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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIONELL THOLMER, 

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-1368-GEB-CMK-P

vs.

CHERYL PLILER, 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 17, 2006, 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 ten days. Plaintiff requested and

was granted an extension of time to file objections; however, to date plaintiff has not filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01368-GEB -CMK Document 31 Filed 01/05/07 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

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 August 17, 2006, are adopted in full;

and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order is denied. 

Dated: January 5, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01368-GEB -CMK Document 31 Filed 01/05/07 Page 2 of 2
No. 44017.

#### Protests 835428-G, etc., of Butler Brothers (Boston).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Butler*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 303) the Rockingham-ware in question was held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 210 as claimed.
1 ... S eeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 08 - 06 3- CV I N R E E L VE R A M. J OHN S ON, I N R E L AT OR HER OFF I CI AL CAPAC I TY AS D I STRI CT CL E R K OF P AR K E R CO UNT Y, T E XAS

----- ----- -- OR I GI NALP R OCE E DI NG

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

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- The c our tha s con si der ed r el at or ’ s pet i t i on f o r w r i tofm and am us an d pr ohi b i t i o n a n d i s o ft h e o p i n i o n t h a tr e l i e fs h o u l d b e d e n i e d . A c c o r di ngl y, r el at or ’ s pet i t i on f orw r i tofm and am us an d pr ohi bi t i on i s den i ed. R el at orshal l pay al l cost s oft his o ri gi nal pr oceedi ng, f orw hi ch l et execut i on i ssue.
L E E AN N D AUP HI NOT J U S T I C E PA N EL A : DA U PH I N O T, J. ; CA YC E, C. J. ; an d M C C O Y, J. M C C O Y , J. w oul d r equestor al ar gum ent on t he m andam us i ssue. DEL I VERE D: Apr i l 18, 2008
**Exhibit 21**

Subsidiaries 

PrimeEnergy Management Corporation, a New York corporation 100% owned by PrimeEnergy Corporation 

Prime Operating Company, a Texas corporation 100% owned by PrimeEnergy Corporation 

Eastern Oil Well Service Company, a West Virginia corporation 100% owned by PrimeEnergy Corporation 

Southwest OilfieldConstruction Company, an Oklahoma corporation, 100% owned by PrimeEnergy Corporation 

E O W S Midland Company, a Texas corporation, 100% owned byPrimeEnergy Corporation 

Prime Offshore L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company 90% owned by PrimeEnergy Corporation 

Chase Energy L.L.C., a Texas Limited Liability Company, 50% owned by PrimeEnergy Corporation
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

RICHARD BARRON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1197 GEB GGH P

vs.

DR. USHA PAI, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has filed a second request 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 request for the

appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01197-GEB-GGH Document 48 Filed 06/28/06 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 plaintiff’s May 31, 2006 second

request for the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: 6/28/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:bb

barr1197.31(2)

Case 2:04-cv-01197-GEB-GGH Document 48 Filed 06/28/06 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

ANTONIO TAYLOR, 

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-04-2123 GEB KJM P 

vs.

SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF

SAN JOAQUIN,

 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a “petition for writ of

mandate / prohibition.” Because this is not a proper request for relief in this court, the “petition”

will be dismissed. Petitioner will be given thirty days within which to file either an application

for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, or a complaint alleging violation of civil

rights. Generally speaking, petitioner should file a petition under § 2254 if he seeks release from

custody or a reduction of his sentence. If he feels his Constitutional rights have been violated

due to conditions of confinement, he should file a § 1983 complaint. 

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02123-GEB -KJM Document 8 Filed 05/16/05 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 HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's “petition for writ of mandate / prohibition” is denied;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the court's form for

application for writ of habeas corpus by state prisoners and form-complaint for violations of civil

rights alleged by prisoners;

3. Petitioner shall file either a completed § 2254 petition or § 1983 complaint

within thirty days of this order. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

DATED: May 13, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

tayl2123.114

Case 2:04-cv-02123-GEB -KJM Document 8 Filed 05/16/05 Page 2 of 2
|   | (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                         |                              |
|------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|                         | /s/      Jesus R. Adia            |
|                         | Jesus      R. Adia                |
|                         | President      and                |
|                         | Chief      Executive Officer      |
|                         |                              |
|                         |                              |
|                         |                              |
|                         | /s/      John S. Lotardo          |
|                         | John      S. Lotardo              |
|                         | Executive      Vice President and |
|                         | Chief      Financial Officer      |
|                         |                              |
| Date:      May 15,      2009 |                              |
|                         |                              |
|                         |                              |
Exhibit 23.2.c









CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-18139 and 333-108215) of our report dated February 5, 2002, except with respect to the reclassification of the 2001 information in Note 16 as to which the date is May 22, 2002; the 2001 transitional disclosures relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142 as described in Note 6 as to which the date is February 21, 2003;  and the reclassification described in the last paragraph of Note 4 relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 145, the reclassification to the 2001 financial statements relating to the discontinued operations as described in Note 8, and the 2001 transitional disclosures relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 143 as described in Note 15 as to which the date is August 13, 2003, relating to the financial statements of Kansas City Power & Light Company, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.  We also hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 5, 2002, except with respect to the reclassification to the 2001 financial statement schedule information relating to the discontinued operations as described in Note 1 as to which the date is August 13, 2003, relating to the financial statement schedule of Kansas City Power & Light Company, which also appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.



/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP



Kansas City, Missouri

April 13, 2004
No. 60863.

#### Castello Fencing Equipment Co., Inc., and American Express Co. *v.*United States,

protests 263212-K and 263213-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fencing foils similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Castello Fencing Equipment Co., Inc.,*and *Bohner, Gehrig & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 72, C. D. 1447), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
EXHIBIT  23.1

CONSENT  OF  INDEPENDENT  ACCOUNTANTS
-------------------------------------

We  hereby  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the Registration
Statements  on  Form  S-8 (No. 333-43448) and the Registration Statement on Form
S-3/S-8  (No.  333-53780)  of Evolve Software, Inc. of our report dated July 31,
2001, except for Note 19 as to which the date is September 27, 2001, relating to
the financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this
Annual  Report  on  Form  10-K.


PricewaterhouseCoopers  LLP

San  Jose,  CA
September  28,  2001


<PAGE>
# MULTI-FUNCTION

APPLIANCES

EDWARD POLLOCK OFFICE OF CODES & STANDARDS DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ,-,. 'f '. (.

## MULTI~FUNCTION 

# APPLIANCE.S

EDWARD POLLOCK OFFICE OF CODES & STANDARDS DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

## PERFORMANCE DESCRIPTORS s HYDROTECH 2 0 0 0 SEER, HSPF OPERATING COSTS ANNUAL ENERGY SAVINGS NORDYNE SEER, HS-PF COMBINED HEATING PERFORMANCE FACTOR COMBINED COOLING PERFORMANCE FACTOR 

### OTHER OPTIONS ADJUSTED/ EQUIVALENT SEER/HSPF. ADJUSTED/ EQUIVALENT EF (DIMENSIONLESS) 

# PERFORMANCE DESCRIPTORS

..**~ :iHY~DROTECH**  

### 2000

, 

### SEER, HSPF OPERAT-ING COSTS ANNUAL ENERGY SAVINGS NORDYNE SEER, HS·PF COMBINED HEATING PERFORMANCE FACTOR COMBINED COOLING PERFORMANCE FACTOR OTHER OPTIONS ADJUSTED/EQUIVALENTSEER/HSPF ADJUSTED/EQUIVALENT EF (DIMENSIONLESS)

# PRODUCTS • AIR CONDITIONER/HEAT PUMPS & WATER HEATER DESUPERHEATER - FULLY INTEGRATED SYSTEM • SPACE HEATING & WATER HEATING - SPACE HEATING PRIMARY LOAD - WATER HEATING PRIMARY LOAD ,-., f,... ( 

# PRODUCTS

· AIR CONDITIONER/HEAT PUMPS &

### WATER HEATER

- DESUPERHEATER

- FULLY·INTEGRATED SYSTEM

· SPACE HEATING & 

### WATER HEATING

- SPACE HEATING PRIMARY LOAD·

- WATER HEATING PRIMARY LOAD

# DOE WAIVERS .MANUFACTURER CARRIER NORDYNE 

### COMPRESSOR VARIABLE SPEED SINGLE SPEED INDOOR FAN VARIABLE SPEED SINGLE SPEED DEFROST HEAT HOT WATER INDOOR AIR DEDICATED 

