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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE BRIDGETTE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0436 DFL PAN P

vs.

D. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On May 5, 2006, the court recommended defendants’ motion for summary

judgment be granted and that judgment be entered in their favor. On May 15, 2006, plaintiff

requested an extension of time to file a pretrial statement as directed in the scheduling order. 

Through clerical oversight, the court granted plaintiff’s request for an extension of time on May

18, 2006.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The May 18, 2006, order is vacated;

 2. Plaintiff has 30 days from the date of this order to file and serve objections to

the findings and recommendations which issued May 5, 2006.

DATED: May 30, 2006.

\004\brid0436.36b

Case 2:04-cv-00436-DFL-EFB Document 63 Filed 05/31/06 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2


    Certification BY ROBERT E. FULTON 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 Torch Offshore, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission of the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert E. Fulton,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.

/s/ ROBERT E. FULTON
--------------------
Robert E. Fulton
Chief Financial Officer
No. 47869.

#### Protests 50909-K, etc., of W. F. Mackay (Pembina).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed on the basis of the condition in which the lumber was imported and that no addition should have been made for planing, tonguing, and/or grooving. Protests sustained to that extent.
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 (GGH) PS

ORDER

On June 30, 2006, defendant William Biggs filed an “Application for

Extension of Time” seeking an additional sixty days within which to respond to plaintiff’s

motion for default judgment, scheduled for hearing on July 20, 2006. Defendant’s request is

denied without prejudice to the court’s reconsideration of the request upon hearing the merits of

plaintiff’s motion. All parties are directed to attend the hearing on July 20, 2006, at 10:00 a.m.,

in Courtroom No. 24.

DATED: 7/11/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

________________________ 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOW6:BIGGS.deny req. ext

Case 2:04-cv-01263-FCD-GGH Document 54 Filed 07/11/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 56408.

protest 168710-K (Los Angeles).

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., of Los Angeles *v.*United States,

*406Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record disclosing that the protest was not filed within the 60-day period after liquidation, as required by section 514,. Tariff Act of 1930, the motion to dismiss was granted.
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS4059 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.
No. 50031.

#### Protests 77324-K, etc., of R. L. Albert & Son, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1995
<CASH>                                         116,277
<SECURITIES>                                    63,851
<RECEIVABLES>                                  539,290
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,494
<INVENTORY>                                    303,711
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,068,890
<PP&E>                                       1,359,525
<DEPRECIATION>                                 640,005
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,027,601
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          641,649
<BONDS>                                        260,752
<COMMON>                                         4,750
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,018,189
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,027,601
<SALES>                                     12,667,562
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,667,562
<CGS>                                       12,063,494
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,063,494
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               123,972
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,784
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                459,312
<INCOME-TAX>                                   179,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            280,112
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (22,189)<F1>
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   257,923
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.66
<FN>
<F1>Extraordinary loss on early extinguishment of debt, less applicable taxes.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Before the Second Division,

December 17, 1953

No. 57692.

#### United Fibre Company *v.*United States,

protest 183507-K (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise in question is wholly or in chief value of sunn, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO TAKE PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION BEYOND DISCOVERY DEADLINE

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

BRONCHE JOHNSON ,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE CDC, et al. ,

Defendants.

2:04-cv-1783 FCD KJM P

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME TO TAKE PLAINTIFF’S

DEPOSITION BEYOND DISCOVERY

DEADLINE

Good cause appearing, the Court hereby grants Defendants’ request for extension of

time to take Plaintiff’s deposition beyond the discovery deadline. Defendants shall have until

October 6, 2006, to take Plaintiff’s deposition or file a motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01783-FCD-KJM Document 21 Filed 08/22/06 Page 1 of 1
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6318** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. DEREK RICHARDSON, a/k/a Weasel , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 5:10

- cr - 00152

- BO

- 1 ; 5:12

- cv - 00595

- BO )

Submitted : June 24, 2014 Decided: June 27, 2014

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Derek Richardson , Appellant Pro Se. William Glenn Perry , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North Carolina; Seth Morgan Wood , OF FICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Derek Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a sub stantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’ s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstra te both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Richardson 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 materials3 before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
1 Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of opinions that

have no pre cedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________
No. 95-50003 Summary Calendar

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

HOMER LYNN HIXON,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

(W-89-CR-96-1)

_____________________________________________________ (June 29, 1995)

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Homer Hixon, pro se , appeals from the denial of 28 U.S.C. §

2255 relief. We AFFIRM

.

I.
Hixon pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to distribute

amphetamine, and was sentenced, inter alia
, to 210 months

imprisonment. In sentencing Hixon, the district court applied the

career offender g uideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, in light of Hixon's- 2 -

two prior state court convictions for delivery of amphetamine. Our

court affirme d his conviction and sentence on direct appeal.

United States v. Hixon
, No. 90-8172 (5th Cir. June 7, 1990)

(unpublished). In 1994, Hixon moved for modification of his

sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 3582, claiming improper application of

the career offender guideline. The district court, which first

determined that the motion was governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2255, denied

the motion initially, and again on Hixon's motion for

reconsideration.

II.

Hixon claims § 2255 r elief based on U nited States v.

Bellazerius , 24 F.3d 698, 700-02 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S.

