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

ARTHUR FULFORD, on behalf of himself

and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LOGITECH, INC., a California corporation,

Defendant

 /

No. C-08-2041 MMC

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO

FILE SUPPLEMENT TO STATEMENT OF

COMPLIANCE

Before the Court is defendant’s Statement of Compliance and Response to

Objections (“Statement”), filed February 19, 2010, submitted in connection with plaintiff’s

Motion for Final Settlement Approval, also filed February 19, 2010.

In its Statement, defendant has not identified the number of claims made by class

members; rather, defendant asserts it should not be required to publicly set forth such

number. Defendant also states, however, it has no objection “to provid[ing] the number of

claims to the Court, upon the Court’s request, for the Court’s in camera review, prior to or

during the Fairness Hearing on March 5, 2010.” (See Statement at 4:3-5.)

The number of claims made by class members bears on the adequacy of the

proposed settlement. See In re Mego Financial Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F. 3d 454, 458 (9th

Cir. 2000) (identifying, as factor to consider when determining adequacy of proposed

Case 3:08-cv-02041-MMC Document 129 Filed 02/23/10 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

27

28

1

By the instant order, the Court has not ruled on whether the number of claims is the

type of information that should not be made publicly available. Said issue will be

addressed at the March 5, 2010 hearing.

2

settlement, “the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement”). 

Consequently, the Court finds it appropriate to direct defendant to supplement its

Statement by setting forth the number of claims made.

Accordingly, defendant is hereby DIRECTED to file, no later than March 2, 2010 at

4:00 p.m., a supplement to its Statement and, specifically, to state therein the number of

claims made. In light of defendant’s assertion that such information should not be publicly

disclosed, the Court will allow defendant to file such supplement under seal.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02041-MMC Document 129 Filed 02/23/10 Page 2 of 2
#### (A) The People of the State of New York v. Carroll Gordon Fax. (B) The People of the State of New York v. Margie McCullers. (C) The People of the State of New York v. Jesse Kelso. (D) The People of the State of New York v. Charles Mottola.

[In each action] Motion to dismiss appeal granted. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.
*

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50111

Summary Calendar

RHETT VAUGHN POSEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-96-CA-1066

September 25, 1998

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. terminated Rhett Vaughn Posey’s employment for cause on June 14,

1996. Posey brought a timely action in the United States District Court for the Western District of

Texas alleging violations ofTitle VII ofthe CivilRights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

et. seq. (“Title VII”); 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29

U.S.C. § 1001 et. seq. (“ERISA”). 

OnDecember 29, 1997, the district court issued an order granting summaryjudgment in favor

of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. First, the district court found that Posey could not prove a prima facie case

of discrimination. Next, the district court noted that even if Posey had established a prima facie case,

he failed to show that Wal-Mart’s reasons for terminating him were a pretext for intentional
2

discrimination. Finally, the district court granted summary judgment on Posey’s ERISA claim after

finding that Posey had neither a reasonable expectation of reinstatement nor a colorable claim to

benefits under the plan.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Guillory v. Domtar

Industries, Inc., 95 F.3d 1320, 1326 (5th Cir. 1996). This review requires the same analysis

employed by the district court. Id. (citing Turnage v. General Elec. Co. 953 F.2d 206, 212 (5th Cir.

1992). Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file along with the affidavitsfiled in support of the motion, if any,

indicate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.; see also, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,

322 (1986). The essence of our review rests on “whether the evidence presents a sufficient

disagreement to require submission to the jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must

prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986). 

We have reviewed the law, briefs, and the record and conclude that the district court did not

err in granting Wal-Mart’s motion forsummaryjudgment. We agree with the district court and affirm

based on its reasoning. 

AFFIRMED.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 18, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, December 18, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18I0072. MASON THOMAS FRIAS v. THE STATE. Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 169348048
§ 214.2 Definition of advisory committee. ( a ) The term *advisory committee* is defined in section 3(2) of the Act.
( b ) In general, this definition includes any committee, board, commission, council, conference, panel, task force, or other similar group, or any subcommittee or sub-group thereof, which is formed or utilized by the Agency for obtaining advice or recommendations, and which is not composed wholly of full-time Federal employees.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:Fatigue: more than being tired.**
 
2012 | 2016 | 2019
 
SuDoc Number:HE 20.3861:F 26/
Item Number:0447-A-12 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 001100849
 
August 14, 2019
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

No. C 08-3301 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 *E-Filed 4/12/10*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

CARDELL NEWTON,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent. /

No. C 08-3301 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This is a federal habeas corpus action filed by a pro se state prisoner pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. 

