alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §2000d–2. Judicial review; administrative procedure provisions

Any department or agency action taken pursuant to section 2000d–1 of this title shall be subject to such judicial review as may otherwise be provided by law for similar action taken by such department or agency on other grounds. In the case of action, not otherwise subject to judicial review, terminating or refusing to grant or to continue financial assistance upon a finding of failure to comply with any requirement imposed pursuant to section 2000d–1 of this title, any person aggrieved (including any State or political subdivision thereof and any agency of either) may obtain judicial review of such action in accordance with chapter 7 of title 5, and such action shall not be deemed committed to unreviewable agency discretion within the meaning of that chapter.

(Pub. L. 88–352, title VI, §603, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 253.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

"Chapter 7 of title 5" and "that chapter" substituted in text for "section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act" and "that section", respectively, on authority of Pub. L. 89–554, §7(b), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 631, the first section of which enacted Title 5, Government Organization and Employees. Prior to the enactment of Title 5, section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act was classified to section 1009 of Title 5.
§ 31.23 Limited right to rescind first leverage contract. ( a ) A leverage customer who is entering a leverage contract or contracts for the first time with a particular leverage transaction merchant may rescind such contract or contracts during a period of not less than three business days from and including the day on which the leverage customer receives the Confirmation Statement pursuant to the following provisions: ( 1 ) Such customer may be assessed actual price losses accruing to the customer's position from the time at which the customer entered into a leverage contract to the time that the leverage contract was rescinded. Such losses do not extend to any other charges or fees, such as account initiation, carrying, margin or account termination;
( 2 ) In the case of a leverage customer whose initial leverage transaction was a purchase of a leverage contract from a leverage transaction merchant (long leverage contract), actual losses accruing to the position may be calculated only by subtracting the ask price of the leverage contract offered by the leverage transaction merchant at the time when the leverage contract was rescinded from the ask price at which the leverage contract was purchased by the leverage customer and which appears on the Confirmation Statement. In the case of a leverage customer whose initial leverage transaction was a sale of a leverage contract to a leverage transaction merchant (short leverage contract), actual losses are calculated by subtracting the bid price at which the leverage contract was sold by the leverage customer and which appears on the Confirmation Statement from the bid price of the leverage contract offered by the leverage transaction merchant at the time when the leverage contract was rescinded.
( 3 ) Such customer may rescind the contract by telegram sent to the leverage transaction merchant at the address provided on the confirmation statement, or by telephone to a telephone number provided by the leverage transaction merchant on the Confirmation Statement with immediate written affirmation of rescission by telegram, certified letter or at least equivalent means.
( b ) A leverage transaction merchant must make complete refund of all monies received except for actual price losses as calculated in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, to the leverage customer who has rescinded a contract pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section within 24 hours of notification of rescission.
(Secs. 8a(5) and 19 of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 12a(5) and 23 (1982))
[49 FR 5540, Feb. 13, 1984, as amended at 50 FR 34, Jan. 2, 1985]
#### Nichola Manente, Respondent, v. Sorecon Corporation, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant Sorecon Corporation appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 14, 1960, and entered in Richmond County, denying its motion to strike the action from the calendar or, in the alternative, to stay the trial until plaintiff complies with an order of said .court, dated January 20, 1959, directing the service of a further bill of particulars. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
Part 5310 - Market Research       DAFFARS PART 5310 Knowledge Center          **2019 Edition**                                       5310.002 Procedures    5310.002 Procedures       See the tailorable templates for documenting market research conducted.
§ 1008.215 What must I include in my drug-free awareness program? You must establish an ongoing drug-free awareness program to inform employees about— ( a ) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
( b ) Your policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;
( c ) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and
( d ) The penalties that you may impose upon them for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace.
<XBRL>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!--XBRL Document Created with the Workiva Platform-->
<!--Copyright 2023 Workiva-->
<!--r:bb6c7fa9-7ea4-42a6-b9db-deed17a2c861,g:21573343-5548-412e-8a0b-95d6f263cfe4-->
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:link="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" xmlns:clx="http://www.clorox.com/20230802" attributeFormDefault="unqualified" elementFormDefault="qualified" targetNamespace="http://www.clorox.com/20230802">
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xlink-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-instance-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-linkbase-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2023" schemaLocation="https://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2023/dei-2023.xsd"/>
  <xs:annotation>
    <xs:appinfo>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="clx-20230802_lab.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/labelLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="clx-20230802_pre.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:roleType id="Cover" roleURI="http://www.clorox.com/role/Cover">
        <link:definition>0000001 - Document - Cover</link:definition>
        <link:usedOn>link:presentationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:calculationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:definitionLink</link:usedOn>
      </link:roleType>
    </xs:appinfo>
  </xs:annotation>
</xs:schema>
</XBRL>
#### § 239.17a Form N-3, registration statement for separate accounts organized as management investment companies.

