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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES ARTHUR HAROLSON,

NO. CIV. S-04-2128 LKK/PAN P

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

JIM POPE, 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. 

This court has reviewed the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations. The magistrate judge concluded without any

analysis or citations that “[t]he federal right of access to the

courts does not extend to small claims actions” and recommended

that the action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. I

cannot agree. 

Case 2:04-cv-02128-LKK -PAN Document 8 Filed 05/10/05 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

While it appears that the Ninth Circuit has not ruled on this

precise issue (whether the right of access to courts includes

access to small claims courts), other courts have held that a

prisoner’s reasonable access to the courts must include access in

general civil legal matters including but not limited to divorce

and small claims courts. See, e.g., Corpus v. Estelle, 551 F.2d

68, 70 (5th Cir. 1977). This matter is remanded to the magistrate

judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 9, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-02128-LKK -PAN Document 8 Filed 05/10/05 Page 2 of 2
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-FAA-2012-0008 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NE-43-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection 5.0 $ 425.00 $ 425.00 96 $40,800.00

Part Rework 8.0 $ 680.00 $ 680.00 96 $65,280.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $106,080

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 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 First Potomac Realty Trust (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas J. Donatelli, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: May 9, 2005
    
    /s/ Douglas J. DonatelliDouglas J. DonatelliPresident and Chief Executive Officer
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3844

_____________________________
L ARRY G. J OSSEY , J R

. , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. David M. Gooding , Judge

. January 11 , 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , O STERHAUS , and B ILBREY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Larry G. Jossey, Jr., pro se
, Appellant.2 Pamela Jo Bondi
, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
446 A.2d 697

#### Commonwealth v. Austin, Appellant.

Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Sept. 30, 1982.

Submitted June 3, 1981.

Douglas M. Johnson, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant; Ronald T. Williamson, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before ROWLEY, McEWEN and MONTEMURO, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 6349

NOREL STERLING WARD , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN JEFF KISER, Red Onion State Prison; SGT. MASSINGILL; MR. BLEDSOE; SGT. FLEMING; NURSE WIT T , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Thomas T. Cullen, District Judge. ( 7:20

- cv - 00036

- TTC

- PMS )

Submitted : February 8, 2024 Decided: February 14, 2024

Before KING, AGEE, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by un published per curia m opinion

.

Norel S terling Ward , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6349 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/14/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Norel Sterling Ward appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the pending motions and affirm the district

court ’s order, see Ward v. Kiser , No. 7:20

- cv - 00036

- TTC

- PMS (W.D. Va. Mar. 13, 2023), but we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice, see Ali v. Hogan , 26 F.4t h 587, 600 (4th Cir. 2022); Moss v. Harwood , 19 F.4th 614, 623 n.3 (4th Cir. 2021). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6349 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/14/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

Dudley Mendenhall, Chief Financial Officer of Websense, Inc., hereby certifies pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that, to the
best of his knowledge:

1.     The
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Websense, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act and

2.     The
information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Websense, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007 fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Websense, Inc. for the period covered by the Annual Report.

Dated:
February 28, 2008

| |  | By: |  | /s/DUDLEY MENDENHALLDudley Mendenhall Chief Financial Officer
| |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------

---

---



QuickLinks
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of CanoPetroleum, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’sknowledge, that: the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three monthsended December 31, 2008 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the informationcontained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for,the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

 
| Dated: February 9,  2009 | /s/ S. Jeffrey Johnson         |
|-------------------------------|--------------------------------|
|                          | S. Jeffrey Johnson             |
|                          | Chief Executive Officer        |
|                          | (Principal Executive  Officer) |

 

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuantto Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as partof the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into anyfiling of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardlessof any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

----
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 03-823 

________________________________________________________________________ 

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT 

Article 98 

 Agreement between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and AFGHANISTAN 

Signed at Washington September 20, 2002 

 

 
 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.” 
AFGHANISTAN 

International Criminal Court: Article 98 

 Agreement signed at Washington 

 September 20, 2002; 

 Entered into force August 23, 2003.
#### Paulette Attie, Respondent, v City of New York, Defendant, and Trustees of the Masonic Hall and Asylum Fund, Appellant and Third-, Fourth- and Fifth-Party Plaintiff, et al., Third-Party Defendant, et al., Fourth-Party Defendant, et al., Fifth-Party Defendant.

[634 NYS2d 88]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about July 13, 1995, which, *inter alia,*granted appellant’s motion for vacatur of the default order dated May 8, 1995, but adhered to the prior decision insofar as refusing to strike the note of issue, and in severing the fourth-party action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Denial of severance would likely have caused an inordinate delay of trial of the main action *(cf., Leavitt v New York City Tr. Auth.,*111 AD2d 907, 908). Plaintiff completed discovery and filed a note of issue pursuant to the IAS Court’s orders and would be prejudiced by such delay *(see, Miro v Branford House,*174 AD2d 363). Appellant did not take the opportunity to conduct a physical examination within the scheduled deadline. In these circumstances, the motion to strike the note of issue was properly denied *(see, Hamlin v Mensch,*205 AD2d 452; *Levine v McFarland,*98 AD2d 795). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13340]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5083]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Data Collection Available for Public Comments and Recommendations

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this 
notice announces the Small Business Administration's intentions to 
request approval on a new and/or currently approved information 
collection.

