alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 National Animal Disease Center: Ames, IA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Research Units
                        Food Safety and Enteric PathogensSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Ames, Iowa National Animal Disease Center Docs Modernization





- ARS News & Events
- AgResearch Magazine
- Image Gallery
- News
- NADC Seminar Series
- International Symposium
- Proteomics Group
- Production Session Talks and Handouts
- Virtual Conference

Page 4headline bar 1 - Modernization
               2 - Page 2
                  3 - Page 3
                  4 - Page 4
                  5 - Page 5
                  6 - Page 6
                  7 - Page 7  Modernization HeaderConstruction of the Phase I Laboratory was completed in August 2004.  USDA personnel moved in and the lab became fully operational in September of 2004.Modernization Footer << Previous

                        1
                        2
                        3
                        [4]
                        5
                        6
                        7

                     Next >>


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-29-1996
<CASH>                                          55,601
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,672,726
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (57,912)
<INVENTORY>                                 12,316,654
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,003,509
<PP&E>                                      12,275,977
<DEPRECIATION>                             (7,533,581)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,533,023
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,680,373
<BONDS>                                      6,295,151
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        94,793
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,187,706
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,533,023
<SALES>                                      6,642,663
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,642,663
<CGS>                                        4,419,722
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,972,204
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,429)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             181,682
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                490,206
<INCOME-TAX>                                   186,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            304,206
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   304,206
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

DYNASTY INTERNATIONAL LLC and 

BRUCE MICHAEL ABRAHAMSON, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY 

 Defendant. 

) 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2:15-CV-374 JD 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 This case was filed in this Court asserting diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(a). Generally, federal courts have original subject matter jurisdiction in diversity cases 

where there is complete diversity of citizenship among the parties and where an amount in 

excess of $75,000 is in controversy. LM Ins. Corp. v. Spaulding Enterprises Inc., 533 F.3d 542, 

547 (7th Cir. 2008). With regard to citizenship, Plaintiff Dynasty International LLC alleges that 

it “was a limited liability company residing in Nevada and was a citizen of Nevada.” [DE 1 at 

2]. 

 This allegation is insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction for two reasons. First, for 

diversity jurisdiction purposes, the citizenship of an LLC is the citizenship of each of its 

members. Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 534 (7th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the 

Court must be appraised of each of a plaintiff LLC’s members and their citizenships, so the 

Court can ensure that none of them share a common citizenship with a defendant. See Franke v. 

Cana Invs., LLC, 333 F. App’x 106, 107 (7th Cir. 2009) (stating that as to an LLC, “it is essential 

to know all of its members and the citizenship(s) of each”). Dynasty International LLC does not, 

however, allege the names or citizenships of its members. 
2

 Second, the Plaintiffs allege that Dynasty International LLC “was a limited liability 

company residing in Nevada and was a citizen of Nevada.” [DE 1 at 2] (emphasis added). But 

diversity of citizenship is evaluated at the time of filing. See Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. Grp., 

L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 571 (2004). Accordingly, whatever Dynasty International LLC’s citizenship 

may have been previously is not relevant; the Plaintiffs must appraise the Court of Dynasty 

International LLC’s current citizenship.

 Therefore, the Court ORDERS the Plaintiffs to SHOW CAUSE why this action should 

not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction prior to close of business on June 8, 2016. 

The Plaintiffs may also satisfy this order by either filing an amended complaint that properly 

alleges jurisdiction or by withdrawing their complaint to pursue it in an appropriate forum. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED: May 26, 2016 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

 Judge 

 United States District Court
F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T TY RO N E W . M I LES, P e titio n e r- A p p e llan t, v. M I C H A E L M A R T E L , W a r de n, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 15633 D . C . N o . 1 : 0 8 -cv -0 1 0 0 2 -JF E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f

C a lif o rn ia , F r e s no ORDER

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J e r e m yD . F oge l , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d F e bruary15, 2012 S ubm i s s i on V a c a t e d F e bruary21, 2012 R e s ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r28, 2012 S a n F r an c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: H U G , an dP A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. H a vi ng c ons i de r e d the pa rt i e s ’ s t i pul a t i on and j oi ntm ot i on t o va c a t e the c ourt ’ s opi ni on i n thi s c a s e , the c ourtor de r s the f ol l ow i ng: 1. T he opi ni on f

i l e d on S e pt e m be r28, 2012 and r e port e d a t696 F . 3d 889 i s w i thdr a w n. 2 . T h is c a s e is o r d e r e dr e m an d e dto th e d is tr ic t c o u rt w ith d ir e c tio n s to ent erj ud gm entgrant i ng a w ri tof habeas corpus di re ct i ng that P e t i t i one rM i l e s be r e l e a s e d f r om c us t odya s s oon a s pos s i bl e a nd no la te rth a n 4 8 h o u r s a f

te re n tryo f

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t. 

