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

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 FOLLOWING

FEBRUARY 24 HEARING

A hearing was held on February 24 regarding the Court’s in camera review of ten

documents listed on defendants’ privilege log which plaintiffs identified as being unable

determine the basis for privilege. Based on the Court’s review and the explanation of defendants

in their written submission and during the hearing, exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10 are held to be

privileged for the reasons stated at the hearing. Exhibit 9 was found to have been misidentified

by defendants as privileged, although plaintiffs stated at the hearing that they have already

received unredacted copies of this exhibit elsewhere in defendants’ production and one sentence

of both versions is privileged. Defendants must supplement their showing as to why exhibit 8 is

privileged, specifically addressing whether the redlines in the exhibit were reviewed only by

nonlawyers or by lawyers, by NOON ON MARCH 8, 2010. The issue of whether exhibit 1 is

properly withheld as privileged is still under review by the Court.

By NOON ON MARCH 1, 2010, defendant Kimon Daifotis shall file a written submission

regarding who has authority to waive privilege as he is no longer an employee of Schwab and

how this affects the overall analysis. Plaintiffs shall file a response on or before NOON ON

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 427 Filed 02/25/10 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

MARCH 5, 2010. By NOON ON APRIL 12, 2010, defendants must produce all documents as to

which privilege has been waived. 

At the February 24 hearing, plaintiffs identified four overarching topics that allegedly

made the YieldPlus fund riskier than was disclosed to investors, including (1) overconcentration

of risk, (2) lack of internal controls and proper risk management, (3) violation of liquidity limits

and (4) mismanaged duration. By NOON ON MARCH 8, 2010, plaintiffs shall identify which of the

51 alleged misstatements identified in their expert’s report correspond to each of these four

overarching topics and whether any of them can be provisionally dropped from the case, with the

understanding that plaintiffs may reinsert some of them at or before the pretrial conference for

good cause. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 427 Filed 02/25/10 Page 2 of 2
### §300jj–17. Federal health information technology

#### (a) In general

The National Coordinator shall support the development and routine updating of qualified electronic health record technology (as defined in section 300jj of this title) consistent with subsections (b) and (c) and make available such qualified electronic health record technology unless the Secretary determines through an assessment that the needs and demands of providers are being substantially and adequately met through the marketplace.

#### (b) Certification

In making such electronic health record technology publicly available, the National Coordinator shall ensure that the qualified electronic health record technology described in subsection (a) is certified under the program developed under section 300jj–11(c)(3) of this title to be in compliance with applicable standards adopted under section 300jj–12(a)(2) 1 of this title.

#### (c) Authorization to charge a nominal fee

The National Coordinator may impose a nominal fee for the adoption by a health care provider of the health information technology system developed or approved under subsection 2 (a) and (b). Such fee shall take into account the financial circumstances of smaller providers, low income providers, and providers located in rural or other medically underserved areas.

#### (d) Rule of construction

Nothing in this section shall be construed to require that a private or government entity adopt or use the technology provided under this section.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXX, §3007, as added Pub. L. 111–5, div. A, title XIII, §13101, Feb. 17, 2009, 123 Stat. 241; amended Pub. L. 114–255, div. A, title IV, §4003(e)(2)(E), Dec. 13, 2016, 130 Stat. 1175.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2016—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 114–255 substituted "300jj–12(a)(2)" for "300jj–13(a)".

1 So in original. No par. (2) of section 300jj–12(a) has been enacted.

2 So in original. Probably should be "subsections".
###### Editorial Note on Part 142

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 142 appear at 68 FR 51359, Aug. 26, 2003.

#### §§ 142.48-142.60 [Reserved]
### §285e–1. Special functions

#### (a) Education and training of adequate numbers of personnel

In carrying out the training responsibilities under this chapter or any other Act for health and allied health professions personnel, the Secretary shall take appropriate steps to insure the education and training of adequate numbers of allied health, nursing, and paramedical personnel in the field of health care for the aged.

#### (b) Scientific studies

The Director of the Institute shall conduct scientific studies to measure the impact on the biological, medical, social, and psychological aspects of aging of programs and activities assisted or conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services.

#### (c) Public information and education programs

The Director of the Institute shall carry out public information and education programs designed to disseminate as widely as possible the findings of research sponsored by the Institute, other relevant aging research and studies, and other information about the process of aging which may assist elderly and near-elderly persons in dealing with, and all Americans in understanding, the problems and processes associated with growing older.

