alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CELESTINO A. JAPNGIE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-2101

[October 19, 2017]

Appeal of order denying 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the 

Fifteenth Judicial Circuit; Palm Beach County, John S. Kastrenakis, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 2011CF007202A.

Celestino A. Japngie, Doral, pro se.

No brief filed for appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 32.01

                            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 Essential Innovations Technology
Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended July 31, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Jason McDiarmid, Chief Executive Officer 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

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



/s/ Jason McDiarmid
------------------------
Jason McDiarmid
Chief Executive Officer
September 13, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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

STIPULATED ORDER - 1 - 1831948.1

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

YOSHINORI H. T. HIMEL #66194

Assistant United States Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 554-2760

PAUL S. HAM

GOUD P. MARAGANI

Trial Attorneys, Tax Division

United States Department of Justice

P.O. Box 683, Ben Franklin Station

Washington, DC 20044-0683

Telephone: (202) 307-6421

Telephone: (202) 302-6513

Facsimile: (202) 307-0054

Attorneys for the United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRUCE A. TISON,

EXECUTOR/ADMINISTRATOR for the

ESTATE OF CHARLES G. TISON,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Defendant.

Civil No. S-04-1997 LKK GGH

STIPULATED AMENDMENT TO THE

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER, and

ORDER

The parties, through their undersigned counsel, subject to the approval of the Court as provided

for hereon, stipulate that paragraph 2 at the bottom of page 11 of the Pretrial Conference Order [Final]

////

Case 2:04-cv-01997-LKK -GGH Document 67 Filed 08/23/06 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

STIPULATED ORDER - 2 - 1831948.1

entered on May 18, 2006, should be and is deleted.

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

YOSHINORI H. T. HIMEL #66194

Assistant United States Attorney

Dated this 7th day of July, 2006. /s/ - Paul Ham 

PAUL S. HAM

GOUD P. MARAGANI

Trial Attorneys, Tax Division

United States Department of Justice

P.O. Box 683, Ben Franklin Station

Washington, DC 20044-0683

Telephone: (202) 307-6421

Telephone: (202) 302-6513

Facsimile: (202) 307-0054

Attorneys for the United States of America

KAY U. BROOKS

W. SCOTT CAMERON

Weintraub Genshlea Chediak Sproul

Dated this 2nd day of August, 2006. /s/ - R. Todd Luoma 

R. TODD LUOMA

Law Offices of R. Todd Luoma

3600 American River Dr., Suite 135

Sacramento, CA 95864

Telephone: (916) 971-2440 

Facsimile: (916) 971-2444

Attorneys for Bruce Tison

ORDER

Good cause having been shown, the stipulation is APPROVED. Paragraph 2 at the bottom of

page 11 of the Pretrial Conference Order [Final] entered on May 18, 2006, is DELETED.

DATED: August 23, 2006

Case 2:04-cv-01997-LKK -GGH Document 67 Filed 08/23/06 Page 2 of 2
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4751 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to establish and clarify the applicable 

statute of limitations for seeking remedy for a legal wrong due to agency 

action, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 23, 2024 

Mr. COONS (for himself, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. 

BOOKER, Mr. WELCH, and Mr. WHITEHOUSE) introduced the following 

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

Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to establish and 

clarify the applicable statute of limitations for seeking 

remedy for a legal wrong due to agency action, 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 ‘‘Agency Stability Res5 toration Act of 2024’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4751 IS

1 SEC. 2. RIGHT OF REVIEW. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 702 of title 5, United 

3 States Code, is amended— 

4 (1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘A person’’ 

5 and inserting the following: 

6 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A person’’; and 

7 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(b) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.—Except as other9 wise expressly provided by law, a person bringing an ac10 tion under this section shall bring that action not later 

11 than 6 years after the date of the final agency action with 

12 respect to which the person seeks judicial review.’’. 

13 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.— 

14 Section 2401(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amend15 ed, in the first sentence, by inserting ‘‘or section 702(b) 

16 of title 5’’ after ‘‘title 41’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
No. 56451.

protests 141630-K, etc. (New York).

