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

LIONELL E. THOLMER

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1368 GEB CMK PS

vs.

CHERYL PLILER, et al

Defendants.

 / ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis with a 42 U.S.C. § 1983

civil rights action. Currently before the court is plaintiff’s motion for emergency injunctive relief

to prevent defendants from “violating his constitutional right to correspond with the courts

confidentially.” 

The legal principles applicable to a request for injunctive relief such as a

restraining order are well established. To prevail, the moving party must show either a likelihood

of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious questions are

raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the movant’s favor. See Coalition for

Economic Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 700 (9th Cir. 1997); Oakland Tribune, Inc. v.

Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985). The two formulations represent two

points on a sliding scale with the focal point being the degree of irreparable injury shown. 

Case 2:04-cv-01368-GEB -CMK Document 10 Filed 04/27/05 Page 1 of 3
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

Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. “Under any formulation of the test, plaintiff must

demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. In the absence of a

significant showing of possible irreparable harm, the court need not reach the issue of likelihood

of success on the merits. Id.

A prisoner has no protected constitutional right to confidential communications

with the court. Indeed, all documents that plaintiff files with the court must be served on

defendants. See e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 5; Local Rule 5-135. Plaintiff, therefore, cannot make

the requisite showing of irreparable harm. 

IT IS SO ORDERED that plaintiff’s January 12, 2005 motion for emergency

injunctive relief is denied

DATED: April 25, 2005

/s/ CRAIG M. KELLISON 

Craig M. Kellison

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-01368-GEB -CMK Document 10 Filed 04/27/05 Page 2 of 3
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

Plaintiff, No. CIV 

vs.

 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 completed summons form

 completed USM-285 forms

 copies of the 

 Complaint/Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-01368-GEB -CMK Document 10 Filed 04/27/05 Page 3 of 3
No. 56422.

protests 176227-K, etc. (New York).

#### W. A. Cleary Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of lecithin (soybean residual sludge) similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *C. J. Tower & Sons*(38 C. C. P. A. 131, C. A. D. 450), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

ANTHONY R. THOMPSON,

Petitioner

v.

M.D. OVERMYER,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 79 WM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 21st day of November

, 2017, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED . T he Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus , the Petition for

ROR Bail, the Motion for Order of Discharge, the Motion for Contestation to District

Attorney’s Appearance, and the Motion to be Granted ROR Bail are DENIED.
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERIPRIDE SERVICES, INC.,

A Delaware corporation,

NO. CIV. S-00-113 LKK/JFM

Plaintiff,

v.

VALLEY INDUSTRIAL SERVICE, INC.,

a former California corporation,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

HUHTAMAKI FOODSERVICE, INC.,

NO. CIV. S-04-1494 LKK/JFM

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

AMERIPRIDE SERVICES, INC., a

Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

 /

Pending before the court is AmeriPride Service’s

(“AmeriPride”) motion for consolidation filed on September 26,

2005. The motion requested the consolidation of AmeriPride

Case 2:04-cv-01494-LKK-JFM Document 43 Filed 09/15/05 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

Services, Inc. v. Valley Industrial Services, Inc., et al., CIV.

S-00-113 LKK (filed January 19, 2000), and Huhtamaki Foodservice,

Inc. v. AmeriPride Services, Inc., CIV. S-04-1494 LKK (filed

July 29, 2004). 

After consideration of the parties’ papers and after oral

argument, the court hereby ORDERS that:

1. Decision on this motion is deferred pending the

upcoming state court hearing regarding the California Regional

Water Quality Control Board’s Clean-up and Abatement Order. The

hearing on the motion to consolidate is CONTINUED to October 24th,

2005 at 10:00 a.m. 

