alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANGELINA DETTAMANTI, Individually 

and as former Trustee of the Carrari Family 

Trust, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

TIMOTHY J. STAFFEL, individually and in 

his official capacity as Judicial Officer of 

Santa Barbara Superior Court, et al.

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-55272

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01230-CBM-PLA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Consuelo B. Marshall, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 4, 2020**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Angelina Dettamanti appeals from the district court’s order denying 

injunctive relief and dismissing sua sponte her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-55272

from state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

review for an abuse of discretion the denial of injunctive and de novo interpretation 

of the underlying legal principles. Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 

F.3d 953, 958-59 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Dettamanti’s motion for injunctive relief 

and dismissed her claims against Judge Staffel in his individual capacity on the 

basis of judicial immunity because Dettamanti failed to allege facts sufficient to 

show that Judge Staffel acted “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction or

perform[ed] an act that [was] not judicial in nature.” Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 

F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988) (explaining judicial immunity doctrine); see also 

Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 1996) (judicial immunity extends 

to declaratory and other equitable relief), superseded by statute on other grounds.

The district court properly denied Dettamanti’s motion for injunctive relief 

and dismissed her claims against Judge Staffel in his official capacity on the basis 

of Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Flint v. Dennison, 488 F.3d 816, 824-25 

(9th Cir. 2007) (state officials sued in their official capacities are entitled to 

Eleventh Amendment immunity).

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

IN RE: JOHN R. BAILEY, CHESTER 

COUNTY, MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 15-4-

03 

PETITION OF: THOMAS A. RILEY, JR. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 144 EM 2016 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 15th day of September, 2016, the Petition by Thomas A. Riley, 

Jr. for Allowance of Subpoena Pursuant to Pa.R.J.A. 1701 is DENIED. Rule 1701(b) 

requires special allowance by this Court for the issuance of a subpoena directed to a 

judicial officer to testify as a character witness. Pursuant to paragraphs 6-8 of the 

Petition, Petitioner does not seek to elicit character testimony from Magisterial Judge 

John R. Bailey. As Petitioner has not requested special allowance from this Court to 

permit character testimony from a judicial officer, Rule 1701(b) has no application in this 

circumstance.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 10193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3971]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-183-000]


ANR Storage Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

February 27, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 22, 2007, ANR Storage Company (ANR 
Storage) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original 
Volume No. 1, Seventh Revised Sheet No. 147, with an effective date of 
April 1, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4c0a091e0f0322202522291f393c3c233e380c2a293e2f622b233a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="30767562737f5e5c595e55634540405f424470565542531e575f46">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-3971 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 2012 - 1018 Directorate ID : 2011 - SW - 052 - AD Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France Model EC 155B, EC155B1, SA - 365N1, AS - 365N2 and AS 365 N3 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 34 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : These actions are intended to prevent the tail rotor from jamming, which could lead to reduced or loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ Labor per Helicopter ( 1 x $ 8 5 /work - hour p er inspection) $ 85 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 425 per year Total US Fleet Cost $ 14,450 per year Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory

Flexibility

Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Robert Grant
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 9967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3919]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated October 11, 2006, and published in the Federal 
Register on October 18, 2006, (71 FR 61511), Varian, Inc., Lake Forest, 
25200 Commercentre Drive, Lake Forest, California 92630-8810, made 
application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to 
be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled 
substances listed in schedule II:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phencyclidine (7471).......................  II
1-Piperidinocyclohexane-carbonitrile (8603)  II
Benzoylecgonine (9180).....................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture small quantities of the listed 
controlled substances for use in diagnostic products.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of 
Varian, Inc., Lake Forest to manufacture the listed basic classes of 
controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this 
time. DEA has investigated Varian, Inc., Lake Forest to ensure that the 
company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The 
investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's 
physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance 
with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and 
history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 
21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a 
bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.

    Dated: February 26, 2007.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-3919 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
Case 2:04-cv-01724-JAM -KJM   Document 43    Filed 02/03/06   Page 1 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-01724-JAM -KJM   Document 43    Filed 02/03/06   Page 2 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-01724-JAM -KJM   Document 43    Filed 02/03/06   Page 3 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-01724-JAM -KJM   Document 43    Filed 02/03/06   Page 4 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-01724-JAM -KJM   Document 43    Filed 02/03/06   Page 5 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-01724-JAM -KJM   Document 43    Filed 02/03/06   Page 6 of 6

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-21T19:16:22-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
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

MARCUS R. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1343 FCD CMK P

vs.

DAVID TRISTAN, et al.,

Defendants. 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 March 22, 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 twenty 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 analysis.

Case 2:04-cv-01343-FCD-CMK Document 6 Filed 04/28/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 22, 2005, are adopted in full;

and

2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies.

DATED: April 27, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

/will1343.804

Case 2:04-cv-01343-FCD-CMK Document 6 Filed 04/28/05 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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 JAVIER RAIGOZA )

) 2:04-cv-1208-GEB-KJM 

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v. ) AND CONTINUING STATUS

) (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)

ARAMARK CORPORATION; ARAMARK ) CONFERENCE

UNIFORM AND CAREER APPAREL GROUP, )

INC.; MICHAEL BRODEUR; BILL )

VERVALIN; KERM HANSEN; JACOB )

VERVALIN, )

)

Defendants. )

)

By order filed November 30, 2005, a final pretrial

conference was scheduled in this case for January 9, 2006. The

parties were required to file a joint pretrial statement no later than

January 3, 2006. (November 30 Order at 3.) Defendant timely filed a

document on January 3 titled “Joint Pretrial Statement” and a

declaration. In his declaration, defense counsel explained why

plaintiff’s counsel’s signature did not appear on this document. The

Clerk’s Office issued a notice to the parties on January 4, 2006,

instructing them to re-submit the document with both attorney’s

signatures. Plaintiff responded to that notice at 10:31 p.m. on

January 4, 2006. This response indicates that plaintiff did not

authorize defendant to file a joint pretrial statement on plaintiff’s

behalf. Due to the parties’ failure to timely file a genuine joint

Case 2:04-cv-01208-GEB -KJM Document 98 Filed 01/05/06 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

27

28

1 “If the fault lies with the attorney, that is where the

impact of sanction should be lodged. If the fault lies with the

clients, that is where the impact of the sanction should be

lodged.” Matter of Sanction of Baker, 744 F.2d 1438, 1442 (10th

Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1014 (1985). Sometimes the

faults of attorneys, and their consequences, are visited upon

clients. In re Hill, 775 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1985).

