alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Tustin

Temecula

Tecate

Ramona

Poway

Potrero

Piru

Pechanga

Pala

Orange

Fillmore Newhall

Escondido

Lake

Forest

Dulzura

Devore

Bonsall

Black

Star

Canyon

Santiago

Peak

San

Bernardino

North

Harrison

Mountain

Keller

Peak

Lake

Arrowhead

Butler

Peak

San

Clemente Margarita

Peak

San

Onofre

Bluff

Las

Pulgas

Canyon

Vail

Lake

Palomar

Observatory

Boucher

Hill

Valley

Center

Rodriguez

Mountain

Mesa

Grande

Warners

Ranch

Rancho

Santa Fe San

Pasqual

Santa

Ysabel

San Vicente

Reservoir

El Cajon

Mountain

Tule

Springs

Jamul

Mountains

Otay

Mesa Otay

Mountain

Barrett

Lake

Morena

Reservoir

Warm

Springs

Mountain

Whitaker

Peak

Cobblestone

Mountain

Green

Valley

Sleepy

Valley

Agua

Dulce

Mint

Canyon

Val

Verde

Malibu

Beach

Orange

County

Los Angeles

County

Ventura

County

Buckweed Fire

Canyon Fire

Slide Fire

Santiago Fire

Ammo Fire

Harris Fire

Witch Fire

Ranch Fire

Magic Fire

Cajon Fire

Grass Valley Fire

Rice Fire

Poomacha Fire

32° 00' 00"

117° 00' 00" 116° 30' 00"

33° 30' 00"

117° 00' 00"

117° 30' 00"

117° 00' 00"

34° 00' 00"

119° 00' 00"

34° 30' 00"

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

County

San Diego

County

INDEX OF PRELIMINARY IMAGE MAPS OF THE

2007 FIRES IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Kern County

Santa Barbara

County

Imperial

County

1040

1035 1083 1081 1041 1073

1060 1079 1053 1051 1029

1048

1045 1034

1036

1066 1042 1044

1054 1031

1077 1046

1072

1067 1049

1068

1047

1075 1059 1078

1032 1057 1033 1058

1080 1065 1050 1082

1064 1037 1069 1063 1071

1062 1070 1038 1076

1043 1039 1030 1052

1055 1056 1074 1061

IMAGE MAPS LOCATION AREA

CALIF

Fire areas

County boundary

Fillmore

Quadrangle; number

 is Open-File report

 number

Legend

National boundary

O

O

5 10 MILES

10 KILOMETERS

Open-File Reports 2008–1029 through 2008–1083

1040
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

WESTERN REGIONAL ADVOCACYPROJECT, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

    v.

MAYOR GAVIN NEWSOM, et al,

Defendants.                                                                      /

No. C 08-4087 MMC

ORDER CONTINUING CASEMANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Before the Court is the parties' Joint Case Management Conference Statement, filed

March 26, 2010, in which the parties request that the Case Management Conference

currently scheduled for April 2, 2010 be continued to a date “sometime in May or later” to

afford the parties additional time to obtain approval of their proposed settlement by the San

Francisco Board of Supervisors.  (See Joint Case Management Statement, filed March 26,

2010 at 2:9-16.)

Good cause appearing, the parties’ request for a continuance is hereby GRANTED,

and the conference is hereby CONTINUED from April 2, 2010 to May 28, 2010.  A Joint

Case Management Statement shall be filed no later than May 21, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2010                                                       MAXINE M. CHESNEYUnited States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04087-MMC   Document 83   Filed 03/29/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-12T09:12:52-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
#### Blanche Guzzi, an Infant, etc., v. New York Zoological Society.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Present —■ Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
§ 120.42 Form, fit, function, performance capability, equivalent, enumerated, and catch-all control. ( a ) *Form.* The form of a commodity is defined by its configuration (including the geometrically measured configuration), material, and material properties that uniquely characterize it. For software, the form means the design, logic flow, and algorithms.
( b ) *Fit.* The fit of a commodity is defined by its ability to physically interface or connect with or become an integral part of another commodity. For software, the fit is defined by its ability to interface or connect with a defense article.
( c ) *Function.* The function of a commodity is the action or actions it is designed to perform. For software, the function means the action or actions the software performs directly related to a defense article or as a standalone application.
( d ) *Performance capability.* Performance capability is the measure of a commodity's effectiveness to perform a designated function in a given environment (e.g., measured in terms of speed, durability, reliability, pressure, accuracy, efficiency). For software, performance capability means the measure of the software's effectiveness to perform a designated function.
( e ) *Equivalent.* With respect to a commodity, equivalent means its form has been modified solely for fit purposes.
( f ) *Enumerated.* Enumerated refers to any item designated on the U.S. Munitions List or item on the Commerce Control List and not in a catch-all control.
( g ) *Catch-all control.* A catch-all control is one that does not refer to specific types of parts, components, accessories, or attachments, but rather controls unspecified parts, components, accessories, or attachments only if they were specially designed for an enumerated item.
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

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES

MASTER FILE NO. C-08-01510-WHA

sf-2788202

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

IN RE CHARLES SCHWAB CORP. 

