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

FRED GRAVES,,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1279 LKK GGH P

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, et al.,

Respondents. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 9, 2005, petitioner filed a motion for a temporary

restraining order. Petitioner requests that prison officials be ordered not to transfer him for

ninety days. 

Petitioner believes that a transfer will harm his ability to proceed with his habeas

corpus actions because he might be transferred to a place where the court would no longer have

subject matter jurisdiction, and that petitioner needs to be close to those inmates who have

assisted him in his litigations.

Although there may be a subject matter jurisdiction issue because petitioner would

not be considered “in custody” for the prison disciplinary issues he seeks litigated in this habeas

corpus proceeding, petitioner’s transfer from his present place of incarceration to another

Case 2:04-cv-01279-LKK -GGH Document 22 Filed 05/23/05 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

institution will not affect the subject matter jurisdiction of this court. Assuming that petitioner’s

new custodian is located outside this district, this court would have jurisdiction over petitioner’s

case as long as he was “convicted” in this district. See 28 U.S.C. 2241(d). With respect to

petitioner’s desire not to be separated from those assisting him herein, the court finds that

petitioner would not suffer irreparable harm on account of a transfer. Moreover, plaintiff has no

right to be incarcerated only at that institution where it may be most advantageous to his interests

in this litigation. Finally, the court will be able to adjudicate this nearly completely briefed case

without problems occasioned by plaintiff’s transfer.

ACCORDINGLY, petitioner’s ex parte emergency request to stop his transfer

should be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 5/23/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:kj

gra1279.po

Case 2:04-cv-01279-LKK -GGH Document 22 Filed 05/23/05 Page 2 of 2
Before the Third Division,

November 23, 1954

No. 58529.

protest 218933-K (San Francisco).

#### North American Food Distributing Co. *v.*United States,

Ekwall, Judge:

This case involves an importation from Japan described on the invoice as “Canned Chicken & Mushroom Seasoned on Skewer,” entered at the port of San Francisco February 23, 1951. The collector of customs assessed duty thereon at the rate of 20 per centum ad valorem under the provisions in paragraph 1558 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as an unenumerated manufactured article. Plaintiff claims it is properly dutiable at 10 cents per pound under paragraph 712 of the same act, which provides, among other things, for birds, prepared or preserved in any manner and not specially provided for.

At the trial, plaintiff introduced the *testimony*of Mr. Z. S. Brown, a United States examiner of merchandise at San Francisco, the port of entry. He testified that the merchandise in suit consisted of sliced, seasoned, cooked chicken, the slices being very small, about 2 inches in diameter. Between each piece of chicken, there was a piece of prepared mushroom, and they were fastened together by means of a skewer, which was approximately 5 inches long. About five of these skewers were in each tin. This witness further testified that the proper rate of duty was 10 cents a pound under paragraph 712, *supra,*as “other prepared fowl.” Both sides submitted the case upon this record, together with the official papers transmitted to the court by the collector of customs.

We have been unable to find the designation “other prepared fowl” in the Tariff Act of 1930, or modifications thereto. However, it is apparent that the witness referred to the provision in said paragraph 712 for “all other” birds than those described therein, which are prepared or preserved in any manner and not specially provided for. (See T. D. 51802, T. D. 51909, and T. D. 52587.)

The description of the merchandise given by this witness does not disclose the proportional amounts of chicken and mushrooms in the tins, nor does the court have the benefit of a sample of the merchandise. However, in view of the admission against interest on the part of the Government examiner, we sustain plaintiff's claim that the merchandise invoiced as “Canned Chicken & Mushroom Seasoned on Skewer” should be assessed at 10 cents per pound under paragraph 712 *439of the Tariff Act of 1930. In view of the meager record, this decision is limited to this particular case.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 6539.

#### STATE, EX REL., EDNA I. CONNELL, ET AL., vs. JAMES T. BOULET, ET AL.

Syllabus.

On Motion to Dismiss Appeal.

In a proceeding by mandamus to order tbe Register of Conveyances to cancel tbe inscription of a tax sale contradictorily with the purchaser at tax sale, the Register is only a nominal, party to the appeal and need not be cited.

Though the name of the surety is not inserted in the body of an appeal bond, the fact that such surety has signed the bond under the name of the principal is sufficient.

Appeal from the Civil District 'Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “B,” No. 113,320. Honorable P. D. King, Judge.

