alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ROBINS, KAPLAN,

MILLER & CIRESI 

L.L.P. 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

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 - DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AND ORDER

David E. Bland, Bar No. 150581 

DEBland@rkmc.com

Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P 

Suite 3700, 

2049 Century Park East 

Los Angeles, CA 90067-3211 

Telephone: 310-552-0130 

Facsimile: 310-229-5800 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Indian Harvest Specialtifoods, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Indian Harvest Specialtifoods, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Westchester Fire Insurance Company, 

Defendant. 

Case No. CIV-S-04-1055 FCD (KJM) 

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AND 

ORDER 

This matter, having been resolved by the parties, is hereby dismissed with 

prejudice and without costs to either party hereto, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

DATED: December 30, 2005 ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.

By: s/ David E. Bland 

David E. Bland 

Suite 3700 

2049 Century Park East 

Los Angeles, CA 90067-3211 

310-552-0130 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

INDIAN HARVEST SPECIALTIFOODS, INC. 

Case 2:04-cv-01055-FCD-KJM Document 71 Filed 01/03/06 Page 1 of 2
ROBINS, KAPLAN,

MILLER & CIRESI 

L.L.P. 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

- 2 - DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AND ORDER

ORDER 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: __December 30, 2005 

 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

_________________________________ 

 Frank C. Damrell, Jr. 

 United States District Judge 

 

Case 2:04-cv-01055-FCD-KJM Document 71 Filed 01/03/06 Page 2 of 2
|  
Exhibit 23, Form 10-K

Kansas City Life Insurance Company

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors

Kansas City Life Insurance Company:

We consent to the use of our reports dated March 9, 2005, with respect to the consolidated statement of financial condition of Kansas City Life Insurance Company as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, included herein.

 

 

/s/KPMG LLP

KPMG LLP

Omaha, Nebraska

March 9, 2005

 

  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

CHRISTOPHER PATRICK MCGOWAN,

Petitioner

v.

WARDEN KEVIN KAUFFMAN,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 64 MM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13th day of September, 2019

, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Katy Industries,
Inc. (the registrant) for the year ended December 31, 2006;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this annual 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
annual report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers 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, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 annual report is being prepared;(b)
    
    [Omitted in reliance on SEC Release No. 33-8238; 34-47986 Section III.E];
 (c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in the annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report; and
 (d)
    
    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
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, 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 control over
financial reporting.
 Date: August 17, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Anthony T. Castor IIIAnthony T. Castor IIIChief Executive Officer
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ANDERSON, No. 2:04-cv-0583-MCE-DAD-P

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

 DOCTOR EXUM,

Defendant.

 /

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 June 27, 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.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00583-MCE -DAD Document 32 Filed 08/09/06 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:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 27, 2006, are adopted in full;

2. Defendant’s September 1, 2005 motion for summary judgment is granted; and

3. This action is dismissed.

DATED: August 8, 2006

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00583-MCE -DAD Document 32 Filed 08/09/06 Page 2 of 2
## F IFTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ C ase No. 5D 23- 2785 LT Case No. 2021

- CF

- 2822

_____________________________ L ATERRES B RYANT , A ppellant,

v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , A ppellee.

_____________________________
On a ppeal from the Circuit Court f or Duval County

. J e b B ranham , Ju dge

. Matthew J

. M etz, Public D efender, a nd Betty W yatt , Assistant Public D e fender, Daytona B e ach, for A ppellant. Ashley M oody, A tto rney G e neral, an d Julian E

. M arkham , Assistant A ttorney G e neral , Tallahassee , f or A ppellee. April 9, 2024

P ER C URIAM

. A FFIRMED

. W ALLIS , E ISNAUGLE , and S OU D , JJ., concur .2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331
.

