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

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

IO GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

    v.

ANTELOPE MEDIA, LLC, et al.,Defendants

                                                                      /

No. C-08-4050 MMC

ORDER CONTINUING CASEMANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

In light of the Clerk’s having entered the default of each defendant who has been

served with the Third Amended Complaint, the Court hereby CONTINUES the Case

Management Conference from March 12, 2010 to July 2, 2010.  A Case Management

Statement shall be filed no later than June 25, 2010.

Further, plaintiff is hereby DIRECTED to file, no later than April 23, 2010, a motion

for default judgment or a statement indicating why it should not be required to do so.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  March 10, 2010                                                   MAXINE M. CHESNEYUnited States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04050-MMC   Document 103   Filed 03/10/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-12T02:26:31-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
### §4370e. Working capital fund in Treasury

There is hereby established in the Treasury a "Working capital fund", to be available without fiscal year limitation for expenses and equipment necessary for the maintenance and operation of such administrative services as the Administrator determines may be performed more advantageously as central services: Provided, That any inventories, equipment, and other assets pertaining to the services to be provided by such fund, either on hand or on order, less the related liabilities or unpaid obligations, and any appropriations made hereafter for the purpose of providing capital, shall be used to capitalize such fund: Provided further, That such fund shall be paid in advance or reimbursed from funds available to the Agency and other Federal agencies for which such centralized services are performed, at rates which will return in full all expenses of operation, including accrued leave, depreciation of fund plant and equipment, amortization of automated data processing (ADP) software and systems (either acquired or donated), and an amount necessary to maintain a reasonable operating reserve, as determined by the Administrator: Provided further, That such fund shall provide services on a competitive basis: Provided further, That an amount not to exceed four percent of the total annual income to such fund may be retained in the fund for fiscal year 1997 and each fiscal year thereafter, to remain available until expended, to be used for the acquisition of capital equipment and for the improvement and implementation of Agency financial management, ADP, and other support systems: Provided further, That no later than thirty days after the end of each fiscal year amounts in excess of this reserve limitation shall be transferred to the Treasury.

(Pub. L. 104–204, title III, Sept. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 2912; Pub. L. 105–65, title III, Oct. 27, 1997, 111 Stat. 1374; Pub. L. 105–276, title III, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2499.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly set out as a note under section 501 of Title 31, Money and Finance.

Section was enacted as part of the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997, and not as part of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 which comprises this chapter.

#### Amendments

1998—Pub. L. 105–276, which directed the insertion of "or reimbursed" after "that such fund shall be paid in advance", was executed by making the insertion after "That such fund shall be paid in advance", to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

1997—Pub. L. 105–65 substituted "a 'Working capital fund' to be available without fiscal year limitation for expenses and equipment" for "a franchise fund pilot to be known as the 'Working capital fund', as authorized by section 403 of Public Law 103–356, to be available as provided in such section for expenses and equipment" and struck out proviso at end which read ": Provided further, That such franchise fund pilot shall terminate pursuant to section 403(f) of Public Law 103–356".
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Earl Smith, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, rendered April 21, 1977, convicting *1044him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The People proved the defendant’s guilt of burglary in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. A person commits the crime of burglary in the second degree when he remains in a dwelling unlawfully "at night” with intent to commit a crime therein (Penal Law, § 140.25). "Night” is defined by the statute as "the period between thirty minutes after sunset and thirty minutes before sunrise” (Penal Law, § 140.00). An appellate court may take judicial notice for the first time on appeal of a fact which was not brought to the attention of the trial court *(Hunter v New York, Ontario & Western R.R. Co.,*116 NY 615). On September 17, 1976, the date of the alleged burglary, the time of sunset was 6:02 p.m. eastern standard time or 7:02 p.m. eastern daylight savings time. There was ample evidence at the trial that when the victim returned to his apartment and interrupted the burglary in progress, the time was approximately 8:30 p.m. The admission of the codefendant’s statement implicating the defendant was not error. The defendant’s right of confrontation was satisfied when the codefendant took the stand at the trial (see *People v Payne,*35 NY2d 22). While the right to a separate trial is broader than the right to confrontation, there was no prejudice in view of the substantial independent proof of the defendant’s guilt (cf. *People v Payne, supra).*The sentence was not excessive. We have also considered the arguments made by the defendant *pro se*and we affirm the conviction. Suozzi, J. P., Cohalan, Hargett and Hawkins, JJ., concur.
#### § 507.7 Reconsideration of opening or closing a meeting.

