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

WILLIAM HELM, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ALDERWOODS GROUP, INC,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-01184 SI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF

BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE,

AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S

REQUEST TO TAKE ADDITIONAL

DISCOVERY

Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification is presently set for hearing on September 10,

2010. Alderwoods has filed a request to extend the briefing and hearing schedule on the motion by three

weeks. In view of the length of the motion and accompanying papers, Alderwoods states that it requires

additional time to respond, and the Court finds that this is an appropriate reason for granting the

requested extension. Additionally, the motion for class certification filed in the related Bryant action

is also set to be heard on September 10. Continuing the hearing on the motion filed in this case will

therefore allow full but separate consideration of the motions. Alderwoods’ motion to extend time is

accordingly GRANTED, and the briefing and hearing schedule on plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class

certification is modified as follows:

Opposition: September 10, 2010

Reply: September 17, 2010

Hearing: October 1, 2010

Alderwoods has also requested leave to conduct an additional 15 depositions with respect to

plaintiffs’ “On-Call” class. Alderwoods asserts that the definition of this class is “significantly

different” from the definition given in plaintiffs’ first certification motion, and contends that it will be

Case 3:08-cv-01184-SI Document 266 Filed 08/11/10 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

denied due process if it is not given the opportunity to conduct additional discovery. After reviewing

both motions for class certification, however, the Court agrees with plaintiffs that the definition of the

On-Call class has simply been narrowed. Plaintiffs asserted the piece rate theory they now advance

during the first round of briefing, and the Court addressed the theory in ruling on the motion.

Alderwoods has had ample opportunity to conduct discovery on plaintiffs’ piece rate theory, and the

Court does not believe that additional depositions are justified at this time. The request for leave to

conduct 15 additional depositions is therefore DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01184-SI Document 266 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 2
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4389 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

19 East Merced Street in Fowler, California, as the ‘‘Cecil E. Bolt 

Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 18, 2012 

Mr. COSTA (for himself, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. HERGER, Mr. 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Ms. MATSUI, Ms. 

WOOLSEY, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Ms. PELOSI, Ms. LEE of 

California, Mr. GARAMENDI, Mr. MCNERNEY, Ms. SPEIER, Mr. STARK, 

Ms. ESHOO, Mr. HONDA, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mr. FARR, 

Mr. CARDOZA, Mr. DENHAM, Mr. NUNES, Mr. BACA, Mr. CALVERT, Mrs. 

BONO MACK, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. BILBRAY, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. MCCARTHY of California, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. 

DREIER, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. 

BECERRA, Ms. CHU, Ms. BASS of California, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Ms. 

WATERS, Ms. HAHN, Ms. RICHARDSON, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Ms. LINDA

T. SA ́NCHEZ of California, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. LEWIS of California, Mr. 

GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Mr. ISSA, Mr. FILNER, and Mrs. DAVIS of California) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 19 East Merced Street in Fowler, California, 

as the ‘‘Cecil E. Bolt Post Office’’. 

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


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4389 IH

1 SECTION 1. CECIL E. BOLT POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 19 East Merced Street in Fowler, 

4 California, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Cecil 

5 E. Bolt Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Cecil E. Bolt Post 

10 Office’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3911 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3911

  To prohibit the permanent relocation of C-130 aircraft assigned to 
                     Pittsburgh 911th Airlift Wing.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2012

 Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Altmire, Mr. 
    Critz, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Barletta, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Gerlach, and Mr. 
   Shuster) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the permanent relocation of C-130 aircraft assigned to 
                     Pittsburgh 911th Airlift Wing.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON RELOCATION OF C-130 AIRCRAFT.

    The Secretary of the Air Force--
            (1) may not plan or execute the permanent relocation of any 
        C-130 aircraft assigned to Pittsburgh IAP Air Reserve Station 
        as of the date of the enactment of this Act; and
            (2) shall ensure that the number of C-130 aircraft assigned 
        to Pittsburgh IAP Air Reserve Station as of September 30, 2012, 
        equals or exceeds the number of C-130 aircraft assigned to 
        Pittsburgh IAP Air Reserve Station as of October 1, 2011.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


I, Lisa M. De La Pointe, Chief Financial Officer of Puradyn Filter Technologies
Incorporated ("the Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

         1.   The quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter
              ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the
              requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
              1934 (15 U.S.C.78m); and

