alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8254)

#### United States *v.*W. R. Zanes & Co. of La., Inc.

Entry No. 2674.

(Decided October 22, 1953)

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General *(Mollie Strum,*special attorney), for the plaintiff.

Defendant not represented by counsel.

*401Eicwall, Judge:

This appeal for a reappraisement relates to the proper value of certain amaryllis bulbs imported from Holland. It has been submitted for decision on the following stipulation of counsel:

> IT IS -HEREBY STIPULATED by the undersigned subject to the approval of the Court, that the submission of this case on July 8, 1953 at New Orleans, La., be set aside and that the record made at that time be stricken and the case be marked continued to the next New Orleans, La. docket.

> 2.IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that at the time of exportation of the involved amaryllis bulbs the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Holland in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, was the following price for each of the respective items enumerated, viz.:

> Case No. Bulbs Per 100

> 4426 150 Amaryllis Red 26/- $102. -

> 4427 150 Amaryllis “ “ 102. -

> 4428 250 Amaryllis White 22/24 146. -

> 4429 250 Amaryllis “ “ 146. -

> 4443 75 Dark Red 22/24 Amaryllis 80. -

> 4444 75 Salmon “ “ 80. -

> 4445 75 Orange “ “ 80. -

> 4446 150 White 20/22 90. -

> All items plus packing as invoiced.

> 3. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that at the time of exportation of the involved amaryllis bulbs there was no higher foreign value for such or similar amaryllis bulbs than the value specified in the preceding paragraph.

> 4. IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that the above case may be submitted upon the foregoing stipulation.

In view of this stipulation, tbe submission of July 8, 1953, is hereby set aside, and the record as made at that time is ordered stricken.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved and that such values are as follows:

> Case No. Bulbs Per 100

> 4426 150 Amaryllis Red 26/- $102. -

> 4427 150 Amaryllis “ “ ■ 102. -

> 4428 250 Amaryllis White 22/24 146. -

> 4429 250 Amaryllis “ “ 146.-

> 4443 75 Dark Red 22/24 Amaryllis 80. -

> 4444 75 Salmon “ “ 80. -

> 4445 75 Orange “ “ 80. -

> 4446 150 White 20/22 90.-

> All items plus packing as invoiced.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

July 30, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-10258

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 08-00268-CR-2-KOB-RRA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus

JESSE CRAIG MCKINNEY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

_________________________

(July 30, 2009)

Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Alison Wallace, appointed counsel for Jesse Craig McKinney in this direct

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation and filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18

L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record confirms that

there are no issues of arguable merit on appeal. Therefore, counsel’s motion to

withdraw is GRANTED, and McKinney’s convictions and sentences are

AFFIRMED.

2
No. 65527.

#### Steelmasters, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/19888 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was 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

BENJAMIN ADAMS, No. CIV S-04-2474 MCE GGH P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

TERESA SCHWARTZ, ET AL.,

Defendants.

___________________________/

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 March 22, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings 

and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-02474-MCE -GGH Document 9 Filed 05/09/05 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

Plaintiff has not 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: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 22, 2005,

are adopted in full; and

2. Defendant Schwartz is dismissed from this action.

DATE: May 9, 2005

 

______________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-02474-MCE -GGH Document 9 Filed 05/09/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 53585.

protest 148914-K (New York).

#### Ciba Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The undisputed facts showed that the product in question is a color or dye, soluble in water, used for blueing textiles, principally bleached cotton cloth, making it whiter, and that it is obtained, derived, or manufactured, in whole or in part, from toluene, a product provided for in paragraph 1651. The established facts bring the merchandise in question within the provision in paragraph 28 (a), as amended. The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4922 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority for transportation of individuals to and from facilities of the Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2024 

Mr. OSSOFF introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority for transportation of individuals to and from facilities 

of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

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 ‘‘VA Transportation 

5 Programs Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4922 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR TRANSPORTATION 

2 OF INDIVIDUALS TO AND FROM FACILITIES 

3 OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

4 Section 111A(a)(2) of title 38, United States Code, 

5 is amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2024’’ and insert6 ing ‘‘September 30, 2029’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Order filed January 14, 2014 .