#### Oakwood Textiles, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Foed, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the involved merchandise consist of woven fabrics in the piece, wholly of silk, bleached, and valued at more than $5.50 per pound, the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Walter Strassburger & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(26 Cust. Ct. 210, C. D. 1326). Accepting the stipulation as a statement of fact and following the cited authority, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Carol Sutkus, Manager 

South Coast Air Quality Planning 

Air Resources Board 

1 001 I Street 

P.O. Box 2815 

Sacramento, CA 95812 

RE: Ozone Emergency Episode Plan 

Dear Ms Sutkus: 

Attached is the Ozone Emergency Episode Plan adopted by the El Dorado County Air Quality 

Management District Board of Directors on January 12, 2016. We request that on your review 

and concurrence, the attached information be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency for review and inclusion in the State Implementation Plan. 

If you have and questions, please contact me at (530) 621-7578. 

Respectfully, 

Dave Johnston 

Air Pollution Control Officer 

Attachments: 

ARB SIP Completeness Checklist 

ARB Rule Evaluation Form 

EDCAQMD Executed Resolution 010-2016 

Ozone Emergency Episode Plan, adopted January 12, 2016 

Proof of Notice
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 

ORDER MODIFYING STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER

John P. Coleman

State Bar No. 60844

BOLLING, WALTER & GAWTHROP

A Professional Corporation

8880 Cal Center Drive, Suite 400

Sacramento, California 95826

Telephone No. (916) 369-0777

Telecopier No. (916) 369-2698

Attorneys for Defendant

SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE

COMPANY, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC., and DOES 1

to 25, inclusive,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

Case No. S-04-2498 FCD/DAD

ORDER MODIFYING STATUS

(PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)

ORDER

After reviewing the parties’ application and stipulation for modification of pretrialscheduling

order, and for good cause shown therein, the court makes the following order: 

The Court’s Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order dated March 17, 2005, it is hereby modified

to allow the parties to designate each expert they propose to tender at trial not later than August 17,

2005, said designation to be accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by the witness

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. § 26(a)(2)(B), with rebuttal expert witnesses to be disclosed by no later

than September 2, 2005. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: July 12, 2005 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02498-FCD-DAD Document 10 Filed 07/13/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 55268.

#### A. Tarantino & Sons *v.*United States,

protest 156385-K (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It appearing from the record that the protest was filed' more than 60 days after liquidation, the motion to dismiss was granted.
-1- 

Stipulation to Stay Court’s June 14, 2010 Order; [Proposed] Order 

162387.1

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

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

WORDTECH SYSTEMS, INC., a California 

corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

INTEGRATED NETWORK SOLUTIONS, 

INC., a Nevada corporation, dba INTEGRATED 

NETWORK SOLUTIONS, CORP. aka 

INTEGRATED NETWORK SOLUTIONS aka 

INTEGRATED SYSTEMS aka 

INTERNETNETWORK STORAGE 

COMPANY aka INSC; NASSER KHATEMI, 

an individual; HAMID ASSADIAN, an 

individual; EHTERAM GHODSIAN, an 

individual; SHOREH JAVADI, an individual; 

MICHAEL E. ELLSWORTH, an individual; 

BRIAN J. DEAN, an individual; SAN JUAN 

UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; and DOES 1-

50, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 2:04-cv-01971-MCE-EFB 

 ORDER 

Courtroom: 7 

District Judge: Morrison C. England, Jr. 

Mag. Judge: Edmund F. Brennan 

ORDER

 IT IS SO ORDERED. For good cause, the effect of this Court’s June 14, 2010 Order is 

stayed pending issuance of mandate by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Dated: June 24, 2010 

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 402 Filed 06/25/10 Page 1 of 1
(Reap. Dec. 10105)

#### T. D. Downing Company *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 18066; 10307.

(Decided November 22, 1961)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*William*H. *Orrick, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

These two appeals for reappraisement relate to certain bicycles exported from France and entered at the port of Boston.

Stipulated facts, upon which these appeals have been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the articles in question is cost of production, as defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value therefor is equal to the invoice values, less amounts as invoiced for ocean freight and marine insurance premium prorated, and I so hold.

