alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 46732.

#### Protest 473333-G of Canat & De La Chapelle, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of wool hat bodies similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(25 C. C. P. A. 220, T. D. 49335) and *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). In accordance therewith the wool hat bodies in question were held dutiable at the appropriate rate according to value under paragraph 1115 (a) as claimed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHAWN ANDERSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

CHRIS KRPAN; MICHAEL FOSTER,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-15974

D.C. No. 1:14-cv-01380-AWIMJS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 25, 2016** 

 Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Shawn Anderson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and

FILED

NOV 02 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012);

Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We reverse

and remand. 

Dismissal of Anderson’s action was premature because Anderson alleged

that defendants failed to provide and delayed medical treatment for Anderson’s

ankle. Liberally construed, these allegations in the amended complaint were

“sufficient to warrant ordering [defendants] to file an answer.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d

at 1116; see also id. at 1122 (denying or delaying medical treatment can amount to

deliberate indifference; a prisoner need not show his harm was substantial);

Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official is

deliberately indifferent if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an

inmate’s health). 

Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s judgment and remand for further

proceedings. 

REVERSED and REMANDED. 

2 15-15974
No. 55994.

protest 152170-K (A) (New York).

#### H. S. Dorf & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The protest was dismissed.
Case 2:04-cv-02536-DFL-GGH   Document 28    Filed 04/06/06   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-27T22:02:41-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7097 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ELIJAH JAMES GADDY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior

District Judge. (3:03-cr-00109-2)

Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 7, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elijah James Gaddy, Appellant Pro Se. Kimlani Murray Ford, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Elijah James Gaddy appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18

U.S.C.A. § 3582 (West 2000 & Supp. 2006). We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Gaddy,

No. 3:03-cr-00109-2 (W.D.N.C. May 25, 2006). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 

 

GAYDA AIRTH, CIV-S-04-2536-DFL/GGH

PATRICIA M. KEANE, CIV-S-04-2537-DFL/GGH

JACK STEVENSON, CIV-S-04-2538-DFF/GGH

ANDREW CARELTON, CIV-S-04-2539-DFL/GGH

Plaintiff(s),

vs. 

THOMPSON FINANCIAL CO., INC.,

THE THOMPSON CORPORATION a

Corporation, and does 1 -5, inclusive,

Defendant(s).

______________________________________/

 Defendant filed a discovery motion on June 8, 2005 set for hearing June 30,

2005 @ 10:00 a.m.. Notwithstanding the three days specified by E.D. Cal. L.R. 37-251 the joint

statement shall be filed in no later than five court days before the scheduled hearing.

Notwithstanding E.D. Cal. L.R. 5-133(f), if the joint statement is more than 25 pages, or the

attachments are longer than 50 pages, the copy shall be hand delivered or sent by overnight mail

to chambers on the day of filing. The filing deadline, accordingly, will be June 23, 2005.

The dispute may be organized by category, with specific discovery items attached,

if appropriate, as an exhibit. For each disputed category or individual item, include: (1) the

specific disputed discovery category or item; (2) the response; (3) the moving party’s position;

and (4) the opposition. E.D.Cal. L.R. 37-251(c)(3). Do not file separate briefing. Id.

Privilege objections must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). Except in

extraordinary circumstances, the party claiming privilege may not submit a post-hearing privilege

log. The failure properly to support a privilege objection with a privilege log may be deemed to

waive it. 

The moving party is responsible for filing the joint statement. The opposing party

nevertheless must timely draft and submit its portion. Failure of either party to use best efforts to

ensure timely filing will be cause for sanctions. 

Dated: 6/13/05 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 ___________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

U.S. Magistrate Judge

airth.ord

Case 2:04-cv-02539-DFL-GGH Document 9 Filed 06/14/05 Page 1 of 1
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4737 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

220 North Hatcher Avenue in Purcellville, Virginia, as the ‘‘Secretary 

of State Madeleine Albright Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 23, 2024 

Mr. KAINE (for himself and Mr. WARNER) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 220 North Hatcher Avenue in Purcellville, 

Virginia, as the ‘‘Secretary of State Madeleine Albright 

Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SECRETARY OF STATE MADELEINE ALBRIGHT 

4 POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 220 North Hatcher Avenue in 

7 Purcellville, Virginia, shall be known and designated as 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4737 IS

1 the ‘‘Secretary of State Madeleine Albright Post Office 

2 Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Secretary of State 

7 Madeleine Albright Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
VI 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4738 

For the relief of Vichai Sae Tung (also known as Chai Chaowasaree). 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 23, 2024 

Ms. HIRONO (for herself and Mr. SCHATZ) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Vichai Sae Tung (also known as Chai 

Chaowasaree). 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS FOR VICHAI 

4 SAE TUNG. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi6 sion of law, for purposes of the Immigration and Nation7 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Vichai Sae Tung (also 

