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

JEFFREY A. PATE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1201 FCD DAD P

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

SHERIFFS DEPUTIES,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 11, 2006, the court ordered plaintiff to file his proof of service

reflecting service upon defendant Garcia, the sole defendant in this action, since plaintiff had

paid the filing fee and was not proceeding in forma pauperis. On September 20, 2006, plaintiff

filed an application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis and on October 10, 2006,

plaintiff filed a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement. The court will grant plaintiff

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and order plaintiff to submit the documents for service of

process by the U.S. Marshal.

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01201-FCD-DAD Document 36 Filed 10/20/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s September 20, 2006 application for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis is granted;

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff one USM-285 form, one summons,

an instruction sheet and a copy of the second amended complaint filed November 17, 2004.

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for defendant deputy Garcia; and 

d. Two copies of the endorsed second amended complaint filed November

17, 2004. 

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendant and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States 

Marshal to serve defendant Garcia pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without

payment of costs. 

DATED: October 19, 2006.

DAD:4

pate1201.1mod

Case 2:04-cv-01201-FCD-DAD Document 36 Filed 10/20/06 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY A. PATE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1201 FCD DAD P

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY 

SHERIFFS DEPUTIES, 

Defendants. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

OF DOCUMENTS

____________________________________/

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 completed summons form

 completed USM-285 forms

 copies of the 

Complaint/Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-01201-FCD-DAD Document 36 Filed 10/20/06 Page 3 of 3
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 Elite Pharmaceuticals,  Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),  I, Mark I. Gittelman,
Chief Financial  Officer and Treasurer 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:

         (3) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
         the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (4) The  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
         material respects,  the consolidated financial condition of the Company
         as of the dates presented and the consolidated  result of operations of
         the Company for the periods presented.

                           /s/ Mark I. Gittelman

Date:    November 11, 2004 _____________________________________
                           Mark I. Gittelman
                           Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of
                           Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

This  certification  has been  furnished  solely  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Elite  Pharmaceuticals,   Inc.  and  will  be  retained  by  Elite
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 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

 It appears that the documents of both Hollister and JDS have been assembled and are

1

now in the control of Hollister. (Docket No. 440, at 20 n. 8.)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES P. DeFAZIO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1358 WBS GGH

vs.

HOLLISTER, INC., et al., SUMMARY ORDER

Defendants. 

 /

On January 12, 2009, the court conducted a telephone conference at the request of

the parties pertaining to a discovery dispute outlined in statements filed on January 9, 2009. 

(Docket Nos. 440-442.) As a result of that conference, the court now issues the following

summary order.

IT IS ORDERED that for the years 1974 through July 15, 1998, defendants shall

produce for inspection corporate minutes only. For the period from July 15, 1998 through the

present, defendants shall permit inspection in Illinois by plaintiffs of documents assembled as

described in defendants’ statement. Plaintiffs shall designate documents they propose to copy 1

from both groups. If defendants do not agree to production (copying) of any of these documents

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 443 Filed 01/13/09 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 As discussed at the telephone conference, the court will not be inclined to order copying 2

of documents which do not directly pertain to Hollister Employee Share Ownership Trust

(HESOT), HolliShare, the Firm of John Dickinson Schneider, Inc. (JDS) Preferred Share Trust,

or the John D. and Minnie R. Schneider Charitable Trust, unless it is ordered for attorneys’ eyes

only.

2

subject to the operative protective order, they shall advise the court of those documents for which

they resist copying. No documents shall be filed in camera until ordered by the court. The date 2

for production (copying) of those documents, which defendants agree can be copied, shall be

arranged between the parties.

Dated: January 13, 2009

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

_____________________________

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076/Defazio1358.sum

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 443 Filed 01/13/09 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY R. GARCIA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2660 LKK GGH P

vs.

G.S. DHALIWAL, et al., 

Defendants. 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, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Neither

party has 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-02660-LKK -GGH Document 21 Filed 03/21/06 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

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 5, 2006, are adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ August 22, 2005 motion to dismiss, properly re-served on

September 6, 2005, is granted; and

3. This action is dismissed.

DATED: March 20, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/garc2660.801

Case 2:04-cv-02660-LKK -GGH Document 21 Filed 03/21/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

June 25, 1940

No. 44014.

