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

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN NORMAN PENNYPACKER, 

Petitioner,

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PA.

 Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

C.A. No. 06-239E

Judge Cohill

Magistrate Judge Baxter

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that the Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(Docket No. 3) be denied and the case be dismissed without prejudice.

II. REPORT

When submitting a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, a petitioner is required to submit

an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that the person is unable

to pay such fees or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). In addition to the

aforementioned affidavit, a petitioner is further required to “submit a certified copy of the trust

fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period

immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal, obtained from the

appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined.” 28 U.S.C. §

1915(a)(2).

In this case, Petitioner has failed to submit a copy of his institutional account statement for

the six months prior to the filing of this action, certified or otherwise. Because Petitioner has failed

to comply with the statutory prerequisites for proceeding In Forma Pauperis, Petitioner’s Motion

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis should be denied and the case dismissed without prejudice.

Case 1:06-cv-00239-MBC-SPB Document 4 Filed 10/26/06 Page 1 of 2
2

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, it is recommended that the Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed

In Forma Pauperis (Docket No. 3) be denied and the case dismissed without prejudice.

In accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Rule

72.1.4(B) of the Local Rules for Magistrates, the parties are allowed ten (10) days from the date of

service to file objections to this report and recommendation. Any party opposing the objections

shall have seven (7) days from the date of service of objections to respond thereto. Failure to file

timely objections may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.

Dated: October 26, 2006 By the Court:

S/ Susan Paradise Baxter

Susan Paradise Baxter

Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:06-cv-00239-MBC-SPB Document 4 Filed 10/26/06 Page 2 of 2
#### Joseph Louis SCARPATI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-591.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 20, 1970.

Joseph Louis Scarpati, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of this appeal, and the appellant having filed his response thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
#### Herbert DAVIS and Cleoster “Pete” Miller, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 70-315, 70-323.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 21, 1971.

*108William C. Norvell, Lakeland, for appellant Davis.

Ollie Ben Butler, Jr., of Law Offices of Ollie Ben Butler, Jr., Tampa, for appellant Miller.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee; and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

LILES, Judge.

Appellants Davis and Miller appeal their conviction for felony murder. The evidence presented at the trial showed that two Negro males robbed a service station in Lakeland, Florida. During the robbery, the service station attendant was shot and killed. Davis and Miller were prosecuted for the crime. They were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Appellants contend on appeal that their constitutional rights were violated because no Negroes were on the jury which convicted them. They also allege the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on the elements of the crime of robbery. There is no merit in either of these points.

The trial transcript clearly shows that the trial judge gave defense counsel the opportunity to take testimony regarding the selection of the jury, and defense counsel refused. No motion to quash the panel or the venire was ever made. It is the systematic exclusion of Negroes from jury panels because of their race which is prohibited. Scott v. State, Fla.App.1968, 207 So.2d 493. There is no claim or evidence of systematic exclusion in this case. Appellants would have the burden of producing substantial evidence to support a charge of jury discrimination, and this they have failed to do. Porter v. State, Fla.1963, 160 So.2d 104.

As to appellants’ second point, our review of the trial transcript in this case shows that the trial judge did define the offense of robbery to the jury. We also note appellants made no objection to the charges as required in Brown v. State, Fla.1968, 206 So.2d *377.*

Because of the above disposition of this case, it is not necessary to rule on appel-lee’s cross-appeal.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PIERCE, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.29


                    SECOND AMENDMENT TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT

     THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is made
this 31st day of December, 1998, by and between ENCORE ORTHOPEDICS, INC., a
Delaware corporation, with its principal office located at 9800 Metric Blvd.,
Austin, Texas 78758 (the "Company") and AUGUST FASKE, an individual resident at
10103 Grand Oak Dr., Austin, Texas 78750 (the "Employee").