SECURITIES LITIGATION

Master File No. C-08-01510-WHA

CLASS ACTION

[PROPOSED] ORDER

REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ 

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO 

INTERROGATORIES

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 340 Filed 01/19/10 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

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES

MASTER FILE NO. C-08-01510-WHA

1

sf-2788202

On January 4, 2010 defendants filed a letter brief requesting an order compelling plaintiffs 

to supplement their responses to Schwab Investments’ Second Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff 

Robert Dickson, Defendant Charles Schwab & Co.’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Kevin 

O’Donnell, and Defendant Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc.’s First Set of 

Interrogatories to Plaintiff David Mikelonis (the “Interrogatories”). Plaintiffs filed their 

opposition on January 6, 2010. The matter came for hearing before the Court on January 7, 2010. 

Upon considering the papers filed with the Court and the arguments of the parties, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Schwab defendants shall inform plaintiffs of the specific Interrogatories, not 

to exceed 50, as to which they seek supplemental response, at or before noon, January 8, 2010.

2. Plaintiffs shall supplement their responses to those Interrogatories, consistent with 

the Court’s instructions at the January 7, 2010 hearing. Plaintiffs shall serve the supplemental 

responses on or before January 25, 2010.

3. The Schwab defendants shall have 10 days from plaintiffs’ service of the 

supplemental responses to seek any related relief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________, 2010 ___________________________________________

The Honorable William Alsup

United States District Judge

Form of [Proposed] Order agreed upon by all parties. 

January 19

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge William Alsup

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 340 Filed 01/19/10 Page 2 of 2
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JOHN MARVIN BALLARD,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-10589

D.C. No. 2:06-CR-00283-JCC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 19, 2011** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

John Marvin Ballard appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed on

remand for resentencing following his jury-trial conviction for scheming to conceal

a material fact, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

DEC 21 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-10589

Contrary to the government’s contention, Ballard’s release from custody on

October 14, 2010, does not render this appeal moot because he remains on

supervised release. See United States v. Verdin, 243 F.3d 1174, 1178 (9th Cir.

2001) (appeal not moot because “success for [Ballard] could alter the supervised

release portion of his sentence”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Ballard contends that the district court failed to comply with 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(c), which requires the court to state in open court its reasons for imposing a

particular sentence. Because Ballard did not object to the court’s statement of

reasons at sentencing, this contention is reviewed for plain error. See United States

v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006). Ballard has not demonstrated the

denial of his substantial rights, given the district court’s lengthy explanation for the

sentence in its written order. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34

(1993).

Ballard also contends that his statutory maximum sentence is substantively

unreasonable. The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of

the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, in particular the

need to protect the public. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.

2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 34.2

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Directors 

U.S. Bank National Association

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform (the “Platform”), for which the Company provides trustee, securities administration, registrar and paying agent services, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2020, except forservicing criteria Items 1122 (d)(1)(i)-(v), 1122 (d)(2)(i), 1122 (d)(2)(iii), 1122 (d)(2)(v)-(vii), 1122 (d)(3)(i), and 1122 (d)(4)(i)-(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the servicing platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria.  Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that the evidence we obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. 

 

Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended March 31, 2020, for the U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.  

 

/s/Ernst & Young LLP

 

Minneapolis, Minnesota

May 28, 2020
§ 401.22 Attendance of witnesses and production of documents. ( a ) Requests for the attendance and examination of witnesses and for the production and inspection of books, papers and documents may be issued over the signature of the secretary of the section of the Commission of the country in which the witnesses reside or the books, papers or documents may be, when so authorized by the Chairman of that section.
( b ) All applications for subpoena or other process to compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of books, papers and documents before the Commission shall be made to the proper courts of either country, as the case may be, upon the order of the Commission.
###### Editorial Note on Part 217

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 217.2 Application.

This part applies to all programs or activities carried on within the United States by recipients of Federal financial assistance pursuant to any authority held or delegated by the Administrator of the Agency for International Development, including the types of Federal financial assistance listed in appendix A of this part. (appendix A may be revised from time to time by notice in the Federal Register). It applies to money paid, property transferred, or other Federal financial assistance extended after the effective date of this regulation, even if the application for such assistance is approved prior to such effective date. This part does not apply to (a) any Federal financial assistance by way of insurance or guaranty contracts, (b) money paid, property transferred or other assistance extended before the effective date of this part, (c) any assistance to any individual who is the ultimate beneficiary, and (d) any procurement of goods or services, including the procurement of training. This part does not bar selection and treatment reasonably related to the foreign assistance objective or such other authorized purpose as the Federal assistance may have. It does not bar selections which are limited to particular groups where the purpose of the Federal financial assistance calls for such a limitation nor does it bar special treatment including special courses of training, orientation or counseling consistent with such 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

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

In opposition to defendant Globe Aviation Services

Corporation’s (“Globe”) motion for summary judgment, (Doc #68),

plaintiff requests a continuance pursuant to FRCP 56(f) to allow

her to conduct further discovery. 