### OUTDOOR COIL INDOOR COIL IN WATER HEATING 

### COOLING MODE 

### SEASON CONTROLS MICRO- CONVENTIONAL PROCESSOR CONTROLS ,"" ff**~. ~_** 



### ."MANUFACTURER



### "COMPRESSOR

INDOOR FAN 

## DOE WA"IVERS CARRIER " NORDYNE 

### VARIABLE SPEED SINGLE SPEED VAR"IABLE SPEED SINGLE SPEED DEFROST HEAT HOTWATER INDOORAIR DEDICATED OUTDOOR COIL" INDOOR COIL IN WATER HEATING COOLING MODE ' SEASON CONTROLS " MICRO- CONVENTIONAL "PROCESSOR CONTROLS

## TESTING OF INTEGRATED SYSTEMS

'TEST OPERATING MODES

SPACE COOLING ONLY A COMBINED COOL & DHW B SPACE COOLING ONLY B COMBINED COOL & DHW B C COMBINED- SUT SPACE COOLING ONLY SPACE COOLING ONLY SPACE HEATING ONLY SPACE HEATING ONLYCOMBINED HEAT & DHWSPACE HEATING ONLY SPACE HEATING ONLY COMBINED HEAT & DHW OPERATING CONDITION STEADY-STATE STEADY-STATE STEADY-STATE STEADY-STATE CYCLIC STEADY-STATE CYCLIC HIGH TEMPERATURE CYCLIC HEATING CYCLIC DEFROST LOW TEMPERATURE LOW TEMPERATURE 

# TESTING OF INTEGRATED SYSTEMS

..... .'fTEST OPERATINGMODES OPERATING CONDITION



### ,A SPACE COOLING ONLY STEADY-STATE

" A COMBINED COOL & DHW STEADY-STATE B SPACE COOLING ONLY STEADY-STATE B COMBINED COOL & DHW STEADY-STATE / B COMBINED
- SUT CYCLIC C SPACE COOLING ONLY**STEADY~STATE** D SPACE COOLING ONLY CYCLIC SPACE HEATING ONLY HIGH TEMPERATURE SPACE ljEATING ONLY, CYCLIC HEATING COMBINED HEAT & DHW CYCLIC . SPACE HEATING ONLY DEFROST SPACE HEATING Ol\JLY LOW TEMPERATURE COMBINED HEAT & DHW. LOW TEMP,ERATURE
Case No. 6,740.

#### In re HOUSTON.

[Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
No. 47873.

#### Protest 946055-G of New York Mdse. Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of New York *Merchandise Co.*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 209, C. D. 607), the claim at 35 percent under paragraph 353 was sustained as to the brass shells in question. Tape measures stipulated to be articles chiefly used in the household for utilitarian purposes, and similar to those the subject of Abstract 43372, were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed.
No. 66838.

#### Mosaic Stone Company *v.*United States,

protests 60/27894, etc. (Laredo).

*476Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of face brick similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Bunker Hill Bride & Supply, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 95, C.D. 2240), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-60,318] 

      ( print page 10559)    
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at Delphi Corporation, Automotive Holdings Group, Anaheim, California. The application did not contain new information supporting a conclusion that the determination was erroneous, and also did not provide a justification for reconsideration of the determination that was based on either mistaken facts or a misinterpretation of facts or of the law. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued:

*TA-W-60,318; Delphi Corporation, Automotive Holdings Group, Anaheim, California (February 23, 2007)*

Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of February 2007. 

Ralph DiBattista, 

Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E7-4063 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: APPOINTMENT TO MINOR

 

JUDICIARY EDUCATION BOARD 

:

:

:

No. 375

MAGISTERIAL RULES DOCKET

 O R D E R

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 19th day of August, 2014, Richard E. Hammon,* 

Cumberland County, is hereby appointed as a member of the Minor Judiciary Education 

Board for a term expiring July 1, 2017.

*Lay elector
# C_2006332EN.01001001.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 332/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 332/10

---

Notice concerning a request under Article 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC — extension of time limit

(2006/C 332/06)

Request made by a Member State

On 20 November 2006, the Commission received a request in accordance with Article 30(4) of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1).

1

The request, which comes from Denmark, concerns parcel delivery services in that country. The request was published in OJ C 298/13 of 8 December 2006. The initial period expires on 21 February 2007.

