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

HUGO ZALDANA, individually, and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KB HOME, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-08-3399 MMC 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART FIRST AMERICAN

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS;

DENYING KB HOMES’ MOTION TO

DISMISS

Before the Court are two Motions to Dismiss plaintiff Hugo Zaldana’s (“Zaldana”)

Third Amended Complaint, each filed October 1, 2009, and brought, respectively, by

(1) defendants First American Title Company (“FATC”), First American Title Insurance

Company (“FATIC”), and First American Corporation (“FAC”) (collectively, “First American

defendants”) and (2) defendant KB Home. By order filed December 9, 2009, the Court took

the motions under submission.

On March 26, 2010, the above-titled action came before the Court for a Case

Management Conference, at which counsel for all parties to said action appeared.

At the Conference, the Court addressed the above-referenced motions, afforded

counsel for the moving and opposing parties an opportunity to be heard, and announced its

tentative rulings.

Case 3:08-cv-03399-MMC Document 103 Filed 03/26/10 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

2

By the instant order, the Court adopts its tentative rulings and, for the reasons stated

on the record at the Conference, rules as follows:

1. To the extent the First American defendants seek dismissal of defendants FATIC

and FAC, the motion is hereby GRANTED, with leave to amend; in all other respects, the

motion is hereby DENIED.

2. KB Homes’ motion is hereby DENIED.

3. Zaldana’s Fourth Amended Complaint, if any, shall be filed no later than April 23,

2010; any amendments shall be limited to those necessary to cure the deficiencies noted

with respect to the sufficiency of the allegations against FATIC and FAC.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-03399-MMC Document 103 Filed 03/26/10 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Omtool, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert L. Voelk, Chief Executive Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/  Robert L. Voelk |   |   |
|---------------------------|--------|--------|
| Robert L.  Voelk          |
| Chief  Executive Officer  |
| November 11,  2003        |

 

----
#### Leonard D. Alnutt et al., Respondents, v J & E Electric, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 544]

Motion for reargument or leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Scudder, Kehoe and Green, JJ.
### §300x–63. Continuation of certain programs

#### (a) In general

Of the amount allotted to the State of Hawaii under section 300x of this title, and the amount allotted to such State under section 300x–21 of this title, an amount equal to the proportion of Native Hawaiians residing in the State to the total population of the State shall be available, respectively, for carrying out the program involved for Native Hawaiians.

#### (b) Expenditure of amounts

The amount made available under subsection (a) may be expended only through contracts entered into by the State of Hawaii with public and private nonprofit organizations to enable such organizations to plan, conduct, and administer comprehensive substance use disorder and treatment programs for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. In entering into contracts under this section, the State of Hawaii shall give preference to Native Hawaiian organizations and Native Hawaiian health centers.

#### (c) Definitions

For the purposes of this subsection,1 the terms "Native Hawaiian", "Native Hawaiian organization", and "Native Hawaiian health center" have the meaning given such terms in section 11707 of this title.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XIX, §1953, as added Pub. L. 102–321, title II, §203(a), July 10, 1992, 106 Stat. 409; amended Pub. L. 114–255, div. B, title VIII, §8003(2), Dec. 13, 2016, 130 Stat. 1233.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2016—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 114–255 substituted "substance use disorder" for "substance abuse".

