, Canada                                  /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
November 9, 2000.                                  Chartered Accountants
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**ESSEX
      PORTFOLIO, L.P** **.**


**Certification
      of Principal Financial Officer**


**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 (Subsections (a) and (b) of
      Section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), I, Michael T. Dance,
      Principal Financial Officer, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that
      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006
      (the “Form 10-Q”) of Essex Portfolio, L.P. fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended, and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
      in
      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      Essex Portfolio, L.P. at the dates of and for the periods
      presented.











Date: November
      7, 2006    /s/
      Michael T. Dance


Michael
      T.
      Dance


Chief
      Financial Officer, Executive Vice President,


Essex
      Property Trust, Inc., general partner of


Essex
      Portfolio, L.P.
Exhibit 23.2.d

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-18139 and 333-108215 of Kansas City Power & Light Company on Forms S-3 of our report dated January 30, 2002 (relating to the financial statements of DTI Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the "Company") not presented separately herein and which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs referring to the Company's filing for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code, substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern and an impairment charge recorded by the Company), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Kansas City Power & Light Company for the year ended December 31, 2003.

/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
Exhibit
23.1









CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM







We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-159131 and 333-159141, on Form S-3, and Registration Statement Nos.
333-132828, 333-142774, 333-147939, and 333-152313, on Form S-8 of our reports
dated February 25, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedules of Great Plains Energy Incorporated and
subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Great Plains Energy Incorporated and subsidiaries for the year ended December
31, 2009.





/s/DELOITTE
& TOUCHE LLP





Kansas
City, Missouri


February
25, 2010
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 December 31, 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:    February 14, 2006              ________________________________________
                                        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.
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

JERRY DOW, No. CIV S-04-1667-GEB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

W. HUTTO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time

(Doc. 11), filed on November 18, 2005. 

On November 4, 2005, the court issued findings and recommendations and

provided for objections to be filed within 10 days of the date of service thereof. Plaintiff now

seeks a 30-day extension of that deadline. Good cause appearing therefor, the request will be

granted. Plaintiff is reminded that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal any order adopting the findings and recommendations. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

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

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-01667-GEB-CMK Document 12 Filed 11/28/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Within 30 days after being served with this order, any party may file

written objections with the court, such document to be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” 

DATED: November 23, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01667-GEB-CMK Document 12 Filed 11/28/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2

KINDER MORGAN, INC.

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







In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Kinder Morgan, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date 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:



(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 Company.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Kinder Morgan, Inc. and will be retained by Kinder Morgan, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





|                        |  |                                                              
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated:  March 1,
		2007 |  | /s/ Kimberly A. Dang                                         
|                        |  | Kimberly A. Dang
		Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Before the Second Division,

July 19, 1944

No. 49632.

#### Protest 109145-K of Strauss Bros. & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation that the pincushions are the same in all material respects as those involved in Abstract 48406 the protest was sustained as to this claim.
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

RICHARD DENNIS GAMACHE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0859 RRB PAN P

vs.

BRETT WILLIAMS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed March 27, 2006, plaintiff’s second amended complaint was

dismissed and thirty days leave to file a third amended complaint was granted. By order filed

May 3, 2006, plaintiff was given an additional thirty days in which to file a third amended

complaint. That thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed a third amended

complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

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

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

Case 2:04-cv-00859-RRB -PAN Document 58 Filed 06/14/06 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

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: June 13, 2006.

12

gama0859.fta

Case 2:04-cv-00859-RRB -PAN Document 58 Filed 06/14/06 Page 2 of 2