#### (d) Grants for research relating to Alzheimer's Disease

The Director of the Institute shall make grants to public and private nonprofit institutions to conduct research relating to Alzheimer's Disease.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, §444, as added Pub. L. 99–158, §2, Nov. 20, 1985, 99 Stat. 854.)
2iPathtinder
Reservoir

Seminoe
Reservoir

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

1. Sand Hills 0 10 20 40 60 80 100
2  Jep Canyon
i Kilometers
3. Shamrock Hills
4 Como Bluffs 0 5 10 20 30 40 50
Miles

Map 2-7
Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM Alternative 1
#### § 1203.735-207 Use of Government property.

An employee shall not directly or indirectly use, or allow the use of Government property of any kind, including property leased to the Government, for other than officially approved activities. An employee has a positive duty to protect and conserve Government property, including equipment, supplies, and other property entrusted or issued to the employee.
### §1652. Computation of benefits; application to aliens and nonnationals

(a) The minimum limit on weekly compensation for disability, established by section 906(b) of title 33, and the minimum limit on the average weekly wages on which death benefits are to be computed, established by section 909(e) of title 33, shall not apply in computing compensation and death benefits under this chapter.

(b) Compensation for permanent total or permanent partial disability under section 908(c)(21) of title 33, or for death under this chapter to aliens and nonnationals of the United States not residents of the United States or Canada shall be in the same amount as provided for residents, except that dependents in any foreign country shall be limited to surviving wife and child or children, or if there be no surviving wife or child or children, to surviving father or mother whom the employee has supported, either wholly or in part, for the period of one year immediately prior to the date of the injury, and except that the Secretary of Labor may, at his option or upon the application of the insurance carrier shall, commute all future installments of compensation to be paid to such aliens or nonnationals of the United States by paying or causing to be paid to them one-half of the commuted amount of such future installments of compensation as determined by the Secretary.

(Aug. 16, 1941, ch. 357, §2, 55 Stat. 623; 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 2, §3, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7873, 60 Stat. 1095; 1950 Reorg. Plan No. 19, §1, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3178, 64 Stat. 1271; Pub. L. 98–426, §27(d)(2), Sept. 28, 1984, 98 Stat. 1654.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1984—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 98–426 substituted references to sections of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act for sections of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, which references have been translated to sections of title 33, thus requiring no change in text.

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

#### Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–426 effective Sept. 28, 1984, see section 28(e)(1) of Pub. L. 98–426, set out as a note under section 901 of Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

"Secretary of Labor" and "Secretary" substituted for "Federal Security Administrator" and "Administrator", respectively, in subsec. (b), pursuant to Reorg. Plan No. 19 of 1950, §1, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3178, 64 Stat. 1271, which transferred functions of Federal Security Administrator to Secretary of Labor.

Previously, "Federal Security Administrator" and "Administrator" substituted for "United States Employees' Compensation Commission" and "Commission" pursuant to Reorg. Plan No. 2 of 1946, §3, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7873, 60 Stat. 1095, which abolished United States Employees' Compensation Commission and transferred its functions to Federal Security Administrator.
#### § 1500.2 Policy.

It is the policy of the African Development Foundation to provide the public with the fullest practical information regarding its decision-making process, while protecting the rights of individuals and the ability of the Foundation to carry out its responsibilities.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 243 (Monday, December 20, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 76021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27733]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Renewal

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of the Charter of the Advisory Committee on 
Reactor Safeguards (ACRS).

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

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards was established 
by Section 29 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) in 1954. Its purpose is to 
provide advice to the Commission with regard to the hazards of proposed 
or existing reactor facilities, to review each application for a 
construction permit or operating license for certain facilities 
specified in the AEA, and such other duties as the Commission may 
request. The AEA as amended by PL 100-456 also specifies that the 
Defense Nuclear Safety Board may obtain the advice and recommendations 
of the ACRS.
    Membership on the Committee includes individuals experienced in 
reactor operations, management; probabilistic risk assessment; analysis 
of reactor accident phenomena; design of nuclear power plant 
structures, systems and components; materials science; and mechanical, 
civil, and electrical engineering.
    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined that renewal of 
the charter for the ACRS until December 14, 2006 is in the public 
interest in connection with the statutory responsibilities assigned to 
the ACRS. This action is being taken in accordance with the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew L. Bates, Office of the 
Secretary, NRC, Washington, DC 20555; telephone: (301) 415-1963.

