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

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 136 (Friday, July 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 34752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16978]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13381-000]

Jonathan & Jane Chase; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application 
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and 
Competing Applications

July 10, 2009.
    On March 3, 2009, Jonathan & Jane Chase filed an application 
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study 
the feasibility of the Troy Hydroelectric Project No. 13381-000, to be 
located in the town of Troy on the Missisquoi River in Orleans County, 
Vermont.
    The proposed Troy Hydroelectric Project would consist of: (1) An 
existing 10-foot-high, 180-foot-long concrete dam with a 134-foot-long 
spillway; (2) an existing 12-acre impoundment with a normal water 
surface elevation of 728.2 feet mean sea level; (3) an existing 
powerhouse containing one generating unit having an installed capacity 
of 1.0-megawatt; (4) an existing 600-kilovolt, 500-foot-long 
transmission line; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The project would 
have an estimated annual generation of 3,200 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Jonathan & Jane Chase, 361 Goodall Road, Derby 
Lane, VT 05830; (802) 895-4581.
    FERC Contact: Patrick Murphy, (202) 502-8755.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp.
    More information about this project can be viewed or printed on the 
``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-13381-000) in the 
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-
free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16978 Filed 7-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 523 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 523

 To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
to identify a route that passes through the State of Texas, New Mexico, 
   Oklahoma, and Kansas, as a high priority corridor on the National 
                            Highway System.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 2003

Mr. Udall of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. Moran of Kansas, Mr. Lucas of 
  Oklahoma, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Pearce, and Mr. Reyes) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
                           and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
to identify a route that passes through the State of Texas, New Mexico, 
   Oklahoma, and Kansas, as a high priority corridor on the National 
                            Highway System.

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

SECTION 1. SOUTHWEST PASSAGE INITIATIVE FOR REGIONAL AND INTERSTATE 
              TRANSPORTATION.

    Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
            ``(45) The corridor extending from the point on the border 
        between the United States and Mexico in the State of Texas at 
        which United States Route 54 begins, along United States Route 
        54 through the States of Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and 
        Kansas, and ending in Wichita, Kansas, to be known as the 
        `Southwest Passage-Initiative for Regional and-Interstate 
        Transportation-Corridor' or `SPIRIT Corridor'.''.
                                 <all>
```
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 4-10 Filed 06/03/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 130
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 4-10 Filed 06/03/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 131
293460 v1 

LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 

Allyn Z. Lite 

Michael E. Patunas 

Mayra V. Tarantino 

Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor 

Newark, New Jersey 07102 

Telephone: (973) 623-3000 

Facsimile: (973) 877-3872 

alite@litedepalma.com 

mpatunas@litedepalma.com 

mtarantino@litedepalma.com 

Attorneys for Defendants Hanmi USA, Inc., 

Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., 

Hanmi Fine Chemical Co., Ltd., and Hanmi 

Holdings Co., Ltd. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ASTRAZENECA AB, AKTIEBOLAGET 

HÄSSLE, ASTRAZENECA LP, KBI INC., 

and KBI-E INC., 

 Plaintiffs and 

 Counterclaim Defendants, 

 v. 

HANMI USA, INC., HANMI 

PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., HANMI 

FINE CHEMICAL CO., LTD, and HANMI 

HOLDINGS CO., LTD., 

 Defendants and 

 Counterclaim Plaintiffs. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No. 11-00760 (JAP)(TJB) 

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 5:

NON-INFRINGEMENT OF 

UNASSERTED CLAIMS OF U.S. 

PATENT NO. 5,714,504

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Monday, November 7, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon 

thereafter as counsel may be heard, the undersigned attorneys for Defendants Hanmi USA, Inc., 

Hanmi Fine Chemical Co., Ltd., and Hanmi Holdings Co., Ltd. (collectively “Hanmi”) will move 

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 104 Filed 10/11/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 957
2 293460 v1 

before the Honorable Joel A. Pisano, U.S.D.J., at the United States District Court, Clarkson S. 

Fisher Federal Bldg. & U.S. Courthouse, 402 E. State Street,, Trenton, New Jersey, for an order 

granting summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that 

unasserted claims 8 and 9, and contingently asserted claims 3, 5 and 10, of U.S. Patent No. 

5,714,504 are not infringed. 

 PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that in support of this motion, Defendants will 

rely upon the Memorandum of Law, Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts 

and Declaration of Renita S. Rathinam submitted herewith. 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(e), a 

proposed form of order is also submitted. 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1(b) oral 

argument is requested in the event opposition to this motion is submitted. 

Dated: October 11, 2011 LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 

/s/ Mayra V. Tarantino

Allyn Z. Lite 

Michael E. Patunas 

Mayra V. Tarantino 

Two Gateway Center, Suite 1201 

Newark, New Jersey 07102 

(973) 623-3000 

alite@litedepalma.com

mpatunas@litedepalma.com

mtarantino@litedepalma.com

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 104 Filed 10/11/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 958
3 293460 v1 

Mark Boland 

Michael R. Dzwonczyk 

Renita S. Rathinam 

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC 

2100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 

Washington, DC 20037 

(202) 293-7060 

mboland@sughrue.com

mdzwonczyk@sughrue.com

rrathinam@sughrue.com

John B. Scherling 

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC 

 4250 Executive Square, Suite 900 

 La Jolla, California 92037 

 (858) 795.1180 

jscherling@sughrue.com

Attorneys for Defendants and

Counterclaim Plaintiffs

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 104 Filed 10/11/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 959
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Criminal No.: 11-381 (JLL) 01
Plaintiffs,
Vv.
MANUEL A. SOARES, ORDER
Defendants.

Please be advised that oral argument has been scheduled for Thursday, December 8,
2011 at 12:00 p.m. in Courtroom SD of the Martin Luther King Jr., Federal Building, 50 Walnut
Street, Newark, New Jersey. All parties are hereby required to appear.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Jose L. Linares,
United States District Judge

Dated: November 14, 2011
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 

 v. 

KELVIN L. JONES 

 a/k/a “Mike Smith” 

: 

: 

: ORDER 

: 

: Crim. No. 10-366 (WHW) 

: 

: 

: 

Walls, Senior District Judge 

This matter having come before the Court on December 7, 2011 on an Order to Show 

Cause why the Court should not impose sanctions on Michael A. Orozco, Esq., counsel for 

Kelvin L. Jones, for his conduct before this Court on November 9, 2011, and Michael A. 

Oroszco, Esq. and Michael Baldassare, Esq. appearing, 

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT on December 7, 2011 that Michael A. Orozco’s 

conduct on November 9, 2011 was egregious and sanctionable under the inherent authority of the 

Court to impose sanctions; and 

ORDERED that Michael A. Orozco, Esq. shall pay a monetary sanction in the amount of 

$200 to the Clerk of the Court forthwith. 

/s/ William H. Walls 

United States Senior District Judge

Case 2:10-cr-00366-WHW Document 167 Filed 12/14/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1096
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CHAMBERS OF

ESTHER SALAS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

MARTIN LUTHER KING

COURTHOUSE

50 WALNUT ST.

ROOM 2060

NEWARK, NJ 07101

973-297-4887

April 1, 2011

LETTER ORDER

Re: American General Life Insurance Co. v. Stanley Mann, et al.

Civil Action No. 11-cv-1057 (PGS) 

Dear Counsel:

The undersigned is in receipt of Plaintiff American General Life Insurance Company’s

(“Plaintiff”) Motion to Seal Exhibits A, C through F and I filed in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to

