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

DONALD RAY FIELDS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2384 LKK KJM P

vs.

R. COX,

Defendant. 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 January 5, 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.

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: 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02384-LKK -KJM Document 5 Filed 08/24/05 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

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 5, 2005, are adopted in full;

and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice.

DATED: August 23, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/fiel2384.800

Case 2:04-cv-02384-LKK -KJM Document 5 Filed 08/24/05 Page 2 of 2
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4572 

To direct the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Assistant Secretary 

of Commerce for Communications and Information, to conduct a study 

of the national security risks posed by consumer routers, modems, and 

devices that combine a modem and router, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 18, 2024 

Mrs. BLACKBURN (for herself and Mr. LUJA ́N) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications 

and Information, to conduct a study of the national 

security risks posed by consumer routers, modems, and 

devices that combine a modem and router, and for other 

purposes. 

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 ‘‘Removing Our Unse5 cure Technologies to Ensure Reliability and Security Act’’ 

6 or the ‘‘ROUTERS Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4572 IS

1 SEC. 2. STUDY OF NATIONAL SECURITY RISKS POSED BY 

2 CERTAIN ROUTERS AND MODEMS. 

3 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

4 (1) COVERED COUNTRY.—The term ‘‘covered 

5 country’’ has the meaning given the term ‘‘covered 

6 nation’’ in section 4872(d) of title 10, United States 

7 Code. 

8 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

9 the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the As10 sistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications 

11 and Information. 

12 (b) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a study of 

13 the national security risks posed by consumer routers, 

14 modems, and devices that combine a modem and router 

15 that are designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied 

16 by persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the influ17 ence of a covered country. 

18 (c) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 1 year 

19 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 

20 submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

21 Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on En22 ergy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a re23 port on the results of the study conducted under sub24 section (b). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 3/17/2023 1

Preclearance of a State Supreme-Court Decision 

That Provisional Ballots 

Have to Be Cast in the Correct Precinct 

Kindley v. Bartlett 

(Terrence W. Boyle, E.D.N.C. 5:05-cv-177) 

A federal class-action complaint challenged a state policy against 

counting provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct, a policy recently allowed by the state’s supreme court. The federal districtcourt judge denied injunctive relief on a finding that the state was 

not attempting to enforce the policy in advance of preclearance 

pursuant to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. 

Subject: Provisional ballots. Topics: Provisional ballots; section 

5 preclearance; matters for state courts; class action. 

On March 15, 2005, a North Carolina voter filed a federal class-action complaint in the Eastern District of North Carolina challenging state policy on 

the counting of provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct.1 Two days later, the court set the case for hearing on March 22.2

 On March 18, the plaintiff 

filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.3

In his March 18 response, North Carolina’s attorney general explained 

that the suit concerned contested elections in state court and the state supreme court’s February 5 decision that under state law provisional ballots 

had to be cast in the correct precinct to count.4 On March 21, the court set 

the case for hearing on March 30 before Judge Terrence W. Boyle.5

Judge Boyle issued an opinion on April 8 denying immediate injunctive 

relief.6 Judge Boyle found that North Carolina was in the process of having 

its supreme court’s ruling precleared pursuant to section 5 of the Voting 

Rights Act, and the plaintiff had not shown an attempt by North Carolina to 

enforce the ruling in advance of preclearance.7

On September 26, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action.8

1. Complaint, Kindley v. Bartlett, No. 5:05-cv-177 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 15, 2005), D.E. 1; see

Gary D. Robertson, Election Battle Back in Court, Charlotte Observer, Mar. 16, 2005, at 4B. 

2. Docket Sheet, Kindley, No. 5:05-cv-177 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 15, 2005). 

3. Motion, id. (Mar. 18, 2005), D.E. 3. 

4. Response, id. (Mar. 18, 2005), D.E. 4. 

5. Docket Sheet, supra note 2. 

6. Opinion, Kindley, No. 5:05-cv-177 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 8, 2005), D.E. 16. 

7. Id. at 7; 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). 

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).

