alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Mount Vernon United Methodist Church v. Harris County, 

Texas et al.

Appellate case number: 01-18-01114-CV

Trial court case number: 2014-29708

Trial court: 152nd District Court of Harris County

Appellees, Harris County, Harris County Department of Education, Port of 

Houston Authority of Harris County, Harris County Flood Control District, Harris 

County Hospital District, City of Houston, Houston Independent School District and 

Houston Community College System, have filed a “Notice of Withdrawal” of their 

Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Jurisdiction, filed on December 20, 2018, and 

Second Motion to Dismiss Appeal, filed on February 13, 2019. We grant appellees’ 

request to withdraw the motions and dismiss as moot appellees’ Motion to Dismiss, filed 

on December 20, 2018, and Second Motion to Dismiss, filed on February 13, 2019.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __February 21, 2019____
#### § 530.111 Notice.

The Board shall make available to employees, applicants, participants, beneficiaries, and other interested persons such information regarding the provisions of this part and its applicability to the programs or activities conducted by the Board, and make such information available to them in such manner as the head of the Board finds necessary to apprise such persons of the protections against discrimination assured them by section 504 and this regulation.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rafael Cruz, Appellant.

[715 NYS2d 873]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Giaccio, J.), rendered June 3, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which *325could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see, *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATIONS OF


CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND TREASURER


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


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Capital Beverage Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the "Report"), I, Carmine N. Stella, hereby certify in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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, 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.




Date:  May 24, 2010

By:
/s/ Carmine N. StellaCarmine N. Stella

President, Chief Executive Officer and

Principal Accounting Officer
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

C 08-02313

ORDER SETTING DATE FOR JOINT STATUS REPORT

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

U

For the Northern District of California

NITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

Oakland Division

U-HAUL CO. OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

CITY OF BERKELEY,

Defendant(s).

_____________________________________/

No. C 08-02313 LB

ORDER SETTING DATE FOR JOINT

STATUS REPORT

On March 24, 2010, the parties filed a Joint Status Report in this matter. According to the

parties, Judge Whitely of the Alameda County Superior Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer on

March 12, 2010. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration and the matter is set for hearing in

Alameda County Superior Court on June 2, 2010. As a result, the Court hereby ORDERS the

parties to file a Joint Status Report by June 16, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2010 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02313-LB Document 52 Filed 03/25/10 Page 1 of 1
#### Sarah E. Hill, as Administratrix, etc., of Frank D. Hill, Deceased, Respondent, v. James W. Nolan, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur.
#### Allan Postil, an Infant, by Peter Postil, His Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v. Coca Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Motion by appellant for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, denied. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### § 1006.125 Does an exclusion under the nonprocurement system affect a person's eligibility for Federal procurement contracts?

If any Federal agency excludes a person under its nonprocurement common rule on or after August 25, 1995, the excluded person is also ineligible to participate in Federal procurement transactions under the FAR. Therefore, an exclusion under this part has reciprocal effect in Federal procurement transactions.
§ 270.30b2-1 Filing of reports to stockholders. ( a ) Every registered management investment company shall file a report on Form N-CSR (§§ 249.331 and 274.128 of this chapter) not later than 10 days after the transmission to stockholders of any report that is required to be transmitted to stockholders under § 270.30e-1.
( b ) A registered investment company shall file with the Commission a copy of every periodic or interim report or similar communication containing financial statements that is transmitted by or on behalf of such registered investment company to any class of such company's security holders and that is not required to be filed with the Commission under paragraph (a) of this section. The filing shall be made not later than 10 days after the transmission to security holders.
[68 FR 5366, Feb. 3, 2003]
#### In the Matter of the County of Suffolk, Appellant-Respondent-Appellant, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property for the Islip Greenbelt in the Town of Islip. Walter Stuart et al., Respondents-Appellants, *835and Theodore Snyder et al., Appellants-Respondents.

