alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                          16,853
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  309,644
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,335
<INVENTORY>                                    164,427
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               522,200
<PP&E>                                       2,717,034
<DEPRECIATION>                                 653,466
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,755,469
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          468,374
<BONDS>                                        919,356
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            6,900
<PREFERRED>                                      3,450
<COMMON>                                        43,784
<OTHER-SE>                                     990,473
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,755,469
<SALES>                                      1,110,098
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,110,098
<CGS>                                        1,057,860
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,057,860
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,190
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,714
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,914
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,914
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Robert F. Barry, Appellant, v. Arthur Cornelius, Jr., as Superintendent of the Division of State Police of the State of New York, Respondent.

Appeal dismissed, upon stipulation, without costs. Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, 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

V.ROY LEFCOURT (SBN 49950) 

Attorney at Law 

1934 Divisadero Street 

San Francisco, CA 94115 

Phone: (415) 776-0207 

Fax: (415) 776-8047 

Attorney for Defendant 

JIMMY XIAO 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) NO: CR-3-06-70016 MAG 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) STIPULATION

 ) 

JIMMY XIAO, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, it is hereby stipulated between the undersigned parties that 

the above-cited matter is continued from Wednesday, November 22, 2006 to Wednesday, 

December 6, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. and furthermore, the parties agree to waive time for either the filing 

of an indictment or a preliminary hearing in light of the fact of the defendantís schedule for finals. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

DATED: November 22, 2006 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 __/s/ V.Roy Lefcourt______ 

 V.ROY LEFCOURT 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 JIMMY XIAO 

DATED: November 22, 2006 

Case 3:06-mj-70016-MAG Document 19 Filed 11/22/2006 Page 1 of 2


January 29, 2007

Case 3:08-cr-00201-VRW Document 20 Filed 01/12/07 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

 _/s/ Thomas Mazzucco w/permission

 THOMAS MAZZUCCO 

 Assistant United States Attorney 

ORDER TO CONTINUE SENTENCING

Based upon the above Stipulation, and for good cause appearing, THE COURT ORDERS 

THAT: 

 The above-cited matter is continued from Wednesday, November 22, 2006 to Wednesday, 

December 6, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. in light of the fact of the defendantís schedule for finals. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: _________________________________________ 

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE EDWARD M CHEN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

Case 3:06-mj-70016-MAG Document 19 Filed 11/22/2006 Page 2 of 2


January 29, 2007 January 12, 2007

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

AS MODIFIED

Judge Edward M. Chen

at 9:30 a.m. before Judge James Larson

Case 3:08-cr-00201-VRW Document 20 Filed 01/12/07 Page 2 of 2
#### Herbert Cockshaw, Jr., as Successor Trustee under the Will of Alfred Costello, Deceased, v. Guaranty Trust Company of New York.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals or for reargument denied, with $10 costs. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Callahan and Breitel, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 688.]
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.                  

###### Parole Commission

# Agency Holding Meeting:

Department of Justice, United States Parole Commission. 

# Time and Date:

9:30 a.m., Wednesday, December 8, 2004.

# Place:

5550 Friendship Boulevard, 4th Floor, Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815.

# Status:

Open.

# Matters to be Considered:

The following matters have been placed on the agenda for the open Parole Commission meeting: (1) Approval of minutes from a previous Commission meeting; (2) reports from the Chairman, Commissioners, Chief of Staff, and Commission sections; and (3) a proposal to extend the video conference procedure to institutional revocation hearings.

# Agency Contact:

Thomas W. Hutchison, Chief of Staff, United States Parole Commission, (301) 492-5990.

Dated: December 1, 2004.

Rockne Chickinell,

General Counsel, United States Parole Commission.

[FR Doc. 04-26909  Filed 12-3-04; 10:03 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
### §290bb–2a. Medical treatment of narcotics addiction; report to Congress

The Secretary of Health and Human Services, after consultation with the Attorney General and with national organizations representative of persons with knowledge and experience in the treatment of narcotic addicts, shall determine the appropriate methods of professional practice in the medical treatment of the narcotic addiction of various classes of narcotic addicts, and shall report thereon from time to time to the Congress.

