alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 3:08-cv-03439-TEH Document 59 Filed 03/09/10 Page 1 of 4 Case3:08-cv-03439-TEH Document58 Filed03/05/10 Page1 of 4
Case 3:08-cv-03439-TEH Document 59 Filed 03/09/10 Page 2 of 4 Case3:08-cv-03439-TEH Document58 Filed03/05/10 Page2 of 4
Case 3:08-cv-03439-TEH Document 59 Filed 03/09/10 Page 3 of 4 Case3:08-cv-03439-TEH Document58 Filed03/05/10 Page3 of 4
Case3:08-cv-03439-TEH Document58 Filed03/05/10 Page4 of 4

3/9/10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Joseph C. Spero

Case 3:08-cv-03439-TEH Document 59 Filed 03/09/10 Page 4 of 4
#### Michael R. CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-7925.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 26, 2007.

Decided: May 1, 2007.

Michael R. Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

*97Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael R. Carter seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of 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 ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1) (2000); *Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). A certifícate 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 Carter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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.*
#### § 311.410 Enforcement.

The head of each agency shall take such actions as are necessary to ensure that the provisions herein are vigorously implemented and enforced in that agency.
#### § 312.655 Individual.

*Individual* means a natural person.
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

REQUEST

FOR CALCULATIONS 

FOR TRIAL

Both sides are invited to run calculations to ascertain how the fund would have done if the

25-percent non-guaranteed mortgaged-back securities limitation had been honored with the

excess over the 25 percent being: (a) kept in cash (Calculation One), and (b) distributed pro rata

among the other non-guaranteed mortgage-back securities investments (up to the limit of any

other industry limitation) (Calculation Two). These should then be pared down to those who

were shareholders as of the date of the mortgage-back securities industry limitation deletion. 

This should then be compared to the way it did turn out. This should be done in time for each

side to depose the experts on these calculations reasonably before trial. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-02984-WHA Document 26 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 1
### §2296b–1. National Strategic Uranium Reserve

There is hereby established the National Strategic Uranium Reserve under the direction and control of the Secretary. The Reserve shall consist of natural uranium and uranium equivalents contained in stockpiles or inventories currently held by the United States for defense purposes. Effective on October 24, 1992, and for 6 years thereafter, use of the Reserve shall be restricted to military purposes and government research. Use of the Department of Energy's stockpile of enrichment tails existing on October 24, 1992, shall be restricted to military purposes for 6 years thereafter.

(Pub. L. 102–486, title X, §1012, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2948.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, and not as part of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 which comprises this chapter.
#### § 19.11-4 Procedure in event a spouse or former spouse is missing.

If a participant or former participant has a spouse or former spouse whose whereabouts are unknown, such participant may elect to reduce or eliminate the share of a regular survivor annuity provided for that person under § 19.11-2 or § 19.11-3 by filing an affidavit with PER/ER/RET stating that his/her spouse or former spouse is missing and giving full name, last known address, date last heard from, circumstances of the disappearance and a description of the effort that has been made to locate the individual. Thereafter, the participant shall take such additional steps to locate the missing person as may be directed by PER/ER/RET. That Office shall also attempt to locate the missing person by sending a letter to the individual's last known address given in the Department's files, to the address given on the affidavit, and, if a Social Security number is known, to the Social Security Administration for forwarding. The election and affidavit may be filed at any time before commencement of annuity. It must remain on file with PER/ER/RET for at least one year before being given irrevocable effect by the Department. If the annuity to the former participant becomes effective prior to the expiration of this one year period, the annuity shall be computed and paid without reference to the election filed under this section. Following this one-year period, or at the commencement of annuity, if later, if the missing person has not been located, the affidavit may be reaffirmed by the participant, after which an election by the participant to reduce or eliminate the share of regular survivor annuity for the missing person shall be given irrevocable effect by the Department. If the annuity to the former participant has commenced, it shall be recomputed and paid retroactively to give effect to any election made under this section.
Exhibit
32.2





Section
1350 Certification of Principal Financial Officer





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 INX Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Brian Fontana, Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





By:
              /s/ BRIAN
      FONTANABrian
      Fontana, Vice Presidentand
      Chief Financial Officer











May 12,
2009
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Charles W. Carpenter, Deceased. William Matthews et al., Appellants; Ruth C. Bennett, as Administratrix of the Estate of Charles W. Carpenter, Deceased, Respondent.