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14 - 13 - 01070 - CV NO. 14 - 13 - 01071 - CV NO. 14 - 13 - 01072 - CV

____________ IN THE INTEREST OF A.F.R., B.R.L., S.M.L. AND E.J.R., Chiildren

On Appeal from the 247th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 2012 - 01622J, 2012 - 04677J & 2012 - 16306



### ORDER This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a suit in which the termination of the parent

- child relationship is at issue (“parental termination case”). Appellant’s brief was due January 9, 2014. No brief has been filed. Unless appellant files a brief with the clerk of this court within 10 days of the date of this order, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). PER CURIAM
#### Commonwealth *v.*Crawley, Appellant.

Argued November 27, 1967.

Before Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.

*628
      *B. Lerner,*with him *Melvin Dildine,*Assistant Defender, and *'Hermm I. Pollock,*Defender, for appellant.

*Michael M. Baylson,*Assistant District Attorney, with him *Alan J. Davis,*Assistant District Attorney, *Richard A. Sprague,*First Assistant District Attorney, and *Arlen Specter,*District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

November 12, 1968:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Order affirmed.

Mr. Justice Musmanno did not participate in the decision of this case.
T$E StOrte OPTBX/1S

Dav id Jar*© Chapmoon

Of MfififS -0hl4^^Mk *e skxos Q^juw£u^d&~. >4ppQTi\jt/viemt Of Co;MSP.[- MAR nm

CHRISTOPHER. A. PRINE

etERKTOPHER.A. PRINE/

.&ThTS THE Zh^Dnsf of flBcgRglZQlS

tepp^gn-tofrop °\n-hne appp.o) Prxyerl 7raFi

fr.n ±v£ oboiie cause J CfWly =fch^" X ffir,

1MDXGENI grvj U^rtfa QQfc rYVnfiS It)

felYlPioy QaiiOS£J of gy OUJQ ChxfiMc* ar^A

1r. here (-y fEgu&s± Hag cour+To /fopoTftrf>&^r5^pY / PCcP£

hlir^gj -ffhm ThliS Pate J6HOf M*n(V

2oi5

nao£R

ThR S-tafr£ [S oMere^ -to Osgood 1t>-\ViVs

tA^>» fa>,g(hfii-&\

... . ,-F no re^varse.

K_reCTeiygA :ThP. reffrnrlocore mot/on
ppypq ft?.Tfg yce&gnt-ty-TAimrr^rnrK^ pce-Senfty-T,Mrnrr^rna-^c4 TOj^g !TL±k£

b-bms' _ county -... . TaTi tN, Wfifiis gx/nvy-fr ..jrrty-taxoft

••ml -(tyggoi-pp r^-fn/go^d rprr^Gf

Exer/A^ m F£bua\726 20B

(De^rAnnf-y VtfTg.

cnThfe TW?, l>y o¥ £015

chm? Id ££ h^rri by mz the np-ft/A*^ bofeffl -for iM flppoftftrryn-f cf GxcSJ

onrii It 4ppi?pCS 3D fhTS CCt/H- fhar4h^

nnatFori Should hft

G^fit-e^

Qftnredi AoditiS

S& ofHgr-edi

cttHge M%
"To 1st oram- ca*± o£/foy^is 2/2^/3

ThoflX\Q,< -fip oHim nog, po.eftgfficn

ov i

j^ft

UxkJLjfl&pte fTu?. irSaxoo^ogJ

ZT)—lot

frrr ^ fY^y ja) seoJ> n^ q v& £sx ffrpoB- P^ tiS

Sl^^rp^nA fv£^h£ STS TmvS i n
^c&.

Co

^ 'tf^

P

X/i VI y

9 3»

&

8f

&-•

-\J iiiiii

ifl

w

O

V4

&

W

Q

O

r-
SCALE 1:24,000

WALES QUADRANGLE

1 0.5 0 1 MILE

1 0.5 0 1 KILOMETER

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Prepared in cooperation with the OPEN-FILE REPORT 2006-1260-I

Explanatory pamphlet accompanies map

Surficial Geologic Map of the Wales Quadrangle, Massachusetts

Compiled by Janet R. Stone

2013

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, 1967.

Map was scanned, processed, georeferenced,

rectified, and cropped by the Massachusetts

Geological Survey.

Geology mapped by J.R. Stone in 1975 (unpublished). Bedrock

outcrops and shallow-bedrock areas were reproduced from Seiders

(1976). Some postglacial units were mapped using 2005 orthophoto

images.

