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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Albert A. Kuperman

v. Civil No. 05-cv-185-PB

Commissioner, New Hampshire

Department of Corrections, et al.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 As noted in my Report and Recommendation on the request for

preliminary injunction, I noted that plaintiff had not exhausted

his administrative remedies. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) “(n)o

action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under

section 1983 . . . , or any other Federal law, by a prisoner

. . . until such administrative remedies as are available are

exhausted.” The current version of Section 1997e(a) stripped the

district courts of discretion and exhaustion is now mandatory. 

See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 (2001). Plaintiff’s

motions to amend and to submit evidence demonstrate further that

exhaustion did not precede the suit and that it must be dismissed

without prejudice to refile after exhaustion of all plaintiff’s

claims. 

I recommend that the suit be dismissed without prejudice and

that upon refiling any further filing fee be waived. 

Case 1:05-cv-00185-PB Document 21 Filed 07/29/05 Page 1 of 2
2

Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be

filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to

file objections within the specified time waives the right to

appeal the district court’s order. See Unauthorized Practice of

Law Comm. v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir. 1992); United

States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986). 

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: July 29, 2005

cc: Albert R. Kuperman, Esq.

 Michael K. Brown, Esq. 

Case 1:05-cv-00185-PB Document 21 Filed 07/29/05 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

MURRAY GARRETT,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.,

Defendant.

8:23CV244

FINAL PROGRESSION ORDER

AMENDED

IT IS ORDERED that the joint motion to amend progression, Filing No. 38, 

is granted. The unexpired deadlines in the amended final progression order, 

Filing No. 28, are mended as follows:

1) The trial and pretrial conference will not be set at this time. The status

conference to discuss case progression, the parties’ interest in settlement,

and the trial and pretrial conference settings currently set for July 9, 2024 is

continued and will be held with the undersigned magistrate judge on

September 10, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. by telephone. Counsel shall use the

conferencing instructions assigned to this case to participate in the

conference.

2) The deadline for completing written discovery under Rules 33, 34, 36 and

45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is September 16, 2024. Motions

to compel written discovery under Rules 33, 34, 36, and 45 must be filed by

October 3, 2024.

Note: A motion to compel, to quash, or for a disputed protective order shall 

not be filed without first contacting the chambers of the undersigned 

magistrate judge to set a conference for discussing the parties’ dispute. 

3) The deposition deadline, including but not limited to depositions for oral

8:23-cv-00244-JFB-JMD Doc # 39 Filed: 06/13/24 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 124
testimony only under Rule 45, is September 16, 2024.

4) The deadline for filing motions to dismiss and motions for summary 

judgment is November 7, 2024. 

5) The deadline for filing motions to exclude testimony on Daubert and related 

grounds is October 3, 2024.

6) Motions in limine shall be filed twenty-eight days before trial. It is not the 

normal practice to hold hearings on motions in limine or to rule on them prior 

to the first day of trial. Counsel should plan accordingly.

7) The parties shall comply with all other stipulations and agreements recited 

in their Rule 26(f) planning report that are not inconsistent with this order. 

8) All requests for changes of deadlines or settings established herein shall be 

directed to the undersigned magistrate judge, including all requests for 

changes of trial dates. Such requests will not be considered absent a 

showing of due diligence in the timely progression of this case and the 

recent development of circumstances, unanticipated prior to the filing of the 

motion, which require that additional time be allowed.

Dated this 13th day of June, 2024.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Jacqueline M. DeLuca

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cv-00244-JFB-JMD Doc # 39 Filed: 06/13/24 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 125
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 1998 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          14,447
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,227
<ALLOWANCES>                                       643
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,450
<PP&E>                                           4,325
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,342
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,435
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,119
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           113
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,185
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,435
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,628
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,606
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (203)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,225
<INCOME-TAX>                                       392
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                833
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       833
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07
        

</TABLE>
#### Maynor O. Gonzalez RAMOS, Petitioner, v. John D. ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

No. 02-2818.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 14, 2003.

Decided March 10, 2003.

Before HANSEN, Chief Judge, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Maynor O. Gonzalez Ramos petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of Gonzalez Ramos’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. For reversal, Gonzalez Ramos argues that the IJ erred in questioning the validity of his evidence, that the respondent failed to show conditions in Guatemala have changed, and that he demonstrated both past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution. After careful review, we deny the petition.

