alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 GRANTING PLS’ 3/4/10 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL [DKT. NO. 440]

MASTER FILE NO.: C-08-01510-WHA

sf-2814270

DARRYL P. RAINS (CA SBN 104802) 

EUGENE ILLOVSKY (CA SBN 117892)

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

755 Page Mill Road

Palo Alto, California 94304-1018

Telephone: 650.813.5600

Facsimile: 650.494.0792

Email: DRains@mofo.com

CRAIG D. MARTIN (CA SBN 168195)

DOROTHY L. FERNANDEZ (CA SBN 184266)

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street

San Francisco, California 94105-2482

Telephone: 415.268.7000

Facsimile: 415.268.7522

Attorneys for defendants The Charles Schwab Corporation, 

Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Charles Schwab Investment 

Management, Inc., Schwab Investments, Charles R. Schwab, 

Evelyn Dilsaver, Randall W. Merk, George Pereira, Matthew 

Hastings, Mariann Byerwalter, Donald F. Dorward, William A. 

Hasler, Robert G. Holmes, Gerald B. Smith, Donald R. 

Stephens, and Michael W. Wilsey 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

IN RE CHARLES SCHWAB CORP. 

SECURITIES LITIGATION

Master File No. C-08-01510-WHA

CLASS ACTION

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN 

PART PLAINTIFFS’ MARCH 4, 2010, 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL [DKT. NO. 440]

Trial date: May 10, 2010

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 554 Filed 04/02/10 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 GRANTING PLS’ 3/4/10 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL [DKT. NO. 440]

MASTER FILE NO. C-01510-WHA 1

sf-2814270

On March 4, 2010, plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to seal certain materials which 

defendants had designated “Confidential.” (See Dkt. No. 440.) Plaintiffs moved to seal exhibits 

1, 4–10, 13–22, and 24–33 to the Declaration of Steve W. Berman in Opposition to Independent 

Trustees’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 439) as well as the portions of Plaintiffs’ 

Memorandum in Opposition to Independent Trustees’ Motion for Summary Judgment 

(“Opposition”), which quoted these exhibits (Dkt. No. 438). 

Defendants have filed a declaration in support of maintaining the confidentiality of 

Berman Declaration exhibits 1, 4, 6–7, 10, 13–15, 17–18, 22, 24–26 and 28–33 in full and the 

first three pages of exhibit 16 (SCH-TX 04068643–645), as well as the portions of the Opposition 

that quote these exhibits. To the extent exhibits 5, 8–9, 19–21, and 27 were designated 

confidential, defendants withdraw that designation. 

Plaintiffs are hereby ordered to file exhibits 5, 8–9, 19–21, and 27 in the public record. 

Berman Declaration exhibits 1, 4, 6–7, 10, 13–15, 17–18, 22, 24–26 and 28–33 in full and the 

first three pages of exhibit 16 (SCH-TX 04068643–645), as well as the redacted portions of the 

Opposition referring to these exhibits, shall remain under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _______________, 2010

HON. WILLIAM H. ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 554 Filed 04/02/10 Page 2 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JUBENAL AMEZOLA,

Defendant. /

No. CR 08-00919 WHA

REQUEST FOR PROBATION

AND GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Defendant Jubenal Amezola has filed a motion to reduce his sentence under Amendment

782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The probation department and the government

are requested to respond by OCTOBER 5, 2015.

Dated: September 21, 2015. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cr-00919-WHA Document 144 Filed 09/21/15 Page 1 of 1
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Sixteenth census of the UnitedStates: 1940: population: families: employment status, regions and cities of1,000,000 or more**
 
Parts: 0102
 
SuDoc Number:C 3.940-2:P 81/13
Item Number:0198 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001104242
 
August 13, 2019
#### § 123.7 Exports to warehouses or distribution points outside the United States.

Unless the exemption under § 123.16(b)(1) is used, a license is required to export defense articles to a warehouse or distribution point outside the United States for subsequent resale and will normally be granted only if an agreement has been approved pursuant to § 124.14 of this subchapter.
PUBLIC LAW 115–431—JAN. 10, 2019 132 STAT. 5521 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 6602: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 115–1061 (Comm. on Natural Resources). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018): 

Dec. 19, 20, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 22, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–431 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To reauthorize the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. NEW JERSEY COASTAL HERITAGE TRAIL ROUTE. 

(a) REAUTHORIZATION.—Section 6 of Public Law 100–515 (16 

U.S.C. 1244 note) is amended— 

(1) by striking subsection (a); 

(2) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections 

(a) and (b), respectively; 

(3) in subsection (a) (as so redesignated by paragraph (2)), 

by striking ‘‘under subsection (a)’’ each place that it appears 

and inserting ‘‘to carry out this Act’’; and 

(4) in subsection (b) (as so redesignated by paragraph (2)), 

by striking ‘‘2011’’ and inserting ‘‘2025’’. 