Rule 56(f) provides that “[i]f a party opposing the

motion shows by affidavit that, for specified reasons, it cannot

present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may 

* * * order a continuance to enable affidavits to be obtained,

depositions to be taken, or other discovery to be undertaken.” To

obtain a continuance under Rule 56(f), parties must establish: “(1)

that they have set forth in affidavit form the specific facts that

they hope to elicit from further discovery, (2) that the facts

sought exist, and (3) that these sought-after facts are ‘essential’

Case 3:08-cv-02272-VRW Document 85 Filed 01/08/10 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

to resist the summary judgment motion.” State of Cal v Campbell,

138 F3d 772, 779 (9th Cir 1998). 

While it is true that plaintiff’s declaration sets forth

her alleged difficulties in obtaining discovery from Globe,

plaintiff fails to identify any specific facts or particular

factual issues material to her opposition that she hopes further

discovery would produce. At a hearing on January 7, 2010,

plaintiff’s counsel was given an opportunity to supplement his

claim that further discovery was necessary in order to oppose

Globe’s summary judgment motion. Counsel again failed to identify

specific information that further discovery would likely produce. 

Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the 

requirements of FRCP 56(f) in that she did not specify what

evidence she sought to discover that might have precluded summary

judgment, plaintiff's FRCP 56(f) declaration fails to justify her

failure to oppose Globe’s summary judgment motion. 

Plaintiff shall file her opposition to Globe’s motion for

summary judgment on or before February 11, 2010. Globe may file

its reply on or before February 25, 2010, at which time the matter

will be submitted with no further hearing unless ordered by the

court.

Northwest Airlines’ motion for summary judgment will be

heard at 10 AM on March 11, 2010. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02272-VRW Document 85 Filed 01/08/10 Page 2 of 2
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 7495

ELIHUE MAHLER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. ABDUL H. JAMALUDEEN, Doctor/M.D , Defendant

- Appellee , and CORPORAL COX, Corporal; DEPUTY BAPTISTE, Deputy , Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Anthony John Trenga , District Judge. ( 1:17

- cv
- 01468

- AJT

- IDD )

Submitted : April 4, 2019 Decided: May 13, 2019

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Elihue Mahler, Appellant Pro Se. Grace Morse

- McNelis, SANDS ANDERSON, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Elihue Martin Mahler appeals the district court’s order s and judgment denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and hold
that Mahler’s cause of action against Dr. Jamaludeen did not accrue until the subsequent

x - ray evaluations in 2016. As such , Mahler’s appeal was not barred by the statute of
limitations . However, we nonetheless agree with the district court that he failed to establish the subjective component of his deliberate indifference claim. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 178 (4th Cir. 2014) (providing standard)

. The undisputed medical records show that Dr. Jamaludeen relied on a radiologist report that found no
abnormalities in Mahler’s left wrist or forearm. E.R. 165

– 66. Therefore, Mahler’s claim
that Dr. Jamaludeen intentionally lied about his arm being broken is entirely u nsupported by the evidence

. See Scott v. Harris , 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007)

. Accordingly, we affirm the district court

. * Mahler v. Jamaludeen , No. 1:17

- cv
01468

- AJT

- IDD (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 3, 2018 & entered Dec. 4, 2018). We also deny Mahler’s pending motion to compel an expert witness. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mat erials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

* In his informal brief, Mahler does not challenge the district court’s rejection of his excessive force claim s, so he has forfeited appellate review of that portion of the district court’s judgment. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson , 775 F.3d at 177 (“[O]ur review is limited to issues preserved in [the informal] brief.”).
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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LUKE D. BRUGNARA,

Defendant. /

No. CR 08-0222 WHA

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Defendant Luke Brugnara is scheduled for sentencing on May 24, 2010, having pleaded

guilty to filing false tax returns for the calendar years 2000, 2001 and 2002 in violation of 26

U.S.C. 7206(1). He now has filed a pro se motion for an evidentiary hearing regarding the

amount of defendant’s tax loss for those years (Dkt. No. 118). Defendant argues that the

amount of tax loss reported in the government’s presentence memorandum and the probation

presentence report — $1.9 million — is incorrect. Defendant instead asserts that the correct

amount of tax loss for those years was zero.

Defendant’s attorney Brian Getz, however, subsequently filed a submission stating that

no evidentiary hearing is necessary because “[t]he request for the evidentiary hearing on the tax

loss cannot be substantiated by any existing witness. There are no witnesses the defense could

call in support of the position advanced by Defendant in his pro se filing” (Dkt. No. 123 at 2).

As noted in previous orders, defendant has repeatedly attempted to game the system in

this action for purposes of delay by changing attorneys and changing his plea multiple times 

(See Dkt. No. 112). There is no credible basis upon which to now hold an evidentiary hearing

Case 3:08-cr-00222-WHA Document 124 Filed 05/20/10 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

regarding the amount of tax loss. Defendant’s motion is not accompanied by any sworn

declaration or other evidence in support of his position. His own attorney states that no

witnesses can be called to support the motion. Defendant’s motion for an evidentiary hearing is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cr-00222-WHA Document 124 Filed 05/20/10 Page 2 of 2