We agree with the BIA that the IJ’s decision was supported by the record, as *241there was evidence that prior attacks on Gonzalez Ramos by guerrilla forces were not motivated by his race, political opinion, affiliation, or any other characteristic that provides a basis for asylum. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); *Fisher v. INS,*291 F.3d 491, 497-98 (8th Cir.2002). Further, we believe the IJ’s decision to discredit testimony to the contrary was well supported. *See Perinpanathan v. INS,*310 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir.2002). Although respondent was not required to show improved country conditions because Gonzalez Ramos did not establish past persecution on account of a protected characteristic, *see Kratchmarov v. Heston,*172 F.3d 551, 553 (8th Cir.1999), it nevertheless did so by introducing evidence that, since Gonzalez Ramos arrived in the United States, Guatemala’s civil war has ended, the guerrillas have renounced violence, and indigenous populations who fled during the civil war have been returning to the country, *see Menjivar v. INS,*259 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir.2001).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Covance Inc. ("Covance") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William E. Klitgaard, Corporate Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Covance, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

Date:
October 27, 2005

/s/ WILLIAM E. KLITGAARDWilliam E. Klitgaard
Corporate Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


---



QuickLinks
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Nos. 1D18-1437

 1D18-1439

 1D18-1440

_____________________________

QUARTEZ DESHAWN HARDY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

W. Joel Boles, Judge.

October 17, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, WINOKUR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Kasey Helms Lacey,

Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate,

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ IMPLICIT, LLC, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

NETSCOUT SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant

- Cross

- Appellant

SANDVINE CORPORATION, Defendant

______________________

2020

- 1976, 2020

- 2045

______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:18

- cv

- 00053

- JRG, Chief Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.

______________________
JUDGMENT

______________________

J ASON L EE R OMRELL , Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff

- appellant. Also represented by R OBERT S HAFFER ; J. D EREK M C C ORQUINDALE , Reston, VA.

E RIC A LLAN B URESH , Erise IP, P.A., Overland Park, KS, argued for defendant

- cross

- appellant. Case: 20-1976 Document: 61 Page: 1 Filed: 05/06/2022______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (M OORE , Chief Judge

, D YK and P ROST , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

May 6, 2022 Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court Case: 20-1976 Document: 61 Page: 2 Filed: 05/06/2022
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1458 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1458

 To limit the exceptions to certain ``Buy American'' requirements, and 
                      to expand such requirements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2001

   Mr. Hayes (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. DeMint, and Mr. McIntyre) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To limit the exceptions to certain ``Buy American'' requirements, and 
                      to expand such requirements.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON EXCEPTIONS TO BUY AMERICAN REQUIREMENTS; 
              EXPANSION OF REQUIREMENTS.

    Section 9005 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1993 
(10 U.S.C. 2241 note) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``shall determine'' and all that follows 
        through ``emergency procurements or'' and inserting ``submits a 
        certification to the Committees on Armed Services and 
        Subcommittees on Defense of the Committees on Appropriations of 
        the House of Representatives and the Senate that (1) 
        satisfactory quality and sufficient quantity of a covered 
        article or item cannot be procured as and when needed from 
        suppliers which grow, reprocess, reuse, or produce such 
        articles or items in the United States or its possessions, (2) 
        an emergency exists and the procurement is vital to national 
        security, and the article or item to be procured is grown, 
        reprocessed, reused, or produced in a country that adheres to 
        fair labor practices (i.e., no labor practices involving 
        forced, slave, or child labor, or any other adverse labor 
        practice) as determined by the Department of State and 
        except''; and
            (2) by inserting after ``Provided,'' the following: ``That 
        in determining whether a purchase is for an amount greater than 
        the simplified acquisition threshold for purposes of this 
        section, multiple purchases of a similar item in any fiscal 
        year shall be deemed to be a single purchase: Provided further, 
        That no procurement may be made by the Defense Commissary 
        Agency of any article or item described in this section for 
        purchases for amounts greater than the simplified acquisition 
        threshold covered by section 2304(g) of title 10, United States 
        Code, except under the conditions described in this section: 
        Provided further,''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1628

TODD M. JACK, MS, PhD, Trustee, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. PRESIDENT CUTLER DAWSON, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (5:09-cv-00032-gec)

Submitted: January 20, 2010 Decided: February 3, 2010

Before MICHAEL and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Todd M. Jack, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Todd M. Jack appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Jack v. Dawson , No. 5:09-cv-00032-gec (W.D. Va. May 20, 2009). 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
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1599

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income

amounts received on the sale of animals which are raised and sold

as part of an educational program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 26, 2001

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude

from gross income amounts received on the sale of animals which are raised and sold as part of an educational

program.