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

STEPHANIE M. ADRAKTAS 

(No. 215323)

Attorney at Law

P.O. Box 424015

San Francisco, CA 94142

Telephone (415) 699-1507

Fax Number (415) 626-5475

Attorney for Petitioner

LEO ARCHER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEO ARCHER 

Petitioner,

v.

SOLANO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 

Respondent .

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CIV S-04-2249-MCE KJM P

ORDER SETTING DUE DATE

FOR PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO STAY

For the reasons stated in the foregoing Motion to Extend Time to File Motion to

Stay and based on the information presented in Petitioner’s Declaration of Counsel, IT

IS ORDERED that petitioner file a motion to stay the instant proceedings no later than

May 11, 2007. 

DATED: March 21, 2007. 

Case 2:04-cv-02249-MCE -KJM Document 49 Filed 03/21/07 Page 1 of 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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

George Johnson,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-2255 LKK PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Joseph Sherman, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner prosecuting this civil rights

action without counsel. 

April 13, 2005, the court dismissed plaintiff’s claims

against defendants Stratton, O’Brian, Woodford, Grannis and

Knowles pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, with leave to amend. The

court informed plaintiff he could proceed against defendants

Sherman, Lea and Flint by submitting materials for service within

15 days, but the court would construe his election so to proceed

as consent to dismissal of his claims against defendants 

Case 2:04-cv-02255-LKK -EFB Document 16 Filed 01/20/06 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

Stratton, O’Brian, Woodford, Grannis and Knowles without leave to

amend. 

January 12, 2006, plaintiff submitted materials for service

of defendants Sherman, Lea and Flint. I find plaintiff has

consented to dismissal of claims against defendants Stratton,

O’Brian, Woodford, Grannis and Knowles without leave to amend. 

Accordingly, the court hereby recommends that claims against

defendants Stratton, O’Brian, Woodford, Grannis and Knowles be

dismissed without prejudice. 

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: January 19, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02255-LKK -EFB Document 16 Filed 01/20/06 Page 2 of 2
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 Form 40-F
 o
    
    REGISTRATION STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 OR
 þ
    
    ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13(a) OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008
    
    Commission File Number 001-15014
 Sun Life Financial Inc.
  Canada
 52411
 Not Applicable
 150 King Street West, 6th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5H 1J9 (416) 979-4800
 Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada  U.S. Operations Holdings, Inc.
One Sun Life Executive Park
Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts 02481
(781) 237-6030
  Title of each class
    
    
    Name of each exchange on which registeredCommon Shares
    
    
    New York Stock Exchange
  Not Applicable
  Not Applicable




---



##### 



þ      Annual information form
    
    þ      Audited annual financial statements
  Common Shares
    
    
    559,698,331Class A Preferred Shares Series 1
    
    
    16,000,000Class A Preferred Shares Series 2
    
    
    13,000,000Class A Preferred Shares Series 3
    
    
    10,000,000Class A Preferred Shares Series 4
    
    
    12,000,000Class A Preferred Shares Series 5
    
    
    10,000,000
  o þ
  þ o
 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
  Disclosure Controls and Procedures
 2008 Annual MD&A
 Managements Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
 2008 Annual Financial Statements
 Attestation Report of the Registered Public Accounting Firm
  Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting




---



##### 



Identification of Audit Committee
 2008 AIF
 Audit Committee Financial Expert
 .
 Code of Ethics
  Principal Accountant Fees and Services
   Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
  Tabular Disclosure of Contractual Obligations
  UNDERTAKING




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  Sun Life Financial Inc.By:
    /S/  Thomas A. BogartThomas A. BogartExecutive Vice-President and

General Counsel Dated:
February 13, 2009
   EXHIBITS
 1.
    
    Annual Managements Discussion and Analysis2.
    
    Consolidated Financial Statement3.
    
    Annual Information Form4.
    
    Sun Life Financial Code of Business Conduct5.
    
    Consent of Independent Registered Chartered Accountants6.
    