(Pub. L. 91–513, title I, §4, Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1241; Pub. L. 96–88, title V, §509(b), Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 695.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Public Health Service Act which comprises this chapter.

Section was formerly classified to section 257a of this title.

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

#### Change of Name

"Secretary of Health and Human Services" substituted in text for "Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare" pursuant to section 509(b) of Pub. L. 96–88, which is classified to section 3508(b) of Title 20, Education.
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

IN RE: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases.

 /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

NOTICE SETTING

STATUS CONFERENCE

The Court shall hold a status conference at 8:00 A.M. ON MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2010, in

Courtroom 9. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-02058-WHA Document 63 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 1
#### § 270.3c-3 Definition of certain terms used in section 3(c)(1) of the Act with respect to certain debt securities offered by small business investment companies.

The term *public offering* as used in section 3(c)(1) of the Act shall not be deemed to include the offer and sale by a small business investment company, licensed under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, of any debt security issued by it which is (a) not convertible into, exchangeable for, or accompanied by any equity security, and (b) guaranteed as to timely payment of principal and interest by the Small Business Administration and backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. The holders of any securities offered and sold as described in this section shall be counted, in the aggregate, as one person for purposes of section 3(c)(1) of the Act.

[37 FR 7590, Apr. 18, 1972]
#### David Turetsky et al., Respondents, v. Wilhelm Peterson, Appellant.

*960No opinion. Appeal from original order dismissed, without costs. Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-18-00336-CR

Jose Gonzales III a/k/a Jose Manuel Gonzales III

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

361st District Court of Brazos County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 13-02077-CRF-361

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

October 3, 2019
§ 1006.820 How much time do I have to contest a proposed debarment? ( a ) As a respondent you or your representative must either send, or make arrangements to appear and present, the information and argument to the debarring official within 30 days after you receive the Notice of Proposed Debarment.
( b ) We consider the Notice of Proposed Debarment to be received by you— ( 1 ) When delivered, if we mail the notice to the last known street address, or five days after we send it if the letter is undeliverable;
( 2 ) When sent, if we send the notice by facsimile or five days after we send it if the facsimile is undeliverable; or
( 3 ) When delivered, if we send the notice by e-mail or five days after we send it if the e-mail is undeliverable.
#### Henry P. Stockwicz, Respondent, v Board of Trustees of Corning Community College,

Case held, decision reserved and matter remitted to Special Term, Steuben County, for further findings in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiff instituted an action against Corning Community College by service of a summons on Donald Hangen, president of the college. Defendant moved to vacate service on the ground that service on the president did not confer jurisdiction over the college; that the city school district of the City of Corning is the local sponsor of the college and as such is a necessary party to the action; and alternatively, for a change of venue from Rensselaer County where the action was instituted, to Steuben County, where Corning Community College is located. Special Term, Steuben County, denied the motion to vacate but granted the motion transferring venue to Steuben County. On authority of *Matter of Weinstein v Caso*(44 AD2d 690) Special Term also decided that a community college must be sued through its board of trustees and thus redesignated the defendant, pursuant to CPLR 2001, as Board of Trustees of Corning Community College. Special Term found further that the service upon defendant was governed not by CPLR 311 but by the requirements of CPLR 312, providing that service on a board is effected by delivering a summons to the chairman or other presiding officer, secretary or clerk, or a board member, and that such requirement was satisfied by service on the president. Defendant appeals from that determination. No cross appeal has been taken from that portion of the order granting defendant’s motion for a change of venue. We are unable to reach a determination of the issues on the record before us. Article 126 of the Education Law, which provides a comprehensive plan for the establishment, administration, and funding of community colleges, delegates authority and duties variously between the local sponsor and the board of trustees of the college, all under the supervision of the State University Trustees. It is clear that the authority of the board of trustees is strictly limited and that authority for many of the functions of the college is vested in the local sponsor *(Meyer v Wiess,*25 AD2d 174) but that, on the other hand, certain functions are within the sole responsibility of the board of trustees *(Matter of Weinstein v Caso, supra).*It is also clear that the board of trustees may delegate the authority for hiring and firing to the president, who is the board’s appointee (Education Law, § 6306, subd 2). It may well be that the duties delegated to the president by the board would *884make him a proper party for service under CPLR 312 but we cannot determine on the record before us what those duties are. It will therefore be necessary for Special Term to conduct a hearing for the purpose of establishing the necessary elements in accordance herewith. (Appeal from order of Steuben Supreme Court—service, parties.) Present.—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Dillon, Hancock, Jr., and Denman, JJ. [90 Misc 2d 55.]
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4022 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4022

