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

TONY MARQUET CAMPBELL, No. CIV S-04-1709-MCE-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

G. WOODFORD,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 23, 2005, the court dismissed plaintiff’s

complaint and directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 30 days. Plaintiff failed to

comply and, on September 22, 2005, the court directed plaintiff to show cause why this action

should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court orders and rules.

Plaintiff has filed a response to the order to show cause. In his response, plaintiff asserts that

prison officials in charge of delivering his prison mail failed to deliver his amended complaint in

a timely manner. In the interest of justice, the order to show cause will be discharged and

plaintiff will be granted an additional opportunity to comply with the court’s March 23, 2005,

order. 

Case 2:04-cv-01709-MCE -CMK Document 8 Filed 10/17/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The court’s September 22, 2005, order to show cause is discharged; and

2. Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint pursuant to the court’s

March 23, 2005, order within 30 days of the date of service of this order.

DATED: October 17, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01709-MCE -CMK Document 8 Filed 10/17/05 Page 2 of 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DENNIS BAADSGAARD; SHELLY 

BAADSGAARD, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF 

ILLINOIS, a Liberty Mutual Company, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 20-36104 

D.C. No. 4:19-cv-00075-BMM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 8, 2021**

Seattle, Washington

Before: GOULD, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Dennis and Shelly Baadsgaard appeal from the district court’s entry of 

summary judgment for Safeco Insurance Co., denial of the Baadsgaards’

application for additional discovery, and denial of the Baadsgaards’ objection to a 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 10 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

pretrial protective discovery order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 

and we affirm.

1. The district court properly granted summary judgment for Safeco. 

Safeco was prejudiced by the insured’s failure to provide notice of the state court 

complaint because Safeco was deprived of the opportunity to defend its insured,

and it now faces exposure to potential liability far greater than its policy limits. 

See Steadele v. Colony Ins. Co., 260 P.3d 145, 149–51 (Mont. 2011). 

Additionally, Safeco did not breach its duty to defend its insured because it was not 

given notice of the state court complaint, see id., and the duty to defend does not 

arise until a legal complaint is filed against the insured, see Tidyman’s Mgmt. 

Servs. Inc. v. Davis, 330 P.3d 1139, 1149 (Mont. 2014).

2. The district court properly denied the Baadsgaards’ objection to the 

protective order because “good cause” existed for the order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(c)(l) and the objection was moot. See B.R.S. Land Invs. v. United States, 596 

F.2d 353, 356 (9th Cir. 1979) (per curiam).

3. The district court properly denied the Baadsgaards’ Rule 56(d) 

application for further discovery because Safeco would still be entitled to summary 

judgment even if the Baadsgaards discovered additional sought-after facts. See 

Stevens v. Corelogic, Inc., 899 F.3d 666, 678 (9th Cir. 2018). 

AFFIRMED.
No. 57291.

protests 175026-K (A)/14013-B, 175026-K (B)/14026, and 175027-K/14013-A (New Orleans).

#### Pope & Talbot, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the papers disclosing that the protests were filed more than 60 days after liquidation, the motion to dismiss was granted.
Exhibit 32.01   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 Endeavor Power Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Tammy-Lynn McNabb, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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 result of operations of the Company.      /s/ Tammy-Lynn McNabb By: Tammy-Lynn McNabb Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  Dated: December 16, 2009  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 01761

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

01761\01761_ Certification Statement.pdf EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

01761\01761_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

01761\01761_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 01761\01761_Checklist.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01761\01761_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01761\01761_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01761\01761_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01761\01761_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01761\01761_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01761\01761_PartF.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01761\01761_PartG.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01761\01761_PartH.xls Plant certification statement

x 01761\Supporting Documents\(F5-6) CANADYS WELL LOCATION FIGURE.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

01761\Supporting Documents\01761_(A5-2) Canady's Station Aerial Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01761\Supporting Documents\01761_(A5-3) Canadys WBD.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

