alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Testimony on Assessing the Public Costs and Benefits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

June 12, 1996

## 1996doc15.pdf

View Document

## Summary

Testimony before the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities and Government Sponsored Enterprises, Committee on Banking and Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives
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

DIRECTV, INC., a California

Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

KENNETH NEW,

Defendant.

___________________________/

No. CIV-S-04-1261 MCE/DAD

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND

DISPOSITION

Pursuant to the representations of the attorney for

plaintiff, 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 August 29,

2005. 

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: August 10, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 2:04-cv-01261-MCE -DAD Document 10 Filed 08/10/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 48473.

#### Protests 63852-K, etc., of F. W. Myers & Co., Inc., et al. (Ogdensburg, etc.).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
### SCWC-12-0000836
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

MAYDENE I. SIMMONS, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs. AQUA HOTELS AND RESORTS, INC., a Foreign Profit Corporation; KAI MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC, dba KAUAI BEACH RESORT,

a Domestic Limited Liability Company; JOHN DOES 1-10 and JANE DOES 1-10, Petitioners/Defendants-Appellees.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-12-0000836; CIV. NO. 11-1-0059)
ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C
. J
. , N a k a y a m a , A c o b a , M c K e n n a , a n d P o l l a c k , J J
. )



### Petitioners/Defendants-Appellees’ application for writ of certiorari filed on November 15, 2013, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, December 23, 2013 Clayton Ikei and Jerry Chang, /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald for petitioners /s/ Paula A. Nakayama Stefan Reinke and Malia Schreck, /s/ Simeon A. Acoba, Jr. for respondent /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-12-0000836 23-DEC-2013 10:08 AM
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-10065

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Tamala Evette Jones, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:20-CR-421-1

Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Tamala Evette 

Jones has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Jones has filed responses. We have reviewed counsel’s 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 13, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-10065 Document: 00516011634 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/13/2021
No. 21-10065

2

brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as 

Jones’s responses. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 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. Jones’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

Case: 21-10065 Document: 00516011634 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/13/2021
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3963 

To clarify that noncommercial species found entirely within the borders of 

a single State are not in interstate commerce or subject to regulation 

under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 or any other provision of 

law enacted as an exercise of the power of Congress to regulate interstate 

commerce. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 14, 2024 

Mr. LEE (for himself, Mr. CRUZ, and Mr. SULLIVAN) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

A BILL 

To clarify that noncommercial species found entirely within 

the borders of a single State are not in interstate commerce or subject to regulation under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 or any other provision of law enacted as an exercise of the power of Congress to regulate 

interstate commerce. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Native Species Protec5 tion Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3963 IS

1 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF INTRASTATE SPECIES. 

2 (a) DEFINITION OF INTRASTATE SPECIES.—In this 

3 section, the term ‘‘intrastate species’’ means any species 

4 of plant or fish or wildlife (as those terms are defined in 

5 section 3 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

6 U.S.C. 1532)) that is— 

7 (1) found entirely within the borders of a single 

8 State; and 

9 (2) not part of a national market for any com10 modity. 

11 (b) TREATMENT.—An intrastate species shall not 

12 be— 

13 (1) considered to be in interstate commerce; 

14 and 

15 (2) subject to regulation under— 

16 (A) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

17 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or 

18 (B) any other provision of law under which 

19 regulatory authority is based on the power of 

20 Congress to regulate interstate commerce as 

21 enumerated in article I, section 8, clause 3 of 

22 the Constitution of the United States. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
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 P. DeFAZIO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1358 WBS GGH

vs.

HOLLISTER, INC., et al., DISCOVERY PLAN ORDER

Defendants. 

 /

Presently before the court is Defendants’ “Statement regarding the inapplicability

of the joint statement procedures to defendants’ October 17 and October 20, 2008 motions to

strike. Plaintiff Ellis has filed an opposition. 

Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ October 22, 2008

request to proceed with their motions to strike experts in according with regular motion practice

under E.D. Local Rule 78-230, rather than under E. D. Local Rule 37-251, is granted.

Dated: 10/28/08

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

_____________________________

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076/Defazio1358.230.wpd

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 415 Filed 10/28/08 Page 1 of 1
**Part 2, Section VI: USSGL Crosswalks to Reclassified Statements**

This section includes crosswalks for use in Fiscal Year 2022 GTAS Reporting. These crosswalks map USSGL accounts to external reports in accordance with TFM Volume I, Part 2, Chapter 4700, Federal Entity Reporting Requirements for the *Financial Report of the United States Government.*Each report crosswalk lists the proper USSGL accounts and applicable attributes for each line and/or column on the reports. Attributes identify information subsidiary to the basic 6-digit USSGL accounts. This subsidiary information is necessary to meet external reporting requirements. See Section IV for additional information on attributes.

