alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Earl THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-7960.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 26, 2007.

Decided: May 1, 2007.

Earl Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Earl Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thomas has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
Case 3:08-cv-03797-MHP Document 62 Filed 05/25/10 Page 1 of 6
Case 3:08-cv-03797-MHP Document 62 Filed 05/25/10 Page 2 of 6
Case 3:08-cv-03797-MHP Document 62 Filed 05/25/10 Page 3 of 6
Case 3:08-cv-03797-MHP Document 62 Filed 05/25/10 Page 4 of 6
Mailing Information for a Case 3:08-cv-02376-MHP 

Electronic Mail Notice List 

The following are those who are currently on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case. 

z Steve W. Berman 

steve@hbsslaw.com,robert@hbsslaw.com,heatherw@hbsslaw.com 

z Jessamyn Sheli Berniker 

jberniker@wc.com 

z Simon J. Frankel 

sfrankel@cov.com,ncutright@cov.com 

z William M. Goodman 

wgoodman@kasowitz.com,anathan@kasowitz.com,aajmani@kasowitz.com 

z Lance A Harke 

lharke@harkeclasby.com 

z George W. Hicks , Jr

ghicks@wc.com 

z Reed R. Kathrein 

reed@hbsslaw.com,pashad@hbsslaw.com,sf_filings@hbsslaw.com 

z Jeffrey G. Knowles 

EfilingJGK@cpdb.com,cyf@cpdb.com 

z Douglass A. Kreis 

dkreis@aws-law.com,aclifton@awkolaw.com,jwitkin@aws-law.com,rbaggett@awslaw.com,cbrumfield@awkolaw.com 

z Kim Elaine Miller 

kimmiller225@yahoo.com,kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com,ecf.notices@ksfcounsel.com 

z Conor Patrick Moore 

ef-cpm@cpdb.com,ef-cpm@cpdb.com 

z David S. Nalven 

davidn@hbsslaw.com,debrag@hbsslaw.com,heatherc@hbsslaw.com,jessicao@hbsslaw.com,kristenj@hbsslaw.com 

z Richard S. Scott 

rscott@wc.com,clanza-weil@wc.com 

z Thomas M. Sobol 

tom@hbsslaw.com,adama@hbsslaw.com,heatherc@hbsslaw.com,allisonl@hbsslaw.com,jessicao@hbsslaw.com 

z Gerson Avery Zweifach 

gzweifach@wc.com 

Manual Notice List 

The following is the list of attorneys who are not on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case (who therefore require 

manual noticing). You may wish to use your mouse to select and copy this list into your word processing program in order 

to create notices or labels for these recipients. 

Case 3:08-cv-03797-MHP Document 62 Filed 05/25/10 Page 5 of 6
Kristen Johnson Parker 

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 

55 Cambridge Parkway 

Suite 301 

Cambridge, MA 02141 

Ethan M. Posner 

Covington & Burling LLP 

1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20004-2401 

Case 3:08-cv-03797-MHP Document 62 Filed 05/25/10 Page 6 of 6
Subpart 5304.1 - CONTRACT EXECUTION    **Parent topic:** Part 5304 - Administrative Matters5304.101 Contracting Officer’s                         Signature                 Contracting officers are required to sign all                                 contract actions (either via wet signature,                                 signature as produced by CON-IT, or digital                                 signature produced with a DoD Public Key                                 Infrastructure certificate using a Common Access                                 Card), ensure contractor signatures are                                 obtained, and maintain signed contractual                                 documents within the official contract file.5304.102 Early Effective Date       1. Approval authority for the use of an early effective date is the chief of the contracting office. After reaching agreement on terms, conditions, price, and if funds are available, the contracting officer may advise a prospective contractor in writing of the Government’s intent to use an effective date before the contract mailing (award/signed) date.          2. Notice to the contractor should state that any costs recognized in a resulting contract should be limited to those allowable, allocable and reasonable; costs that would normally be recognized if incurred after contract award. The Notice to the contractor should state, that if there is no contract, all incurred costs should be at the contractor’s own risk.          3. Approval Authority should provide contractual coverage with a letter contract, or other appropriate undefinitized contractual action, if the Government intends to direct a prospective contractor, to accept benefits of efforts, or make payments before definitive contract mailing date.          4. Approval Authority should obtain legal review for early effective dates established more than 30 days prior to the envisioned contract award date.
§ 312.205 What must I include in my drug-free workplace statement? You must publish a statement that— ( a ) Tells your employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in your workplace;
( b ) Specifies the actions that you will take against employees for violating that prohibition; and
( c ) Lets each employee know that, as a condition of employment under any award, he or she: ( 1 ) Will abide by the terms of the statement; and
( 2 ) Must notify you in writing if he or she is convicted for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the workplace and must do so no more than five calendar days after the conviction.
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