In a proceeding by an administratrix to judieally settle her final account, objectants (who had filed claims as creditors of the estate) appeal from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, dated July 6, 1960, as: (1) overruled their first objection (as amended) to the account, and (2) awarded commissions to said administratrix. Decree, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs to respondent, payable out of the estate. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur.
§ 1428.2 Petitions for enforcement. ( a ) The Assistant Secretary may petition the Board to enforce any Assistant Secretary decision and order in a standards of conduct case arising under 22 U.S.C. 4117. The Assistant Secretary shall transfer to the Board the record in the case, including a copy of the transcript if any, exhibits, briefs, and other documents filed with the Assistant Secretary. A copy of the petition for enforcement shall be served on the labor organization against which such order applies.
( b ) An opposition to Board enforcement of any such Assistant Secretary decision and order may be filed by the labor organization against which such order applies twenty (20) days from the date of service of the petition, unless the Board, upon good cause shown by the Assistant Secretary, sets a shorter time for filing such position. A copy of the opposition to enforcement shall be served on the Assistant Secretary.
##### 



Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





| |  | I, Patrick L. Beach, the President of GP4 Asset Acquisition, LLC, the
manager of Captec Franchise Capital Partners L.P. IV (the Partnership),
certify that:
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | (1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Partnership for the period
ended September 30, 2003 which this certification accompanies 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 results of operations of
the Partnership.
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Patrick L. Beach
Patrick L. Beach
President
GP4 Asset Acquisition, LLC
November 14, 2003

17
### §300b–14. National contingency plan for newborn screening

#### (a) In general

Not later than 180 days after April 24, 2008, the Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and in consultation with the Administrator and State departments of health (or related agencies), shall develop a national contingency plan for newborn screening for use by a State, region, or consortium of States in the event of a public health emergency. The plan shall be updated as needed and at least every five years.

#### (b) Contents

The contingency plan developed under subsection (a) shall include a plan for—

(1) the collection and transport of specimens;

(2) the shipment of specimens to State newborn screening laboratories;

(3) the processing of specimens;

(4) the reporting of screening results to physicians and families;

(5) the diagnostic confirmation of positive screening results;

(6) ensuring the availability of treatment and management resources;

(7) educating families about newborn screening; and

(8) carrying out other activities determined appropriate by the Secretary.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XI, §1115, as added Pub. L. 110–204, §7, Apr. 24, 2008, 122 Stat. 711; amended Pub. L. 113–240, §8, Dec. 18, 2014, 128 Stat. 2855.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2014—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 113–240 substituted "consortium" for "consortia" and inserted at end "The plan shall be updated as needed and at least every five years."
FILED

August 19, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE

RONALD COLLIER, )

 ) Davidson Chancery

Plaintiff/Appellant, ) No. 97-160-II

 )

VS. ) Appeal No.

 ) 01A01-9709-CH-00502

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ) 

CORRECTIONS, et. al., )

 )

Defendant/Appellee. )

O R D E R

On August 5, 1998, the Clerk of this Court received a “Memorandum of Law, Facts and

Exhibits in Support of Petition for Rehearing,” apparently referring to the opinion filed by this

Court on July 22, 1998. The Clerk has no record of the receipt of a petition to rehear in this case.

Said memorandum has been considered as a petition to rehear, although not timely filed.

Said memorandum states no valid ground for altering the opinion of the Court. A rehearing is

therefore denied.

ENTER ________________

___________________________________

HENRY F. TODD

PRESIDING JUDGE, MIDDLE SECTION

___________________________________

BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE

____________________________________

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Earl Bennett, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 631]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney allowed him to reject a plea offer that would have resulted in a drastically lower sentence *(see, Boria v Keane,*99 F3d 492, *cert denied*521 US 1118). That contention is based in large part upon facts that are outside the record and thus not subject to review on direct appeal *(see, People v Dibble*[appeal No. 2], 277 AD2d 969 [decided herewith]; *People v Ford,*184 AD2d 1013, *lv denied*80 NY2d 929). The appropriate vehicle for review is through commencement of a proceeding pursuant to CPL article 440 *(see, People v Steele,*135 AD2d 673, *lv denied 70*NY2d 1011; *see, e.g., People v Sherk,*269 AD2d 755, *lv denied*95 NY2d 804). Based on the record before us, we conclude that defense counsel’s performance amply met the standard of meaningful representation.