01761\Supporting Documents\01761_(A7-1) Cooling System MSDS.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01761\Supporting Documents\01761_(C2-31 and C3-36) Ash Block Diagrams.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01761\Supporting Documents\01761_(D2-3) Pilot-Full Scale Reports.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01761\Supporting Documents\01761_(D3-1) POND-1 Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
EXHIBIT 31.A
CERTIFICATION
   I, Lisa A. Stewart, certify that:
1. I havereviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of El Paso Production Holding Company;
2. Based onmy knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this Report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations 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 responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date:May 12, 2005   /s/ Lisa A. Stewart   Lisa A. Stewart
Date: '-fi , RaTS 

Meeting: 

Rule(s) Discussed: GF>f' D ~ 

Written Materials? Yes~o 

Name ' Org anization I Phone Number 

VAg-0 u ue F v 1 e ~ c~ a~~ ~ 2a 2-- 

l. E- i n -A N is' c M o r7 

 ~-ATr/A- a-Ocl 7 s / a 4- 

MAk cA-T\o : Mt3~-ss OF uST~i~ ~t 2~~ S ~/3 

~ KV 

ZZE761- th4q0' Nd1,~ 6MT-S, Q r 77sV L-7M/O 202 2-01t~ C-;~ 

tlOp 

6-1Uhq 3i5o%Nn s~~.;° c~ ~~ ` 2~L 5 S 71 '77i 

I e~ ~ 1~ ~~~~~.Ie~ C~~ ~~I ~~~~4Ss ; 202 4~e Og 

-t~✓cl, ~l ~ v~ ~1 ~` r~ ~lr~ r ~ ~%LC,Io frv~ ~ ~o ~' q 6 ~- Z6 -7LO 

~-~~n~~er /~cC~ov ~~i o~ ✓~~ak ~ Zp~°"~y °I ° y
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS3984 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM J. BIGGS AND 

BETTY BIGGS,

Defendants.

CIV S-04-1263 FCD PAN PS

ORDER

—NFN—

On February 24, 2006, this court ordered defendants William Biggs and Betty

Biggs to appear for their respective depositions by plaintiff on March 3, 2006, at 10:00 a.m., at

the Office of the U.S. Attorney. Defendants appeared in the afternoon of March 3, 2006 but

refused to provide substantive answers to any questions.

On March 8, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendants’ appearance

at their re-noticed depositions and to require defendants substantively to answer plaintiff’s

questions. The motion came on regularly for hearing on April 13, 2006. John F. Gisla appeared

for plaintiff. William Biggs appeared on his own behalf. Upon review of plaintiff’s motion and

Case 2:04-cv-01263-FCD-GGH Document 47 Filed 04/18/06 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

the documents in support and opposition thereof, upon hearing the argument of both parties and

good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT GRANTS PLAINTIFF’S MARCH 8, 2006

MOTION AND MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER:

1. Defendants William Biggs and Betty Biggs shall appear for their depositions on

Monday, April 24, 2006, at 10:00 a.m., at the Office of the U.S. Attorney, 501 “I” Street, Suite

10-100, Sacramento, California 95814. 

2. Defendants William Biggs and Betty Biggs shall answer each of plaintiff’s deposition

questions with substantive responses. 

3. Failure of defendants to appear for their depositions on April 24, 2006, or

substantively to answer any of plaintiff’s deposition questions, shall result in findings and

recommendations that the District Judge strike defendants’ answer to plaintiff’s complaint and

direct the Clerk of Court to enter defendants’ default.

DATED: April 18, 2006.

006:bigg1263.ord413

Case 2:04-cv-01263-FCD-GGH Document 47 Filed 04/18/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 58025.

protests 220167-K, etc. (New York).

#### Maurice Isben and W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N. Y., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the kidskin plates are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Ford, J., concurred.

Mollison, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1480, *supra.*
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS3986 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
Before the Second Division,

July 28, 1944

No. 49647.

