alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ESPERANSA LOUGHRAN, :

individually and on behalf of herself, :

pro se, and on behalf of those :

similarly situated as, : No. 4:05-CV-0872

Plaintiff, :

:

v. : (Judge McClure)

:

BALD EAGLE AREA SCHOOL :

DISTRICT, :

Defendant. :

O R D E R

May 3, 2005

BACKGROUND:

On April 29, 2005, plaintiff Esperansa Loughran, proceeding pro se, filed an

employment discrimination complaint “on behalf of herself . . . and on behalf of

those similarly situated” against defendant Bald Eagle Area School District. 

Loughran’s complaint totals fifty (50) pages, exclusive of exhibits, and includes

numerous sub-paragraphs responding to seventy (70) charges defendant allegedly

made against Loughran, which account for thirty (30) pages of Loughran’s

complaint. 

On its own initiative, the court may strike from any pleading any “redundant,

Case 4:05-cv-00872-JFM Document 3 Filed 05/03/05 Page 1 of 3
-2-

immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). 

Loughran’s point-by-point retort of defendant’s alleged charges against her are

redundant and impertinent at this stage. A complaint need only contain, among

other things, “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534

U.S. 506, 512 (2002). A complaint need only give a defendant fair notice of a

plaintiff’s claims. See Foulk v. Donjon Marine Co., Inc., 144 F.3d 252, 256 (3d

Cir. 1998). A complaint need not set out in detail all the facts relied on by the

plaintiff. Id.; see e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 84 (referencing adequate, sample complaints

appearing in Appendix of Forms to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).

Paragraph 11 of Loughran’s complaint, which spans from page 6 to page 36,

contains unnecessary factual details and amounts to a pleading of evidence, which

is discouraged. Yet, given Loughran’s pro se status, the court will direct Loughran

to file an amended complaint without all of the sub-paragraphs contained in

paragraph 11. Paragraph 11 as it currently stands, or perhaps with a simple

reference to the range of dates mentioned in defendant’s June 22, 2004 letter to

Loughran, will suffice to place defendant on notice of Loughran’s allegation of a

continuing violation. If Loughran fails to file an amended complaint, the court will

strike the sub-paragraphs of paragraph 11 pursuant to Rule 12(f). 

Case 4:05-cv-00872-JFM Document 3 Filed 05/03/05 Page 2 of 3
-3-

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Loughran is directed to file an amended complaint without the factual

allegations in the sub-paragraphs of paragraph 11 of her complaint within twenty

(20) days of the date of this order. Failure to do so will result in the court’s striking

the sub-paragraphs of paragraph 11 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(f).

 s/ James F. McClure, Jr. 

James F. McClure, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00872-JFM Document 3 Filed 05/03/05 Page 3 of 3
# Ackiss takes command at DLA Distribution Europe

/ Published June 29, 2018
GERMERSHEIM, Germany, 
Army Lt. Col. Jonathan Ackiss assumed command during a change of command ceremony held at DLA Distribution Europe in Germersheim, Germany, June 29.

Ackiss, a Rocky Mount, North Carolina, native, enlisted in the Army in 1992 as a parachute rigger at Fort Bragg. Ackiss graduated as a Distinguished Military Graduate from North Carolina State University in 1999 with a Bachelor of Arts in Sociology and was commissioned into the Quartermaster Corps.  

Following the Quartermaster Officer Basic Course, Ackiss was assigned to the 1st Corps Support Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, where he served as a platoon leader, company executive officer, and aide de camp. Ackiss deployed to Operation Iraqi Freedom and served as a supply and service officer and logistics team leader with Logistics Task Force 530.  

Following the Captain’s Career Course, Ackiss was assigned to the Republic of South Korea where he served as the plans officer for the 248th Petroleum Liaison Team.  He went on to serve as the Commander of the 4th QM Detachment (Aerial Supply) at Camp Hialeah, South Korea, and Fort Richardson, Alaska.  Following Company Command, Ackiss was assigned as the S3 for the 17th Combat Sustainment Support Battalion and deployed in support of OIF from 2007 to 2009.  Ackiss was then assigned to Vicenza, Italy, where he served as the logistics plans chief for U.S. Army Africa.  Ackiss went on to serve as the brigade support operations officer and Brigade S4 for the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 506th Infantry Regiment “Currahee,” 101st Airborne Division where he deployed to Operation Enduring Freedom 2013 in Regional Command East.  

