alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 2:04-cv-01290-GEB-GGH   Document 54    Filed 09/27/05   Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-01290-GEB-GGH   Document 54    Filed 09/27/05   Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-01290-GEB-GGH   Document 54    Filed 09/27/05   Page 3 of 3

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-27T06:30:31-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4448

Suzanne Scanlon

:

vs.

:

Richard Huffnagle, et al 

:

ORDER REFERRING CASE TO ARBITRATION AND APPOINTING ARBITRATORS

AND NOW, this day of , , it is hereby 

ORDERED, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2, Section 4(a), that the above civil action is herewith

referred to arbitration and 

Chairman Joel Kalman, Esq. 

Arbitrator Margot Jones, Esq. 

Arbitrator Linda Berman, Esq. 

having been selected at random by the arbitration clerk from among those certified as arbitrators, shall hear this case at 9:30

am, Tuesday, December 17, 2002. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ARBITRATION HEARING WILL BE HELD IN

THE ROBERT N.C. NIX BUILDING, 900 MARKET ST., PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107. REPORT TO ROOM

339 FOR YOUR ROOM ASSIGNMENT, pursuant to a notice which shall this day be mailed by the arbitration clerk to

all counsel of record and the arbitrators, the arbitrators being authorized to change the time and date of the arbitration

hearing provided the hearing is commenced within 30 days of the hearing date set forth in this order (continuances beyond

this 30 day period must be approved by the court) and the clerk of court is notified of the change; and it is 

FURTHER ORDERED, that all documentary evidence shall be marked in advance and exchanged,

except for impeaching documents; and that the above designated chairman shall file with the clerk of court the arbitration

award after the hearing is concluded.

The failure of counsel to promptly advise the arbitrators and the Arbitration Section of the Clerk's

Office of the settlement or other final disposition of this case may result in appropriate discipline by the Court pursuant to

Local Civil Rule 83.6.1.

BY THE COURT

 

HONORABLE JOHN P. FULLAM 

 

ARB1.FRM 

Case 2:02-cv-04448-JF Document 5 Filed 12/03/2002 Page 1 of 1
# Memorandum**u.s.~rtment**of Transportation Office ofthe Secretary ofTransportation 

### /\ !!: 

## 00

Subject: Essential Air Service at Clovis (DOT-OST-1996-1902) and Silver City/Hurley/Deming (DOT-OST-1996-1903),

## NnMexic?~ J/J

## ~ (/_/**~.--[)** 

## . <0!e From: Dennis J. De any, Chief

# ~ BAS & Domestic Analysis Division, X-53
To: Dockets Operations, M-30 Date: September 10, 2012

Reply to Brian Swanson, Attn. of: X-53 Ext. 65392

OnAugust 24,2012, the Department extended the due date for community comments on the proposals received from air"carriers for Essential Air Service (EAS) at Clovis and Silver City/Hurley/Deming, New Mexico, from September 10 to October4, 2012. By e-mail dated September 7, 2012, the manager oftheClovis Municipal Airport requested that deadline be extended further, until October 10, 2012, to allow for deliberationby the City Commission during the meeting scheduled for October 4, 2012. The Departmenthas decided to grant the second extensionrequest for community comments atboth Clovis and Silver City/Hurley/Deming because SeaPort Airlines, Inc. submitted inseparable package bids (serving both communities together). Comments from both communities should now be submitted no later than October 10, 2012. We do not expect to grant additional extensions because the Department has a legal obligation to Great Lakes Aviation to secure replacementservice expeditiously.

AttachmentSwanson, Brian (OST) 

### From; Sent: To: Subject:
Brian, Gene Bieker <gbieker@cityofclovis.org> Friday, September 07, 2012 12:02 PM Swanson, Brian (OST) EAS Comments

Is it possible to have the due date from Clovis on the 10th of October, to line up with our commission meetings and get it in? Gene

1
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  Cheviot  Financial  Corp.  (the
"Company"),  on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004,  as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the  date of this  Certification  (the
"Report"),  I, Scott T. Smith, 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, to my 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.




                                                     /s/Scott T. Smith
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Scott T. Smith
                                                     Chief Financial Officer

         Date:  August 3, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4197 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4197

To amend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to provide for an extension of 
    certain authorities under title VII of the Foreign Intelligence 
                       Surveillance Act of 1978.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 18, 2024

    Mr. Lee introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to provide for an extension of 
    certain authorities under title VII of the Foreign Intelligence 
                       Surveillance Act of 1978.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN AUTHORITIES.

    (a) Extension.--
            (1) In general.--Section 403(b) of the FISA Amendments Act 
        of 2008 (Public Law 110-261; 122 Stat. 2474) is amended, by 
        striking ``April 19, 2024'' each place the term appears and 
        inserting ``May 17, 2024''.
            (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
        shall take effect as if enacted on April 18, 2024.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 404(b)(1) of the 
FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-261; 122 Stat. 2476), is 
amended, in the heading, by striking ``April 19, 2024'' and inserting 
``May 17, 2024''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 53550.

protests 141153-K, etc. (Tampa).

#### Aircargo Brokerage Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of sisal handbags similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 64, C. A. D. 399), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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

GEORGE BRIDGETTE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0436 DFL PAN P

vs.

D. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On October 27, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion styled “Motion to Impose Discovery Sanctions on

Defendants and Award Plaintiff Monetary Awards.” In the motion, plaintiff contends that on

June 12, 2005 and August 28, 2005, he served a request for production of documents and a set of

interrogatories on defendants and that defendants have “refused to cooperate with the discovery

process” and have exceeded the forty-five day deadline for responding to discovery requests

propounded in this action. See Order Governing Discovery, filed April 12, 2005. Appended to

plaintiff’s motion is a document styled “Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Request for Production of

Documents” served on June 12, 2005. (Ex. A to Motion filed October 27, 2005.) 

On November 15, 2005, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion. In

the opposition, defendants assert that they have complied with plaintiff’s discovery request. 

Case 2:04-cv-00436-DFL-EFB Document 64 Filed 05/31/06 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

Specifically, defendants represent that on November 11, 2005, they sent plaintiff “a letter

containing most of the information which the Plaintiff requested” and that the remainder of the

discovery request “has now been answered.” (Objections by Defendants Felker and Sandham to

Plaintiff’s Motion to Impose Discovery Sanctions on Defendants, filed November 15, 2005, at 1.) 

Defendants have included with their opposition evidence to support these assertions. (See

Declaration of Jordan Stanzler in Opposition to Motion for Sanctions and Exhibits thereto, filed

November 15, 2005.) 

After review of the record herein, the court finds that the discovery at issue has

been provided to plaintiff and that sanctions are not appropriate under the circumstances at bar. 

Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) (discovery sanctions available to remedy failure to comply with court

order to provide discovery). Moreover, an award of expenses is not justified on the record before

this court. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s October

27, 2005 motion is denied.

DATED: May 30, 2006.

12

brid0436.disc

Case 2:04-cv-00436-DFL-EFB Document 64 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 2
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6807

DANNY ANGEL RODRIGUEZ , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. JASON STREEVAL , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. ( 7:20

- cv - 00194

- NKM

- JCH )

Submitted : October 28, 2021 Decided: November 2, 2021

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Danny A. Rodriguez , Appellant Pro Se. Sara Bugbee Winn , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent i n this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Danny A. Rodriguez, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons sta ted by the district court. Rodriguez v. Streeval , No. 7:20

- cv - 00194

- NKM

- JCH (W.D. Va. May 11, 2021)

. As did the district court, we note that, to the extent Rodriguez alleges ineffective assistance of counsel or challenges the validity of his plea based o n representations made by prison officials , such challenge s would need to be presented in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  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 ended December 31, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by
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 results of
                  operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by
                  the Report.




                              /s/ John A. Celentano, Jr.
                              -------------------------------------------------
                              John A. Celentano, Jr.
                              Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer


                              /s/ Christine R. Piano
                              -------------------------------------------------
                              Christine R. Piano
                              Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer



Date: February 5, 2009
April 18, 1958

No. 61846.

Suit 4926.

#### Nicholas Gal (Globe Shipping Co., Inc.) *v.*United States.

-A. R. D. 72. (Appeal dismissed March 4, 1958.)
Before the Second Division,

January 19, 1944

No. 49145.

#### Protests 98451-K, etc., of H. G. Gogarty, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was agreed between counsel that the merchandise in question consists of pieces of mica of random thickness, cut or stamped to dimensions, shape or form, and does not comprise mica films or splittings cut or stamped to dimensions. In accordance therewith the protests were sustained to this extent.
Before the Second Division,

April 25, 1961

No. 65496.

#### Flandria Cycle Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 321115-K (Boston).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
p130206.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 13-0206 Focus Ready Draft 1/31/2013

ENGINEER: Choudhary \ EV PV (kg/yr):

Page 1p130206.eng

SAT (concerns) (01/18/2013): Migration to groundwater: Slow PBT rating: P2B1T1

Health: 2 Dermal, Inhalation Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 1 ppb)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1D

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

Page 2p130206.eng

Page 3p130206.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 13-0206

Page 4p130206.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 13-0206

Page 5p130206.eng

Page 6
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

WAYNE LAWSON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1869 GEB DAD P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has

filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. 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 22, 2005, 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 ten court 

Case 2:04-cv-01869-GEB-DAD Document 17 Filed 07/19/05 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

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:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 22,

2005, are adopted in full;

2. Respondents’ November 5, 2004 motion to dismiss is

denied;

3. Respondents are granted thirty days to file their

answer to the habeas petition filed September 8, 2004.

