alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE CARL SAMPLE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1132 FCD KJM P

vs.

SACRAMENTO SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER & WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

 / AD TESTIFICANDUM

Abraham Banks, inmate # T-99238, a necessary and material witness in

proceedings in this case on September 26, 2006, is confined in California State Prison

Sacramento, Prison Road, P.O. Box 290002, Represa, California 95671-0002 in the custody of

the Warden Scott M. Kernan; in order to secure this inmate's attendance it is necessary that a

Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issue commanding the custodian to produce the inmate

in Court, 15 Floor, Courtroom 2, United States Courthouse, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California th

on September 26, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. A Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issue, under the seal of this court,

commanding the Warden to produce the inmate named above to testify in United States District

Court at the time and place above, and from day to day until completion of court proceedings or

as ordered by the court; and thereafter to return the inmate to the above institution; 

2. The custodian is ordered to notify the court of any change in custody of this

inmate and is ordered to provide the new custodian with a copy of this writ; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a courtesy copy of this order and

writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum on the Out-To-Court Desk, California State Prison -

Sacramento, P.O. Box 290007, Represa, California 95671.

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM

To: Warden Scott M. Kernan, California State Prison Sacramento, Prison Road, P.O. Box

290002, Represa, California 95671-0002:

WE COMMAND you to produce the inmate named above to testify before the

United States District Court at the time and place above, and from day to day until completion of

the proceedings or as ordered by the court; and thereafter to return the inmate to the above

institution.

FURTHER, you have been ordered to notify the court of any change in custody

of the inmate and have been ordered to provide the new custodian with a copy of this writ.

DATED: August 23, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01132-FCD-KJM Document 61 Filed 08/23/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 47372.

#### Protests 42097-K, etc., of M. V. Jenkins (Seattle).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed on the basis of the condition in which imported, and that no addition shoujd have been made for the planing, tonguing, and grooving. Protests sustainedro this extent.
No. 59567.

protests 182113-K, etc. (New York).

#### The Crosse & Blackwell Co. and Daniel F. Young, Inc. *v.*United States,

*348Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef stew the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *The Crosse & Blackwell Co.*(42 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 579), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
PMN Sanitized file of O cular tissue study
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- WILKE, FLEURY,HOFFELT,

GOULD &BIRNEY,LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SACRAMENTO ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY (Case No. S-04-1358 WBS/GGH)

WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD & BIRNEY, LLP 

WILLIAM A. GOULD, JR. (SBN 035446) 

DANIEL L. BAXTER (SBN 203862) 

400 Capitol Mall, Twenty-Second Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 441-2430 

Facsimile: (916) 442-6664 

Attorneys for All Defendants 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES P. DeFAZIO, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HOLLISTER, INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. S-04-1358 WBS/GGH 

(Consolidated Action Master File Number) 

ORDER RE REQUEST OF ATTORNEY L. 

ANDREW BREHM TO APPEAR 

TELEPHONICALLY AT OCTOBER 19, 

2009 PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 

KATHLEEN ELLIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HOLLISTER, INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

BRENDA DIMARO; and HALLIE 

LAVICK, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

HOLLISTER, INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

 The court has received and considered the request of L. Andrew Brehm to appear 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 580 Filed 10/16/09 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- WILKE, FLEURY,HOFFELT,

GOULD &BIRNEY,LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SACRAMENTO ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY (Case No. S-04-1358 WBS/GGH)

telephonically at the Pretrial Conference in this matter. The Pretrial Conference is tantamount to 

the first day of trial. While the court understands and appreciates the unusual circumstances 

leading to Mr. Brehm’s request, it cannot grant it. Instead, the court will excuse Mr. Brehm’s 

absence from the conference and permit the other attorneys who represent his client to appear for 

him, provided that such attorneys have full authority to speak for Mr. Brehm and to bind their 

client. 

DATED: October 16, 2009 

472474.1 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 580 Filed 10/16/09 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

CAROL ROYE,

Plaintiff, CIV S-04-2192 DFL KJM PS

v.

FAIR ISAAC AND COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21). 