   To amend title 28, United States Code, to protect the right of a 
     claimant in a civil action before a Federal court to retain a 
 structured settlement broker to negotiate the terms of payment of an 
                     award, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 14, 2012

     Mr. Higgins (for himself, Ms. Hochul, and Mr. Braley of Iowa) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 28, United States Code, to protect the right of a 
     claimant in a civil action before a Federal court to retain a 
 structured settlement broker to negotiate the terms of payment of an 
                     award, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Structured Settlement Claimants 
Rights Act of 2012''.

SEC. 2. IN GENERAL.

    (a) Federal Court Proceedings.--Chapter 111 of title 28, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1660. Right to retain structured settlement broker
    ``A claimant in any civil action before a Federal court shall have 
the right to retain a structured settlement broker to act on behalf of 
that claimant for purposes of negotiating a schedule of payments or 
other terms of payment of a sum certain previously agreed to paid by or 
on behalf of the defendant in satisfaction of a judgment against that 
defendant or in accordance with the terms of a settlement. The court 
shall inform the claimant of this right at the appropriate time. The 
defendant shall provide timely notice of any professional relationship 
between the defendant and the broker if any such relationship exists or 
has existed.''.
    (b) Administrative Proceedings.--Section 554 of title 5, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(f) In the case of any proceeding under this section, a party to 
that proceeding shall have the right to retain a structured settlement 
broker to act on behalf of that party for purposes of negotiating a 
schedule of payments or other terms of payment of a sum certain 
previously agreed to paid by or on behalf of another party in 
satisfaction of a decision against that party or in accordance with the 
terms of a settlement between the parties. The agency shall inform the 
claimant of this right at the appropriate time. The defendant shall 
provide timely notice of any professional relationship between the 
defendant and the broker if any such relationship exists or has 
existed.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 11.10 Links to relevant provisions of the Foreign Affairs Manual.

(a) The Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) is the formal written document for recording, maintaining, and issuing Department of State (Department) directives that address personnel and other matters. It is the primary authority for appointment of current Department employees to the Foreign Service. This part is the primary authority for the appointment of non-employees to the Foreign Service. The FAM provides Department procedures and policies that are not repeated in this part. It is an important resource for understanding the provisions of this part.

(b) The two FAM volumes relevant to this part are Volume 3, Personnel, and Volume 16, Medical. FAM provisions are cited by volume followed by chapter or subchapter—for example, Chapter 210 of Volume 16 would be cited 16 FAM 210. All of the relevant FAM provisions are on the Department's public Web site. The links for the relevant FAM provisions are as follows:

| 3 FAM 2215 | *http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/84854.pdf.* |
| --- | --- |
| 3 FAM 2216.2 | |
| 3 FAM 2216.3 | |
| 3 FAM 2217 | |
| 3 FAM 2218 | |
| 3 FAM 2245 | *http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/84851.pdf.* |
| 3 FAM 2250 | *http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/84850.pdf.* |
| 3 FAM 2251.3 | |
| 3 FAM 2290 | *http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/84846.pdf.* |
| 16 FAM 210 | *http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/89692.pdf.* |
#### § 1509.630 Debarment.