     WHEREAS, the Employee and the Company entered into a Severance Agreement
dated September 20, 1995, as amended (the "Agreement") which provided, inter
alia, for certain payments to be made in the event that certain events occurred
with respect to the Employee's employment relationship with the Company;

     WHEREAS, the Employee and the Company desire that there be certain changes
made with respect to the Agreement; and

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee want to memorialize in this Amendment
their agreements regarding such changes to the Agreement.

     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other mutual promises
and covenants contained in this Amendment and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the
parties, intending legally to be bound, agree as follows:

     1. The changes contemplated by the Amendment to Severance Agreement dated
March 18, 1997 shall not take effect as of March 25, 1999 and shall have no
further force and effect.

     2. Except as specifically changed by the Amendment, all other terms and
provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by
its duly authorized officer and the Employee has hereunto set its hand as of the
date and year first written above.

                                        ENCORE:

                                        ENCORE ORTHOPEDICS, INC.


                                        By: /s/ NICK CINDRICH
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Nick Cindrich, CEO


                                        EMPLOYEE:

                                        /s/ AUGUST FASKE
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        AUGUST FASKE
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-260]


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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and Mechanical Systems; 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 and Committee Code: Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and 
Mechanical Systems (#1205).
    Date and Time: January 30-31, 1997; 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Place: Arlington Hilton, 950 North Stafford Street, Arlington, 
VA 22203.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. S.C. Liu, Program Director for Structural 
Systems, Dr. Cliff Astill, Siting & Geotechnical System & Dr. 
William Anderson, Earthquake Systems Integration, National Science 
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230 Telephone: 
(703) 306-1362.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Earthquake Centers 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: January 2, 1997.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-260 Filed 1-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-09-0054 SAT Date: 11/21/2008 Print Date: 3/21/2011
Related cases : CBI : Yes Health related cases: Ecotox related cases: Analogs:

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 2 1

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 3 U1

Exposure Based Review : Health: Ecotox: N o Routes of exposure : Health: Dermal, inhalation Ecotox: N o releases to water Fate: ;

P 2 Rec Comments : Comment: SAT had no comment Keywords : Keywords: LUNG OVERLOAD; ONCO; IMMUNOTOX Summary of Assessment : Fate : Fate Summary: P-09-0054-57 FATE: Solid S < 0.001 mg/L at 25 EC (E) VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 EC (E) BP > 400 EC (E)H < 1.00E-8 (E) POTW removal (%) = U Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = U Sorption to soils/sediments = U PBT Potential: PUBU *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = U
Health : Health Summary: Expect poor absorption via all routes ( p che m /analog). Concern for lung toxicity if inhaled based on lung overload for poorly soluble particulates. Also concern for oncogenicity and immunotoxicity based on carbon nanomaterials.
Ecotox :
Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments
fish 96-h LC50 * daphnid 48-h LC50 * green algal 96-h EC50 * fish

_ chronic value * daphnid chronic value * algal

_ chronic value * Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value

_ Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for polynonionic polymers; SAR chemical class = p olyme r -nonionic-carbon; p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and nominal concentrations; hardness <180.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L; Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) *
SARs SAR Class Ecotox Factors Comments: SAT Chair: L Keifer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 997]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-271]


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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Astronomical Sciences (1186); Notice of 
Meetings

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces that the 
Special Emphasis Panel in Astronomical Sciences (1186) will be holding 
panel meetings for the purpose of reviewing proposals submitted to the 
Career Program in the area of Astronomical Sciences. In order to review 
the large volume of proposals, panel meetings will be held on January 
30-31, 1997, (2). All meetings will be closed to the public and will be 
held at the National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 
Arlington, Virginia, from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM each day.
    Contact Person: Dr. James P. Wright, Program Director, Education, 
Human Resources, and Special Programs, Division of Astronomical 
Sciences, National Science Foundation, Room 1030, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, (703) 306-1819.
    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 USC 552(c) (4) and (6) of the Government in 
the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: January 2, 1997.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-271 Filed 1-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BENNY JAMES CROSBY, )