SECOND ORDER DENYING

DARLENE LEWIS-CHINN AND

DAVID W. CHINN’S UNTIMELY

REQUEST TO OPT OUT

The Court has received another letter from class members Darlene Lewis-Chinn and

David W. Chinn renewing their untimely request to be excluded from the class. The letter simply

states: “We missed the exclusion deadline of December 28, 2009 when we submitted our original

exclusion request dated January 7, 2010, due to excusable negligence.” Under the law set forth

by the Ninth Circuit, this is not a legally sufficient justification to grant a late opt-out request. As

such, reconsideration of the prior order denying the request by class members Darlene LewisChinn and David W. Chinn to opt out (see Dkt. No. 749) must be DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 820 Filed 05/27/10 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:08-cv-00255-CRB Document 9 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 2Case 3:08-cv-00255-CRB Document 9 Filed 04/15/10 Page 2 of 2
#### § 312.301 [Reserved]
#### In the Matter of Carol Gildersleeve, Respondent, v Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 24, Town of Brookhaven, Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to compel the Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 24 to reschedule a hearing pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement and to permit petitioner to use a recording device thereat, the appeal is from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered September 13, 1977, as, upon ordering a new hearing, directed the board of education to allow petitioner to use a tape recorder. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. This was a completely frivolous and unnecessary appeal. Martuscello, J. P., Damiani, Titone and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
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.
 Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration
 Periodically, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) publishes abstracts of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, call the HRSA Reports Clearance Office on (301) 443-1129. The following request has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: Project: Evaluation of the Health Care for the Homeless Respite Pilot Initiative (OMB No. 0915-0269)—Extension The Bureau of Primary Health Care (BPHC), Health Resources and Services Administration is conducting an extension of an evaluation of the Health Care for the Homeless (HCH) Respite Pilot Initiative. Data are being collected from the ten HCH grantees participating in the Pilot Initiative. The National Health Care for the Homeless Council is conducting the evaluation through a cooperative agreement with the BPHC. 
                    ( print page 76474)
                    The evaluation focuses on assessing the effect of respite services on the health of homeless people as well as examining any differences in outcomes based on client or program characteristics. The evaluation is being conducted throughout the project period of Pilot Initiative. The estimated response burden is as follows: Type of 
                             respondent
Number of respondents
Response per 
                             respondent
Total responses
Hours per 
                             response
Total hour burdenHCH Grantees
10
200
2,000
0.25
500Program data
10
1
10
.5
5Total
10

2010

505
 Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of this notice to: Desk Officer, Health Resources and Services Administration, Human Resources and Housing Branch, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. Dated: December 15, 2004. Steven A. Pelovitz, Associate Administrator, Office of Administration and Financial Management.