No stranger to DLA, Ackiss served as the executive officer for DLA Distribution Susquehanna, Pennsylvania—DLA’s flagship distribution center.  His most recent assignment was as professor of military science at Central Washington University.  

Ackiss is a graduate of the Aerial Delivery Course, basic Airborne Course, the 82d Airborne Division Jumpmaster Course, The Sabalauski Air Assault School, the Combined Logistics Captains Career Course (CLC3), the Cold Weather Leader’s Course, the Command and General Staff College, and holds a 3H (Joint Planner) identifier.  He also holds a Master’s Degree in General Administration from Central Michigan University.
EXHIBIT
32.2




CERTIFICATION





Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and
(b) of


Section
1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)




Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
that:




The
Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the "Form 10-Q")
of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.




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





Date:
      August 19, 2009
                    
                    
                    /s/   Cheung
      Wai Hung, EddieCheung
      Wai Hung, Eddie, Chief Financial
Officer
#### Andrew MOTICHEK v. Clarence O’KEEFE et al.

No. 6026.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Dec. 22, 1969.

*268Garic Kenneth Barranger, of Barranger, Barranger & Jones, Covington, for relator.

Philip E. Pfeffer, of Pfeffer & Prieto, Covington, for respondents.

Before LANDRY, SARTAIN and ELLIS, JJ.

LANDRY, Judge.

This is a timber trespass suit in which plaintiff seeks damages for alleged wrongful cutting of timber upon his lands. Defendants answered contending a survey of plaintiff’s lands was necessary to determine the issues before the Court. The trial court, Honorable Jim W. Richardson, Judge, presiding, appointed Robert A. Berlin, Surveyor, to make the survey. Mr. Berlin informed the court his fee for such services would be $500.00. Mr. Berlin also declined to conduct the survey until such time as assurance for payment of his fee was provided. Defendants then moved that the trial court order plaintiff to post bond in the sum of $500.00 to guarantee payment of Mr. Berlin’s fee. On May 17, 1963, the trial court declined to so order.

Defendants then petitioned this Court for alternative writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus directed toward obtaining a mandate commanding the trial court to order posting of the bond in question.

On June 21, 1963, we issued an alternative writ herein directing Judge Richardson to order plaintiff to post the requested bond or show cause, by brief, on or before July 15, 1963, why the requested writs should not issue. The writ also stayed all proceedings against relators.

The Judge of the lower Court took no action in response to or compliance with our writ of June 21, 1963. In the meantime, Judge Richardson died.

No further action was taken herein until December 4, 1969, on which date third party defendants, August J. Planche, Jr., Felix A. Planche, James C. Burns, Ruth Helen Burns Rawls, Edna Gayle Planche Cunningham, and Edna Stockstill Planche Fendlason, moved to vacate our alternative writ of June 21, 1963.

The failure of the trial court to comply with our alternative writ of June 21, 1963, should have been brought to the attention of this Court by the parties concerned upon expiration of the time therein allotted so that we could have taken further appropriate action.

The foregoing circumstances considered, we exercise our supervisory jurisdiction by recalling and setting aside the alternative writ issued June 21, 1963.

In further exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction, it is hereby ordered that al*269ternative writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus issue herein directing plaintiff ANDREW MOTICHEK to post bond in the sum of $500.00 to cover surveyor’s costs in this proceeding, or show cause by briefs filed in this Court on or before January 15, 1970, why this alternate writ should not be made peremptory, and judgment rendered herein ordering and commanding plaintiff to post said bond under penalty of dismissal of plaintiff’s action at plaintiff’s cost.

It is further ordered that the Honorable Robert Fitzmorris, Clerk of Court, St. Tammany Parish, transmit the entire record in this matter to this Court on or before January 15, 1970.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 47480]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23801]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Docket No. RP97-496-000]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

September 3, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 29, 1997, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets with an effective 
date of October 1, 1997:

Thirty-Seventh Revised Sheet No. 50
Thirty-Seventh Revised Sheet No. 51
Thirty-Six Revised Sheet No. 53

    Northern states that the filing revises the current Stranded 
Account No. 858 and Stranded Account No. 858-Reverse Auction 
surcharges, which are designed to recover costs incurred by Northern 
related to its contracts with third-party pipelines.
    Northern states that copies of this filing were served upon the 
Company's customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. All 
protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken in this proceeding, but will not serve 
to make protestant a party to the proceedings. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-23801 Filed 9-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

HOLLY JUDGE, : Civil Action No. 4:15-CV-0551

:

Plaintiff, :

: (Judge Brann)

v. :

:

SHIKELLAMY SCHOOL :

DISTRICT, :

PATRICK M. KELLEY, :

DR. JAMES P. HARTMAN, :

WENDY WIEST, :

LORI GARMAN, :

KELLIE CIANFLONE, :

JAMES GARMAN, :

C. SCOTT KARPINSKI, :

THOMAS MICHAELS, :

MICHAEL STEPP, and :

DR. JEFFREY WALTER, :

:

Defendants. :

ORDER

September 28, 2015

AND NOW, in accordance with the memorandum of this same date, it is 

HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED in part and 

DENIED in part.