1 So in original. Probably should be "section,".
#### Kings Lafayette Bank, Respondent, v Hamid Meat, Inc., Doing Business as Key Foods, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages resulting from the failure to honor an income execution, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 31, 1976, which denied its motion to: (1) vacate a default judgment entered in favor of plaintiff and against it on August 15, 1976; and (2) allow it to appear and answer. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted, on condition that defendant-appellant pay the sum of $500 to plaintiff-respondent within 30 days after entry of the order to be made hereon; in the event such condition is not complied with, order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The time within which defendant may serve its answer is extended until 10 days after compliance with the above-mentioned condition. On May 29, 1974 plaintiff commenced this action against defendant, asking damages of $3,404.44, for defendant’s failure to honor an income execution served on it on January 22, 1973. A default judgment was obtained against defendant on August 15, 1974. Defendant moved to vacate the judgment against it. The affidavit of its president *944asserts: (1) that his brother-in-law purchased a new car and later defaulted on the payments to plaintiff; (2) it appears that he told plaintiff he was employed by the defendant corporation, although in fact he never was so employed; and (3) that upon his brother-in-law’s default on the loan, plaintiff served an income execution on defendant, at which time an attorney was contacted; the affiant believed that attorney when he said that he would handle the matter, and believed his own involvement was terminated. Considering the totality of the circumstances, and in the interest of justice, the judgment should be vacated and the default opened, so that there may be a trial on the merits (see *Schutzer v Suss-Kolyer,*57 AD2d 613). The failure of defendant’s former counsel, and the quality of representation afforded defendant, cannot, in fairness, be charged against it. We note that while the record shows that defendant’s delays were perhaps not willful, its president’s actions, nevertheless, displayed a degree of indifference as to what was transpiring, and hence he was not without personal responsibility in what occurred. Due to this indifference, the reversal of the order appealed from has been conditioned upon defendant’s payment of $500 to the plaintiff. Cohalan, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and Titone, JJ., concur.
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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURICIO CUADRA,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, ET

AL.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

Case No. C08-3439 TEH (JCS)

ORDER TO SUBMIT SETTLEMENT

CONFERENCE STATEMENTS IN .PDF

FORMAT

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that in addition to the submission of paper copy of settlement

conference statements to chambers, each party shall submit their confidential settlement conference

statements in .pdf format and email their statement to JCSPO@cand.uscourts.gov.

All other provisions of this Court's original Notice and Settlement Conference Order remain

in effect.

Dated: February 8, 2010

_______________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-03439-TEH Document 57 Filed 02/08/10 Page 1 of 1
### §285c–9. Juvenile diabetes

#### (a) Long-term epidemiology studies

The Director of the Institute shall conduct or support long-term epidemiology studies in which individuals with or at risk for type 1, or juvenile, diabetes are followed for 10 years or more. Such studies shall investigate the causes and characteristics of the disease and its complications.

#### (b) Clinical trial infrastructure/innovative treatments for juvenile diabetes

The Secretary, acting through the Director of the National Institutes of Health, shall support regional clinical research centers for the prevention, detection, treatment, and cure of juvenile diabetes.

#### (c) Prevention of type 1 diabetes

The Secretary, acting through the appropriate agencies, shall provide for a national effort to prevent type 1 diabetes. Such effort shall provide for a combination of increased efforts in research and development of prevention strategies, including consideration of vaccine development, coupled with appropriate ability to test the effectiveness of such strategies in large clinical trials of children and young adults.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, §434A, as added Pub. L. 106–310, div. A, title IV, §402, Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1112; amended Pub. L. 109–482, title I, §103(b)(21), Jan. 15, 2007, 120 Stat. 3688.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2007—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 109–482 struck out heading and text of subsec. (d). Text read as follows: "For the purpose of carrying out this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005."

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

#### Effective Date of 2007 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 109–482 applicable only with respect to amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2007 or subsequent fiscal years, see section 109 of Pub. L. 109–482, set out as a note under section 281 of this title.
###### Editorial Note on Part 218

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 218 appear at 68 FR 51363, Aug. 26, 2003.

#### § 218.11 Standards.

The standards each agency uses to determine whether an age distinction or age-related term is prohibited are set out in part 90 (primarily subpart B) of 45 CFR.
#### § 16.6 Security clearances.

The agencies shall use their best endeavors to expedite security clearances whenever necessary to ensure a fair and prompt investigation and hearing.
[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:****Sixteenth census of the UnitedStates: 1940: population: the labor force (sample statistics): employment andpersonal characteristics**
 
Parts: 01 | 02
 
SuDoc Number:C 3.940-2:P 81/15
Item Number:0198 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001104318
 
August 14, 2019
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 period ending December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Michael P. Carrosino, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.