Presently calendared for hearing on August 3, 2005 is defendant LandSafe’s motion to dismiss. 

No substantive opposition has been filed but plaintiff has requested that the hearing be continued

because she will be out of the country until September 3, 2005. Plaintiff is advised that the

proper procedure when requesting an extension of time is to first seek a stipulation from the

opposing side. See Local Rule 6-142. 

Plaintiff is further advised that Local Rule 78-230(c) provides that opposition to

the granting of a motion must be filed fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. The

Rule further provides that “[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral

arguments if written opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party.” In

addition, Local Rule 78-230(j) provides that failure to appear may be deemed withdrawal of

Case 2:04-cv-02192-DFL -KJM Document 20 Filed 07/28/05 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

opposition to the motion or may result in sanctions. Finally, Local Rule 11-110 provides that

failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions

authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.”

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The hearing date of August 3, 2005 is vacated. Hearing on defendant’s motion

to dismiss is continued to September 28, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom no. 26.

2. Plaintiff shall file opposition, if any, to the motion to dismiss, no later than

September 14, 2005. Failure to file opposition and appear at the hearing will be deemed as a

statement of non-opposition and shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed

against defendant LandSafe pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

DATED: July 27, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006

roye.nop

Case 2:04-cv-02192-DFL -KJM Document 20 Filed 07/28/05 Page 2 of 2
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 411 1 9 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
NICOLAS ALMANZA ROSAS , also known as Nicolas Almanza , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:13

- CR

- 606

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Nicolas Almanza
Rosas has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Al manza Rosas h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 8, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-41119 Document: 00512690454 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/08/2014No. 13

- 411 1 9

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, cou nsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 13-41119 Document: 00512690454 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/08/2014
Opinion issued September 29 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 14
- 00236
- CV

——————————— RAMESH KAPUR, DBA AI C MANAGEMENT COMPANY , Appella nt V. CASSANDRA PLEASANT , Appell e e
On Appeal from the Co unty Civil C o ur t at Law No . 2

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1013763

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Ramesh Kapur dba AIC Management Company, appeals from a final judgment, signed December 11, 2013. The clerk’s record was filed on April 1, 2014. On May 2, 2014, the court reporter advised that appellant had not made arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record. Thereafter, this Court issued a2

notice to appellant that if he did not make arrangements to file the reporter’s record by June 4, 2014, we would or der appellant to file his brief and this Court would consider those issues not requiring a reporter’s record. 1 A second notice issued on November 6, 2014, directing appellant to file the reporter’s record by December 8, 2014, or the court would order appe llant’s brief due and would consider those issues not requiring a reporter’s record. No record was filed. On February 8, 2015, this Court issued an order, advising appellant that we were setting appellant’s brief due thirty days from the date of the order and that we would consider issues not requiring a reporter’s record. No brief was filed. On April 15, 2015, this Court issued a notice that the brief was late and that the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution unless, within ten days from th e date of notice, appellant filed his brief with a motion for extension of time, or filed a motion for extension of time, stating facts reasonably explaining the failure to timely file his brief and that appellee was not significantly injured by appellant ’ s failure to timely file his brief. No brief or motion was filed. Because appellant has not filed a brief, despite numerous notices from this
Court that the brief was due , we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution

. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(a)(1). Any pe nding motions are denied as moot.

1 This notice was returned to sender (this Court) ; however a clerk of this Court spoke to appellant on the telephone and he assured he r that the address on file was correct. On November 5, 2014, this Court sent appellant a notice that he could receive notices from the Court by email.3 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.
No. 6484.

#### SOLOMON LINDSEY, ET AL., vs. GEORGE AMRHEIM.

Syllabus.

1. A succession is vacant when no one elaims it, or when the heirs áre unknown or have renounced it. *G. C-,*1095.

2. Prescription runs against a vacant succession, even though no curator has been appointed. *G. G.,*3526.

Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division No. 108,574. Honorable E. K. Skinner, Judge.

Dailey & Nix, for plaintiff and appellee.

Dreyfous & Danziger, for defendant and appellant.

His.Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the .opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

This is .an action to compel defendant to accept title to a lot of ground forming part of a larger tract which Wm. H. Howcott sold to Henry Yoelker and Horace Sherman by deed dated January 15th, 1901. (C. O. Bk., 188, fol. 588.)

The present plaintiffs hold by mesne conveyances and by inheritance. Howcott had acquired by a tax sale which now seems void.

On October 1st, 1902, Yoelker and Sherman divided the property in kind, Voelker taking the half of the property of which the present lot forms part. (C. O. Bk 188, fol. 675.)

It is shown by the testimony of Voelker that he took immediate possession of the part allotted to him, fenced it, planted trees upon it, and paid taxes thereon; that he *105afterwards sub-divided and sold it to various parties wfto further improved it and have continued in possession thereof until the present day.

Opinion and decree, December 20th, 1915.

We'think the above recital shows a title translative of property, good faith, and possession sufficient to support the prescription of ten years; provided the former owner were one against whom.prescription could run.

Now it is admitted that the title to the property (unless divested by prescription) stands in the name of Pierre Reynaud, who acquired March 9th, 1832 (that is to say more than 80 years ago>).

If Pierre Reynaud be still alive prescription has clearly run against him. C. C., 3521. If dead, his succession is vacant, since no one has ever claimed it and his heirs are unknown, and prescription has equally run against it. C. 1095, 3526. In either case the prescription ran, and the title herein tendered is good.

Judgment affirmed, plaintiffs to pay the cost of making their proofs, that is to say, the costs of the Court below, and defendant to pay the costs of appeal.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 445 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 445

    To direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a final rule 
 relating to removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of 
   grizzly bears from the Federal list of endangered and threatened 
                   wildlife, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 15, 2023

 Ms. Lummis (for herself, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Daines, and Mr. 
Risch) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 
            to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a final rule 
 relating to removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of 
   grizzly bears from the Federal list of endangered and threatened 
                   wildlife, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Grizzly Bear State Management Act of 
2023''.