The following are crosswalks from the USSGL Chart of Accounts to standard external reports required by Fiscal Service:

Page 1 of 1

# image1.png
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

----oo0oo----

IMPRIMIS INTERNATIONAL INC.,

Plaintiff, NO. CIV. S-04-1297 FCD DAD

ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v. RE SANCTIONS

ROBERT B. FRAIDENBURGH,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

1. The Final Pretrial Conference is continued to Friday,

March 31, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. Plaintiff and Defendant shall file a

Joint Pretrial Statement, on or before March 24, 2006, as

referenced in the Court’s November 30, 2004 Pretrial Scheduling

Order.

2. Plaintiff and Defendant’s counsel are ordered to show

cause why they should not be sanctioned in the amount of $150.00

Case 2:04-cv-01297-FCD-DAD Document 45 Filed 03/14/06 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

27

28

2

each, for failing to file a Joint Pretrial Statement.

3. Counsel shall file their responses to the order to show

cause on or before March 24, 2006.

4. A hearing on the order to show cause will follow the

Final Pretrial Conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 14, 2006.

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01297-FCD-DAD Document 45 Filed 03/14/06 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350**

 

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Alliant Energy Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ William D. Harvey

William D. Harvey

Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

 

/s/ Eliot G. Protsch

Eliot G. Protsch

Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

 

March 1, 2006
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert James GRAVES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-4487.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 6, 2001.

Decided April 30, 2001.

Wayne D. Inge, Roanoke, VA, for appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Donald R. Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, VA, for appellee.

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM,

Robert James Graves appeals his conviction for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 848 (West Supp.2000). Graves first contends that the evidence was insufficient to *136support his conviction. After a thorough review of the record, we reject this contention and conclude that the evidence supported a finding that Graves organized, supervised, or managed at least five individuals in the context of running his criminal operation. *See Glasser v. United States,*315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); *United States v. Brewer,*1 F.3d 1430, 1437 (4th Cir.1993); *United States v. Ricks,*882 F.2d 885, 891 (4th Cir.1989); *United States v. Tresvant,*677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir.1982).

Graves next claims that 21 U.S.C.A. § 841 (West Supp.2000), is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He thus insists that his eight convictions under this statute, which were later vacated by the district court, cannot serve as the predicate offenses required for the CCE conviction. As Graves was not ultimately convicted under § 841, we find that he does not have standing to advance this challenge. Moreover, we find that the predicate offenses were properly established at trial. *See Richardson v. United States,*526 U.S. 813, 119 S.Ct. 1707, 143 L.Ed.2d 985 (1999).

We accordingly affirm Graves’ conviction. We grant Graves’ motion requesting that we take judicial notice of a recent Supreme Court case, but decline to grant any relief based on that case. *See Robinson v. United States,*531 U.S. 1135, 121 S.Ct. 1071, 148 L.Ed.2d 949 (2001) (remanding for consideration in light of *Ap-prendi*); *see also United States v. Harris,*243 F.3d 806, 2001 WL 273146 (4th Cir. Mar.20, 2001) (No. 00-4154) (holding that *Apprendi*does not apply to an increase in statutory minimum sentence). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
Exhibit 32

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 of Westar Energy, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the Report), which this certification accompanies, William B. Moore, in my capacity as Director, Chief Executive Officer and President of the
Company, and Mark A. Ruelle, in my capacity as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|      |  |                   |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                 
|----- |  | ----------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: |  | February 25, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ William B. Moore                                            
|      |  |                   |  |  |  |     |  | William B. Moore Director, President and Chief Executive Officer



|      |  |                   |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                     
|----- |  | ----------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: |  | February 25, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Mark A. Ruelle                                                  
|      |  |                   |  |  |  |     |  | Mark A. Ruelle, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
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 BARRON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-01197 GEB GGH P

vs.

DR. USHA PAI, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On November 23, 2005, plaintiff filed a letter with the court containing a request

for 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 request for the appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01197-GEB-GGH Document 42 Filed 02/02/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for the

appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: 2/1/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

barr1197.den

Case 2:04-cv-01197-GEB-GGH Document 42 Filed 02/02/06 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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Skippy Charles Rutkowski,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-0888 GEB PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Mule Creek State Prison,

Respondent.

-oOoAugust 2, 2004, an order served on petitioner was returned

by the postal service as undeliverable. Petitioner has failed to

comply with Local Rule 83-182(d), which requires a party

appearing pro se inform the court of any address change.

Accordingly, I hereby recommend this action be dismissed

without prejudice. L.R. 83-183(b) (dismissal appropriate where

pro se plaintiff fails to notify court of current address within

60 days of return of mail by U.S. Postal Service). 