#### Protests 101828-K, etc., of Western States Importing Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In view of stipulation of counsel savings banks the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 38680, incense burners the same as those the subject of Abstract 43033, and paperweights the same as those involved in *Woolworth*v. *United States*(26 C. C. P. A. 221, C. A. D. 20) *were*held dutiable as household utensils as claimed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6387 

JEFFREY L. MOORE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CA-04-543-3)

Submitted: June 23, 2005 Decided: June 30, 2005

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey L. Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey L. Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Moore has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 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
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause number: 01

- 1 5

- 0 0 583

- C V

Style: The Honorable Mark Henry, County Judge of Galveston County

v

. The Honorable Lonnie Cox

Date motion filed * : Ju ly 22 , 201 5

Type of motion: Appellant’s M otion to Create a Separate Docket Number for His Additional and Separate

Notice of Appeal T hat Challenges the Denial of His Plea to Jurisdiction, and Motion to

Abate the Briefing Schedule in This Temporary Injunction Appeal until the Jurisdictional

Appeal under the New, Separate Docket Number is Decided

Party filing motion: Appell ant

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? Yes

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date:

Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

 T he Court will not grant additional motions to extend time absent extraordinary circumstances

.

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot )

Appellant’s (1) Motion to Create a Separate Docket Number for His Additional and Separate Notice of Appeal

T hat Challenges the Denial of His Plea to Jurisdiction, and (2) Motion to Abate the Briefing Schedule in This

Temporary Injunction Appeal until the Jurisdictional Appeal under the New, Separate Docket Number is Decided

are denied.

Judge ’ s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings



Date: August 6, 2015
Case 2:04-cv-01695-GGH   Document 23    Filed 11/18/05   Page 1 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-01695-GGH   Document 23    Filed 11/18/05   Page 2 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-01695-GGH   Document 23    Filed 11/18/05   Page 3 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-01695-GGH   Document 23    Filed 11/18/05   Page 4 of 4

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-27T18:45:08-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
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

PAUL A. WESBECHER, No. CIV S-04-0807-FCD-CMK

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

DANIEL FOY,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 9, 2005, the court granted

respondent’s request to suspend briefing. The September 9, 2005, order also required petitioner

to file a status report within 30 days. A review of the docket reflects that, on September 27, 2005,

petitioner filed a notice of change of address. In the interest of justice, the court will direct that

the September 9, 2005, order be re-served to petitioner at his new address. Petitioner will be

granted additional time within which to submit a status report. Petitioner is warned that failure to

comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and

follow court orders and rules.

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-00807-FCD-CMK Document 32 Filed 10/20/05 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. The Clerk of the Court is directed to re-serve the court’s September 9,

2005, order on petitioner at his current address of record; and

2. Within 30 days of the date of service of this order, petitioner shall file a

status report, in writing, setting forth the status of the related state court matter, and also

informing the court whether petitioner desires to abandon any claims currently presented in his

federal habeas petition.

DATED: October 19, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00807-FCD-CMK Document 32 Filed 10/20/05 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

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY )

OF AMERICA, a Washington ) CIV. S-04-836 GEB JFM

corporation, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 

) ORDER

v. ) 

)

MBA CONSTRUCTION, a California )

corporation doing business as MACK )

CONSTRUCTION; KEVIN D. MACK, an )

individual; KATIE BAUGH, an )

individual; and DANNY W. BAUGH, )

an individual, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Plaintiff has filed a motion for partial summary judgment

scheduled to be heard on May 2, 2005. Defendants have moved to

continue the hearing date on Plaintiff’s motion to the middle or end

of June 2005 because, on April 26, 2005, trial commenced in “a related

action involving the same parties and same subject matter.” (Defs.’

Request for Continuance at 1.) Plaintiff has not opposed Defendants’

request. Therefore, the hearing on the motion is continued to 

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-00836-GEB -JFM Document 40 Filed 04/27/05 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

June 27, 2005, at 9 a.m., and the final pretrial conference is

rescheduled to commence on August 29, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00836-GEB -JFM Document 40 Filed 04/27/05 Page 2 of 2