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

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN QUINTERO,

Plaintiff(s),

    v.

FOSS MARITIME,

Defendant(s).                                                                      /

No. C 08-4163  MHP

ORDER(Ninety-Day Conditional Dismissal)

The parties hereto, by their counsel, having advised the Court that they have agreed to a

settlement of this action.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice; provided,

however, that if any party hereto shall certify to this Court, with a proof of service of a copy on

opposing counsel, within 90 days from the date hereof, that the agreed consideration for the

settlement has not been delivered over, this Order shall stand vacated, and the action shall be

restored to the calendar to be set for trial.

Dated: 2/12/2010MARILYN HALL PATELUnited States District Court Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04163-MHP   Document 24   Filed 02/12/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-10T23:18:43-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
#### § 229.305 Preference in admission.

A recipient to which §§ 229.300 through 229.310 apply shall not give preference to applicants for admission, on the basis of attendance at any educational institution or other school or entity that admits as students only or predominantly members of one sex, if the giving of such preference has the effect of discriminating on the basis of sex in violation of §§ 229.300 through 229.310.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BOBBY TUCKER; Z.T., a minor,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 v.

SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY; et

al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-36096

D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01566-BAT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Brian Tsuchida, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted October 25, 2016*** 

 Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Bobby Tucker and his minor child, Z.T., appeal pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims relating

FILED

NOV 02 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

 ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(c).

 

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
to their project-based Section 8 housing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo, Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004),

and we affirm. 

The district court properly granted summary judgment because appellants

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether they were entitled to

a grievance procedure and to remain on the housing wait list. See 42 U.S.C.

§ 1437f(o)(13)(J) (family retains place on waiting list only where family “rejects

an offer of project-based assistance”); Moore v. Nw. Fabricators, Inc., 314 P.2d

941, 942 (Wash. 1957) (“Abandonment, as applied to leases, involves an absolute

relinquishment of premises by a tenant, consisting of act or omission and an intent

to abandon.”); 24 C.F.R. § 983.256(f)(3)(ii) (“The term of the lease terminates if

. . . [t]he tenant terminates the lease”); 24 C.F.R. § 983.261(d) (“If the family

terminates the assisted lease before the end of one year, the family relinquishes the

opportunity for continued tenant-based assistance.”). 

We do not consider new evidence introduced on appeal. See Kirshner v.

Uniden Corp. of Am., 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1988).

Appellants’ requests for appointment of counsel are denied. 

Appellants’ motion to expedite the case, filed on May 23, 2016, is granted. 

AFFIRMED. 

2 14-36096
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Stay safe in cold weather!**
 
2006 | 2011 | 2018
 
SuDoc Number:HE 20.3852:C 67/ | HE 20.3852/2:C67/
Item Number:0447-A-26 (online) | 0447-B-08(online)
CGP systemNumber:001101956
 
September 27, 2018
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

JESSE L. REED, 

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT L. AYERS, warden, 

Respondent. /

No. C 08-2858 MHP (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Petitioner was in custody serving a 25-to-life sentence on a 1985 conviction for first

degree murder when he filed this habeas action to challenge a June 22, 2007 decision by

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger finding him unsuitable for parole. Respondent

has moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the petition is moot because petitioner

was released from prison on June 8, 2009. Petitioner has not opposed the motion. 

Petitioner's release from prison makes his habeas petition seeking such release moot. 

See Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 999-1000 (9th Cir. 2005); Fendler v. United States

Bureau of Prisons, 846 F.2d 550, 555 (9th Cir. 1988). Petitions challenging criminal

convictions usually do not become moot upon a petitioner's release from custody because 

collateral consequences are presumed to flow from criminal convictions; the same rule does

not apply to a challenge to a denial of parole, as is the case here. Petitioner has not identified

any collateral consequences that keep this action from being considered moot, and the court

is unaware of any. Most notably, it does not appear that any habeas relief that could be

Case 3:08-cv-02858-MHP Document 12 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

issued could affect the length of parole because the period of parole for petitioner apparently

will be for life. See Cal. Penal Code § 3000.1(a); 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 2515(f). 