The time or place of a Board meeting may be changed following the public announcement only if the Board publicly announces such change at the earliest practicable time. The subject matter of a meeting, or the determination of the agency to open or close a meeting, or a portion of a meeting, to the public, may be changed following the public announcement only if a majority of the Board members determines by a recorded vote that Board business so requires and that no earlier announcement of the change was possible, and the Board publicly announces such change and the vote of each member upon such change at the earliest practicable time.
Order entered April 8, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 01510
- CR THOMAS GRADY LAYTON, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Cou rt Cause No. 366
- 82182
- 10



### O RDER On February 18, 2014, the Court granted Official Court Reporter Niki D. Garcia’s request for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. The time to file the reporter’s record was
extended to March 11, 2014 . The reporter’s record has not been filed nor has Garcia communicated with the Court regarding why the reporter’s record is overdue.
We ORDER Niki D. Garcia to file the reporter’s record on or before May 9, 2014 . If Garcia fails to comply with this order, the Court will order that she not sit as a court reporter until the reporter’s record is filed.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
SF/1656750v1

Dennis G. Rolstad 

dennis.rolstad@sdma.com 

(415) 627-3435 

January 12, 2010 

Via E-mail and Facsimile 

Honorable Susan Illston 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

450 Golden Gate Avenue 

19th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94102 

Re: Langston v. North American Asset Development Corp. Group Disability Plan

U.S.D.C. Northern District of California 

Case No. C 08-02560 SI 

File No.: 2489-107904 

Hartford No. 555014541 

Dear Judge Illston: 

 On January 11, 2010, plaintiff Nancy Langston filed supplemental declarations in support of her 

motion for attorneys’ fees, scheduled to be heard on January 22, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. before you in this 

matter. If the court intends to consider the supplemental declarations, defendant North American Asset 

Development Corporation Group Disability Plan asks for the opportunity to respond to the supplemental 

declarations. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Very truly yours, 

s/Dennis G. Rolstad

Dennis G. Rolstad 

Attorneys for North American Asset 

Development Corporation Group Disability Plan 

Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP 

cc: Lawrence F. Padway 

ONE MARKET PLAZA STEUART TOWER, 8TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105 

www.sdma.com 415.781.7900 phone 415.781.2635 fax

Case3:08-cv-02560-SI Document78 Filed01/12/10 Page1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Susan Illston

Case 3:08-cv-02560-SI Document 79 Filed 01/12/10 Page 1 of 1
### §3911. Repealed. Pub. L. 98–181, title I [title IV, §474(e)], Nov. 30, 1983, 97 Stat. 1239

Section, Pub. L. 90–448, title IV, §412, 1, 1968, 82 Stat. 516; Pub. L. 91–152, title III, §304, Dec. 24, 1969, 83 Stat. 391; Pub. L. 91–609, title III, §303(b), Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1780, provided for supplementary grants under this chapter.
#### Waldemar Krawczyk et al., Plaintiffs, v Shulem Ehrenfeld et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs, and *206Paz Mast Construction, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant. Kanfer General Contracting, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant-Respondent; Roth Metal & Glass Works, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. (And Other Titles.)

[715 NYS2d 728]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the second third-party defendant Kanfer General Contracting, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Rivera, J.), dated October 22, 1999, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the second third-party complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, and the defendant third-party plaintiff and second third-party plaintiff Paz Mast Construction, Inc., d/b/a Master Paz Construction, Inc., cross-appeals, as limited by its notice of cross appeal and brief, from so much of the same order as denied its cross motion for conditional summary judgment on the issue of common-law indemnification against the third-party defendant Roth Metal & Glass Works, Inc.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements, the respective cross motions of Kanfer General Contracting, Inc., and Paz Mast Construction, Inc., are granted, and the second third-party complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against Kanfer General Contracting, Inc., are dismissed.

Where a general contractor is held liable to an injured subcontractor’s employee under Labor Law § 240, and it has not directed, supervised, or controlled his work, it “is entitled to full common-law indemnification from a subcontractor whose negligence was the sole cause of the worker’s injuries” *(Mackey v Beacon City School Dist.,*216 AD2d 534, 535; *see, Werner v East Meadow Union Free School Dist.,*245 AD2d 367, 368). Here, on its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the second third-party complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, Kanfer General Contracting, Inc. (hereinafter Kanfer), which was a subcontractor at the construction site, satisfied its burden by demonstrating its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Since Paz Mast Construction, Inc. (hereinafter Paz Mast), which was the general contractor at the site, failed to raise a triable issue of fact in response, Kanfer’s cross motion should have been granted *(see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320).

On its cross motion for conditional summary judgment on the issue of common-law indemnification over Roth Metal & Glass Works, Inc. (hereinafter Roth), which was the subcontractor that employed the injured plaintiff, Paz Mast met its burden *207by demonstrating its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Since Roth failed to raise a triable issue of fact in response, the cross motion of Paz Mast should also have been granted (see, *Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra,*at 324). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.
#### Michael L. SHAVER, Petitioner, v. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, Respondent.

No. 05-73062.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 15, 2007 *.

Filed March 20, 2007.

Frank N. Masino, Esq., Corte Medera, CA, for Petitioner.

William Liebman, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: BRUNETTI, W. FLETCHER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Michael Shaver (“Shaver”), a commodities futures broker, appeals from a final order of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”). 7 U.S.C. §§ 9, 21(i)(4) (2000). The CFTC summarily affirmed and adopted a decision by the National Futures Association (“NFA”), which stated that Shaver engaged in fraudulent customer communications in violation of NFA Compliance Rules 2-2(a) and 2-29(a)(1).

