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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

Keith Cassells,

Plaintiff, Civ. No. S 04-1798 FCD PAN P

vs. Order on Request for Counsel

D. Mehta, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in a civil rights action. Plaintiff moves for

appointment of counsel. 

In proceedings that do not threaten a litigant with loss of

physical liberty, there presumptively is no right to appointed

counsel. Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18,

26-27 (1981). Section 1915(e)(1) of Title 28 confers discretion

upon the court to request counsel represent an indigent civil

litigant. Mallard v. District Court, 490 U.S. 296 (1989).

Case 2:04-cv-01798-FCD-EFB Document 37 Filed 10/25/05 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

In deciding whether to appoint counsel the court exercises

discretion governed by a number of factors, including the

likelihood of success on the merits and the applicant’s ability

to present his claims in light of their complexity. Weygandt v.

Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); see also, LaMere v.

Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987). Ordinarily the

presumption of regularity in the state’s procedures for confining

prisoners suggests a lack of likely success and counsels against

appointment of counsel. See Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 887

(7th Cir. 1981). As a general rule, the court will not appoint

counsel unless the applicant shows his claim has merit in fact

and law. Id. Even if the applicant overcomes this hurdle, the

court will not appoint counsel if the law is settled and the

material facts are within the plaintiff’s possession, viz., they

do not require investigation outside the prison walls. Id. at

887-88. 

Here, plaintiff alleges his constitutional rights were

violated when they delayed medical treatment for herniated discs

and failed to provide plaintiff an eggcrate mattress. The law

governing these issues is settled and investigation outside the

prison walls is unnecessary to discover material facts. There

is, on the record before the court, no reason to believe

appointment of counsel would be of significant benefit. 

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01798-FCD-EFB Document 37 Filed 10/25/05 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

3

Plaintiff’s March 8, 2005, request for the appointment of

counsel therefore is denied.

So ordered.

Dated: October 25, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01798-FCD-EFB Document 37 Filed 10/25/05 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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Dennis Martel,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-0014 DFL PAN P

vs. Order

California Department of

Corrections, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoNovember 28, 2005, defendants Andreasen and Donahue

requested an extension of time to serve responses to plaintiff’s

first request for production of documents and first requests for

admissions and for interrogatories. Good cause appearing,

defendants’ request is granted and defendant’s time is extended

until 30 days from the date this order is signed.

So ordered.

Dated: December 1, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00014-ALA Document 29 Filed 12/01/05 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4492 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4492

    To improve the transparency of Amtrak operations, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 11, 2024

 Mrs. Fischer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To improve the transparency of Amtrak operations, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Amtrak Transparency Act''.

SEC. 2. BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETINGS.

    Section 24302 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(6), by striking ``in an open 
        meeting''; and
            (2) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:
    ``(e) Meetings.--
            ``(1) Quorum.--A majority of the members serving on the 
        Board who are eligible to vote shall constitute a quorum for 
        doing business.
            ``(2) Notice; open meetings.--
                    ``(A) Notice.--Not later than 30 days before 
                convening any meeting of the Board, the Board shall 
                post, on a publicly accessible website, an announcement 
                of the meeting that includes the anticipated agenda for 
                the meeting.
                    ``(B) Open meetings.--All meetings of the Board 
                shall comply with the requirements set forth in section 
                552b of title 5.
            ``(3) Annual meeting with states.--Not less frequently than 
        annually, the Board shall convene a meeting to which the head 
        of the Department of Transportation of each State traversed by 
        a long-distance route or State-supported route, or the designee 
        of such State official, shall be invited to participate.''.

SEC. 3. DISCRETIONARY BONUS DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT.

    Section 24303(b) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``The preceding sentence'' and inserting ``Amtrak shall 
publicly disclose the amount of each discretionary bonus paid to any 
officer or non-bargaining unit employee. The 2 preceding sentences''.

SEC. 4. DISCLOSURE OF VENDOR AGREEMENTS.

