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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS KELLER, et al.,

NO. CIV. S-04-1325 LKK/DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. O R D E R

CITY OF STOCKTON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

The court is in receipt of plaintiffs’ “notice of dismissal”

of defendants County of San Joaquin and Jose Romero. Plaintiffs,

however, have failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a).

Accordingly, the notice will be disregarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 30, 2005

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01325-LKK -DAD Document 24 Filed 09/01/05 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1
21. Subsidiaries of the registrant



                            WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES
                            -------------------------

Keithley International Investment Corporation
28775 Aurora Road, Cleveland, Ohio 44139, U.S.A.

Keithley Foreign Sales Corporation
5 Norre Gade, Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00801

FRANCE:  Keithley Instruments SARL
BP 60, 3 allee des Garays
91122 Palaiseau Cedex

GERMANY:  Keithley Instruments GmbH
Landsberger Strasse 65
82110 Germering (Munich)

GREAT BRITAIN:  Keithley Instruments Ltd.
The Minister, 58 Portman Road
Reading (London), Berkshire RG30 1EA

ITALY:  Keithley Instruments SRL
Viale San Gimignano 38
20146 Milano

NETHERLANDS:  Keithley Instruments BV
Avenlingen West 49
4202 MS Gorinchem (Amsterdam)

SWITZERLAND:  Keithley Instruments SA
Kriesbachstrasse 4
8600 Dubendorf (Zurich)
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

CHARLES T. DAVIS,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-0878-GEB-DAD-P

vs.

C/O KISSINGER, et al., ORDER

Defendants.

 /

On March 13, 2007, this court adopted the magistrate judge’s January 12, 2007

findings and recommendations in full. As a result, defendants’ April 28, 2006 motion to dismiss

pursuant to non-enumerated Rule 12(b) was granted as to claims five, six, ten, and eleven. 

On May 29, 2007, plaintiff filed a document titled “Notice of Motion & Motion to

Reinstate In Part Claim Ten.” Plaintiff contends that Rule 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure allows the court to modify its order upon a showing of good cause. Plaintiff argues

that the court should modify its March 13, 2007 order because the court’s dismissal of claim ten

had the “impractical effect of dismissing unintended defendants.” Specifically, plaintiff contends

that “F.R.C.P. 60(b)(1) allows for modification of the dismissal of claim 10 because the

dismissal of unintended defendants Qualls, Money, and Ingwerson, snuffed out plaintiff’s state

causes of actions against these defendants.” Plaintiff argues that the court’s dismissal of claim

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 88 Filed 08/30/07 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

10 was “inadvertent” and constitutes “excusable neglect.” Plaintiff concludes that the court

should reinstate claim 10 in part and allow plaintiff to proceed against defendants Qualls, Money,

and Ingwerson on each state cause of action. 

Rule 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: 

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a

party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the

following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

excusable neglect. . . . 

Plaintiff’s motion fails to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief under Rule

60(b)(1). The state law claim contained in claim ten was predicated on the same facts alleged in

claims five and six. Plaintiff failed to exhaust claims five and six and, consequently, the court

found that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to claim ten. The

court’s order dismissing claim ten was not inadvertent or a result of excusable neglect. 

Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)(1) motion. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s May 29, 2007 Rule 60(b)(1) motion is

denied. 

Dated: August 30, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00878-TLN-DAD Document 88 Filed 08/30/07 Page 2 of 2
'Q{?&~k~a9- ce[?3

, Appendix

Pacific Wings, L.L.C.

Provision for Essential Air Service at KAMUELA (MUE), HAWAII

KAHULUI (OGG) Service

Calculation of Annual Subsidy Needed

2 rountrips M-F, 1 roundtrip Saturday, 1 roundtrip Sunday

Aircraft type Cessna 208B

Seats per departure 9

Average completion factor: 98.0%

Departures 1,223 '

Block hours: 775

OGG-MUE

Other revenue

Total operating revenue

Operating expense:

Flying Operations

Fuel and Oil

Aircraft and Hull Insurance

Maintenance

Into aircraft and lease expense

Direct Expense

Indirects

Total Operating Expense

Return at 5% of operating expense

Total Economic Cost

Annual Subsidy Need @ 98%

•

Passengers

1,000

Average fare

$88,10
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Thomas E. Mills, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of AMP Productions,
Ltd.;

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 the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.     I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and I have:

a)     designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)     evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's 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 my evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5.     I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)     all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)     any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.

6.     I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including
any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses.

November 8, 2007



By   /s/ Thomas Mills
     Thomas E. Mills
     President & Chief Financial Officer
(Reap. Dec. 10054)

#### Innocenti Corp. et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 36093, etc.

(Decided August 1, 1961)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiffs.

*William H. Orrick, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawkence, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule, attached to and made a part of this decision, present the question of the proper value for dutiable purposes of certain motorscooters.