#### Protests 807635-G/10618, etc., of Gulf & Pacific Brokerage Co. et al. (New Orleans).

*263Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

On the authority of *Lamborn*v. *United States*(27 C. C. P. A. 46, C. A. D. 60) the protests were dismissed.
Before the Third Division,

February 27, 1950

No. 54066.

#### Eastern Grocery Co. *v.*United States,

protest 105534-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of kumquats similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Fung Chong Co.*(34 C. C. P. A. 40, C. A. D. 342). In accordance therewith the claim at 1 cent per pound under paragraph 743 was sustained.
TRAINOR ROBERTSON

Attorneys At Law

701 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 200

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95825-6700

Telephone: (916) 929-7000

Facsimile: (916) 929-7111

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 

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE DISMISSAL 

[Case No. 04-2544 DFL GGH] 

-1-

TRAINOR ROBERTSON 

GARY M. FUNAMURA (SBN 96490) 

DANIEL M. STEINBERG (SBN 194948) 

701 University Avenue, Suite 200 

Sacramento, California 95825-6700 

Telephone: (916) 929-7000 

Facsimile: (916) 929-7111 

nam:3592057.349607.1 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

KOBRA PROPERTIES, a California general 

partnership 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KOBRA PROPERTIES, a California 

general partnership, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ZINAZ, INC.; JOHN G. BREEDING; 

and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 04-2544 DFL GGH 

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 

DISMISSAL 

Date of Filing: October 25, 2004 

The parties to this matter, Plaintiff KOBRA PROPERTIES, a California general 

partnership ("Plaintiff") represented by the law firm of Trainor Robertson and Defendants 

ZINAZ, INC. and JOHN G. BREEDING (collectively, "Defendants") represented by 

McDonough Holland & Allen, stipulate as follows: 

1. Plaintiff and Defendants will dismiss all actions and cross-actions in their entirety 

against each other without prejudice. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: August 31, 2005 TRAINOR ROBERTSON 

By: /s/ Daniel M. Steinberg 

DANIEL M. STEINBERG 

Case 2:04-cv-02544-DFL-GGH Document 26 Filed 09/06/05 Page 1 of 2
TRAINOR ROBERTSON

Attorneys At Law

701 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 200

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95825-6700

Telephone: (916) 929-7000

Facsimile: (916) 929-7111

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

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE DISMISSAL 

[Case No. 04-2544 DFL GGH]

-2-

Dated: August 31, 2005 McDONOUGH HOLLAND & ALLEN PC 

By: /s/ Laura J. Fowler 

LAURA J. FOWLER 

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

______________________________ 

DAVID F. LEVI 

United States District Judge

9/2/2005 

Case 2:04-cv-02544-DFL-GGH Document 26 Filed 09/06/05 Page 2 of 2
Dismissed and Opinion Filed June 11, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 16

- 00050

- CV
MAN DO, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MR. DO COIN LAUNDRY , Appellant V. TUAN DO AND CHAU NGUYEN , Appellees
On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 13345

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Nowell

Opinion by Justice Nowell We reinstate this appeal. In 2018, we abated this case due to Chau Nguyen’s
bankruptcy. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 8.2. The Court conducted an independent review of
the federal Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system which
shows the bankruptcy c ase associated with this appeal was terminated on January
22, 2019, effectively dissolving the automatic stay.
We notified the parties by letter, requesting they inform the Court of the status
of the bankruptcy and of this appeal. We cautioned that the fai lure to respond would– 2

–

result in the appeal being dismissed for want of prosecution. See id . 42.3(b),(c). To
date, neither party has responded.
Because we gave the parties an opportunity to show why we should not
dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and no one responded, we dismiss this
appeal. See id . 42.3(b),(c); Brewer v. Admiral Ins. Co ., 2002 WL 31312990, at *1
(Tex. App.

— Dallas Oct. 16, 2002, no writ) (per curiam) (not designated for
publication).

160050f.p05 /Erin A. Nowell// ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE– 3

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

MAN DO, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MR. DO COIN LAUNDRY, Appellant

No. 05

- 16

- 00050

- CV V.

TUAN DO AND CHAU NGUYEN, Appellees On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 13345. Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell. Justices Osborne and Pedersen, III participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.

Judgment entered this 11 th day of June, 2021.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Derrick Ward, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 961]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Mary McGowan Davis, J.), rendered on or about October 5, 1992, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

BURNIE REED,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-0497

[December 7, 2023]

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

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Martin S. Fein, Judge;

L.T. Case No. 12002306CF10A.

