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

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY OF MIAMI GENERAL 

EMPLOYEES' & SANITATION 

EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT TRUNITED 

STATES OF AMERICAT, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RH, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00554-YGR (TSH)

NOTICE OF REFERRAL FOR 

DISCOVERY

DISCOVERY ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 115

This case has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for all discovery-related 

matters. On December 14, 2018 the parties filed a Joint Discovery Letter, ECF No. 115, 

concerning a dispute over whether certain deposition testimony and 21 deposition exhibits merit 

“confidential” treatment under the terms of the protective order in this action. However, the 

parties did not provide the testimony or the exhibits with the letter, so the Court is unable to 

evaluate the parties’ arguments. The Court ORDERS the parties to submit the disputed discovery 

material by noon on December 20, 2018. The Court sets a telephonic hearing on this letter brief 

for December 21, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. Counsel shall call the following phone number on that date: 

1-888-684-8852/Passcode: 2925506.

For all future discovery disputes, the parties must comply with the undersigned’s 

Discovery Standing Order, which is available on the Court’s website at 

https://cand.uscourts.gov/tsh/standing-orders. Please contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Rose 

Maher, at (415) 522-4708 with any questions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2018

THOMAS S. HIXSON

United States Magistrate Judge
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 86 (Thursday, May 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22060-22061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10963]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-251-000]


Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

April 28, 1995.
    Take notice that Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company (Panhandle) on 
April 25, 1995, tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff 
sheets, with proposed effective date of May 4, 1995:

First Revised Volume No. 278
First Revised Volume No. 279
First Revised Volume No. 282

    Panhandle states that this filing is being made to comply with 
Order No. 577, the Commission's Final Rule in Docket No. RM95-5-000 
issued March 29, 1995.
    Panhandle states that the revised tariff sheets listed on Appendix 
A reflect the revisions in the term and character of capacity releases 
that are exempt from advance posting and bidding requirements and 
reduce the restriction period to re-release such capacity to the same 
pre-arranged shipper. Specifically, the tariff sheets: (1) Extend the 
maximum term of pre-arranged capacity releases, at less than the 
maximum rate, that are exempt from advance posting [[Page 22061]] and 
bidding requirements to one full calendar month, and (2) reduce the 
restriction period from thirty days to twenty-eight days for re-
releasing capacity exempt from advance posting and bidding to the same 
pre-arranged shipper.
    In addition, Panhandle states that this filing proposes tariff 
language to modify Section 15.5 of Panhandle's General Terms and 
Conditions--Selection of Replacement Shipper. For electronically 
processed contracts, Panhandle will reduce the time required to tender 
a Service Agreement for firm service from no later than two (2) 
Business Days to no later than one (1) Business Day after the close of 
the posting period.
    Panhandle states that copies of this filing have been served on all 
customers subject to the tariff sheets and applicable state regulatory 
agencies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol 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 on or before May 5, 1995. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. 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 
public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-10963 Filed 5-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In  connection  with the  accompanying  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of Bridge
Capital  Holdings  for the  quarter  ended  March  31,  2005,  I,  Thomas A. Sa,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Bridge Capital Holdings,
hereby  certify  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

(1)  such 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 such Report fairly presents,  in all material
     respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of  operations  of Bridge
     Capital Holdings.




Date: May 5, 2005


                            /s/ THOMAS A. SA
                            ____________________________________________________
                            Thomas A. Sa
                            Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                            (Principal Executive Officer)
**EXHIBIT 31**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Ron Hooper, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sabine Royalty Trust,for which Bank of America, N.A. acts as Trustee;
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, distributable income and changes in trustcorpus of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterlyreport;
4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) andinternal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)), or forcausing such controls and procedures to be established and maintained, for theregistrant and I have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed undermy supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to me by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or causedsuch internal control over financial reporting to be designed undermy supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability offinancial reporting and the of financial statements for external purposes;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this reportmy conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors:
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.        Date: August 5, 2005By:  /s/ Ron Hooper    Ron Hooper    Senior Vice President andTrust AdministratorBank of America, N.A.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY TOTTEN,

Petitioner,

 vs.