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

Date: February 13, 2004

                                               /s/ Michael P. Carrosino
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Michael P. Carrosino
                                               Chief Financial Officer
### §3756. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3756 was editorially reclassified as section 10157 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### § 228.20 Purpose.

Sections 228.21 through 228.24 of this part set forth the rules governing the eligibility of commodity-related services, both delivery services and incidental services, for USAID financing. These rules, except for §§ 228.21 and 228.22, may be waived in accordance with the provisions in subpart D of this part. The rules on delivery services apply whether or not USAID is also financing the commodities being transported. In order to be identified and eligible as incidental services, such services must be connected with a USAID-financed commodity procurement.
###### Editorial Note on Part 217

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 217 appear at 68 FR 51362, Aug. 26, 2003.

#### § 217.41 Application of this subpart.

Subpart D applies within the United States to postsecondary education programs or activities, including postsecondary vocational education programs or activities, that receive or benefit from Federal financial assistance and to recipients that operate, or that receive Federal financial assistance for the operation of such programs or activities within the United States.
### §300s–2. State supervision or control of operations of facilities receiving funds

Except as otherwise specifically provided, nothing in this subchapter shall be construed as conferring on any Federal officer or employee, the right to exercise any supervision or control over the administration, personnel, maintenance, or operation of any facility with respect to which any funds have been or may be expended under this subchapter.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XVI, §1623, formerly §1632, as added Pub. L. 93–641, §4, Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2270; renumbered §1623, Pub. L. 96–79, title II, §202(b), Oct. 4, 1979, 93 Stat. 632.)
§ 19.4 Special rules for computing creditable service for purposes of payments to former spouses. For purposes of determining the pro rata share of annuity, survivor annuity or lump-sum payable to a former spouse, the following shall be considered creditable service— ( a ) The entire period of a principal's approved leave without pay during full-time service with an organization composed primarily of Government employees irrespective of whether the principal elects to make payments to the Fund for this service;
( b ) The entire period of Government service for which a principal received a refund of retirement contributions which he/she has not repaid unless the former spouse received under § 19.13 a portion of the (lump-sum) refund or unless a spousal agreement or court order provided that no portion of the refund be paid to the former spouse; and
( c ) All creditable service including service in excess of 35 years.
The period covered by the credit for unused sick leave is not creditable for this purpose.
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 PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO EXCLUDE PART

OF PROFESSOR JAMES’

TESTIMONY

With respect to the motion to exclude the “negative causation” analysis of Professor

Christopher M. James, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to re-filing it for the final

pretrial conference. The Court will not allow any expert opinion that is based on a loss-causation

theory contrary to the order filed today on that issue. Please read the order and re-do the motion

in conformity therewith. Please do not waste time over mere arguments over the meaning of the

overall evidence where the jury could go either way. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-02878-WHA Document 32 Filed 04/08/10 Page 1 of 1
#### Cook *et al. v.*Cook, administrator.

Lumpkin, J.

1. If a man takes a homestead for the benefit of his wife and children, and after the death of his wife he remarries during the minority of some of the children, his second wife becomes a beneficiary of the homestead. *Torrance*v. *Boyd,*63 *Ga.*22; *Dismuke*v. *Eady & Co.,*80 *Ga.*289 (5 S. E. 494).

2. Where a man took a homestead and his children became of age, upon his death, leaving his wife as the only beneficiary of the homestead estate, she could take a year’s support out of the homestead property; and if the amount thereof did not include the entire homestead, she could also take dower out of the remainder of the real estate. *Page*v. *Page,*50 *Ga.*597; *Lowe*v. *Webb,*85 *Ga.*731 (11 S. E. 845); *Miller*v. *Crozier,*105 *Ga.*54 (31 S. E. 122); *Green*v. *Hambrick,*118 *Ga.*569 (45 S. E. 420).