Form N-3 shall be used for registration under the Securities Act of 1933 of securities of separate accounts that offer variable annuity contracts and which register under the Investment Company Act of 1940 as management investment companies, and certain other separate accounts. This form is also to be used for the registration statement of such separate accounts pursuant to section 8(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (§ 274.11b of this chapter).

[50 FR 26160, June 25, 1985]

###### Editorial Note

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations affecting Form N-3, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*
Pooled Trust for Retirement Plans dated January 24, 2006



 Exhibit 10.4.1 
  
 AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE 
 TO THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 
 POOLED TRUST FOR RETIREMENT PLANS 
  
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XV of the American Bar Association Pooled Trust for
Retirement Plans Trust Agreement (the “Agreement”), the Agreement may be amended by written agreement between the American Bar Retirement Association, now called “ABA Retirement Funds” (“ARF”) and State Street Bank and
Trust Company (“Trustee”). 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
that, pursuant to the power of amendment contained in Article XV of the Agreement, the Agreement hereby is amended, effective as of the date hereof, as follows: 
  

	1.	The name “ABA Retirement Funds” is substituted for the name “American Bar Retirement Association” in each place where the latter appears, and the term
“ARF” is substituted for the term “ABRA” in each place where the latter name appears. 

  

	2.	Article XVII hereby is amended by the addition of the following new Section 17.19 at the end thereof: 

  

	 	17.19	Affiliated Investment Advice Providers. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary elsewhere herein or in the ABA Members Plans or the Administrative and Investment
Services Agreement, ARF may authorize and direct the engagement of an Affiliate of the Trustee to provide investment advice to Participants regarding the allocation of the assets held on their behalf under the Trust among the Funds, and in such
event shall direct the Trustee to enter into an Investment Advisory Services Agreement approved by ARF with such Affiliate. Any such affiliated investment advice provider shall acknowledge in writing that it is a fiduciary within the meaning of
Section 3(21)(A) of ERISA with respect to the ABA Members Plans and the Trust. 

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ARF and the Trustee hereby cause this instrument to be executed by duly authorized officers this 24th day of January, 2006.

  

							
	ABA RETIREMENT FUNDS	 	STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY
				
	By:	 	 /s/ Donald Schiller

	 	By:	 	 /s/ Beth M. Halberstadt


	Its:	 	President	 	Its:	 	Vice President
#### Harry L. Vogt, Appellant, v. Harry M. Champlin, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except De Angelis, J., who dissented.
### §§2472, 2473. Repealed. Pub. L. 111–314, §6, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3444

Section 2472, Pub. L. 85–568, title II, §202, July 29, 1958, 72 Stat. 429; Pub. L. 88–426, title III, §305(12), Aug. 14, 1964, 78 Stat. 423, related to National Aeronautics and Space Administration. See section 20111 of Title 51, National and Commercial Space Programs.

Section 2473, Pub. L. 85–568, title II, §203, July 29, 1958, 72 Stat. 429; Pub. L. 86–20, May 13, 1959, 73 Stat. 21; Pub. L. 86–481, §5, June 1, 1960, 74 Stat. 153; Pub. L. 87–367, title II, §206(a), Oct. 4, 1961, 75 Stat. 791; Pub. L. 87–584, §6, Aug. 14, 1962, 76 Stat. 384; Pub. L. 87–793, title VI, §1001(f), Oct. 11, 1962, 76 Stat. 864; Pub. L. 88–426, title III, §306(d), Aug. 14, 1964, 78 Stat. 429; Pub. L. 88–448, title IV, §402(a)(34), Aug. 10, 1964, 78 Stat. 495; Pub. L. 91–646, title II, §220(a)(2), Jan. 2, 1971, 84 Stat. 1903; Pub. L. 93–74, §6, July 23, 1973, 87 Stat. 174; Pub. L. 93–316, §6, June 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 243; Pub. L. 93–409, §4, Sept. 3, 1974, 88 Stat. 1070; Pub. L. 94–413, §15(c), Sept. 17, 1976, 90 Stat. 1270; Pub. L. 95–401, §6, Sept. 30, 1978, 92 Stat. 860; Pub. L. 96–48, §6(a), Aug. 8, 1979, 93 Stat. 348; Pub. L. 101–611, title I, §107, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3197; Pub. L. 108–201, §2(a), Feb. 24, 2004, 118 Stat. 461, related to functions of Administration. See sections 20112 and 20113 of Title 51.
###### Editorial Note on Part 240

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### § 240.6h-2 Security future based on note, bond, debenture, or evidence of indebtedness.