)

Petitioner, )

) Civil Action No. 05-94 Erie

v. )

)

JAMES VESHECCO, )

)

Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This habeas corpus action was received by the Clerk of Court on March 22,

2005, and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for

report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 10], filed on July

28, 2006, recommended that Petitioner’s Petition be dismissed and that a certificate of

appealability be denied. The parties were allowed ten (10) days from the date of

service to file objections. Service was made on Petitioner by certified mail and on

Respondent. No objections were filed. After de novo review of the petition and

documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation, the following

order is entered:

AND NOW, this 16th day of August, 2006; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus is DISMISSED and a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 10] of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed

on July 28, 2006, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:05-cv-00094-SJM-SPB Document 11 Filed 08/16/06 Page 1 of 1
Case 04-02904-MBM Doc 23 Filed 06/16/05 Entered 06/16/05 16:12:45 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 25
Case 04-02904-MBM Doc 23 Filed 06/16/05 Entered 06/16/05 16:12:45 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 25
Case 04-02904-MBM Doc 23 Filed 06/16/05 Entered 06/16/05 16:12:45 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 25
Case 04-02904-MBM Doc 23 Filed 06/16/05 Entered 06/16/05 16:12:45 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 25
Case 04-02904-MBM Doc 23 Filed 06/16/05 Entered 06/16/05 16:12:45 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 25
Case 04-02904-MBM Doc 23 Filed 06/16/05 Entered 06/16/05 16:12:45 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 25
Case 04-02904-MBM Doc 23 Filed 06/16/05 Entered 06/16/05 16:12:45 Desc Main

Document Page 7 of 25
Case 04-02904-MBM Doc 23 Filed 06/16/05 Entered 06/16/05 16:12:45 Desc Main

Document Page 8 of 25
Case 04-02904-MBM Doc 23 Filed 06/16/05 Entered 06/16/05 16:12:45 Desc Main

Document Page 9 of 25
Case 04-02904-MBM Doc 23 Filed 06/16/05 Entered 06/16/05 16:12:45 Desc Main

Document Page 10 of 25
Case 04-02904-MBM Doc 23 Filed 06/16/05 Entered 06/16/05 16:12:45 Desc Main

Document Page 11 of 25
Case 04-02904-MBM Doc 23 Filed 06/16/05 Entered 06/16/05 16:12:45 Desc Main

Document Page 12 of 25
Case 04-02904-MBM Doc 23 Filed 06/16/05 Entered 06/16/05 16:12:45 Desc Main

Document Page 13 of 25
Case 04-02904-MBM Doc 23 Filed 06/16/05 Entered 06/16/05 16:12:45 Desc Main

Document Page 14 of 25
Case 04-02904-MBM Doc 23 Filed 06/16/05 Entered 06/16/05 16:12:45 Desc Main

Document Page 15 of 25
Case 04-02904-MBM Doc 23 Filed 06/16/05 Entered 06/16/05 16:12:45 Desc Main

Document Page 16 of 25
Case 04-02904-MBM Doc 23 Filed 06/16/05 Entered 06/16/05 16:12:45 Desc Main

Document Page 17 of 25
Case 04-02904-MBM Doc 23 Filed 06/16/05 Entered 06/16/05 16:12:45 Desc Main

Document Page 18 of 25
Case 04-02904-MBM Doc 23 Filed 06/16/05 Entered 06/16/05 16:12:45 Desc Main

Document Page 19 of 25
Case 04-02904-MBM Doc 23 Filed 06/16/05 Entered 06/16/05 16:12:45 Desc Main

Document Page 20 of 25
Case 04-02904-MBM Doc 23 Filed 06/16/05 Entered 06/16/05 16:12:45 Desc Main

Document Page 21 of 25
Case 04-02904-MBM Doc 23 Filed 06/16/05 Entered 06/16/05 16:12:45 Desc Main