Compel (Docket No. 2 the “Motions”). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted in

part and denied in part.

The Third Circuit recognizes “a common law public right of access to judicial proceedings

and records.” In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001). There is a “presumptive right

of public access to pretrial motions of a non-discovery nature, whether preliminary or dispositive,

and the material filed in connection therewith.” Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Techs., Inc., 998

F.2d 156, 164 (3d Cir. 1993). The right of public access is “not absolute,” but must be weighed

against the parties’ interests in secrecy. Id. at 165.

Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) requires the party moving to seal an otherwise publicly-available

document to show:

(a) the nature of the materials or proceedings at issue; 

(b) the legitimate private or public interests which warrant the relief sought;

(c) the clearly defined and serious injury that would result if the relief sought is not granted;

and

(d) why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not available. 

The Court is satisfied that the parties have established that there is a legitimate interest which

warrants the sealing of Exhibit A, Exhibits C through E and Exhibit I; that there is a clearly defined

and serious injury that would result if Exhibit A, Exhibits C through E and Exhibit I are not sealed;

and that the proposed sealing and/or redaction of Exhibit A, Exhibits C through E and Exhibit I is

Case 2:11-cv-01057-PGS-ES Document 25 Filed 04/01/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 876
the least restrictive means available. Therefore, the Exhibit A, Exhibits C through E and Exhibit I

shall be sealed. 

The Court, however, denies the Motion as to Exhibit F as Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate

that there is no less restrictive alternative to sealing the Exhibit in its entirety. The Court’s review

demonstrates that this document can be redacted to preserve the confidential information as opposed

to sealing the document as a whole. Plaintiff may refile a Motion to Seal as to Exhibit F. 

The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the Motion to Seal, Docket No. 2.

SO ORDERED.

s/Esther Salas 

Esther Salas, U.S.M.J

Case 2:11-cv-01057-PGS-ES Document 25 Filed 04/01/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 877
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 515

To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to permit the use of unexpended allotments under the State children’s health care program 

through fiscal year 2006. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 31, 2003

Mr. GREEN of Texas (for himself, Mr. REYES, Mr. HINOJOSA, Mr. GONZALEZ, 

Mr. SANDLIN, Mr. HALL, Mrs. CAPITO, Ms. NORTON, Mr. FROST, Mr. 

FARR, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. RODRIGUEZ, Mr. DEUTSCH, Mr. STENHOLM, Mr. LAMPSON, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. LATOURETTE, Mr. BARTON of 

Texas, Mr. PAUL, Mr. KLECZKA, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. PRICE of North 

Carolina, Mr. EMANUEL, Mr. FORD, and Mr. BOUCHER) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL

To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to permit 

the use of unexpended allotments under the State children’s health care program through fiscal year 2006.

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 ‘‘SCHIP Allotment Ex5 tension Availability Act of 2003’’.
2

•HR 515 IH 

1 SEC. 2. EXTENDING AVAILABILITY THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 

2 2006 OF SCHIP ALLOTMENTS FOR FISCAL 

3 YEARS 1998 THROUGH 2002. 

4 (a) RETAINED AND REDISTRIBUTED ALLOTMENTS

5 FOR FISCAL YEARS 1998 AND 1999.—Paragraphs 

6 (1)(B)(ii), (2)(A)(i), and (2)(A)(ii) of section 2104(g) of 

7 the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397dd(g)) are each 

8 amended by striking ‘‘fiscal year 2002’’ and inserting ‘‘fis9 cal year 2006’’. 

10 (b) ORIGINAL ALLOTMENTS FOR FISCAL YEARS

11 2000, 2001, AND 2002.—Section 2104(e) of such Act (42 

12 U.S.C. 1397dd(e)) is amended by inserting ‘‘(or, in the 

13 case of fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002, through the 

14 end of fiscal year 2006)’’ after ‘‘through the end of the 

15 second succeeding fiscal year’’. 

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

17 this section shall be effective as if this section had been 

18 enacted on September 30, 2002, and amounts under title 

19 XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397 et seq.) 

20 from allotments for fiscal years 1998 through 2000 are 

21 available for expenditure on and after October 1, 2002, 

22 under the amendments made by this section as if this sec23 tion had been enacted on September 30, 2002.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5204 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5204

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend section 340E of the Public Health Service Act (relating to 
children's hospitals) to modify provisions regarding the determination 
    of the amount of payments for indirect expenses associated with 
    operating approved graduate medical residency training programs.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5204

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend section 340E of the Public Health Service Act (relating to 
children's hospitals) to modify provisions regarding the determination 
    of the amount of payments for indirect expenses associated with 
    operating approved graduate medical residency training programs.

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

SECTION 1. DISREGARD OF NEWBORN BASSINETS IN CALCULATING CASE MIX FOR 
              RECEIPT BY CHILDREN'S HOSPITALS OF FUNDING FOR GRADUATE 
              MEDICAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

    (a) In General.--Section 340E(d) of the Public Health Service Act 
(42 U.S.C. 256e(d)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``related to'' and 
        inserting ``associated with''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2)(A)--
                    (A) by inserting ``ratio of the'' after ``hospitals 
                and the''; and
                    (B) by inserting at the end before the semicolon 
