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

STEVEN LEE VARNUM,

Petitioner, 2:04-cv-2659-GEB-CHS

vs.

RICHARD KIRKLAND,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

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

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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 December 16, 2008, 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. Petitioner

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule

72-304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

///

Case 2:04-cv-02659-GEB-CKD Document 25 Filed 01/21/09 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

2

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 16, 2008, are adopted in

full; and

2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

Dated: January 20, 2009

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02659-GEB-CKD Document 25 Filed 01/21/09 Page 2 of 2
No. 63140.

#### M. Van Den Bogaerde *v.*United States,

protest 58/13165 (New York).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
No. 51028.

#### Protests 50332-K, etc., of American Express Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Before the Third Division,

May 8, 1947

No. 51699.

#### Protest 111833-K of Kasco Mills, Inc. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(14 Cust. Ct. 94, C. D. 919). In accordance therewith the claim for free entry was sustained.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 29, 2010

p0129 

# Order

January 29, 2010

139514

ERIC A. BRAVERMAN, Guardian and Conservator of PAMELLA JEAN SMUTZKI, a Legally Incapacitated Individual, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139514 COA: 291118 Oakland CC: 2008-090674-CK SENTRY INSURANCE, a Mutual Insurance Company, DAIRYLAND INSURANCE COMPANY, a subsidiary of Sentry Insurance, and GARY K. SMITH INSURANCE, a sole proprietorship, Defendants-Appellees,

and

AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,Proposed Intervening DefendantAppellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the ap plication for leave to appeal the July 7, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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

CARL DAVID WHITE,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-02276-GEB-GGH-P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On August 4, 2005, the magistrate judge recommended

that defendants Gonzales and Moncayo be dismissed because

plaintiff was unable to obtain information necessary to effect

their service. On September 19, 2005, this court adopted the

findings and recommendations.

On September 21, 2005, defense counsel filed a copy of

a letter he sent to plaintiff on September 12, 2005. In this

letter, defense counsel provided plaintiff with information

necessary to effect service of defendants Gonzales and Moncayo. 

Case 2:04-cv-02276-GEB-GGH Document 49 Filed 11/02/05 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

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The September 19, 2005, order dismissing defendants

Gonzales and Moncayo is vacated;

2. The court will separately order service of these

defendants.

Dated: November 1, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02276-GEB-GGH Document 49 Filed 11/02/05 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOL GARCIA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1927 FCD GGH P

vs.

K. PROSPER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file his objections to the June 29,

2006 findings and recommendations. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's July 19, 2006 application for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file his

objections to the June 29, 2006 findings and recommendations. 

DATED: 7/26/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:bb

garc1927.36

 

Case 2:04-cv-01927-FCD-GGH Document 26 Filed 07/26/06 Page 1 of 1
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 461 

To make certain irrigation districts eligible for Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin 

Program pumping power, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2023 

Mr. CRAMER (for himself and Mr. HOEVEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To make certain irrigation districts eligible for Pick-Sloan 

Missouri Basin Program pumping power, 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. ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN AREAS TO RECEIVE 

4 PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM 

5 PUMPING POWER. 

6 Section 5(a) of Public Law 89–108 (79 Stat. 435; 

7 100 Stat. 419; 114 Stat. 2763A–284) is amended by add8 ing at the end the following: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 461 IS

1 ‘‘(6) ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN IRRIGATION DIS2 TRICTS TO RECEIVE PUMPING POWER.— 

3 ‘‘(A) DEFINITION OF ELIGIBLE IRRIGA4 TION DISTRICT.—In this paragraph, the term 

5 ‘eligible irrigation district’ means an irrigation 

6 district that is located in— 

7 ‘‘(i) the test area referred to in para8 graph (1); or 

9 ‘‘(ii) an area within the 28,000-acre 

10 area described in paragraph (3) that is 

11 analyzed by the Secretary but not devel12 oped under that paragraph. 

13 ‘‘(B) ELIGIBILITY.—An eligible irrigation 

14 district shall be eligible to receive Pick-Sloan 

15 Missouri Basin Program pumping power— 

16 ‘‘(i) subject to any terms and at any 

17 rates established by the Secretary; and 

18 ‘‘(ii) in accordance with a contract en19 tered into under subparagraph (C). 

20 ‘‘(C) CONTRACT.— 

21 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Subject to clause 

22 (ii), the Secretary may enter into a con23 tract with an eligible irrigation district to 

24 provide Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin ProVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:01 Mar 04, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S461.IS S461

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 461 IS

1 gram pumping power to the eligible irriga2 tion district. 

