alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 713

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 713 appear at 84 FR 37752, Aug. 2, 2019.

#### § 713.10 Definitions.

For purposes of this part:

*Legal proceedings* means any matter before any federal, state or foreign administrative or judicial authority, including courts, agencies, commissions, boards, grand juries, or other tribunals, involving such proceedings as lawsuits, licensing matters, hearings, trials, discovery, investigations, mediation or arbitration. When DFC is a party to a legal proceeding, it will be subject to the applicable rules of civil procedure governing production of documents and witnesses; however testimony and/or production of documents by DFC employees, as defined, will still be subject to this part.

*Nonpublic records* means any DFC records which are exempt from disclosure by statute or under Part 706, DFC's regulations implementing the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. For example, this may include records created in connection with DFC's receipt, evaluation and action on actual and proposed DFC finance projects and insurance policies (whether such projects or policies were cancelled or not), including all reports, internal memoranda, opinions, interpretations, and correspondence, whether prepared by DFC employees or by persons under contract, as well as confidential business information submitted by parties seeking to do business with DFC. Whether DFC has actually chosen in practice to apply any exemption to specific documents is irrelevant to the question of whether they are “nonpublic” for the purposes of this Part.

*DFC employee* means current and former officials, members of the Board of Directors, officers, directors, employees and agents of the US International Development Finance Corporation, including contract employees, consultants and their employees. This definition does not include persons who are no longer employed by DFC and are retained or hired as expert witnesses or agree to testify about general matters, matters available to the public, or matters with which they had no specific involvement or responsibility during their employment.

*Subpoena* means any order, subpoena for records or other tangible things or for testimony, summons, notice or legal process issued in a legal proceeding.

*Testimony* means any written or oral statements made by an individual in connection with a legal proceeding, including personal appearances in court or at depositions, interviews in person or by telephone, responses to written interrogatories or other written statements such as reports, declarations, affidavits, or certifications or any response involving more than the delivery of records.
#### Harry Spodick, as President and Secretary-Treasurer of the International Jewelry Workers’ Union, AFL-CIO, Appellant, v. William Cohen, as President of Local 210 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Order entered on August 21, 1959 granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against Local 210 unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and motion denied, with $10 costs. This order grants summary judgment dismissing the complaint and directs that judgment be entered in favor of the defendant Local 210. " The entry of judgment would terminate the action as against the Local. However, the order recognizes that an amended complaint had been served and it directs the entry of judgment “without prejudice to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the amended complaint”. The order contemplates the possibility of the amended complaint being sufficient which consequently would result in further proceedings. To permit this order to stand could result in an anomalous situation where two judgments could be entered in one action by the same parties. It must therefore be reversed. Concur—Botein, P. J., Rabin, Valente, Eager and Bastow, JJ.
#### Ural KING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. G.J. GIURBINO, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-55984.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 9, 2007.*

Filed March 21, 2007.

*624Molloy, District Judge, concurred with opinion.

Ural King, Soledad, CA, pro se.

Steven S. Lubliner, Esq., Law Offices of Steven S. Lubliner, Petaluma, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Marvin E. Mizell, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: KOZINSKI and TROTT, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM***

1. King never sought leave to amend his state habeas petition, so the California Supreme Court did not consider his amendments. *See People v. Green*27 Cal.3d 1, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468, 493 n. 28 (1980) (“It is settled that in a habeas corpus proceeding ‘the court considers only those grounds ... alleged in the petition for issuance of the writ’ or in any supplemental petition filed with permission of the court.” (citations omitted)), *overruled on other grounds by People v. Martinez,*20 Cal.4th 225, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 533, 973 P.2d 512 (1999); *see also In re Clark, 5*Cal.4th 750, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 509, 855 P.2d 729, 749 n. 16 (1993) (same). Because King did not adequately present these claims in state court, the district court properly found them to be unexhausted.

2. The district court erred in dismissing the petition without first giving King “the choice of exhausting his unexhausted claims by returning to state court, or abandoning those claims and pursuing the remaining exhausted claims in federal court.” *Jefferson v. Budge,*419 F.3d 1013, 1015 (9th Cir.2005). That the state mentioned these options in its motion to dismiss does not relieve the district court of its burden under *Jefferson*to provide these options.

REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

***

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

MOLLOY District Judge,

concurring.

I concur in the result the majority reaches and agree that the district court *625erred in failing to follow the procedures set forth in *Jefferson v. Budge,*419 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir.2005). I disagree with the majority to the extent that it holds the district court properly found three of King’s claims to be unexhausted. Thus, on remand I would require the district court to review claims five, six and seven on the merits.
### §4370g. Availability of funds for uniforms and certain services

For fiscal year 2009 and thereafter, the Science and Technology and Environmental Programs and Management Accounts are available for uniforms, or allowances therefore, 1 as authorized by sections 5901 and 5902 of title 5 and for services as authorized by section 3109 of title 5, but at rates for individuals not to exceed the daily equivalent of the rate paid for level IV of the Executive Schedule.

