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

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CSBN 44332)

United States Attorney

BRIAN J. STRETCH (CSBN 163973)

Chief, Criminal Division

PATRICIA J. KENNEY (CSBN 130238)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102-3495

Telephone: 415.436.6857

Facsimile: 415.436.6748

Attorneys for the United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

$49,790 IN UNITED STATES

CURRENCY,

Defendant.

HERMAN KEESE,

Claimant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-1654 VRW

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

RE: RESCHEDULING THE HEARING

ON THE PARTIES’ CROSS MOTIONS

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The parties agree, subject to the Court’s approval, to change the hearing date for their

dispositive motions from August 12, 2010, to September 16, 2010. Recently, the Court sua

sponte changed the hearing date from June 24, 2010, to August 12, 2010, but the undersigned

Assistant United States Attorney is out of town on business and on vacation during the the week

of August 9 and the week of August 16. The first date mutually convenient for counsel is

Case 3:08-cv-01654-VRW Document 45 Filed 06/09/10 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

September 16, 2010 and, after checking with the courtroom clerk, counsel determined that the

Court is also available on that date.

IT IS SO STIPULATED: JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO

United States Attorney

DATED: June 8 , 2010 /s/

PATRICIA J. KENNEY

Assistant United States Attorney

DATED: June 8 , 2010 /s/

DAVID MICHAEL

Attorney for Claimant Herman Keese

IT IS SO ORDERED PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES’ FOREGOING STIPULATION ON

THIS DAY OF , 2010, THE HEARING ON THE PARTIES’

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS IS SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 AT 10:00 A.M.

HONORABLE VAUGHN R. WALKER

Chief United States District Judge

Stip & Order Re: Rescheduling

No. C 08-1654 VRW 2

9th June

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Judge Vaughn R Walker

Case 3:08-cv-01654-VRW Document 45 Filed 06/09/10 Page 2 of 2
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2607

To suspend temporarily the duty on Formulations of Clodinafop-propargyl. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 24, 2005

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

on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on Formulations of 

Clodinafop-propargyl.

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

3 SECTION 1. FORMULATIONS OF CLODINAFOP-PROPARGYL. 

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:

‘‘ 9902.90.12 Formulations of Clodinafoppropargyl which include 

ClodinafopTechnical - Propanoic acid, 2-[4-[(5-chloro3-fluoro-2-pyridinyl)oxy]-

phenoxy]-2-propynyl ester 

(CAS No. 105512–06–9) 

(provided for in subheading 

3808.30.15) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2

•HR 2607 IH 

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

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                          15,120
<SECURITIES>                                     8,227
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,783
<ALLOWANCES>                                       621
<INVENTORY>                                         85
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,111
<PP&E>                                           5,130
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,145
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,723
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,110
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,723
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,154
<CGS>                                            1,211
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,708
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,061)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (408)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,469)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,469)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.27)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Irrizarry, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 303]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Stackhouse, J.), rendered March 10, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 7V2 to 15 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to reduce the sentence to a term of 5 to 10 years, and otherwise affirmed.

Evidence concerning an uncharged contemporaneous sale was properly admitted since it completed the narrative of events, was relevant to the contested issue of identity, and was not unduly prejudicial *(People v Pressley,*216 AD2d 202, *lv denied*86 NY2d 800). However, we find the sentence imposed excessive to the extent indicated.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.
#### Ora B. Coates, Appellant, v. George A. Zabriskie, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to plaintiff to apply for another order for examination in which she shall succinctly *962state the material facts which are denied by the answer and which plaintiff would have to prove as part of her case to obtain an accounting. No opinion. Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
#### Eugene L. Lezinsky Company, Inc., v. Charles Hoffman and Others.