3 ‘‘(ii) REQUIREMENT.—No Pick-Sloan 

4 Missouri Basin Program pumping power 

5 may be delivered to an eligible irrigation 

6 district under this paragraph until the date 

7 on which a contract authorizing the deliv8 ery to the irrigation district is executed 

9 under clause (i).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
(Reap. Dec. 9499)

#### Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 823966.

(Decided August 26, 1959)

*Tomplcins & Tomplcins*for the plaintiff!.

*George Cochran Douh,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Laweence, Judge:

The appeal for a reappraisement enumerated above presents the question of the proper value for appraisement purposes of certain floor polishers which are identified on the invoice accompanying the entry covered by said appeal with the letter “A” and initials “HG” of Examiner H. Golub.

By stipulation of the parties, it has been agreed that when the items of merchandise, marked and initialed as aforesaid, were exported from England, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of England, nor was it freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of England for exportation to the United States, nor was it freely offered for sale in the principal market of the United States to all purchasers. It was further stipulated and agreed that the cost of production of said floor polishers was £7.13.8 each, net packed, British sterling.

Upon the agreed facts of record, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(f)), is the proper basis of value for the floor polishers in issue and that said value is £7.13.8 each, net packed, British sterling. As to any other merchandise, the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 57340.

protests 136054-K, etc. (Philadelphia).

#### Fred Whitaker Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that for duty purposes the clean-content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with-the instructions contained in T. D. 53159. Said T. D. 53159 was issued following the decision in *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 168; C. D. 1365), affirmed in *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492), wherein the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign-material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably, and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rate applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed-“Clean Content” in schedule “A,” attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 03-616 

________________________________________________________________________ 

EMPLOYMENT 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES 

Effected by Exchange of Notes at 

Bridgetown and Kingstown 

February 26 and June 16, 2003 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES 

Employment 

 Agreement effected by exchange of notes at Bridgetown and 

 Kingstown February 26 and June 16, 2003; 

 Entered into force June 16, 2003.
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

JOEL ANTHONY HOLLEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2708 LKK EFB P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Defendants move to modify the February 7, 2006, schedule. 

A schedule may be modified upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). Good

cause exists when the moving party demonstrates he cannot meet the deadline despite exercising

due diligence. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Pursuant to the schedule, plaintiff must file his pretrial statement by November 3, 2006,

defendants must file their pretrial statement by November 17, 2006, pretrial conference is set for

November 24, 2006, and trial is set for February 13, 2007.

Defendants assert that their motion for summary judgment is pending. The court has

granted plaintiff an extension of time to file an opposition to that motion. The parties cannot,

despite due diligence, timely file pretrial statements and be prepared for trial.

////

Case 2:04-cv-02708-LKK -EFB Document 74 Filed 11/14/06 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

Accordingly, defendants’ October 12, 2006, request is granted and the above dates are 

vacated.

So ordered. 

Dated: November 13, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02708-LKK -EFB Document 74 Filed 11/14/06 Page 2 of 2
# C_2007110EN.01001001.xml

| 16.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 110/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/10

---

Winding-up proceedings

Decision to open winding-up proceedings in respect of Dier & Polis U.A.

(Publication made in accordance with Article 14 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings)

(Publication made in accordance with Article 14 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings)

(2007/C 110/09)

| Insurance undertaking | Mutual insurance company Dier & Polis U.A., legally established in Arnhem and with its office in (6921 RW) Duiven, registered with the Central Gelderland Chamber of Commerce under number 09127417 |
| --- | --- |
| Date, entry into force and nature of the decision | This company was declared bankrupt by the Arnhem (Netherlands) court on 19 February 2007 |
| Competent authorities | Mr B.J. Engberts |
| Rechter-Commissaris Rechtbank Arnhem |
| Postbus 9030 |
| 6800 EM Arnhem |
| Nederland |

Insurance undertaking

Mutual insurance company Dier & Polis U.A., legally established in Arnhem and with its office in (6921 RW) Duiven, registered with the Central Gelderland Chamber of Commerce under number 09127417

Date, entry into force and nature of the decision

This company was declared bankrupt by the Arnhem (Netherlands) court on 19 February 2007

Competent authorities

Mr B.J. Engberts

Rechter-Commissaris Rechtbank Arnhem

Postbus 9030

6800 EM Arnhem

Nederland

Supervisory authority

| De Nederlandsche Bank N.V. |
| --- |
| Divisie Juridische Zaken |
| Afd. Toezicht en Wetgeving |
| Postbus 98 |
| 1000 AB Amsterdam |
| Nederland |

De Nederlandsche Bank N.V.