(Pub. L. 111–8, div. E, title II, Mar. 11, 2009, 123 Stat. 728.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Level IV of the Executive Schedule, referred to in text, is set out under section 5315 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009, and also as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, and not as part of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 which comprises this chapter.

1 So in original. Probably should be "therefor,".
### §3058h. Regulations

The Assistant Secretary shall issue and periodically update regulations respecting—

(1) conflicts of interest by persons described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 3058g(f)(1) of this title; and

(2) the relationships described in clauses (i) through (vi) of section 3058g(f)(1)(C) of this title.

(Pub. L. 89–73, title VII, §713, as added Pub. L. 102–375, title VII, §702, Sept. 30, 1992, 106 Stat. 1282; amended Pub. L. 103–171, §3(a)(13), Dec. 2, 1993, 107 Stat. 1990; Pub. L. 114–144, §8(d), Apr. 19, 2016, 130 Stat. 351.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2016—Par. (1). Pub. L. 114–144, §8(d)(1), substituted "subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 3058g(f)(1)" for "paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 3058g(f)".

Par. (2). Pub. L. 114–144, §8(d)(2), substituted "clauses (i) through (vi) of section 3058g(f)(1)(C)" for "subparagraphs (A) through (D) of section 3058g(f)(3)".

1993—Pub. L. 103–171 substituted "Assistant Secretary" for "Commissioner".

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

#### Effective Date

Section inapplicable with respect to fiscal year 1993, see section 4(b) of Pub. L. 103–171, set out as an Effective Date of 1992 Amendment note under section 3001 of this title.

Section inapplicable with respect to fiscal year 1992, see section 905(b)(6) of Pub. L. 102–375, set out as an Effective Date of 1992 Amendment note under section 3001 of this title.
### §4274. Organization of Commission

#### (a) Initial meeting

The President shall convene the Commission within ninety days following September 24, 1959 at such time and place as he may designate for the Commission's initial meeting.

#### (b) Chairman and Vice Chairman

The President shall designate a Chairman and a Vice Chairman from among members of the Commission.

#### (c) Vacancies in membership

Any vacancy in the membership of the Commission shall be filed in the same manner in which the original appointment was made; except that where the number of vacancies is fewer than the number of members specified in paragraphs (4), (5), (6), and (7) of section 4273(a) of this title, each panel of names submitted in accordance with the aforementioned paragraphs shall contain at least two names for each vacancy.

#### (d) Termination of service in official position from which originally appointed

Where any member ceases to serve in the official position from which originally appointed under section 4273(a) of this title, his place on the Commission shall be deemed to be vacant.

#### (e) Quorum

Thirteen members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum, but two or more members shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting hearings.

(Pub. L. 86–380, §4, Sept. 24, 1959, 73 Stat. 705.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 2374 of Title 5 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, by Pub. L. 89–554, §1, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 378.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JEHMAR GLADDEN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 161 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7th day of August, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### In the Matter of the Intermediate Accounting of Martha Brand et al., as Trustees, Respondents-Appellants. Regina B. Fayne, Appellant-Respondent.

Order, entered on April 3, 1961, striking certain objections to the account of the trustees, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the trustees only, payable out of trust funds. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
#### Frank L. Reinhardt et al., Respondents, v Frank J. Biegas et al., Appellants.

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: *1026Defendants appeal from an order denying their motion to dismiss for failure to serve a complaint within 20 days of their demand (CPLR 3012, subd [b]). Since there is obvious merit to the action and the excuse for the delay is satisfactory, we find no abuse of discretion by the court in denying defendants’ motion to dismiss. With respect to the merit of the action, defendants admit that in 1963 they mortgaged their real property to plaintiffs for $15,000, that they have made no payment on the mortgage since 1966 and that the mortgage is in default. They allege no defense to the action. By way of excusing the delay, plaintiffs allege that after serving a summons they withheld service of a complaint indefinitely at the request of defendants’ former counsel, no longer a practicing attorney, because one of the defendants was ill. The attorney represented to them that defendants needed time to obtain refinancing. Inasmuch as plaintiffs’ mortgage was subordinate to a substantial first mortgage on the premises which was not in default, plaintiffs agreed not to press the matter. They continued to negotiate with defendants’ attorney and they were approached for settlement discussions by a representative of defendants only a short time before this motion was made. Under these circumstances, the court properly denied the motion to dismiss. (Appeal from order of Genesee County Court—dismiss complaint.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Denman and Witmer, JJ.
### §5713. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5713 was editorially reclassified as section 11213 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
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

G:\CRBALL\2005\1699\MISC\Lilak_Reconsideration.wpd

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

SAFDAR LILAK,

Plaintiff,

    v.

PFIZER CORP.,Defendant.

