alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IO GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ANTELOPE MEDIA, LLC, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-08-4050 MMC

ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANT

SUNRISE’S JANUARY 21, 2010 FILING;

AFFORDING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO

SUPPLEMENT REQUEST FOR ENTRY

OF DEFAULT

On January 20, 2010, plaintiff filed a Request To Enter Default As To Defendants

Sunrise Media, Ltd., Maik Herrmann, Thorsten Palicki, And PSI Services, SA.

In its request, plaintiff states, inter alia, that, pursuant to the Court’s order of

December 4, 2009, it served the operative complaint on Sunrise Media, Ltd. (“Sunrise”) and

PSI Services, SA (“PSI”) by e-mail. Thereafter, on January 21, 2010, Sunrise Media, Ltd.

(“Sunrise”) filed a letter in which it asserts it has not received the operative complaint.

Because Sunrise did not file the above-referenced letter through counsel, the letter

is hereby STRICKEN. See United States v. High Country Broadcasting Co., 3 F.3d

1244,1245 (9th Cir. 1993) (providing corporation may only appear in court through

“licensed counsel”).

Nonetheless, to the extent plaintiff seeks entry of default as to Sunrise and PSI, the

request is deficient because plaintiff has not fully complied with the Court’s December 4,

Case 3:08-cv-04050-MMC Document 95 Filed 01/25/10 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

2

2009 order affording plaintiff, pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, leave to serve Sunrise and PSI by e-mail. Specifically, plaintiff has not stated

whether the emails it sent to Sunrise and PSI were “returned as undeliverable.” (See

Order, filed December 4, 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l)(2)(B) (holding service under

Rule 4(f)(3) proper only where plaintiff provides “evidence satisfying the court that the

summons and complaint were delivered to the addressee”).

Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby afforded leave to supplement, no later than February

5, 2010, its request for entry of default, specifically, to state whether the emails it sent to

Sunrise and PSI were returned as undeliverable.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04050-MMC Document 95 Filed 01/25/10 Page 2 of 2
# Eiropas Savienības L 16I/2019

| | ISSN 1977-0715 |
| --- | --- |
| Eiropas Savienības
  Oficiālais Vēstnesis | L 016I |
| | |
| Izdevums latviešu valodā | Tiesību akti | 62. gadagājums2019. gada 18. janvāris |

ISSN 1977-0715

Eiropas Savienības

Oficiālais Vēstnesis

L 016I

Izdevums latviešu valodā

Tiesību akti

62. gadagājums2019. gada 18. janvāris

---

| Saturs | | Labojumi | Lappuse |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Labojums Komisijas Īstenošanas regulā (ES) 2019/73 (2019. gada 17. janvāris), ar ko nosaka galīgu antidempinga maksājumu un galīgi iekasē pagaidu maksājumu, kurš noteikts Ķīnas Tautas Republikas izcelsmes elektrisko velosipēdu importam ( OV L 16, 18.1.2019. ) | 1 |

Saturs

Labojumi

Lappuse

*

Labojums Komisijas Īstenošanas regulā (ES) 2019/73 (2019. gada 17. janvāris), ar ko nosaka galīgu antidempinga maksājumu un galīgi iekasē pagaidu maksājumu, kurš noteikts Ķīnas Tautas Republikas izcelsmes elektrisko velosipēdu importam ( OV L 16, 18.1.2019. )

( OV L 16, 18.1.2019. )

1

| LV | Tiesību akti, kuru virsraksti ir gaišajā drukā, attiecas uz kārtējiem jautājumiem lauksaimniecības jomā un parasti ir spēkā tikai ierobežotu laika posmu.
  Visu citu tiesību aktu virsraksti ir tumšajā drukā, un pirms tiem ir zvaigznīte. |
| --- | --- |

LV

Tiesību akti, kuru virsraksti ir gaišajā drukā, attiecas uz kārtējiem jautājumiem lauksaimniecības jomā un parasti ir spēkā tikai ierobežotu laika posmu.

Visu citu tiesību aktu virsraksti ir tumšajā drukā, un pirms tiem ir zvaigznīte.

---

Labojumi

| 18.1.2019 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | LI 16/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2019

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

LI 16/1

---

Labojums Komisijas Īstenošanas regulā (ES) 2019/73 (2019. gada 17. janvāris), ar ko nosaka galīgu antidempinga maksājumu un galīgi iekasē pagaidu maksājumu, kurš noteikts Ķīnas Tautas Republikas izcelsmes elektrisko velosipēdu importam

(
  “Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis” L 16, 2019. gada 18. janvāris
  )

135. lappusē 4. pantā:

pirms:

“Šī regula uzliek saistības kopumā un ir tieši piemērojama visās dalībvalstīs.”

pievieno šādu tekstu:

“Šī regula stājas spēkā nākamajā dienā pēc tās publicēšanas Eiropas Savienības Oficiālajā Vēstnesī.”