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

                                            November 12, 2004



                                            /s/ Lisa M. De La Pointe
                                            ----------------------
                                            Name: Lisa M. De La Pointe
                                            Title: Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eugene Lester, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered December 16, 1976, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, indictment dismissed, and case remitted to the County Court for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50. Henry Winter, a former policeman, advised Officer Joaquin that occupants of a car parked near the 600 Club in Nassau County were acting suspiciously. Winter advised that one of the occupants appeared to have a pistol and also furnished the license number of the car. When Officer Joaquin began to investigate, he received a radio report to the effect that a robbery was in progress at the 600 Club. He then saw the car that Winter had observed driving away from the scene. Officer Joaquin followed the car and, when it stopped at a red light, drew his gun and arrested its six occupants. A frisk *845revealed that Albert Jackson had a .32 caliber revolver in his pocket and a search of the car revealed that a .25 caliber automatic pistol had been cpncealed below its rear seat. Defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, based upon his presumptive possession of the pistol (see Penal Law, § 265.15, subd 3). On appeal, defendant contends that the People’s evidence was insufficient as a matter of law. Commendably, the People concede that there must be a reversal. Defendant’s conviction cannot be predicated upon his presumptive possession of the .32 caliber pistol, since the People’s expert witness testified that it was inoperable (see *People v Johnson,*42 Misc 2d 164), and it was found in the personal possession of Albert Jackson (see Penal Law, § 265.15, subd 3, cl [a]). Defendant’s presumptive possession could therefore only be predicated upon the concealed .25 caliber pistol. However, undisputed evidence indicated that Alphonso Coleman had personally possessed that weapon and had concealed it below the rear seat moments before the arrest of the occupants of the vehicle by Officer Joaquin. Under these circumstances the People could not invoke the statutory presumption (see *People v Scott,*53 AD2d 703; *People v Garcia,*41 AD2d 560; *People v Davis,*52 Misc 2d 184). Since the People’s evidence was insufficient as a matter of law without the benefit of that presumption, the indictment must be dismissed (see CPL 470.20, subd 2). Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Latham and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

JOSHUA ASTON, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0143 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2004-006474-001

The Honorable Suzanne E. Cohen, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Krista Wood

Counsel for Respondent

Joshua Aston, Eloy

Petitioner

FILED 11-15-2022
STATE v. ASTON

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz, Judge Angela K. Paton, and Judge Peter 

B. Swann delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Joshua Aston seeks review of the superior court’s 

order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is petitioner’s 

fourth successive petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief.

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to 

show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition 

for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 

2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion.

¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
###### Editorial Note on Part 201

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 201 appear at 62 FR 38027, July 16, 1997.

#### § 201.84 Limitation on period for making refund requests.

USAID will endeavor, but shall not be bound, to make any requests for refunds from a borrower/grantee within three years from the date of the last disbursement of USAID funds for the transaction to which such request relates.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 25, 2015. 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, June 25, 2015 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A15I0214. KAREN J. ALBRIGHT v. JONATHON ALBRIGHT. Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2012CV224994
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 DENYING DARLENE

LEWIS-CHINN AND DAVID 

W. CHINN’S REQUEST TO OPT

OUT AFTER THE DEADLINE

The Court has received the letter from class members Darlene Lewis-Chinn and David W.

Chinn requesting exclusion from the class. The letter simply states: “We apologize for having

missed the exclusion deadline of December 28, 2009 when we submitted our original exclusion

request dated January 7, 2010. We do not wish to be a part of the Class involved in this

litigation.” Based upon these statements, it is clear to the undersigned that these class members

received actual notice of this class action, and were apprised of the opt-out deadline. Since no

legal justification has been provided as to why their late opt-out request should be granted, the

untimely request by class members Darlene Lewis-Chinn and David W. Chinn must be DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 749 Filed 05/06/10 Page 1 of 1
#### § 1008.100 What does this part do?

This part carries out the portion of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. 701 *et seq.,* as amended) that applies to grants. It also applies the provisions of the Act to cooperative agreements and other financial assistance awards, as a matter of Federal Government policy.
**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**





In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Internet Infinity, Inc.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the
“Report”), I, Roger Casas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
      certify that to my knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78o(d)); and





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


Date:
                    August 11, 2008*/s/
                  Roger Casas*Roger
                  CasasChief
                  Executive Officer





The
      above
      certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB
      or as a separate disclosure document.