The petition was dismissed with leave to amend, and petitioner was ordered to file an

amended petition by March 24, 2010. As of the date of this writing, petitioner has not filed

an amended petition. Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 9, 2010 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-03301-RS Document 17 Filed 04/12/10 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

No. C 08-3301 RS (PR)

2 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A HARD COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS MAILED TO:

Cardell Newton 

F-52079 

Sierra Conservation Center 

T. Unit 

5150 O'Byrnes Ferry Road 

Jamestown, CA 95327-0500 

DATED: 04/12/2010 

 

 

s/ Chambers Staff 

Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

* Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to any co-counsel who

have not registered with the Court's electronic filing system.

Case 3:08-cv-03301-RS Document 17 Filed 04/12/10 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     consolidated balance sheet and consolidated statement of operations in the
     Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB as of and for the fiscal quarter
     ended July 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
     financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001020448
<NAME>                        Imperial Petroleum Recovery Corporation
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                             62,458
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  154,595
<PP&E>                                            178,511
<DEPRECIATION>                                      3,362
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    331,106
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             863,418
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           10,150
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,422,429)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      333,106
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        0
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   2,123,346
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,980,826)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,980,826)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   119,900
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,980,826)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (.24)
        


</TABLE>
#### David I. Nalitt v. Cosmopolitan Bank.

Application denied, with ten dollars costs. Order signed. Present—Clarke, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Smith, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Maurice McClain, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 320]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (West, J.), rendered July 22, 1999, convicting him of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was properly adjudicated a second felony offender based upon his previous felony conviction in 1991. Furthermore, under all of the circumstances, there is no merit *252to the defendant’s assertion that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel in the 1991 case *(see, e.g., People v Silverio-Mercedes,*239 AD2d 923).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Vice President and Cashier of
Communitycorp (the Company), each certify that, to his or her knowledge on the date of this certification:



| | 1. | The quarterly report of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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: August 8, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ W. Roger Crook                   
|                     |  |     |  | W. Roger Crook                       
|                     |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                     |  |    
|Date: August 8, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Gwendolyn P. Bunton              
|                     |  |     |  | Gwendolyn P. Bunton                  
|                     |  |     |  | Vice President and Cashier
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. JON DECANO, a.k.a. Jon Darren Maglangit,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 15

- 10456

D.C. No. 1:14

- cr
- 00469

- HG

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Helen Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016 **

Before: WALLACE , LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Jon Decano appeals from the district court’ s judgment and challenges the

140

- month s entence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for conspiracy to
distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A),

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

DEC 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 10456

and 846

. We dismiss

. The government contends that this appeal is barred by a valid appeal waiver

.
We review de novo whether a defendant has waived his right to appeal

. See
United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011)

. The terms of the
appeal waiver in Decano’s plea agreement unambiguously encompass this appeal

of his below

- Guidelines sentence. See id . at 1205

- 06. Decano’s arguments that
the waiver is unenforceable because his sentence is illegal are without merit. Fi rst,
the district court did not have to apply U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 in considering the
government’s motion for a downward departure because that Guideline provision

is not implicated here. S

ee Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 819 (2010)
(section 1B1.10 governs 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence modification
proceedings ). Second, Decano’s claim that he received no benefit in exchange for
his guilty plea is belied by the record. Finally, we decline to consider Decano’s
claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. See

United States v. Rahman , 642 F.3d 1257, 1259

- 60 (9th Cir. 2011).

DISMISSED

.
#### Viking Yacht Rental Corporation, Respondent, v. American Yachting Systems, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs to the respondent. No opinion. Concur—Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
Draft EIS Appendix 24 

APPENDIX 24—MITIGATION GUIDELINES FOR 

SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS 

Mitigation options to avoid or reduce impacts to rare plants may be limited because of specific habitat 

requirements or lack of necessary biological information to make such an assessment. Most of the 

common techniques, such as compensation mitigation or habitat restoration, have proven largely

unsuccessful, although seed banking is commonly performed to attempt off-site propagation. Mitigation 

plans for areas where impacts to these species cannot be avoided are designed to provide special 

management actions that minimize the overall impact to the species. However, because of the difficulties 

of providing successful mitigation options, impacts to special status plants are considered less than

significant only if no net loss of population size or habitat quality results. “No net loss” is intended to 

mean that BLM must “ensure that [actions authorized, funded, or carried out by BLM] . . . affecting the 

habitat of special status species are carried out in a manner that is consistent with the objectives for 

managing those species. BLM shall not carry out any actions that would cause any irreversible or 

irretrievable commitment of resources or reduce the future management option for the species involved”

(BLM Manual 6840). 

