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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES WHITTENBERG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2225 GEB PAN P

vs.

V. BORTOLAMEDI, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. The United States

Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent

indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298

(1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of

counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.

1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the

court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s motion for the

appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s January 24, 2006 motion

for the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: February 21, 2006. 

12

whit2225.31

Case 2:04-cv-02225-GEB-EFB Document 12 Filed 02/21/06 Page 1 of 1
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

LAWRENCE WEISWASSER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2380 LKK GGH P

vs.

CAL TERHUNE, 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 3, 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 not filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and

recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility

Case 2:04-cv-02380-LKK -GGH Document 12 Filed 07/12/05 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

1Local Rule 82-183(d) cited in the Findings and Recommendations is based on the 1997

E.D. Local Rules. The applicable subsection of the Eastern District Local Rules of 2005 is Local

Rule 82-183(f).

2

to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 83-182(f),1

service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.

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 March 3, 2005, are adopted in full;

and

2. This action is dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to keep the court apprised of his

current address. See Local Rules 83-182(f) and 11-110.

DATED: July 12, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/weis2380.802

Case 2:04-cv-02380-LKK -GGH Document 12 Filed 07/12/05 Page 2 of 2
2

In the previous drinking water assessment, the reported time

- series was based on the maximum application rate of terbufos for sorghum. In the amended DWA, t he reported time

- series values

were adjusted based on a typical use rate of 0.895 lbs a.i./A ( Appendix A , via email from Tom Myers, Pesticide Re

- Evaluation Division, 10/08/2014) for sorghum , which is 53 percent of the

maximum rate of 1.68 lbs a.i./A. Since there is a linear relationship between the applic ation rate

and modeled EDWC s , previously reported time

- series values for the TX sorghum scenario were adjusted simply by multiplying with 0.53 to represent the typical rate for sorghum. Table 1 provides EDWCs based on maximum and typical use rates of terbu fos for sorghum. The

P RZM/EXAMS

- generated amended “t ime series ” file of terbufos for TTR for TX sorghum OP

scenario is also attached below. No additional modeling is warranted at this time because all the input parameters f

rom previous modeling (USEPA 2014 ) remain unchanged.

Table 1. EDWCs for d rinking water risk assessment for terbufos and its degradates based on maximum and typical rate s Source of Drinking

Water Estimated Drinking Water Concentration (μg/L)

1

- in

- 10

- year Peak Exposure 1

- in

- 10

- year

Annual Mean Exposure 30

- year Mean

Exposure

Total Toxic Residues of Terbufos (Terbufos plus Terbufos Sulfoxide and Terbufos Sulfone) Surface Water (max rate

of 1.68 lbs a.i for sorghum) 63.06 11.53 6.13

Surface water (typical

rate of 0.895 lbs a.i for sorghum 1 33.4 2 6.11 3. 25

1 0.53 adjustment factor used in calculating EDWCs

Time Series File

Reference

US EPA . 20 14. Memorandum:. Drinking Water Assessment for the Re gistration Review of Terbufos. Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Chemical Safety and

Pollution Prevention. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (DP418656, 2014)

.3 Appendix A

Terbufos Average Annual A.I. Rates, 2008

- 2012

Active Ingredient Crop Total Area

Treated Pounds A.I. Average A.I.

Rates (lbs a.i./acre)

TERBUFOS Corn 1,256,003 1,157,126 0.921

TERBUFOS Sorghum (Milo) 62,583 56,034 0.895

TERBUFOS Sugar Beets 877,637 1,225,401 1.396

TERBUFOS Sweet Corn 185,882 197,916 1.065 Source: Proprietary Data, 2008

- 2012

Prepared by C. Doucoure 7

- Oct

- 14 Provided by Tom Myers

, Risk Management and Implementation Branch II, Pesticide Re

- Evaluation
Division, via email

- October 08, 2014
**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 **

|                                                      |                                                                                                |                                                                |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:                October                16, 2006 | By:                                                                                       | */s/              John B.              Gallagher*    |
|                                                      | Name: John                B. GallagherTitle:                   Co-Chief Executive Officer |

|                                                      |                                                                                               |                                                               |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                      |                                                                                               |                                                               |
| Date:                October                16, 2006 | By:                                                                                      | */s/              Harry D.              Shields*    |
|                                                      | Name: Harry                D. ShieldsTitle:                   Co-Chief Executive Officer |

----
### O FFICE OF 

### P UBLIC 

### U TILITY 

### C OUNSEL

P UBLIC C OUNSEL

, T ONYA B AER

P OST O FFICE B OX 12397  T EL : 512.936.7500

A USTIN

, T EXAS 78711  W EB : WWW

. OPUC

. TEXAS

. GOV August 20, 2015

VIA E-FILE

The Honorable Jeffrey D. Kyle Clerk, Court of Appeals

209 W. 14 th St., Room 101 Austin, Texas 78701

Re: Appeals Docket No. 03-14-00735-CV; Trial Court Case No. D-1-GN-13-000121; Appellant, Entergy Texas, Inc.// Cross-A ppellants, the Office of Public Utility Counsel and Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Appellee, Public Utility Commission of Texas and Texas Industrial Energy Consumers// Cross-Appellees, the Office of Public Utility C ounsel and Entergy Texas, Inc.