(b) STRATEGIC PLAN.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.— 

(A) PLAN REQUIRED.—Not later than 3 years after the 

date on which funds are first made available after the 

date of enactment of this Act to carry out Public Law 

100–515 (16 U.S.C. 1244 note), the Secretary of the Interior 

shall prepare a strategic plan for the New Jersey Coastal 

Heritage Trail Route. 

(B) CONTENTS.—The strategic plan shall describe— 

(i) opportunities to increase participation by 

national and local private and public interests in the 

planning, development, and administration of the New 

Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route; and 

(ii) organizational options for sustaining the New 

Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route. 

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 703(b) of the 

National Heritage Areas Act of 2006 (Public Law 109–338; 

120 Stat. 1859) is repealed. 

Approved January 10, 2019. 

Repeal. 

Deadline. 

Jan. 10, 2019 

[H.R. 6602] 


smartinez on DSK30VT082PROD with PUBLAWS
#### § 40.9 [Reserved]
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GALLUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BUSINESS RESEARCH BUREAU (PVT.)

LTD., d/b/a GALLUP PAKISTAN, IJAZ

SHAFI GILANI, GALLUP BUSINESS

RESEARCH SERVICES (PVT.) LTD.,

d/b/a PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD.,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-01577 WHA

ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL

Because defendant Ijaz Shafi Gilani has requested and is in need of counsel to assist him

in this matter, and a volunteer attorney is willing to be appointed to undertake his representation

at the request of the Federal Pro Bono Project, Attorney Karen Johnson-McKewan of Orrick,

Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP is hereby appointed as counsel for defendant Gilani in this matter for

all purposes leading up to and including, if necessary, trial. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01577-WHA Document 118 Filed 04/13/10 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of White Plains Properties Corp., Respondent, v Tax Assessor of the City of White Plains et al., Appellants. In the Matter of W. P. Properties Corp., Respondent, v Tax Assessor of the City of White Plains et al., Appellants.

— In two consolidated proceedings pursuant to article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law, the appeals are from two orders of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, one as to each consolidated proceeding, both dated November 16, 1976, which denied the motions of appellants to strike the proceedings from the calendar for failure to comply with section 678.3 of the rules of this court (22 NYCRR 678.3). Orders affirmed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements to cover both appeals.

*654Section 678.3 of the rules of this court provides, in part; that a tax assessment review proceeding shall not be added to any tax certiorari calendar unless the note of issue contains a statement as to whether the property involved is income producing. Petitioners-respondents own and operate the subject property, upon which is a Macy’s department store. Petitioners, in filing the note of issue for the instant proceedings, stated that the subject property was not income producing. Appellants moved, pursuant to section 678.3, to strike the proceedings from the calendar on the grounds that the subject property is income producing and that no statement of the income and expenses of the property was submitted as required by subdivision (b) of the said section. The section in question was enacted to expedite tax review proceedings. It did not change the existing law that the language "income producing” applies only to income produced directly by the real estate, and not to income generated by a commercial business conducted thereon. Hopkins, J. P., Shapiro, Hawkins and Suozzi, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David White, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Rensselaer County Court, rendered June 25, 1975, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of murder in the second degree (Penal Law, § 125.25, subd 3) and robbery in the first degree (Penal Law, § 160.15). The defendant does not dispute the sufficiency of the People’s proof. The only issue raised on appeal is the trial court’s refusal to admit in evidence the prior consistent statement of defendant’s alibi witness, Marie White, a friend and close relative of the defendant. Defendant contends that her testimony was attacked on cross-examination as a recent fabrication, and therefore the prior statement should have been received. In general, a witness’ testimony cannot be bolstered by his prior consistent statements *(Crawford v Nilan,*289 NY 444, 450; Richardson, Evidence [10th ed], § 519). However, if a witness is assailed for having a motive to fabricate, " 'it is competent to put in evidence statements made by him consistent with what he says on the stand, *made before the motive arose’” (People v Singer,*300 NY 120, 124 [emphasis supplied]; see, also, *Ferris v Sterling,*214 NY 249; *People v Katz,*209 NY 311). The exception does not apply in this case, since Ms. White’s motive to favor her uncle was the same when she made her prior written statement as it was at trial. Judgment affirmed. Sweeney, J. P., Mahoney, Main, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONATHAN W. GRIGSBY, 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

ROBERT HOREL, et al., 

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-1475 CRB (PR)

ORDER 

On April 28, 2010, defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the grounds that plaintiff's complaint fails to state a

claim and that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiff was asked

to file an opposition by not later than June 11, 2010, but has not done so.

