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

CLAUDE BRYANT, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SERVICE CORPORATION

INTERNATIONAL, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-01190 SI

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ DISCOVERY

REQUEST

(Docket No. 285)

Plaintiffs seek a discovery order directing SCI to produce documents and information pertaining

to “lump sum” payments (including flat rate, piece rate, and “special pay task” payments) which

plaintiffs contend SCI hourly employees received for certain types of work in lieu of hourly wages.

Plaintiffs seek documents reflecting the identities of all employees who received these payments, the

identities of all employees who recorded time in connection with these payments, and the manner in

which they recorded such time. Plaintiffs assert that this evidence is relevant to defining the scope of

the class with respect to their claim that SCI failed to compensate employees for all hours worked. 

SCI responds that plaintiffs have received detailed payroll information for all named plaintiffs

in response to Document Request No. 42, and that this information is sufficiently representative for

certification purposes. The Court agrees. Plaintiffs have raised a serious question with respect to the

compensability of on-call time. For certification purposes, however, the Court does not believe that

plaintiffs require payroll information for all SCI employees throughout the nation. Plaintiffs’ discovery

motion is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01190-SI Document 295 Filed 06/02/10 Page 1 of 1
#### Felix Loperena et al. v. City of New York. City of New York v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. v. Sicilian Asphalt Paving Company.

Application denied, with $.10 costs. The stay contained in the order to show cause, dated July 6, 1960, is vacated. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.
Exhibit 24

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY



         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:  THAT I, E. NEVILLE ISDELL, do hereby
appoint Carol Crofoot Hayes, F. Rodger Wrege, David R. Bucey, Parth S. Munshi,
and Anita Jane Kamenz, each acting individually, my true and lawful attorneys
for me and in my name for the purpose of:

        (1) executing on my behalf any Initial Statement of Beneficial Ownership
of Securities on Form 3, any Statement of Changes in Beneficial Ownership of
Securities on Form 4, any Annual Statement of Changes in Beneficial Ownership of
Securities on Form 5 and any additional forms which may be promulgated pursuant
to Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or any
amendments thereto, in connection with my transactions in shares of The
Coca-Cola Company common stock and causing such forms to be filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, the New York Stock Exchange and/or any other
appropriate stock exchange; and

        (2) taking any other action in connection with the foregoing which, in
the opinion of any of such attorneys-in-fact, may be of benefit to, in the best
interest of, or legally required by, the undersigned, it being understood that
the forms executed by any of such attorneys-in-fact on behalf of the undersigned
pursuant to this Power of Attorney shall be in such form and shall contain such
terms and conditions as any of such attorneys-in-fact may approve in their
discretion.

         The undersigned acknowledges that:

         (1) the foregoing attorneys-in-fact, in serving in such capacity at the
request of the undersigned, are not assuming any of the undersigned's
responsibilities to comply with Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and

         (2) this Power of Attorney authorizes, but does not require, any of the
foregoing attorneys-in-fact to act in their discretion on information provided
to such attorneys-in-fact without independent verification of such information.

         The undersigned hereby grants to each of the foregoing
attorneys-in-fact full power and authority to do and perform any and every act
and thing whatsoever requisite, necessary or appropriate to be done in the
exercise of any of the rights and powers herein granted, as fully to all intents
and purposes as the undersigned might or could do if personally present, hereby
ratifying and confirming all that any of such attorneys-in-fact, shall lawfully
do or cause to be done by virtue of this Power of Attorney.



<PAGE>



         This Power of Attorney shall remain in effect until revoked in writing
by the undersigned.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 1st day of
June, 2004.




                                                /s/ E. NEVILLE ISDELL
                                                ---------------------
                                                E. Neville Isdell
Exhibit 32.2



Section 1350 certification of Chief Financial Officer





I, Cindy Lea Gimler, Chief Financial Officer of Puradyn Filter Technologies Incorporated (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



1.
        The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the six months ended June 30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




2.
        The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




August 14, 2008/s/Cindy Lea GimlerName:Title:
        Cindy Lea GimlerChief Financial Officer






A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PACIFIC BIOMETRICS, INC. FOR THE QUARTER
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         197,849
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  248,446
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,630
<INVENTORY>                                     19,837
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               478,445
<PP&E>                                         181,423
<DEPRECIATION>                                  68,003
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,198,821
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,386,780
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,483
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,207,442)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,198,821
<SALES>                                        576,786
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               576,786
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,042,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             104,936
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (525,071)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (525,071)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (525,071)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.21)
        

</TABLE>
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

ORDER RE IN

CAMERA REVIEW

Plaintiffs request in camera review of 54 documents as to which they contend they cannot

tell from defendants’ privilege log entries if defendants’ privilege claims are valid. Defendants

should bring these documents to the hearing tomorrow so that they will be available for in camera

review if necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 369 Filed 02/10/10 Page 1 of 1
#### § 146.410 Comparable facilities.

A recipient may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for students of the other sex.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00418

- CV

TEJAS ASSET HOLDINGS , LLC APPELLANT

V.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,

SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO

CHASE HOME FINANCE L LC APPELLEE

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

FROM THE 352ND DISTR ICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 352

- 256972

- 11

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered appellant 's “Motion To Dismiss Appeal.” It is the

court ’ s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the

app eal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

1 S ee Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, J.; LI VINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.