In a condemnation proceeding, the parties cross-appeal from three orders and decrees of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, two dated May 20, 1975 (as to claimants Snyder and Wojtas) and one dated January 13, 1976 (as to claimants Stuart). Orders and decrees reversed, on the facts, without costs or disbursements, and new trial granted. The numerous errors as to the findings of fact and the conclusions to be drawn therefrom (as contained in the opinion at Special Term) require that, in the interest of justice, there should be a new trial on all issues raised in the briefs. We note the following: (1) Special Term’s consideration of present legal uses of the land and recent rezonings related to Islip in general and was not sufficiently focused on the character of the immediate surroundings of each of the subject parcels; (2) the environs of the Snyder parcel were misdescribed in Special Term’s statements that Connetquot State Park was its southeasterly boundary, and that "headwaters of the Connetquot River, Long Island’s only unpolluted river, adjoin the subject premises”, since the park is approximately 5,000 feet away, and a discharge basin area for highway waters, not the Connetquot River, adjoins the premises; (3) Special Term’s assertions that there were approximately 730 residentially zoned acres in the "so called transportation hub between Exit 57 of the Long Island Expressway and Terry Road, east of Exit 58”, and that 460 acres thereof were undeveloped, are not based on proof in the record; (4) the award to claimants Stuart was improperly computed by *addition*of the value based on nursery use to the value based on residential use (see 4 Nichols, Eminent Domain, § 12.314, pp 12-233 to 12-234; *Van Kleeck v State of New York,*18 NY2d 897, 899); further there was insufficient evidence to support a hypothetical annual rental of $3,000 for nursery use; and (5) the award to claimant Wojtas of an increment based on modified zoning "to permit a residential use of greater density” appears to rest solely on the subjective judgment of Special Term (see *Matter of County of Nassau [Cohen],*39 NY2d 574, 576). Hopkins, J. P., Margett, Shapiro and Suozzi, JJ., concur.
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

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA andFUKEKILA MERRIDA, Revenue Officer,

Petitioners

    v.

THEODORE PADUA,

Respondent.                                                                      /

No. C-08-3714 MMC

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’SREQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF WRITAND DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL

The Court is in receipt of respondent Theodore Padua’s filing of April 21, 2010, titled

in part “Judicial Notice[;] Notice to the Administrative Court,” by which filing respondent

seeks issuance of a “writ of error coram nobis” and includes a demand for dismissal.

Having read and considered respondent’s filing, the Court finds respondent has

failed to show his entitlement to the relief sought.

Accordingly, the request is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  April 23, 2010                                                   MAXINE M. CHESNEYUnited States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-03714-MMC   Document 30   Filed 04/23/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-11T04:26:32-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
EXHIBIT 32.1



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



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned Officer
of ERF Wireless, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2012, (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





|August 17, 2012 | /s/ H. Dean CubleyH. Dean Cubley
Chief Executive Officer
|--------------- | --------------------------------------------------------
#### In the Matter of Steven Olsen, Petitioner, v Suffolk County Police Department et al., Respondents.

[716 NYS2d 592]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Suffolk County Police Department, dated June 8, 1999, which adopted the findings of a Hearing Officer, made after a hearing, finding that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct and imposed a penalty of a five-day suspension from his position.

*386Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The determination of the respondent Suffolk County Police Department is supported by substantial evidence *(see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly,*71 NY2d 135; *300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176). It is the function of the Hearing Officer, not the reviewing court, to weigh the evidence and assess the credibility of the witnesses *(see, Matter of Silberfarb v Board of Coop Educ. Servs.,*60 NY2d 979, 981). There is no basis to disturb the Hearing Officer’s findings.

The penalty of a five-day suspension was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness *(see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, S. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 64

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 64 appear at 64 FR 54540, Oct. 7, 1999.

#### § 64.3 Submission of application.

A foreign government intending to provide grants or other assistance to facilitate the participation of Federal employees in a program of cultural exchange shall submit to the Department of State an application for approval of the program through its embassy, mission, or office at Washington, D.C. If there is no embassy, mission, or office at Washington, D.C., of the foreign government the application may be submitted by the home office or headquarters of the foreign government. The application shall be addressed to the Secretary of State.
#### The People of the State of New York v. Frank Briganti.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.1

                       AMENDMENT 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     Amendment 1 dated April 15, 2004 to Employment Agreement made and entered
into as of the 13th day of March 2003 by and between Kroll Inc. and Jules B.
Kroll (the "Executive" ) (the "Employment Agreement").

     Article 5 - Subparagraph 5.2 (b) "Change in Control of the Company" - is
deleted and replaced with the following:

     (b) "Change in Control of the Company" shall be deemed to have occurred if
any "person" (as such term is used in Sections 13(d) and 14(d)(2) of the
Exchange Act), other than Jules B. Kroll personally (and specifically not his
estate or personal representatives), is or becomes the "beneficial owner" (as
defined in Rule 13d-3 promulgated under the Exchange Act), directly or
indirectly, of securities of the Company representing thirty-five percent (35%)
or more of the combined voting power of the Company's then outstanding
securities, without the Executive's consent.

     Exhibit A - Paragraph (a) Salary - is deleted and replaced with the
following:

     (a) Salary. The Company shall pay the Executive a base salary during the
Term, payable in accordance with the normal payment procedures of the Company,
subject to such withholdings and other normal employee deductions as may be
required by law, at the annual rate of not less than $590,000. The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company (the "Compensation
Committee") shall review such compensation not less frequently than annually
during the Term, but any adjustment in Executive's salary may only be greater
than as previously set forth.