The NFA’s decision that Shaver engaged in fraudulent customer communica*618tions in violation of Compliance Rules 2-2(a) and 2-29(a)(l) is supported by the weight of the evidence. *Morris v. CFTC,*980 F.2d 1289,1292 (9th Cir.1992).

Similarly, the NFA’s decision to sanction Shaver with a $2,000 fíne and a 2-year tape recording requirement was not an abuse of discretion. *Premex, Inc. v. CFTC,*785 F.2d 1403, 1408 (9th Cir.1986).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                  NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                            786,956
<SECURITIES>                                    2,980,445
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,476,031
<ALLOWANCES>                                      161,818
<INVENTORY>                                       863,741
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                6,242,838
<PP&E>                                          1,024,661
<DEPRECIATION>                                    254,497
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  7,121,554
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             437,666
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                            3,154
<OTHER-SE>                                      6,669,508
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    7,121,554
<SALES>                                         1,799,712
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                1,799,712
<CGS>                                           1,099,576
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   1,099,576
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   10,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    263
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   104,003
<INCOME-TAX>                                       48,093
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                55,910
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                       55,910
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .02
        

</TABLE>
```

[House Report 110-382]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

110th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    110-382

======================================================================

 
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE RESOLUTION (H. RES. 734) EXPRESSING 
THE SENSE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REGARDING THE WITHHOLDING OF 
               INFORMATION RELATING TO CORRUPTION IN IRAQ

                                _______
                                

  October 15, 2007.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Welch, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 741]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 741, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution provides for consideration of H. Res. 734, 
expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding 
the withholding of information relating to corruption in Iraq, 
under a closed rule providing one hour of debate in the House 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government 
Reform. The rule waives all points of order against 
consideration of the resolution and provides that the 
resolution shall be considered as read. The rule provides one 
motion to recommit which may not contain instructions.

                         EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

    Although the rule waives all points of order against 
consideration of the resolution, the Committee is not aware of 
any points of order against consideration. The waiver of all 
points of order is prophylactic in nature.

                            COMMITTEE VOTES

    The results of each record vote on an amendment or motion 
to report, together with the names of those voting for and 
against, are printed below:

Rules Committee record vote No. 347

    Date: October 15, 2007.
    Measure: H. Res. 734.
    Motion by: Mr. Dreier.
    Summary of motion: To make in order and provide the 
appropriate waivers for an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute by Representative Tom Davis (VA). The amendment 
would retain the language of H. Res. 734 as introduced but 
would add additional whereas and resolved clauses to paint a 
fuller and more accurate picture of the political, economic and 
security situation in Iraq.
    Results: Defeated 3-7.
    Vote by Members: Hastings (FL)--Nay; Matsui--Nay; Welch--
Nay; Castor--Nay; Arcuri--Nay; Sutton--Nay; Dreier--Yea; Diaz-
Balart--Yea; Hastings (WA)--Yea; Slaughter--Nay.

                                  

```
#### § 506.3 Establishing and converting part-time positions.

Position management and other internal reviews may indicate that positions may be either converted from full-time or initially established as part-time positions. Criteria listed above may be used during these reviews. If a decision is made to convert to or to establish a part-time position, regular position management and classification procedures will be followed.
#### § 239.7 Fiscal Agent obligations.

Failure of the Fiscal Agent to perform any of its obligations pursuant to the Fiscal Agency Agreement shall not impair any Noteholder's rights under the Guarantee, but may be the subject of action for damages against the Fiscal Agent by USAID as a result of such failure or neglect. A Noteholder may appoint the Fiscal Agent to make demand for payment on its behalf under the Guarantee.
#### § 274.404 Form TH—Notification of reliance on temporary hardship exemption.

Form TH shall be filed by any electronic filer who submits to the Commission, pursuant to a temporary hardship exemption, a document in paper format that otherwise would be required to be submitted electronically, as prescribed by rule 201(a) of Regulation S-T (§ 232.201(a) of this chapter).

[58 FR 14861, Mar. 18, 1993]

###### Editorial Note

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations affecting Form TH, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*
### §3154c. Direct expenditure or redistribution by recipient

#### (a) In general

Subject to subsection (b), a recipient of a grant under section 3141, 3143, or 3147 of this title may directly expend the grant funds or may redistribute the funds in the form of a subgrant to other eligible recipients to fund required components of the scope of work approved for the project.

#### (b) Limitation

A recipient may not redistribute grant funds received under section 3141 or 3143 of this title to a for-profit entity.

#### (c) Economic adjustment

Subject to subsection (d), a recipient of a grant under section 3149 of this title may directly expend the grant funds or may redistribute the funds to public and private entities in the form of a grant, loan, loan guarantee, payment to reduce interest on a loan guarantee, or other appropriate assistance.

#### (d) Limitation

Under subsection (c), a recipient may not provide any grant to a private for-profit entity.

(Pub. L. 89–136, title II, §217, as added Pub. L. 108–373, title II, §212(a), Oct. 27, 2004, 118 Stat. 1766.)