A security future may be based upon a security that is a note, bond, debenture, or evidence of indebtedness or a narrow-based security index composed of such securities.

[71 FR 39543, July 13, 2006]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Huertas, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 205]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Peter J. Benitez, J.), rendered August 4, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of marijuana in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment of one year, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the indictment dismissed.

Even though defendant conceded that the garage wherein he was arrested was a marijuana-growing operation and that the high intensity lights and other accouterments found in the garage were used for the purpose of growing marijuana, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that there was legally insufficient evidence to establish that defendant exercised dominion and control over the contraband found in the garage such that it could be concluded that he possessed it *(see*Penal Law § 10.00 [8]). Given that defendant was standing inside the garage entryway when the police entered the garage, the People failed to connect defendant to the marijuana operation, which was located in the two rooms of the garage. “[D]efendant’s mere knowledge of the presence of mari[j]uana, without proof that he had the ‘ability and intent to exercise dominion or control over the contraband’ *(People v Wesley,*73 NY2d 351, 361-362 [1989]), is insufficient to establish constructive possession” *(People v Burns,*17 AD3d 709, 711 [2005]).

Having declined the trial court’s invitation to request a presumption charge pursuant to Penal Law § 220.25 (2), the People may not rely upon it now for the first time on appeal *(People v Dodt,*61 NY2d 408, 416 [1984]).

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach defendant’s other points. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
#### James McClenahan, as Substituted Trustee, etc., Appellant, v. Eugenie Viola Hill Ferris, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present—Clarke, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Dowling and Page, JJ.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED[ ORDER AND

STIPULATION EXCLUDING TIME 

CR 3-07-70270 EDL

SCOTT N. SCHOOLS (SCBN 9990)

United States Attorney

MARK L. KROTOSKI (CABN 138549)

Chief, Criminal Division

WENDY THOMAS (NYBN 4315420)

Special Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-6809

Facsimile: (415) 436-7234

E-Mail: wendy.thomas@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

GHIA ROLDAN ANGELES,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Criminal No. CR 3-07-70270 EDL

[PROPOSED] ORDER AND

STIPULATION EXCLUDING TIME

FROM MAY 17, 2007 TO MAY 25, 2007

The parties appeared before the Honorable Nandor J. Vadas on May 17, 2007.

With the agreement of counsel for both parties, the Court found and held as follows:

1. The parties agree to an exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §

3161(b), and under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1, from May 17, 2007 to May 25,

2007, in light of the need for the defendant’s counsel to review recently-produced discovery. 

Failure to grant the requested continuance would unreasonably deny defense counsel reasonable

time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence and the

Case 3:07-mj-70270-MRGD Document 8 Filed 05/21/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED[ ORDER AND

STIPULATION EXCLUDING TIME 

CR 3-07-70270 EDL 2

need for counsel to review the discovery with the defendant. 

2. Given these circumstances, the Court found that the ends of justice served by

excluding the period from May 17, 2007, to May 25, 2007 outweigh the best interest of the

public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Id. § 3161(h)(8)(A). 

3. Accordingly, and with the consent of the defendant, the Court ordered that the period

from May 17, 2007 to May 25, 2007 be excluded from Speedy Trial Act calculations under 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) & (B)(iv).

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED: 5/17/07 /s/ 

STEVE KOENINGER

Counsel for Ghia Roldan Angeles

DATED: 5/17/07 /s/ 

WENDY THOMAS

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:_______________ ________________________________

