alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WALLACE MORRIS, :

:

Petitioner :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-15-1198

:

FPC LEWISBURG, : (Judge Brann)

:

Respondent :

ORDER

July 7, 2015

In accordance with the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED THAT:

1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as

meritless.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

1

Case 4:15-cv-01198-MWB-JVW Document 6 Filed 07/07/15 Page 1 of 1
#### Carter JENKINS v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY CO., INC., and Mrs. Sherry N. Neil, wife of/and Herdis Neil, and the City of Houma.

No. 11631.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Nov. 21, 1977.

Gordon Hackman, Boutte, for plaintiff and appellant.

Walter T. Gamard, II, Metairie, Huntington B. Downer, Jr., Houma, for defendants and appellees.

Before LOTTINGER, EDWARDS and PONDER, JJ.

EDWARDS, Judge.

Plaintiff, Carter Jenkins, appeals a judgment of the district court which dismissed “with prejudice” his demand against the defendant, the City of Houma. The dismissal was based on plaintiff’s failure to amend his petition within the time allowed by the court in its ruling sustaining defendant’s exception of vagueness.

Plaintiff filed suit against four defendants on October 22, 1976, to recover damages for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. On December 16,1976, one of the defendants, the City of Houma, filed a dilatory exception of vagueness. The trial court sustained the exception on January 31, 1977 and ordered plaintiff to amend his petition within fifteen days subject to dismissal for failure to amend timely. The petition was not amended within the fifteen days, and on March 1, 1977 the trial court rendered judgment dismissing with prejudice plaintiff’s suit against the City of Hou-ma.

Plaintiff claims that the trial court’s judgment is too harsh.

We have examined plaintiff’s petition and conclude that the trial court properly sustained the defendant’s dilatory exception and properly ordered the plaintiff to amend his petition. LSA-C.C.P. art. 933.

When the plaintiff failed to amend his petition as ordered by the court, it was *491within the discretionary power of the trial court in enforcing its lawful orders to dismiss plaintiff’s suit against the City of Houma. LSA-C.C.P. art. 933; *Prejean v. Ortego,*262 So.2d 402 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1972). *Cf. Lawrence v. Williams,*330 So.2d 121 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1976), *writ denied,*333 So.2d 247 (La.1976).

However, our appellate courts have consistently held that the dismissal of a suit for failure to correct a defect in the pleadings should be without prejudice. *Prejean, supra,*and cases cited therein.

For the above reasons, the judgment of the trial court is amended to decree that the suit is dismissed without prejudice; and affirmed in all other respects. All costs are to be borne by the appellant.

AMENDED AND AFFIRMED.
### Reconnaissance of the ground-water resources in parts of Larimer, Logan, Morgan, Sedgwick, and Weld Counties, Colorado, with a section on the chemical quality of the water

By: William G. WeistRobert Brennan

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1809L

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Page 1 of 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

ERIC ERNST, 

 Plaintiff 

 

 v. 

 

UNION COUNTY CONSERVATION 

DISTRICT et al., 

 Defendants 

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:21-CV-1702 

)

) 

)

) (ARBUCKLE, M.J.) 

)

)

)

ORDER 

In accordance with the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, Defendants’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 43), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part 

as follows: 

(1) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s ADEA and 

PHRA claims is DENIED; 

(2) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s PWBL claim 

is GRANTED. 

Date: December 27, 2024 BY THE COURT 

 s/William I. Arbuckle 

 William I. Arbuckle 

 U.S. Magistrate Judge 

Case 4:21-cv-01702-WIA Document 58 Filed 12/27/24 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DONNA DEITRICK, : Civil Action No. 4:06-CV-01556

 :

Plaintiff, : (Judge Brann)

 :

v. :

 :

MARK A. COSTA, et al., : (Magistrate Judge Arbuckle) 

 :

 :

Defendants. :

ORDER

August 18, 2015

AND NOW, in accordance with the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff Donna Deitrick’s Motion for the Entrance of Final Judgment 

Pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (ECF No. 