Application granted. Order signed. Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Philip De *1002Cicco, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, rendered April 21, 1975, convicting him of escape in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, the facts and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, indictment dismissed, and case remitted to the Criminal Term for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50. The delay of over seven months from defendant’s indictment to the time of trial, during which time he was incarcerated, constituted a denial of his right to a speedy trial (see CPL 30.20). Both sides indicated a readiness for trial in July, 1974, one month after the return of the indictment, and the case was placed on the Ready Day Calendar the following week. The case did not reappear on that calendar until February, 1975, when the District Attorney reaffirmed his readiness. The People argue that defendant could not have been tried during the summer because the court did not try jury cases at that time, and that subsequent delays were due to reorganization of the court. However, trials of nonjailed defendants and civil cases were held while the defendant was incarcerated and awaiting trial. The People cannot be absolved of all responsibility merely because the case was marked "ready” within the statutory period set forth in CPL 30.30. We must conclude that the delay was "either at the request or without the objection of the District Attorney”, and that dismissal of the indictment is required (see *People v Perez,*57 AD2d 560). Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Titone and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York v. Antonio Fuentes.

Motion for leave to appeal as a poor person dismissed. Motion to dismiss appeal granted. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

 34

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲

▲

▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

05/31

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 31 May 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.44 N 77.04 W Meters AGL
" , . . . . . / 

### I : 

# ST Jo s eph 's
ADDI CTION TREATMf Ni G . R ECOV E RY CE NTE R S October 24, 2013 Bob Bevi lacqua, Tow n Superv i sor Dear Bob, I am wr it ing to ind i cate my st ro n g suppo rt for ex panded essent i al air service f rom the Ad i rondack Reg i onal Airport to New York C i ty . As t he CEO of St
. Josep h 's Add i ct i o n T reatment and Recovery Ce nt e rs wi th a staff of approx i mately 140, and as Boa rd Pres i den t of the Homeward Bound Ad iro n dacks , an emerg i ng no n -prof it V eterans S u ppo rt Organ i zat ion, i t is clea r to me that d irect serv i ce betw een Sa ranac lake a n d Ne w York City would di rect l y e nh ance Sa ranac Lake as a p rofessional and recreat i onal dest i nat ion, w h i ch could also ex pand Saranac Lake's commercial base. C u rrently, the options for travel to the city involve a two and a half hour car r i de to Albany fo l lowed by a n addit i o n al two and a half hour trai n r i de, or a two ho u r d r ive to Burlington International Airport
. In both cases the need to sh i ft from one transpo rtatio n mode to t h e other involves significant addit i on al tot a l t i me be twee n po i nts. I can spea k from direct experien c e that add iti onal p rofessional mee ti ngs and confe rences i n the TriL a kes area would be sign i f i cantly f aci lit ated by s u ch direct a i r transportat ion result i ng in add i t i onal econom ic benef i t -lodging, re staurants, shopping a n d other recreat i onal activ i ties. M yself and other St. Joseph's staff would utilize a direct route betw een Saranac Lake and NYC, as would ind i vidua l s visiting 

## st. Joseph's service locations in the Adirondack Region. In con versat i ons w ith bus i ness leaders and heads of major not-fo r- prof i t o rganizations in t he T r i-Lakes area I bel i eve there is a co n sensus that the succes s of the Saranac Lake - Boston da i ly f l igh t schedu l e would be repl i cat ed w it h a Sa rana c La ke - N Y C sc h edu l e . I ncreased , rel i able an d e ffic i e nt transport at i on be tw ee n Saranac Lake and majo r p opu l ati on cente rs w ill p rove t o be of s i g n ifica n t econom i c development advantage t o the reg i on .