# FI LED NO V 21 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS3 . T h e f ilin g o f th is o r d e rs h a ll s e rv e a s th e c o u rt’s m an d a te . I T I S S O O R DE R E D.C O U N SEL

M i chae l S . R om ano (argued), M i l l s L egalC l i ni c, S t anford, C A for pet i t i on er ap p e llan t. D a vi d E l dr i dge ( a r gue d) , O f f i c e of the C a l i f

orni aA tt orne yG e ne r a l , S a c r a m e nt o, C A fo r resp o n d en t s-ap p el l ees.
| **EXHIBIT  21** |
|-----------------|

 

 
| **SUBSIDIARIES  OF THE REGISTRANT** |
|-------------------------------------|
| **AS OF  DECEMBER 31, 2007**        |

 
| **FULL NAME OF SUBSIDIARY** | ** ** | **PLACE OF INCORPORATION** | ** ** |
|-----------------------------|------------|----------------------------|------------|

 
| MONTPELIER REINSURANCE LTD.          |   | BERMUDA        |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|----------------|--------|
| MONTPELIER INVESTMENTS HOLDINGS LTD. |   | BERMUDA        |   |
| MONTPELIER HOLDINGS LIMITED          |   | UNITED KINGDOM |   |
| MONTPELIER RE U.S. HOLDINGS LTD.     |   | DELAWARE       |   |
| MONTPELIER CAPITAL LIMITED           |   | UNITED KINGDOM |   |
| MONTPELIER U.S. INSURANCE COMPANY    |   | OKLAHOMA       |   |

 

 

Certain other subsidiaries of the Company have beenomitted since, in the aggregate, they would not constitute a significantsubsidiary.

 

 

----
LOREN DATA CORPORATION, petitioner, v. GXS, INC.

No. 12-1273.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 12, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2161 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2161

          To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,2 Pentanediol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 5, 2005

 Mr. Brown of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,2 Pentanediol.

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

SECTION 1. 1,2 PENTANEDIOL.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following:

``      9902.34.33       1,2 Pentanediol    Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         (CAS No. 5343-02-                                                  31/2008
                         0) (provided for
                         in subheading
                         2905.39.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[No. 19943-2-II.

Division Two.

September 5, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Robert C. Bersuch, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 95-1-00624-8, James D. Ladley, J., entered October 3, 1995. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Bridgewater, A.C.J., and Armstrong, J.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

Robert Holland, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

Cerberus Capital Management, LP, et al., 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No.: 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM 

Honorable Rudy Lozano 

Magistrate Judge John E. Martin 

RESPONSE OF DEFENDANTS TDAF AUTO FINANCE LLC AND KIMBERLY 

JOHNSON TO PLAINTIFF’S (1) MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT, (2) MOTION 

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT, AND (3) OBJECTIONS TO AUTOMATIC 

ENLARGEMENTS OF TIME & REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 

 Defendants TD Auto Finance LLC, successor in interest to Chrysler Financial, 

LLC (“TDAF”), and Kimberly Johnson (“Johnson”) hereby respond Plaintiff’s (1) Motion for 

Clerk’s Entry of Default [DE32], Objections to Defendants TDAF and Kimberly Johnsons’ 

Notices of Automatic Enlargement of Time [DE’s 34,35] and (3) Motion for Default Judgment 

[DE38], as improperly before this Court, and further request sanctions against Plaintiff in the 

form of reasonable Defendants’ reasonable attorney’s fees for responding to such frivolous and 

improper filings. A Memorandum of Law in support of this Response is contemporaneously filed 

herewith. 

 WHEREFORE, Defendants Johnson and TDAF pray the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Clerk’s Entry of Default, overrule Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendants’ Notices of Automatic 

Enlargement of Time, Deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, for sanctions against 

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 49 filed 06/26/14 page 1 of 3
Plaintiff, including its reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, and for all other 

relief the Court deems just and proper. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ James J. Todd 

James J. Todd (30453-15) 

Attorney for Defendants TDAF and Johnson 

Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A. 

525 Vine Street, Suite 800 

Cincinnati, OH 45202 

 Phone: (513) 723-2200 

 Fax: (513) 723-2239 

 Email: jtodd@weltman.com

Dated: June 26, 2014 

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 49 filed 06/26/14 page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been electronically filed with the Clerk 

of Court on June 26, 2014 and served upon the following counsel of record and/or pro se parties 

via United States Mail, postage prepaid: 

 Robert Holland 

 1120 Baker St. 

 Gary, Indiana 46404 

 /s/ James J. Todd____________ 

 James J. Todd 

 Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA 

 525 Vine St., Suite 800 

 Cincinnati, OH 45202 

 (513) 723-2200 

 (513) 723-2239-facsimile 

 jtodd@weltman.com 

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 49 filed 06/26/14 page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2096 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2096

  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain high tenacity 
                          rayon filament yarn.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 4, 2005

  Mr. Linder introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain high tenacity 
                          rayon filament yarn.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN EXISTING DUTY SUSPENSIONS.