Rawlins RMP A24-1
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 06-710 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

 Agreement between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and ITALY 

Signed at Ft. Belvoir and Rome 

June 2 and July 10, 2006 

with 

Annexes 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
ITALY 

Defense 

Agreement signed at Ft. Belvoir and Rome 

 June 2 and July 10, 2006; 

 Entered into force July 10, 2006. 

 With annexes.
### §2000gg–4. Waiver of State immunity

A State shall not be immune under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution from an action in a Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this chapter. In any action against a State for a violation of this chapter, remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for such a violation to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in an action against any public or private entity other than a State.

(Pub. L. 117–328, div. II, §106, Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 6089.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 180 days after Dec. 29, 2022, see section 109 of div. II of Pub. L. 117–328, set out as a note under section 2000gg of this title.
#### William Avedon v. Gem Dress House, Inc.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied, with ten dollars costs. Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
§ 1422.12 Duties and powers of the Hearing Officer. It shall be the duty of Hearing Officers to inquire fully into the facts as they relate to the matters before them. With respect to cases assigned to them between the time they are designated and the transfer of the case to the Board, Hearing Officers shall have the authority to: ( a ) Grant requests for subpenas pursuant to § 1429.7 of this subchapter;
( b ) Rule upon offers of proof and receive relevant evidence and stipulations of fact;
( c ) Take or cause depositions or interrogatories to be taken whenever the ends of justice would be served thereby;
( d ) Limit lines of questioning or testimony which are immaterial, irrelevant or unduly repetitious;
( e ) Regulate the course of the hearing and, if appropriate, exclude from the hearing persons who engage in misconduct;
( f ) Strike all related testimony of witnesses refusing to answer any questions ruled to be proper;
( g ) Hold conferences for the settlement or simplification of the issues by consent of the parties or upon the Hearing Officer's own motion;
( h ) Dispose of procedural requests, motions, or similar matters, which shall be made part of the record of the proceedings, including motions referred to the Hearing Officer by the Regional Director and motions to amend petitions;
( i ) Call and examine and cross-examine witnesses and introduce into the record documentary or other evidence;
( j ) Request the parties at any time during the hearing to state their respective positions concerning any issue in the case or theory in support thereof;
( k ) Continue the hearing from day-to-day, or adjourn it to a later date or to a different place, by announcement thereof at the hearing or by other appropriate notice;
( l ) Rule on motions to correct the transcript which are received within ten (10) days after the transcript is received in the regional office; and
( m ) Take any other action necessary under this section and not prohibited by the regulations in this subchapter.
Transport Airplane Directorate 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton, W ashington 9805 7 - 3356

February 8 , 2012 Mr . Hans Mostert MC 03 - 56 The Boeing Company PO Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 - 2207 Dear Mr. Mostert : We have received your petition (letter no. RA - 12 - 00504 ) , on behalf of The Boeing Company , requesting an exemption from § 25. 84 1 (a)(2 ) (i) and (ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulation . This exemption, if granted, would permit relief from the requirement s of airplane cabin - pressure altitudes relative to maximum altitude - descent times required in the event of cabin depressurization as the result of an uncontained engine failure . Your petition has been added to public docket n o. FAA - 2008 - 0826 and is being processed. We will contact you if we need additional information. We will advise you of our final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you have questions in the meantime, you may call Steve Happenny at (425) 227 - 21 47 , e - mail stephen . happenny@faa.gov . Sincerel y,

Mark Forseth Standardization Branch Transport Airplane Directorate Federal Aviation Administration
#### § 234.12 Prosecution of claims.

After payment by USAID to an Applicant hereunder, USAID shall have exclusive power to prosecute all claims related to rights to receive payments under the Eligible Notes to which it is thereby subrogated. If a Noteholder continues to have an interest in the outstanding Eligible Notes, such a Noteholder and USAID shall consult with each other with respect to their respective interests in such Eligible Notes and the manner of and responsibility for prosecuting claims.