A. KANE, Acting Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-1675 TEH (PR)

No. C 05-1965 TEH (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING 

RESPONDENT TO FILE

FURTHER ANSWER TO

THE PETITION

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional Training

Facility in Soledad, California, has filed two pro se petitions for a writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the California Board of Prison Terms'

("BPT") two most recent decisions to deny him parole. On September 27, 2005,

the Court ordered Respondent to show cause as to why the petitions should not be

granted. In the order, Respondent was directed to respond to the claims raised in

the petition, including “[a]mong other things, petitioner claims that the decisions

were arbitrary and capricious and not supported by the evidence in the record.” 

The petition also raises additional claims. The petition is now submitted and

before the Court for consideration on the merits. 

However, in response to the petition, Respondent states that because the

Court did not specifically direct them to respond to Petitioner’s claims of

systemic bias against granting parole and an equal protection claim, they did not

answer these claims and that “it appears that this Court did not find [these claims]

Case 3:05-cv-01965-TEH Document 14 Filed 07/05/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

cognizable[.]” While the Court did not specifically list these claims identified by

Respondent in the order, the claims were found cognizable. As a result,

Respondent’s answer to the Court’s order to show cause is incomplete. 

Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner, within 30 days of the

issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus

should not be issued as to those claims not addressed in Respondent’s answer. 

Petitioner may file a traverse within 30 days of his receipt of the answer. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: 07/03/07 THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01965-TEH Document 14 Filed 07/05/07 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated financial statements included in the form 10-Q of Dionex
Corporation for the quarter ended March 31, 2000 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                            9231
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    45316
<ALLOWANCES>                                       888
<INVENTORY>                                      14970
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 81440
<PP&E>                                           57778
<DEPRECIATION>                                   17423
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  166740
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            39199
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         55883
<OTHER-SE>                                       57888
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    166740
<SALES>                                         137186
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                137186
<CGS>                                            43083
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    43083
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 354
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  39501
<INCOME-TAX>                                     12838
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              12838
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     12838
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.14


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PERSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of DuPont Fabros Technology, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), we, Hossein Fateh and Steven G. Osgood, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                        |  |        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: February 29, 2008 |  | By:    |  | /s/    Hossein Fateh   
|                        |  | Name:  |  | Hossein Fateh          
|                        |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                        |  |       
|                        |  | By:    |  | /s/    Steven G. Osgood
|                        |  | Name:  |  | Steven G. Osgood       
|                        |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 111 

Providing for certain procedures for bringing debate to a close on any question 

in the House of Representatives and Senate, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 11, 2024 

Ms. PORTER submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Rules 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for certain procedures for bringing debate to a 

close on any question in the House of Representatives 

and Senate, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Majority Rule 

5 Resolution’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERATION OF BILLS AND 

7 RESOLUTIONS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any provision of 

9 the Rules of the House of Representatives or the Standing 

10 Rules of the Senate, the House of Representatives and the 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HCON 111 IH 

1 Senate may not require that more than a majority of the 

2 Members of either House of Congress voting, a quorum 

3 being present, is required to bring debate to a close on 

4 any question in such House. 

5 (b) RULES OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND

6 SENATE.—This section is enacted by Congress— 

7 (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of 

8 the Senate and House of Representatives, respec9 tively, and as such is deemed a part of the rules of 

10 each House, respectively, but applicable only with re11 spect to the procedure to be followed in that House 

12 in the case of the bill or joint resolution involved, 

13 and supersede other rules only to the extent that it 

14 is inconsistent with such rules; and 

15 (2) with full recognition of the constitutional 

16 right of either House to change the rules (so far as 

17 relating to the procedure of that House) at any time, 

18 in the same manner, and to the same extent as in 

19 the case of any other rule of that House. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY LEE TOTTEN,

Petitioner,

 v.

