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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

ZINA P. MUSGROVE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 13-1794 (ABJ)

)

BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On January 30, 2015, the Court granted the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed 

by defendants TIAA-CREF and the Brookings Institution, and dismissed plaintiff Zina P. 

Musgrove’s complaint. Order (Jan. 30, 2015) [Dkt. # 24]. At that time, however, the Court did 

not rule on the counterclaim and cross-claim advanced by defendant TIAA-CREF in its response 

to the complaint. See Corrected Answer, Countercl. & Cross-Cl. [Dkt. # 15] at 10–18. On April

10, 2015, TIAA-CREF filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of these claims pursuant to Rule 

41(a)(2). Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) Mot. for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice [Dkt. # 26]

(“Mot.”). TIAA-CREF notes that it was unable to obtain the consent of Zina Musgrove to dismiss 

its claims with prejudice, and so it seeks to dismiss its claims without prejudice. Mem. of Law in 

Supp. of Mot. [Dkt. # 26-1] at 3.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 provides that the Court may dismiss an action at the 

request of a plaintiff (or, in this case, a counterclaim/cross-claim plaintiff) “on terms that the court 

considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). “A court applying Rule 41(a)(2) must consider 

(1) whether the plaintiff seeks the motion for voluntary dismissal in good faith, and (2) whether 
the dismissal would cause the defendant ‘legal prejudice.’” Mittakarin v. InfoTran Sys., Inc., 279 

F.R.D. 38, 41 (D.D.C. 2012), citing In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., 198 F.R.D. 296, 304 (D.D.C. 

2000); see also Guttenberg v. Emery, No. 13-2046 (JDB), 2014 WL 4698128, at *2 (D.D.C. Sept. 

23, 2014). “The purpose of the provision authorizing the Court to dismiss a case ‘on terms that 

the court considers proper’ is to protect a defendant from any prejudice or inconvenience that may 

result from a plaintiff’s premature dismissal.” Mittakarin, 279 F.R.D. at 41.

In this case, the Court has already dismissed all claims advanced by counterclaim/crossclaim defendant Zina Musgrove. See Order (Jan. 30, 2015). Under these circumstances, the Court 

finds that Zina Musgrove will not be prejudiced or inconvenienced by the dismissal of TIAACREF’s counterclaim and cross-claim, and that TIAA-CREF’s request to dismiss its claims is not 

“premature.” Moreover, the Court finds that TIAA-CREF’s motion to voluntarily dismiss its 

claims is made in good faith. Therefore, the Court will grant TIAA-CREF’s motion. A separate 

order will issue.

AMY BERMAN JACKSON

United States District Judge

DATE: April 14, 2015

2
<PAGE>


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the use in the Statement of Additional Information
constituting part of this Registration Statement on Form N-4 (the "Registration
Statement") of (1) our report dated February 6, 2002 relating to the financial
statements of Separate Account Nos. 3, 4, 10 and 66 of The Equitable Life
Assurance Society of the United States for the year ended December 31, 2001, and
(2) our report dated February 6, 2002 relating to the consolidated financial
statements of The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States for the
years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000. We also consent to the use in the
Prospectus Supplement constituting part of this Registration Statement of our
report dated February 6, 2002 relating to the financial statements of Separate
Account No. 4 of The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States. We
also consent to the references to us under the headings "Condensed Financial
Information" and "About Our Independent Accountants" in such Registration
Statement.




/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers
New York, New York
April 17, 2002
April 14, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CHRISTOPHER NORMAN, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00995-CV V.

CHRISTOPHER HENKEL AND LISA HENKEL, Appellees

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellees, Christopher

Henkel and Lisa Henkel, signed July 31, 2012, was heard on the transcript of the 

record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order 

the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED.

