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

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

IBRAHIM A. SWEDAN,

Petitioner, No. 3:14-cv-01824-SU

v. ORDER

MARION FEATHER,

Respondent. 

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Sullivan issued a Findings and Recommendation [15] on February 9, 

2015, in which she recommends that this Court deny Petitioner Swedan’s Petition for Habeas 

Corpus Relief [1] under U.S.C. § 2241. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Because neither party timely filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and 

Recommendation, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt, 

1 – ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01824-SU Document 18 Filed 03/30/15 Page 1 of 2
840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate 

Judge's report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de 

novo, I find no error. 

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Sullivan’s Findings & Recommendation [15].

Accordingly, Petitioner Swedan’s Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief [1] is denied. Additionally, 

the Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability because Petitioner Swedan has not made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this day of , 2015.

 ________

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge

2 – ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01824-SU Document 18 Filed 03/30/15 Page 2 of 2
1 - OPINION & ORDER 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

TERA HARRIS,

No. 3:15-cv-00853-HZ

Plaintiff, 

OPINION & ORDER 

v.

CITY OF PORTLAND POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants. 

Tera Harris 

5430 SE 119th Ave. 

Portland, Oregon 97266 

Pro Se Plaintiff 

//

Case 3:15-cv-00853-HZ Document 117 Filed 01/05/17 Page 1 of 3
2 - OPINION & ORDER 

David A. Landrum 

Office of City Attorney 

1221 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 430 

Portland, Oregon 97204 

Attorney for City Defendants 

Jacqueline Sadker Kamins 

Assistant County Attorneys 

501 S.E. Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 500 

Portland, Oregon 97214 

Attorneys for County Defendants 

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge: 

Before the Court is County Defendants’ Motion for Clarification of Summary Judgment 

Order [109]. The Court previously denied County Defendants’ summary judgment motion as to 

Plaintiff’s excessive force claim [107]. County Defendants also moved for summary judgment 

on Plaintiff’s more generalized litany of complaints, including claim that they put her in the 

“hole” for thirty days, would not let her shower or use her phone, and fed her spoiled sack 

lunches. Am. Compl. 9; Cty. Defs’. Mot. for Clarification 2, ECF 109. Now, County Defendants 

renew their arguments that Plaintiff failed to show that Deputies Muth and Hudson were 

personally involved in these aspects of her custody and that her bare allegations were insufficient 

to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to these claims. Cty. Defs’. Mot for Clarification 2. 

Plaintiff did not respond to County Defendants’ motion for summary judgment regarding this 

issue in her reply. Further, Plaintiff was given fourteen days to respond to the motion at issue and 

she has failed to do so. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that 

County Defendants were personally involved in the conditions of confinement that she 

complains of and she has not raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding this issue. The 

Case 3:15-cv-00853-HZ Document 117 Filed 01/05/17 Page 2 of 3
3 - OPINION & ORDER 

Court, therefore, grants County Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the portions of 

Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim under Count III raised in their Motion for Clarification.

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons discussed above, County Defendants’ Motion for Clarification of 

Summary Judgment Order [109] is granted; County Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 

[59] is granted in part.

Dated this day of ______________________, 2017.

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-00853-HZ Document 117 Filed 01/05/17 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



To the knowledge of
each of the undersigned, this Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2012 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in this Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Blonder Tongue Laboratories, Inc. for
the applicable reporting period.



|Date: August 14, 2012 | By: | /s/ James A. Luksch                     
|--------------------- | --- | ----------------------------------------
|                      |     | James A. Luksch, Chief Executive Officer
|                      |     |                                         
|                      | By: | /s/ Eric Skolnik                        
|                      |     | Eric Skolnik, Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

ELRIC V. SHELBY, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

SHERIFF SKRAH, et al., 

Defendants. 

AIKEN, Judge: 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MEDFORD DIVISION 

Case No. 1:15-cv-01457-TC 

ORDER 

On January 10, 2017, Magistrate Judge Coffin filed his Findings and Recommendation 

("F&R"), recommending that this Court grant defendants' motion for summary judgment (doc. 

62). Plaintiff filed objections, so I review de nova "those portions of the report ... to which 

objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Holder v. 

Holder, 392 F.3d 1009, 1022 (9th Cir. 2004). 

I have reviewed this matter de nova. One point in the F&R warrants clarification in 

response to plaintiff's objections. The F&R states that "[i]nmates have no liberty interest in 

being free from disciplinary segregation." F&R at 3. That statement is true with respect to 

convicted prisoners. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 487 (1995). But because plaintiff is a 

pretrial detainee, he has a protected liberty interest in remaining free from any type of 

punishment, including disciplinary segregation. Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 523 (9th Cir. 