    Section 24315(h) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following: ``Upon request, Amtrak shall disclose 
to a State or the State-Amtrak Intercity Passenger Rail Committee, any 
vendor agreement valued at not less than $250,000 for services procured 
to implement a service on a State-supported route.''.
                                 <all>
```
Before the Third Division,

October 9, 1951

No. 55918.

protests 172667-K and 172875-K (New York).

#### Alfred A. Mazer and Trefflichs Bird & Animal Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of live birds similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Alfred Mazer*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 67, C. D. 1265), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 3/14/2023 1

Preclearance Required for a Special-Election 

Schedule Ordered by a State Court 

LULAC of Texas v. Ramon (Alia Moses, Jerry E. Smith, 

and Xavier Rodriguez, W.D. Tex. 2:10-cv-58) 

A three-judge district court enjoined a special election set by a state 

court for lack of preclearance pursuant to section 5 of the Voting 

Rights Act. Once an uncontested schedule had received preclearance, 

the district court dissolved the injunction. 

Subject: Election dates. Topics: Section 5 preclearance; threejudge court; enjoining elections; matters for state courts; primary 

election. 

A federal complaint filed in the Western District of Texas on September 9, 

2010, challenged a state-court-ordered election schedule for a special Democratic primary election for a Val Verde County commissioner—which the 

state court ordered on a finding of undue influence in the original close primary election—alleging that the tight time frame would disadvantage minority voters in violation of sections 21

 and 52 of the Voting Rights Act.3

The circuit’s chief judge named Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith and Western 

District of Texas Judge Xavier Rodriguez to join Judge Alia Moses, the originally assigned judge, as a three-judge district court to hear the section 5 claim.4

Observing that “[t]he Defendants . . . do not dispute that these changes are at 

variance with the Texas Election Code and have not been submitted to, or precleared by, the Department of Justice,” the three-judge court issued a preliminary injunction on September 14 against the election schedule ordered by the 

state court.5

Upon preclearance of “proposed uncontested election changes” on October 1, the three-judge court issued an order on October 5 dissolving the preliminary injunction.6

1. Pub. L. No. 89-110, § 2, 79 Stat. 437, 437, as amended, 52 U.S.C. § 10301. 

2. Id., § 5, 79 Stat. at 439, as amended, 52 U.S.C. § 10304 (requiring preclearance of changes 

to voting procedures in jurisdictions with a certified history of discrimination and requiring 

that preclearance disputes be heard by a three-judge district court). 

On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court declined to hold section 5 unconstitutional, but the 

Court did hold unconstitutional the criteria for which jurisdictions require section 5 preclearance. Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013). 

3. Complaint, LULAC of Texas v. Ramon, No. 2:10-cv-58 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2010), D.E. 1. 

4. Order, id. (Sept. 10, 2010), D.E. 2 (referring to Judge Moses as Judge Alia Moses Ludlum); see Docket Sheet, id. (Sept. 10, 2010). 

5. Order, id. (Sept. 14, 2010), D.E. 3. 

6. Order, id. (Oct. 5, 2010), D.E. 6; see Amended Complaint, id. (Oct. 4, 2010), D.E. 4.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Michael D. Stern, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB/A (Amendment No. 1) of Kreisler Manufacturing Corporation; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael D. Stern                     
|Michael D. Stern, Chief Executive Officer
|                                         
|Date: October 29, 2007
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

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

PHILLIP A. TALBERT

Assistant U.S. Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 554-2789

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 

VICENTE OCADIO,

 

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR-S-04-0389-MCE

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

ON AMENDED BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR

DEFENDANT OCADIO'S MOTIONS TO

DISMISS CONSPIRACY CHARGE, FOR

DISCOVERY OF INFORMANT

INFORMATION, AND FOR RELEASE

PENDING TRIAL 

DATE: June 28, 2005

TIME: 8:30 a.m.

Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr.

Plaintiff United States of America, by its counsel Assistant

United States Attorney Phillip A. Talbert, and defendant Vicente

Ocadio, by and through his counsel David G. Currie, hereby

stipulate and agree to the following amended briefing schedule

for the Government's Response and the Defendant's Reply thereto

to Defendant Ocadio's Motion to Dismiss Conspiracy Charge, Motion

for Discovery of Informant Information, and Motion for Release