SEC. 2. REISSUANCE OF FINAL RULE RELATING TO GREATER YELLOWSTONE 
              ECOSYSTEM POPULATION OF GRIZZLY BEARS.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall reissue the 
final rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 
Removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of Grizzly Bears 
From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife'' (82 Fed. 
Reg. 30502 (June 30, 2017)), without regard to any other provision of 
law that applies to the issuance of that final rule.
    (b) No Judicial Review.--The reissuance of the final rule described 
in subsection (a) (including this section) shall not be subject to 
judicial review.
                                 <all>
```
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-4310

_____________________________

UPSIDE PROPERTY INVESTMENT,

L.L.C.,

Appellant,

v.

HSBC BANK USA, N.A., as 

Trustee for Merrill Lynch 

Mortgage Investors, Inc.,

Mortgage Pass-Through 

Certificates, MANA Series 2007-

A2,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Waddell A. Wallace, Judge.

June 21, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, OSTERHAUS, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Jessie L. Harrell, The Harrell Firm, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Richard S. McIver and H. Michael Muñiz, Kass Shuler, P.A., 

Tampa, for Appellee.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOSEPH F. CONNER, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

19 USCMA 74, 41 CMR 74

No. 22,329

November 14, 1969

*Commander E. M. Fulton, Jr.,*JAGC, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel C. R. Larouche,*USMC, and *Captain Charles E. Patterson,*USMCR, were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Ferguson, Judge:

The accused was convicted by special court-martial, convened in the Republic of Vietnam, of one specification each of being absent without leave, willful disobedience of an order of a superior officer, willful disobedience of an order of a superior non-commissioned officer, and wrongful possession of marihuana, in violation of Articles 86, 90, 91, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 886, 890, 891, and 934, respectively. He was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for four months, and forfeiture of $97.00 per month for four months. Intermediate appellate authorities have approved the findings and sentence without change. We granted re*75view to consider whether the president erred to the substantial prejudice of the accused by failing to instruct the court that when voting on proposed sentences, it should begin with the lightest proposal and continue in this manner until a sentence is adopted by the concurrence of the required number of members.

Our holding in this ease is controlled by our decision in United States v Johnson, 18 USCMA 436, 40 CMR 148, where, confronted with the same issue, we held that failure to give such an instruction, as provided for in paragraph 766(2) of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951, was prejudicial error. As we said in Johnson, at page 437:

> “A court, uninstructed as to this procedure, may well believe that the voting could properly commence with consideration of the most severe proposed sentence. Since we have no way of ascertaining what took place, the voting having been conducted in secret, and, inasmuch as, in our opinion, the matter concerned a substantial right of the accused, the doctrine of plain error may be properly invoked. United States v Stephen, 15 USCMA 314, 35 CMR 286. Reversal as to sentence is required.”

See also United States v Newton, 18 USCMA 562, 40 CMR 274.

The decision of the board of review is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. A rehearing on sentence may be ordered.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge DaRden concur.
CIV. S-04-1624 FCD GGH 1

THOMAS N. STEWART, III - #88128

ATTORNEY AT LAW

369 BLUE OAK LANE, 2 FLOOR nd

CLAYTON, CA 94517

TELEPHONE (925) 672-8452

TELEFAX (925) 673-1729

Attorneys for Byron Chapman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BYRON CHAPMAN, Case No. CIV. S-04-1624 FCD GGH

Plaintiff, STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL; ORDER

v.

FUAD and MUNTAHA SHAMIEH,

Defendants.

__________________________________/ 

The parties hereto stipulate as follows:

The parties have reached a full and final settlement of all issues in this action. A

Settlement Agreement between the parties has been fully executed. 

Some parts of the Settlement Agreement are to be performed in the future. The parties

shall comply with their Settlement Agreement, a copy of which is incorporated by reference as

if fully set forth. The parties request the Court to retain jurisdiction for eighteen months from

the date hereof in order to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement under the authority of

Case 2:04-cv-01624-FCD-GGH Document 12 Filed 07/24/06 Page 1 of 2
CIV. S-04-1624 FCD GGH 2

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. Of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994).

Although the parties are hereby dismissing this action with prejudice, they agree that the

Court will retain jurisdiction over this action and the parties hereto in order to be able to

enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to this action through their

designated counsel that this action be and hereby is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to FRCP

41(a)(2), and the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement for

eighteen montns after the date hereof.

Date: July 20, 2006 Date: July 20, 2006

S/A. Nick Shamiyeh, S/Thomas N. Stewart, III, 

Attorney for Defendants Attorney for Plaintiff

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Date: July 21, 2006 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

 U.S. District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01624-FCD-GGH Document 12 Filed 07/24/06 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**
We have issued our report dated July 9, 2004, accompanying the consolidatedfinancial statements and schedules incorporated by reference in the AnnualReport of Koss Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2004. Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in theRegistration Statement of KOSS CORPORATION on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-89872,33-60804, 333-37986 and 333-20405).
GRANT THORNTON LLP
/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
September 30, 2004
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

[PROPOSED] 

ORDER SUBSTITUTING COUNSEL, EXTENDING THE TIME TO 

SERVE DEFENDANTS AND VACATING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE.

LAWRENCE J. KING (CSB #120805)

6 “C” STREET 

PETALUMA, CA 94952

PHONE: (707) 769-9791

FAX: (707) 769-9253

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

KARUNA ANAND, M.D.

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

KARUNA ANAND, M.D., 

Plaintiff,

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

DEVELOPMENTALSERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

 

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

CASE NO. C-04-1575 LKK/GGH

[PROPOSED] 

ORDER SUBSTITUTING COUNSEL,

EXTENDING THE TIME TO SERVE

DEFENDANTS AND VACATING

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE.

It is hereby ordered that:

The Law Offices of Lawrence J. King shall be substituted as counsel for pro se Plaintiff

Karuna Anand, M.D. and the April 13, 2005 order to show cause why this case should not be

dismissed for failure to timely serve the defendants herein shall be vacated. Plaintiff shall serve

defendants with the summons and complaint within sixty days of the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/3/05 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

United States Magistrate

Case 2:04-cv-01575-LKK -GGH Document 5 Filed 05/04/05 Page 1 of 1