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

(SHEET 22 of 24)

(M

O

N

S

O

N)

(S

O

U

THB

RID

G

E)

(WARREN)

72°7'30"W

72°7'30"W

72°15'0"W

72°15'0"W

42°7'30"N

42°7'30"N

42°0'0"N

42°0'0"N

Stone, J.R., compiler, 2013, Surficial geologic map

of the Mount Grace-Ashburnham-Monson-Webster

24-quadrangle area in central Massachusetts:

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1260-I

Available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1260/I.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

MASSACHUSETTS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

AND OFFICE OF GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION (MassGIS),

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
DONALD K. MCCLURE,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-3103

Opinion filed August 5, 2014.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Donald K. McClure, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236, 1245 (Fla. 2004) (“The remedy 

of habeas corpus is not available in Florida to obtain the kind of collateral 

postconviction relief available by motion in the sentencing court pursuant to rule 

3.850.”).

VAN NORTWICK, CLARK, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.
409 3rd Street, SW, Suite 210  Washington, DC 20024  202-205-3850 (p)  202-205-6825 (f)  www.nwbc.gov

Numbers and Characteristics 

 There are 97,114 veteran women-owned businesses1

 in the United States. 

 Veteran women-owned firms across the country have total receipts of $15.8 billion. 

 Women-owned firms make up 3.97% of all veteran nonfarm businesses across the country.

 A full 89.8% of these firms are non-employer firms, with average receipts of $23,143.

 The remaining 10.2% of the firms have paid employees, employing a total of 69,875 people across the 

country with a payroll of $2.1 billion. These employer firms have average receipts of $1.4 million. 

Geography 

 Just 1.2% of all women-owned firms across the country are owned by veteran women. 

 The South has the highest representation (1.6%) followed by the West (1.2%), the Midwest (1.1%) and the 

Northeast (0.7%).

 The states with the largest number of veteran women-owned businesses are: California (9,780), Texas 

(8,604), and Florida (8,274).

Industry 

 The top industries for veteran women include: health care and social assistance (18.2% of all veteran 

WOBs are in this sector), other services (14.3%), professional, scientific, and technical services (13.9%), and 

retail trade (12.9%).

 Industries least represented by veteran WOBs include management of companies and enterprises (.03%), 

utilities (.06%), and agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting (.42%). 

The National Women’s Business Council is a non-partisan federal government council created to serve as an independent source of advice and 

counsel to the President, Congress, and the U.S. Small Business Administration on economic issues of importance to women business owners. 

Members of the Council are prominent women business owners and leaders of women’s business organizations. 

SOURCE: All data comes from the US Census’ 2007 Survey of Business Owners. 

1

 Nonfarm businesses only. Women-owned defined as a woman or women owning 51% or more of the company. 

Veteran Women-Owned Businesses 

2012
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 Clifton Savings  Bancorp,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending  September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Christine R. Piano, Chief Financial 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:

        (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/ Christine R. Piano
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Chief Financial Officer



November 1, 2004
------------------------------
Date
No. 62592.

#### Rohner, Gehrig & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 330381-K (New York).

*447Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
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

KELVIN J. EVANS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2051 LKK KJM P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.

Because petitioner may be entitled to the requested relief if the claimed violation

of constitutional rights is proved, respondents will be directed to file a response to petitioner’s

application. 

In light of the complexity of the legal issues involved, the court has determined

that the interests of justice require appointment of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see

also Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondents are directed to file a response to petitioner’s application within

sixty days from the date of this order. See Rule 4, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. An answer

Case 2:04-cv-02051-LKK -KJM Document 6 Filed 05/05/05 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

shall be accompanied by any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination

of the issues presented in the application. See Rule 5, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases.

2. Petitioner’s traverse, if any, shall be filed and served within thirty days of

service of an answer.

3. If the response to petitioner’s application is a motion, petitioner’s opposition or

statement of non-opposition shall be filed and served within thirty days of service of the motion,

and respondents’ reply, if any, shall be filed within fifteen days thereafter.

4. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of

petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on Jo Graves,

Senior Assistant Attorney General.

5. The Federal Defender is appointed to represent petitioner.

6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of petitioner’s habeas corpus

application and a copy of this order on David Porter, Assistant Federal Defender.