Pending Trial:

Case 2:04-cr-00389-MCE Document 135 Filed 06/20/05 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

27

28

1. Government Response filed by June 16, 2005; 

2. Defendant's Reply filed by June 23, 2005. 

Date: June 14, 2005 McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

By: /s/ Phillip A. Talbert 

PHILLIP A. TALBERT

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Date: June 14, 2005 By: /s/ David G. Currie by PAT 

 DAVID G. CURRIE, Attorney for 

 defendant VICENTE OCADIO

O R D E R

FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: June 20, 2005

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cr-00389-MCE Document 135 Filed 06/20/05 Page 2 of 2
[Cite as Isreal v. Franklin Cty. Clerk , 2021-Ohio-400.]

{¶1} Requester Michael Isreal has sued the Franklin County Clerk of Court, seeking “specific public information” in the care of the Frankl in County Clerk of Court. A special master recommends (1) dismissal of Isreal’s complaint f or lack of jurisdiction and (2) assessment of court costs to Isreal. (Recommendation to Dismiss, December 10, 2020.) {¶2} On January 5, 2021, Isreal filed a document, which has been des cribed as an objection to the special master’s recommendation on the Cour t’s docket. The Court finds that Isreal’s objection la cks merit. The Court further f inds the special master’s

recommendation is well-taken. {¶3} Under R.C. 2743.75(D), notwithstanding any provision to the con trary in R.C. 2743.75, “upon the recommendation of the special master, t he court of claims on its own motion may dismiss the complaint at any time.” Accordi ngly, upon the special master’s recommendation, and having found well taken the specia l master’s MICHAEL ISREAL

Requester

v.

FRANKLIN COUNTY CLERK

Respondent Case No. 2020-00680PQ

Judge Dale A. Crawford

DECISION AND ENTRYCase No. 2020-00680PQ -2- DECISION & ENTRY

recommendation, the Court sua sponte DISMISSES Isreal’s complai nt. Court costs are assessed against Isreal. The clerk shall serve upon all partie s notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.

DALE A CRAWFORD Jud g e

Filed January 26, 2021 Sent to S.C. Reporter 2/12/21
No. 55926.

protests 143451-K, etc. (New York).

#### American Express Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fibrous vegetable substances similar in all material respects to those the subject of *American Express Company*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 8, C. A. D. 456), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1684 was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

September 7, 1949

No. 53539.

protest 145277-K (New York).

#### Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that, the 21 drawings, which were found in excess in entry 322025, are original drawings in pen and ink, not articles of utility or for industrial use, and not made by stenciling or any mechanical process. It was further stipulated that the case be submitted on the stipulation and the official papers. The official papers include a consignee’s affidavit, Form 3309, filed in accordance with section 10.48, Customs Regulations of 1943, but it was conceded at the trial that the artist’s certificate, Form 253, was not filed as to the drawings. The court held that compliance *159with the regulations issued under paragraph 1807 is not a condition precedent to free entry thereunder. *(Wm. Vixseboxse*v. *United States,*4 Cust. Ct. 41, C. D. 280, and *Anderson Art Galleries*v. *United States,*63 Treas. Dec. 495, T. D. 46258, followed.) In view of the stipulation, therefore, it was held that the merchandise was entitled to free entry under paragraph 1807, as claimed.
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

GREGORY ESKRIDGE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0865 LKK GGH P

vs.

A. CORREA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 25, 2005, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss for

failure to state a claim as to defendants Correa, Pliler and Elsberry and dismissed the claims

against defendant Surges pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (the court shall dismiss case at any

time if it determines that the action fails to state claim on which relief may be granted). Plaintiff

was granted thirty days to file an amended complaint. In the April 25, 2005, order the court

directed defendants not to respond to the amended complaint until ordered to by the court. 

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s amended complaint filed May 20, 2005. On

May 20, 2005, plaintiff also filed a package of exhibits in support of the amended complaint. 

After carefully reviewing the record, the court finds that the amended complaint states a

colorable claim for relief. Defendants are ordered to respond to the amended complaint.

Case 2:04-cv-00865-LKK -GGH Document 29 Filed 09/19/05 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 ORDERED that within twenty days from the date of this order,

defendants shall file a response to the amended complaint filed May 20, 2005.

