alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-3386EM

_____________ Richard P. Hayden, * * Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Missouri. Steve Palmer, Officer; Unknown * Gregory, Captain; Unknown Cooksey, * [UNPUBLISHED] Officer, * * Appellees. *

_____________ Submitted: August 4, 1998

Filed: August 11, 1998

_____________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Richard P . Hayden appeals the district court's adverse grant of summar y judgment in Hayden's civil rights lawsuit. After careful review of the record and the parties' b riefs, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hayde n appointed counsel. We also conclude the district court correctly granted summar y judgmentr elief and further discussion is not warranted. We affirm. See 8th Cir. R
. 47B.-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Appendix E:  Search Strategies

CENTRAL Core Search Strategy

1.	acne-vulgaris*.me

2.	acne*.tw

3.	#1 or #2

PubMed Core Strategy

(((randomized controlled trial [pt] OR controlled clinical trial [pt] OR randomized controlled

trials [mh] OR random allocation [mh] OR double-blind method [mh] OR single-blind method

[mh] OR clinical trial [pt] OR clinical trials [mh] OR (clinic* [tw] AND trial* [tw]) OR ((singl*

[tw] OR doubl* [tw] OR trebl* [tw] OR tripl* [tw]) AND (mask* [tw] OR blind* [tw])) OR

(latin [tw] AND square [tw]) OR placebos [mh] OR placebo* [tw] OR random* [tw] OR

research design [mh:noexp]) NOT (animal [mh] NOT human [mh]))) AND (acne vulgaris[mh]

OR acne*[tw])

OLDMEDLINE Core Search Strategy

acne vulgaris (kw) OR (acne (tw) and vulgaris (tw))

OLDMEDLINE Text Search Strategy

acne (kw) OR acne (tw)

CINAHL® Core Search Strategy

Acne/ or acne vulgaris.ti,sh,ab,it

PsycINFO® Core Search Strategy

acne vulgaris [words anywhere] OR acne [words anywhere]

Supplemental Search Strategy: Cost

(acne vulgaris [mh] OR acne [tw]) AND ("economics"[Subheading] OR "financial

management"[mh] OR "economics"[mh] OR economics[tw] or "costs and cost analysis"[mh] OR

cost*[tw])
#### RAZOR USA, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ASA PRODUCTS, INC., HL USA Corporation, Kash ‘N’ Gold, Ltd., Rapid Suspension Technology USA, Inc. (doing business as Mozo USA), Sun Ram Products, Inc., Variflex, Inc., the Children’s Place Retail Stroes, Inc., Todo Dollar Wholesale, Inc., Zscotter, Inc., K-2 Corporation and K-2, Incorporated, Defendants, and Gen-X Sports, Inc., Defendant-Appellant. Razor USA, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ASA Products, Inc., HL USA Corporation, Kash ‘N’ Gold, Ltd., Rapid Suspension Technology USA, Inc. (doing business as Mozo USA), Sun Ram Products, Inc., Variflex, Inc., the Children’s Place Retail Stroes, Inc., Todo Dollar Wholesale, Inc., Zscotter, Inc., K-2 Corporation and K-2, Incorporated, Defendants, and Titan, Inc. (doing business as Titan Scooters), Wysco, Inc., and Yunn Ha-aur Enterprises, Inc., Defendants-Appellants, and Zenital, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 01-1143, 01-1134, 01-1142.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 4, 2001.

ON MOTION

*ORDER*

Gen-X Sports, Inc. moves to voluntarily dismiss its appeal, no. 01-1143.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted and appeal no. 01-1143 is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

(3) The revised official captions are reflected above.
No. 46696.

#### Protest 2267-K of Wm. J. Jones & Co. (Philadelphia).

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 only on the net footage imported. The protest' was sustained to that extent.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### 2011 -NM - 043 - AD These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### FAA - 2011 - 0997 response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

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

    The following certification is being furnished solely to accompany the
Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 'SS'1350 and in accordance with SEC Release No.
33-8238. This certification shall not be deemed 'filed' for purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, nor shall it be
incorporated by reference in any filing of the Company under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of
any general incorporation language in such filing.

    In connection with the Annual Report of J. W. Mays, Inc. (the 'Company') on
Form 10-K for the period ending July 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the 'Report'), we, Lloyd J. Shulman and Mark S. Greenblatt,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 'SS'1350, as adopted pursuant to 'SS'906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our 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.

October 13, 2005

                                             /s/ LLOYD J. SHULMAN
                                          --------------------------
                                             Lloyd J. Shulman
                                             Chief Executive Officer

                                             /s/ MARK S. GREENBLATT
                                          --------------------------
                                             Mark S. Greenblatt
                                             Chief Financial Officer

    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to J.W. Mays, Inc. and will be retained by J. W. Mays, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 2:04-cv-01657-AK   Document 185    Filed 01/27/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-30T11:56:35-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 29, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10540

MIGLENA ANGEL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE BOEING COMPANY RETIREE HEALTH 

AND WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

Before GARWOOD, SMITH and DEMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Having considered the oral argument of counsel, the briefs of

the parties, and the pertinent portions of the record, we affirm

the judgment of the district court essentially for the reasons

stated in its April 11, 2006 memorandum opinion.

AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Airman JOSHUA B. COLLYMORE

United States Air Force

ACM S32222

29 December 2014

Sentence adjudged 31 January 2014 by SPCM convened at Cannon Air 

Force Base, New Mexico. Military Judge: Christopher M. Schumann

(sitting alone).

Approved Sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 7 months, 

and reduction to E-1.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Captain Melissa Biedermann.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Lieutenant Colonel Katherine E. 

Oler.

Before

MITCHELL, WEBER, and BENNETT

Appellate Military Judges

This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent 

under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

PER CURIAM:

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error 

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occurred.* Article 66(c), 

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c); United States v. Reed, 54 M.J. 37, 41 (C.A.A.F. 2000). 

 

 The Court notes that the Court-Martial Order (CMO), dated 14 March 2014 incorrectly omits the minor changes 

(pen & ink changes) to Specification 2 of Charge II and lists the incorrect dates for Specification 2 of Charge IV. 

The Court orders the promulgation of a corrected CMO.
2 ACM S32222

Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

STEVEN LUCAS

Clerk of the Court
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

VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0776 LKK PAN P

vs.

D. L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On March 13, 2006, plaintiff filed a document styled “Acknowledgment of the

Receipt of Documents,” with six summons forms, six copies of the January 9, 2006, amended

complaint and a document styled, “Motion to Lodge Matter in Judge’s Chambers.” On March

22, 2006, plaintiff filed a document styled, “Notice of Submission of Documents” with 35

summons forms, 36 copies of the January 9, 2006, amended complaint. On March 23, 2006,

plaintiff filed a document styled, “Acknowledgment of the Receipt of Documents,” with one

copy of the second-amended complaint and two motions to lodge documents.

These filings have no basis in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 60 Filed 05/18/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the court will disregard the

documents filed March 13, 2006, March 22, 2006, and March 23, 2006. The Clerk of the Court

is directed to make a notation on the requests to that effect.

DATED: May 17, 2006.

\004;john0776.disregard(2)

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 60 Filed 05/18/06 Page 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 3, 2018

d1220 

# Order

Clerk January 3, 2018

154716

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 154716

COA: 333566 Wayne CC: 11

- 005203

- FC KEVIN LAMAR HILL,
Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of September 12, 2017, the defendant’s former appellate counsel was
directed to file a supplemental brief. On order of the Court, the brie f having been
received, the application for leave to appeal the September 9, 2016 order of the Court of
Appeals is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave
to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court to rea ppoint attorney
Arthur J. Rubiner, if feasible, to represent the defendant as on direct appellate review. If
this appointment is not feasible, the trial court shall appoint other counsel to represent the

defendant. See Halbert v Michigan , 545 US 605; 125 S Ct 2582; 162 L Ed 2d 552
(2005). The record reflects that defendant’s former appellate counsel did not contact the
defendant in a timely manner, did not adequately review the record and determine that
nothing might arguably support an appeal, and did n ot move for substitution of counsel
until the deadline for filing a direct appeal was imminent. Thus, through no fault of the
defendant, he lost the right to seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals on direct
review. On remand, appellate counsel, onc e appointed, may file an application for leave
to appeal in the Court of Appeals for consideration under the standard for direct appeals,
and/or any appropriate postconviction motions in the circuit court, within six months of

the date of the circuit court ’s order appointing or reappointing counsel. Counsel may
include among the issues raised, but is not required to include, the issues that were raised
on behalf of the defendant in the motion for relief from judgment that was filed in 2016.

Costs are imp osed against the attorney, Suzanna Kostovski, only, in the amount of $500, to be paid to the Clerk of this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed December 12, 2013.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-01007-CV

IN RE J.C. PENNEY COMPANY INC., ET AL, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-00735

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices O'Neill, Lang-Miers, and Evans 

Opinion by Justice Evans

Before the Court is the joint motion of the parties to dismiss the above-captioned 

mandamus proceeding pursuant to which the parties advise the court that they have entered a 

settlement agreement and have dismissed the action from which this mandamus proceeding 

arose. The Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss. Accordingly, we DISMISS relator’s petition 

for writ of mandamus as moot. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1 (a)(2).

 

131007F.P05

/David W. Evans/

DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
Sincerely,

George T. Czerniak Director Air and Radiation Division \ -eD

.7

o UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( - 3 5 REGION 5 77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD
RO CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590 .4 P



## FEB 2 5 2016 Mr. Keith Baugues Assistant Commissioner Office of Air Quality Indiana Department of Environmental Management 100 North Senate Avenue Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Dear Mr. Baugues: REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF:

This letter is in response to your October 2, 2015 submittal of the "Revisions to the Indiana State Implementation Plan for Sulfur Dioxide and the Final 1-hour Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Demonstration and Technical Support Document for Central, West Central, and Southwest Indiana Nonattainment Areas." This submittal contains nonattairnnent plan provisions, as obligated by Section 172(c) of the Clean Air Act, for the areas designated nonattainment by EPA (78 FR. 47192) effective October 4, 2013, under the 2010 sulfur dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard. We have performed a completeness review of your submittal against the completeness criteria set forth at 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V. We have determined that this SIP submittal satisfies the completeness criteria. A finding of completeness merely indicates that the submittal meets the criteria that any plan must satisfy for EPA to take rulemaking action on it. A completeness finding is not a finding on the merits of the plan or whether it meets EPA's State Implementation Plan approval requirements. If you have any questions or need additional information please contact me, or Jenny Li lj egren, of my staff, at 312-886-6832.

