alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District 1

Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

___________

No. 95-4120

___________

Anthony Kronus Swift, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. *

 *

Story County Jail; Paul H. * Appeal from the United States

Fitzgerald, Sheriff; Lt. Gary * District Court for the

Foster, Chief Jailer; Sgt. Brent * Southern District of Iowa.

Upchurch, 2nd Chief Jailer; * 

Matthew Cutts, Classification * [UNPUBLISHED]

Officer; Kevin McKinley, Jailer; *

Rodney Bingham, Jailer; Tim *

Shoppe, Jailer; Sean Slezak, *

Jailer; Craig McKinney, Jailer; *

Scott Kickbush, Jailer, *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: September 4, 1996

 Filed: September 19, 1996

___________

Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Anthony K. Swift appeals an order of the district court dismissing 1

without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Swift's complaint asserted

that his constitutional rights were violated by the conditions of his

confinement in a "suicidal cell" over the weekend at the Story County Jail.

After reviewing the file, we conclude that the district court did not abuse

its discretion in
-2-

dismissing Swift's complaint without prejudice. See Denton v. Hernandez,

504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (standard of review); Farmer v. Brennan, 114 S. Ct.

1970, 1977 (1994) (test for Eighth Amendment violations in prison);

Williams v. Delo, 49 F.3d 442, 445 (8th Cir. 1995) (applying Farmer to

conditions-of-confinement claim).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EX PARTE GILBERTO AGUILAR. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 12

- 00369

- CR

Appeal from the

243 rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20100D03082

- 243

- 1 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, J., and Barajas, C.J. (Senior Judge)

Barajas, C.J. (Senior Judge), sitting by assignme nt
§ 521.10 Default upon failure to file an answer. ( a ) If the defendant does not file an answer within the time prescribed in § 521.9(a), the reviewing official may refer the complaint to the ALJ.
( b ) Upon the referral of the complaint, the ALJ shall promptly serve on defendant in the manner prescribed in § 521.8, a notice that an initial decision will be issued under this section.
( c ) If the defendant fails to answer, the ALJ shall assume the facts alleged in the complaint to be true, and, if such facts establish liability under § 521.3, the ALJ shall issue an initial decision imposing the maximum amount of penalties and assessments allowed under the statute.
( d ) Except as otherwise provided in this section, by failing to file a timely answer, the defendant waives any right to further review of the penalties and assessments imposed under paragraph (c) of this section, and the initial decision shall become final and binding upon the parties 30 days after it is issued.
( e ) If, before such an initial decision becomes final, the defendant files a motion with the ALJ seeking to reopen on the grounds that extraordinary circumstances prevented the defendant from filing an answer, the initial decision shall be stayed pending the ALJ's decision on the motion.
( f ) If, on such motion, the defendant can demonstrate extraordinary circumstances excusing the failure to file a timely answer, the ALJ shall withdraw the initial decision in paragraph (c) of this section, if such a decision has been issued, and shall grant the defendant an opportunity to answer the complaint.
( g ) A decision of the ALJ denying defendant's motion under paragraph (e) of this section is not subject to reconsideration under § 521.38.
( h ) The defendant may appeal to the Director the decision denying a motion to reopen by filing a notice of appeal with the Director within 15 days after the ALJ denies the motion. The timely filing of a notice of appeal shall stay the initial decision until the Director decides the issue.
( i ) If the defendant files a timely notice of appeal with the Director, the ALJ shall forward the record of the proceeding to the Director.
( j ) The Director shall decide expeditiously whether extraordinary circumstances excuse the defendant's failure to file a timely answer based solely on the record before the ALJ.
( k ) If the Director decides that extraordinary circumstances excused the defendant's failure to file a timely answer, the Director shall remand the case to the ALJ with instructions to grant the defendant an opportunity to answer.
( l ) If the Director decides that the defendant's failure to file a timely answer is not excused, the Director shall reinstate the initial decision of the ALJ, which shall become final and binding upon the parties 30 days after the Director issues such decision.
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