    Consent of Appointed Actuary
 7.
    
    Certifications required by Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of United States Code, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002
 8.
    
    Certifications required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a), pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
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

JAMES RAY WILEY, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1922 MCE KJM P

vs.

CHERYL PLILER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On December 14, 2005, this court issued an order to show cause, directing

defendants Pliler, Wooten and Narramore to show cause why a default judgment should not be

entered.

On January 10, 2006, counsel for defendants filed a response to the order to show

cause and a request for permission to file a late motion to dismiss, along with the motion to

dismiss.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The order to show cause issued December 14, 2005 is hereby discharged.

2. Plaintiff’s November 18, 2005 motion for a judgment on the pleadings and his

December 9, 2005 motion for entry of a default judgment are denied.

3. Defendants’ request for permission to file a late motion to dismiss is granted.

Case 2:04-cv-01922-MCE -KJM Document 20 Filed 01/17/06 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

4. Plaintiff is given thirty days from the filed date of this order in which to file his

opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants’ reply,

if any, shall be filed fifteen days after the opposition is filed.

DATED: January 13, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

wile1922.dosc

Case 2:04-cv-01922-MCE -KJM Document 20 Filed 01/17/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 51698.

#### Protests 129391-K, etc., of Daniel F. Young, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 54063.

#### B. F. Drakenfeld & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 148284-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
No. 49619.

#### Protests 831885-G, etc., of Northam Trading Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is of the same dutiable character as that in *Absorbo Beer Pad Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(10 Cust. Ct. 176, C. D. 748). In accordance therewith the protests were sustained.
#### In the Matter of Andrew McMillan, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing Unit, Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[634 NYS2d 410]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Greene County) to review a determination of respondents which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from possessing contraband. In support of his challenge to the administrative determination, petitioner argues, *inter alia,*that the Hearing Officer was biased and that he was improperly denied the right to be pres*786ent during the search of his cell. Upon review of the record, we find that the Hearing Officer acted in a fair and impartial manner and, under the circumstances present here, it was not incumbent upon the Hearing Officer to secure the testimony of certain witnesses who refused to testify. Moreover, we find that petitioner has waived his remaining arguments inasmuch as he failed to raise them at the administrative hearing.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
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

JAMES RAY WILEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1922 MCE KJM P

vs.

CHERYL K. PLILER, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding with a civil rights action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On March 27, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order,

directing the warden and staff of California State Prison, Corcoran, to cease their retaliatory acts

against him. The underlying complaint is based on the actions of Folsom Prison officials in

denying plaintiff toothpaste for a period of forty-seven days.

In Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470 (8th Cir. 1994), the inmate plaintiff sought

an injunction preventing the defendants from filing false disciplinary charges and taking other

actions in retaliation for the underlying lawsuit, in which plaintiff challenged his medical care. 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01922-MCE -KJM Document 30 Filed 04/26/06 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

The Court of Appeal observed:

[A] party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily

establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s

motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint. It is self-evident

that Devose’s motion for temporary relief has nothing to do with

preserving the district court’s decision making power. . . .

Although these new assertions might support additional claims

against the same prison officials, they cannot provide the basis for

a preliminary injunction in this lawsuit. 

Id. (citations omitted); see also Omega World Travel v. Trans World Airways, 111 F.3d 14, 16

(4th Cir. 1997); Lebron v. Armstrong, 289 F.Supp.2d 56, 61 (D. Conn. 2003). If this showing of

a relationship is not made, the court should not consider the factors for the issuance of

preliminary relief. In re Microsoft Antitrust Litigation, 333 F.3d 517, 526 (4th Cir. 2003). 

Plaintiff seeks an injunction preventing retaliation and harassment by his present

custodians, while his claims in the complaint concern past instances of mistreatment. The

relationship between the claims is insufficient to justify the grant of a temporary restraining

order, for plaintiff’s request has “nothing to do with preserving the district court’s decision

making power.” 

DATED: April 24, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2

wile1922.tro

Case 2:04-cv-01922-MCE -KJM Document 30 Filed 04/26/06 Page 2 of 2