Document Page 22 of 25
Case 04-02904-MBM Doc 23 Filed 06/16/05 Entered 06/16/05 16:12:45 Desc Main

Document Page 23 of 25
Case 04-02904-MBM Doc 23 Filed 06/16/05 Entered 06/16/05 16:12:45 Desc Main

Document Page 24 of 25
Case 04-02904-MBM Doc 23 Filed 06/16/05 Entered 06/16/05 16:12:45 Desc Main

Document Page 25 of 25
EXHIBIT 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in Registration  Statements (Nos.
333-110090,  333-111092,  333-122043  and  333-136585)  on Form  S-3  and  (Nos.
333-49810,  333-106151,  333-10652,  333-106153,  333-114377, and 333-136697) on
Form S-8 of Tarrant Apparel Group of our report dated March 22, 2007 relating to
our audit of the consolidated financial statements,  and the financial statement
schedule,  which  appear  in  the  Annual  Report  to  Shareholders,   which  is
incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Tarrant Apparel Group for the
year ended December 31, 2006.

/s/ Singer Lewak Greenbaum & Goldstein LLP

SINGER LEWAK GREENBAUM & GOLDSTEIN LLP


Los Angeles, California
March 22, 2007
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Donald MORGAN.

No. 61667.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 3, 1978.

In re: State of Louisiana through the District Attorney, Harry F. Connick, applying for stay order.

Writ withdrawn.
----

**EXHIBIT        32.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

|   | 1. | The                  Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended March                  31,                  2006, which this certification accompanies (the “Periodic Report”), fully                  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities                  Exchange                  Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The                  information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in                  all                  material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                  of                  the Company. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/                  Michael El-Hillow       |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   | **Michael                  El-Hillow**       |
|   | **Chief                  Financial Officer** |

----
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136872 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136872 

 COA: 284490 

Muskegon CC: 06-054145-FH

LONDORA LATASHA KITCHENS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 27, 2008 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. 

d0915 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 22, 2008 

 Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3016 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3016

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the clean vehicle 
                                credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 4, 2023

   Mr. Paul introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the clean vehicle 
                                credit.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``End Taxpayer Subsidies for Electric 
Vehicles Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF CLEAN VEHICLE CREDIT.

    (a) In General.--Subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking section 30D 
(and by striking the item relating to such section in the table of 
sections for such subpart).
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Section 30B(d)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
        is amended by striking subparagraph (D).
            (2) Section 38(b) of such Code is amended by striking 
        paragraph (30).
            (3) Section 179D(d)(3)(B)(ii) of such Code is amended by 
        inserting ``, as in effect on the day before the date of the 
        enactment of the End Taxpayer Subsidies for Electric Vehicles 
        Act'' after ``section 30D(g)(9)''.
            (4) Section 1016(a) of such Code is amended--
                    (A) in paragraph (36), by adding ``and'' at the 
                end,
                    (B) by striking paragraph (37), and
                    (C) by redesignating paragraph (38) as paragraph 
                (37).
            (5) Section 6213(g)(2) of such Code is amended by striking 
        subparagraph (T).
            (6) Section 6417(d)(1)(A)(iv) of such Code is amended by 
        inserting ``, as in effect on the day before the date of the 
        enactment of the End Taxpayer Subsidies for Electric Vehicles 
        Act'' after ``section 30D(g)(9)''.
            (7) Section 6501(m) of such Code is amended by striking 
        ``30D(f)(6),''.
            (8) Section 166(b)(5)(A)(ii) of title 23, United States 
        Code, is amended by inserting ``, as in effect on the day 
        before the date of the enactment of the End Taxpayer Subsidies 
        for Electric Vehicles Act'' after ``section 30D(d)(1) of the 
        Internal Revenue Code of 1986''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to vehicles placed in service during any calendar year beginning 
after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```