[FR Doc. 04-27869 Filed 12-20-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
Case 3:08-cv-01075-CRB   Document 11   Filed 04/08/10   Page 1 of 2

Case 3:08-cv-01075-CRB   Document 11   Filed 04/08/10   Page 2 of 2
§ 17.9 Procedures. ( a ) *Notice.* The Bureau of Resource Management, Department of State, shall give written notification to any individual who has received an overpayment promptly by first-class mail to the individual at the individual's most current address in the records of the Bureau of Resource Management. The written notice shall inform the individual of: ( 1 ) The amount of the overpayment;
( 2 ) The cause of the overpayment;
( 3 ) The intention of the Department to seek repayment of the overpayment,
( 4 ) The date by which payment should be made to avoid the imposition of interest, penalties, and administrative costs;
( 5 ) The applicable standards for the imposing of interest, penalties, and administrative costs;
( 6 ) The department's willingness to discuss alternative payment arrangements and how the individual may offer to enter into a written agreement to repay the amount of the overpayment under terms acceptable to the Department; and
( 7 ) The name, address and telephone number of a contact person within the Bureau of Resource Management. The written notice also shall inform the individual of their right to contest the overpayment, their right to request a waiver of recovery of the overpayment, and the procedures to follow in case of such contest or request for waiver of recovery. The notification shall allow at least 30 days from its date within which the individual may contest in writing the overpayment or request a waiver of recovery, including with their submission all evidence and arguments in support of their position.
( b ) *Administrative file.* The Bureau of Resource Management will prepare an administrative file as a basis for determination in each case where an individual contests a claim to recover overpayment or requests waiver of recovery of the overpayment. On the basis of the administrative file, the Chief Financial Officer or his or her delegate, shall make the final administrative determination.
( c ) *Additional information.* At any time before the final administrative decision, the Department may request the individual to supplement his or her submission with additional factual information and may request that the individual authorize the Department of State to have access to bank and other financial records bearing on the application of these regulations. If the individual, without good cause shown, fails or refuses to produce the requested additional information or authorization, the Department of State is entitled to make adverse inferences with respect to the matters sought to be amplified, clarified, or verified.
( d ) *Decision and right of appeal.* The final administrative decision shall be reduced to writing and sent to the individual. If the decision is adverse to the individual, the notification of the decision shall include a written description of the individual's rights of appeal to the Foreign Service Grievance Board. The Foreign Service Grievance Board shall consider any appeal under this part in accordance with the regulations of the Board set forth in 22 CFR part 901.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Peter Bogetti, Appellant.

[715 NYS2d 649]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Perone, J.), rendered July 7, 1999, convicting him of sodomy in the third degree, attempted sodomy in the third degree, sexual abuse in the second degree (three counts), and official misconduct, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (s*ee, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of the crime of official misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Feerick,*93 NY2d 433; *People v Perlman,*121 AD2d 765). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt with respect to the counts involving the complainant Stacey B. was not against the weight of the evidence (s*ee,*CPL 470*15 [5]).

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to sever and granting the People’s motion to consolidate *(see,*CPL 200.20; *People v Lane,*56 NY2d 1; *People v Hall,*169 AD2d 778). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Monster Worldwide, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Charles Baker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

|        | By:    | /s/ CHARLES  BAKER                                |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Charles Baker                                     |
|   |   | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   | Date: May 9, 2007                            |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906,has been provided to Monster Worldwide, Inc. and will be retained byMonster Worldwide, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

----
### §3795b. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3795b was editorially reclassified as section 10273 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### §1872a. Repealed. Pub. L. 90–407, §11(1), July 18, 1968, 82 Stat. 365

Section, act May 10, 1950, ch. 171, §14, as added July 11, 1958, Pub. L. 85–510, §2, 72 Stat. 353, authorized the Foundation, in carrying out a program of study, research, and evaluation in the field of weather modification, to consult with meteorologists and scientists, make contracts and grants, accept gifts, loan property, conduct hearings, and subpoena books and records.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 90–407, §11(1), July 18, 1968, 82 Stat. 365, provided that the repeal of this section is effective Sept. 1, 1968, and that provisions authorizing Foundation to initiate and support programs in field of weather modification should remain in effect until Sept. 1, 1968, for purpose of this section.