2. With respect to Plaintiff’s procedural due process claim in Count I, to the 

extent it is predicated on her property interest in her job as codified by 24 

Case 4:15-cv-00551-MWB Document 16 Filed 09/28/15 Page 1 of 3
2

P.S. § 11-1122 or upon her liberty interest in her reputation, Defendants’ 

motion to dismiss is GRANTED without prejudice, with leave to amend in 

accordance with this Court’s decision.

3. However, to the extent Plaintiff’s procedural due process claim in Count I is 

predicated on her property interest in her job as codified by 24 P.S. § 5-514, 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED.

4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED with prejudice with respect to 

Plaintiff’s substantive due process and equal protection claims in Counts II 

and III.

5. Moreover, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED with respect to 

Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim without prejudice with leave to amend in 

accordance with this Court’s decision.

6. Furthermore, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED with regard to Plaintiff’s 

claims for punitive damages, to the extent they are asserted against the 

School District and the individual Defendants in their official capacities.

7. With regard to the individual defenses, Defendants’ request that the claims 

against the individual Defendants in their official capacities be dismissed on 

the basis of redundancy is GRANTED.

8. However, their request for high public official immunity is DENIED. 

Case 4:15-cv-00551-MWB Document 16 Filed 09/28/15 Page 2 of 3
3

9. Finally, the individual Defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity is 

GRANTED and those Defendants are accordingly dismissed from the instant 

action.

BY THE COURT:

/s Matthew W. Brann

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-00551-MWB Document 16 Filed 09/28/15 Page 3 of 3
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004-2595  p202 624-2500  f202 628-5116

Crowell & Moring LLP  www.crowell.com  Washington, DC  New York  San Francisco  Los Angeles  Orange County  Anchorage  London  Brussels

Gerald F. Murphy

(202) 508-8855

gmurphy@crowell.com

September 24, 2014

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Mr. Paul Gretch

Director, Office of International Aviation

U.S. Department of Transportation

Room W86-316

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Notice of Dormancy (San Francisco/Los Angeles-Guadalajara, Mexico)

Mexico Procedural Docket (DOT-OST-2011-0076)

Dear Mr. Gretch:

United1currently holds operating designations to provide scheduled service between San 

Francisco and Los Angeles, on the one hand, and Guadalajara, Mexico, on the other hand.2 

United is writing to advise the Department that it has decided to discontinue its service on these 

routes. 

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Respectfully submitted,

Gerald F. Murphy

Counsel for 

United Airlines, Inc.

cc: Robert Finamore

Brian Hedberg

Brett Kruger

All Parties on the attached Service List

 

1 Common names are used for airlines.

2

See Applications of United for Renewal dated Nov. 5, 2012 in Docket DOT-OST2010-0295 (Los Angeles-Guadalajara) and Jan. 17, 2013 in Docket DOT-OST-2011-0048 (San 

Francisco-Guadalajara). 
Crowell & Moring LLP  www.crowell.com  Washington, DC  New York  San Francisco  Los Angeles  Orange County  Anchorage  London  Brussels

SERVICE LIST

bob.kneisley@wnco.com

leslie.abbott@wnco.com

msinick@ssd.com

howard.kass@aa.com

robert.wirick@aa.com

robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com

patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com

pmurphy@ggh-airlaw.com

jhill@cooley.com

perkmann@cooley.com

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

sametta.c.barnett@delta.com

chris.walker@delta.com

dkirstein@yklaw.com

jyoung@yklaw.com

thomas.ting@suncountry.com

john.fredericksen@suncountry.com

matwood@cozen.com

barbara.russell@virginamerica.com

john.varley@virginamerica.com

anita.mosner@hklaw.com

jennifer.nowak@hklaw.com

dwight.moore@transcom.mil

john.s.duncan@faa.gov

englets@state.gov
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ATRON CASTLEBERRY and : Case No. 4:15-CV-00153

JOHN BROWN, :

:

Plaintiffs, :

: (Judge Brann)

v. :

:

STI GROUP and CHESAPEAKE :

ENERGY CORPORATION, :

:

Defendants. :

ORDER

November 4, 2015

AND NOW, in accordance with the Memorandum of this same date, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendant Chesapeake Energy Corporation’s Motion

to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED.

