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

27

28

1 The parties’ stipulation filed May 3, 2005, contained an

incorrect caption. See Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order filed March

21, 2005, at 1 n.1. Future filings shall contain the correct caption.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY MCIVER, )

) CIV. S-04-1969 GEB GGH

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 

) ORDER

RED LION INNS OPERATING, LP, a ) 

Limited Partnership; WEST DOUGHBOY )

LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability )

Company,1 )

)

Defendants. )

)

On May 3, 2005, the parties filed a stipulation and

proposed order by which they seek to amend the Status (Pretrial

Scheduling) Order. The parties indicate that the modification they

seek might facilitate settlement of this action. In light of the

Case 2:04-cv-01969-GEB-GGH Document 15 Filed 05/05/05 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 2 Two dates the parties requested were not given because the

Court is usually not open on Sundays or holidays. 

2

parties’ representation, the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order is

modified as follows:2 

(1) Each party will comply with Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(a)(2)’s initial expert witness disclosure and report

requirements on or before August 19, 2005, and with the rebuttal

expert disclosures authorized under the Rule on or before

September 20, 2005. 

(2) All discovery shall be completed by January 19,

2006. 

(3) The last hearing date for law and motion is

March 27, 2006, at 9:00 a.m.

(4) The final pretrial conference is set for May 22,

2006, at 1:30 p.m.

(5) The trial commencement date is continued to

August 22, 2006, at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01969-GEB-GGH Document 15 Filed 05/05/05 Page 2 of 2
HeinOnline -- 50 Fed. Reg. 46291 1985
HeinOnline -- 50 Fed. Reg. 46292 1985
HeinOnline -- 50 Fed. Reg. 46293 1985
HeinOnline -- 50 Fed. Reg. 46294 1985
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Maurice Haddock, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 408]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered November 18, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree and attempted murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. -

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant and his codefendant *(see, People v Martin, 221*AD2d 568 [decided herewith]) were tried before dual juries. On appeal, the defendant concedes that the trial court followed many of the guidelines for such trials set forth in *People v Ricardo B.*(73 NY2d 228), but contends that the court erred in failing to issue certain instructions regarding the roles of dual juries. The defendant’s contention is unpreserved for appellate review as he failed to request such instructions *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to reach the issue.

Similarly, we decline to consider those claims by the defendant regarding the prosecutor’s summation which are unpreserved for appellate review. To the extent that the defendant’s claims are preserved for appellate review, we find them to be without merit. The prosecutor’s summation constituted fair comment on the evidence or was a fair response to the defense counsel’s summation *(see, People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396; *People v Russo,*201 AD2d 512, *affd*85 NY2d 872). O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
<TABLE>
                                                                                 EXHIBIT 11
<CAPTION>
                                   KOLLMORGEN CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                     CALCULATIONS OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                               (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)

                                                          Year Ended December 31

                                        1996        1995         1994        1993         1992
<S>                               <C>         <C>          <C>         <C>          <C>
Net income (loss)                 $     8,804 $     7,157  $     4,051 $     4,752  $    (8,725)
Less preferred stock dividends,
  accretion of discount, and
  premium paid on preferred
  stock redemption                       (285)     (4,648)      (2,324)     (2,324)      (2,330)
                                   ----------- -----------  ----------- -----------  -----------
Earnings applicable to common stock     8,619       2,509        1,727       2,428      (11,055)
                                   ----------- -----------  ----------- -----------  -----------


Number of shares:
    Weighted average number of
       shares outstanding           9,732,055   9,667,434    9,641,698   9,632,232    9,627,228
    Shares issuable on assumed
       exercise of dilutive options   310,051         --           --          --           --
                                   -----------------------  ----------- -----------  -----------

Adjusted shares                    10,042,106   9,667,434    9,641,698   9,632,232    9,627,228
                                   =========== ===========  =========== ===========  ===========

Earnings (loss) per share             $  .86      $  .26      $  .18      $  .25       $(1.14)
                                   =========== ===========  =========== ===========  ===========

</TABLE>
No. 55277.

#### National Silver Co. and Pacific Hide & Leather Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 151108-K and 161585-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Modlison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
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

DAVID L. FULBRIGHT,

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-04-2490 DFL PAN P 

vs.

 D. L. RUNNELS, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no

absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d

453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at

any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing

§ 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be

served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02490-DFL-PAN Document 17 Filed 05/05/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s April 17, 2006, request

for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage

of the proceedings.

DATED: May 4, 2006.

\004

\fulb2490.110

Case 2:04-cv-02490-DFL-PAN Document 17 Filed 05/05/06 Page 2 of 2
#### Ronald TODD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard KIRKLAND; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-15405.

D.C. No. CV-97-00506-DWH/RAM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.*

Decided June 21, 2001.

*550Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ronald Todd, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his constitutional rights while incarcerated at the Washoe County Detention Center. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment, *Frost v. Agnos,*152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.