    (a) Existing Duty Suspensions.--Each of the following headings are 
amended by striking the date in the effective period column and 
inserting ``12/31/2008'':
            (1) Heading 9902.03.06, relating to high tenacity multiple 
        (folded) or cabled yarn of viscose rayon.
            (2) Heading 9902.05.07, relating to high tenacity single 
        yarn of viscose rayon with a decitex equal to or greater than 
        1,000.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply to 
goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 
the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Soil Drainage Research: Columbus, OH
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    About usSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Columbus, Ohio Soil Drainage Research Docs





- Benefits of SWP Initiative and CEAP Research

Please follow the links below to learn more about our research **Drainage Systems/Environmental Services** Drainage water managementDrainage water recyclingFilter materialsFlood tolerant cropsGeophysical technologies in agricultureNitrate mobility **Watershed Assessment Studies/CEAP** Aquatic ecologyConservation practice assessmentDrainage filtrationManaged turfSource water protectionUrbanization Design and operation of agricultural drainage water management (DWM) systemsEcological effect of conservation practices on streams and wetlandsAssessing conservation practice effects on hydrology and water qualityHydrology and water quality aspects of turfgrass landuseDevelopment of soybean cultivars that will tolerate soil floodingEvaluation of filter materials for removal of contaminants in drainage waters


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00272-JVB-PRC document 17-7 filed 09/14/16 page 1 of 8
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00272-JVB-PRC document 17-7 filed 09/14/16 page 2 of 8
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00272-JVB-PRC document 17-7 filed 09/14/16 page 3 of 8
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00272-JVB-PRC document 17-7 filed 09/14/16 page 4 of 8
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00272-JVB-PRC document 17-7 filed 09/14/16 page 5 of 8
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00272-JVB-PRC document 17-7 filed 09/14/16 page 6 of 8
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00272-JVB-PRC document 17-7 filed 09/14/16 page 7 of 8
USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00272-JVB-PRC document 17-7 filed 09/14/16 page 8 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

RICKY LYNN JACKSON, SR., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:14-cv-00368-RL-SLC 

 ) 

DARRELL HIMELICK, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 Plaintiff Ricky Lynn Jackson, Sr., a pro se prisoner, filed a letter asking to be 

appointed counsel in this civil lawsuit. (DE 78). “There is no right to court-appointed 

counsel in federal civil litigation.” Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 711 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing

Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 649 (7th Cir. 2007)). However, in some circumstances, the 

court may ask an attorney to volunteer to represent indigent parties. “When confronted 

with a request under § 1915(e)(1) for pro bono counsel, the district court is to make the 

following inquiries: (1) has the indigent plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain 

counsel or been effectively precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty of 

the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself?” Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 

654. Here, Jackson has made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel on his own. 

 Jackson argues that this case involves medical issues and may require expert 

testimony. However, there does not appear be a medical dispute which would require 

expert testimony. The only question here is whether Lt. Jail Commander Cathy Lee 

denied Jackson medical treatment by taking his medically prescribed extra mat on May 
2 

9, 2015. This is not a case about whether (nor even why) he needed the mat, only whether 

he was unconstitutionally denied the mat. Jackson argues that this case will require the 

discovery of documents and depositions. However, Jackson is literate and coherent. He 

is knowledgeable about his case. The issue is limited and focused. There is only one 

defendant and Jackson knows what happened. To the extent that he needs documents, 

there is no reason to believe that he is incapable of preparing a request for production of 

documents and sending a copy to defense counsel and the Court. Neither is Jackson 

incapable of writing the questions he wants to ask the Defendant and sending those 

written interrogatories to defense counsel and the Court. 

 “Whether to recruit an attorney is a difficult decision: Almost everyone would 

benefit from having a lawyer, but there are too many indigent litigants and too few 

lawyers willing and able to volunteer for these cases. District courts are thus placed in 

the unenviable position of identifying, among a sea of people lacking counsel, those who 

need counsel the most.” Olson, 750 F.3d at 711. Here, because Jackson appears competent 

to litigate this case on his own, his request (DE 78) that the court recruit counsel for him 

is DENIED. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 Entered this 13th day of May 2016. /s/ Susan Collins 

 Susan Collins, 

 United States Magistrate Judge