Ct. 375 (1994), which held that the Sentencing Commission exceeded

its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 994(h) in applying the career

offender guidelin e to defendants (like Hixon) convicted only of

conspiracy offenses. Hixon concludes that he is entitled to relief

because the career offender guideline cannot be applied to his

conspiracy conviction.

"Relief under ... § 2255 is reserved for transgressions of

constitutional rights and for a narrow range of injuries that could

not have been raised on direct appeal and would, if condoned,

result in a complete miscarriage of justice." U nited States v.

Vaughn
, 955 F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir. 1992). Our court recently

addressed the precise issue raised by Hixon and held that it is not2 Because Williams bars Hixon's claim, we need not address the

retroactivity vel non of Bellazerius

.
- 3 - cognizable under § 2255. United States v. Williams , No. 94-50329

(5th Cir. March 27, 1995) (unpublished). 2

III.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgement is

AFFIRMED

.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Flatbush Federal Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Jesus R. Adia, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and John S. Lotardo, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





The purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.








/s/ Jesus R. AdiaJesus R. AdiaPresident andChief Executive Officer








/s/ John S. LotardoJohn S. LotardoExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer





Date: November 15, 2010
**Exhibit      32.1**

| 1.   | The                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period                ended June 30, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of                Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15                U.S.C.                78m(a) or 78o(d)); and |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the                Company. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DATE:  | August                8, 2007 |   | BY:    | /S/                Scott V. Fainor                              |
|--------|-------------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                          |   |   | Scott                V. Fainor                                  |
|   |                          |   |   | President                and Chief Executive Officer            |
|   |                          |   |   |                                                            |
|   |                          |   |   |                                                            |
|   |                          |   |   |                                                            |
| DATE:  | August                8, 2007 |   | BY:    | /S/                Eugene T. Sobol                              |
|   |                          |   |   | Eugene                T. Sobol                                  |
|   |                          |   |   | Senior                Executive Vice President, Chief Financial |
|   |                          |   |   | Officer                and Treasurer                            |

*A      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the      Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to KNBT Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained      by KNBT Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission      or      its staff upon request.*
December 5, 1962

Reap. Dec. 10390.

#### Rex Cutlery Corp. *v.*United States,

Entered at New York, N.Y. Reap. Dec. 10339. Motion by plaintiff.
|   | Exhibit 21, Form 10-K |
|--------|-----------------------|

|   | Kansas City Life Insurance Company |
|--------|------------------------------------|

 

 

 

 

|   | **SUBSIDIARIES** |
|--------|------------------|

 

 

 

|   | Kansas City Life Insurance Company's significant                            insurance subsidiaries are: |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

1. Sunset Life Insurance Company of America, a corporation organized            under the laws of the State of Washington and redomesticated to the State of            Missouri.

 

|   | 2. Old American Insurance Company, a corporation                            organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | The Company's non-insurance subsidiaries are not                            significant individually or in the aggregate. |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


October 13, 2016


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust 272


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the series of Smart Trust set forth above (the “Trust”). We enclosed a list
of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such
Securities as of close of business on October 12, 2016, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in the Standard Terms
and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing
the evaluations of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-212823) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
with respect to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO
	 	Gerardo Cipriano
	 	Vice President
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

MARK PAYNE, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1585 MCE KJM P

vs.

MULE CREEK STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 2, 2008, the court stayed this action due to

plaintiff’s poor health. On October 16, 2008, the court ordered plaintiff to indicate if a stay is

still appropriate and, if so, why. On October 28, 2009, plaintiff did request that this action be

stayed, but failed to indicate why. Therefore, the stay imposed in this case will be lifted and the

court will issue an amended scheduling order.

In his response to the court’s October 16, 2009 order, plaintiff requests 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. 

Case 2:04-cv-01585-MCE -KJM Document 103 Filed 01/07/10 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

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36

(9th Cir. 1990). At present, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 

Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The stay imposed in this action on December 2, 2008 is lifted;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (#102) is denied; and 

3. The May 30, 2008 scheduling order is amended as follows:

A. The parties may conduct discovery until April 6, 2010. Any

motions to compel must be filed by that date. Any requests for

discovery must be served no later than sixty days from this order.

B. All pretrial motions, except motions to compel discovery, shall

be filed on or before June 6, 2010. Motions shall be briefed in

accordance with paragraph 7 of this court's order filed June 14,

2006. 

C. Dates for the filing of pretrial statements and trial will be set, if

necessary, at a later date. 

DATED: January 7, 2010. 

1

payn1585.sty

Case 2:04-cv-01585-MCE -KJM Document 103 Filed 01/07/10 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY JACKSON SEELEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1800 DFL CMK P

vs.

TERESA A. SCHWARTZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 / ORDER

Plaintiff brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This

proceeding was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 72-302 by the authority of 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). On March 27, 2006, plaintiff filed “Plaintiff’s Motion for Dual Justice.” In his

motion, plaintiff asks for “‘consideration’ treatment for all parties involved, concerning motions,

rulings, hearings, and notifications.”

Plaintiff seeks no relief in his action. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT

plaintiff’s motion for “Dual Justice” (doc. 101) is denied. 

DATED: March 29, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01800-DFL-CMK Document 102 Filed 03/30/06 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

Case 2:04-cv-01800-DFL-CMK Document 102 Filed 03/30/06 Page 2 of 2