The parties hereto have submitted the appeals for decision on a stipulation of fact which reads as follows:

> That the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement set forth in the Schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof consists of motorscooters, exported from Italy during 1959.

> That at the times of export such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Italy for home consumption or for export to the United States nor was it freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the United States for domestic consumption.

> That “cost of production” as defined in Section 402a (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 for such merchandise at the time immediately preceding the date of exportation was as follows:

> For Model 125/LI — Lira 108,010.00 For Model 150/LI — Lira 121,375.00.

Upon the record before the court, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402a(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 91 *419Treas. Dec. 295, T.D. 54165 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(f)), is the proper basis of value for the instant motorscooters and that said value is as follows:

> For Model 125/LI — Lira 108,010.00 For Model 150/LI — Lira 121,375.00

As to all other merchandise, the appeals are dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Case 2:04-cv-01292-MCE -DAD   Document 32    Filed 01/27/06   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-21T10:50:44-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 22-3305

_____________

VERTIV, INC.; VERTIV CAPITAL, INC.; and GNARITIS, INC.,

 Appellants

v.

WAYNE BURT PTE, LTD., and TGS MAHESH

_____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil No. 3:20-cv-00363)

District Judge: Honorable Georgette Castner

_____________

Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges.

_______________

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

It is hereby ordered that the Opinion filed on February 1, 2024, is amended as follows: 

On Page 22, in the last sentence (which continues onto Page 23), the words 

“Wayne Burt” shall be changed to “Vertiv” such that the sentence will read: 

“Vertiv has presented no evidence to counter the District Court’s finding about 

equal distribution of assets.”

By the Court,

s/ Arianna J. Freeman

Circuit Judge

Dated: February 5, 2024

Tmm/cc: Robert T. Szyba, Esq.

 Patrick T. Collins, Esq
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SARAH L. MAY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of 

Social Security, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 20-35306 

D.C. No. 3:19-cv-05393-MLP 

ORDER*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Michelle L. Peterson, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 5, 2021 

Seattle, Washington

Before: CHRISTEN and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and SILVER,** District 

Judge.

The Commissioner’s unopposed motion to vacate the district court’s 

judgment affirming the Commissioner’s final decision and to remand this case to

the district court is granted. Dkt. No. 43. The district court’s judgment is therefore 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Roslyn O. Silver, United States District Judge for the 

District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

FILED

JUN 21 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

vacated, and we remand to the district court with instructions to remand the case to 

the agency for further proceedings consistent with Carr v. Saul, 141 S. Ct. 1352 

(2021).

VACATED and REMANDED.
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Curative Health Services, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Joseph Feshbach, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

     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.


                                        /s/ Joseph Feshbach
                                            -----------------------
                                            Joseph Feshbach
                                            Chief Executive Officer
                                            November 14, 2003
Exhibit








AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
This Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made as of September 7, 2016, by and among QEP Energy Company, a Texas corporation (“QEP” or “Buyer”), Blind Juniper Holdings, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (“BJH”), and Richard Schmidt REP, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (“Schmidt REP”).  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings given such terms in the PSA (defined below) unless the context otherwise requires.
RECITALS:
A.    QEP, as buyer, RK Petroleum Corp., et al, as sellers, BJH in its capacity as the Seller’s Representative for the BJH Represented Sellers, and Schmidt REP in its capacity as the Seller’s Representative for the Schmidt Representatives Sellers, are party to that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement dated as of June 21, 2016 (the “PSA”).
B.    Pursuant to Section 15.7 of the PSA, BJH is authorized to, among other things, amend the PSA on behalf of the BJH Represented Sellers and Schmidt REP is authorized to, among other things, amend the PSA on behalf of the Schmidt Represented Sellers.
C.    Pursuant to Section 15.12 of the PSA Buyer, BHJ and Schmidt REP desire to amend the PSA as provided in this Amendment.
AGREEMENT:
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements herein contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged and confessed, the undersigned hereby agree as follows:
1.    Scheduled Closing Date.  The Scheduled Closing Date (as defined in Section 6.1 of the PSA) is hereby changed from September 14, 2016 to September 21, 2016 for all purposes of the PSA.
2.    No Other Amendments.  Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the PSA remains in full force and effect in accordance with its original terms.
3.    Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, and each such counterpart shall be deemed to be an original instrument, but all of such counterparts shall constitute for all purposes one and the same instrument.  The execution and delivery of this Assignment may be evidenced by facsimile or other electronic transmission (including scanned documents delivered by email), which shall be binding.
[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed and delivered this Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement in one or more counterparts to be effective as of the date first above written.
	