A. KANE, Warden, et. al.,

Respondent(s).

 /

Nos. C-05-1675 TEH (PR)

C-05-1965 TEH (PR)

C-07-5974 TEH (PR)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

(Doc. #11)

On September 25, 2008, the Court denied Petitioner’s

applications for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

challenging the California Board of Parole Hearings’ (BPH) January

27, 2003, June 29, 2004 and November 27, 2007 decisions to deny him

parole. Doc. #9. 

Petitioner filed a notice of appeal, which the Court now

construes as a request for a Certificate of Appealability (COA)

under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

22(b). See Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 552–56 (9th Cir.

2010) (en banc) (COA required regardless of whether state decision

to deny release from confinement is administrative or judicial).

Case 3:05-cv-01965-TEH Document 24 Filed 07/13/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

Petitioner’s request for a COA (Doc. #11) is DENIED

because Petitioner has not made “a substantial showing of the denial

of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Nor has

Petitioner demonstrated that “reasonable jurists would find the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable

or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

The Clerk shall forward to the Court of Appeals the case

file with this Order. See United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268,

1270 (9th Cir. 1997). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED 07/12/10 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.07\Totten-07-5974-deny coa-post-hayward.wpd

Case 3:05-cv-01965-TEH Document 24 Filed 07/13/10 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEANETTE BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

HTR PROPERTIES LLC,, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00829-WHO 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On October 3, 2018, the parties settled the damages claims in this case and agreed to file a 

stipulation with a proposed briefing schedule to address the remaining issues. Dkt. No. 93.

To date, no such stipulation has been filed. 

The parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE for their failure to file the required 

stipulation. They may extinguish this Order by filing the required stipulation (proposing a briefing 

schedule) and an explanation for their delay, on or before December 17, 2018. 

The December 10, 2018 Final Pretrial Conference is VACATED. A new Final Pretrial 

Conference date will be set in conjunction with the briefing schedule approved by the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2018

William H. Orrick

United States District Judge
Elan Christopher LEWIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-7896.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Order entered July 24, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 17

- 01033

- CV

DEMETRA JEFFERSON WY SINGER FOR AND AS PO A FOR DEMONDRIA JEFFERSON, TYSWAYLA MITCHELL, PRINCE LOUIS WYSINGER AND MINOR CHILDREN, Appellant

V.

GEICO COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE, FARMERS I NSURANCE, AND RON

MONTGOMERY MOTORS, Appellee s

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 17

- 00628

- E



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellant’s July 23, 2018 motion for an additional extension of time

to file reply brief

. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no later than August

22, 2018.

/s/ DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
Curtis S. CRUMBLEY, Appellant, v. Rodney Deon CRUMBLEY, Appellee.

Case No. 2D19-606

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 5, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
2023 IL 127412



## IN THE

SUPREME COURT

OF

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

(Docket No. 127412)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. GERMEL DOSSIE, Appellant.

Opinion filed February 2, 2023.

PER CURIAM

OPINION

¶ 1 In this case, two Justices of this court have recused themselves, and the remaining members of the court are divided so that it is not possible to secure the constitutionally required concurrence of four judges for a decision (see Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 3). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The effect of this dismissal is the same as an affirmance by an equally divided court of the decision under review but is of no precedential value. See Perlman v. First National Bank of Chicago , 60 Ill. 2d 529, 530 (1975).

¶ 2 CUNNINGHAM and ROCHFORD, JJ., took no part.
Exhibit 32.1CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Lukas Braunschweiler, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Dionex Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge: 1. The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2005, andto which this Certification is attached (the “Periodic Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.     By: /s/ Lukas Braunschweiler   Name: Lukas Braunschweiler  Title: President, Chief Executive Officer and Director  Date: February 9, 2006