C. P. Starkey, K. V. Richard and Theo. Cotonio, attorneys.

A. Landry, W. C. Jones, for defendant and appellant.

His Honor, CHARLES P. CLAIBORNE,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

This is a proceeding by mandamus by which relators pray for an order commanding the Register of Conveyances to cancel from the books of his office the inscription of an act of sale to James T. Boulet of relators’ property for taxes on the several grounds mentioned in the petition. Boulet and the Register of Conveyances are made defendants in the suit.

The mandamus was made peremptory, and Boulet has appealed by petition. The appeal was made returnable on October 11th, 1915. The transcript was filed October 8th, 1915.

*210Opinion and decree, November 8th, 1915.

The appellees move to dismiss the appeal on two grounds, viz: 1st. That the Register of Conveyances is a necessary party to the appeal and has not been made a party nor has he been cited. This is an error. The Register of Conveyances was only a nominal party without interest, and therefore was not a necessary party to the appeal.

Louque’s Digest, page 42, 5 (sat) No. 1.

2nd. That no surety is named in the bond of appeal.

The Supreme Court of this State has decided that “though the name of the surety is not inserted in the body of an appeal bond,'the fact that such surety has signed the bond under the name of the principal is sufficient. ”

33 A., 1461; 34 A., 541; 6 A., 74 .

Motion 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL A. TRAHAN,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-1371-GEB-PAN (JFM)-P

vs.

 STOCKTON POLICE DEPT., et al.,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On February 8, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Neither

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01371-GEB-PAN Document 20 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

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 8, 2006 are adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ June 22, 2005 motion to dismiss is granted; and

3. This action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be

granted.

Dated: March 29, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01371-GEB-PAN Document 20 Filed 03/30/06 Page 2 of 2
MEMORANDUM

DATE: 12/1/14

FROM: Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

SUBJECT: Discussion of the Clean Power Plan at a Roundtable with Small Businesses in 

Chattanooga, TN

SUMMARY: 

Region 4 provided information on the Clean Power Plan to small business owners at a business 

roundtable focused on climate change and green energy options. The roundtable took place in 

Chattanooga, TN on July 28, 2014. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was 

proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES:

EPA

Heather McTeer Toney/EPA R4 

Brandi Jenkins/EPA R4

Bryan Myers/EPA R4

External Stakeholders

Andy Berke/Mayor Chattanooga, TN 

20 Small Business Owners
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 60-14 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 1 of 3

BLACKWATER SECURITY CONSULTING, LLC et al v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY et al Doc. 60 Att. 13

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 60-14 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 60-14 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 3 of 3
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 19, 2019

No. 04-19-00538-CV

William Alec TISDALL, M.D. and William A. Tisdall, M.D., P.A. d/b/a Spine & Joint Pain 

Specialists,

Appellants

v.

Thomas VAREBROOK and Rebecca Varebrook,

Appellees

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-CI-06007

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The reporter’s record in this appeal was originally due September 9, 2019; however, we 

granted the court reporter Amy L. Hinds, an extension of time until October 9, 2019 to file it. On 

October 11, 2019, Hinds filed a request for further extension of time, explaining she had been in 

trial for four weeks. On October 18, 2019, we issued an order granting the motion in part and 

ordering Hinds to file the record by November 8, 2019. Our order advised Hinds that the court 

would not grant a further extension of time unless she filed a timely notification that “(1) 

establishes there are extraordinary circumstances that prevent her from timely filing the record, (2) 

provides the court a status report showing the parts of the record that have been completed and a 

detailed breakdown of what remains to be done, and (3) provides the court reasonable assurance 

the record will be completed and filed by the requested extended deadline.” We further advised 

Hinds that is she were “unable to perform all her duties and complete the record in a timely 

manner, she must take whatever steps are necessary, including requesting a substitute reporter or 

hiring competent assistance, so that she may timely complete and file the record in this appeal.”

Hinds did not file the record by November 8. However, on November 14, she filed another 

notification of late record, requesting an extension until December 16. The only reason stated for 

failing to file the record is “I am in trial again.” The notification does not satisfy any of the three 

requirements of our October 18, 2019 order, nor does it indicate that Hinds has requested a 

substitute reporter or hired assistance in order to timely prepare and file the record. 
We therefore hold the requested extension of time in abeyance. We order Hinds to file a 

notification that complies with our October 18, 2019 order by 9:00 a.m. on November. If Hinds 

fails to comply with this order, the requested extension of time will be denied and Hinds may be 

ordered to appear and show cause why she should not be held in civil or criminal contempt. 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 19th day of November, 2019.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARNEST CASSELL WOODS II,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1225 LKK GGH P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed with this action in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s August 24, 2005, request

for appointment of a qualified medical examiner.