2

pretrial statement as ordered, the final pretrial conference is reset

to February 13, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. The parties must file a joint

pretrial statement no later than 4:00 p.m. on January 23, 2006.

Further, each party and counsel are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE

(OSC), in a written statement required to be filed not later than

January 23, 2006, why sanctions should not be imposed against each

party and/or counsel under Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure because of the failure to file a joint pretrial statement. 

The written responses shall state whether a party or counsel is at

fault and whether a hearing is requested on the OSC.1 If a hearing is

requested, the OSC will be heard at 2:30 p.m. on February 13, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01208-GEB -KJM Document 98 Filed 01/05/06 Page 2 of 2
RIN 2060-AP52 

 12/16/2011 08:18 PM 

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

 

To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

 

Cc: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Amy Cole/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Hi, 

Can you have the attached clean files uploaded by OP into ROCIS? I’ve 

opened it for amendment. I’ll be sending the rest of the clean RIA in a 

subsequent email. 

 

Regards, 

Cortney 

EO12866NESHAPMACT_NSPSforUtilitiesMATS2060_AP52Final20111216a.docx 

 

ROCIS_MATS_1216.xlsx 

 

MATS Cover Page.doc 

 

MATS Back Cover.doc 

 

MATS TOC updated.doc 

 

ROCIS_MATS_1216.xlsx 

 

MATS TOC.DOC 

 

0_Executive SummaryMATS_1216_FINAL.DOC 

 

Chapter 2_ElectricPowerSectorProfile_1216_FINAL.DOC 
 

Chapter 1_IntroductionBackground_1216_FINAL.DOC 

 

Chapter 3_CostEconomicEnergy_1216_FINAL.DOCX 

 

Chapter 4_mercuryHAPbenefits_1216_FINAL.DOCX
EXHIBIT 32.2


                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 m-Wise, Inc. ("the Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Gabriel Kabazo, 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 to my knowledge:

            (1) the Report fully comply 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 result of operations of the
Company.

GABRIEL KABAZO
Gabriel Kabazo, Chief Financial Officer

Dated: August 16, 2004




                                      -35-
<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,375
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,858
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,233
<PP&E>                                          76,803
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,220)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  84,539
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,717
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           51,664
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           921
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,372
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    84,539
<SALES>                                         19,134
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,134
<CGS>                                           16,242
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,242
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,378
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    522
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (141)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       663
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 10.25**

**EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

THIS AGREEMENT made as of the 28th day of November, 2005

BETWEEN:

**TERASEN GAS INC.**, a body corporate incorporated under the laws of British Columbia

(“Employer”)

AND:

**RANDALL JESPERSEN**

(“Employee”)

WHEREAS:

A.

The Employee has been an Employee of the Employer since March 25, 1996; and

B.

Kinder Morgan, Inc. is acquiring all of shares of Terasen Inc. and consequently is acquiring all of Terasen Inc.’s wholly owned subsidiaries****pursuant to a plan of arrangement between Kinder Morgan, Inc., 0731297 B.C. Ltd. and Terasen Inc. (the “Plan of Arrangement”) and the Employee has agreed to enter into a new employment relationship following the Plan of Arrangement on new terms and conditions as set forth in this Agreement.

NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants and agreements set out in this Agreement and other good and valuable consideration given by each party hereto to the other, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by each of the parties, the parties hereby agree as follows:

**PART 1 - DEFINITIONS**

1.1

In this Agreement, the following terms shall have the following definitions:

(a)

“Annual Salary” means the annual base salary to be paid to the Employee as stated in Section 4.1 of this Agreement or as may subsequently be established by the Board as the annual base salary payable to the Employee by the Employer;

(b)

“Board” means the Board of Directors of the Employer;

(c)

"Change in Control" means the occurrence of one or more of the following events:

i)

any "person," as such term is defined in the *Income Tax Act*(Canada) (other than Kinder Morgan, any trustee or other fiduciary holding securities under an employee benefit plan of Kinder Morgan or any corporation owned, directly or indirectly, by the shareholders of Kinder
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      12,898,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               57,856,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,161,000
<INVENTORY>                                 69,394,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           167,575,000
<PP&E>                                      72,452,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              27,353,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             293,175,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       66,604,000
<BONDS>                                     39,980,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,822,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 139,494,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               293,175,000
<SALES>                                    342,315,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           342,315,000
<CGS>                                      243,751,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              327,040,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (5,760,000)<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,214,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             19,821,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 6,739,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         13,082,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                13,082,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.55
<FN>
<F1><OTHER - EXPENSES> includes equity in income of other operations to be disposed
of, $ 3,144,000.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.2





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 Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Carter J Ward, Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Registrant, 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) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)       Information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.





Date:
      November 15,
      2010
                
                /s/ Carter J. WardCarter
      J. WardChief
      Financial Officer ofElite
      Pharmaceuticals, Inc.(Principal
      Accounting and Financial
Officer





This
certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.