DATED: 9/19/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

esk865.srv

Case 2:04-cv-00865-LKK -GGH Document 29 Filed 09/19/05 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 9989]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3812]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board; Public 
Meeting

    The U.S. Small Business Administration, National Small Business 
Development Center Advisory Board will be hosting a public meeting via 
conference call to discuss such matters that may be presented by 
members, staff of the U.S. Small Business Administration, or interested 
others. The conference call will be held on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 
1 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
    The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the internal Board issues; 
the March 5th agency meeting with senior program management; the 
Association of Small Business Development Center (ASBC) Board March 
meeting; and congressional visits conducted by board members.
    Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation to the Board must 
contact Erika Fischer, Senior Program Analyst, U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Office of Small Business Development Centers, 409 3rd 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, telephone (202) 205-7045 or fax 
(202) 481-0681.

Matthew Teague,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E7-3812 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
No. 58973.

protests 173309-K, etc. (New York).

#### Camilli Albert & Laloue, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of essential oils the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Ungerer & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 152, C. D. 1647), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: ASRAC 

Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 4:40:07 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) 

To: 'kamrane@ahrinet.org'; 'tballo@earthjustice.org'; 'jbauman@nrac.com'; 'brice.bowley@ge.com'; 

'mdane@traulsen.com'; 'pdoppel@hvac.mea.com'; 'ghalleysji@aol.com'; 

'pantelis.hatzikazakis@lennoxind.com'; 'chon@truemfg.com'; 'jill.hootman@trane.com'; 'mbh9@pge.com'; 

'michael.kojack@ul.com'; 'john.m.mandyck@utc.com'; 'karen.meyers@rheem.com'; 

'pmolvie@cleaverbrooks.com'; 'kent.peterson@p2seng.com'; 'nrolph@lochinvar.com'; 

'hsachs@aceee.org'; 'ron.shebik@hussman.com'; 'judd.smith@csagroup.org'; 'lstarr@neea.org'; 

'phillip.stephens@htproducts.com'; 'russell.tharp@goodmanmfg.com'; 'etruskoski@gmail.com'; Barhydt, 

Laura 

Cc: Cymbalsky, John; 'neileisner@gmail.com'; ASRAC 

Subject: Commercial HVAC Working Group

Good Afternoon,

Please find a copy of the agenda for the first meeting of the Commercial HVAC and WH Certification

Working Group.  The meeting will be run by a third‐party facilitator, who will be introduced at the

meeting and he will go over the negotiated rulemaking process with the working group.  In addition, the

agenda includes a discussion of the ground rules for which the working group will follow.  To prepare for

the discussion on ground rules, DOE is distributing a copy of the ground rules that were used in the

distribution transformer standards negotiations.  Lastly, the commercial HVAC and WH Certification

Group will be working with the facilitator to set‐up a schedule for future meetings and discussions.  

Please make sure you bring an up‐to‐date calendar with you to the meeting that covers the next 4 or 5

months.

While the Department strongly encourages all working group members to attend in person if possible,

DOE understands there are situations where travel may not be possible on such short notice.  

Consequently, the webinar information for the meeting can be found at:  

https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/574434864.

We look forward to seeing you next week and the beginnings of a productive process.  

Thanks,

John
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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.

 September 30, 2013

s0923

Order 

Clerk

September 30, 2013

147189

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147189

COA: 314177

Ingham CC: 06-000951-FC

SANTEE ORRICK FRANKLIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 11, 2013 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ALMIRA SWYGERT, as personal representative of the

estate of Julia Myers,

Appellant,

v.

PSL REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE, LLC, d/b/a PORT ST.

LUCIE REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE,

Appellee

.

No. 4D 22

- 571

[ January 26, 2023 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.

Lucie County ; Laurie E. Buchanan , Judge; L.T. Case No.

5620 21 CA000555AXXXHC

.

Lindsey E. Gale and Matthew T. Christ of Domnick Cunningham &

Whalen, Palm Beach Gardens, for appellant.

Lisa M. Munoz and Thomas E. Jablonski of Hall Booth Smith, P.C.,

West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY

, L EVINE and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.