8. Notice, Kindley, No. 5:05-cv-177 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 2005), D.E. 27.
Before the Third Division,

January 28, 1944

No. 49176.

#### Petition 6401-R of Barrie-Morell & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It appeared from the evidence introduced by the petitioner that the entry ‘ip question had been made on the basis of delivered prices rather than quotation prices. When it was learned that the appraiser desired to advance the .values to a price equal to foreign quotations for future delivery rather than delivered prices, he consulted other importers and decided to make a test case. It was found that the entry at the lower values was due to a difference of opinion upon a question of law and that there was no intention on the part of the importer to defraud the Government or deceive the Government officials. The petition was therefore granted.
Exhibit 31.01

      CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14

         I, Jason McDiarmid, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB/A of Essential Innovations
Technology Corp.;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

         3. [omitted];

         4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small
business issuer and have:

         (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

         (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

         (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

         5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

         (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

         (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.

Date: June 23, 2005


/s/ Jason McDiarmid
-----------------------------
Jason McDiarmid
Principal Executive Officer
No. 66827.

#### Tex Mex Brick & Import Co. *v.*United States,

protests 59/23773, etc. (Laredo).

Opinion 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 Brick & Supply, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 95, C.D. 2240), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit
      32.2




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


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




In
      connection with the quarterly report of General Steel Holdings, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Commission on February 12, 2007 (the “Report”), I, John Chen, Chief Financial
      Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:




(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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





Date:
        February 12, 2007


/s/
                John ChenBy:
                John ChenTitle:
                Director and Chief Financial Officer
(Reap. Dec. 8507)

#### Jung Forwarding Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 836742, etc.

(Decided January 6, 1956)

*Jordan & Klingaman*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been *495submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel, subject to the approval of the court:

> 1 — That the merchandise the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the schedule hereto attached and made a part hereof, consists of artists’ materials and supplies imported from Holland.

2 — That the issues in the said appeals are the same in all material respects as the issues in the case of *United States*v. *International Expediters, Inc. for Winsor & Newton, Inc.,*40 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 148 (C. A. D. 511), wherein it was held that cost of production, as defined in Sec. 402 (f), Tariff Act of 1930, was the proper basis of appraisement, and that the record in the said case may be incorporated in the record in the instant appeals.

3 — That, as to the items of the aforesaid merchandise entered at the invoice unit prices plus 20 per cent, the said cost of production is represented by the invoice unit prices plus 11.11 per cent.

4 — That as to all other items of the said merchandise, except those referred to in paragraph 5 of this stipulation, said cost of production is represented by the appraised values less 25 per cent.

5 — The appeals for reappraisement herein are abandoned as to items entered at the invoice unit prices plus 10 per cent and plus 8 per cent.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals for re-appraisement herein may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts I find tbe cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, to be tbe proper basis for tbe determination of the value of tbe merchandise here involved and that such values were as follows:

As to tbe items of merchandise entered at tbe invoice unit prices, plus 20 per centum, such values were tbe invoice unit prices, plus 11.11 per centum.

As to all other items of merchandise involved, except as to tbe merchandise covered by tbe abandonment noted below, such values were tbe appraised values, less 25 per centum.

Tbe appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to items of merchandise entered at tbe invoice unit prices, plus 10 per centum, plus 8 per centum, to that extent tbe appeals are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
# Bullfrog

# Halls

# Dangling

# Wahweap

# Antelope

# State Line

# Farley

# Blue

# Knowles

# Forgotten

# Moqui

# Stanton

# Escalante 50

# Rainbow

# Padre

# Warm Cr

# Lone Rock

# Colorado Inflow

# San Juan

# Escalante inflow
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Lpath, Inc. (the Corporation) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Scott R. Pancoast, President and Chief
Executive Officer and I, Gary J. G. Atkinson, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our
knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.