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (100% Post-Consumer)
KENNETH SMITH

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 3577

__________ ___________________/

Opinion filed April 6, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. William E. Davis

, Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Barbara J. Busharis , Assistant Public

Defender, Tallahassee

, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Ap pellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., SWANSON, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
No. 60846.

#### Aero Sea Shipping Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 275355-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
# MDE MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 1800 Washin g ton Boule vard • Balt i more MD 21230 410-537-3000 • 1-800-633-6101 • www.mde.maryland.gov Larry H o g

an Governor Boyd Ru the rfo rd Lieute n ant Gov ernor


### VIA EMAIL AND FEDEX Cristina Ferna nd e z, Assoc i at e Dir ec to r Office of Air Pro gram Plann i n g ( 3 A P 30) Air Protecti on Division U. S. Environm e nt a l Protection Ag e ncy, Reg ion III 1650 Arch Street Philadelph i a, PA 19103 -202 3 J a nuary 15, 2016 Ben Grumb l e s Secretary



### RE : Air Dispersion Modelin g of Sulfur Dioxide Pollution from Maryland's ff.A
. Wag ner, C.P. Crane and Brandon Shores Electric Generating Plants Dear Ms : - Fern a ooez:' 

# L /t S

# h ,,... .:. '
Attached f or your information is a copy of a ir dis persi on modelin g th a t R a ven Power, subsid i ary o f Talen Ener g y, ha s conducted throu g h contractor AECOM
. This will 

### be part of the modelin g pac ka g e described in the November 20, 2015, Maryland Governor's recomm e nd ation le tte r to EPA
. Th e attached modelin g supports the conclusion from the November 2 0 letter that the H
. A. Wa g ner Generatin g Sta ti on area is attainin g the I-hour sulfur diox i de (S0 2 ) nat i onal ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The area s hows a modeled desi g n value of 1 8 6 mi c rograms per mete r cubed (μglm 3 ), equal to 71 pph, which is below the 75 ppb 8 0 2 standard. Also attached for your informa tion are our initial comm e nts on the mod e lin g pa c kag e that Si e rra Club sent t o us i n June 2015. W e continue to hav e conc e rns that th e Sierra Club modelin g was limited and overly simplistic for a n is s ue as important as desi g nation s. If I may prov ide further I nformat i on, please contact me at 410-537-3255 or by e mail at g

eor g e.aburn @ mar yland. g ov . S i ncerely, 

# ---**~** Geor g e (T a d) S. Aburn, Jr. Director of Air and Radiation Manag e ment Administration Enclosures

## ~ Re cycled l'

- a J'k'f www .mde. maryland. g ov IT Y Ul!C I'!\**llflll· 7]** **25 1!**  V

ia Ma ry lan d Rel a y Serv ice
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 AMP Productions, Ltd. on Form 10-QSB
for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas E. Mills, Chief
Executive Officer, President, and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
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, as amended; and

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


Date: November 1, 2006     By /s/ Thomas Mills
                           Thomas E. Mills
                           President & Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 9999]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3814]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2006-26555]


The New Car Assessment Program; Suggested Approaches for 
Enhancements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Correction of Public Hearing Time.

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

Correction

    In notice document Volume 72 Number 16 beginning on page 3473 on 
the issue date of January 25, 2007, make the following correction to 
the meeting time posted:
    1. On page 3473, under Public Hearing, the beginning time is 
corrected to read as 8:30 a.m.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30111, 30168; delegation of authority at 49 
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: February 27, 2007.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
 [FR Doc. E7-3814 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
No. 48497.

#### Protests 58496-K, etc., of Butler Bros. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
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

[Proposed] Order Granting Defendants’ Second Request for Extension of Time

1

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

JAMES M. HUMES

Chief Assistant Attorney General

FRANCES T. GRUNDER

Senior Assistant Attorney General

ALVIN GITTISRIBOONGUL

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

REBECCA M. ARMSTRONG-GRAU, SBN 227452

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 327-5686

Fax: (916) 324-5205

Attorneys for Defendants Coles, Daly, Goldberg and

Houge

SA2005300262

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

WILLIAM JACKSON KITCHENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAT HOUGE, et al. ,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 2:04-cv-1206 MCE PAN (JFM)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

FIRST AND SECOND REQUESTS FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME

GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, Defendants are granted an additional

thirty days up to and including July 17, 2006, within which to file a response to Plaintiff’s

discovery requests.

DATED: July 17, 2006.

kitc1206.ext

Case 2:04-cv-01206-MCE -EFB Document 63 Filed 07/19/06 Page 1 of 1