We order appellant, Christopher Norman, jointly and severally, to pay all 

costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 93 (Friday, May 13, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C1-2011-9421]

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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1217

RIN 3041-AC79

Safety Standard for Toddler Beds

Correction

    In rule document 2011-9421 beginning on page 22019 in the issue of 
Wednesday, April 20, 2011, make the following correction:

Sec.  1217.2  [Corrected]

    On page 22029, in Sec.  1217.2(c)(6), at the bottom of the page, 
insert Sec. Sec.  1217.2(c)(6)(iii), 1217.2(c)(6)(iv), and 
1217.2(c)(7), which should read:
    (iii) 8.4.4 Toddler beds that convert from a full-size crib, also 
known as convertible cribs, must meet the warning requirements 
specified in section 8 of ASTM F 1169-10, instead of the requirements 
of 8.4.3. See 16 CFR Part 1219 for complete requirements for full-size 
cribs.
    (iv) 8.4.5 Any toddler bed that can convert from a full-size crib, 
and has the warning specified in section 8.1.3 of ASTM F 1169-10, must 
include additional text at the end of that warning that specifies the 
minimum mattress thickness of 4 inches (100 mm). See 16 CFR Part 1219 
for complete requirements for full-size cribs.
    (7) In addition to figure 10 of ASTM F 1821-09, use the following:

[FR Doc. C1-2011-9421 Filed 5-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 24696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9956]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-1571-000]


 Verso Bucksport LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Verso Bucksport LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with 
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a 
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is May 9, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#14525146575b7a787d7a71476164647b666054727166773a737b62"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3c7a796e7f7352505552596f494c4c534e487c5a594e5f125b534a">[email protected]</span></a>. or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 19, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-9956 Filed 4-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 73 (Monday, April 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 22630]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9082]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7847]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``The Printed Image in China, 8th-21st Century''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``The Printed Image in China, 8th-21st 
Century,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the 
United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported 
pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I 
also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at 
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York from on or about May 
5, 2012, until on or about July 29, 2012, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national 
interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be 
published in the Federal Register.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Ona M. Hahs, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6473). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: April 10, 2012.
Ann Stock,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-9082 Filed 4-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

JOSEPH ROBERT MANN JR.,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 17 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7364

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHARLIE LOUIS JONES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

Chief District Judge. (5:11-cr-00095-D-1; 5:12-cv-00649-D)

Submitted: November 21, 2013 Decided: November 26, 2013

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charlie Louis Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Charlie Louis Jones seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2013) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Christine A. BAILEY, Appellant, v. Daniel D. BAILEY, Appellee.

No. 3047.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Aug. 12, 1977.

*316B. Gil Johnson, Johnson, Christenson, Shamberg & Link, Anchorage, for appellant.

John S. Hellenthal, Anchorage, for appel-lee.

OPINION

Before BOOCHEVER, C. J., and RABI-NOWITZ, CONNOR, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the division of property in this divorce proceeding. The Superior Court referred the issue of property division to a Special Master who, following a hearing, filed a report purporting to distribute the parties’ property equally. The Superior ■ Court adopted the report. The only issues involved on appeal are factual. We have reviewed the record and find that the master’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous.1 We therefore af-, firm.

1

. As noted In *Courtney v. Courtney,*542 P.2d 164, 169 (Alaska 1975):

> We have repeatedly stated that a judicial division of property is left by the statute to the broad discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is shown. The aggrieved party must show that the property division is clearly unjust. (Footnote omitted.)
Exhibit 32

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND  CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF  OFFICEMAX INCORPORATED

We are providing this Certificate pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C., Section 1350. It
accompanies OfficeMax Incorporated's annual report on Form 10-K (the "Report") for the fiscal year ended December 26, 2009.



I,
Sam K. Duncan, OfficeMax Incorporated's chief executive officer, certify that:

(i)    the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

(ii)    the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, OfficeMax Incorporated's financial condition and results of operations.

/s/ SAM K. DUNCANSam K. Duncan
Chief Executive Officer


I,
Bruce Besanko, OfficeMax Incorporated's chief financial officer, certify that:

(i)    the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

(ii)    the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, OfficeMax Incorporated's financial condition and results of operations.