*Debarment* means an action taken by a Federal agency to prohibit a recipient from participating in Federal Government procurement contracts and covered nonprocurement transactions. A recipient so prohibited is debarred, in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation for procurement contracts (48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4) and the common rule, Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement), that implements Executive Order 12549 and Executive Order 12689.
#### Thelma Cohen, Appellant, v. Blockton Realty Corp., Defendant-Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff. Darling Stores, Inc., Third-Party Defendant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs to the respondent. No opinion. Concur—Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion s h ould not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________ No. 97-30191

____________ SEAGULL ENERGY CORP; SEAGULL MID-SOUTH, INC, Plaintiffs

- Counter Defendants

- Appellees,

versus JOSEPH T. SEPULVADO, Defendant - Counter Claimant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

November 10, 1997 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * 

### AFFIRMED. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.6.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7819
ARCHIE JEROME CHADWICK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ARCHIE GEE, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA95-2174-S) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 25, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Archie Jerome Chadwick, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Tarra R. DeShields-Minnis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Chadwick v. Gee , No. CA-95-2174-S (D. Md. Oct. 16, 1995). 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
#### § 126.2 Temporary suspension or modification of this subchapter.

The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense Trade Controls may order the temporary suspension or modification of any or all of the regulations of this subchapter in the interest of the security and foreign policy of the United States.

[79 FR 8085, Feb. 11, 2014]
[PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME CASE NO.: 3:08-CV-01184 SI 

1

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

BURNHAM BROWN 

Robert M. Bodzin, State Bar No. 201327 

P.O. Box 119 

Oakland, CA 94604 

Telephone: (510) 835-6833 

Facsimile: (510) 835-6666 

rbodzin@BurnhamBrown.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

[Additional Counsel Appear on Signature Page] 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILLIAM HELM, DEBORAH PRISE, 

HEATHER P. RADY, et al., on behalf of 

themselves and all other employees and former 

employees similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

ALDERWOODS GROUP, INC., 

 Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. 3:08-CV-01184 SI

[PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING 

TIME TO SUBMIT RESPONSIVE AND 

REPLY BRIEFING 

 Pursuant to the Stipulation of counsel and good cause appearing, the Court hereby orders 

as follows: 

 1. Plaintiffs’ response to Defendant’s Motion to Sever Misjoined Plaintiffs Pursuant to 

FRCP 21 shall be filed and served no later Monday, May 17, 2010; and further, 

 2. Defendant’s reply to that motion shall be filed and served no later than Monday, 

May 24, 2010. 

Case 3:08-cv-01184-SI Document 242 Filed 05/19/10 Page 1 of 2
[PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME CASE NO.: 3:08-CV-01184 SI 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

 

 

AGREED TO: 

By: /s/ Annette Gifford 

J. Nelson Thomas (pro hac vice) 

Patrick J. Solomon (pro hac vice) 

Annette Gifford (pro hac vice) 

THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP 

693 East Avenue 

Rochester, NY 14607 

Telephone: 585-272-0540 

Facsimile: 585-272-0574 

 Robert M. Bodzin, State Bar No. 201327 

BURNHAM BROWN 

P.O. Box 119 

Oakland, CA 94604 

Telephone: (510) 835-6833 

Facsimile: (510) 835-6666 

Charles H. Saul (pro hac vice) 

MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 

525 William Penn Place 

Suite 3300 

Pittsburgh, PA 15219 

Telephone: 412-281-4256 

Facsimile: 412-642-2380 

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

Honorable Susan Illston 

United States District Court 

By: /s/ John A. Mason 

Steven H. Gurnee 

Nicholas P. Forestiere 

John A. Mason 

 GURNEE & DANIELS LLP 

2240 Douglas Blvd, Suite 150 

Roseville, CA 95648 

Telephone: 916-797-3100 

Facsimile: 916-797-3131 

Counsel for Defendant 

 

Case 3:08-cv-01184-SI Document 242 Filed 05/19/10 Page 2 of 2