Exhibit
        32
#### In the Matter of Francis S. Appleby et al., Petitioners, v. George M. Bragalini et al., Constituting the State Tax Commission, Respondents.

Determination unanimously confirmed, with $50 costs. No opinion. Present—Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Taylor, JJ.
### §15605. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 15605 was editorially reclassified as section 30305 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 19, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00503

- CV

Patrick MINOR

, Appellant

v.

DIVERSE FACILITY SOLUTIONS

,

Appellee

From the 131st Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CI00808

Honorable David A. Canales , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On September 8, 2022, appellant filed a notice of appeal stating his intent to appeal the trial court’s “denial of default judgment.” Because no final order has been entered in the underlying case, on September 28, 2022, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing no later

than October 18, 2022 why th is appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

. On October 17, 2022, appellant filed a “Motion for Extension of Time to Prepair [sic] a Brief.” Construing the motion as a request for extension of time to file a response to our show cause order, 1 we GRANT the requested extension and appellant is ORDERED to show cause in writing

no later than November 2 , 2022 why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellant does not res pond by November 2, 2022 , this appeal is subject to

dismissal.

_______________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice

1 Appellant included a post

- script requesting a public defender, which we do not have authority to grant.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed th e seal of the said

court on this 19th day of October, 2022

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz
, Clerk of Court
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70 -68

 36

 38

 40

 42

 44

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲ ▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

08/14

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 14 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.50 N 76.81 W Meters AGL
§ 214.22 Responsibilities within A.I.D. Responsibilities within A.I.D. for the renewal of advisory committees are as follows: ( a ) The Office or Bureau through which the advisory committee reports: prepares, clears with the Advisory Committee Management Officer and the General Counsel, and submits to the Administrator all documentation necessary for committee renewal sixty-five (65) days prior to the expiration date of the Committee.
( b ) The Office of General Counsel assists in the preparation of charters; reviews and clears the proposal for conformity with the Act and other requirements; and assures publication of the Administrator's determination of renewal in the Federal Register.
( c ) The Office of Legislative Affairs transmits approved advisory committee charters to the House and Senate Committees and to the Library of Congress.
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2004 / Presidential Documents 74935

Memorandum of December 8, 2004

Delegation of Certain Reporting Authority 

Memorandum for the Chairman of the Federal Labor Relations Authority 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States, including section 301 of title 3, United States 

Code, I hereby delegate to the member who has been designated by the 

President as Chairman the functions conferred upon the President by 5 

U.S.C. 7104(e) to provide the specified report to the Congress. 

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal 

[FR Doc. 04–27466

Filed 12–13–04; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 

Register

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, December 8, 2004. 

.

W
#### Lena Ferrandino et al., Doing Business as Marbetti, Appellants, v. Lucia L. Cappelli, Respondent.

Order entered on October 2, 1959) dismissing the action for failure to serve a complaint, reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs to plaintiffs-appellants, and the motion denied, with $10 costs, with leave to serve a complaint within 20 days after the entry of the order hereon. This action against the record owner of the property was not prosecuted only because it was represented that the true owner was the decedent Carmello Lozito, father of defendant-respondent Lucia Lozito Cappelli. The pendency of the companion action against the estate of said decedent in which the issue of title may be raised by reason of the record title, there being no demonstration of any prejudice thereby adequately excuses the failure to timely serve the complaint. There will be irreparable prejudice to plaintiff since it appears that the Statute of Limitations has run on the claim since the service of the summons. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Petition of Dorothy Andersen and Henry Scheibel, for an Intermediate and Judicial Settlement of Their Account as General Guardians of George H. Loeffler, an Infant.

Decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Kings county affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Mills and Rich, JJ., concurred; Stapleton, J., voted to reverse.
**Exhibit 15**

May 9, 2007

Securities and Exchange Commission100 F Street, N.E.Washington, D.C. 20549

We are aware that MonsterWorldwide, Inc. has incorporated by reference in its previously filed openRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-81843, 333-63631,333-50699, 333-18937 and 333-131899) its Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2007, which includes our report dated May 7,2007 covering the unaudited interim financial information contained therein. Pursuantto Regulation C of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Act”), that report is notconsidered part of the registration statement prepared or certified by our firmor a report prepared or certified by our firm within the meaning of Sections 7and 11 of the Act. It should be noted that we have not performed any proceduressubsequent to May 7, 2007.

/s/ BDO Seidman, LLPNew York, New York

----