8 known as Chai Chaowasaree) shall be held and considered 

9 to have been lawfully admitted to the United States for 

10 permanent residence as of the date of the enactment of 

11 this Act upon payment of the required visa fees. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4738 IS

1 (b) REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE

2 VISAS.—Upon the granting of permanent residence to 

3 Vichai Sae Tung (also known as Chai Chaowasaree) pur4 suant to subsection (a), the Secretary of State shall in5 struct the proper officer to reduce by one, during the cur6 rent or subsequent fiscal year, the total number of immi7 grant visas available to natives of the country of the alien’s 

8 birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nation9 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Rodriguez, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 1010]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered April 20, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was acting in concert with the codefendant in the murder of the victims *(see, People v Whatley,*69 NY2d 784; *People v Armistead,*178 AD2d 607; *People v McLeod,*168 AD2d 461). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

*382The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
**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 Cano Petroleum, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Michael J. Ricketts, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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, as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished as anexhibit to the Form 10-QSB pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-Band Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 202 (subsections (a) and(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and,accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is notincorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made beforeor after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language insuch filing.

 

 
| November 9, 2005 | /s/ Michael J. Ricketts |   |
|-----------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                  | Michael J. Ricketts     |
|                  | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### Lavin & Kleiman, Respondent-Appellant, v J.M. Heinike Associates, Inc., Appellant-Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 901]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: County Court properly granted plaintiff summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim for legal malpractice. Plaintiff met its burden of establishing entitlement to judgment in its favor as a matter of law by the submission of evidentiary proof in admissible form. Defendant failed to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form "sufficient to require a trial of any issue of fact” (CPLR 3212 [b]). It is well settled that a cause of action for legal malpractice requires proof that the attorney "failed to exercise that degree of care, skill and diligence commonly possessed and exercised by an ordinary member of the legal community, that such negligence was the proximate cause of the actual damages sustained by [plaintiff], and that but for the [attorney’s] negligence, [plaintiff] would have been successful in the underlying action” *(Logalbo v Plishkin, Rubano & Baum,*163 AD2d 511, 513, *Iv dismissed*77 NY2d 940; *see also, L.I.C. Commercial Corp. v Rosenthal,*202 AD 2d 644, *lv dismissed*84 NY2d 841; *Grace & Co. v Tunstead, Schecter & Torre,*186 AD2d 15, 19).

There is no merit to the contention of defendant that summary judgment should have been denied pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f) because plaintiff had not complied with certain discovery demands of defendant. Defendant failed to indicate the essential facts that it believes are in the exclusive knowledge and possession of plaintiff *(see, Billy v Consolidated Mach. Tool Corp.,*51 NY2d 152, 164).

The court did not err in denying the cross motion of defendant to amend its counterclaim to permit James Heinike individually to assert causes of action for assault and battery and unlawful restraint against John Lavin individually. Neither individual is a party to the present action and the proposed amendment is unrelated to the facts underlying the present action for unpaid legal fees.

Lastly, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the cross motion of plaintiff for the imposition of sanctions pursuant to CPLR 8303-a. (Appeals from Order of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ.
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 

PAUL, PLEVIN,

SULLIVAN &

CONNAUGHTON LLP

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KARY DELOSIE, GABRIELLE 

STEVENS, AND LISA GARY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JENNY CRAIG, INC., JACKIE 

FRENZI, BRANDI MARTIN, AND 

DOES 1-20, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. CIV S-04-1965 MCE DAD 

ORDER FOR DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE 

ACTION WITH PREJUDICE (F.R.C.P. 

41(a)(1)) 

Courtroom: 3 

Judge: Morrison C. England Jr. 

Complaint Filed: May 21, 2004 

Trial Date: February 15, 2006 

Pursuant to the stipulation of all parties that have appeared in this action, filed on 

September 20, 2005, the Court ORDERS that this action shall be and hereby is 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 28, 2005

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 

Case 2:04-cv-01965-MCE -DAD Document 9 Filed 09/28/05 Page 1 of 1
#### St. Catherine Church, St. Jude Church, Appellants *v.*The Mountaintop Area Joint Sanitary Authority, Appellee.

Argued March 6, 1981,

before Judges Blatt, Craig and Williams, Jr., sitting as a panel of three.

*John L. McDonald,*for appellants.

*Joseph P. Mellody, Jr.,*for appellee.

April 1, 1981:

Opinion by

Judge Craig,

St. Catherine Church and St. Jude Church appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of *182Luzerne County which dismissed their complaints in ejectment and trespass against the Mountaintop Area Joint Sanitary Authority.

The churches alleged that the authority wrongfully entered their lands and constructed sewer lines across them without filing any declaration of taking or otherwise exercising its power of eminent domain. That the authority filed no declaration and that the lines were so laid is uncontested.

