alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 24665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11278]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Flight Service Station at Glennallen, Alaska; Notice of Change in 
Facility Operation

    Notice is hereby given that on March 31, 1995, the Gulkana Flight 
Service Station at Glennallen, Alaska, closed. Services to the general 
aviation public formerly provided by this facility are now provided by 
the Automated Flight Service Station at Kenai, Alaska. This information 
will be reflected in the FAA Organization Statement the next time it is 
reissued. Sec. 313(a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, 
72 Stat. 752; 49 U.S.C. App. 1354(a).

    Issued in Anchorage, Alaska on March 15, 1995.
Robert N. Lewis,
Acting Regional Administrator, Alaskan Region.
[FR Doc. 95-11278 Filed 5-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 3:17-cv-00795-JCS Document 2 Filed 02/17/17 Page 1 of 3
ATTACHMENT 1 TO SUMMONS 

SPARTUCUS 20TH G.P., INC., PHILIP R. PALUMBO, JAKOB IRION, BODYROK 

FRANCHISE, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, BODYROK FRANCHISE GP, INC., EXERCISE 

TECHNOLOGIES, L.P., BODYROK MARINA, L.P., SCULPT FITNESS BERKELEY, LLC, 

AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE 

Case 3:17-cv-00795-JCS Document 2 Filed 02/17/17 Page 2 of 3
ATTACHMENT 2 TO SUMMONS 

Spartacus 20th G.P., Inc. 

1900 Western Avenue 

Las Vegas, NV 89021 

Philip R. Palumbo 

1322 Alcyon Ct. 

Carlsbad, CA 92011 

Jakob Irion 

842 Bay Street 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

BodyROK Franchise, Limited Partnership 

2269 Chestnut Street 

Suite 388 

San Francisco, CA 94123 

BodyROK Franchise GP, Inc. 

2269 Chestnut Street 

Suite 388 

San Francisco, CA 94123 

Exercise Technologies, L.P. 

2269 Chestnut Street 

Suite 388 

San Francisco, CA 94123 

BodyRok Marina, L.P. 

7040 Avenida Encinas 

Suites 104-148 

Carlsbad, CA 92011 

Sculpt Fitness Berkeley, LLC 

3126A Laguna Street 

San Francisco, CA 94123 

Case 3:17-cv-00795-JCS Document 2 Filed 02/17/17 Page 3 of 3
NEO 2021 Calendar

Local New Employee Orientation Pre-Onboarding

Field New Employee Orientation Onboarding Cafe
Exhibit 3 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1691-4 Filed 09/19/17 Page 1 of 3
1

From: Andrea P Roberts

Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 2:24 PM

To: 'Gonzalez, Arturo J.'; QE-Waymo

Cc: UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys; Boies Service (BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com);

bcarmody@SusmanGodfrey.com; Aaron Bergstrom (abergstrom@uber.com); John

Cooper (JCooper@fbm.com)

Subject: RE: Stroz Depositions

Categories: Waymo

Arturo, as we noted in our motion to continue, your proposed schedule is not workable as it does not allow

enough time or ability to review and take into account the materials that were just produced, not yet produced,

or not yet made available. Further, given the volume of materials to be produced and reviewed, Judge Corley

said not to “worry about that week deadline.” (8/28/17 Hearing Tr., 65:9-10.)

Thanks,

Andrea

From: Gonzalez, Arturo J. [mailto:AGonzalez@mofo.com]

Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 6:24 PM

To: QE-Waymo <qewaymo@quinnemanuel.com>

Cc: UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys <UberWaymoMoFoAttorneys@mofo.com>; Boies Service

(BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com) <BSF_EXTERNAL_UberWaymoLit@bsfllp.com>;

bcarmody@SusmanGodfrey.com; Aaron Bergstrom (abergstrom@uber.com) <abergstrom@uber.com>; John Cooper

(JCooper@fbm.com) <JCooper@fbm.com>

Subject: Stroz Depositions

Importance: High

Counsel,

Pursuant to Judge Corley’s order requiring certain deferred depositions to be completed within a week of the

Federal Circuit’s ruling on the Stroz issues, we offer dates for our employees as set forth below. For witnesses

offered for Tuesday 9/19, please let us know by noon on Sunday 9/17 whether Waymo will proceed, as flight

arrangements will be affected.