436) is DENIED.

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge 

Case 4:06-cv-01556-WIA Document 442 Filed 08/18/15 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN MAGUIRE, : No. 4:05-CV-1377

:

 Petitioner, : Petition Filed 07/08/05

:

vs. : 

:

JOSEPH V. SMITH, Warden, Federal : (Judge Muir)

:

Respondent : (Magistrate Judge Blewitt)

ORDER

August 8, 2005

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

On July 8, 2005, Petitioner John Maguire, an inmate at the

United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, initiated

this action by filing a pro se petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Maguire has paid the filing

fee.

The Clerk of Court assigned responsibility for this case to

us but referred it to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas M.

Blewitt for preliminary consideration. On July 18, 2005,

Magistrate Judge Blewitt issued a report recommending that the

petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Magistrate

Judge reached the conclusions set forth in his Report and

Recommendation after preliminarily screening the petition, and

without requiring service of the petition upon the Respondent. 

The time allowed for Maguire to file objections to the Report and

Case 4:05-cv-01377-MM Document 3 Filed 08/08/05 Page 1 of 3
2

Recommendation expired on August 4, 2005, and to this date no

objections have been filed.

When no objections are filed to the report of a Magistrate

Judge, we need only review that report as we in our discretion

deem appropriate. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 145, 151-52 (1985). 

On July 24, 1989, the United States District Court for the

District of Massachusetts imposed the following sentence upon

Maguire after a jury found him guilty of armed bank robbery and

using a firearm during a crime of violence: 1) 262 months’

incarceration on the former offense; 2) a consecutive 60-month

term of imprisonment for the latter offense; and 3) payment of

restitution in the amount of $30,000.00.

Maguire’s only claim is that the trial court did not have

the authority to require Maguire to pay restitution. Courts have

uniformly held that such a claim may be filed only in the

sentencing court and that a petition filed pursuant to § 2241 is

not the proper method to raise such a claim. See Horsley v.

Anderson, 2003 WL 22901925 (D. Minn. Nov. 26, 2003); Martin v.

Fleming, 2002 WL 1000989 (N.D. Tex. May 9, 2002); Lara v. Smith,

No. 04-2941, slip op. (M.D. Pa. December 29, 2004)(McClure, J.),

aff’d, 132 Fed.Appx. 420 (3d Cir. 2005). Those principles

control in this case. 

There is no error in Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s Report and

Recommendation. For that reason, and because no objection has

Case 4:05-cv-01377-MM Document 3 Filed 08/08/05 Page 2 of 3
3

been filed to it, we will adopt it as our own.

 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Maguire’s habeas petition (Document 1) is dismissed for

lack of jurisdiction.

2. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

s/Malcolm Muir _____

MUIR, U.S. District Judge

MM:ga

Case 4:05-cv-01377-MM Document 3 Filed 08/08/05 Page 3 of 3
EX-10.1: RESOLUTION OF THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE



 




Exhibit 10.1



ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION


Resolution of the Compensation and Management Development Committee

of the Board of Directors adopted on December 5, 2001


        RESOLVED, that each outstanding option under this Corporation’s 1988
Long-Term Incentives Plan, 1995 Long-Term Incentives Plan and 2000 Long-Term
Incentives Plan held by any person who is a present or former corporate officer
elected by the Board be, and each of them hereby is, amended to permit certain
transfers of the options as follows:



		
	 	     Transferability: You are not entitled to transfer the
Options except (i) by will or by the laws of descent and
distribution, or (ii) in the case of Options not granted as
incentive stock options, by gift to any member of your immediate
family or to a trust for the benefit of one or more members of
your immediate family or to a family charitable trust established
by you or a member of your immediate family; provided, however,
that no transfer pursuant to this clause (ii) shall be effective
unless you have notified the Corporation’s Office of the Secretary
(Attention: Stock Option Administration) in writing specifying
the Option or Options transferred, the date of the gift and the
name, address and social security or other taxpayer identification
number of the transferee. During your lifetime, only you are
entitled to exercise the Options unless you have transferred any
Option in accordance with this paragraph to a member of your
immediate family or to a trust for the benefit of one or more
members of your immediate family or to a family charitable trust
established by you or a member of your immediate family, in which
case only that transferee (or the legal representative of the
estate or the heirs or legatees of that transferee) shall be
entitled to exercise that Option. For purposes of this paragraph,
your “immediate family” shall mean your spouse and natural,
adopted or step-children and grandchildren.
#### Albert GRACE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-199.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

April 11, 1969.

