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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Jesse Simkins,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1433 DFL PAN P

vs. Order

Foothill Orthopedic Medical

Center, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoDecember 15, 2005, defendants Ingalls (aka Ingles) and Pires

moved to compel answers to interrogatories and requests for

admissions served September 6, 2005, and for sanctions. 

Plaintiff did not respond to the discovery, nor to an October 27,

2005, letter. He has not opposed the motion to compel. The

motion is granted. 

Defendants seek sanctions. This court must apportion

expense-shifting sanctions “in a just manner,” taking into 

Case 2:04-cv-01433-DFL-PAN Document 38 Filed 02/08/06 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

account the extent to which the opposing party’s objections to

discovery were substantially justified. Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(a)(4)(c); see also Reygo Pac. Corp. v. Johnson Pump Co., 680

F.2d 647, 649 (9th Cir. 1982) (expenses ordinarily awarded unless

court finds losing party’s position was justified); 7 James Wm.

Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice para. 37.23[1] (courts

apply rebuttable presumption in favor of imposing expense

shifting sanctions on party against whom motion to compel is

resolved). Plaintiff offers nothing to rebut the presumption of

sanctions. His position, which was to ignore the discovery,

letter and motion, was not substantially justified; it

inconvenienced defendants and the court and will delay reaching

the merits of this action. 

Counsel seeks compensation for four hours’ work in

connection with the matter. The court finds that a fair sanction

is $450.00, which is two hours’ work at $225 per hour.

Accordingly, defendants’ December 15, 2005, motion to compel

and for sanctions is granted. Within 20 days, plaintiff shall

respond to defendants’ discovery and remit $450.00 to opposing

counsel.

So ordered.

Dated: February 7, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01433-DFL-PAN Document 38 Filed 02/08/06 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

ANDREW M. LEARNED, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1834 WBS DAD PS

vs.

MBNA AMERICA BANK, N.A.,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On May 3, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. No objections to the findings

and recommendations have been filed.

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-01834-WBS -DAD Document 21 Filed 06/03/05 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 May 3, 2005, are adopted in full;

2. Defendant’s December 14, 2004 and March 14, 2005 motions to dismiss are

granted;

3. Plaintiff’s September 1, 2004 motion to vacate arbitration award is denied; and

4. This action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

DATED June 1, 2005

/learned1834.jo

Case 2:04-cv-01834-WBS -DAD Document 21 Filed 06/03/05 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 his notice, plaintiff stated he was confused as to whether plaintiff was now cut-off 1

from discovery inasmuch as the revised scheduling order did not address discovery. However, by

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES WHITTENBERG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2313 FCD JFM P

vs.

LT. L. ROLL,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 9, 2005, plaintiff filed a document which appears

to be his effort to notify counsel for defendant that plaintiff had not yet received certain

documents plaintiff had earlier requested. It does not appear that plaintiff is seeking court action. 

Moreover, court permission is not necessary for discovery requests and neither discovery

requests served on an opposing party nor that party's responses should be filed until such time as

a party becomes dissatisfied with a response and seeks relief from the court pursuant to the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Discovery requests between the parties shall not be filed with

the court unless, and until, they are at issue.1

Case 2:04-cv-02313-FCD-JFM Document 33 Filed 09/20/05 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

order filed April 25, 2005, plaintiff’s request to extend the discovery deadline was granted and

the discovery cut-off was extended to August 4, 2005. Of course, the parties may agree to

exchange discovery without seeking court intervention, particularly in an effort to expedite

resolution or litigation of this case.

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s September 9, 2005

notice will be placed in the court file and disregarded. 

DATED: September 20, 2005.

/001; whit2313.dsc2 

Case 2:04-cv-02313-FCD-JFM Document 33 Filed 09/20/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 66864.

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

protests 60/26880, 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), tb s cla im of the plaintiff was sustained.
**GAO-10-617R**                      Published: Apr 14, 2010. Publicly Released: Apr 14, 2010.                  

-   
-   
-   
-   

    Jump To:  
-  Elder Abuse 
-  Services for Older Adults 
-  State and Local-Level Drivers and Trends 
-  State and Local Fiscal Projections 
-  Federal Borrowing 
-  Managing the Debt 
-  Summary of Funding Provisions 
-  Auditing the Government's Books 
-  Unpacking the Financial Report 
-  Highlights 
-  Recommendations 
-  Background 
-  About This Work 
-  About This Work 
-  Trends 
-  About the Center 
-  Why It's High Risk 
-  What Remains To Be Done 
-  Key Reports 
-  Newest COVID-Related Reports 
-  AI Use Cases 
-  Flood Insurance 
-  Past Pandemic-Related Reports 
-  CARES Act Oversight Reports 
-  All COVID-19 Reports 
-  Report Suspected Fraud 
-  Subjects 
-  How to Get Notified 
-  Past Reports 
-  Public Health Threats 
-  Explore the FY 2022 and 2023 Funds 
-  Lessons Learned 
-  Agency Reports 
-  Recent Reports 
-  Recommendations 
-  Supplemental Material 
-  Full Report 
-  Additional Data 
-  View Decision 
-  Downloads 
-  Previously Identified Actions 
-  Related Pages 
-  Associated Agencies 
-  Tough Choices and Opportunities Ahead 
-  Americas Fiscal Future Key Areas 
-  Retirement Security Key Areas 
-  Current List 
-  About The High Risk List 
-  Area Ratings 
-  Previous High Risk Products 
-  Search Federal Vacancies 
-  Past Federal Vacancies 
-  Violation Letters 
-  About the Yellow Book 
-  Advisory Council 
-  Related Resources 
-  Comment Letters 
-  Related Publications 
-  Contacts and Resources 
-  Major Issues Facing the Nation 
-  Meeting Strategic Challenges 
-  Additional Resources 
-  Resources 
-  GAO Contacts 
-  Mission Teams 
-  Operations and Staff Offices  
-  Organization Chart  
-  Why a Career at GAO? 
-  Am I Qualified? 
-  Company Culture 
-  Reasonable Accommodations 
-  Video Gallery 
-  Paid Internships 
-  Student Volunteers 
-  Professional Development Program 
-  Advancement 
-  Executive Candidate Program 
-  Summer Associates 
-  Externships 
-  Benefits 
-  Contacts 

Skip to Highlights

## Highlights

This letter formally transmits the briefing in response to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Pub. L. No. 111-84), which required GAO to submit a report on rare earth materials in the defense supply chain to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives by April 1, 2010.

## Full Report

Full Report (38 pages)

Accessible Text 

## Office of Public Affairs

Sarah Kaczmarek
kaczmareks@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

## Topics

National Defense

ChemicalsCommercial productsData collectionDefense capabilitiesEarth sciences data systemsEarth sciences researchMetalsRisk managementStrategic materialsSupply chain managementSystems analysisTechnology
June 23, 1952

No. A. R. D. 2.

#### United *States*v. *Atlas*Cordage, *Inc., H. S. Thielen, Agent.*

Entered at Lake Charles, La. Reap. Dec. 8113. Motion by appellant.
Before the First Division,

November 17, 1960

No. 64900.

#### Sprouse-Reitz Co., Inc., and Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 326144-K, etc. (Portland, Oreg.).

*375Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beads the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *S. H. Kress & Co.*(46 C.C.P.A. 135, C.A.D. 716), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 31(b)

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Anthony Christon, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Jaclyn, Inc.;

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 made,
not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.    The registrant'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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant'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 registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5.    The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant'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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: September 28, 2006           /s/ ANTHONY CHRISTON
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   Anthony Christon, Principal Financial Officer
No. 58048.

protests 134790-K, etc. (Seattle).

#### Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of the merchandise marked “A,” parts of internal-combustion engines, imported separately, or marked “B,” internal-combustion engines, imported with power saws, are the same in all material respects as the articles involved in *Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(41 C. C. P. A. 33, C. A. D. 525), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. Further, in accordance with said stipulation, it was held that the value of said items marked *“A”*is the appraised value and that the value of said items marked "B” is the percentage of the appraised value of said power saws, as noted in green ink on the invoices by the examiner.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4572 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

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. Lujan) 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.

    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 ``Removing Our Unsecure Technologies 
to Ensure Reliability and Security Act'' or the ``ROUTERS Act''.

SEC. 2. STUDY OF NATIONAL SECURITY RISKS POSED BY CERTAIN ROUTERS AND 
              MODEMS.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Covered country.--The term ``covered country'' has the 
        meaning given the term ``covered nation'' in section 4872(d) of 
        title 10, United States Code.
            (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of Commerce, acting through the Assistant Secretary of Commerce 
        for Communications and Information.
    (b) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of the national 
security risks posed by consumer routers, modems, and devices that 
combine a modem and router that are designed, developed, manufactured, 
or supplied by persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the 
influence of a covered country.
    (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report on the 
results of the study conducted under subsection (b).
                                 <all>
```
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4499 

To reauthorize grants to the Girl Scouts of the United States of America, 

the Boy Scouts of America, the National 4–H Council, and the National 

FFA Organization to establish pilot projects to expand the programs 

carried out by the organizations in rural areas and small towns, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 11, 2024 

Mr. YOUNG (for himself, Mr. COONS, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. KING, Mr. RICKETTS, 

Mr. HICKENLOOPER, Mr. BRAUN, Mr. TESTER, Mr. HAGERTY, and Mrs. 

HYDE-SMITH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To reauthorize grants to the Girl Scouts of the United States 

of America, the Boy Scouts of America, the National 

4–H Council, and the National FFA Organization to 

establish pilot projects to expand the programs carried 

out by the organizations in rural areas and small towns, 

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 ‘‘Youth Lead Act of 

5 2024’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4499 IS

1 SEC. 2. GRANTS FOR YOUTH ORGANIZATIONS. 

2 Section 410(d)(2) of the Agricultural Research, Ex3 tension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 

4 7630(d)(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘2023’’ and inserting 

5 ‘‘2029’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
SNAP Delisting ProposalAssociation of Home Appliance ManufacturersJune 3, 20151BackgroundAppliance manufacturers are well on their wayto transitioning away from these productsvoluntarilyThe energy efficiency benefits of HFC-basedfoam-blowing agents far outweigh their limitedenvironmental impactsThe phaseout timeline in the delisting proposalunnecessarily expedites a transition that wouldoccur by 2020 anyway2Appliance Manufacturer ConcernsThe purported benefits of the rule are basedon old data and are overstatedThe costs of the final stages of the transitionaway from HFCs will be significantThe 2017 deadline is very disruptive, limitsflexibility and could adversely impact productsBetter coordination is needed between EPAand DOE on related rulemakings3Industry Move from HFCs Well UnderwayEPA underestimated the state of the applianceindustry’s transition away from HFCs as foamblowing agentsEPA: 39% in 2014, 1% annual increase (BAU)AHAM: 62% in 2015, 72% in 2018, 100% in 2020EPA overestimated the emissions that would beavoided under its proposal (2017-2020)EPA: 60 MMtCO2eqAHAM: 16 MMtCO2eq4Projections for HFC Use: BAU and SNAP5Putting Appliance Emissions in ContextEPA projects that total emissions avoided in2020 under the proposal will be 31-42MMtCO2eqRefrigerator portion of emissions avoided in2020EPA: 0.72 MMtCO2eq (2.3%)AHAM: 0.15 MMtCO2eq (0.5%)Appliances represent a very small fraction ofthe total potential for emissions reduction6Proposal’s Impact on ManufacturersThe transition from ozone depletingsubstances to CFCs to HCFCs to HFCs hasalready been very costlyRemaining transition is complex, costlyRe-engineering manufacturing operationsRedesign of products18-month transition severely limits choiceFew alternatives available; no drop-insEfficiency penalty for switch to HCs or HFOs7Unnecessary EPA/DOE MisalignmentDOE’s next efficiency standard for refrigerators isexpected in 2020Most recent standard effective in September 2014Extensive product testing and certification requiredto qualify under new standardsManufacturers align product research anddevelopment cycles around DOE’s scheduleProposed 2017 deadline limits optionsEarly transition would require:Major capital investments ahead of scheduleMassive coordination effort with suppliersRecertification of all models to Sept. 2014 standardRe-flooring of display models (est. $1M per model)8Industry RecommendationsExtend the compliance deadline for endingHFC use in FBAs to 2020 to align with thenext DOE efficiency standardSecure win-win for Administration, EPA,industry and environmentMajor industry segment can support final ruleEPA can applaud industry progress
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 476 

To amend title XI of the Social Security Act to protect access to genetically 

targeted technologies. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2023 

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Mrs. BLACKBURN) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XI of the Social Security Act to protect 

access to genetically targeted technologies. 

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 ‘‘Maintaining Invest5 ments in New Innovation Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION OF QUALIFYING SIN7 GLE SOURCE DRUG. 

8 Section 1192(e) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

9 1320f–1(e)) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 476 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (1)(A)(ii), by inserting ‘‘(or, 

2 in the case of an advanced drug product (as defined 

3 in paragraph (4)), 11 years)’’ after ‘‘7 years’’; and 

4 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

5 paragraph: 

6 ‘‘(4) ADVANCED DRUG PRODUCT DEFINED.— 

7 For purposes of paragraph (1)(A)(ii), the term ‘ad8 vanced drug product’ means a drug that incor9 porates or utilizes a genetically targeted technology 

10 (as defined in section 529A(c)(2) of the Federal 

11 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) that may result in 

12 the modulation (including suppression, up-regula13 tion, or activation) of the function of a gene or its 

14 associated gene product.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
No. 65531.

#### J. J. Boll, for a/c Geo. H. McFadden & Bro., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/15118, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that' the items marked “A” and “B” are noneellulosic synthetic yarns, which are excluded from schedule 13 of the tariff act, and following the decision in *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 52286.

protest 116691-K (Los Angeles).

#### Alfred Hart Distilleries, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Somerset*(33 C. C. P. A. 138, C. A. D. 328), and that a quantity of liquor amounting to 10 percent or more of the total contents of the various barrels, casks, packages, etc., was lost in transit from the port of exportation to the port of destination due to breakage, leakage, or damage. In accordance therewith it was held that an allowance should have been made for the loss appearing upon the gauger’s return as verified by the affidavit of the importer. The protest was sustained to this extent.