 The court has broad discretion to appoint experts in a litigation, and in cases

where a party is indigent, the court can apportion all of the cost to the non-indigent party. 

McKinney v. Anderson, 924 F.2d 1500, 1511 (9th Cir. 1991), judgment vacated on other

grounds, Helling v. McKinney, 502 U.S. 903, 112 S.Ct. 291 (1991), on remand initial judgment

reaffirmed, 951 F.2d 853, aff'd. sub nom. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 113 S.Ct. 2745

(1993). However, in order for prisoner litigation to have some economic sanity, the court's

discretion to appoint expert witnesses at the cost of the party who already has such witnesses, i.e.,

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 42 Filed 10/26/05 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

ultimately the state's taxpayers, should be exercised in only extraordinary situations. In another

context, such was the holding of In re Joint E. & S. Dists. Asbestos Litigation, 830 F.Supp. 686,

693 (E. & S. D.N.Y. 1993). 

The standard that this court employs in prisoner litigation, to determine whether

the situation is an extraordinary one, encompasses two factors: (1) indigency, and (2) a showing

that an expert is necessary to prevent a potential miscarriage of justice, i.e., the court believes

there is a significant possibility that an expert would change the outcome of the case in favor of

the party who requests the expert assistance. The latter showing is necessarily difficult in that a

plaintiff quite often would desire to have access to the expert before having to make such a

showing. However, this court has appointed experts in prisoner litigation previously and has

been able to discern the appropriate showing from the medical records or other exhibits))

generally, gross disparities in proper conduct/treatment are evident to the lay person.

Plaintiff has not shown a significant possibility that an expert would change the

outcome of the case in his favor. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for a courtappointed qualified medical examiner filed August 24, 2005 is denied.

DATED: 10/25/05 

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:kf

wood1225.31c

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 42 Filed 10/26/05 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:04-cv-01644-GEB-DAD   Document 12    Filed 01/12/06   Page 1 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-01644-GEB-DAD   Document 12    Filed 01/12/06   Page 2 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-01644-GEB-DAD   Document 12    Filed 01/12/06   Page 3 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-01644-GEB-DAD   Document 12    Filed 01/12/06   Page 4 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-01644-GEB-DAD   Document 12    Filed 01/12/06   Page 5 of 5

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-27T09:52:57-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
No. 55905.

protest 165063-K (Milwaukee).

#### The Louis Allis Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It appearing that the plaintiff abandoned the claim in this protest, same was dismissed.
Order filed December 15 , 2011

.

In The


## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14

- 11

- 00 789

- CV

____________ FALCON CREST AVIATION SUPPLY, INC. , Appellant

V.

JET MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., MIKE HANZEL, W.C.S. ONE, L.L.C. AND

HOSSEIN TARAGHI , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 129 th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2010

- 53397



### O R D E R

Appellant ' s brief was due November 17, 2011 . No brief or motion for extension of

time has been filed.
Unless appellant submits its brief, and a motion reasonably explaining why the brief

was late, to the Clerk of this Court on or before January 17 , 201 2 , the Court will dismiss
the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
No. 51389.

#### Protests 48411-K, etc., of Stone & Downer Co. et al. (Boston).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within *211the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Exhibit
      31.1








CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER




I,
      Zuo
      Sheng Yu, certify that:




1.  I
      have
      reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of General Steel Holdings, Inc.;




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.  The
      registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
      maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
      Rules
      13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we 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 us 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 and
      presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness
      of
      the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
      by
      this report based on such evaluation;




(c)  Disclosed
      in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that
      has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
      registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and




5.  The
      registrant’s other certifying officer and 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 and material weaknesses in the design or operation
      of
      internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
      adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
      report financial information; 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.



















Date:
                November 14, 2006/s/
                Zuo Sheng Yu________________________By:
                Zuo Sheng YuTitle:
                Chief Executive Officer and
                President
Case 2:04-cv-01523-MCE -GGH   Document 34    Filed 06/06/06   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-26T03:53:28-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO