alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1862o–4. Funding for successful science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education programs

#### (a) Evaluation of programs

The Director shall, on an annual basis, evaluate all of the Foundation's grants that are scheduled to expire within 1 year and—

(1) that have the primary purpose of meeting the objectives of the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 1885 et seq.); or

(2) that have the primary purpose of providing teacher professional development.

#### (b) Continuation of funding

For grants that are identified under subsection (a) and that are determined by the Director to be successful in meeting the objectives of the initial grant solicitation, the Director may extend the duration of those grants for not more than 3 additional years beyond their scheduled expiration without the requirement for a recompetition.

(Pub. L. 110–69, title VII, §7012, Aug. 9, 2007, 121 Stat. 681; Pub. L. 114–329, title II, §204(a)(3)(A), Jan. 6, 2017, 130 Stat. 2998.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Science and Engineering Equal Opportunity Act, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), probably means the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act, which is Part B (§31 et seq.) of Pub. L. 96–516, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 3010, which enacted sections 1885 to 1885d of this title and provisions set out as notes under sections 1861 and 1885 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1980 Amendment note set out under section 1861 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the America COMPETES Act, also known as the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act, and not as part of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 which comprises this chapter.

#### Amendments

2017—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 114–329 struck out subsec. (c) which related to reports to Congress.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Definitions

For definitions of terms used in this section, see section 7001 of Pub. L. 110–69, set out as a note under section 1862o of this title.
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

DONNIE COX,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS

CORPORATION, and DOES 1

through 10, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-03927 WHA

ORDER REMINDING PARTIES

OF DISMISSAL DEADLINE AND

TRIAL DATE

At the final pretrial conference held on December 20, 2009, the parties represented to the

undersigned that they had a signed settlement agreement. Due to this representation, in an order

issued on December 21, 2009, the undersigned set a deadline of noon on January 19, 2010, for the

parties to file a stipulated dismissal of this case (Dkt. No. 83). Otherwise, the case would be

immediately called for trial. The parties are hereby reminded that if a dismissal is not received by

the above-mentioned deadline, the jury will be summoned in and trial will begin promptly 

AT 7:30 A.M. ON JANUARY 20, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-03927-WHA Document 85 Filed 01/05/10 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 707
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 707 appear at 84 FR 37752, Aug. 2, 2019.

§ 707.26 Notification of court-ordered disclosures. ( a ) Except in cases under paragraph (c) of this section, when a record pertaining to an individual is required to be disclosed by court order, DFC will make reasonable efforts to provide notice of this to the individual. If DFC cannot locate the individual, notice will be deemed sufficient for this part if it is mailed to the individual's last known address. The notice will contain a copy of the order and a description of the information disclosed.
( b ) Notice will be given within a reasonable time after DFC's receipt of the order, unless the order is not a matter of public record. In those cases, the notice will be given only after the order becomes public.
( c ) Notice is not required if disclosure is made from an exempt system of records.
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAM WESLEY, JR., 

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL SAYRE, C.M.O.; et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 08-5035 SI (pr)

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES

Defendants filed an ex parte request for an extension of the deadlines for plaintiff's

opposition to their motion for summary judgment and for their reply brief. Upon due

consideration of the request and the accompanying declaration of attorney Lynne Stocker, the

court GRANTS the request. (Docket # 23.) Plaintiff's opposition filed on February 25, 2010 and

defendants' reply filed on March 12, 2010 are deemed timely filed. The motion for summary

judgment remains under submission. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2010 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05035-SI Document 31 Filed 05/03/10 Page 1 of 1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 30, 2020

a0622

Order 

Clerk

June 30, 2020

160903

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 160903

COA: 351403

Newaygo CC: 12-010152-FH;

KEITH ALLEN BAGLEY, 12-010153-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 10, 2019 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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

WAITHIRA NJENGA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN MATEO COUNTY,

Defendant. /

No. C-08-04019 EDL

ORDER 

On April 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Granting

Summary Judgment of Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Claim Against Individual Defendants in their

Individual Capacities. The Court construes this filing to be a Motion for Leave of Court to file a

Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3), alleging a “manifest failure by

the Court to consider . . . dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court. . . .” 

Although Civil Local Rule 7-9 does not provide for a response, the Court requires a responsive brief

from Defendant. Accordingly, no later than April 15, 2010, Defendant shall file a responsive brief

not to exceed three pages.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2010 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04019-EDL Document 112 Filed 04/08/10 Page 1 of 1
Summary of Director Compensation



  
 Exhibit 10.2

 SUMMARY OF DIRECTORS COMPENSATION 
 Effective as of October 1, 2010 
  

					
	 Compensation paid to non-employee directors
	  			
	 Annual retainer
	  	$	50,000	  
	 Annual restricted stock award
	  	$	75,000	(1) 
	 Annual stock option grant
	  	$	35,000	(1) 
	 Stock option grant upon initial election or appointment
	  	 	Prorated	(2) 
	 Restricted stock grant upon initial election or appointment
	  	 	Prorated	(2) 
	 Attendance at Board meetings in excess of 10 meetings in a given year
	  	$	1,500	(3) 
		
	 Compensation for attendance at committee meetings (in person or by phone)
	  			
	 Audit Committee
	  	$	1,250	  
	 Compensation Committee
	  	$	1,000	  
	 Nominating and Governance Committee
	  	$	1,000	  
		
	 Additional compensation for Board and Committee chairpersons
	  			
	 Non-employee Board Chair
	  			
	 Annual retainer
	  	$	35,000	  
	 Annual restricted stock award
	  	$	30,000	(1) 
	 Annual stock option grant
	  	$	15,000	(1) 
	 Audit Committee (if not Board Chair)
	  	$	15,000	  
	 Compensation Committee (if not Board Chair)
	  	$	10,000	  
	 Nominating and Governance Committee (if not Board Chair)
	  	$	7,500	  

  

	(1)	Awards are granted based on grant date fair value. 

  

	(2)	Upon an initial election or appointment to the Board of Directors on a date other than the date of an annual meeting of stockholders, each non-employee director is
automatically granted a prorated annual option grant and restricted stock award, based on the number of full calendar months between the date of initial election or appointment and the date of the first anniversary of the then last annual meeting of
stockholders. 

  

	(3)	Each one-year period is measured from the date of one annual meeting of stockholders to the next annual meeting of stockholders, beginning with the 2008 Annual Meeting
of Stockholders. 

 Directors shall be paid cash compensation on a quarterly basis. Directors will also be reimbursed for
reasonable Coinstar related travel expenses.
#### Margaret Hrica et al., Appellants, v. Alfred Griczewicz, Respondent.

Order denying plaintiffs’ motion for a preference under subdivision 5 of rule V of the New York Counity Supreme Court Trial Term Rules dated December 17, 1959, unanimously modified in the exercise of discretion to grant leave to renew, and as so modified, otherwise affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendant-respondent.- Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente and Bergan, JJ.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 165 (Friday, August 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51513-51514]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20807]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

Meetings

AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board 
(Access Board) plans to hold its regular committee and Board meetings 
in Washington, DC, Monday through Wednesday, September 10-12, 2012 on 
the times and location listed below.

DATES: The schedule of events is as follows:

Monday, September 10, 2012

10:30 a.m.-5 p.m. Ad Hoc Rulemaking Committees: Closed to Public

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

9:30-11 a.m. Ad Hoc Committee on Frontier Issues

[[Page 51514]]

11-Noon Planning and Evaluation Committee
1:30-3:30 p.m. Technical Programs Committee
4-4:30 p.m. Budget Committee

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

9:30 a.m.-Noon Ad Hoc Rulemaking Committees: Closed to Public
1:30-3 p.m. Board Meeting

ADDRESSES: Meetings will be held at the Access Board Conference Room, 
1331 F Street NW., suite 800, Washington, DC 20004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding the 
meetings, please contact David Capozzi, Executive Director, (202) 272-
0010 (voice); (202) 272-0054 (TTY).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At the Board meeting scheduled on the 
afternoon of Wednesday, September 12, the Access Board will consider 
the following agenda items:
     Approval of the draft July 11, 2012 meeting minutes (vote)
     Planning and Evaluation Committee Report
     Technical Programs Committee Report
     Budget Committee Report
     Ad Hoc Committee Reports
     Executive Director's Report
     Public Comment, Open Topics
    All meetings are accessible to persons with disabilities. An 
assistive listening system, computer assisted real-time transcription 
(CART), and sign language interpreters will be available at the Board 
meeting and committee meetings. Persons attending Board meetings are 
requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances 
for the comfort of other participants (see www.access-board.gov/about/policies/fragrance.htm for more information).

David M. Capozzi,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2012-20807 Filed 8-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8150-01-P
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6079** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. BILLY RAY CRAWFORD, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. Terry L. Wooten , Chief District Judge. ( 4:05

- cr - 00470

- TLW

- 1 )

Submitted : March 17, 2016 Decided: March 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON , NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Billy Ray Crawford, Jr ., Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Assistant U nited States Attorney , Columbia, South Carolina, Arthur Bradley Parham , Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Billy Ray Crawford, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reduce sentence under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) or U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1, p.s. Crawford argues on app eal that the Government obligated itself in the plea agreement to move for a downward departure for his substantial assistance. We affirm. It is well

- settled that whether to file a Rule 35(b) motion is a matter left to the Government’s discretion. Fed . R. Crim. P. 35(b); United States v. Dixon , 998 F.2d 228 , 230 (4th Cir. 1993). A court may remedy the Government’s refusal to move for a sentence reduction under Rule 35(b) if: (1) the G overnment has obligated itself in the plea agreement to move for th e reduction; or (2) the Government’ s refusal to move for the reduction was based on an unconstitutional motive. Wade v. United States , 504 U.S. 181, 185

- 86 (1992). After review of the record, we conclude that neither circumstance is present here. The plea agreement between Crawford and the Government clearly establishes that the decision whether to file a Rule 35(b) motion rested with the Government’s discretion, and Crawford did not claim in the motion to reduce sentence that the Government’s refusal to file a Rule 35(b) motion was based on an unconstitutional motive.3 Accordingl y, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Robert E. J. Corcoran v. Hubert E. Rogers and Others.

Motion denied, without costs. Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
### §2000dd–0. Additional prohibition on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment

#### (1) In general

No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

#### (2) Cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment defined

In this section, the term "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" means cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.

#### (3) Compliance

The President shall take action to ensure compliance with this section, including through the establishment of administrative rules and procedures.

(Pub. L. 109–366, §6(c), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2635.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and not as part of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 which comprises this chapter.
### §5203. Excess disaster assistance payments as budgetary emergency requirements

Beginning in fiscal year 1993, and in each year thereafter, notwithstanding any other provision of law, all amounts appropriated for disaster assistance payments under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) that are in excess of either the historical annual average obligation of $320,000,000, or the amount submitted in the President's initial budget request, whichever is lower, shall be considered as "emergency requirements" pursuant to section 901(b)(2)(D) 1 of title 2, and such amounts shall on and after December 12, 1991, be so designated.

(Pub. L. 102–229, title I, Dec. 12, 1991, 105 Stat. 1711.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 93–288, May 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 143, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5121 of this title and Tables.

Section 901 of title 2, referred to in text, was amended by Pub. L. 105–33, title X, §10203(a)(4), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 699, and Pub. L. 112–25, title I, §101, Aug. 2, 2011, 125 Stat. 241. As so amended, section 901(b)(2)(D) of title 2 no longer refers to "emergency requirements".

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations and Transfers for Relief From the Effects of Natural Disasters, for Other Urgent Needs, and for Incremental Cost of "Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm" Act of 1992, and not as a part of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act which comprises this chapter.

1 See References in Text note below.
1 

ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CONSUMER SOLUTIONS REO, 

LLC, etc., 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

RUTHIE B. HILLERY, etc., et al., 

 Defendants. 

____________________________ 

RUTHIE HILLERY, 

 Counter-Claimant, 

 vs. 

CONSUMER SOLUTIONS REO, 

LLC, etc., et al., 

 Counter/Cross-Claim Defendants

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 08-CV-04357 EMC 

ORDER CONTINUING CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

 

[Proposed] 

[Assigned to Hon. Edward M. Chen] 

In light of the Stipulation of the Parties: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Case Management Conference in 

this matter, currently set for March 24, 2010 at 2:30 p.m. be continued. The 

parties are to file an updated Case Management Conference Statement one 

week prior to the continued Case Management Conference date. 

Case 3:08-cv-04357-EMC Document 121 Filed 03/18/10 Page 1 of 2
2 

ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT 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

Dated: ___________, 2010 By: 

Honorable Edward M. Chen 

United States Magistrate Judge 

fb.us.5009197.01

Case 3:08-cv-04357-EMC Document 121 Filed 03/18/10 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 76770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27922]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices: Conference Call 
Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting of the Advisory 
Committee on Immunization Practices conference call meeting.

    Name: Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
    Time and Date: 11 a.m.-1 p.m., December 17, 2004.
    Place: The conference call will originate at the National 
Immunization Program (NIP), in Atlanta, Georgia. Please see 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for details on accessing the conference 
call.
    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the availability of 
telephone ports.
    Purpose: The Committee is charged with advising the Director, 
CDC, on the appropriate uses of immunizing agents. In addition, 
under 42 U.S.C. 1396s, the committee is mandated to establish and 
periodically review and, as appropriate, revise the list of vaccines 
for administration to vaccine-eligible children through the Vaccines 
for Children (VFC) program, along with schedules regarding the 
appropriate periodicity, dosage, and contraindications applicable to 
the vaccines.
    Matters To Be Discussed: To discuss both the ACIP 
recommendations and the interim Vaccine for Children's Resolution 
and as it pertains to influenza vaccine priority groups this year.
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This conference call is scheduled to 
begin at 11 a.m., Eastern Standard Time. To participate in the 
conference call, please dial 1-888-455-0044 and reference passcode 
5425415. You will then be automatically connected to the call.
    As provided under 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), the public health urgency 
of this agency business requires that the meeting be held prior to 
the first available date for publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register.
    Contact Person for More Information: Demetria Gardner, 
Epidemiology and Surveillance Division, National Immunization 
Program, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., (E-61), Atlanta, Georgia 
30333, telephone 404/639-8096, fax 404/639-8616.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining 
to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities for both the CDC and ATSDR.

    Dated: December 15, 2004.
Alvin Hall,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 04-27922 Filed 12-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIMO HOSTING, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MIKHAIL FIKS, et al.,

Defendants.

))))))))))

No. C 08-2474 BZ

BRIEFING ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs SHALL file any opposition

to defendant’s ex-parte application for a turnover order (Doc.

No. 159) by JUNE 14, 2010.  Any reply SHALL be filed by JUNE

21, 2010.  By JUNE 14, 2010, defendant SHALL submit

supplemental authority which supports his position that the

Court can order a party to produce in this district personal

property located in a different district.  

Dated: June 3, 2010 

Bernard Zimmerman   United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\LIMO HOSTING V. FIKS\BRIEFING ORD.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-02474-BZ   Document 162   Filed 06/03/10   Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Kalman Cohen, Principal, and Abraham Posner, Surety, Respondents.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, "with ten dollars costs, on the authority of *People*v. *Abrams*(172 App. Div. 577) and *People*v. *Levy*(169 id. 571). Settle order on notice. Present—'Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.