The sentence, as modified by operation of law *(see,*Penal Law § 70.30 [1] [e] [i], [vi]), is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Fricano, J.— Rape, 1st Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hayes, Wisner and Kehoe, JJ.
#### § 304.11 Final denial of claim.

The General Counsel will send notification of the final denial of an administrative claim to the claimant, his attorney, or legal representative by certified or registered mail. The notification of final denial may include a statement of the reasons for the denial and shall include a statement that, if the claimant is dissatisfied with the Peace Corps action, he may file suit in an appropriate U.S. District Court not later than 6 months after the date of mailing of the notification.
<PAGE> 1
                        EXHIBIT 12.1
                 SABRE HOLDINGS CORPORATION
              COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS
                      TO FIXED CHARGES
                       (in thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 Three
                                                 Months
                                                 Ended
                                               March 31,
                                                  2000
<C>                                                <S>
EARNINGS:
   Earnings before taxes                     $    109,512
   Minority interests in consolidated
    subsidiaries                                   (3,729)
   Income from equity investees                    (2,170)
   Earnings before taxes, minority interests and
   earnings from equity investees                  103,613
   Add:  Total fixed charges (per below)             7,805
      Total earnings                         $     111,418
FIXED CHARGES:
   Interest expensed and capitalized         $       2,696
   Estimate of interest within rental expense(1)     5,109
      Total fixed charges                    $       7,805
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                   14.28
</TABLE>_______________________
(1)  Fixed charges include the estimated interest component
     of rent expense (one-third of rent expense under operating
     leases).
#### § 312.115 Does this part affect the Federal contracts that I receive?

It will affect future contract awards indirectly if you are debarred or suspended for a violation of the requirements of this part, as described in § 312.510(c). However, this part does not apply directly to procurement contracts. The portion of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 that applies to Federal procurement contracts is carried out through the Federal Acquisition Regulation in chapter 1 of Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations (the drug-free workplace coverage currently is in 48 CFR part 23, subpart 23.5).
### §300ff–139. Injunctions regarding violation of prohibition

#### (a) In general

The Secretary may, in any court of competent jurisdiction, commence a civil action for the purpose of obtaining temporary or permanent injunctive relief with respect to any violation of this part.

#### (b) Facilitation of information on violations

The Secretary shall establish an administrative process for encouraging emergency response employees to provide information to the Secretary regarding violations of this part. As appropriate, the Secretary shall investigate alleged such 1 violations and seek appropriate injunctive relief.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXVI, §2695H, as added Pub. L. 111–87, §13, Oct. 30, 2009, 123 Stat. 2902.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective as if enacted on Sept. 30, 2009, see section 2(a)(3)(B) of Pub. L. 111–87, set out as an Effective Date of 2009 Amendment; Revival of Section note under section 300ff–11 of this title.

1 So in original.
# Journal officiel L 16I/2019

| | ISSN 1977-0693 |
| --- | --- |
| Journal officiel
  de l'Union européenne | L 016I |
| | |
| Édition de langue française | Législation | 62e année18 janvier 2019 |

ISSN 1977-0693

Journal officiel

de l'Union européenne

L 016I

Édition de langue française

Législation

62e année18 janvier 2019

---

| Sommaire | | Rectificatifs | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Rectificatif au règlement d'exécution (UE) 2019/73 de la Commission du 17 janvier 2019 instituant un droit antidumping définitif et portant perception définitive du droit provisoire institué sur les importations de bicyclettes électriques originaires de la République populaire de Chine ( JO L 16 du 18.1.2019 ) | 1 |

Sommaire

Rectificatifs

page

*

Rectificatif au règlement d'exécution (UE) 2019/73 de la Commission du 17 janvier 2019 instituant un droit antidumping définitif et portant perception définitive du droit provisoire institué sur les importations de bicyclettes électriques originaires de la République populaire de Chine ( JO L 16 du 18.1.2019 )

( JO L 16 du 18.1.2019 )

1

| FR | Les actes dont les titres sont imprimés en caractères maigres sont des actes de gestion courante pris dans le cadre de la politique agricole et ayant généralement une durée de validité limitée.
  Les actes dont les titres sont imprimés en caractères gras et précédés d'un astérisque sont tous les autres actes. |
| --- | --- |

FR

Les actes dont les titres sont imprimés en caractères maigres sont des actes de gestion courante pris dans le cadre de la politique agricole et ayant généralement une durée de validité limitée.