                ``to beds (but excluding beds or bassinets assigned to 
                healthy newborn infants)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to payments for periods beginning with fiscal year 2005.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 6, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-1254

_____________________________

JOSE A. GONZALEZ,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Hentz McClellan, Judge.

August 24, 2018

PER CURIAM.

Jose A. Gonzalez was 16 years, 10 months old when he 

committed first degree murder by stabbing a stranger twelve 

times. Following a jury trial, he was sentenced to life pursuant to 

the sentencing scheme later invalidated in the wake of Miller v. 

Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). Gonzalez’ sentence was thus 

vacated, and the cause remanded for resentencing. Gonzalez v. 

State, 177 So. 3d 1266 (Fla. 2015). Following an evidentiary

hearing, he again was sentenced to life with the opportunity for 

early release with a review hearing to be held in accordance with 

sections 775.082(1)(b)1. and 921.1402(2)(a), Florida Statutes 

(2016). Gonzalez now challenges that sentence. 
2

We reject Gonzalez’ argument that a jury, rather than a 

circuit judge, must pass on the factors set forth in section 

921.1401(2). See Copeland v. State, 240 So. 3d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 

2018); Beckman v. State, 230 So. 3d 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). As 

for the decision of the trial court to impose a life sentence, we find 

no error in the conclusion that the case at bar presents the 

“uncommon circumstance” where life imprisonment constitutes 

an appropriate sentence for a homicide offense committed by a 

juvenile. Copeland, 240 So. 3d at 59. Prior to resentencing, the 

trial court received evidence and substantial argument regarding 

the sentencing considerations set forth in section 921.1401(2)(a)-

(j). The trial court issued a detailed sentencing order analyzing 

the statutory factors. No error has been shown. 

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Glen P. Gifford, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kaitlin Weiss, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Case 2:11-cr-00194-DMC Document 14 Filed 01/18/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 52
Case 2:11-cr-00194-DMC Document 14 Filed 01/18/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 53
#### Pelagia MIKULEWICZ, as administratrix ad prosequendum of the Estate of Chester Mikulewiez, deceased, Plaintiff, v. The STANDARD ELECTRICAL TOOL CO., Defendant.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Jan. 3, 1957.

*230Morris J. Kaplan and Morton Stavis, New York City, for plaintiff.

Evans, Orr, Gourlay & Pacelli, New York City, for defendant.

PALMIERI, District Judge.

Defendant in this wrongful death action has appeared specially and obtained an order for the plaintiff to show cause why there is jurisdiction over its person. In order to argue this point, plaintiff has moved for leave to amend the stay of proceedings in the above order so that it may examine the person served. Plaintiff’s motion is granted.

The cause of action arose out of an injury sustained by deceased in New Jersey from one of defendant’s machines. Service of process was made upon William J. Holtmeier, President of William J. Holtmeier, Inc., which is the defendant’s sales representative in New York. Mr. Holtmeier’s affidavit indicates that his Company similarly represents other firms for the metropolitan New York and northern New Jersey area. The defendant compensates it by commissions based on receipts from the representative’s sales of defendant’s products.

The affidavit of the President of defendant company indicates that it is an Ohio corporation engaged in the manufacture of machine tools. It has no office and no bank account in New York, none of its officers resides here and it is not licensed to do business in this state. The only connection of William J. Holtmeier with defendant is as its sales representative.

 Plaintiff seeks to examine Mr. Holtmeier to learn if defendant has its name on the door of, or has a telephone listing at, his office. Plaintiff seeks also to ascertain the regularity and volume of business the New York representative does for the defendant. This he can do, for depositions are an appropriate means of ascertaining facts relevant to the issue of jurisdiction. Urquhart v. American-LaFrance Foamite Corp., 79 U.S.App.D.C. 219, 144 F.2d 542, certiorari denied, 1944, 323 U.S. 783, 65 S.Ct. 273, 89 L.Ed. 625; Petroleum Financial Corp. v. Stone, D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1953, 111 F.Supp. 351; Blair Holdings Corp. v. Rubinstein, D.C.1954, 122 F.Supp. 602; Anderson v. BOAC, 149 F.Supp. 68.

The stay proceedings of the pending order to show cause are amended to give the plaintiff leave to examine William J. Holtmeier on matters relevant to the issue of jurisdiction over the defendant. Settle order on notice.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-1675EM

_____________

Patricia M. Rhoads, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

The Jones Financial Companies; *

Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

_____________

 Submitted: November 17, 1997

Filed: November 26, 1997

_____________

Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Patricia M. Rhoads brought this action against The Jones Financial Companies

(JFC) and Edward D. Jones & Co. (EDJ) alleging violations of Title VII, the Age

Discrimination in Employment Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Missouri

Human Rights Act. On summary judgment, the magistrate judge rejected Rhoads's

claims. After careful review of the record, we agree with the magistrate judge that

Rhoads was a general partner rather than an employee of JFC and EDJ, and she could

not invoke the protections of statutes which afford relief to employees. Having failed

to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), Rhoads's argument that the
-2-

district court prematurely granted summary judgment before she had an opportunity to

conduct discovery is foreclosed by the holdings of this court. See Allen v.

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 81 F.3d 793, 797-98 (8th Cir. 1996). We thus affirm the

magistrate judge's ruling. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.