/s/ BRUCE BESANKOBruce Besanko
Chief Financial OfficerDated: February 22, 2010


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

---



QuickLinks
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARCELINO RAMIREZ MARTINEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 20

- 72907

Agency No. A088

- 761

- 482

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 29, 2022 * *

Pasadena, California

Before: PAEZ and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT, ** * District Judge.

Petitioner Marcelino Ramirez Martinez (“Ramirez Martinez”), a native and

citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Richard D. Bennett, United States District Judge for

the District of Maryland, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

AUG 9 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

(“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a

motion to reopen. Bonilla v. Lynch , 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016)

. We deny

the petition in part and dismiss it in part

.

1. Ramirez Martinez argues that the BIA abused its discretion by denying

his untimely motion to reopen

. We disagree

. A petitioner must file a motion to

reopen within ninety days of the entry of the final order of removal. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). If a motion to reopen is untimely

filed, the filing deadline may be equitably tolled if the petitioner was “prevented

from filing because of deception, fraud, or error

, as long as [he] acts with due

diligence in discovering the deception, fraud, or error.” Iturribarria v. I.N.S.

, 321

F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003)

. The BIA found that Ramirez Martinez did not act

diligently in pursuing his motion to reopen . O n appeal, he does not address the

BIA’s due diligence finding and has consequently waived any chall enge to it

.

Singh v. Ashcroft , 361 F.3d 1152, 1157 n.3 (9th Cir. 2004) . Because Ramirez

Martinez’s lack of diligence precludes any claim for equitable tolling , the BIA did

not abuse its discretion by denying Ramirez Martinez’s motion to reopen

. Bonilla

,

840 F.3d at 583

– 84.

2. Ramirez Martinez further argues that the BIA erred in denying his

request for sua sponte reopening. We have jurisdiction “to review Board decisions3

denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning

behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error .” Id. at 588

. Ramirez

Martinez does not argue before this court that the BIA made a legal or

constitutional error in its denial. Accordingly, w e lack jurisdiction to review

Ramirez Martinez’s challenge to the BIA’s denial of his request for sua sponte

reopening and therefore dismiss it

.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED I N PART AND DISMISSED IN

PART

.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1252

CARL BENIT COOPER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PINKERTON SECURITY, et al; ANDREW JOHN SAVAGE, III, Esquire; EDUARDO KELVIN CURRY, Esquire; MICHAEL S. SEEKINGS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (4:06-cv-01448-CMC) Submitted: September 17, 2007 Decided: October 9, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl Benit Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Holmes Hood, HOOD LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina; John A. Massalon, WILLS & MASSALON, Charleston, South Carolina; Joseph Rutledge Young, III, DUFFY & YOUNG, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina; Eduardo Kelvin Curry, CURRY, CURRY & COUNTS, Charleston, South Carolina; Timothy William Bouch, LEATH, BOUCH & CRAWFORD, LLP, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Carl Benit Cooper appeals a district court order and judgment adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing his claim of a conspiracy among several parties ultimately resulting in his criminal convictions. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. See Cooper v. Pinkerton , No. 4:06-cv-01448-CMC (D.S.C. Feb. 27, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 21


                  BERGEN BRUNSWIG CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT


The  following is a list of the  significant  subsidiaries  of  registrant as of
November 30, 1996:
<CAPTION>

                                                              PERCENTAGE
                                                              OF VOTING
                                                              SECURITIES
                                         STATE OF             OWNED BY
NAME                                     INCORPORATION        REGISTRANT
----                                     -------------        ----------
<S>                                      <C>                  <C>
Durr-Fillauer Medical, Inc.              Delaware                100%

Bergen Brunswig Drug Company             California              (1)

Bergen Brunswig Medical Corporation
  (formerly known as Durr Medical
  Corporation)                           Alabama                 (1)



<FN>


(1)   100% owned by Durr-Fillauer Medical, Inc.
</FN>
</TABLE>