                                                                      /

No. C 08-5777 CRB

ORDER

Plaintiff Safdar Lilak asks this Court to reconsider its order of April 28, 2010,

dismissing his case with prejudice.  However, Lilak fails to identify any ground sufficient

under Rule 60 for reconsideration.  For the reasons stated in this Court’s previous order,

dismissal was appropriate.  His motion is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2010                                                            CHARLES  R. BREYERUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-05777-CRB   Document 26   Filed 06/25/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-12T01:51:11-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements for the quarter ended June 30, 1998 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,839
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,995
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,057
<PP&E>                                         283,607
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 414,353
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,534
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           301
<OTHER-SE>                                     202,201
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   414,353
<SALES>                                         60,895
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,895
<CGS>                                           26,862
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,862
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,705
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,482
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,154)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (76)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,078)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,078)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.23)
        

</TABLE>
§ 92.69 Charges payable to foreign officials, witnesses, foreign counsel, and interpreters. ( a ) *Execution of letters rogatory by foreign officials.* Procedures for payment of foreign costs will be by arrangement with the foreign authorities.
( b ) *Execution of commissions by foreign officials or other persons abroad.* Procedure for the payment of foreign costs will be as arranged, by the tribunal requiring the evidence, with its commissioner.
( c ) *Witness fees and allowances when depositions are taken pursuant to commission from a Federal court.* A witness attending in any court of the United States, or before a United States commissioner, or before any person authorized to take his deposition pursuant to any rule or order of a cut of the United States, shall receive $4 for each day's attendance and for the time necessarily occupied in going to and returning from the same, and 8 cents per mile for going from and returning to his place of residence. Witnesses who are not salaried employees of the Government and who are not in custody and who attend at points so far removed from their respective residence as to prohibit return thereto from day to day shall be entitled to an additional allowance of $8 per day for expenses of subsistence, including the time necessarily occupied in going to and returning from the place of attendance (28 U.S.C. 1821, Supp. IV). Witnesses giving depositions before consular officers pursuant to a commission issued by the Federal Court are entitled to these fees and allowances, and the officer shall make payment thereof in the same manner as payment is made of other expenses involved in the execution of the commission, charging the advance deposit provided by the party at whose request the depositions are taken (see § 92.68). In any case to which the Government of the United States, or an officer or agency thereof, is a party, the United States marshal for the district will pay all fees of witnesses on the certificate of the United States Attorney or Assistant United States Attorney, and in the proceedings before a United States Commissioner, on the certificate of such commissioner (28 U.S.C. 1825).
§ 92.74 Services in connection with United States securities or interests therein. ( a ) *Authority and responsibility.* Assignments or requests for payment of United States securities, or securities for which the Treasury Department acts as transfer agent, or powers of attorney in connection therewith where authorized by the Treasury Department, should, in a foreign country, be executed before a United States consular or diplomatic officer. However, if they are executed before a foreign official having power to administer oaths, the Treasury Department requires that the official character and jurisdiction on the foreign official be certified by a United States diplomatic or consular officer. (See §§ 92.36 to 92.41 on authentications.)
( b ) *Fees.* Officers of the Foreign Service should charge no fees for notarial services they perform in connection with the execution of documents, including the certification or authentication of documents where necessary, which affect United States securities or securities for which the Treasury Department acts as transfer agent, or which may be required in the collection of interest thereon. Item 58(b) of the Tariff of Fees, Foreign Service of the United States of America (§ 22.1 of this chapter) applies in cases of this nature.
Case 3:08-cv-04232-JL Document 148 Filed 08/02/10 Page 1 of 5 Case3:08-cv-04232-JL Document146 Filed07/30/10 Page1 of 5
Case 3:08-cv-04232-JL Document 148 Filed 08/02/10 Page 2 of 5 Case3:08-cv-04232-JL Document146 Filed07/30/10 Page2 of 5
Case 3:08-cv-04232-JL Document 148 Filed 08/02/10 Page 3 of 5 Case3:08-cv-04232-JL Document146 Filed07/30/10 Page3 of 5
Case 3:08-cv-04232-JL Document 148 Filed 08/02/10 Page 4 of 5 Case3:08-cv-04232-JL Document146 Filed07/30/10 Page4 of 5
Case 3:08-cv-04232-JL Document 148 Filed 08/02/10 Page 5 of 5 Case3:08-cv-04232-JL Document146 Filed07/30/10 Page5 of 5
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of C.M. and D.M., children, * From the 42nd District Court

of Coleman County,

Trial Court No. CV22-01099.

No. 11-24-00009-CV * June 27, 2024

* Memorandum Opinion by Trotter, J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the 

order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Michael Harty, Appellant, v. Edward M. Fay, as Warden of Green Haven Prison, Respondent.

— Motion for leave to dispense with printing granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers (including the typed minutes) and on a typewritten brief. The appellant is directed to file five copies of his typed brief and to serve one copy thereof on the Attorney-General. The appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged to the January 1961 Term. The appeal is ordered to be placed on the calendar for said term. Motion for assignment of counsel granted. Stephen K. Bock, Esq., *2*Cannon Street, Poughkeepsie, New York, is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
Case 3:08-cv-02252-CRB Document 13 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 2Case 3:08-cv-02252-CRB Document 13 Filed 04/07/10 Page 2 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases.

 /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

NOTICE SETTING

STATUS CONFERENCE

The Court shall hold a status conference at 8:00 A.M. ON MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2010, in

Courtroom 9. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-02878-WHA Document 36 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 1