In sustaining preliminary objections by the authority, the lower court reasoned that the churches’ exclusive remedy here was to treat the alleged authority action as a *de facto*taking and petition for the appointment of viewers under §502(e) of the Eminent Domain Code.1 The churches contend that remedy is inadequate because viewers can only assess damages, and that trespass and ejectment should lie to permit the abatement of the alleged unlawful entry and ouster of the authority.

*Ramad Realty Corp. v. Springettsbury Township Sewer Authority,*10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 1, 309 A.2d 80 (1973), controls this case. We there clearly held that §406 of the Eminent Domain Code enables the common pleas court “to order removal if the construction is found to be invalid in the first instance,” thus ultimately affording a complete and therefore exclusive remedy for an invalid taking.

*Ramad*likewise clearly stated that, in situations like this case, where a *de facto*taking has been accomplished, and the landowner “does not wish to proceed under §502(e) [for damages] and there is no declaration of taking to challenge [by preliminary objections] under §406 ... equity may be invoked in *183order to force the authority to proceed with proper condemnation proceedings. This is the only method by which the landowner may protect his rights.” 10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. at 6, 309 A.2d at 83.

Accordingly, we affirm the common pleas court’s dismissal of the complaints in trespass and ejectment, leaving the churches with their option to compel, through equity, the filing of a declaration of taking, the validity of which can then be attacked by preliminary objections under the Eminent Domain Code.

Indeed, if the allegations are well founded, we cannot see why the authority here should not. obviate the need for an ancillary equity proceeding by voluntarily filing a declaration, so that the churches may proceed directly under the Eminent Domain Code.

Order

And Now, April 1, 1981, the. June 30, 1980 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County at No. 879-C of 1980 is affirmed.

This decision was reached prior to the expiration of the term of office of Judge Wilkinson, Jr.

1

 Act of June 22, 1964, Special Sess., P.L. 84, *as amended,*26 P.S. §1-101 *et seq.*
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 14, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11877-11878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4539]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[DA 07-193]


LPTV and TV Translator Applications Mutually Exclusive Proposals

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Video Division of the Media Bureau 
announces a 60-day period beginning February 22, 2007 and ending April 
23, 2007, for parties with proposals in the mutually exclusive (MX) 
groups listed in the Public Notice from the July-August 2000 filing 
window to enter into settlement agreements or otherwise resolve their 
mutual exclusivities by means of engineering solutions.

[[Page 11878]]


DATES: The deadline for submitting a settlement or engineering 
amendment is April 23, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaun Maher of the Video Division, 
Media Bureau, at (202) 418-1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 22, 2007, the Video Division of 
the Media Bureau released a Public Notice announcing a 60-day period 
beginning February 22, 2007 and ending April 23, 2007, for parties with 
proposals in the mutually exclusive (MX) groups listed in the Public 
Notice from the July-August 2000 filing window to enter into settlement 
agreements or otherwise resolve their mutual exclusivities by means of 
engineering solutions. Interested parties listed in the Attachment A to 
the Public Notice must submit their settlement or engineering amendment 
by 6 p.m. ET, April 23, 2007. The settlements or engineering amendments 
must be filed via the Commission's CDBS electronic filing system and 
paper-filed settlements and engineering amendments will not be 
accepted. Complete instructions for filing settlements and engineering 
amendments via CDBS were included in the Public Notice.
    Paperwork Reduction Act Approval: The FCC Form 346 was assigned 
control number 3060-0016 and was approved by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) on May 25, 2005. Section 73.3525 of the Commission's 
rules was assigned control number 3060-0213 and was approved by OMB on 
December 21, 2006.

Federal Communications Commission.
Barbara Kreisman,
Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau.
 [FR Doc. E7-4539 Filed 3-13-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 50 (Thursday, March 15, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 12177]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4743]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel: Cooperative Agreement to the Medical Research Council 
of South Africa for TB Control and HIV Prevention, Care and Treatment 
Activities, Program Announcement (PA) Number PS07-006

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting of the aforementioned Special 
Emphasis Panel.

    Time and Date: 1 p.m.-2:30 p.m., May 11, 2007 (Closed).
    Place: Teleconference. Corporate Square, Building 8, Conference 
Room 6B.
    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance 
with provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 
U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis 
and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Pub. L. 92-463.
    Matters To Be Discussed: The meeting will include the review, 
discussion, and evaluation of a research application in response to 
PA PS07-006, ``Cooperative Agreement to the Medical Research Council 
of South Africa for TB Control and HIV Prevention, Care and 
Treatment Activities.''
    For Further Information Contact: J. Felix Rogers, Scientific 
Review Administrator, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
1600 Clifton Road, NE., MS E05, Atlanta, GA 30333, telephone 
404.639.6101.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining 
to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and 
Disease Registry.

    Dated: March 8, 2007.
Elaine L. Baker,
Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. E7-4743 Filed 3-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P