BARBARA JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC et al

Defendant. /

No C 08-2272 VRW

ORDER

On December 17, 2009, plaintiff’s counsel submitted a

declaration (Doc #76) under FRCP 56(f) in response to defendant

Globe Aviation Services Corporation’s (“Globe”) motion for summary

judgment (Doc #68). On December 23, Globe replied to plaintiff’s

declaration, arguing that plaintiff’s FRCP 56(f) request is

unjustified. Doc #78. Having considered the parties’ submissions,

the court HEREBY ORDERS plaintiff and Globe to appear at the

hearing previously scheduled for January 7, 2010 and discuss the

merits of plaintiff’s FRCP 56(f) declaration. Specifically,

plaintiff’s counsel should be prepared to discuss precisely the

discovery necessary to prepare for a timely hearing on both

Northwest Airline’s and Globe’s motions for summary judgment. 

Case 3:08-cv-02272-VRW Document 83 Filed 01/04/10 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

In light of plaintiff’s FRCP 56(f) declaration and

because the facts involved and issues to be decided in the motions

for summary judgment submitted by defendants Northwest Airlines,

Inc (Doc #61) and Globe (Doc #68) are substantially similar, the

court, in the interest of judicial economy, CONTINUES both motions

to a later date. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02272-VRW Document 83 Filed 01/04/10 Page 2 of 2
#### § 235.6 Transferability of Guarantee; Note Register.

A Noteholder may assign, transfer or pledge an Eligible Note to any Person. Any such assignment, transfer or pledge shall be effective on the date that the name of the new Noteholder is entered on the Note Register required to be maintained by the Fiscal Agent pursuant to the Fiscal Agency Agreement. USAID shall be entitled to treat the Persons in whose names the Eligible Notes are registered as the owners thereof for all purposes of the Guarantee and USAID shall not be affected by notice to the contrary.
### §3801. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 90–445, §2, as added Pub. L. 92–381, §1, Aug. 14, 1972, 86 Stat. 532, which set out the Congressional findings and declaration of purpose for this chapter, was omitted in view of appropriations not being authorized for fiscal years after 1975.

A prior section 3801, Pub. L. 90–445, §2, July 31, 1968, 82 Stat. 462, related to similar subject matter, prior to the general amendment of Pub. L. 90–445 by section 1 of Pub. L. 92–381.
#### § 131.2 Refusal of certification for unlawful purpose.

( a ) The Department will not certify to a document when it has good reason to believe that the certification is desired for an unlawful or improper purpose. It is therefore the duty of the Authentication Officer to examine not only the document which the Department is asked to authenticate, but also the fundamental document to which previous seals or other certifications may have been affixed by other authorities. The Authentication Officer shall request such additional information as may be necessary to establish that the requested authentication will serve the interests of justice and is not contrary to public policy.

( b ) In accordance with section 3, paragraph 5 of the Export Administration Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 841, Pub. L. 91-184) approved December 30, 1969, documents which have the effect of furthering or supporting the restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by foreign countries against countries friendly to the United States shall be considered contrary to public policy for purposes of these regulations.

(R.S. 203. sec. 4, 63 Stat. 111, as amended, sec. 1733, 62 Stat. 946, secs. 104, 332, 66 Stat. 174, 252; 22 U.S.C. 2657, 2658, 28 U.S.C. 1733, 8 U.S.C. 1104, 1443)

[22 FR 10882, Dec. 27, 1957, as amended at 30 FR 12732, Oct. 6, 1965; Dept. Reg. 108.621, 35 FR 8887, June 9, 1970]
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2436 

To temporarily suspend the duty on Baytron and Baytron P. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 18, 2005 

Mr. MURPHY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To temporarily suspend the duty on Baytron and Baytron 

P. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BAYTRON AND BAYTRON P. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.39.15 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 certain aqueous dispersions) is amended by inserting ‘‘, 

7 whether or not containing binder resin and organic sol8 vent’’ immediately before ‘‘(CAS No.’’ and by striking 

9 ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2009’’. 