Robe rt A. Ross President/CEO



### ~ . !
. I ',
. :
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

1

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

BRAYTON

 ̃PURCELL LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

222 RUSH LANDING ROAD

P O BOX 6169

NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169

(415) 898-1555

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAULA ROBERTSON, as Successor-inInterest to and Wrongful Death Heir of

JOHN ROBERTSON, Deceased, and

DIANA SPINT, as Legal Heir of JOHN

ROBERTSON, Deceased,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CARRIER CORPORATION, et al., 

Defendants

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

No. 3:08-cv-04490- CRB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

IT IS SO ORDERED. All claims in this Federal case are hereby dismissed, without

prejudice, against all Defendants named in this case pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

Dated: July 25, 2016 By: Charles R. Breyer 

 United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04490-CRB Document 48 Filed 07/26/16 Page 1 of 1
### §5712. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5712 was editorially reclassified as section 11212 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### Lawrence Dietz, Jr., Appellant, v. Lucie M. Dietz, Respondent.

Motion by appellant for reargument or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, denied. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals3040618-OCT-201003:39 PM
DISMISS and Opinion Filed March 7, 2023 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00996-CV 

FRANK MORDENTE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE 

MORDENTE 2017 TRUST, Appellants 

V. 

YEVGENY MARCHENKO, VALERI LIUKIN, AND 

HIDDEN VISTA PROPERTIES, INC., Appellees 

On Appeal from the 471st Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 471-01896-2022 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Miskel 

Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III 

After reviewing the clerk’s record, the Court questioned its jurisdiction over 

this appeal because there did not appear to be a final judgment or appealable 

interlocutory order. At the Court’s direction, appellant filed a letter brief. 

Generally, this Court has jurisdiction over final judgments and certain 

interlocutory orders as permitted by statute. See Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 

S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 
 –2– 

51.014(a) (listing appealable interlocutory orders). A final judgment is one that 

disposes of all parties and claims. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. 

Appellees filed suit against appellants, Frank Mordente, Individually and as 

Trustee of the 2017 Mordente Trust, and Kade Properties, LLC1. Frank Mordente 

filed a pro se answer on both his behalf and that of the Trust. Appellees moved to 

strike the Trust’s answer because non-attorney Mordente lacked authority to file an 

answer on behalf of the Trust. See Kunstoplast of Am., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics 

Corp, USA, 937 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam) (corporation can appear 

in court only through licensed attorneys). Appellant appeals from the trial court’s 

August 31, 2022 order granting appellees’ motion and striking the Trust’s answer. 

 The appealed order is not a final judgment because it does not dispose of 

appellees’ claims against Frank Mordente and Kade Propberties. See Lehmann, 39 

S.W.3d at 195. Although appellant filed a letter brief, nothing therein 

demonstrates this Court’s jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss 

the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). 

220996F.P05 

1

 Kade Properties, LLC is not a party to this appeal. 

/Bill Pedersen, III/

BILL PEDERSEN, III 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

FRANK MORDENTE, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 

TRUSTEE OF THE MORDENTE 

2017 TRUST, Appellants 

No. 05-22-00996-CV V. 

YEVGENY MARCHENKO, 

VALERI LIUKIN, AND HIDDEN 

VISTA PROPERTIES, INC., 

Appellees 

 On Appeal from the 471st Judicial 

District Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 471-01896-

2022. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Pedersen, III. Justices Molberg and 

Miskel participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellees YEVGENY MARCHENKO, VALERI 

LIUKIN, AND HIDDEN VISTA PROPERTIES, INC. recover their costs of this 

appeal from appellants FRANK MORDENTE AND THE 2017 MORDENTE 

TRUST. 

Judgment entered March 7, 2023
#### § 9.1 Basis.

The regulations in this part, taken together with 32 CFR part 2001 and Volume 5 of the Department's Foreign Affairs Manual, provide the basis for the security classification program of the U.S. Department of State (“the Department”) implementing Executive Order 13526 on Classified National Security Information (“the Executive Order” or “the Order”).
#### Marie L. Hacke, appellant, v. Charles Griffel et al., appellees.

Assumpsit to recover an amount realized by defendants from the sale of coal underlying lands previously sold to them by plaintiff. Judgment for defendants. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Macoupin county; the Hon. Frank W. Burton, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 25, 1922.

Jesse Peebles, for appellant. Thomas Rinaker, for appellees.

Mr. Presiding Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.