Todd contends that the district court erred by granting defendants summary judgment on his medical deliberate indifference claims. We disagree.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Todd’s deliberate indifference claims because he presented no evidence that defendants knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to his safety, *see Farmer v. Brennan,*511 U.S. 825, 847, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994), or that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, *see Estelle v. Gamble,*429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). At most, Todd showed a difference in medical opinion which does not amount to deliberate indifference. *See Jackson v. McIntosh,*90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996).

Todd’s free exercise claim fails because the challenged prison regulation requiring short hair is reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest. *See Turner v. Safley,*482 U.S. 78, 89-91, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987).

Todd’s contention that prison officials violated his constitutional rights by searching his cell and taking his legal documents is without merit because Todd failed to show that he suffered an actual injury. *See Lewis v. Casey,*518 U.S. 343, 351-352, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4290 

To permit voluntary economic activity. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 8, 2024 

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To permit voluntary economic activity. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Antitrust Freedom Act 

5 of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. VOLUNTARY ECONOMIC COORDINATION BY INDI7 VIDUALS. 

8 The Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), the Clayton 

9 Act (15 U.S.C. 12 et seq.), and section 5 of the Federal 

10 Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45) shall not be con11 strued to prohibit, ban, or otherwise extend to any vol12 untary economic coordination, cooperation, agreement, or 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4290 IS

1 other association, compact, contract, or covenant entered 

2 into by or between any individual or group of individuals. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 5, 2012 

p0227 

Order 

 

March 5, 2012 

143604 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143604 

 COA: 296236 

Wayne CC: 09-019624-FC 

JAVORRIS LYMONT JACKSON, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 28, 2011 

judgment 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.
No. 46154.

#### Protests 43363-K, etc., of Loewengart *&*Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The ACRS Subcommittee on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) will hold a meeting on March 23, 2007, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 

The entire meeting will be open to public attendance. 

The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: 

*Friday, March 23, 2007—8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business*

The Subcommittee will review the Risk Management Technical Specification Initiative 4b and the Risk Informed Completion Times. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and industry regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. 

Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Ms. Maitri Banerjee (Telephone: 301-415-6973) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted. 

Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda. 

Dated: February 26, 2007. 

 Cayetano Santos, 

Acting Branch Chief, ACRS.

 [FR Doc. E7-3825 Filed 3-2-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
No. 54056.

#### Finck, Jones, Libby, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 119171-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of carpets exported from Iran between the dates of December 21, 1939, and September 26, 1941, and that during said period the nearest rate certified by the Federal Reserve bank above the amount of United States currency per rial received by exporters of carpets from Iran was the rate for “First Category Goods,” namely $.053475; that pursuant to T. D. 51892 this rate is now accepted by the collector as the correct rate for importations of carpets from Iran exported during the above-mentioned period; and that the issue herein is similar in all material respects to that involved in *John Barr*v. *United States*(324 U. S. 83) and *Mamary Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 135, C. D. 1142). As to 25 carpets exported with benefit of drawback the protest was abandoned. In accordance with stipulation and pursuant to the instructions contained in T. D. 51892, the collector was directed to reliquidate the entry, converting the currency of the invoice, Iranian rials, to United States dollars at the rate of $.053475 as to all items, except the 25 carpets exported with benefit of drawback. With the exception noted, the protest was sustained. '
No. 54080.

#### The New York Quinine and Chemical Works, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 149865-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
No. 51437.

#### Protests 543815-G, etc., of Julius Kayser & Co. (New York).

*226Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). In accordance therewith the claim at 50 percent ad valorem under paragraph 915, plus any additional duty applicable under paragraph 924, was sustained.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: SE02998
THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
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

BRADY ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-2136-GEB-EFB-P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, 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 August 21, 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 fourteen 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-02136-GEB-EFB Document 134 Filed 09/27/06 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 August 21, 2006, are adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ January 19, 2006, and May 1, 2006, motions to dismiss are

granted;

3. This action is dismissed without prejudice as to defendants D. L. Runnels,

Gellette, Callison, Phinney, Chandler, Young and Gomez.

Dated: September 26, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02136-GEB-EFB Document 134 Filed 09/27/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 44038.

#### Protests 12689-G, etc., of Alfred Kohlberg, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The testimony showed that certain items consist of Venice laces similar to those involved in *Littwitz*v. *United States*(3 Cust. Ct. 123, C. D. 217). The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was therefor sustained.
**Exhibit 32.1**

*The following certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated byreference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.*

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Magellan Midstream Holdings, L.P. (the“Partnership”) for the quarter ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Don R. Wellendorf, Chief Executive Officer of Magellan Midstream HoldingsGP, LLC, the General Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 Partnership. 

/s/ Don R. Wellendorf 

Don R. Wellendorf, Chief Executive Officer

Date: August 5, 2008 

*A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 47 (Monday, March 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 11007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4349]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-315-000]


Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

March 5, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 28, 2007, Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP 
(Cove Point) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Original Volume No. 1, Fifth Revised Sheet No. 12, to become effective 
April 1, 2006:
    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#c0868592838faeaca9aea593b5b0b0afb2b480a6a5b2a3eea7afb6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e282b3c2d21000207000b3d1b1e1e011c1a2e080b1c0d40090118">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-4349 Filed 3-9-07; 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>