For the foregoing reasons, respondent's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. (Docket #

11.) The petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is dismissed as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 6, 2010 

Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02858-MHP Document 12 Filed 01/08/10 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4338 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4338

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to expand certain restrictions 
relating to the overhaul and repair of vessels in foreign shipyards to 
           the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2012

  Mr. Sablan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to expand certain restrictions 
relating to the overhaul and repair of vessels in foreign shipyards to 
           the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

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

SECTION 1. OVERHAUL, REPAIR, AND MAINTENANCE OF VESSELS IN THE 
              COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS.

    Subsection (a) of section 7310 of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``the United States or Guam'' each place it 
        appears and inserting ``the United States, Guam, or the 
        Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands''; and
            (2) in the heading for such subsection, by striking 
        ``United States or Guam'' and inserting ``United States, Guam, 
        or Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Sophie Houst, Respondent, v. Paul A. McGolrick, Appellant, Impleaded with Others.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to defendant to withdraw demurrer and to answer on payment of costs in this court and at Special Term. No opinion. Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
| 1. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                               |   |                                |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------|
| By: /s/              Alan B. Springer                                         |   | October              24, 2006  |
| Alan                B. SpringerChairman                and Chief Executive Officer |   |                                |

----
P.1 

OAR Box 1852 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

35) ll-C-11 

Docket Number: 

A-86-03 

Printed 11/19/2008 2:38:54 PM Sheet 35 of 101 
P.2 

^osr ^ , fi-tl-02 &&-H 

» ^m * i X*m>1 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

\ ^yjZsW WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

% rBOl^ 

JUN I 3 1967 OFFICEOF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Hr. John B. Curcio 

President and Chief Executive Officer 

Mack Trucks, inc. 

Ixecutive Offices 

Box M 

Allentown, PA 18105-5000 

Dear Mr. Curcio: 

Thank you for your letter describing your current testing 

and development efforts. We are pleased that significant 

reductions in engine-out particulate emissions are being mace, 

and look forward to receiving the results of your testing 

programs, including your recent development work in achieving a 

1991 low mileage target of 0.17 g/BHP-hr with low sulfur fuel. 

and without aftertreatment. While this data will be important 

in evaluating compliance strategies for the low sulfur case, we 

would like to reiterate that we also need to know the projected 

compliance strategy(ies) Mack vould use fcr 1991 with currant 

sulfur levels. This information is of vital importance in 

comparing the cost of particulate reductions on the vehicle 

(through further reductions in engine-cut emissions, and 

aftertreatment) to the cost of particulate reductions through 

fuel controls. If this could be provided along with- the 

compliance demonstration on low sulfur fuel, it would be very 

helpful to our analysis. 

Thank you again for your significant efforts in studying 

these issues and reporting the results to EPA. 

Sincerely, 

(3tfl J. Qaig Me t 

J. Craig Potter 

Assistant Administrator 

for Air and Raoiation
#### § 238.15 Notice.

Any communication to USAID pursuant to the Guarantee shall be in writing in the English language, shall refer to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Loan Guarantee Number inscribed on the Eligible Note and shall be complete on the day it shall be actually received by USAID at the Office of Development Credit, Bureau for Economic Growth, Education and Environment, United States Agency for International Development, Washington, DC 20523-0030. Other addresses may be substituted for the above upon the giving of notice of such substitution to each Noteholder by first class mail at the address set forth in the Note Register.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2438 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Hydrazine Hydrate. 

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 suspend temporarily the duty on Hydrazine Hydrate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HYDRAZINE HYDRATE. 

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: 

‘‘ 9902.05.70 Hydrazine Hydrate (CAS 

No. 302–01–2) (provided for 

in Subheading 2825.10.00) Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

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

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

•HR 2438 IH 

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

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
Code of Shelby County Section 14.5-30 Reporting Requirements

Except as provided below, each permitted stationary air pollution source must submit to the department an annual report that 

establishes the amount of actual emissions of each regulated pollutant, including carbon monoxide, for that source. This 

report will be for the emissions of that source that occurred during the calendar year starting in 1991 and continuing for 

succeeding years thereafter. The department may request, and the air pollution source shall provide, additional information 

on the emissions data submitted when the department determines the data previously provided is inadequate to establish the 

actual type or amount of emissions from the source subject to fees. Not including air toxics as they are defined in the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the amendments thereto or a source that has actual emissions of more than twenty five 

(25) tons per year of either nitrogen dioxide or volatile organic compounds, if the source emits fewer than fifty (50) tons of 

actual emissions of pollutant during a year, it may at its option, use as the actual emissions figure, its permitted pollutant 

levels where available and known. If the source is a "major source" under the air toxics provisions of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 it too must calculate its actual emission of regulated pollutants. Failure to provide, on a timely basis,

any additional information requested shall be considered failure to pay the fees.

(Shelby County Ord. No. 102, §5, 3-30-92; Amended by Shelby County Ord. No. 171, December 18, 1995.)

14.5-30, p. 1
#### Glenn W. Smith, Respondent, v. Horn Construction Co., Inc., Appellant.

Order, entered on October 20, 1960, granting plaintiff a trial preference pursuant to rule 151 of the Rules of Civil Practice, unanimously reversed upon the law and upon the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion denied without prejudice to renewal of motion upon proper proofs. The plaintiff on this motion has failed to submit proper medical proof showing his present physical condition or inability to work, has failed to submit complete factual detail showing destitution or indigence, and has failed in general to present unequivocal proof of the special circumstances required to warrant the granting of a preference under said rule 151. (See *Dodumoff*v. *Lyons,*4 A D 2d 626; *Goldin*v. *Malone Dairy Co.,*209 App. Div. 341, 342; *Bitterman*v. 2007 *Davidson Ave.,*278 App. Div. 759; *Sheehan*v. *Behr,*1 AD 2d 1037; *Brown*v. *Upfold,*204 Misc. 416, 419.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Bergan, JJ.
Third Amendment to the Supply and Manufacturing Agreement



 Exhibit 10.14.3 
 The confidential portions of this exhibit have been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to a confidential treatment request in accordance with Rule 24b-2 of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 as amended. REDACTED PORTIONS OF THIS EXHIBIT ARE MARKED BY AN ***. 
 THIRD AMENDMENT
TO THE 
 SUPPLY AND MANUFACTURING AGREEMENT 
 BETWEEN 
 TEIKOKU SEIYAKU CO., LTD./TEIKOKU PHARMA USA, INC.

 AND 
 ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC. 
 Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Endo”),
Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Ltd. (“Teikoku Japan”) and its U.S. subsidiary, Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc. (the Teikoku parties collectively referred to as “Teikoku”), enter into effective November 1, 2010, the following Third Amendment
(“Third Amendment”) to their Supply and Manufacturing Agreement dated as of November 23, 1998 (“Supply and Manufacturing Agreement”), and as amended as of April 24, 2007 (“First Amendment”), and as of December 16, 2009
(“Second Amendment”). 
 Endo and Teikoku agree as follows: 
 1.    The following paragraph is to be inserted at the end of Section 2.4(a) of the Supply and Manufacturing Agreement as amended by both the First Amendment and the Second Amendment:

 “Notwithstanding anything else in this Section 2.4(a), if Endo’s firm orders of Product in calendar year 2011
exceed *** patches, Teikoku will provide Endo with an additional *** patches at no cost during calendar year 2011; if Endo’s firm orders of Product in calendar year 2012 exceed *** patches, Teikoku will
provide Endo with an additional *** patches at no cost during calendar year 2012; and if Endo’s firm orders of Product in calendar year 2013 exceed *** patches, Teikoku will provide Endo with an additional
*** patches at no cost during calendar year 2013.” 
 2.    The parties agree to continue their
discussions with respect to the other amendments to the Supply and Manufacturing Agreement that are currently contemplated. 