1996). Pretrial detainees are not "free to violate jail rules with impunity." Id at 524. But they 

Case 1:15-cv-01457-TC Document 95 Filed 03/16/17 Page 1 of 2
"may be subjected to disciplinary segregation only with a due process hearing to determine 

whether they have in fact violated any rule." Id. And no inmate, whether a pretrial detainee or a 

convicted prisoner, has a constitutional liberty interest in being free from segregation imposed 

for the inmate's own protection. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 538-39 (1979) ("Absent a 

showing of an express intent to punish on the part of detention facility officials, . . . . if a 

particular condition or restriction of pretrial detention is reasonable related to a legitimate 

governmental objective, it does not, without more, amount to punishment.") 

This clarification of the governing law does not change the result. Plaintiff was in 

administrative segregation for the first six days in question. Plaintiff did not receive a hearing in 

connection with his administrative segregation but, as explained above, he had no constitutional 

right to such a hearing. Plaintiffs status changed to disciplinary segregation after an altercation 

with a fellow inmate. But he received a hearing in connection with that portion of his 

segregation. Plaintiff offers no evidence to support a claim that process was constitutionally 

inadequate, he simply disagrees with its result. That is insufficient to permit him to proceed past 

summary judgment. 

As clarified above, I ADOPT Judge Coffin's F&R (doc. 90). Defendants' motion for 

summary judgment (doc. 62) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED. Any appeal from 

this Order would be frivolous and not taken in good faith. Therefore, plaintiff's in forma 

pauperis status is REVOKED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

. -f1A. 

Dated this I fo day of March 20 I /I. . , ~afu Ann Aiken 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:15-cv-01457-TC Document 95 Filed 03/16/17 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
                        FORTIS BENEFITS INSURANCE COMPANY
                       PURSUANT 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 of Fortis Benefits Insurance Company
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Larry M. Cains, Treasurer (Chief Financial Officer) of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

     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.


Date: March 29, 2004

                                                   /s/ Larry M. Cains
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Larry M. Cains
                                                   Treasurer
                                                   (Chief Financial Officer)
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE 

CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING 

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. 

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

Edward D. and Tammy D., Respondents, 

v. 

Baby Girl B., a minor under the age of 14 years; South 

Carolina Department of Social Services; and Andrew 

J.M., Defendants, 

Of Whom Andrew J. M. is Appellant. 

And, 

South Carolina Department of Social Services, 

Respondent, 

v. 

Erica S. and Andrew J. M., Defendants, 

Of Whom Andrew J.M. is Appellant. 

In the Interests of: Baby Girl B. (DOB: 05/15/13), a 

minor under the age of 14 years, 

Intervenors: Eric P. and Sherry P., Respondents. 

Appellate Case No. 2014-002333 

Appeal from York County 

David G. Guyton, Family Court Judge
 
 

Memorandum Opinion No. 2015-MO-021 

Heard April 21, 2015 – Filed April 23, 2015 

VACATED AND REMANDED 

Melinda Inman Butler, of Butler Law Firm, LLC, of 

Union, for Appellant. 

Larry Dale Dove, of Dove & Barton, LLC, of Rock Hill, 

James Fletcher Thompson, of James Fletcher Thompson, 

LLC, of Spartanburg, David E. Simpson, of Rock Hill, 

Carl L. Solomon, of Columbia, Erick M. Barbare, of The 

Barbare Law Firm, of Greenville, L. Michelle 

Dhunjishah and Lindsey A. McCallister, both of 

Columbia, all for Respondents. 

Krystal L. Orr, of Rock Hill, for Guardian ad Litem. 

PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from an order of the family court. A merits 

hearing was held on July 31, 2014; however, the family court's order deciding the 

matters raised during that hearing was not issued until October 7, 2014. 

On August 8, 2014, Chief Justice Toal issued an administrative order vesting in a 

different family court judge the exclusive jurisdiction to "decide all matters 

pertaining to these cases, including any pending motions which may have been 

raised in prior hearings before another judge." In light of the Chief Justice's 

August 8, 2014 administrative order, we are constrained to vacate the October 7, 

2014 order of the family court. 
VACATED AND REMANDED. 