     All other provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has dully executed this
Amendment effective as of the date first written above.


                                                  Kroll Inc.


                                                  By: /s/ Michael Cherkasky
                                                     ---------------------------


                                                  Executive:

                                                  /s/ Jules B. Kroll
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Jules B. Kroll
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 73
          - [MM Docket No. 93-48]

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

# ACTION:

Final rule; announcement of effective date.

# SUMMARY:

The Federal Communications Commission has received Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for rules published at 61 FR 43981 (August 27, 1996). Therefore, the Commission announces that 47 CFR 73.673 and 47 CFR 73.3500 are effective January 2, 1997.

# DATES:

The rules in 47 CFR 73.673 and 47 CFR 73.3500 published at 61 FR 43981 (August 27, 1996) are effective January 2, 1997.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Communications Commission has received OMB approval for rules published at 61 FR 43981 (August 27, 1996). Through this document, the Commission announces that it received this approval on December 30, 1996. The effective date for rules 47 CFR 73.673 and 47 CFR 73.3500 is January 2, 1997.

                    Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid control number. Questions concerning the OMB control numbers and expiration dates should be directed to Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, (202) 418-2918 or via the Internet at                     *cathy.williams@fcc.gov.*

Federal Communications Commission.

Marlene H. Dortch,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04-27875 Filed 12-20-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2495

To suspend temporarily the duty on Chloroacetic Acid, Sodium Salt. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2005

Mr. HAYES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on Chloroacetic Acid, 

Sodium Salt.

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

3 SECTION 1. CHLOROACETIC ACID, SODIUM SALT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.05.70 Chloroacetic Acid, Sodium 

Salt (CAS No. 3926–62–3) 

(provided for in subheading 

2915.40.50) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2

•HR 2495 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
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

MICHAEL DEARING,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER

MACHADO, CORRECTIONAL

OFFICER GODINEZ, 

Defendants. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

No. C 08-1712 MMC (PR) 

ORDER REFERRING PLAINTIFF TO

FEDERAL PRO BONO PROJECT;

DENYING PENDING MOTIONS

WITHOUT PREJUDICE; STAYING

PROCEEDINGS PENDING

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL;

DIRECTIONS TO CLERK

(Docket Nos. 45, 46 & 47)

On March 31, 2008, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at the Sierra

Conservation Center in Jamestown, California, and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the use of excessive force, in violation of

the Eighth Amendment, by correctional officers at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”). 

Thereafter, the Court denied the motion for summary judgment filed by defendant

Correctional Officer Godinez, the only defendant successfully served herein. The case was

referred to Magistrate Judge Vadas to conduct settlement proceedings; on July 22, 2010,

Magistrate Judge Vadas notified the Court that the case had not settled. 

Good cause appearing, plaintiff is hereby REFERRED to the Federal Pro Bono

Project for the purpose of locating an attorney to represent plaintiff in this matter. 

The Clerk of the court shall forward to the Federal Pro Bono Project: (1) a copy of this

order, (2) a memorandum outlining the facts and procedural posture of the action, and (3) a

Case 3:08-cv-01712-MMC Document 51 Filed 08/03/10 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

copy of the court file.

Upon an attorney being located to represent plaintiff, that attorney shall be appointed

as counsel for plaintiff in this matter until further order of the Court.

In view of the above, plaintiff’s pending motions for sanctions and to compel

discovery are hereby DENIED without prejudice to such motions being renewed after an

attorney is appointed to represent plaintiff in the instant action. Additionally, all proceedings

in this action are hereby STAYED until four weeks from the date an attorney is appointed.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 45, 46 and 47.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 3, 2010 __________________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:08-cv-01712-MMC Document 51 Filed 08/03/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Kendall Rego, Appellant, v Marlene Rego, Respondent.

a matrimonial action, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from stated portions of a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated January 17, 1977, which, after a nonjury trial, *inter alia,*directed him to pay alimony in the amount of $31 per week. Judgment modified, on the facts, by reducing the amount awarded therein as alimony to $16 per week. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. On the proof adduced, the allowance to the defendant is excessive to the extent indicated herein. Hopkins, J. P., Suozzi, Margett and Hawkins, JJ., concur.
#### § 312.620 Cooperative agreement.

*Cooperative agreement* means an award of financial assistance that, consistent with 31 U.S.C. 6305, is used to enter into the same kind of relationship as a grant (see definition of grant in § 312.650), except that substantial involvement is expected between the Federal agency and the recipient when carrying out the activity contemplated by the award. The term does not include cooperative research and development agreements as defined in 15 U.S.C. 3710a.