2. The two cases are consolidated for the purposes of

discovery only. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 13, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01494-LKK-JFM Document 43 Filed 09/15/05 Page 2 of 2
July

29, 2015 ID: FAA
- 2015
- 0953
- 000 United States Department of Transportation Docket Management Sy stem 1200 New Jersey Ave ., SE West Building Ground Floor Room W12
- 140 Washington, DC 20590 **Re: Exemption Request Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act of 2012**  Dear Sir or Madam: In response to you letter dated July 2, 2015, we wish to provide y ou the following information as per your request. The specific reasons we seek relief is to operate in the following areas of commerce : 1. Closed Set Filming Our MPTOM is outlined in the document s we provided in our original exemption request. Please refer to the two published documents labeled: A. Seminole Club, Inc. d/b/a Flatwater Studios

– UAV Flight Operations Manual B. Seminole Club, Inc. d/b/a Flatwater Studios

– Preflight Checklist 2
. Geo graphical Mapping 3
. Agricultural Mapping and Anal ys is 4. Real Estate Photography and Video 5. General Aerial Photograph y and Video In addition, we are providing to you all of the Release forms we currentl y use in out film and photograph y operations. We hope this information helps clear up an y concerns the FAA has toward our approval process. If more information is needed, we are alway s available to provide to y our office any and all requested documentation
. Thank y ou for y ou time and consideration. Sincerel y,Curt Daniels

Seminole Club, Inc. DBA: Flatwater Studios 709 West Park Ave Suite D Edgewater, FL 32132
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

STEPHEN F. SNOW, No. CIV S-04-0443-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

EDWARD ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

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

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On October 21, 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 ten days. Plaintiff has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

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. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

Case 2:04-cv-00443-LKK -CMK Document 14 Filed 01/12/06 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

analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 21, 2005, are adopted in

full;

2. This action is dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with

court orders and rules; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file.

DATED: January 12, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00443-LKK -CMK Document 14 Filed 01/12/06 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Thomas E. Mills, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q 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.

July 11, 2008



By   /s/ Thomas Mills
     Thomas E. Mills
     President,  Chief  Executive  Officer,
     Chief  Financial  Officer,  and
     Principal Accounting 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

PAUL ANTHONY WESBECHER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0807 FCD CMK

vs.

DANIEL FOY, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma

pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis affidavit reveals that petitioner is unable to

afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Since petitioner may be entitled to the requested relief if the claimed violation of

constitutional rights is proven, respondents will be directed to file a response to petitioner’s

application. 

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00807-FCD-CMK Document 16 Filed 05/18/05 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

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;

2. Respondent is directed to file a response to petitioner’s application within

thirty days from the date of this order. See Rule 4, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. An answer

shall be accompanied by any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination

of the issues presented in the application. See Rule 5, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases;

3. Petitioner’s traverse, if any, shall be filed and served within thirty days of

service of an answer;

4. If the response to petitioner’s application is a motion, petitioner’s opposition or

statement of non-opposition shall be filed and served within thirty days of service of the motion,

and respondents’ reply, if any, shall be filed within fifteen days thereafter; and

5. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of

petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on Jo Graves,

Senior Assistant Attorney General.

DATED: May 16, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00807-FCD-CMK Document 16 Filed 05/18/05 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 45 (Thursday, March 8, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3921]



[[Page 10354]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2005-225010; Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-17]
RIN 2120-AA66


Revocation of Low Altitude Reporting Point; Alaska

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This technical amendment corrects a final rule published in 
the Federal Register on June 30, 2006 (71 FR 37492), Docket No. FAA-
2005-225010, Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-17. In that rule, the reference 
to FAA Order 7400.9 was published as FAA Order 7400.9O. The correct 
reference is FAA Order 7400.9P. This technical amendment corrects those 
errors.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, March 8, 2007. The Director of the 
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and 
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tameka Bentley, Airspace and Rules, 
Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone: (202) 267-8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History

    On June 30, 2006, a final rule was published in the Federal 
Register, Docket No. FAA-2005-225010, Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-17 
that amended Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations part 71 by revoking a 
low altitude reporting point, AK (71 FR 37492). In that rule, the 
reference to FAA Order 7400.9 was published as FAA Order 7400.9O. The 
correct reference is FAA Order 7400.9P.

Amendment to Final Rule

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the reference 
to FAA Order 7400.9 for Airspace Docket No. FAA-2005-225010, Airspace 
Docket No. 06-AAL-17, as published in the Federal Register on June 30, 
2006 (71 FR 37492), is corrected as follows:

0
On page 37492, column 2, line 15, column 3, line 8, amend the language 
to read:


Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

* * * * *
    ``FAA Order 7400.9P'' instead of ``FAA Order 7400.9O''.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, February 20, 2007.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace and Rules.
[FR Doc. E7-3921 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-60,982] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 20, 2007 in response to a worker petition filed a company official on behalf of workers at Eaton Corporation, Truck Components, Galesburg, Michigan. 