*89April 11, 1912.

Petition for injunction. Before Judge Roan. Campbell superior court. July 15, 1911.

*J. 8, James,*for plaintiff. *T. 0. Eathcoclc,*for defendant.

3. A widow who is the sole beneficiary of a homestead, which was taken by her husband during his lifetime, after his death is not entitled to hold the homestead and at the same time take a year’s support and dower in the same land. Under former rulings of this court, by applying for and obtaining a year’s support and dower she destroyed the homestead estate which was for her benefit. *Roff, Sims & Co.*v. *Johnson,*40 *Ga. 555; Donaldson*v. *Anderson,*104 *Ga.*673 (30 S. E. 883).

*(a)*Whether, if there are minor children in life, the widow can take dower as against them in property which has been set apart as a homestead, is not now for consideration.

4. Where notice was given of an application for dower, and of the time and place of hearing same, which was in a county adjoining that to which the return of the.commissioners would be made, and at such time and place the judge at chambers appointed commissioners, who assigned dower and made return to the proper court, and judgment was duly entered thereon, it will not be declared a nullity on the ground that the judge was sitting at chambers outside his circuit when the appointment was made, or on the ground that the record did not show that the commissioners made the affidavit provided by law before assigning dower. Civil Code (1910), § 5257; *Early & Lane*v. *Oliver & Norton*, 63 *Ga.*12, 22.

5. As to material points in the case the evidence was in conflict, and there was no abuse of discretion in denying the injunction prayed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
### §3797cc–3. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3797cc–3 was editorially reclassified as section 10664 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
###### Editorial Note on Part 40

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 71 FR 34520 and 34521, June 15, 2006.

#### § 40.25 Certain aliens involved in serious criminal activity who have asserted immunity from prosecution. [Reserved]
#### § 237.14 Arbitration.

Any controversy or claim between USAID and any Noteholder arising out of this Guarantee shall be settled by arbitration to be held in Washington, DC in accordance with the then prevailing rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrators may be entered in any court of competent jurisdiction.
§ 35.7 Complaint. ( a ) On or after the date the Department of Justice approves the issuance of a complaint in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3803(b)(1), the reviewing official may serve a complaint on the defendant, as provided in § 35.8.
( b ) The complaint shall state— ( 1 ) The allegations of liability against the defendant, including the statutory basis for liability, an identification of the claims or statements that are the basis for the alleged liability, and the reasons why liability allegedly arises from such claims or statements;
( 2 ) The maximum amount of penalties and assessments for which the defendant may be held liable;
( 3 ) Instructions for filing an answer to request a hearing, including a specific statement of the defendant's right to request a hearing by filing an answer and to be represented by a representative; and
( 4 ) That failure to file an answer within 30 days of service of the complaint will result in the imposition of the maximum amount of penalties and assessments without right to appeal, as provided in § 35.10.
( c ) At the same time the reviewing official serves the complaint, he or she shall serve the defendant with a copy of these regulations.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 242 (Friday, December 17, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75569-75570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27617]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


NSF-NASA-Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee 
<greek-i>13883; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following NSF-NASA-Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee 
meeting (<greek-i>13883):

    Date and Time: January 18-19, 2005.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 
330, Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Dr. G. Wayne Van Citters, Director, Division of 
Astronomical Sciences, Suite 1045, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-4908.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations to the 
National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration (NASA) on issues within the field of astronomy 
and astrophysics that are of mutual interest and concern to the two 
agencies.

[[Page 75570]]

    Agenda: To hear presentations of current programming by 
representatives from NSF and NASA; to discuss current and potential 
areas of cooperation between the two agencies; to formulate 
recommendations for continued and new areas of cooperation and 
mechanisms for achieving them.


    Dated: December 14, 2004.
Susanne E. Bolton,
Committee Management Office.
[FR Doc. 04-27617 Filed 12-16-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9555-01-M