• Eric Tate: Tuesday 9/19 at 9 am

• Rudy Kim: Tuesday 9/19 at 9:30 am

• Travis Kalanick: Tuesday 9/19 at 9 am (45 minutes of reserved time remaining)

• Angela Padilla: Wednesday 9/20 at 12:30 pm

Although Mr. Lior Ron was not included in Judge Corley’s order, we offer Mr. Ron for deposition on Thursday

9/21 at 9 am.

Even though not an Uber employee, we are working on getting availability for Eric Friedberg and will provide a

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1691-4 Filed 09/19/17 Page 2 of 3
2

date shortly.

ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ

Partner | Morrison & Foerster LLP

425 Market St. | San Francisco, CA 94105

P: +1 (415) 268-7020

mofo.com | LinkedIn | Twitter

============================================================================

This message may be confidential and privileged. Use or disclosure by anyone other than an intended addressee

is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please delete it and advise the sender by reply email.

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1691-4 Filed 09/19/17 Page 3 of 3
[Principal Global Logo]**Principal Global Investors**M A N A G E M E N T ' S   A S S E R T I O N   O N  COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATION AB CRITERIA For Capmark Finance, Inc., as Master Servicer Principal Global Investors, LLC, in its capacity as Primary Servicer (the "Asserting Party") is responsible for assessing compliance for the transactions listed on Attachment A for the period January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007, except as noted on Attachment A (the "Reporting Period") with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the "CFR"), except for the criteria set forth in Sections 229.1122(d)(1)(ii)-(iii), 229.1122(d)(3)(i) (iv),  229.1122(d)(4)(ix), and 229.1122(d)(4)(xv), in the CFR, which the Asserting Party has concluded are not applicable to the servicing of the transactions listed on Attachment A, backed by commercial mortgage loans and primarily serviced by the Asserting Party (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria"). The Asserting Party has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the transactions listed on Attachment A backed by commercial mortgages primarily serviced by the Asserting Party. Ernst & Young LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion. Principal Global Investors, LLC, as Primary Servicer By: /s/ Steven Johnson                          Steven Johnson  Managing Director Date: 2-19-08        801 Grand Avenue, Des Moines, IA USA 50392-0490 / www.principalglobal.com A member of the Principal Financial Group' **A t t a c h m e n t**A  Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Capmark Finance, Inc., as Master Servicer Series 2002 IQ-3 dated 12/1/2002  Series****2002 WL-1 dated 6/1/2002  Series 2007 HQ-11 dated 2/28/2007  Series 2007 IQ-14 dated 5/30/2007  Series 2007 IQ-15 dated 8/23/2007  Series 2007 IQ-16 dated 11/27/2007
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 19 - 0579

_________________ ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER W. ROBERTSON,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to Christopher W. Robertson, to all counsel of record , and to the Honorable Holly Brown , Dis trict Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 2 2020

09/02/2020
Case Number: DA 19-0579
Randall BINGHAM, petitioner, v. Jose MORALES, Warden.

No. 12-8503.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Georgia, Johnson County, denied.
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 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR

CASE NO. 5:17-cv-00561-NC 

sf-3744831

JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (SBN 161368)

JTaylor@mofo.com 

JOYCE LIOU (SBN 277720) 

JLiou@mofo.com 

AMANDA D. PHILLIPS (SBN 305614) 

APhillips@mofo.com 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-2482 

Telephone: (415) 268-7000 

Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC. AND 

CHING-HAN TSAI 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

SYNOPSYS, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC., UBIQUITI 

NETWORKS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, 

CHING-HAN TSAI, and DOES 1-20, 

inclusive 

Defendants. 