Appeal dismissed.
Record for the Final Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Rule

Author:

Date Created:

Date Modified:

Purpose:

File Contents:

Worksheet

Rates

DataPullInfo

Input Files:

External data used in calculations/analysis:

None

EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667-DRAFT-3321 FileInfo 1
Record for the Final Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Rule

Abt Associates Inc.

6/12/2008

5/5/2014

Contains adjustment factors based on Employment Cost Index (ECI).

Contents

Contains adjustment factors based on Employment Cost Index (ECI). These adjustment factors are used to bring 

administrative cost values to a given year and state these values in dollars of that year.

Contains data pull information, including the date of the data pull and sources.

EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667-DRAFT-3321 FileInfo 2
Record for the Final Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Rule

Data Sources:

Date Downloaded:

Created By:

Available at:

Notes:

EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667-DRAFT-3321 DataPullInfo 1
Record for the Final Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Rule

Employment Cost Index Historical Listing Current-Dollar March 2001 - June 2012

-->Table 1: Employment Cost Index for Total Compensation by occupational group and industry (Seasonally Adjusted)

---->Data for "Civilian Workers"

Employment Cost Index Historical Listing Current-dollar 1975-2005

-->TABLE 1a. EMPLOYMENT COST INDEX (COMPENSATION), CIVILIAN, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AND PRIV

---->Data for "Civilian Workers"

Source 1: 10/26/2012

Bureau of Labour Statistics (BLS)

http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/ectsfact.htm (http://www.bls.gov/web/eci/echistrynaics.pdf)

ECI values for 2001 through 2005 are available from both documents.

EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667-DRAFT-3321 DataPullInfo 2
Record for the Final Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Rule

sonally Adjusted)

OVERNMENT, AND PRIVATE INDUSTRY WORKERS2 BY OCCUPATION AND INDUSTRY GROUP (Seasonally adjusted)

EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667-DRAFT-3321 DataPullInfo 3
Record for the Final Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Rule

Seasonally adjusted)

EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667-DRAFT-3321 DataPullInfo 4
Record for the Final Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Rule

Civilian Workers

Year Annual Avg March June Sept Dec

Actual

ECI_1996 71.95 71.2 71.7 72.2 72.7

ECI_1997 74.08 73.2 73.8 74.3 75.0

ECI_1998 76.58 75.6 76.2 77.0 77.5

ECI_1999 79.00 77.8 78.6 79.4 80.2

ECI_2000 82.45 81.2 82.1 82.9 83.6

ECI_2001 85.95 84.7 85.5 86.4 87.2

ECI_2002 89.08 87.9 88.8 89.5 90.1

ECI_2003 92.43 91.2 92.0 92.9 93.6

ECI_2004 95.90 94.6 95.5 96.4 97.1

ECI_2005 99.00 98.0 98.6 99.3 100.1

ECI_2006 102.08 100.7 101.6 102.6 103.4

ECI_2007 105.50 104.2 105.1 105.9 106.8

EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667-DRAFT-3321 Rates 1
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00105-CV

__________________

KALLOP ENTERPRISES, LLC, OFFSHORE EXPRESS, INC., OFFSHORE 

SPECIALTY FABRICATORS, LLC, OFFSHORE INTERNATIONAL 

GROUP, OFFSHORE SHIPBUILDING, INC., AVID, LLC, AVID AIR, LLC, 

FAIRWAYS, INC., FAIRWAYS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION, 

LLC, PISCO PORTON, LLC, AND FS AIR SERVICES, INC., Appellants

V.