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 ‘‘Agriculture Education

5 Freedom Act’’.
2

•HR 1599 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME FOR AMOUNTS

2 RECEIVED ON SALE OF ANIMALS WHICH ARE

3 RAISED AND SOLD AS PART OF EDU4 CATIONAL PROGRAM.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part III of subchapter B of chap6 ter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to

7 items specifically excluded from gross income) is amended

8 by redesignating section 139 as section 140 and by insert9 ing after section 138 the following new section:

10 ‘‘SEC. 139. PROCEEDS OF SALE OF ANIMALS RAISED AND

11 SOLD AS PART OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM.

12 ‘‘In the case of an individual, gross income shall not

13 include any gain from the sale of any animal which is

14 raised and sold by such individual as part of such individ15 ual’s participation in—

16 ‘‘(1) the 4–H program under the Cooperative

17 State Research, Education, and Extension Service of

18 the Department of Agriculture,

19 ‘‘(2) the Future Farmers of America,

20 ‘‘(3) any program of an organization described

21 in section 501(c) and exempt from tax under section

22 501(a) which is similar to such 4–H program or the

23 Future Farmers of America, or

24 ‘‘(4) any program of an educational organiza25 tion described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii).’’.
3

•HR 1599 IH

1 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

2 for such part III is amended by striking the last item and

3 inserting the following new items:

‘‘Sec. 139. Proceeds of sale of animals raised and sold as part of

educational program.

‘‘Sec. 140. Cross references to other Acts.’’

4 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

5 this section shall apply to sales in taxable years ending

6 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
ASSIGNMENT
                              
                             OF
                              
                     PURCHASE AGREEMENT
                              

      THIS ASSIGNMENT made and entered into this 2nd day  of
November, 1998, by and between AEI FUND MANAGEMENT, INC.,  a
Minnesota corporation, ("Assignor") and AEI INCOME &  GROWTH
FUND  XXII  LIMITED PARTNERSHIP for the property located  at
1097  Industrial Parkway, Saraland Alabama, AND AEI  PRIVATE
NET  LEASE  FUND 1998 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP for  the  property
located  at 1180 Business Highway #190, Covington, Louisiana
("Assignees");

     WITNESSETH, that:

      WHEREAS,  on  the 8th day of October,  1998,  Assignor
entered  into  a Purchase Agreement ("Agreement")  for  that
certain   property  located  at  1097  Industrial   Parkway,
Saraland, Alabama and 1180 Business Highway #190, Covington,
Louisiana (the "Properties") with Centurion Video  LTD.,  as
Seller/Lessee; and

      WHEREAS, Assignor desires to assign all of its rights,
title  and  interest  in,  to and  under  the  Agreement  to
Assignees as hereinafter provided;

      NOW, THEREFORE, for One Dollar ($1.00) and other  good
and  valuable  consideration, receipt  of  which  is  hereby
acknowledged,  it is hereby agreed between  the  parties  as
follows:

     1.   Assignor  assigns  all of its  rights,  title  and
     interest in, to and under the Agreement with respect to
     the  Saraland, AL property to AEI Income & Growth  Fund
     XXII  Limited Partnership, to have and to hold the same
     unto the Assignee, its successors and assigns;
     
     2.   Assignor  assigns  all of its  rights,  title  and
     interest in, to and under the Agreement with respect to
     the  Covington,  LA property to AEI Private  Net  Lease
     Fund 1998 Limited Partnership, to have and to hold  the
     same unto the Assignee, its successors and assigns;
     
     3.   Assignees  hereby  assume  all  rights,  promises,
     covenants,   conditions  and  obligations   under   the
     Agreement  to be performed by the Assignor  thereunder,
     and  agrees  to be bound for all of the obligations  of
     Assignor  under  the Agreement as it  pertains  to  the
     property identified as to be acquired by each Assignee.

All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain
unchanged and continue in full force and effect.


AEI FUND MANAGEMENT, INC.
("Assignor")

By: /s/ Robert P Johnson
        Robert P. Johnson, its President



                             


AEI INCOME & GROWTH FUND XXII LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
("Assignee" for Saraland, AL property)
BY: AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.


By: /s/ Robert P Johnson
        Robert P. Johnson, its President




AEI PRIVATE NET LEASE FUND 1998 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
("Assignee" for Covington, LA property)
BY:  AEI Fund Management XVIII, Inc.



By: /s/ Robert P Johnson
        Robert P. Johnson, its President
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Initial Review Group Reproduction, Andrology, and Gynecology Subcommittee.                    

*Date:*                         October 15, 2008.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 4 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         The Legacy Hotel, 1775 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dennis Leszczynski, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-2717,                         *leszczyd@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 10, 2008.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E8-21789 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P