Case No. 5:17-cv-00561-NC

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF 

JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR 

Case 3:17-cv-00561-WHO Document 12 Filed 02/28/17 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 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR

CASE NO. 5:17-cv-00561-NC 1 

sf-3744831

TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE of the appearance of Jennifer Lee Taylor of the firm 

Morrison & Foerster LLP, as counsel of record for and on behalf of Defendants Ubiquiti 

Networks, Inc. and Ching-Han Tsai in the above-referenced action. The Court and counsel for 

Plaintiff are respectfully requested to add Jennifer Lee Taylor to the service list for this action, 

and to send copies of all pleadings and notices to the following address: 

Jennifer Lee Taylor 

Morrison & Foerster LLP 

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

JTaylor@mofo.com 

Jennifer Lee Taylor is licensed to practice law in the State of California, is a member in 

good standing of the California State Bar, and is admitted to practice before the United States 

District Court of the Northern District of California. 

Dated: February 28, 2017 JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR

JOYCE LIOU 

AMANDA PHILLIPS 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Jennifer Lee Taylor 

JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC., 

CHING-HAN TSAI 

Case 3:17-cv-00561-WHO Document 12 Filed 02/28/17 Page 2 of 2
N.P., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4476

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 15, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Tyron Lamont BRADSHAW, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2100

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 24, 2016. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, May 24, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16A1436. LARRY SELF et al. v. MARIAN M. WILLIAMS.
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kelvin Andre SPOTTS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-7954.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 14, 2004.

Decided May 25, 2004.

*938Kelvin Andre Spotts, Appellant pro se. Ray McVeigh Shepard, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Kelvin Andre Spotts seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying a certificate of appealability in his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). This Court previously denied Spotts a certificate of appealability in his appeal of the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss Spotts’ § 2255 motion. *United States v. Spotts,*89 Fec.Appx. 824 (4th Cir.2004). We therefore dismiss Spotts’ present appeal as moot.

Spotts filed motions seeking transcripts of the grand jury proceedings, a request previously denied by this Court in No. 03-7794 and in case No. 04-6256. He also seeks consolidation of this case with No. 03-7794, a case decided as noted above. We dismiss these motions and Spotts’ motions for a stay of proceedings and to expedite proceedings as moot. We deny Spotts’ motion to proceed in forma pauper-is. 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.

*DISMISSED*
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Carbiz Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Carl
Ritter, Chief Executive 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.



| | /s/ Carl
      Ritter        
| | -----------------------------
| | Carl Ritter                  
| | Chief Executive Officer      
| | (principal executive officer)
| | June 15, 2009                

---
Tranell McCOY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9880.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7014

ERROL WRIGHT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

E. J. WILLIS; SERGEANT WILLIAMS; R. J. DASHDEN; F. GRANT; S. SHIELD; S. WITTAKER; TRENT

MILES,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Paul W. Grimm, Magistrate Judge. (CA-97-

1710-H)

Submitted: November 23, 1999 Decided: December 21, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Errol Wright, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney

General, Kimberly Smith Ward, Gloria Wilson Shelton, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The proceedings in this action were conducted by a

magistrate judge pursuant to the consent of the parties. See 28

U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993 & Supp. 1999).

2

PER CURIAM:

Errol Wright appeals the magistrate judge’s order after a

trial denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999)

complaint.* We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

findings of fact and find no reversible error. The magistrate

judge’s factual findings are not clearly erroneous. See Martin v.

Deiriggi, 985 F.2d 129, 136 (4th Cir. 1992). The magistrate

judge’s credibility determinations will not be disturbed on appeal.

See United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989);

McCrary v. Runyon, 515 F.2d 1082, 1086 (4th Cir. 1975). Accordingly, we affirm. 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
WHAT IS TYPE 2 DIABETES?

Type 2 diabetes happens when your body does not make or use insulin well, which

causes high blood sugar levels.

For more information on health equity, visit www.fda.gov/healthequity.