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur
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
 Crop Improvement and Genetics Research: Albany, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Albany, California Western Regional Research Center Crop Improvement and Genetics Research Research





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

Collaborations The Crop Improvement and Genetics Research has a long and productive history of collaborative research involving stakeholders.  Current collaborators and projects:


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
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-12-00500-CV

____________________

IN THE ESTATE OF JOHN A. BANKSTON

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the County Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 82,384 

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

The appellant, Todd Gessell, joined by the appellee, Kelley Marie Bankston, filed 

a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is voluntarily made by the parties prior to 

any decision of this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. We grant the motion and dismiss 

the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 ________________________________

 DAVID GAULTNEY

 Justice 

Opinion Delivered June 13, 2013

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2122 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2122

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that certain 
 liquidating distributions of a regulated investment company or a real 
  estate investment trust which are allowable as a deduction shall be 
            included in the gross income of the distributee.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 22, 1998

Mr. Roth (for himself and Mr. Moynihan) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that certain 
 liquidating distributions of a regulated investment company or a real 
  estate investment trust which are allowable as a deduction shall be 
            included in the gross income of the distributee.

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

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN DEDUCTIBLE LIQUIDATING DISTRIBUTIONS OF 
              REGULATED INVESTMENT COMPANIES AND REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT 
              TRUSTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 332 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to complete liquidations of subsidiaries) is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(c) Deductible Liquidating Distributions of Regulated Investment 
Companies and Real Estate Investment Trusts.--If a corporation receives 
a distribution from a regulated investment company or a real estate 
investment trust which is considered under subsection (b) as being in 
complete liquidation of such company or trust, then, notwithstanding 
any other provision of this chapter, such corporation shall recognize 
and treat as a dividend from such company or trust an amount equal to 
the deduction for dividends paid allowable to such company or trust by 
reason of such distribution.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) The material preceding paragraph (1) of section 332(b) 
        of such Code is amended by striking ``subsection (a)'' and 
        inserting ``this section''.
            (2) Paragraph (1) of section 334(b) of such Code is amended 
        by striking ``section 332(a)'' and inserting ``section 332''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to distributions after May 21, 1998.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




To the knowledge of each of the undersigned, this Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Blonder Tongue Laboratories, Inc. for the applicable reporting period.




Date:  May 6, 2010                                                                                     By:           /s/  James A. Luksch


James A. Luksch, Chief Executive Officer





By:           /s/  Eric Skolnik


Eric Skolnik, Chief Financial Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 20, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00339

- CV

IN RE ROLANDO H. BRIONES, II

From the 407th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 166 15

Honorable Tina Torres , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Patricia O. A lvarez, J ustice

Beth Wat kins, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

On August 13, 2021, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus.  This court believes a

serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further consideration. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(b).  The respondent and the real party in interest may file a response to the

petition in this court by Sept ember 9, 2021

. Any such response must conform to Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 52.4.

It is so ORDERED on A ugust 20, 2021

.

PER CURIAM

A TTESTED TO:

___________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, CLERK OF COURT
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2092

To promote full equality at the United Nations for Israel.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 19, 1998

Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. THOMAS, and Mr.

BROWNBACK) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL

To promote full equality at the United Nations for Israel.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Equality for Israel at

5 the United Nations Act of 1998’’.

6 SEC. 2. EFFORTS TO PROMOTE FULL EQUALITY AT THE

7 UNITED NATIONS FOR ISRAEL.

8 (a) CONGRESSIONAL STATEMENT.—It is the sense of

9 the Congress that—

10 (1) the United States must help promote an

11 end to the persistent inequity experienced by Israel
2

•S 2092 IS

1 in the United Nations whereby Israel is the only

2 longstanding member of the organization to be de3 nied acceptance into any of the United Nations re4 gional blocs, which serve as the basis for participa5 tion in important activities of the United Nations,

6 including rotating membership on the United Na7 tions Security Council; and

8 (2) the United States Ambassador to the

9 United Nations should take all steps necessary to

10 ensure Israel’s acceptance in the Western Europe

11 and Others Group (WEOG) regional bloc, whose

12 membership includes the non-European countries of

13 Canada, Australia, and the United States.

14 (b) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 60 days

15 after the date of the enactment of this Act and on a quar16 terly basis thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit

17 to the appropriate congressional committees a report

18 which includes the following information (in classified or

19 unclassified form as appropriate):

20 (1) Actions taken by representatives of the

21 United States, including the United States Ambas22 sador to the United Nations, to encourage the na23 tions of the Western Europe and Others Group

24 (WEOG) to accept Israel into their regional bloc.
3

•S 2092 IS

1 (2) Efforts undertaken by the Secretary Gen2 eral of the United Nations to secure Israel’s full and

3 equal participation in that body.

4 (3) Specific responses solicited and received by

5 the Secretary of State from each of the nations of

6 Western Europe and Others Group (WEOG) on

7 their position concerning Israel’s acceptance into

8 their organization.

9 (4) Other measures being undertaken, and

10 which will be undertaken, to ensure and promote

11 Israel’s full and equal participation in the United

12 Nations.

Æ