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

MARTIN A. RAMIREZ,

Petitioner,

 v.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 08-2159 MMC (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO

FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS

On April 25, 2008, petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional

Training Facility, Soledad, and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a 2007 decision by the California

Board of Prison Hearings (“Board”) to deny petitioner parole. Respondent has filed an

answer to the petition and petitioner has filed a traverse.

A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit addresses important issues relating to federal

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

Cir. April 22, 2010) (en banc). Consequently, the parties will be directed to file

supplemental briefs setting forth their respective views as to the effect, if any, of the

Hayward en banc decision on the Court’s determination of the instant petition.

Case 3:08-cv-02159-MMC Document 12 Filed 05/20/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Accordingly, the Court hereby sets the following briefing schedule:

1. No later than ten days from the date this order is filed, respondent shall send to

petitioner a copy of the Hayward en banc decision. 

2. No later than twenty days from the date this order is filed, respondent shall file

and serve on petitioner a supplemental brief addressing the impact of Hayward on the instant

action. 

3. No later than twenty days from the date respondent’s supplemental brief is

filed, petitioner shall file and serve on respondent either a supplemental brief addressing the

impact of Hayward on the instant action or a notice that he does not intend to file such a

brief.

4. The parties’ respective supplemental briefs shall not exceed fifteen pages in length.

5. The matter will be deemed submitted on the date petitioner’s supplemental brief is

due. No extensions of time will be granted to file the supplemental briefs absent a showing

of exceptional circumstances. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 20, 2010 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02159-MMC Document 12 Filed 05/20/10 Page 2 of 2
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

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

G:\CRBALL\2007\5634\Order re March 12 hearing.wpd

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE TRANSPACIFIC PASSENGER AIRTRANSPORTATION ANTITRUSTLITIGATION                                                                      /

This document relates to: ALL ACTIONS                                                                      /

No. C 07-05634 CRB

MDL 1913

ORDER

The Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss will be held in abeyance pending a

determination of the applicability of the Bankruptcy Court’s injunction to these proceedings. 

The merits of those motions will therefore not be the subject of the hearing scheduled for

March 12, 2010.  Instead, the parties should be prepared to discuss the merits of Defendants’

Motion To Stay Proceedings Upon Notice of Injunction in In Re: Japan Airlines.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2010                                                            CHARLES  R. BREYERUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01444-CRB   Document 8   Filed 03/03/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-12T07:41:54-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2319

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Jewell Leroy Chatman, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: November 19, 1997

 Filed: December 2, 1997

___________

Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jewell Leroy Chatman pleaded guilty to robbing a federally-insured Minneapolis,

Minnesota bank, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Based on a total offense level of 22

and a Category IV criminal history, the presentence report (PSR) recommended a

Guidelines imprisonment range of 63 to 78 months. Chatman sought a downward

departure from this Guidelines range pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §

4A1.3, p.s. (1995), arguing that Category IV overstated his criminal history and
The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of 1

Minnesota.

-2-

Category II would be more appropriate. The district court refused to depart downward. 1

Noting that, in addition to the five countable convictions underlying his criminal history

score, Chatman had been charged with criminal conduct in five other instances, the district

court concluded Category IV overstated neither the seriousness of the defendant&s

criminal history nor his likelihood of recidivism. The court, however, granted the

government&s motion for downward departure pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual § 5K1.1, p.s. (1995), and sentenced Chatman to 46 months imprisonment and

three years supervised release. Chatman appeals, and we affirm.

We conclude that, because the district court was aware of its authority to depart,

Chatman&s sentence is unreviewable. See United States v. Hall, 7 F.3d 1394, 1396 (8th

Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [ES-960-1910-BJ-4489; ES-052452, Group No. 38, Missouri] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Filing of Plat of Survey; Missouri. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of survey of the lands described below in the BLM-Eastern States, Springfield, Virginia, 30 calendar days from the date of publication in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bureau of Land Management, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153. Attn: Cadastral Survey. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This survey was requested by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

The lands we surveyed are:

## Fifth Principal Meridian, Missouri 

T. 51 N., Rs. 2 and 3 E.

The plat of survey represents the dependent resurvey of portions of the township boundaries, portions of the subdivisional lines and the survey of the Lock and Dam No. 25 acquisition boundary, in Township 51 North, Ranges 2 and 3 East, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, in the State of Missouri, and was accepted on October 29, 2004. 