#### Continuation of Existing Offices, Procedures, and Organization of the National Science Foundation

Repeal by Pub. L. 90–407 intended to continue in effect the existing offices, procedures, and organization of the Foundation, see section 16 of Pub. L. 90–407, set out as a note under section 1862 of this title.
#### § 312.645 Federal agency or agency.

*Federal agency or agency* means any United States executive department, military department, government corporation, government controlled corporation, any other establishment in the executive branch (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency.
### §2991. Short title

This subchapter may be cited as the "Native American Programs Act of 1974".

(Pub. L. 88–452, title VIII, §801, as added Pub. L. 93–644, §11, Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2323.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2991, Pub. L. 88–452, title VIII, §801, as added Pub. L. 89–794, title VIII, §801. Nov. 8, 1966, 80 Stat. 1472; amended Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §110, Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 722; Pub. L. 92–424, §26(a), Sept. 19, 1972, 86 Stat. 703, related to Congressional statement of purpose, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 93–113, title VI, §603, Oct. 1, 1973, 87 Stat. 417. See section 4951 of this title.

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

#### Short Title of 2019 Amendment

Pub. L. 116–101, §1, Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 3261, provided that: "This Act [amending sections 2991b–3 and 2992d of this title] may be cited as the 'Esther Martinez Native American Languages Programs Reauthorization Act'."

#### Short Title of 2006 Amendment

Pub. L. 109–394, §1, Dec. 14, 2006, 120 Stat. 2705, provided that: "This Act [amending sections 2991b–3, 2992c, and 2992d of this title] may be cited as the 'Esther Martinez Native American Languages Preservation Act of 2006'."

#### Short Title of 1998 Amendment

Pub. L. 105–361, §1, Nov. 10, 1998, 112 Stat. 3278, provided that: "This Act [amending sections 2991b–1 and 2992d of this title] may be cited as the 'Native American Programs Act Amendments of 1998'."

#### Short Title of 1992 Amendments

Pub. L. 102–524, §1, Oct. 26, 1992, 106 Stat. 3434, provided that: "This Act [enacting section 2991b–3 of this title and amending section 2992d of this title], other than section 4 [enacting provisions set out as a note under section 2001 of Title 25, Indians], may be cited as the 'Native American Languages Act of 1992'."

Pub. L. 102–375, title VIII, §821, Sept. 30, 1992, 106 Stat. 1295, provided that: "This subtitle [subtitle C (§§821, 822) of title VIII of Pub. L. 102–375, enacting sections 2991b–2, 2991c, 2992–1, 2992a–1, and 2992b of this title, amending sections 2991a to 2991b–1, 2991d to 2992, 2992c, and 2992d of this title, and repealing former sections 2991c and 2992b of this title] may be cited as the 'Native American Programs Act Amendments of 1992'."

#### Short Title of 1990 Amendment

Pub. L. 101–408, §1, Oct. 4, 1990, 104 Stat. 883, provided that: "This Act [amending sections 2991b and 2992d of this title] may be cited as the 'Indian Environmental Regulatory Enhancement Act of 1990'."

#### Short Title of 1987 Amendment

Pub. L. 100–175, title V, §501, Nov. 29, 1987, 101 Stat. 973, provided that: "This title [enacting sections 2991b–1, 2991d–1 and 2992b–1 of this title and amending sections 2991a, 2991b, 2991d–1, 2991f, 2992c, and 2992d of this title] may be cited as the 'Native American Programs Act Amendments of 1987'."

#### Short Title of 1984 Amendment

Pub. L. 98–558, title X, §1001, Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2905, provided that: "This title [amending sections 2991b, 2992b to 2992d of this title] may be cited as the 'Native American Programs Act Amendments of 1984'."
#### Samuel Liebster, Respondent, v. Mitchell M. Friedman and Others, Copartners, etc., Appellants.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs, on the ground that the papers show that the examination is sought only to prepare for the trial of the action. Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.