DATES: Submit comments on or before May 21, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Send all comments regarding whether this information 
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the function of 
the agency, whether the burden estimates are accurate, and if there are 
ways to minimize the estimated burden and enhance the quality of the 
collection, to Frank Lalumiere, Director, Office of Surety Bonds, Small 
Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 8th Floor, Wash., DC 
20416.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Lalumiere, Director, Office of 
Surety Bonds 202-401-8275 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#91f7e3f0fffabffdf0fde4fcf8f4e3f4d1e2f3f0bff6fee7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6f091d0e010441030e031a02060a1d0a2f1c0d0e41080019">[email protected]</span></a>, Curtis B. Rich, 
Management Analyst, 202-205-7030 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#12716760667b613c607b717a526170733c757d64"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="65061017110c164b170c060d251607044b020a13">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: ``Small Business Administration (SBA) Surety Bond Guarantee 
Customer Survey''
    Description of Respondents: Small Businesses within the 
Construction Industry.
    Form No: N/A.
    Annual Responses: 600.
    Annual Burden: 13.33.

Jacqueline White,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
[FR Doc. E7-5083 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Joel Anthony Holley,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-2708 LKK PAN P

vs. Order

Tom L. Carey, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoJune 8, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for production of

documents, interrogatories and a request for admissions.

Interrogatories, requests for production, requests for

admission, responses and proofs of service thereof “shall not be

filed with the clerk until there is a proceeding in which the

document or proof of service is at issue. When required in a

proceeding, only that part of the request and response that is in 

issue shall be filed.” Local Rules 33-250(c), 34-250(c) & 36-

250(c).

Case 2:04-cv-02708-LKK -EFB Document 21 Filed 07/13/05 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 is directed not to submit any further discovery

requests unless permitted under the local rules. 

So ordered.

Dated: July 12, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02708-LKK -EFB Document 21 Filed 07/13/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 58080.

protests 184048-K, etc. (Boston).

#### L. W. Rand & Co. et al. *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 under T. D. 53159” in the schedule attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.
No. 51045.

#### Protests 121820-K, etc., of Wm. J. Wardall, trustee, estate of McKesson & Robbins, Inc., Deb. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
FIRST SOUTH BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY


                                                                     Exhibit 32


                Certifications Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

          The  undersigned,  who are the chief  executive  officer and the chief
financial  officer of First South Bancorp,  Inc., each hereby certifies that, to
the best of his knowledge,  the  accompanying  Form 10-K of the registrant fully
complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934,  and that the  information  contained in the report fairly
presents,  in all  material  aspects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of the issuer.


March 30, 2007
                                            s/Barry L. Slider
                                            ---------------------------
                                            Barry L. Slider
                                            Chief Executive Officer


                                           s/V. Lewis Shuler
                                           ---------------------------
                                           V. Lewis Shuler
                                           Chief Financial Officer
No. 60900.

#### Joseph C. Murray & Company *v.*United States,

protest 281461-K (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

An examination of the official papers showing that the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, the protest was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
No. 76-5297.

#### Hawkins *v.*Estelle, Corrections Director.

Motion for leave to file petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
No. 46761.

#### Protests 977583-G/88345, etc., of American Machine & Metals, Inc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of hardness testing machines and parts thereof, the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *American Machine & Metals, Inc.*(29 C. C. P. A. 137, C. A. D. 183). In accordance therewith the merchandise was held dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 353 as modified by the trade agreement with Switzerland (T. D. 48093) as claimed.
Case No. 8,484.

#### The LONG BRANCH.

[9 Ben. 89.] 1

District Court, E. D. New York.

March, 1877.

Makitjme Lien — Presumption of Cuedit — Necessary Supplies — Liquors pok the Bar.

Where a part of a hill of supplies furnished to a vessel were liquors and other things, intended to be used in a bar, kept on board the vessel as part of a restaurant managed by the railroad company that was using the boat, and a libel was filed against the steamboat to enforce a lien for the whole bill: *Ecld,*that a lien upon the boat for the value of the liquors, where the evidence warranted the conclusion that the bar was no more than a convenient method employed by the owners for supplying the ordinary wants of the class of passengers transported on the boat, can he enforced.

See the case of The Metropolis [Case No. 9,-503].

In admiralty.

BENEDICT, District Judge.

This is an action to enforce a lien for supplies furnished to the steamboat Long Branch. The answer avers that at the. time the supplies were furnished the vessel was owned by the New Jersey Southern Railroad Company, and that the supplies were furnished solely upon the credit of that corporation. Under the decision of The Plymouth Rock LCase No. 11,237]. this vessel was a foreign vessel, and therefore subject to a lien for the supplies in question, which are admitted to have been furnished to and necessary for the use of the vessel, provided the articles were furnished upon the credit of the vessel. The facts bearing upon this question are similar to those proved in the case of the Plymouth Rock above referred to, and in accordance with that decision it must be held that the proofs are sufficient to sustain the averment of the libel that the articles were furnished upon the credit of the vessel, and not solely upon the credit of the railroad company. A point is made in this ease that it appears that some of the articles were intended to be used in a bar kept on the steamboat, and were designated on the bills as for the bar. and that such articles are not within the denomination of necessaries for the vessel. 1 can imagine a state of facts that would not warrant holding that a lien upon the vessel is created by articles furnished to a bar maintained on the vessel. But upon the meagre facts here shown no distinction can be drawn between the articles to be used on the table at the restaurant and those used in the bar. The employment of the vessel in the absence of other proof warrants the inference that the bar was a part of the restaurant, and no more than a convenient method of supplying the ordinary wants of the class of passengers transported on the boat. Accordingly there must be a decree in favor of the libellants for the amount claimed, with interest and costs.
No. 49678.

#### Protests 601573-G, etc., of T. A. Desmond Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the record it was found that the hats are similar to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664). Those hats imported and withdrawn for consumption prior to the effective date of the Netherlands Trade Agreement were held dutiable at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (5), and those subsequent to said date were held dutiable at *12%*percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) and T. D. 48075, *supra.*