    Dated: December 14, 2004.
Andrew L. Bates,
Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-27733 Filed 12-17-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Docket No: FAA - 2016 - 3992 Dir ID: 2015 - NM - 075 - AD
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------



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

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pacific Biometrics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Ronald R. Helm, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     1.   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) 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 result of operations of the
Company.


Date:     November 15, 2004                           /s/ Ronald R. Helm
                                                      ------------------------
                                                      Ronald R. Helm,
                                                      Chief Executive Officer
224 A.2d 43.

#### State *vs.*John A. Ferrara.

NOVEMBER 9, 1966.

Present: Roberts, C. J., Paolino, Powers, Joslin and Kelleher, JJ.

Per Curiam.

The indictment before us charges the defendant with having committed sodomy in violation of G. L. 1956, §11-10-1. Special pleas attacking the validity of the indictment were filed by the defendant. After a hearing, the pleas were denied and exceptions to the trial justice’s rulings were duly noted in behalf of the defendant. Within the time prescribed by statute, a bill of exceptions was filed 'by the defendant .and allowed by the trial justice. The papers were then certified to. this court and briefs were filed in behalf of the defendant and the state.

When this cause came on to be heard, this court sua .sponte raised the jurisdictional question as to. whether or not the bill of exceptions had been prematurely brought in violation of §9-24-24 and the rule set forth in *Troy*v. *378
      *Providence Journal Co.,*43 R. I. 22. The defendant has filed a supplementary brief on this particular issue and we have given careful consideration to the reasons set forth therein as to why we should hear the case at this time. We hold, however, that his bill of exceptions is not properly before us.

Section 9-24-24 reads as follows: “Exceptions to decisions or rulings prior to trial shall be open to revision after verdict or final decision on the merits, but SO' far only as it appears to the supreme court that the verdict or final decision wias erroneously affected thereby.” In *Lancia*v. *Grossman’s of Rhode Island, Inc.,*99 R. I. 337, 207 A.2d 607, we reiterated the rule that provisions of this statute governing bills of exceptions are jurisdictional and require strict construction. Since the record posits a jurisdictional question, we can, as we did in *Lancia,*sua sponte raise the question and act accordingly.

Since our consideration of this statute in *Troy*v. *Providence Journal Co., supra,*we have repeatedly admonished bench and bar alike that this court, subject to- a few well-defined exceptions which are not present here, will not consider a .case piecemeal. Before one may prosecute a bill of exceptions to review rulings made by the superior court during the travel of a case, it must proceed to a final verdict or final decision upon its merits so that nothing further remains to be litigated between the parties in a trial. We have also held that this statute makes no distinction between civil and criminal cases as to the time and manner in which a bill of exceptions may be presented by an aggrieved party. *State*v. *Ryan,*64 R. I. 92.

The defendant’s bill of exceptions is dismissed without *379prejudice and tide case is remitted to the superior court for further proceedings.

*J. Joseph Nugent,*Attorney General, *Corinne P. Grande,*Special Assistant Attorney General, for State.

. *Eugene F. Toro,*for defendant.
Case 3:08-cv-01747-CRB Document 10 Filed 03/03/10 Page 1 of 2Case 3:08-cv-01747-CRB Document 10 Filed 03/03/10 Page 2 of 2
###### Editorial Note on Part 133

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 133 appear at 68 FR 66582, Nov. 26, 2003.

#### § 133.105 Does this part apply to me?

(a) Portions of this part apply to you if you are either—

(1) A recipient of an assistance award from the Department of State; or

(2) A Department of State awarding official. (See definitions of award and recipient in §§ 133.605 and 133.660, respectively.)