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

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

•HR 2436 IH 

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
1

Pollar v. County of Alameda, et al./Case #C08-04196 BZ 

[Proposed] Order Granting Individual Defendants’ Request To Be Excused From Appearing 

At March 2, 2010 Settlement Conference 

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

Haapala, Thompson & Abern LLP Attorneys At Law 

Park Plaza Building 

1939 Harrison St., Suite 800 

Oakland, California 94612 

Telephone: 510-763-2324 

Facsimile: 510-273-8570

Rebecca S. Widen, SBN 219207 

Andrea A. Najor, SBN 221853 

HAAPALA, THOMPSON & ABERN, LLP 

1939 Harrison Street, Suite 800 

Oakland, California 94612 

Tel: 510-763-2324 

Fax: 510-273-8570 

Attorneys For Defendants 

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, MARCY TAKEUCHI, 

DALE BILLETER and MICHAEL YEE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN FRANCISCO 

DANIELLE POLLAR, SHALAWN 

POLLAR, Guardian Ad Litem for J.A., a 

minor, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, MARY 

TAKEUCHI, DALIE BILLITER, MICHAEL 

YEE, CITY OF HAYWARD, SAM 

SANDER, MIKE EDWARDS and DOES 1 

through 20, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C08-04196 BZ (MEJ) 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST 

TO BE EXCUSED FROM APPEARING 

AT MARCH 2, 2010 SETTLEMENT 

CONFERENCE

 Defendants MARCY TAKEUCHI, DALE BILLETER and MICHAEL YEE have 

requested to be excused from personally attending the March 2, 2010 settlement conference, or 

from being available by telephone for the duration of the settlement conference. 

 Attending in their place will be a representative of defendant COUNTY OF 

ALAMEDA, who is authorized to settle the case. 

 Good cause appearing, 

 The request by defendants MARCY TAKEUCHI, DALE BILLETER and MICHAEL 

YEE to be excused from the conference is hereby granted. 

Dated:

 ________________________________________ 

 Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James 

Case 3:08-cv-04196-BZ Document 84 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 1
§ 229.545 Pre-employment inquiries. ( a ) *Marital status.* A recipient shall not make pre-employment inquiry as to the marital status of an applicant for employment, including whether such applicant is “Miss” or “Mrs.”
( b ) *Sex.* A recipient may make pre-employment inquiry as to the sex of an applicant for employment, but only if such inquiry is made equally of such applicants of both sexes and if the results of such inquiry are not used in connection with discrimination prohibited by these Title IX regulations.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tomas Lewis, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 179]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Contrary to defendant’s contention, reversal is not required based on County Court’s refusal to admit in evidence a written prior inconsistent statement by a prosecution witness. The substance of that prior statement was admitted in evidence through defense counsel’s cross-examination of that witness *(see, People v Piazza,*48 *1023NY2d 151, 164-165; *People v Moore,*267 AD2d 969, 969-970). There is no merit to the contention that defendant was deprived of a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct on summation. Several of the allegedly improper statements were fair response to comments by defense counsel on summation regarding the credibility of prosecution witnesses (see, *People v Halm,*81 NY2d 819, 821; *People v Pepe,*259 AD2d 949, 950, *lv denied*93 NY2d 1024; *People v Dunbar,*213 AD2d 1000, *lv denied*85 NY2d 972). The remaining improper statements were not so egregious or prejudicial that they require reversal (see, *People v Edwards,*167 AD2d 864, *lv denied*77 NY2d 877). The court also properly denied as untimely defendant’s request for a missing witness charge (see, *People v Gonzalez,*68 NY2d 424, 427-428; *People v Miller,*269 AD2d 746, *lv denied*95 NY2d 800). There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the court erred in refusing to charge criminally negligent homicide as a lesser included offense of depraved indifference murder. According to the evidence at trial, defendant fired a gun several times into a crowd. Thus, there is no reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater *(see,*CPL 300.50 [1]; *People v Butler,*84 NY2d 627, 631; *People v Singleton [Reginald],*272 AD2d 561). Finally, based on the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137,147; *People v Standard,*273 AD2d 870). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Egan, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Balio, JJ.
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

NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ECOPY, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-04227 JSW