Divisie Juridische Zaken

Afd. Toezicht en Wetgeving

Postbus 98

1000 AB Amsterdam

Nederland

Liquidator appointed

| Van Veen Advocaten |
| --- |
| Mevrouw M.W. Riezebosch |
| Postbus 442 |
| 6710 BK Ede |
| Nederland |
| Tel. (31-318) 68 78 94 |

Van Veen Advocaten

Mevrouw M.W. Riezebosch

Postbus 442

6710 BK Ede

Nederland

Tel. (31-318) 68 78 94

Applicable law

Netherlands,

Art. 3 van de EU Insolventieverordening

Art. 213h, lid 1 Faillissementswet

---
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

DAVID L. KING,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2233 GEB CMK P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme

Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent

prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In

certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court

does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of

counsel will therefore be denied.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02233-GEB-CMK Document 21 Filed 11/04/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s October 31, 2005

request for the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: November 3, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/kf

king2233.31

Case 2:04-cv-02233-GEB-CMK Document 21 Filed 11/04/05 Page 2 of 2
# C_2007126EN.01000101.xml

| 7.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 126/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/1

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 126/01)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 16.5.2007 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 56/07 |
| Member State | Netherlands |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Omnibus |
| Legal basis | Kaderwet EZ subsidies [version 1.1.1998] |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Research and development |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Annual budget: EUR 400 million; Overall budget: EUR 2 400 million |
| Intensity | 100 % |
| Duration | 1.1.2007 — 31.12.2012 |
| Economic sectors | All sectors |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Ministerie van Economische Zaken |
| Bezuidenhoutseweg |
| 20 2500 EC Den Haag |
| Nederland |

Date of adoption of the decision

16.5.2007

Reference number of the aid

N 56/07

Member State

Netherlands

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Omnibus

Legal basis

Kaderwet EZ subsidies [version 1.1.1998]

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Research and development

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Annual budget: EUR 400 million; Overall budget: EUR 2 400 million

Intensity

100 %

Duration

1.1.2007 — 31.12.2012

Economic sectors

All sectors

Name and address of the granting authority

Ministerie van Economische Zaken

Bezuidenhoutseweg

20 2500 EC Den Haag

Nederland

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---
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 TO EXTEND DATE TO FILE AND TO RESPOND TO

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION CASE NO. CIV. S-04-2573 DFL GGH 

THOMAS M. HERLIHY (SBN 83615)

THOMAS K. HOCKEL (SBN 172367)

KELLY, HERLIHY & KLEIN LLP

44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2500

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 951-0535 OK/HAV

Facsimile: (415) 391-7808

Attorneys for Defendant

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RALPH PILGRIM,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY and

DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, 

Defendants.

_________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. CIV. S-04-2573 DFL GGH

STIPULATION TO EXTEND 

DATES TO FILE AND RESPOND 

TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER

The parties herein, by and through their respective counsel, stipulate to an extension of the

Court’s Pre-trial Scheduling Order as follows:

Last Day for Defendant to File Summary Judgment Motion August 24, 2005

Last day for Plaintiff to file his Opposition to Summary

Judgment and Cross-Motion September 21, 2005

Last day for Defendant to file its Reply to Plaintiff’s

Opposition to Summary Judgment and Opposition to

Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion October 12, 2005

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02573-JAM-GGH Document 15 Filed 07/25/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DATE TO FILE AND TO RESPOND TO

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION CASE NO. CIV. S-04-2573 DFL GGH 

Last day for Plaintiff to file his Reply Brief in support

of Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion October 26, 2005

Hearing on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

and Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion November 9, 2005, 

10:00 A.M.

It is so stipulated.

KELLY, HERLIHY & KLEIN LLP

Dated: July ___, 2005 By_______________/s/___________________

 Thomas K. Hockel

 Attorneys for Defendant

 CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN P. HENDERSON

Dated: July ___, 2005 By_______________/s/___________________

 John P. Henderson

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 RALPH PILGRIM

 

ORDER

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, which is hereby approved, the foregoing is hereby

ordered.

Dated: 7/22/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02573-JAM-GGH Document 15 Filed 07/25/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DATE TO FILE AND TO RESPOND TO

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION CASE NO. CIV. S-04-2573 DFL GGH 

E:\24205\P13

Case 2:04-cv-02573-JAM-GGH Document 15 Filed 07/25/05 Page 3 of 3