(b) The following table shows the subparts that apply to you:

| If you are . . . | see subparts . . . |
| --- | --- |
| (1) A recipient who is not an individual | A, B and E. |
| (2) A recipient who is an individual | A, C and E. |
| (3) A Department of State awarding official | A, D and E. |
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________ No. 96-20969

____________________ CENTRAL BANK OF HOUSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston

(CA-H-95-6474)

_________________________________________________________________ June 5, 1997 Before KING, DAVIS, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * AFFIRMED. See Local Rule 47.6.
#### Georgios D. Martinos et al., Appellants, v Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Smithtown, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Smithtown, dated August 24, 1976, which, after a hearing, dismissed, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction petitioners’ application for a variance to utilize an existing residentially zoned dwelling for an office, petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered January 7, 1977, which dismissed the petition on the merits. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and petitioners’ application for a variance is remanded to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Smithtown for a determination on the merits. We note that the subject residentially zoned parcel is only 150 feet wide by 100 feet long; that if the variance were to be granted, only the interior, not the exterior, of the house on the property would be altered; that there is no request for area, set back or sideline, etc., variances; and that the dwelling is located at an intersection of two roads, one of which is a heavily traveled, high-speed highway scheduled to be widened. On the facts of this case, and under the standards set forth in *Van Deusen v Jackson*(35 AD2d 58, affd 28 NY2d 608), the application is one for a variance and not for a change in zone. Accordingly, the board should have determined the application on the merits rather than dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction, and Special Term should have determined the jurisdictional question rather than itself passing upon the merits of the variance application. Accordingly, petitioners’ application for a variance is now remitted to the board for a determination on the merits. Nothing in our decision should be construed as a determination of the merits of petitioners’ application for a variance. That determination rests solely with the board. Cohalan, J. P., Damiani, Hawkins and Mollen, JJ., concur.
### §300ee–4. Technical assistance

The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall provide technical assistance to public and nonprofit private entities carrying out programs, projects, and activities relating to acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

(Pub. L. 100–607, title II, §255, Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3110.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the AIDS Amendments of 1988 and as part of the Health Omnibus Programs Extension of 1988, and not as part of the Public Health Service Act which comprises this chapter.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 2700

AMILCAR ANTONIO FRANCISCO

- LOPEZ,

Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Bo ard of Immigration Appeals

(Agency No.: A041

- 811

- 480)

Immigration Judge: Honorable Nelson Vargas Padilla

Before: SHWARTZ, SCIRICA, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

IT IS SO ORDERED , that the published Opinion in the above case, filed on

May 15, 2020 , be amended as follows:

On page 9

, footnote 5

, delete the following:

5 At the time the BIA rendered its decision in Francisco’s case, the BIA’s decision in

Obeya had been reversed by the Second Circuit. Retroactivity aside, we could not affirm

the BIA’s decision on “the grounds upon which the agency acted,” SEC v. Chenery2 Cor p. , 318 U.S. 80, 95 (1943), because the BIA relied on precedent that was no longer

good law. See Henriquez Dimas v. Sessions , 751 F. App’x 368, 370 (4th Cir. 2018)

(remanding to the BIA when the BIA opinion relied on a prior precedential BIA opinion

interp reting the definition of a CIMT that had since been reversed by the court of

appeals).

The amendment does not change the date of filing, May 15, 2020

. An amended

opinion will be filed.

By the Court,

s/MARJORIE O. RENDELL

Circ uit Judge

Dated: August 13, 2020

cc: All Counsel of Record
§ 228.02 Scope and application. This part is applicable to commodities and services procured under implementing instruments using Federal program funds made available for assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 2151 *et seq.* (FAA). The authorities and conditions applicable to the procurement of commodities or services shall be those in effect on the effective date of an implementing instrument for procurement of commodities or services. They include any directives, prohibitions, restrictions or other statutory and related requirements by the United States Congress that govern the Federal program funds appropriated to fund the specific procurement, including those on types of assistance and recipients of assistance. If additional authorities and conditions are otherwise provided by statute, regulation, or related administrative authorities, those authorities and conditions shall be incorporated in the implementing instrument and shall prevail in the event of any conflict with this part 228. This part is not applicable to ( a ) Procurements of commodities and services under General Services Administration (GSA) supply schedules;
( b ) Procurements with donated funds received under USAID's gift authority, FAA section 635(d);
( c ) Procurements funded by cost share or program income as defined in 22 CFR 226.24;
( d ) USAID Title II food programs, including monetization proceeds thereunder.
( e ) Procurements funded from any congressional appropriation authorized by any statute other than the FAA;
( f ) Procurements with non-program funds (such as operational expense account funds) made available under the FAA for any purpose other than assistance.