7. Petitioner’s counsel shall contact the Clerk’s Office to make arrangements for 

copies of other documents in the file.

DATED: May 4, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1/kf

evan2051.100f 

Case 2:04-cv-02051-LKK -KJM Document 6 Filed 05/05/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 4.23


 


Execution Copy


 


[Note: Translation from the original written
in Chinese]


 


Declaration and Undertaking


 


To:


eLongNet Information Technology (Beijing)
Co., Ltd. (“WFOE”)


No. 10 Middle Jiuxianqiao Road, Chaoyang District,
Beijing


 


eLong, Inc.


4th Floor, Hutchence David Century
Garden, George Town, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands


 


This Declaration and Undertaking has
been duly executed and represents the genuine intent of each of the two persons which are signatories hereto.


 


Ding Haochuan (“Party
A”)


Residence: No. 19, Dongjing Road,
Xuanwu District, Beijing


ID No.:


 


Wang Yanping (Spouse) (“Party
B”)


Residence: No. 19, Dongjing Road,
Xuanwu District, Beijing


ID Number:


 


Whereas:


Party A is a shareholder of Beijing eLong
Information Technology Co., Ltd., holding a 12.5% shareholding, and Party B is the lawful spouse of Party A.


 


Now, Party A and Party B both, in accordance
with PRC law and regulations, confirm and covenant to eLong, Inc. and WFOE as follows:


 


1.        Party A and Party B both understand
that the shareholding held by Party A is not the actual property of Party A, not part of Party A’s assets, and not joint
marital property of Party A and Party B under PRC law. Neither Party A nor Party B has any right to assert any rights, benefits,
preferences or claims related to the shareholding.


 


2.        Party A and B both covenant that
all rights and benefits related to the shareholding (including but not limited to inheritance, transfer, voting, mortgage, disposal,
benefits, etc.) are not part of the inheritable property of either party; Party A and Party B and any party inheriting under PRC
law do not have any right of inheritance to the shareholding.


 


3.        Party A and Party B both represent
and warrant, that no other family member or relative has any rights, benefits or preferences related to the shareholding, there
is no factual basis for any such claims or assertions, and no family member or relative shall make any claims or assertions relating
to the shareholding in the future.


 


4.        This Declaration and Undertaking
is the genuine expression of the intent of Party A and Party B, has been voluntarily issued in accordance with applicable law,
and is binding and enforceable on Party A and Party B, who shall bear all legal liability to eLong, Inc. and WFOE for the effectiveness
and enforceability of this Declaration and Undertaking.


 


5.        This Declaration and Undertaking
is irrevocable and permanent.


 


[remainder of page intentionally left blank]


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


[signature page of Declaration and Undertaking]


 


 


	Party A: Ding Haochuan	 
	/s/ Ding Haochuan	 
	Date:  November 10, 2014	 
	 	 
	Party B: Wang Yanping	 
	/s/ Wang Yanping	 
	Date:  November 10, 2014
EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Michael E.
Hart, the Chief Executive Officer of Allos Therapeutics, Inc. (the "Company"), and Daniel R. Hudspeth, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his
knowledge:

1.The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002, to which this
Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1 (the "Periodic Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended; and

2.The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the
Company at the end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company for the periods covered by the Periodic Report.

Dated:
March 27, 2003

|/s/ Michael E. HartMichael E. Hart Chief Executive Officer |  | /s/ Daniel R. HudspethDaniel R. Hudspeth Chief Financial Officer
|---------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Allos Therapeutics, Inc. and will be retained by Allos Therapeutics, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
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

KERRY LUGENE PARKER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2695 FCD GGH P

vs.

GEORGE STRATTON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 22, 2006, plaintiff filed a request to correspond with inmate

witnesses in other prisons. Plaintiff’s request is not well supported because plaintiff does not

state that he sought permission from prison officials, through the appropriate procedures, for

permission to correspond with these inmates. In addition, defendants have not yet responded to

the complaint. Therefore, plaintiff’s request to contact these witnesses is somewhat premature.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s March 22, 2006, request

to correspond with inmate witnesses is denied.

DATED: 4/24/06 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

park2695.ord

Case 2:04-cv-02695-FCD-GGH Document 27 Filed 04/24/06 Page 1 of 1