			
	 
	 
	Buyer:



	 
	 
	QEP Energy Company

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	By:
	 
	/s/ Michael K. Watanabe

	Name:
	 
	Michael K. Watanabe

	Title:
	 
	Vice President, Land






	
			
	 
	 
	BJH:



	 
	 
	BLIND JUNIPER HOLDINGS, LLC

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	By:
	 
	/s/ Gregory D. Smith

	Name:
	 
	Gregory D. Smith

	Title:
	 
	Managing Member






	
			
	 
	 
	Schmidt Rep:



	 
	 
	RICHARD SCHMIDT REP, LLC

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	By:
	 
	/s/ Richard Schmidt

	Name:
	 
	Richard Schmidt

	Title:
	 
	Manager
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FILIA UIPI,

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-04-1301 MCE KJM P 

vs.

DIANA BUTLER,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

On July 27, 2005, the court granted respondent’s July 20, 2005 request for leave

to file a supplemental answer and directed the Clerk of the Court to remove the supplemental

answer attached to respondent’s July 20 request and file it separately. When the Clerk attempted

to do so, it was discovered that the caption appearing on the supplemental answer is incorrect. 

Respondent now seeks leave to file a corrected supplemental answer. Good cause appearing, IT

IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent’s July 27, 2005 amended request for leave to file a supplemental

answer is granted;

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01301-MCE -KJM Document 11 Filed 08/17/05 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. The Clerk of the Court is directed to remove the supplemental answer from

respondent’s July 27, 2005 “amended request” and file it separately;

3. The court’s July 27, 2005 order is vacated; and

4. Petitioner may file a traverse within thirty days of this order.

DATED: August 16, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

uipi1301.111

Case 2:04-cv-01301-MCE -KJM Document 11 Filed 08/17/05 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HORIZON MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC. FOR THE 6 MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,829,539
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,756,178
<ALLOWANCES>                                   110,585
<INVENTORY>                                  6,622,947
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,224,960
<PP&E>                                       3,908,152
<DEPRECIATION>                                 571,096
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              44,474,094
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,441,036
<BONDS>                                        162,618
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,366
<OTHER-SE>                                  40,685,522
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                44,474,094
<SALES>                                      6,858,690
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,858,690
<CGS>                                        2,499,667
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,499,667
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,439,122
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             299,247
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,631,792
<INCOME-TAX>                                   680,719
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            951,073
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (83,414)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   867,659
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        

</TABLE>
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4514 

To clarify that amounts from declinations should be deposited in the Crime 

Victims Fund and to temporarily provide additional deposits into the 

Crime Victims Fund. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 11, 2024 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Ms. MURKOWSKI) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To clarify that amounts from declinations should be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund and to temporarily provide additional deposits into the Crime Victims Fund. 

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 ‘‘Crime Victims Fund 

5 Stabilization Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEPOSITS IN CRIME VICTIMS FUND. 

7 Section 1402(b)(6) of the Victims of Crime Act of 

8 1984 (34 U.S.C. 20101(b)(6)) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4514 IS

1 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘or’’ at 

2 the end; 

3 (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period 

4 at the end and inserting a semicolon; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(C) a declination of a criminal prosecu7 tion or other similar final disposition not involv8 ing a conviction; or 

9 ‘‘(D) during the period beginning on the 

10 date of enactment of this subparagraph and 

11 ending on September 30, 2029, sections 3729 

12 through 3731 of title 31, United States Code 

13 (commonly known as the ‘False Claims Act’), 

14 except that— 

15 ‘‘(i) amounts necessary to remunerate 

16 qui tam plaintiffs as described in sub17 section (d) of section 3730 of title 31, 

18 United States Code, are not available for 

19 deposit to the Fund; and 

20 ‘‘(ii) amounts necessary to reimburse 

21 the United States Government for the 

22 damages which the Government sustains 

23 from an act described in subsection (a) of 

24 section 3729 of title 31, United States 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 4514 IS

1 Code, are not available for deposit to the 

2 Fund.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4175 

To reauthorize the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 18, 2024 

Mr. LEE (for himself and Mr. ROMNEY) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. 

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 ‘‘RECA Extension Act 

5 of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE RADIATION EXPOSURE 

7 COMPENSATION ACT. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3(d) of the Radiation Ex9 posure Compensation Act (Public Law 101–426; 42 

10 U.S.C. 2210 note) is amended by striking the first sen11 tence and inserting ‘‘The Fund shall terminate on the date 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4175 IS

1 that is 2 years after the date of enactment of the RECA 

2 Extension Act of 2024.’’. 

3 (b) LIMITATION ON CLAIMS.—Section 8(a) of the Ra4 diation Exposure Compensation Act (Public Law 101– 

5 426; 42 U.S.C. 2210 note) is amended by striking ‘‘the 

6 RECA Extension Act of 2022’’ and inserting ‘‘the RECA 

7 Extension Act of 2024’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB