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

JOSEPH A. SHERMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF DAVIS,

Defendant.

CIV S-04-2320 LKK PAN PS

ORDER 

—NFN—

On June 7, 2004, this court directed plaintiff to file

proof of timely service of process upon defendant or evidence

that plaintiff provided the required information to the U.S.

Marshal. Plaintiff timely filed a copy of the Marshal’s proof of

service and a copy of defendant’s completed Waiver of Service of

Summons. On July 15, defendant filed its answer to the

complaint.

On July 22, plaintiff filed an “Addendum to Complaint” in

which he alleges further violations of his rights “in addition to

Case 2:04-cv-02320-LKK -EFB Document 16 Filed 08/17/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

those already contained in the complaint.” 

The court construes plaintiff’s “Addendum” as a motion

for leave to serve and file a supplemental complaint. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(d) provides:

Upon motion of a party the court may, upon reasonable notice

and upon such terms as are just, permit the party to serve a

supplemental pleading setting forth transactions or

occurrences or events which have happened since the date of

the pleading sought to be supplemented. 

Rule 15(d) is meant to promote as complete an adjudication of the

parties’ dispute as possible. Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 473

(9th Cir. 1998). While a party may make new claims in a

supplemental complaint, Keith, 858 F.2d at 473, the party cannot

introduce a separate and new cause of action, Planned Partenthood

of Southern Arizona, 130 F.3d 400, 402 (9th Cir. 1997) (“new and

distinct action” should be “subject of a separate suit”). There

must be some relationship between the newly alleged matters and

the subject of the original action, but they need not arise out

of the same transaction or occurrence. Keith, 858 F. 2d at 474. 

Plaintiff’s addendum sets forth additional specific

incidents of alleged misconduct by Davis police officers on

November 14, 2004, and in January, June and July 2005, all

subsequent to the November 2, 2004, filing of plaintiff’s initial

complaint. The alleged incidents are similar to those set forth

in the original complaint and support plaintiff’s claims

defendant has harassed plaintiff and arrested him without

probable cause. The addendum does not set forth new and separate

causes of action.

Case 2:04-cv-02320-LKK -EFB Document 16 Filed 08/17/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is granted. Plaintiff

shall, within 10 days of service of this order, serve and file

one comprehensive complaint in compliance with E. D. Cal. L. R.

15-220. Defendant shall file its answer within 10 days after

service of the supplemental complaint. 

So ordered. 

Dated: August 17, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02320-LKK -EFB Document 16 Filed 08/17/05 Page 3 of 3
(Reap. Dec. 10749)

#### Canton Son, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 992359.

(Decided May 6, 1964)

*Siegel, Maná,ell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Ford, Judge:

The appeal for reappraisement listed above has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel far the parties hereto, that the merchandise consisting of hand lanterns and plastic clothes line kits was appraised on the basis of export value, as that value is defined in Section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the export value as defined *supra,*is the invoice unit value, net, packed, less $210.55 prorated between the hand lanterns and plastic clothes line kits.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeal to Reap-praisement enumerated above may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

*550Accepting this stipulation as a statement of facts, I find and bold the export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (Public Law 927,84th Congress), T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such export values are the invoice unit values, net, packed, less a 5 per centum buying commission in the amount of 5 per ¡centum of U.S.$4,056 or $202.80 for the hand lanterns and 5 per centum of U.S.$155 for the clothesline kits or $7.75, equaling the sum of U.S.$210.55.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
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

In light of the Court's Order Re: Settlement and 1

Disposition, the March 27, 2006 Status Conference is vacated. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADELINE S. GREENWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

RONALD S. GREENWELL and 

CARLA ROBBINS LEWIS,

Defendants.

___________________________/

No. 2:04-cv-2205-MCE-GGH

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND

DISPOSITION

Pursuant to the representations of the attorney for

plaintiff, the Court has determined that this case is settled.1

In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 16-160,

dispositional documents are to be filed on or before April 7,

2006. 

///

///

///

///

///

/// 

Case 2:04-cv-02205-MCE -GGH Document 71 Filed 03/16/06 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

27

28

2

Failure to comply with this Order may be grounds for the

imposition of sanctions on any and all counsel as well as any

party or parties who cause non-compliance with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 15, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02205-MCE -GGH Document 71 Filed 03/16/06 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Wilfred Flecha, Appellant, v Raul Russi, as Chairperson of the New York State Division of Parole, Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 225]

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Bradley, J.), entered February 13, 1995 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner’s request for parole.

Petitioner is a prison inmate serving consecutive terms of imprisonment of 3 to 9 years upon his plea of guilty to the crimes of rape in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree. Petitioner challenges the denial of his request for parole and argues, *inter alia,*that the Parole Board’s determination is arbitrary, capricious and reflects a bias against sex offenders. *781Notwithstanding petitioner’s receipt of a certificate of earned eligibility, the Board retained the discretion to determine whether release was appropriate *(see, Matter of Walker v Russi,*176 AD2d 1185, 1186, *Iv dismissed*79 NY2d 897). In denying petitioner’s request, the Board considered the nature of the crimes committed, the victims involved, the fact that petitioner fled to Puerto Rico after committing the crimes, petitioner’s failure to take responsibility for his deviant behavior and petitioner’s failure to seek treatment for his drug problem which he claimed was his excuse for committing the crimes. Based on these factors, the Board concluded that "there is a reasonable probability that [petitioner] would again violate the law” and, consequently, that petitioner’s release "is incompatible with the interest of society”. In view of this, we find that the Board’s determination is not arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory. We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Casey, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
EXHIBIT 11.

         Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings

                                                                        SHARES
                                                                        ------

Basic Shares outstanding at June 30, 2000                              1,955,379
                                                                       ---------

         Net profit after tax        $   304,517    =    $ .16 per share
         --------------------        ------------
         Basic Shares outstanding      1,955,379



Diluted Shares outstanding at June 30, 2000                            2,069,792
                                                                       ---------

         Net profit after tax        $    304,517   =     $ .15 per share
         --------------------        ------------
         Diluted Shares outstanding     2,069,792


                                       10
Order entered December 18, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01143-CV

KAIZER SHERIFF, Appellant

V.

SHEHNAZ MOOSA, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-54072-2011

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s December 16, 2013 second unopposed motion for extension of 

time to file brief and ORDER the brief filed by January 20, 2014. No further extensions will be 

granted absent exigent circumstances.

.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 46 (Friday, March 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 10790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4181]



[[Page 10790]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


Bureau of International Labor Affairs, Office of Trade and Labor 
Affairs: Extension of Deadline for Solicitation for Cooperative 
Agreement Application (SGA) 07-04 Strengthening Career Civil Service 
Systems of Labor Inspectorates in Central America

AGENCY: Bureau of International Labor Affairs, Office of Trade and 
Labor Affairs, Department of Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice extends the closing date for SGA 07-04 until April 
9, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Harvey, Department of Labor, 
Procurement Services Center, Room S-4307, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington DC 20210, Telephone (202) 693-4592, e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#df97beada9baa6f2b3b6acbe9fbbb0b3f1b8b0a9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4d052c3f3b28346021243e2c0d292221632a223b">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Signed this 5th day of March 2007.
Lisa Harvey,
Grant Officer.
[FR Doc. E7-4181 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-28-P


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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KARUNA ANAND, M.D.,

NO. CIV. S-04-1575 LKK/GGH

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s counsel’s request to

continue the Status Conference currently set for August 8, 2005.

Good cause appearing, the court ORDER as follows:

1. The Status Conference set for August 8, 2005 is CONTINUED

to September 19, 2005 at 2:00 p.m.;

2. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on defendants

where service of process was effected; and

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-01575-LKK -GGH Document 10 Filed 05/17/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

3. The parties are reminded of their obligation to file and

serve status reports not later than ten (10) days preceding the

conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 12, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01575-LKK -GGH Document 10 Filed 05/17/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
      23.2









CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
No. 333-148136 on Form S-3 of our reports dated February 26, 2009,
relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule of Kansas City Power & Light Company and subsidiaries
(which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory
paragraph regarding the adoption of new accounting standards), and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Kansas City Power & Light Company
and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2008.






/s/DELOITTE
& TOUCHE LLP




Kansas
City, Missouri


February
27, 2009
| (1)   | the                  Amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of Debut Broadcasting                  Corporation Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 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 Amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A                  for                  the quarter ended June 30, 2007, fairly presents in all material                  respects,                  the financial condition and results of operations of Debut Broadcasting                  Corporation Inc.. |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/                  Steven Ludwig                        |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
| Name:  | Steven                  Ludwig                            |
| Title: | Principal                  Executive Officer and Director |
| Date:  | November                  14, 2007                        |
|   |                                                      |
| By:    | /s/                  Shannon Farrington                   |
| Name:  | Shannon                  Farrington                       |
| Title: | Principal                  Financial Officer              |
| Date:  | November                  14, 2007                        |
— 1 —

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

171 FRONT STREET

SUITE 102 

DANVILLE, CA 94526 

(925) 855-8235 

TIMOTHY S. THIMESCH, Esq. (No. 148213) 

MICHELLE L. THIMESCH, Esq. (No. 140591) 

JAMES A. KAESTNER, Esq. (No. 143179) 

171 Front Street, Suite 102 

Danville, CA 94526-3321 

Direct: (925) 855-8235 

WILLIAM LAWSON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILLIAM LAWSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF STOCKTON; and DOES 1-

50, Inclusive, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. CIV. S-04-2307 LKK DAD 

Civil Rights 

/ 

Thanks to the efforts of the Honorable Dale A. Drozd, 

this matter settled in all aspects at the Settlement 

Conference held on August 15, 2005. The settlement has been 

memorialized by the parties through a written agreement. 

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, plaintiff hereby 

requests the dismissal of the entire action with prejudice, 

but with the requested limitation that the Court retain 

jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the terms of the 

////

Case 2:04-cv-02307-LKK -DAD Document 23 Filed 12/14/05 Page 1 of 2
— 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 

171 FRONT STREET

SUITE 102 

DANVILLE, CA 94526 

(925) 855-8235 

written settlement agreement. 

Dated: December 13, 2005 

TIMOTHY S. THIMESCH 

 

 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

WILLIAM LAWSON 

CONSENT AS TO FORM AND CONTENT AS TO REQUESTS: 

DATED: August 16, 2005 SHELLEY L. GREEN, ESQ. 

CITY OF STOCKTON 

CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 

/signature on original

By Attorneys for Defendant 

CITY OF STOCKTON 

ORDER

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 13, 2005. /s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

HON. LAWRENCE K. KARLTON 

Judge of U.S. District Court 

 

Case 2:04-cv-02307-LKK -DAD Document 23 Filed 12/14/05 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 8,469.

#### In re LODER et al.

[2 N. B. R. 515 (Quarto, 161); 2 Am. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 87.]1

District Court, S. D. New York.

April 20, 1869.

Bankruptcy — Assignee.

A person residing without, but having a fixed place of daily business within the judicial district, will be appointed assignee in a proper case.

[In the matter of Lewis B. Loder, Cyrus W. Loder, and Benjamin Loder, bankrupts. See Case No. 8,458.]

By I. T. WILLIAMS, Register: I hereby certify that there were thirty-five claims proved before me at the adjourned first meeting of creditors, held on the 15th day of April instant. That of these creditors twenty-one were present and voted. That each creditor voted for two assignees. That Lyman A. Jacobus had nineteen votes, John G. Davis had sixteen, Oscar Yaret had two, Jeremiah Colby had four, and John Sedgwick had one. The vote being so largely in favor of Jacobus and Davis, both in number and amount, they *781•were declared to be elected, none doubting such election. It subsequently appeared that said Jacobus resides in Brooklyn, and out of the judicial district. It being suggested by the attorney for the bankrupts that, under the circumstances, the court might see fit to order a new election, the register submits the facts that they may be known to the court when the names of the assignees so elect shall be presented for confirmation. Respectfully submitted.

1

 [Reprinted from 2 N. B. R. 515 (Quarto, 161). by permission. 2 Am. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 87, contains only a partial report.]

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

Has Mr. Jacobus a fixed and permanent business in New York City, and a place where he does business there daily? Report the facts as to this.

By I. T. WILLIAMS, Register: Pursuant to the direction hereon endorsed, I hereby further certify that the said Jacobus has a fixed and permanent place of business in the city of New York, to wit: at No. 139 Duane street, in said city, where he carries on business as an importer.

BLATCHFORD, District Judge. I will appoint Mr. Jacobus and Mr. Davis assignees, which will cure every difficulty.
No. 48537.

#### Protest 93058-K of Sorrentino & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the cheese in question is similar to the Provolone cheese the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and that in liquidating, the collector, following T. D. 50435 and T. D. 50582 (3), allowed only 1 percent of the said net weight. Following C. D. 706,. *supra,*the collector was directed to allow 2)4 percent instead of 1 percent on certain of the cheese in question.
(Reap. Dec. 8534).

#### The River Plate Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 877847.

(Decided January 27, 1956)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

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

WilsoN, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement bas been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the merchandise covered by the instant appeal to reappraisement consists of Quebracho Extract exported from Paraguay.

> That on or about the date of exportation such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Paraquay, either for home consumption or for export to the United States.

> That on or about the date of exportation such or similar imported merchandise was not freely offered in the United States for sale for domestic consumption.

> That the cost of production for such merchandise as such value is defined in Section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 was $.07723 per pound.

> That the instant appeal to reappraisement be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was $0.07723 per pound.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the First Division,

November 7, 1951

No. 55974.

protests 167787-K, etc. (Philadelphia).

#### M. L. Gross & Company *v.*United States,

*345Opinion by

Oliver, O. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
EXHIBIT 99.1
                           ============

        Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Bliss
Essentials Corp. (Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas Gelfand,
Chief Executive Officer of Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief:

   (1)  the quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
        results of operations of Registrant.


Date:  May 10, 2004           /s/ Thomas Gelfand
                              ----------------------------------
                              Chief Executive Officer of
                              Bliss Essentials Corp., Registrant