THE HON. NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

5/21/07

Case 3:07-mj-70270-MRGD Document 8 Filed 05/21/07 Page 2 of 2
§ 30.1 Definitions. For the purposes of this part: ( a ) *Foreign futures* means any contract for the purchase or sale of any commodity for future delivery made, or to be made, on or subject to the rules of any foreign board of trade.
( b ) *Foreign option* means any transaction or agreement which is or is held out to be of the character of, or is commonly known to the trade as, an “option”, “privilege”, “indemnity”, “bid”, “offer”, “put”, “call”, “advance guaranty” or “decline guaranty”, made or to be made on or subject to the rules of any foreign board of trade.
( c ) *Foreign futures or foreign options customer* means any person located in the United States, its territories or possessions who trades in foreign futures or foreign options: *Provided,* That an owner or holder of a proprietary account as defined in § 1.3 of this chapter shall not be deemed to be a foreign futures or foreign options customer within the meaning of §§ 30.6 and 30.7 of this part.
( d ) *Foreign futures and options customer omnibus account* is defined as an account in which the transactions of one or more foreign futures and foreign options customers are combined and carried in the name of the originating futures commission merchant rather than in the name of each individual foreign futures or foreign options customer.
( e ) *Foreign futures and options broker* (FFOB) is defined as a non-U.S. person that is a member of a foreign board of trade, as defined in § 1.3 of this chapter, licensed, authorized or otherwise subject to regulation in the jurisdiction in which the foreign board of trade is located; or a foreign affiliate of a U.S. futures commission merchant, licensed, authorized or otherwise subject to regulation in the jurisdiction in which the affiliate is located.
( f ) *30.7 customer* means any foreign futures or foreign options customer as defined in paragraph (c) of this section as well as any foreign-domiciled person who trades in foreign futures or foreign options through a futures commission merchant; *Provided, however,* that an owner or holder of a proprietary account as defined in § 1.3 of this chapter shall not be deemed to be a 30.7 customer.
( g ) *30.7 account* means any account maintained by a futures commission merchant for or on behalf of 30.7 customers to hold money, securities, or other property to margin, guarantee, or secure foreign futures or foreign option positions.
( h ) *30.7 customer funds* means any money, securities, or other property received by a futures commission merchant from, for, or on behalf of 30.7 customers to margin, guarantee, or secure foreign futures or foreign option positions, or money, securities, or other property accruing to 30.7 customers as a result of foreign futures and foreign option positions.
[52 FR 28998, Aug. 5, 1987, as amended at 65 FR 47280, Aug. 2, 2000; 78 FR 68648, Nov. 14, 2013; 83 FR 7996, Feb. 23, 2018]
### §2296b–2. Sale of remaining DOE inventories

The Secretary, after making the transfer required under section 2297c–6 1 of this title, may sell, from time to time, portions of the remaining inventories of raw or low-enriched uranium of the Department that are not necessary to national security needs, to the Corporation, at a fair market price. Sales under this section may be made only if such sales will not have a substantial adverse impact on the domestic uranium mining industry. Proceeds from sales under this subsection shall be deposited into the general fund of the United States Treasury.

(Pub. L. 102–486, title X, §1013, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2949.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 2297c–6 of this title, referred to in text, was repealed by Pub. L. 104–134, title III, §3116(a)(1), Apr. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 1321–349.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, and not as part of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 which comprises this chapter.

1 See References in Text note below.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST

LITIGATION

 /

This Order Relates to:

ALL CASES

 /

No. M 07-1827 SI

MDL. No. 1827

ORDER RE: TATUNG COMPANY OF

AMERICA’S SUPPLEMENTAL

SUBMISSION REGARDING

TRANSLATED DOCUMENTS

On April 13, 2010, Tatung Company of America (“TUS”) filed the Declaration of Patrick Ahern

to substantiate its assertion of attorney work-product protection for TUS’s translations of foreignlanguage documents not provided to the U.S. Department of Justice. (Docket No. 1683). Plaintiffs did

not file a response to defendant’s submission.

The Court has reviewed Mr. Ahern’s declaration and finds that TUS has shown that the

translations constitute opinion work product. The Court further finds that TUS has made an adequate

showing of good cause for why it did not file a declaration substantiating its claim of attorney work

product earlier. Accordingly, the translations at issue are protected and TUS need not produce those

documents to plaintiffs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 28, 2010 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-md-01827-SI Document 1780 Filed 05/28/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Case 3:07-md-01827-SI Document 1780 Filed 05/28/10 Page 2 of 2
Call on Tuesday

Kline, Kelley (GE Indust, ConsInd) 

to:

Monica Shimamura

10/13/2008 04:40 PM

Show Details

Follow Up: 

Normal Priority. 

History: This message has been replied to.

Monica,

Thanks again for your call on Friday. We have talked the further information we discussed here internally 

today, and would like to touch base with you briefly on it tomorrow. We are working on a response that we 

think will get you what you need, but wanted to run through it quickly with you first. Would you (and anyone 

else you may need to include) by chance have some time tomorrow around 2:30? If not, if you could perhaps 

suggest a good time for you all we can try to make it work on this end.

Thanks again,

Kelley

Kelley A. Kline

GE Consumer & Industrial

Counsel - Regulatory Compliance 

T 502 452-7603

F 502 452-0947

C 502 403-7840

D *334-7603

E Kelley.Kline@ge.com

www.ge.com

Appliance Park, AP2-225

Louisville, KY 40225, USA 

This electronic message (including any attached files) is intended solely for the use of the addressee. Since 

it may contain Confidential Attorney-Client Privileged Communications and Attorney Work Product, any 

Blank Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\jarling\Local Settings\Temp\notesB53680\~web6075.htm 4/2/2010
unauthorized reading, reproduction, dissemination or distribution is prohibited.

If you received this message in error, please notify the sender, contact us immediately by telephone collect at 

(502) 452-7582 and delete the message from your computer. Thank you for your cooperation.

Blank Page 2 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\jarling\Local Settings\Temp\notesB53680\~web6075.htm 4/2/2010