We will place a copy of the plat we described in the open files. It will be made available to the public as a matter of information. 

Dated: October 29, 2004

Stephen D. Douglas, 

Chief Cadastral Surveyor. 

[FR Doc. 04-26802 Filed 12-6-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
HYPOXICO INC., Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

COLORADO ALTITUDE TRAINING LLC, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2014

- 1544

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in No. 1:02

- cv

- 06191

- TPG, Senior Judge Thomas P. Griesa.

______________________

J UDGMENT

______________________

R OGER T HOMPSON , The Law Offices of Roger S. Thompson, New York, NY, argued for plaintiff

- appellant.

C HARLES D AVISON H OFFMANN , Hoffmann Marshall Strong LLP, New York, NY, argued for defendant

appellee. Also represented by C HRISTOPHER M ATTHEW S TRONG

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it isO RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST , Chief Judge, R EYNA and C HEN , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

June 18, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
Table of Contents

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned officer of Arden Realty, Inc., a Maryland corporation, the general partner of
Arden Realty Limited Partnership (the Partnership), hereby certifies, to such
officers knowledge, that:

|(i) |  | the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Partnership for the fiscal
               year ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the
               requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
               Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(ii) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.
|---- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date: March 30, 2004 |  | BY: /S/ Richard S. Ziman
Richard S. ZimanChairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerArden Realty, Inc.
|-------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350 and in accordance with SEC Release No. 33-8238, and is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Partnership,
whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
language in such filing.
### §290ee–10. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title V, §550, as added Pub. L. 115–271, title VIII, §8214, Oct. 24, 2018, 132 Stat. 4116, which related to sobriety treatment and recovery teams, was renumbered section 550A of act July 1, 1944, by Pub. L. 117–328, div. FF, title I, §1237, Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 5677, and transferred to section 290ee–5a of this title.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 494 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4278 

[Report No. 112–683] 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with respect to permit 

requirements for dredged or fill material. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 28, 2012 

Mr. HURT (for himself and Mr. ALTMIRE) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 

Additional sponsors: Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, 

Mr. GOSAR, Mr. JONES, Mr. CANSECO, Mr. LONG, Mr. WESTMORELAND, 

Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio, Mr. CARTER, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. MARINO, Mr. DENHAM, Mr. 

PETERSON, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. LATHAM, Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia, 

Mr. STEARNS, Mr. COSTA, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, and Mr. 

MICHAUD

SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4278 RH

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with 

respect to permit requirements for dredged or fill material. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4278 RH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Preserving Rural Re5 sources Act of 2012’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PERMITS FOR DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL. 

7 Section 404(f) of the Federal Water Pollution Con8 trol Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(f)) is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘Except as 

10 provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, the dis11 charge’’ and inserting ‘‘The discharge’’; and 

12 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘having as its 

13 purpose bringing an area of the navigable waters 

14 into a use to which it was not previously subject, 

15 where the flow or circulation of navigable waters 

16 may be impaired or the reach of such waters be re17 duced,’’ and inserting ‘‘having as its purpose bring18 ing an area into a use not described in paragraph 

19 (1)’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 494 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4278 

[Report No. 112–683] 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

or fill material. with respect to permit requirements for dredged 

SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4384 

To permit manufacturers of generic drugs to provide additional warnings 

with respect to such drugs in the same manner that the Food and 

Drug Administration allows brand names to do so. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 18, 2012 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN (for himself and Mr. BRALEY of Iowa) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To permit manufacturers of generic drugs to provide additional warnings with respect to such drugs in the same 

manner that the Food and Drug Administration allows 

brand names to do so. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Patient Safety and 

5 Drug Labeling Improvement Act’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4384 IH

1 SEC. 2. PERMITTING LABELING CHANGES FOR GENERICS. 

2 Section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cos3 metics Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)) is amended by adding at 

4 the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(11)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision 

6 of this Act, the holder of an approved application 

7 under this subsection may change the labeling of a 

8 drug so approved in the same manner authorized by 

9 regulation for the holder of an approved new drug 

10 application under subsection (b). 