  
 1 








  
 3.    All other
terms and conditions of the Agreement as previously amended are affirmed and remain in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties
have caused this Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives. 
  

									
	Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Ltd.	 		 	Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.
					
	By:	 	/s/    Shosaku Murayama	 		 	By:	 	/s/    Julie McHugh
	 Title: President & CEO
 Date: November 1, 2010
	 		 	 Title: Chief Operating Officer
 Date: October 29, 2010

				
	Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc.	 		 		 	
					
	By:	 	/s/    Ichiro (Paul) Mori	 		 		 	
	 Title: COO & EVP

Date: November 1, 2010
	 		 	


  
 2
###### Editorial Note on Part 41

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 41 appear at 71 FR 34521 and 34522, June 15, 2006.

#### § 41.0 Definitions.

For purposes of this part and part 53:

*Adjacent islands* means Bermuda and the islands located in the Caribbean Sea, except Cuba.

*Cruise ship* means a passenger vessel over 100 gross tons, carrying more than 12 passengers for hire, making a voyage lasting more than 24 hours any part of which is on the high seas, and for which passengers are embarked or disembarked in the United States or its territories.

*Ferry* means any vessel operating on a pre-determined fixed schedule and route, which is being used solely to provide transportation between places that are no more than 300 miles apart and which is being used to transport passengers, vehicles, and/or railroad cars.

*Pleasure vessel* means a vessel that is used exclusively for recreational or personal purposes and not to transport passengers or property for hire.

*United States* means “United States” as defined in section 215(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1185(c)).

*U.S. citizen* means a United States citizen or a U.S. non-citizen national.

*United States qualifying tribal entity* means a tribe, band, or other group of Native Americans formally recognized by the United States Government which agrees to meet WHTI document standards.

[73 FR 18418, Apr. 3, 2008]
### §3020d. Surplus property eligibility

Any State or local government agency, and any nonprofit organization or institution, which receives funds appropriated for programs for older individuals under this chapter, under title IV or title XX of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 1397 et seq.], or under titles VIII and X of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2991 et seq., 2996 et seq.] and the Community Services Block Grant Act [42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.], shall be deemed eligible to receive for such programs, property which is declared surplus to the needs of the Federal Government in accordance with laws applicable to surplus property.

(Pub. L. 89–73, title II, §213, formerly §214, as added Pub. L. 95–478, title I, §102(i), Oct. 18, 1978, 92 Stat. 1516; renumbered §213 and amended Pub. L. 97–115, §2(e)(2), (k), Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1596.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Social Security Act, referred to in text, is act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620, as Titles IV and XX of the Social Security Act are classified generally to subchapters IV (§601 et seq.) and XX (§1397 et seq.), respectively, of chapter 7 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 1305 of this title and Tables.

The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 88–452, Aug. 20, 1964, 78 Stat. 508, which was classified generally to chapter 34 (§2701 et seq.) of this title prior to repeal, except for titles VIII and X, by Pub. L. 97–35, title VI, §683(a), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 519. Titles VIII and X of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 are classified generally to subchapters VIII (§2991 et seq.) and X (§2996 et seq.) of chapter 34 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

The Community Services Block Grant Act, referred to in text, is subtitle B (§671 et seq.) of title VI of Pub. L. 97–35, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 511, which is classified generally to chapter 106 (§9901 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 9901 of this title and Tables.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 213 of Pub. L. 89–73 was renumbered section 212 and is classified to section 3020c of this title.

#### Amendments

1981—Pub. L. 97–115, §2(k), substituted "titles VIII and X of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 and the Community Services Block Grant Act" for "the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964".

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective at close of Sept. 30, 1978, see section 504 of Pub. L. 95–478, set out as an Effective Date of 1978 Amendment note under section 3001 of this title.