Date: November 9, 2010



/S/    SCOTT R. PANCOASTScott R. PancoastPresident and Chief Executive Officer/S/    GARY J.G. ATKINSONGary J.G. AtkinsonVice President and Chief Financial Officer


A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Lpath, Inc. and will be retained by Lpath, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of Lpath, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 9995]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3801]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Executive Committee of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 
Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of the Executive Committee of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 
Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be on April 11, 2007, at 10 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, 
10th floor, MacCracken Room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerri Robinson, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, 
telephone (202) 267-9678; fax (202) 267-5075; e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#98dffdeaeaf1b6caf7faf1f6ebf7f6d8fef9f9b6fff7ee"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d691b3a4a4bff884b9b4bfb8a5b9b896b0b7b7f8b1b9a0">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), we are giving notice of a 
meeting of the Executive Committee of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 
Committee taking place on April 11, 2007, at the Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. The 
agenda includes:

<bullet> ISO Feedback
<bullet> Future taskings of ARAC
<bullet> Issue Area Status Reports from Assistant Chairs
<bullet> Remarks from other EXCOM members

Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to the space 
available. The FAA will arrange teleconference service for individuals 
wishing to join in by teleconference if we receive notice by April 4. 
Arrangements to participate by teleconference can be made by contacting 
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 
Callers outside the Washington metropolitan area are responsible for 
paying long-distance charges.
    The public must arrange by April 4 to present oral statements at 
the meeting. The public may present written statements to the executive 
committee by providing 25 copies to the Executive Director, or by 
bringing the copies to the meeting.
    If you are in need of assistance or require a reasonable 
accommodation for this meeting, please contact the person listed under 
the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Washington, DC, February 26, 2007.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Executive Director, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. E7-3801 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
ozone docket--OMB

Jan King to: Sherry Russell 07/27/2011 01:59 PM

Jan King

Regulatory Development and Policy Analysis Group

phone: (919) 541-5665

fax: (919) 541-2664

Mailcode: C404-05

----- Forwarded by Jan King/RTP/USEPA/US on 07/27/2011 01:59 PM -----

From: "Kymn, Christine J." <Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov>

To: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Deirdre Murphy/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Nealson Watkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lewis 

Weinstock/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, David Orlin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jan 

King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Margaret Morrison/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen 

Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Kimber Scavo/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/26/2011 02:25 PM

Subject: RE: CO meeting on Friday morning at 9:30?

Hi Lydia,

I can set up for 9:30. Alternatively, I have a proposal for Th afternoon. 

Could someone give me a call?

Thanks!

Christine 

-----Original Message-----

From: Lydia Wegman [mailto:Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 1:54 PM

To: Kymn, Christine J.

Cc: Deirdre Murphy; Nealson Watkins; Lewis Weinstock; David Orlin; Jan King; 

Margaret Morrison; Karen Martin

Subject: CO meeting on Friday morning at 9:30?

Christine,

Based on my survey of our folks, it seems that people will be available

for a CO interagency meeting on Friday at or after 9:30 AM. You had

said you'd like to have it early in the day, so I'm proposing 9:30 as

the time. Is that OK with you? If so, Margaret will send you a

schedule notice and a phone call-in number. Thanks.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-30063

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DERRICK DAVIS, also known as D,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:01-CR-81-2

Before JOLLY, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Derrick Davis, federal prisoner # 27548-034, appeals the district court’s

ruling that he was ineligible for a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) based on the amendments to the crack cocaine Guideline. Although

Davis argues that he was eligible for such a reduction, when a defendant such

as Davis is “subject to a statutory minimum sentence above the upper end of his

guideline range, . . . 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) provides no authority to the district

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 22, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 09-30063 Document: 00511149182 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2010
No. 09-30063

court to later modify the sentence based on amendments to the guideline range.”

United States v. Carter, 595 F.3d 575, 581 (5th Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 09-30063 Document: 00511149182 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2010
No. 65494.

Suit 5030.

#### Salentine and Company, Inc. *v.*United States.

C.D. 2129 affirmed November 17, 1960. C.A.D. 762.
No. 52611.

protests 13915-iGK, etc. (New York).

#### Gane & Ingram, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as the estrogenic hormone passed upon in *Roche-Organon*v. *United States*(35 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 378). The claim at 10 percent under paragraph 34 was therefore sustained.