Given that the Commission needs to obtain and examine further information, and in compliance with the provisions laid down in the third sentence of Article 30(6), the period in which the Commission must take a decision on this request is extended by one month.

The final period will therefore expire on 22 March 2007.

---

(1)  OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 1. Directive as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1874/2004 (OJ L 326, 29.10.2004, p. 17).

1

---
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Corporate Property
Associates 16  Global
Incorporated.
  /s/ Gordon F. DuGanGordon F. DuGanChief Executive Officer
  /s/ Mark J. DeCesarisMark J. DeCesarisacting Chief Financial Officer
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/6/2023 1

Preclearance of an Election to Incorporate a City 

Sabel v. Pinal County 

(James A. Teilborg, D. Ariz. 2:07-cv-2000) 

A suit to enjoin an election on the incorporation of a city for lack of 

preclearance was filed three weeks before the election. A threejudge district court determined that incorporation elections did not 

require preclearance. 

Subject: Ballot measures. Topics: Section 5 preclearance; 

enjoining elections; three-judge court; case assignment. 

A Pinal County voter filed a federal complaint in the District of Arizona on 

October 16, 2007, to enjoin a scheduled November 6 election on the incorporation of Arizona City within Pima County for lack of preclearance pursuant 

to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.1 With his complaint, the voter filed a 

motion for an order to show cause.2

The court assigned the case to Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns.3 Because of a request for reassignment to a district judge, the court assigned the 

case to Judge James A. Teilborg on October 22.4 That day, Judge Teilborg 

ordered that the case be assigned to a three-judge district court to review the 

section 5 claim.5 Chief Circuit Judge Mary M. Schroeder appointed Circuit 

Judge Pamela A. Rymer and District Judge Susan R. Bolton to join Judge 

Teilborg as the three-judge court.6

On November 2, the court determined on the briefs that an election to 

incorporate a city is not a covered change under section 5.7 Judge Teilborg 

dismissed the case as moot after defeat of the incorporation measure in the 

election.8

1. Complaint, Sabel v. Pinal County, No. 2:07-cv-2000 (D. Ariz. Oct. 16, 2007), D.E. 1; 

see Voting Rights Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-110, § 5, 79 Stat. 437, 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). 

2. Motion, Sabel, No. 2:07-cv-2000 (D. Ariz. Oct. 16, 2007), D.E. 2. 

3. Docket Sheet, id. (Oct. 16, 2007). 

Judge Burns retired on February 22, 2023. Appointment of New Magistrate Judge, www. 

azd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/announcements/US%20District%20Court%20%5BBURNS%5D

%200922F.pdf, archived at web.archive.org/web/20230504181134/www.azd.uscourts.gov/sites/ 

default/files/announcements/US%20District%20Court%20[BURNS]%20 0922F.pdf. 

4. Minute Order, Sabel, No. 2:07-cv-2000 (D. Ariz. Oct. 22, 2007), D.E. 8. 

5. Order, id. (Oct. 22, 2007), D.E. 11. 

6. Order, id. (Oct. 23, 2007), D.E. 15. 

Judge Rymer died on September 21, 2011. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory 

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

7. Order, Sabel, No. 2:07-cv-2000 (D. Ariz. Nov. 2, 2007), D.E. 28. 

8. Order, id. (Dec. 14, 2007), D.E. 31.
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

[Proposed] Order Granting Defendants’ First Request for an Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery

1

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

JAMES M. HUMES

Chief Assistant Attorney General

FRANCES T. GRUNDER

Senior Assistant Attorney General

MONICA N. ANDERSON

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

VAN KAMBERIAN, State Bar No. 176665

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 324-3892

Fax: (916) 324-5205

Attorneys for Defendants Rhodes, Jett, Prosper,

Schroers, Shannon and Ceaglio

SA2005101004

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

CARL DAVID WHITE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al,

Defendants.

CASE NO. CIV-S-04-2276 GEB GGH P

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ FIRST REQUEST

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO

RESPOND TO DISCOVERY

Good cause appearing, Defendants are granted a 30 day extension to file a response to

Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Defendants’ response shall be due on or before October 2, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: 9/13/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

wh2276.ext.wpd

Case 2:04-cv-02276-GEB-GGH Document 41 Filed 09/14/05 Page 1 of 1