_____________________________
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 Clifton Savings  Bancorp,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending  September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
John A.  Celentano,  Jr.,  Chief  Executive  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; and

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





                                                /s/ John A. Celentano, Jr.
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Chief Executive Officer

November 1, 2004
------------------------------
Date
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 4/4/2023 1

Ballot Access for a Minor Party 

in a Special Congressional Election 

Green Party of Arkansas v. Priest 

(George Howard, Jr., E.D. Ark. 4:01-cv-586) 

A September 4, 2001, federal complaint challenged a state’s ballotaccess laws, which made it impossible for the Green Party to offer a 

candidate in a November 20 special election to replace a member of 

Congress who had been given a presidential appointment. The district judge tentatively granted the plaintiffs relief after a September 

13 proceeding and issued an opinion confirming the injunction 

four days later: “The State has no compelling interest in allowing 

unrecognized parties to participate in some elections but not others.” The plaintiffs were awarded $10,165.58 in attorney fees and 

costs. 

Subject: Getting on the ballot. Topics: Getting on the ballot; 

attorney fees. 

On September 4, 2001, the Green Party, its candidate for a special election to 

Congress, and a voter filed a federal complaint in the Eastern District of Arkansas challenging Arkansas’s ballot-access laws for making it impossible for 

the Green Party to participate in the November 20 special election to replace 

Asa Hutchinson, whom the President had named administrator of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration.1

 With their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a 

motion for a preliminary injunction.2

On September 10, Judge George Howard, Jr., set the case for a September 

13 trial on the merits.3

 The parties filed a joint stipulation of facts on September 12,4

 which Judge Howard adopted.5

At the conclusion of the September 13 proceeding, Judge Howard tentatively granted the plaintiffs an injunction, issuing an opinion confirming the 

injunction on September 17.6 “The State has no compelling interest in allowing unrecognized parties to participate in some elections but not others.”7

On October 3, Judge Howard granted the plaintiffs a stipulated fee-andcosts award of $10,165.58.8

1. Complaint, Green Party of Ark. v. Priest, No. 4:01-cv-586 (E.D. Ark. Sept. 4, 2001), 

D.E. 1. 

2. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, id. (Sept. 4, 2001), D.E. 2. 

3. Order, id. (Sept. 10, 2001), D.E. 6; Green Party of Ark. v. Priest, 159 F. Supp. 2d 1140, 

1141 & n.1 (E.D. Ark. 2001). 

Judge Howard died on April 21, 2007. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory of 

Article III Federal Judges, www.fjc.gov/history/judges. 

4. Stipulation, Green Party of Ark., No. 4:01-cv-586 (E.D. Ark. Sept. 12, 2001), D.E. 7. 

5. Green Party of Ark., 159 F. Supp. 2d at 1141–43. 

6. Id., 159 F. Supp. 2d 1140; see Green Party Candidate Ordered Onto Ballot, Memphis 

Commercial Appeal, Sept. 14, 2001, at B2. 

7. Green Party of Ark., 159 F. Supp. 2d at 1144. 

8. Order, Green Party of Ark., No. 4:01-cv-586 (E.D. Ark. Oct. 3, 2001), D.E. 14; see
Ballot Access for a Minor Party in a Special Congressional Election 

2 Federal Judicial Center 4/4/2023 

The Green Party candidate drew 2% of the vote.9

Stipulation, id. (Oct. 2, 2001), D.E. 13. 

9. See Republican Candidate Wins Arkansas Congressional Seat, Tulsa World, Nov. 21, 

2001, at A3.
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

BERL KEITH KAPFS BROWN

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1688 MCE CMK PS

vs.

SHASTA COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

 / ORDER

On May 12, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment and set it for

hearing on June 14, 2005. However, on May 10, 2005, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint

with leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days. Accordingly, there is no valid

complaint to form a basis for a motion for summary judgment. 

As this is entirely a procedural issue, the court vacates the June 14, 2005, hearing date

and dismisses plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment by order without prejudice. 

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01688-MCE -CMK Document 15 Filed 05/17/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The June 14, 2005 hearing date is vacated and;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is dismissed without prejudice by

order. 