Dated: July 18, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01869-GEB-DAD Document 17 Filed 07/19/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 11.0

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          Three months ended   Three months ended   Nine months ended    Nine months ended
                                          September 30, 2007   September 30, 2006   September 30, 2007   September 30, 2006
                                          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                       <C>                  <C>                  <C>                  <C>
Income available to common stockholders          $    30,670          $    98,206          $   416,098          $   136,736

Weighted average shares outstanding                2,655,047            2,685,311            2,663,209            2,690,858

Basic earnings per share                         $      0.01          $      0.04          $      0.16          $      0.05

Income for diluted earnings per share            $    30,670          $    98,206          $   416,098          $   136,736

Total weighted average common shares
   and equivalents outstanding for
   diluted computation                             2,655,047            2,685,311            2,663,209            2,690,858

Diluted earnings per share                       $      0.01          $      0.04          $      0.16          $      0.05
</TABLE>

                                       21
(Reap. Dec. 10067)

#### Barnes-Hind Laboratories, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 5898.

(Decided August 22, 1961)

*Glad & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*William E. Orrick, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to certain coal-tar products that were exported from Denmark and entered at the port of San Francisco, Calif.

Stipulated facts, upon which the case has been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the items in question is American selling price, as defined in section 402(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (91 Treas. Dec. 295, T.D. 54165), and that such value therefor, which I hold to be the proper statutory value, is as follows:

> Item Export period Price

> Calcium PAS Trihydrate 1959 $2.75 less *1%*

> Sodium Amino salicylate $1.75 less 1%

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
126 STAT. 2482 PUBLIC LAW 112–279—JAN. 14, 2013 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 3630: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 158 (2012): Dec. 19, considered and passed Senate. 

Vol. 158 (2013): Jan. 1, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 112–279 

112th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 218 North 

Milwaukee Street in Waterford, Wisconsin, as the ‘‘Captain Rhett W. Schiller 

Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. CAPTAIN RHETT W. SCHILLER POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 218 North Milwaukee Street in Waterford, Wisconsin, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Captain Rhett W. 

Schiller Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Captain Rhett W. Schiller Post Office’’. 

Approved January 14, 2013. 

Jan. 14, 2013 

[S. 3630] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
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-

ALEX GORTINSKY, ESQ. SBN 208926

McDONALD, SAELTZER, MORRIS, 

CREEGGAN & WADDOCK

2208 29 Street th

Sacramento, California 95817

Telephone: (916) 444-5706

Facsimile: (916) 444-8529

Attorneys for Cross-defendant,

MARTIN IRON WORKS, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SACRAMENTO DIVISION

 IN RE 

 SUNTERRA CORPORATION,

 Debtors,

 SUNTERRA CORPORATION,

 Plaintiff,

v.

 PERINI BUILDING COMPANY,

 Defendant.

 AND RELATED CROSS ACTIONS

Case No. CIV.-04-0784 MCE PAN

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

Per Rule 83-182(g)

THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES ARE NOTIFIED THAT plaintiff ROYAL

SPECIALTY UNDERWRITING, INC. makes the following substitution:

Former legal representative ALEX GORTINSKY, of McDONALD, SAELTZER, MORRIS,

CREEGGAN & WADDOCK, will no longer be the attorney of record in this case. 

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-00784-MCE -EFB Document 53 Filed 09/20/05 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

27

28

-2-

The new legal representative will be as follows:

JENNIFER H. CARROLL, Esq.

DONAHUE BATES BLAKEMORE & MACKEY

83 Scripps Drive, Suite 200

Sacramento, CA 95825

Phone: (916) 648-7444

Fax: (916) 648-7447

IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED that a signature, whether on an original or facsimile

copy, shall constitute the same as on an original copy of same.

DATED: September 2, 2005 McDONALD, SAELTZER, MORRIS,

 CREEGGAN & WADDOCK

By:___________/S/____________________

ALEX GORTINSKY

Former Attorney for Cross-Defendant

MARTIN IRON WORKS, INC.

DATED: September 2, 2005 DONAHUE BATES BLAKEMORE & MACKEY

By:_________/S/_____________________

JENNIFER H. CARROLL

New Attorney for Cross-Defendant

MARTIN IRON WORKS, INC.

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-00784-MCE -EFB Document 53 Filed 09/20/05 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

27

28

-3-

DATED: September 7, 2005 MARTIN IRON WORKS, INC.

By:__________/S/_____________________

Pat Bullentini

IT IS SO ORDERED:

DATED: September 20, 2005

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00784-MCE -EFB Document 53 Filed 09/20/05 Page 3 of 3