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these 

Case 2:04-cv-00888-GEB-PAN Document 10 Filed 11/17/05 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

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: November 17, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00888-GEB-PAN Document 10 Filed 11/17/05 Page 2 of 2
/**
 * @file
 * A JavaScript file for the theme.
 **/

(function (Drupal, $) {
  'use strict';

  // To understand behaviors, see https://www.drupal.org/node/2269515
  Drupal.behaviors.basic = {
    attach: function (context, settings) {

      // Execute code once the DOM is ready. $(handler) not required
      // within Drupal.behaviors.
      $(window).on('load', function () {
        // Execute code once the window is fully loaded.
        $("tr:odd").addClass("odd");
        $("#block-mainmenu-2 h2").remove();
      });

      $(window).resize(function () {
        // Execute code when the window is resized.
      });

      $(window).scroll(function () {
        // Execute code when the window scrolls.
      });
    }
  };

})(Drupal, jQuery);
List of external phone calls Katherine Hoag participated on during the AZ RH comment period

To: Tom Moore of WRAP

Date: January 29, 2013

Subject: IMPROVE Data

Katherine Hoag and Tom Moore had a phone conversation about work WRAP has done in investigating 

the causes of coarse mass and fine soil emissions. Tom sent additional information in a subsequent 

email on 1/29/13.

To: Tom Moore of WRAP

Date: February 11, 2013

Subject: IMPROVE Data

Katherine Hoag and Tom Moore had a phone conversation covering the following topics:

 Differences between IMPROVE data from different websites

 Tools to extract monitoring data on the WRAP TSS website

 Differences in datasets on the WRAP TSS website

 Other WRAP documents on the causes of haze

To: Ryan Templeton (ADEQ)

Date: February 2013

Subject: Trend analysis method

Katherine Hoag returned call to discuss ADEQ’s questions about alternate trend analysis methods to 

show sensitivity of RHR methods to interannual events. No specific advice of what method to use or not 

use was given. Katherine did suggest that whatever method is chosen, the agency should be clear about 

the assumptions inherent in the statistical methods and any strengths or weaknesses it has given a 

certain type of dataset, and that the method should be well cited in their submittal.
## 1151 Duryea Ave. Irvine CA, 92614 

## Month of: (Insert Month)
Replace Repair Upgrade Required No Action Replace Repair Upgrade Required No Action Replace Repair Upgrade Required No Action Replace Repair Upgrade Required No Action Replace Repair Upgrade Required No Action Replace Repair Upgrade Required No Action Replace Repair Upgrade Required No Action Replace Repair Upgrade Required No Action


### Note:(1)

### Maintenance is checked and logged every 1st and 15th of the month. 

## (Insert Name) xx/xx/xxxx xx/xx/xxxx xx/xx/xxxx 

## Action Conducted Maintenance Date(s) xx/xx/xxxx (Insert Issue Description & Maintenance Coducted) 

## Initial (Initial)

xx/xx/xxxx 1. Software Updates 2. Airframe 3. Motors 4. Propellers

xx/xx/xxxx 

## Unmanned Aircraft System

8. Other: 5. Camera Gimbal 6. Landing Gear 7. Vibration Dampening 

# Unmanned Aircraft Maintenance Log (1)



## xx/xx/xxxx xx/xx/xxxx 

## Performed By: Notes
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

----oo0oo----

BERTA MUNDAY, 

NO. CIV. S-04-0593 FCD PAN

Plaintiffs,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v. RE SANCTIONS

PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY, et

al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

An Order Requiring a Joint Status Report was filed on

September 14, 2005 requiring that a joint status report should

be filed within sixty (60) days of service of the complaint on

any party, or from the date of removal. A review of the court’s

docket shows that Plaintiff’s counsel, Ms. Roxanne R. Fritz,

filed a separate status report October 17, 2005 (on paper) in

violation of Local Rule 5-133(a). Additionally, the report did

not comply with the requirements as set forth in the order of 

September 14, 2005. On October 21, 2005, defendant’s counsel,

Mr. Duane B. Beeson, filed a separate status report and

Case 2:04-cv-00593-FCD-PAN Document 52 Filed 11/07/05 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

27

28

2

declaration of counsel. In the declaration, Mr. Beeson informed

the court that all attempts to contact plaintiff’s counsel to

complete a joint report had been unsuccessful. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to

show cause why she should not be sanctioned in the amount of

$300.00 ($150.00 for failing to comply with the court’s

September 14, 2005 order and for violation of Local Rule 

5-133(a)). 

Plaintiff shall file a response to this order to

show cause on or before November 28, 2005.

The parties shall meet and confer and file a joint

status report on or before November 28, 2005. 

A Status conference is set for Friday, 

December 16, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. and a hearing on this order

to show cause will follow the status conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 7, 2005.

 /s/Frank C. Damrell, Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 2:04-cv-00593-FCD-PAN Document 52 Filed 11/07/05 Page 2 of 2