Plaintiff will be afforded a final opportunity to file an opposition to

defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff shall file an opposition, or notice of nonopposition, to defendants' motion to dismiss by no later than August 31, 2010,

and defendants shall file a reply to any opposition within 15 days thereafter.

 SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 20, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.08\Grigsby, J2.or2.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-01475-CRB Document 31 Filed 07/21/10 Page 1 of 1
#### § 1008.610 Controlled substance.

*Controlled substance* means a controlled substance in schedules I through V of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812), and as further defined by regulation at 21 CFR 1308.11 through 1308.15.
§ 1411.6 Time limits for processing requests. ( a ) All time limits established pursuant to this section shall begin as of the time at which a request for records is logged in by the appropriate Regional Director, the Freedom of Information Officer of the Office of the General Counsel, the Solicitor of the Authority, or the Executive Director of the Federal Service Impasses Panel, as appropriate, processing the request pursuant to paragraph (c) of § 1411.5. An oral request for records shall not begin any time requirement. A written request for records sent to other than the appropriate officer will be forwarded to that officer by the receiving officer, but in that event the applicable time limit for response set forth in paragraph (b) of this section shall begin upon the request being logged in as required by paragraph (c) of § 1411.5.
( b ) Except as provided in § 1411.8, the appropriate Regional Director, the Freedom of Information Officer of the Office of the General Council, the Solicitor of the Authority, or the Executive Director of the Federal Service Impasses Panel, as appropriate, shall, within ten (10) working days following receipt of the request, respond in writing to the requester, determining whether, or the extent to which, the request shall be complied with. ( 1 ) If all the records requested have been located and a final determination has been made with respect to disclosure of all of the records requested, the response shall so state.
( 2 ) If all of the records have not been located or a final determination has not been made with respect to disclosure of all the records requested, the response shall state the extent to which the records involved shall be disclosed pursuant to the rules established in this part.
( 3 ) If the request is expected to involve an assessed fee in excess of $25.00, the response shall specify or estimate the fee involved and shall require prepayment of any charges in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (a) of § 1411.10 before the records are made available.
( 4 ) Whenever possible, the response relating to a request for records that involves a fee of less than $25.00 shall be accompanied by the requested records. Where this is not possible, the records shall be forwarded as soon as possible thereafter, consistent with other obligations of the Board, the General Counsel or the Panel.
( c ) If any request for records is denied in whole or in part, the response required by paragraph (b) of this section shall notify the requester of the denial. Such denial shall specify the reason therefor, set forth the name and title or position of the person responsible for the denial, and notify the person making the request of the right to appeal the denial under the provisions of § 1411.7.
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAUL ESCARCEGA,

Petitioner,

v.

BEN CURRY, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-1203 SI (pr)

ORDER PERMITTING

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS

A recent en banc decision from the Ninth Circuit addressed important issues relating to federal

review of parole decisions, Hayward v Marshall, No. 06-55392, 2010 WL 1664977 (9th Cir. April 22,

2010) (en banc). The court will provide each party an opportunity to submit a supplemental brief (not

to exceed 15 pages in length) explaining his views of how the Hayward en banc decision applies to this

parole denial habeas case. The court sets the following schedule:

1. No later than May 10, 2010, respondent must send to petitioner a copy of the Hayward

en banc decision. 

2. No later than May 28, 2010, respondent must file and serve any supplemental brief on

the impact of Hayward on this action. 

3. No later than July 2, 2010, petitioner must file and serve any supplemental brief on the

impact of Hayward on this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 27, 2010 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01203-SI Document 12 Filed 04/28/10 Page 1 of 1
### §2982d. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 88–452, title VII, §715, as added Pub. L. 92–424, §25(a), Sept. 19, 1972, 86 Stat. 700, related to Federal share of program costs, prior to general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 93–644, §10(a), Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2315, and was covered by section 2982c of this title.
### §2996. Congressional findings and declaration of purpose

The Congress finds and declares that—

(1) there is a need to provide equal access to the system of justice in our Nation for individuals who seek redress of grievances;

(2) there is a need to provide high quality legal assistance to those who would be otherwise unable to afford adequate legal counsel and to continue the present vital legal services program;

(3) providing legal assistance to those who face an economic barrier to adequate legal counsel will serve best the ends of justice and assist in improving opportunities for low-income persons consistent with the purposes of this chapter;

(4) for many of our citizens, the availability of legal services has reaffirmed faith in our government of laws;

(5) to preserve its strength, the legal services program must be kept free from the influence of or use by it of political pressures; and

(6) attorneys providing legal assistance must have full freedom to protect the best interests of their clients in keeping with the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Canons of Ethics, and the high standards of the legal profession.