ORDER CONTINUING CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

In light of the pendency of discovery disputes before Magistrate Judge James, this Court

VACATES the case management conferences set in this and related matters. The case

management shall be CONTINUED until April 9, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. An updated joint case

management statement shall be filed no later than April 2, 2010. If the discovery disputes are

resolved earlier, the parties shall immediately notify the Court and submit a joint case

management conference statement within 7 days of the resolution. The Court will then advance

the case management conference, if possible.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-04227-JSW Document 143 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 1
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-0AR-2006-0990; FRL - ]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New

Mexico; Revisions to New Mexico Transportation Conformity Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the New Mexico State

Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning the state transportation confomiity rules.

The plan revisions are intended to ensure consistency with amendments to the

federal Transportation Conformity Rule. These plan revisions meet statutory

and regulatory requirements, and are consistent with EPA's guidance.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before [Insert date 30

days from date of publication in the Federal Register].

ADDRESSES: Please see the related direct final rule, which is located in the

"Rules and Regulations" section ofthis Federal Register, for detailed

instructions on how to submit comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Riley, Air Planning

Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone 214-665-8542; fax number 214-

665-7263; e-mail address rileyjejfrey@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This document proposes to take action on SIP revisions pertaining to the

state ofNew Mexico. We have published a direct final rule approving the State's

SIP revisions in the "Rules and Regulations" section ofthis Federal Register

because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse

comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the

direct final rule.

If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this

proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final

rule and it will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any

subsequent final rule based upon this proposed rule.

2
Lawrence E. Starfield,

We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any

parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information,

please see the information provided in the ADDRESSES section ofthis document.

Acting Regional Administrato~

Region 6.

3
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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, Ronald R. Helm, Chief Executive 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/ Ronald R. Helm
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Ronald R. Helm,
                                               Chief Executive Officer
### §300x–60. Rule of construction regarding delegation of authority to States

With respect to States receiving grants under section 300x or 300x–21 of this title, this part may not be construed to authorize the Secretary to delegate to the States the primary responsibility for interpreting the governing provisions of this part.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XIX, §1950, as added Pub. L. 102–321, title II, §203(a), July 10, 1992, 106 Stat. 408.)
#### In the Matter of George L. Pagones, an Attorney, Respondent. Joint Bar Association Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, Petitioner.

Second Department,

March 6, 1978

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Donald E. Hemphrey (Joachim Heukerott*of counsel), for petitioner.

*425
      *Raymond M. Pezzo*for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

*Per Curiam.*

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on October 20, 1954. In this proceeding to discipline him for professional misconduct, the petitioner moves to confirm the report of the Justice of the Supreme Court to whom the issues were referred for hearing and report.

The reporting Justice found the respondent guilty of unprofessional conduct in that on May 15, .1970 he was convicted of a violation of section 7203 of title 26 of the United States Code in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York in that he willfully and knowingly failed to file a Federal income tax return for the calendar year 1962. The respondent was sentenced to a term of probation for a period of three years upon the condition that he pay all taxes, penalties and interest due for the years 1962, 1963 and 1964 within 90 days of their fixation. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of $5,000.

After reviewing all of the evidence we are in agreement with the Referee’s findings. Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion to confirm the report is granted.

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline, we have taken into consideration respondent’s previously unblemished record. Accordingly, it is our opinion that the respondent should be, and he hereby is, censured for his misconduct.

Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Margett, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4299 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4299

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority of the 
  Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide specially adapted housing 
 assistance to individuals residing temporarily in housing owned by a 
                             family member.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2012

  Mr. McNerney (for himself and Mr. Runyan) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority of the 
  Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide specially adapted housing 
 assistance to individuals residing temporarily in housing owned by a 
                             family member.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Quality Housing for Veterans Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO 
              PROVIDE SPECIALLY ADAPTED HOUSING ASSISTANCE TO 
              INDIVIDUALS RESIDING TEMPORARILY IN HOUSING OWNED BY A 
              FAMILY MEMBER.

    Section 2102A of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``December 31, 2012'' and inserting ``December 31, 2014''.
                                 <all>
```