DELIVERED: July 3, 2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR
THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           7,874
<SECURITIES>                                     3,011
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,119
<ALLOWANCES>                                       467
<INVENTORY>                                     15,211
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                61,338
<PP&E>                                          13,934
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,851
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  89,747
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,006
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            73
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,679
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    89,747
<SALES>                                         51,853
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,853
<CGS>                                           37,484
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,484
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,915
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,404
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,305
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,623
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,682
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    194
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,488
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
### §289f. Gifts and donations; memorials

The Secretary may, in accordance with section 238 of this title, accept conditional gifts for the National Institutes of Health or a national research institute or for the acquisition of grounds or for the erection, equipment, or maintenance of facilities for the National Institutes of Health or a national research institute. Donations of $50,000 or over for the National Institutes of Health or a national research institute for carrying out the purposes of this subchapter may be acknowledged by the establishment within the National Institutes of Health or a national research institute of suitable memorials to the donors.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, §497, as added Pub. L. 99–158, §2, Nov. 20, 1985, 99 Stat. 877; amended Pub. L. 99–660, title III, §311(b)(1), Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3779; Pub. L. 100–607, title II, §204(3), Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3079; Pub. L. 100–690, title II, §2620(b)(2), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4244; Pub. L. 101–381, title I, §102(5), Aug. 18, 1990, 104 Stat. 586; Pub. L. 103–43, title XX, §2010(b)(6), June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 214.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1993—Pub. L. 103–43 substituted "section 238" for "section 300aaa".

1990—Pub. L. 101–381 made technical amendment to reference to section 300aaa of this title to reflect renumbering of corresponding section of original act.

1988—Pub. L. 100–690 made technical amendment to reference to section 300aaa of this title to reflect renumbering of corresponding section of original act.

Pub. L. 100–607 substituted "300aaa" for "300cc".

1986—Pub. L. 99–660 substituted "section 300cc of this title" for "section 300aa of this title".

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

#### Effective Date of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–690 effective immediately after enactment of Pub. L. 100–607, which was approved Nov. 4, 1988, see section 2600 of Pub. L. 100–690, set out as a note under section 242m of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–660 effective Dec. 22, 1987, see section 323 of Pub. L. 99–660, as amended, set out as an Effective Date note under section 300aa–1 of this title.
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

BMG MUSIC, et al.

Plaintiffs,

 v.

VANESSA MARIE CLAYTON,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-03148 JSW

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER

TO SHOW CAUSE

The Court received the response by counsel for Plaintiffs to the Order to Show Cause

(“OSC”). The Court HEREBY DISCHARGES the OSC.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-03148-JSW Document 53 Filed 05/27/10 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BMG MUSIC et al,

Plaintiff,

 v.

VANESSA M. CLAYTON et al,

Defendant.

 /

Case Number: CV08-03148 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on May 27, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office

delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Vanessa Marie Clayton

P.O. Box 3407

San Rafael, CA 94912

Dated: May 27, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:08-cv-03148-JSW Document 53 Filed 05/27/10 Page 2 of 2
#### § 123.19 Canadian and Mexican border shipments.

A shipment originating in Canada or Mexico which incidentally transits the United States en route to a delivery point in the same country that originated the shipment is exempt from the requirement for an in transit license.
#### Reynaldo Olivera RAMOS; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-73028.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*523Submitted March 12, 2007.*

Filed March 15, 2007.

Wayne Spindler, Esq., Tarzana, CA, for Petitioners.

NVL-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Lisa M. Arnold, Attorney, Genevieve Holm, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Lead petitioner, Reynaldo Olivera Ramos, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider the BIA’s prior order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, *Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft,*383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), *amended by*404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider on the ground that Ramos is not an eligible class member under the *Barahona-Gomez*settlement agreement, because Ramos was not denied suspension of deportation case on the basis of section 309(c)(5) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, but rather due to his failure to demonstrate extreme hardship. *See Barahona-Gomez v. Ashcroft,*243 F.Supp.2d 1029, 1031-33 (N.D.Cal. 2002).

Ramos’ remaining contentions are without merit.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Albert Williams, Jr., Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County, rendered January 4, 1977, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree. On this appeal defendant seeks a reversal of his conviction upon assertions that the trial court erred in failing to suppress certain identification testimony of the arresting officer as being tainted by impermissible pretrial identification procedures, and that it had unduly restricted his counsel’s cross-examination of that officer during the suppression hearing. There is no proof to sustain the contention that a pre-arrest photographic display, which had contained photographs of the defendant, was unduly suggestive *(People v Morales,*37 NY2d 262; *People v Keene,*57 AD2d 1020). The arresting officer, acting as an undercover agent, had purchased heroin from the defendant on two occasions and his identification of him was based primarily on those face to face encounters. Nor do we find any merit in the argument that the court unduly restricted defendant’s cross-examination of that witness at the suppression hearing. Judgment affirmed. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
[File No. 6517.]

#### BERT WEIR, Respondent, v. ARMOUR & COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant.

(280 N. W. 204.)

Opinion filed March 29, 1938.

*282*Fuller &*Powers, for appellant.

*Goodwin T. Wesllund*and *Conmy & Conmy,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

The issues in this case are similar to those involved in the case of Olson v. Armour & Company, decided at this term, ante, 272, 280 N. W. 200. Is all, four cases were tried and appeal taken by the defendant is each case. Appellant says that the case of Olson v. Armour & Co. is typical of all four cases. An examination of the record shows this to be correct. The same points are involved. The amount of damages allowed is the main issue.

This case, therefore, is controlled by the decision in Olson v. Armour & Co. and for the reasons set forth in the opinion therein the judgment is affirmed.

Oi-iristianson, Oh. J., and Burr and Nuessle, JJ., concur.

Morris and Sathre, JJ., dissent.