Burnie Reed, Milton, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, LEVINE and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 47881.

#### Protest 957749-G (A) of Ti Hang Lung & Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority, of *United States*v. *Great Pacific Co.*(T. D. 48192) the claim at *%*of 1 cent per pound under paragraph 727 was sustained on the weight of the broken rice as shown in the appraiser’s report, viz, “300 mats, 0.5% broken rice by weight, and 1300 mats, 1.6% broken rice by weight.”
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

CHRISTOPHER LEE JENKINS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2520 LKK JFM P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. By order filed November 9, 2005,

plaintiff was advised that the court would invite an opportunity to allow plaintiff to file

objections in light of his recent notice that he had not received a copy of the July 28, 2005

findings and recommendations, if plaintiff were to file a motion to dismiss the pending appeal. 

On January 9, 2006, plaintiff’s request to voluntarily dismiss the appeal was granted, and on

January 19, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to set aside judgment in this action. On February 16,

2006, plaintiff filed another motion to set aside judgment. 

Because it appears plaintiff did not receive the July 28, 2005 findings and

recommendations and therefore was deprived of an opportunity to file objections, plaintiff’s

motion to set aside the judgment will be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). The Clerk of the

Case 2:04-cv-02520-LKK -JFM Document 35 Filed 03/09/06 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

Court will be directed to serve plaintiff with a copy of the July 28, 2005 findings and

recommendations and plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to file objections thereto. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s January 19, 2006 and February 16, 2006 motions to set aside the

judgment are granted;

2. The September 13, 2005 judgment and order adopting findings and

recommendations are vacated;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of the July 28, 2005 findings

and recommendations on plaintiff; and

4. Plaintiff is granted twenty days from the date of this order in which to file

objections to the July 28, 2005 findings and recommendations.

DATED: March 9, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/jenk2520.app

Case 2:04-cv-02520-LKK -JFM Document 35 Filed 03/09/06 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION**


**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


(18
      U.S.C. 1350)




Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned
      officer of Document Capture Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
      "Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge and
      belief, that:




(1)
            The
                Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007
                (the
                "Form 10-KSB") of the Company 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 Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all
                materials
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.





Date:
      March 5, 2008




*/s/*  *David
      P. Clark*


David
      P.
      Clark


Chief
      Executive Officer




This
      certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the
      Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.
      Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into
      any
      filing under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange Act.
No. 53010.

#### Alanson Hats, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 133638-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to 18 United States Code § 1350 The undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 of Jafra Worldwide Holdings
(Lux) S.àr.l.
(the Company) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained
in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ RONALD B. CLARKRonald B. ClarkChief Executive Officer of the
Advisory Committee and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)
 May 14, 2004
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

BURNIE REED

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 2 02 3

- 0497

[ December 7, 2023 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.8 5 0 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seven t eenth Judicial Circuit, Broward C ounty ; Martin S. Fein

, Judge;

L.T. Case No. 12002306CF10A

.

Burnie Reed

, Mi lton

, pro se

.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER

, L EVINE and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JAMES D. MIZE, Sergeant, U. S. Air Force and DENNIS J. WAYWELL, Airman Basic, U. S. Air Force, Appellants

20 USCMA 130, 42 CMR 322

Nos. 23,306, 23,308

November 6, 1970

*Colonel Bertram Jacobson*and *Major John T. Dorman*were on the pleadings for Appellants, Accused.

*Colonel James M. Bumgarner*was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

Our decision in United States v Palos, 20 USCMA 104, 42 CMR 296, decided this date, requires that we affirm the decisions of the United States Air Force Court of Military Review.

Judge Darden concurs.

Ferguson, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent.

I disagree with my brothers’ holding in this case that the plea of guilty was properly accepted by the military judge for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Palos, 20 USCMA 104, 42 CMR 296 (1970). The military judge’s failure to make a specific finding on the record that the accused knowingly, intelligently, and consciously waived his right against self-incrimination, his right to trial of the facts by a court-martial, and his right to be confronted by the witnesses against him, is, in my opinion, reversible error. Cf. United States v Donohew, 18 USCMA 149, 39 CMR 149 (1969); United States v Fortier, 19 USCMA 149, 41 CMR 149 (1969). Without this specific finding on the record, the record is not verbatim as required by law. See my separate opinion in *Palos,*supra.