Under FED.R.CIV.P. 15(a), the Court grants Plaintiffs leave to amend the

outlined deficiencies of their Complaint within the requisite timeframe. 

BY THE COURT: 

/s Matthew W. Brann

Matthew W. Brann 

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-00153-MWB Document 30 Filed 11/04/15 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-30395

Summary Calendar

TONI B. METCALF,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER; ET AL.,

Defendants,

GEORGE PRICE; LISA EBARB; MICHAEL CLARK; LOUISIANA STATE

UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL & MECHANICAL COLLEGE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Defendants-Appellees.

CHRISTI KENNEDY JAMES

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER; ET AL.,

Defendants,

MICHAEL CLARK; LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL &

MECHANICAL COLLEGE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(96-CV-2881)

December 24, 1998

Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
 

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellants Toni Metcalf and Christi Kennedy James appeal the

dismissal without prejudice of their claims against supervisor

Michael Clark and the granting of summary judgment in favor of the

employer LSU Medical Center on their Title VII claims. Upon review

of the record and briefs we find that the dismissal without

prejudice on the claims against Michael Clark should be AFFIRMED.

We further find that the summary judgment with respect to the Title

VII claims against the employer LSU Medical Center should be

VACATED and the case REMANDED in light of the Supreme Court

decisions in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 118 S. Ct. 2275

(1998), and Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 118 S. Ct. 2257

(1998), so as to allow the parties to brief and the district court

to consider arguments pertaining thereto.

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART; REMANDED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

AARON J. BRESSI, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-cv-1878

 Plaintiff :

 v. : (JUDGE MANNION)

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY 

COURT, et al., 

:

 Defendant :

ORDER

In accordance with the memorandum filed the same day it is hereby 

ordered that the Report and Recommendation of Judge Saporito, (Doc. 24), 

is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY as the decision of the court. Plaintiff’s 

objections, (Doc. 25), are OVERRULED, and his amended complaint, (Doc. 

17), is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this 

case. 

s/ Malachy E. Mannion _ MALACHY E. MANNION

 United States District Judge

DATE: January 5, 2024

22-1878-01 ORDER

Case 4:22-cv-01878-MEM Document 28 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: Woodham v. Athens : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-10-0369

Township Police Department :

et al. :

: (Judge Conner)

Inmate: James C. Woodham :

: (Magistrate Judge Smyser)

ID Number: FG-8575 :

ORDER

On February 19, 2010, James C. Woodham, an inmate currently confined at the

State Correctional Institution, Coal Township, Pennsylvania, filed a civil rights complaint

without submitting a filing fee or the forms required to proceed in forma pauperis in a civil

rights case. By Administrative Order dated February 23, 2010 (Doc. 6), the Plaintiff was

informed that this case would be dismissed without prejudice unless, within thirty (30) days,

he either paid the statutory filing fee of $350.00 or filed a properly completed application to

proceed in forma pauperis and an authorization form.

On February 24, 2010, Woodham submitted an application to proceed in forma

pauperis (Doc. 7), however, it was not the proper form which is required when filing a civil

rights complaint. In addition, he did not file the necessary authorization form. On April 21,

2010, a Second Administrative Order was issued (Doc. 9) directing the Plaintiff either to

pay the $350.00 filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis and an

Case 4:10-cv-00369-CCC-JAS Document 10 Filed 05/07/10 Page 1 of 2
2

authorization form within ten (10) days or the case would be dismissed. The required

forms were again enclosed with the Administrative Order.

More than ten (10) days have elapsed and the Plaintiff has neither made an

appropriate submission nor requested an extension of time in which to do so.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT this action is dismissed without prejudice,

and the Clerk of Court shall close this file.

 S/ Christopher C. Conner 

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

United States District Judge

Date: May 7, 2010

Case 4:10-cv-00369-CCC-JAS Document 10 Filed 05/07/10 Page 2 of 2
#### James B. DAVIS et ux. v. Homer Wesley DAVIS, Sr., et al.

No. 61624.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 3, 1978.

In re: James Davis applying for certiora-ri, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit. Parish of Caddo. 353 So.2d 1060.

Writ denied. Result is correct.

SANDERS, C. J., and SUMMERS, J. would grant.