Les actes dont les titres sont imprimés en caractères gras et précédés d'un astérisque sont tous les autres actes.

---

Rectificatifs

| 18.1.2019 | FR | Journal officiel de l'Union européenne | LI 16/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2019

FR

Journal officiel de l'Union européenne

LI 16/1

---

Rectificatif au règlement d'exécution (UE) 2019/73 de la Commission du 17 janvier 2019 instituant un droit antidumping définitif et portant perception définitive du droit provisoire institué sur les importations de bicyclettes électriques originaires de la République populaire de Chine

(
  «Journal officiel de l'Union européenne» L 16 du 18 janvier 2019
  )

Page 135, à l'article 4:

avant:

«Le présent règlement est obligatoire dans tous ses éléments et directement applicable dans tout État membre.»

ajouter la phrase suivante:

«Le présent règlement entre en vigueur le jour suivant celui de sa publication au Journal officiel de l'Union européenne.».

---
# ~ Dow AgroSciences

Dow AgroSciences LLC 9330 Zionsville Road Indi anapolis, IN 46268 USA Marc h 15 , 20 16 D ocume nt Process ing D es k Office o f Pestic ide Progra m s (7504P ) U. S. Environmental Protec t io n Agency One P oto mac Yard 2777 S. Crysta l Dri ve Ar li n g to n. VA 22202 Attn: Dan a Fli ed man (7505P) 

### A l : C HL ORPYR IF OS C HEMICAL CODE: 05910 1 SCIENTIFI C ADVISORY PANEL D ea r D a n a: www.dowagro . com

Dow AgroSc ie n ces grants pe rmi ssio n f o r th e EPA t o make pub li c th e re port ent itled. "A Mon i toring Study t o Characterize C hl orpy rif os Concentration Patterns and Ecolog ical Ri sk in an Agricultural l y D o minated Tributary of the San J oaquin Ri ver" wi th MRID # 447 11 601 . Thi s cited report ca n be publical l y released w ithout the Affirmation o f No n-Multinati ona l S t atus f o rm (pe r sect i o n FIFRA 1 O(g)) as re late d to i ts u se for the EPA Scientific Advisory Pane l meeting April, 2016. If you require additional information . please contac t J oyce Carroll. my Regi stration Assistant for this product. at ph one (3 1 7) 337-463 1. Respectfu ll y,

# ~ George O l iv e r, Ph .D . U.S. Reg ul a to r y L eade r- Regulatory A ffairs Office: 3 17 -337-4923 Fax: 3 17-3 37-4649 e: rolivcr @ dow.com



### ®

"' Trad emnr k of The Dow Chemical Company ( .. D ow .. ) or a n affil i ated company of Dow
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-11-00049-CV

In re Paula Jackson

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM COMAL COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

___________________________________________

Diane M. Henson, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Henson

Filed: February 25, 2011
Editorial Note on Part 240
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

§ 240.17a-1 Recordkeeping rule for national securities exchanges, national securities associations, registered clearing agencies and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. ( a ) Every national securities exchange, national securities association, registered clearing agency and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board shall keep and preserve at least one copy of all documents, including all correspondence, memoranda, papers, books, notices, accounts, and other such records as shall be made or received by it in the course of its business as such and in the conduct of its self-regulatory activity.
( b ) Every national securities exchange, national securities association, registered clearing agency and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board shall keep all such documents for a period of not less than five years, the first two years in an easily accessible place, subject to the destruction and disposition provisions of Rule 17a-6.
( c ) Every national securities exchange, registered securities association, registered clearing agency and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board shall, upon request of any representative of the Commission, promptly furnish to the possession of such representative copies of any documents required to be kept and preserved by it pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
[45 FR 79426, Dec. 1, 1980]