11 ‘‘(B) In the event of a labeling change made 

12 under subparagraph (A), the Secretary may order 

13 conforming changes to the labeling of the equivalent 

14 listed drug and each drug approved under this sub15 section that corresponds to such listed drug.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
§ 172.5 Procedure when testimony or production of documents is sought; general. ( a ) If official Department information is sought, through testimony or otherwise, by a request or demand, the party seeking such release or testimony must (except as otherwise required by federal law or authorized by the Office of the Legal Adviser) set forth in writing, and with as much specificity as possible, the nature and relevance of the official information sought. Subject to § 172.7, Department employees may only produce, disclose, release, comment upon, or testify concerning those matters which were specified in writing and properly approved by the appropriate Department official designated in § 172.4. See United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951). The Office of the Legal Adviser may waive this requirement in appropriate circumstances.
( b ) To the extent it deems necessary or appropriate, the Department may also require from the party seeking such testimony or documents a plan of all reasonably foreseeable demands, including but not limited to the names of all employees and former employees from whom discovery will be sought, areas of inquiry, expected duration of proceedings requiring oral testimony, and identification of potentially relevant documents.
( c ) The appropriate Department official designated in § 172.4 will notify the Department employee and such other persons as circumstances may warrant of its decision regarding compliance with the request or demand.
( d ) The Office of the Legal Adviser will consult with the Department of Justice regarding legal representation for Department employees in appropriate cases.
[57 FR 32896, July 24, 1992, as amended at 83 FR 17489, Apr. 20, 2018]
#### Anthony Concrete Corporation, Respondent, v Carbar Construction Corp. et al., Defendants-Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Order of June 27, 1977 and judgment of July 13, 1977 of the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment in the sum of $20,385.98 plus interest, unanimously modified, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, to reduce the judgment to $10,411.73, and otherwise affirmed. Plaintiff had a subcontract under an arrangement whereby the defendants-appellants were general contractors with the Dormitory Authority of New York State for the construction of a college student center. Plaintiff was ordered to and performed extra work. The general contractor having paid $160,000 due under the contract, the plaintiff sued for the difference for the extra work. The defendant concedes that a sum of $24,090 for extra work was proper, but counterclaims for $15,168 for work which it claims it had to do to correct or complete the subcontractor’s job. Included in this counterclaim are sums for which the plaintiff has received payment and for which the plaintiff makes claims for payment. In addition, the defendants-appellants contend that under the terms of the contract with the Dormitory Authority, *6%*of the over-all job was retained by the Dormitory Authority pending final completion and acceptance. The examination before trial of the defendants-appellants’ witness indicates that $37,425.24 is a justifiable amount in controversy. Deducting therefrom the amount of the counterclaim (which, of course, may include items for which the plaintiff makes claim for payment) plus the retainage of 6% of $197,425.24, leaves a balance of $10,411.73, for which partial summary judgment is granted. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Evans and Fein, JJ.
§ 172.3 Service of subpoenas, court orders, and other demands or requests for official information or action. ( a ) Except in cases in which the Department is represented by legal counsel who have entered an appearance or otherwise given notice of their representation, only L/EX is authorized to receive and accept subpoenas, or other demands or requests directed to the Department, or any component thereof, or its employees, or former employees, whether civil or criminal nature, for: ( 1 ) Material, including documents, contained in the files of the Department;
( 2 ) Information, including testimony, affidavits, declarations, admissions, responses to interrogatories, or informal statements, relating to material contained in the files of the Department or which any Department employee acquired in the course and scope of the performance of his official duties;
( 3 ) Garnishment or attachment of compensation of current or former employees; or
( 4 ) The performance or non-performance of any official Department duty.
( b ) In the event that any subpoena, demand, or request is sought to be delivered to a Department employee (including former employees) other than in the manner prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section, such attempted service shall be ineffective. Such employee shall, after consultation with the Office of the Legal Adviser, decline to accept the subpoena, demand or request or shall return them to the server under cover of a written communication referring to the procedures prescribed in this part.
( c ) Except as otherwise provided in this part, the Department is not an agent for service, or otherwise authorized to accept on behalf of its employees any subpoenas, show-cause orders, or similar compulsory process of federal or state courts, or requests from private individuals or attorneys, which are not related to the employees' official duties except upon the express, written authorization of the individual Department employee to whom such demand or request is directed.
( d ) Acceptance of such documents by L/EX does not constitute a waiver of any defenses that might otherwise exist with respect to service under the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure or other applicable rules.