Dear Mr. Kyle:

This letter responds to your letter of August 17, 2015 concer ning resetting the date for oral argument in this case for September 23, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. I will appear and argue for the Office of Public Utility Counsel.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Sara J. Ferris

Sara J. Ferris

Senior Assistant Public Counsel

State Bar No. 50511915 Office of Public Utility Counsel 1701 N. Congress Avenue, Suite 9-180 Austin, Texas 78701 sara.ferris@opuc.texas.gov ACCEPTED
03-14-00735-CV

6579635
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS
8/20/2015 11:40:49 AM
JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERKAugust 20, 2015 Page 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

As required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5, I certify that on the 20 th day of August, 2015, the Office of Public Utility Counsel’s letter regardi ng resetting the oral argument date was electronically filed with the Clerk of th e Court using the electronic case filing system of the Court, and that a true and correct copy wa s served on the following lead counsel for all parties listed below via electronic service:

Counsel for Entergy Texas, Inc. Marnie A. McCormick Duggins Wren Mann & Romero, LLP 600 Congress Ave., Ste. 1900 Austin, Texas 78701

Counsel for the Public Utility Commission Elizabeth R. B. Sterling of Texas Environmental Protection Division Office of the Attorney General

P.O. Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711-2548

Counsel for Texas Industrial Energy Consumers Rex. D. VanMiddlesworth Thompson & Knight, LLP 98 San Jacinto Blvd, Ste. 1900 Austin, Texas 78701

/s/ Sara J. Ferris

Sara J. Ferris
No. 58549

protest 227770-K (New York).

#### Berg, Hedstrom & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

An examination of the official papers failing to disclose any reason for disturbing the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
Case No. 13,794a.

#### TAYLOR v. HOGAN.

[1 Hempst. 16.] *1*

Supreme Court, Territory of Arkansas.

Aug., 1822.

Justice op Peace — Appeal—Tkial de Novo.

It is no ground for reversing the judgment of a justice rendered on a specialty, that neither the plaintiff nor his agent appeared at the trial, and the appellate court, instead of determining the cause on the transcript from the justice, should have tried it de novo on the merits.

Error to Pulaski circuit court.

[This was an action by John Taylor against Edmund Hogan.]

OPINION OF THE COURT.

This was an appeal from a justice of the peace to the court below, where the judgment was reversed on the ground that the plaintiff did not appear before the justice in person, or by agent duly empowered by letter of attorney, on the day of trial. We are of opinion that the court erred in reversing the judgment of the justice on that ground, the suit having been brought on a specialty; and also erred in determining the ease on the transcript from the justice alone, when it shou.a *778have been tried on the merits as though the suit had originated in that court. Geyer, Dig. 390. Reversed.
J

- S22006

- 15

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 CREA EXCAVATING, INC

. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v. JOSEPH A. PIOLE Appellant No. 644 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment Entered April 4 , 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): GD

- 11

- 010572

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. * JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED June 1, 2015 Appellant, Joseph A. Piole, appeals pro se from the judgment entered in favor of Appellee, Crea Excavating, Inc., on April 4, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. We dismiss the ap peal. The pro se brief Appellant has submitted to this Court substantially fails to conform to the basic requirements of appellate advocacy. Appellant’s Brief does not include: (1) a statement of jurisdiction; (2) statements of the scope and standard of review; (3) a statement of the questions involved; and (4) a copy of the Rule 1925(b) statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a). Most notably, the argument section of Appellant’s 35

- page appellate brief contains only a single citation to supporting case law, without

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.J

- S22006

- 15

- 2

-

elaboration or analysis. See Appellant’s Brief at 18. Correspondingly, there is no developed legal argument in the entirety of Appellant’s brief. “The Rules of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that each q uestion an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of pertinent authority.” Eichman v. McKeon , 824 A.2d 305, 319 (Pa. Super. 2003).
F urthermore, “[w]hen issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs, when the briefs are wh olly inadequate to present specific issues for review[,] a Court will not consider the merits thereof.” Branch Banking and Trust v. Gesiorski , 904 A.2d 939, 942

- 943 (Pa. Super. 2006). “While this court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro

se litigant, we note that appellant is not entitled to any particular advantage because she lacks legal training. As our supreme court has explained, any layperson choosing to represent herself in a legal proceeding must, to some reasonable extent, as sume the risk that her lack of expertise and legal training will prove her undoing.” Gesiorski , 904 A.2d at 942 (citation omitted). In the present case, even a liberal construction of Appellant’s brief cannot remedy the serious inadequacies. Accordingly , we dismiss the appeal due to the substantial briefing defects in Appellant's brief, which hampered our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101

. Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished.J

- S22006

- 15

- 3

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. S eletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 6/1/2015
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on (i) Form S-16 (Nos. 2-51894, 2-55664, 2-63470 and 2-75654), (ii) Form S-8 (Nos. 2-77752, 33-10747, 33-24934, 33-33018, 33-54403, 33-54443, 33-54555, 333-08059, 333-08087, 333-60839, 333-42178, 333-53908, 333-74864, 33-46999, 333-122345, and 333-104264, 333-132462), (iii) Form S-3 (Nos. 2-84910, 33-26314, 33-23880, 33-42698, 33-44871, 33-45091, 33-54317, 33-69432, 333-04385, 333-40869, 333-44421, 333-55921, 333-68257, 333-54896, 333-55866, 333-91257, 333-91316-02, 333-102963, 333-102962-02, 333-122555-01, 333-123408-01 and 333-129033-01), and (iv) Form S-4 (Nos. 333-102873 and 333-130582-01) of Kinder Morgan, Inc. of our report dated
March 1, 2007 relating to the financial statements, managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K, and of our report dated
March 1, 2007 relating to the financial statements, managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., which appears in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.s Annual Report on Form 10-K which is incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K.







PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Houston, Texas

March 1, 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD JEFFERSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1635 MCE KJM PS

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

OFFICE, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed January 13, 2005, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed and thirty

days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. On March 2, 2005, plaintiff was granted a

sixty day extension of time in which to amend his complaint. The sixty day period has now

expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court's

order.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings

Case 2:04-cv-01635-MCE -KJM Document 8 Filed 05/25/05 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

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 24, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

jeff1625.fta

Case 2:04-cv-01635-MCE -KJM Document 8 Filed 05/25/05 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALONZO REED,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2480 FCD KJM P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prison inmate proceeding pro per with a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus, challenging the loss of good time credits as the result of a disciplinary proceeding

held on January 18, 2004, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis and a request for

the appointment of counsel. 

Examination of the in forma pauperis affidavit reveals that petitioner is unable to

afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Records submitted in Reed v. Castro, Civ. No. S-02-0708, filed by the same

inmate, show that Reed was paroled on March 2, 2004, though apparently not released because

he refused to comply with one of the requirements of Penal Code section 3060.5. See Resp’t’s

Objections To Findings in Reed v. Castro, Civ. No. S-02-0708 GEB KJM P (filed 2/16/05), Ex.

O at 003. It also appears that petitioner’s parole has been revoked for additional six month terms 

Case 2:04-cv-02480-FCD-KJM Document 3 Filed 05/17/05 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

subsequently. The court may and does take judicial notice of these records. 

According to California law, a prison term is the actual time served in prison

before release on parole “and the day of release on parole marks the end of the prison term.” 

People v. Jefferson, 21 Cal.4th 86, 95-96 (1999) (emphasis in original). This means that

petitioner is no longer serving a prison term that might be changed by any ruling on the instant

writ petition. As a result, there appears to be no “case or controversy” necessary for this court’s

jurisdiction over the action. See Nonette v. Small, 316 F.3d 872, 875-78 (9th Cir. 2002), cert.

denied, 540 U.S. 1218 (2004). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;

2. Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel is denied;

3. Within twenty days of the date of this order, petitioner shall show cause why

this action should not be dismissed. 

DATED: May 16, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2/kf

reed2480.osc 

Case 2:04-cv-02480-FCD-KJM Document 3 Filed 05/17/05 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIRECTV, INC., a California corporation,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2304 JFM 

vs.

MARCUS WIGGINS, ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT

Defendant. MARCUS WIGGINS AND

 / RETAINING JURISDICTION

HAVING READ AND CONSIDERED the Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal of

Defendant MARCUS WIGGINS and Request to Retain Jurisdiction, and such other pleadings,

documents and records deemed appropriate by the Court, and good cause appearing therefore, IT

IS HEREBY ORDERED:

(1) Defendant MARCUS WIGGINS is hereby dismissed from this action

without prejudice; 

(2) Each of said parties to bear its/his own costs and attorney’s fees; and

(3) The Court shall retain jurisdiction over DIRECTV and Defendant

MARCUS WIGGINS to enforce the terms described above of the Settlement Agreement between 

Case 2:04-cv-02304-JFM Document 25 Filed 06/02/05 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

those parties dated May 3, 2005 and hereby refers any further proceedings in this action to

enforce such terms of the Settlement Agreement to a Magistrate Judge of this District.

DATED: June 2, 2005. 

/directvwigg.dm 

Case 2:04-cv-02304-JFM Document 25 Filed 06/02/05 Page 2 of 2
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 on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax Credit Fund VI, L.P., Series 12 (the “Partnership”) for the quarters ended December 31, 2006, September 30, 2006 and June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Melanie R. Wenk., Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership’s general partner, hereby certify that:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that such provisions require the audit report of Local Limited Partnership financial statements to refer to the auditing standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board for the Partnership’s annual financial statements and except that the Report is a cumulative report covering each of the quarters ended December 31, September 30 and June 30, 2006 and





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











/s/Melanie R. Wenk


Melanie R. Wenk


Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.


Date: August 26, 2011
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of OpenTV Corp. for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, each of the undersigned officers of OpenTV Corp. certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his
respective knowledge:



| | (1) | the annual 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 annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of OpenTV Corp.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 15, 2010



/s/ Nigel W. BennettChief Executive Officer


Date:
March 15, 2010



/s/ Shum MukherjeeChief Financial Officer