(Pub. L. 88–452, title X, §1001, as added Pub. L. 93–355, §2, July 25, 1974, 88 Stat. 378; amended Pub. L. 95–222, §2, Dec. 28, 1977, 91 Stat. 1619.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1977—Par. (3). Pub. L. 95–222 inserted provision relating to assistance in improving opportunities for low-income persons consistent with this chapter.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1977 Amendment

Pub. L. 95–222, §17(b), Dec. 28, 1977, 91 Stat. 1624, provided that: "The amendments made by provisions of this Act other than sections 11 and 15 [amending this section and sections 2996c, 2996e, 2996f, 2996g, 2996h, 2996i, and 2996j of this title] shall be effective on the date of enactment of this Act [Dec. 28, 1977]."

#### Short Title

This subchapter is known as the "Legal Services Corporation Act", see Short Title note set out under section 2701 of this title.
#### § 19.1 Authorities.

Chapter 8 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-465, 94 Stat. 2102) (hereafter “the Act”), and any Executive order issued under authority of section 827 of the Act.
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 29, 2014

Nos. 04-13-00242-CR & 04-13-00243-CR

James Michael CHIN,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 2012CR5328 & 2011CR7140

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The court has considered the Appellant’s Motion for En Banc Reconsideration, and the 

motion is DENIED.

_________________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29th day of January, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
§ 270.15a-3 Exemption for initial period of investment adviser of certain registered separate accounts from requirement of security holder approval of investment advisory contract. ( a ) An investment adviser of a registered separate account shall be exempt from the requirement under section 15(a) of the Act that the initial written contract pursuant to which the investment adviser serves or acts shall have been approved by the vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of such registered separate account, subject to the following conditions: ( 1 ) Such registered separate account qualifies for exemption from section 14(a) of the Act pursuant to § 270.14a-2, or is exempt therefrom by order of the Commission upon application; and
( 2 ) Such written contract shall be submitted to a vote of variable annuity contract owners at their first meeting after the effective date of the registration statement under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (15 U.S.C. 77a *et seq.*) relating to variable annuity contracts participating in such account: *Provided,* That such meeting shall take place within 1 year after such effective date, unless the time for the holding of such meeting shall be extended by the Commission upon written request showing good cause therefor.
(Sec. 6, 54 Stat. 800; 15 U.S.C. 80a-6)
[34 FR 12695, Aug. 5, 1969]
# AcknowledgmentsSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Polluti on Control District April 30, 2008

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The District wishes to acknowledge the leadership, effort, and innovation

of those who contributed to the 2008 PM2.5 Plan

.

Project Management and Supervision

Rick McVaigh, Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer Scott Nester, Director of Planning Roger W. McCoy, Director of Administrative Services David Warner, Director of Permit Services Errol Villegas, Planning Manager Samir Sheikh, Permit Services Manager Jeff Findley, Emission Reduction Incentive Program Manager Tom Jordan, Special Projects Administrator
Jaime Holt, Public Education Administrator Don Hunsaker, Supervising Air Quality Planner George Heinen, Supervising Air Quality Engineer Stephen K. Shaw, Supervising Air Quality Specialist

Todd DeYoung, Supervising Air Quality Specialist

Contributors

Gary Arcemont, Senior Air Quality Specialist
Ross Badertscher, Air Quality Specialist

Lauren Dawson, Air Q uality Specialist Claudia Encinas, Air Qualit y Education Representative Shawn Ferreria, Senior Air Quality Specialist

Jessica Hafer, Senior Air Quality Specialist Sandra Lowe-Leseth, Air Quality Engineer Joe Nazareno, Senior Air Quality Engineer David Nunes, Senior Air Quality Specialist Lucinda Roth, Senior Air Quality Specialist James Sweet, Air Quality Project Planner

Staff of the California Air Resources Board

Acknowledgments

2008 PM2.5 Plan
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

June 05, 2009

Ms. Diana L. Faust

Cooper & Scully, P.C.

900 Jackson Street, Suite 100

Dallas, TX 75202

Mr. William H. "Bill" Liebbe

Law Offices of Bill Liebbe

223 South Bonner Ave.

Tyler, TX 75702

Honorable Kerry L. Russell

7th District Court

100 N Broadway Rm 203

Tyler, TX 75702-7236

RE:Case Number:  07-0737

Court of Appeals Number:  12-06-00078-CV

Trial Court Number:  05-3449-A

Style:IN RE  LESTER COLLINS, M.D.

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinion in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 07-0737Page 1**