Balanced

diet

Weight

management

Normal blood

pressure

Active

lifestyle

Lower your risk for type 2 diabetes

Increased

fatigue

Blurred

vision

Increased thirst

and urination

Increased

hunger

Sores that

don’t heal

Unexplained

weight loss

Symptoms often develop slowly and can

be mild. Many people have no symptoms.

Type 2 diabetes most often occurs in middle-aged 

and older adults but can develop at any age.

DID YOU

KNOW?

ABOUT 1 IN 10

ADULTS HAVE

TYPE 2 DIABETES

Not

smoking
DIABETES AND OLDER ADULTS

Type 2 diabetes happens when your body does not make or use insulin well, which

causes high blood sugar levels.

For more information on health equity, visit www.fda.gov/healthequity.

Eating

healthy

Not

smoking

Controlling your

blood sugar

Controlling your

blood pressure

Being physically

active

Taking medications

as prescribed

Keep your kidneys healthy if you have diabetes by:

DIABETES AFFECTS

1 IN 4 PEOPLE

OVER THE AGE

OF 65.

Older adults have the 

highest rate of 

diabetes-related end-stage 

kidney disease. This 

happens when your 

kidneys begin to fail and 

dialysis (removal of waste 

products and excess fluid 

from the body) or kidney 

transplantation is needed. 

94 mg

dL
Malcolm MUHAMMAD, petitioner, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

No. 12-7259.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
#### Ernesto Del Rio VERA; Blanca Del Rio, Petitioners, v. John D. ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-70723.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 17, 2004.

Ernesto Del Rio Vera, Palmdale, CA, pro se.

Blanca Del Rio, Palmdale, CA, pro se.

Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., Luis E. Perez, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ernesto Del Rio Vera and his wife, Blanca Del Rio, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their motion to reopen removal proceedings in which the BIA affirmed the decision of an immigration judge *(“13”)*denying their application for cancellation of removal because they failed to establish the requisite hardship. We dismiss the petition.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s original decision because we lack jurisdiction to review its determination that Petitioners failed to demonstrate “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” *See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 889-90 (9th Cir.2003). In addition, Petitioners did not timely appeal the BIA’s first decision to this Court. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).

We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Petitioners’ motion to reopen because such a denial is a judgment regarding the granting of the discretionary relief of cancellation of removal. *See 8*U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); *cf. Medina-Morales v. Ashcroft,*362 F.3d 1263, 1267-69 (9th Cir.2004) (finding jurisdiction to review denial of motion to reopen where there was never a ruling on the discretionary relief sought by alien).

To the extent Petitioners request that this Court extend the BIA’s grant of voluntary departure, such a request is foreclosed by *Zazueta-Carrillo v. Ashcroft,*322 F.3d 1166, 1172-74 (9th Cir.2003).

*541PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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

STEVEN ANDREW LEON,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER GUZMAN, #3968,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00328-HSG (PR) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL

Re: Dkt. No. 25

Plaintiff has requested that counsel be appointed to assist him in this action. A district 

court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent an indigent 

civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th 

Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the 

ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 

involved. See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before 

deciding on a request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Here, exceptional circumstances requiring 

the appointment of counsel are not evident. The request for appointment of counsel is therefore 

DENIED. The Court will consider appointment of counsel on its own motion, and seek volunteer 

counsel to agree to represent plaintiff pro bono, if it determines at a later time in the proceedings 

that appointment of counsel is warranted.

This order terminates Docket No. 25.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

1/29/2018
1

The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2079

___________

Edward Ronwin, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Ameren, Missouri Corporation; Jeffrey *

Green; Bryan Vance; Gregory Stoner, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Union Electric Company, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: February 1, 2010

Filed: February 4, 2010

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Edward Ronwin appeals the district court’s1

 adverse judgment on his claims

challenging, inter alia, the exercise of authority related to the issuance of permits for

the installation of boat docks on his lakefront property. Following careful review, we

find no basis for reversal. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.