DATED: May 16, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01688-MCE -CMK Document 15 Filed 05/17/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Case 2:04-cv-01688-MCE -CMK Document 15 Filed 05/17/05 Page 3 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-04-1495 WBS GGH

vs. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

APPROXIMATELY $14,173.00 IN

U.S. CURRENCY,

Defendant.

 /

This matter came on for an ex parte hearing before the Honorable Gregory G.

Hollows on plaintiff United States’ motion for default judgment. Assistant U.S. Attorney Kristin

S. Door appeared for plaintiff United States. There was no appearance by or on behalf of any

other person or entity claiming an interest in defendant property to oppose plaintiff’s motion. 

Based on plaintiff’s motion and the files and records of the court, THE COURT FINDS as

follows:

1. This action arose out of a Verified Complaint for Forfeiture in Rem filed July

29, 2004.

2. Plaintiff United States of America has moved this court, pursuant to Local

Rule A-540, for entry of default judgment of forfeiture against the following potential claimants:

Case 2:04-cv-01495-WBS-GGH Document 35 Filed 03/13/06 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

a. Orlando Flores;

b. Patricia Valdez;

c. Andres Valdez, Jr.

3. Plaintiff has shown that a complaint for forfeiture was filed; that potential

claimants received actual notice of the forfeiture action; that the potential claimants identified

above filed claims but that Orlando Flores and Patricia Valdez withdrew their claims; that

Andres Valdez, Jr.’s claim has been dismissed; that any and all other unknown potential

claimants have been served by publication; and that grounds exist for entry of a final judgment of

forfeiture.

Therefore, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows:

1. That Orlando Flores, Patricia Valdez, having withdrawn their claims, and

Andres Valdez, Jr., whose claim was dismissed, have left the case with no one to oppose the

government’s claim despite proper notice;

2. That a judgment by default be entered against any right, title or interest of

potential claimants Orlando Flores, Patricia Valdez, and Andres Valdez, Jr. in the defendant

currency;

3. That a final judgment be entered, forfeiting all right, title and interest in the

defendant currency to the United States of America, to be disposed of according to law;

4. That the Final Judgment of Forfeiture lodged herein be signed by the

Honorable William B. Shubb and filed by the Clerk of the Court.

DATED: 3/13/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

$14,730.fr

Case 2:04-cv-01495-WBS-GGH Document 35 Filed 03/13/06 Page 2 of 2
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 21

- 00002

- CV
Daniel Aiello, TDCJ # 2176225 v. Brian Collier, et al.
On Appeal from the 36th District Court of Bee County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. B

- 20

- 1339

- CV

- A

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. No cos ts are ass essed , as appellant filed an affidavit of inability to pay c osts. We further or der this decision certified bel ow for observance. April 28, 2022
No. 60825.

#### Electrolux Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 309579-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of parts of electric floor polishers similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 59814, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 58537.

protests 145436-K, etc. (New York).

#### M. & D. Miller, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Rockingham earthenware similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *M. & D. Miller, Inc.*(41 C. C. P. A. 226, C. A. D. 556), the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption prior to January 1, 1948, at 12)4 percent under paragraph 210, as modified by the trade agreement with the United Kingdom (T, D. 49753); and (2) the items entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on and after January 1, 1948, at 20 cents per dozen articles, but not less than 7)4 nor more than 25 percent ad valorem, under said paragraph, as modified by T. D. 51802, *supra.*
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            Certification pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             as adopted pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Gordon E.  Clark,  President  and  Chief  Executive  Officer,  and  Kathleen  G.
Trumpler,  Treasurer of Leeds  Federal  Bankshares,  Inc. (the  "Company")  each
certify in his or her  capacity as an officer of the Company  that he or she has
reviewed the Quarterly  Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2002 and that to the best of his or her knowledge:

(1)      the report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Sections 13(a) 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.




 November 12, 2002                          /s/ Gordon E. Clark
---------------------                      -----------------------------------
Date                                       Gordon E. Clark
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer

 November 12, 2002                         /s/ Kathleen G. Trumpler
---------------------                      -----------------------------------
Date                                       Kathleen G. Trumpler
                                           Treasurer (Chief Financial Officer)