The petitioner has withdrawn the petition. Hence, this investigation is terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 22nd day of February 2007. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E7-4066 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
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

ORDER AMENDING ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL ENTERED MARCH 2, 2007 

Robinson/Kozlowski, et al. vs. Sacramento County, et al.; USDC, Eastern Dist., Case Nos. S.04-1617 FCS/PAN & S-04-2381 FCD DAD

 

---o0o--- 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

---o0o--- 

EMILY ROBINSON, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., 

Defendants. 

CASE NO: CIV.S-04-1617 FCD EFB 

ORDER AMENDING ORDER AND 

JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL ENTERED 

MARCH 2, 2007; AMENDED JUNE 24, 

2009 

KIMBERLY KOZLOWSKI, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., 

 Defendants. 

CASE NO: CIV.S-04-2381 FCD DAD 

Based on the Stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefore: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Order and Judgment of Dismissal, entered by this 

Court on March 2, 2007, amended by this Court on June 24, 2009, be amended to include the 

following paragraphs: 

Case 2:04-cv-01617-FCD-EFB Document 78 Filed 01/08/10 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

ORDER AMENDING ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL ENTERED MARCH 2, 2007 

Robinson/Kozlowski, et al. vs. Sacramento County, et al.; USDC, Eastern Dist., Case Nos. S.04-1617 FCS/PAN & S-04-2381 FCD DAD

14. Gilardi & Company, LLC, Claims Administrators in the within actions, shall 

transfer to Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Law Office of Mark E. Merin, the remainder of funds in their 

account for Claimants whose claim forms are deficient. Plaintiffs’ Counsel is directed to deposit 

these funds into their Client Trust Account and to make attempts to locate and contact those 

Claimants whose claim forms are deficient so as to obtain their signature under penalty of perjury 

and to disperse funds to them. 

15. As of December 31, 2010, any remaining unclaimed funds from deficient claims 

shall be given to an organization which serves juveniles in Sacramento County. Counsel for the 

parties are ordered to meet and confer in January 2011, to determine which juvenile organization 

will benefit from the remaining unclaimed funds from deficient claims. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 7, 2010 

 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-01617-FCD-EFB Document 78 Filed 01/08/10 Page 2 of 2
No. 51703.

#### Protest 118242-K of Perry, Ryer & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the merchandise consists of henna powder similar in all material respects to that the subject of J. *L. Hopkins & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(34 C. C. P. A. 67, C. A. D. 344). In accordance therewith the claim for free entry under paragraph 1670 was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 8505)

#### Coty, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 891959.

(Decided December 29, 1955)

*Lane, Young & Fox*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the respective parties, subject to the approval of the Court, that at the time of exportation of the merchandise marked “A” and initialed W. R. S. by W. R. Shapiro on the invoice covered by the above appeal for reappraisement, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, either for home consumption in Eranee, or for exportation to the United States, or in the United States, as defined in Section 402 (c), (d), and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the cost of production, as defined in Section 402 (f) (1), (2), (3), and (4) of said Act, of the said merchandise marked “A” as above, at the time of exportation thereof, was 209,334.13 French francs per 1,000 pieces, less 15.35%, plus cost of cases and packing as invoiced.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the above appeal for reappraisement may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise marked “A” and initialed W. R. S. by W. R. Shapiro on the invoice, and that such value was 209,334.13 French francs per 1,000 pieces, less 15.35 per centum, plus cost of cases and packing, as invoiced.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Case 2:04-cv-01258-LKK -KJM   Document 50    Filed 10/18/05   Page 1 of 2

Case 2:04-cv-01258-LKK -KJM   Document 50    Filed 10/18/05   Page 2 of 2

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-27T15:07:32-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
No. 60831.

#### Schenley Import Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 207932-K and 230408-K (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial, it was stipulated that no allowance was made on certain cases of whisky, reported by the inspector as manifested, but not landed. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351), it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon the quantities reported by the inspector as not landed.