KLEIN INVESTIGATIONS AND CONSULTING, A DIVISION OF KLEIN 

INVESTMENTS, INC., Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 60th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. B-199,953-A

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Kallop Enterprises, LLC, Offshore Express, Inc., Offshore Specialty 

Fabricators, LLC, Offshore International Group, Offshore Shipbuilding, Inc., Avid, 

LLC, Avid Air, LLC, Fairways, Inc., Fairways Exploration and Production, LLC, 

Pisco Porton, LLC, and FS Air Services, Inc., Appellants, filed an unopposed motion 
2

to dismiss this appeal with prejudice. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). Appellantsfiled 

the motion before the appellate court issued a decision in the appeal. We grant the 

motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on September 14, 2022

Opinion Delivered September 15, 2022

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
# j ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22-0573 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiffand Appellee, v. VALERIE SUE DOGTAKINGGUN GRANT,

Defendant and Appellant. ORDER

Counsel for the Appellant Valerie Sue Dogtakinggun Grant filed a motion and brief asking to be allowed to withdraw from this appeal on grounds that counsel hasbeen unable to find any nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal, pursuant to § 46-8-103(2), MCA, and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Grant was granted time to file a response, but no response was filed. The Court has now independently examined the record pursuant to § 46-8-103(2), MCA, and Anders. We conclude there are no arguments with potential legal merit that could be raised on direct appeal in Grant's case. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis Order to all counsel ofrecord and to Grant personally. DATED this 3 1y ofJanuary, 2024. ChiefJustice

r 

### JAN 3 0 'L:24 Bowen Greenwood Cle-k of S._::-rorna Court Stake of Montana 01/30/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0573

# (? (7

' tal„Lg._

Justices
255 La. 804

#### Julia Chambers STOKES et al. v. AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY et al.

No. 50400.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 12, 1970.

In re: Willie Mae Weber applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 232 So.2d 328.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 186 (Thursday, September 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 50409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25458]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Panel for Neuroscience; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Advisory Panel for Neuroscience (1158).
    Date and Time: October 16 & 17, 1997; 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Place: Room 340, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Part-Open.
    Contact Persons: Dr. Emmeline Edwards, Program Director, 
Behavioral Neuroscience; Dr. Daniel Hartline, Program Director, 
Computational Neuroscience; Division of Integrative Biology and 
Neuroscience; room 685, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230; Telephone: (703) 306-1416.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Minutes: May be obtained from the contact persons listed above.
    Agenda: Open Session: October 17, 1997; 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 
a.m., To discuss research trends and opportunities in Behavioral and 
Computational Neuroscience. Closed Session: October 16, 1997; 9:00 
a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; October 17, 1997, 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.; 11:00 
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. To review and evaluate Behavioral and 
Computational Neuroscience proposals as part of the selection 
process for awards.
    Reason For Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.
    Dated: September 22, 1997.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-25458 Filed 9-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**






CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR




RULE
      15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. §1350,




AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






In
      connection with the quarterly report of Pangea Petroleum Corporation (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Scott Duncan, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the
      Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 results of operations of the
      Company.




Date:
                November 14, 2007
            By: */s/
                Scott Duncan*Scott
                DuncanChief
                Financial Officer andPrincipal
                Financial Officer
S. 2747 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty three 

An Act 

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to extend the Administrative 

Fine Program for certain reporting violations. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF ADMINISTRATIVE FINE PROGRAM. 

Section 309(a)(4)(C)(v) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 

of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30109(a)(4)(C)(v)) is amended by striking 

‘‘December 31, 2023’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2033’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Exhibit 32(2)



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*



In connection with the Annual Report of TranSwitch Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Peter J. Tallian, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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), as applicable, 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.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Peter J. TallianPeter J. TallianSenior Vice President,Chief Financial Officer and TreasurerFebruary 20, 2006


---

|* | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to TranSwitch Corporation and will be retained by TranSwitch Corporation and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 00-761.

#### Indianapolis Baptist Temple *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.