---
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-89,205-01

EX P ARTE SAMANTHA NICOLE WOHL F ORD, Applicant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. CR-15- 01524A IN THE 276 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM CAM P COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant wa s co n v i cted of murder and sentenc ed to ninety-nine year s’ imprisonment. Applicant contends t h at h er counsel rende red ineffe ctive assistance beca use he failed to timely file a notice of appea l. We rema nded this application to the trial court for finding s of fac t and conclusions of law
. The trial court has deter

mined that counsel failed to timely file a notice of appea l. We find t h at Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appea l of the judgmen t o f2

conviction i n Cause No. CF -15-1524 f rom the 276 District Court of Camp County
. Applicant is

t h order ed returne d to that time at which she may g ive a written notice of appea l so that she may then, with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaning ful appea l. Within ten day s of the issuance of this opinion, the trial court shall deter

mine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall immediately appoint an attorney to repr esent Applicant on direc t appeal. All time limit s shall be calc ulated as if the sentenc e had been imposed
on the date on which the mandate of this Court is s u es . W e h o l d that, should Applicant desire to prosec ute an appea l, she must take aff irmative steps to file a written notice of appeal in the trial court within 30 day s after

the mandate of this Court issues. Copies of th is o pinion shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice-Corr ectional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: Marc h 20, 2019 Do not publish
§ 227.100 Conditions on use of funds. ( a ) No appropriated funds may be expended by the recipient of a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative ageement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with any of the following covered Federal actions: the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
( b ) Each person who requests or receives from an agency a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement shall file with that agency a certification, set forth in appendix A, that the person has not made, and will not make, any payment prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) Each person who requests or receives from an agency a Federal contract, grant, loan, or a cooperative agreement shall file with that agency a disclosure form, set forth in appendix B, if such person has made or has agreed to make any payment using nonappropriated funds (to include profits from any covered Federal action), which would be prohibited under paragraph (a) of this section if paid for with appropriated funds.
( d ) Each person who requests or receives from an agency a commitment providing for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan shall file with that agency a statement, set forth in appendix A, whether that person has made or has agreed to make any payment to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with that loan insurance or guarantee.
( e ) Each person who requests or receives from an agency a commitment providing for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan shall file with that agency a disclosure form, set forth in appendix B, if that person has made or has agreed to make any payment to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with that loan insurance or guarantee.
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

IO GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ANTELOPE MEDIA, LLC, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-08-4050 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION FOR TURNOVER ORDER

Before the Court is plaintiff IO Group, Inc.’s Ex Parte Application for Turnover Order

in Aid of Execution, filed July 20, 2010.

In its application, plaintiff, a judgment creditor, seeks an order directing judgment

debtors to turn over to plaintiff directly certain domain names registered to judgment

debtors. Plaintiff relies on § 699.040 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, applicable

to the instant action pursuant to Rule 69(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

The relief sought by plaintiff, however, is unavailable under § 699.040, California’s

“general turnover statute.” See Palacio Del Mar Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. McMahon, 174

Cal. App. 4th 1386, 1391 (2009). Specifically, § 699.040 “does not allow a turnover to the

judgment creditor,” but only to a “levying officer.” See id. Moreover, § 699.040 “limits itself

to tangible property,” and “[d]omain name registration[s]” constitute intangible property. 

See id. (holding judgment creditor “cannot rely” on § 699.040 in seeking turnover of domain

Case 3:08-cv-04050-MMC Document 126 Filed 07/28/10 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

2

name registrations).

Accordingly, the application is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 28, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04050-MMC Document 126 Filed 07/28/10 Page 2 of 2
### §3514. Special account for grants of Department; reports

There is hereby established on the books of the Treasury an account or accounts without fiscal year limitation. There shall be deposited in such account, to the extent provided by the Secretary of Health and Human Services or his designee, all or part of any grant awarded by the Secretary or any other officer or employee of the Department of Health and Human Services. Payments of any such grant shall from time to time be made to the grantee from such account or accounts, subject to such limitations relating to fund accumulation as the Secretary may prescribe, to the extent needed to carry out the purposes of any such grant. Such reports as the Secretary or other officer awarding the grant may find necessary to assure expenditure of funds for the purpose of and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the grant shall be made to the Secretary or such officer by any such grantee.

(Pub. L. 89–105, §6, Aug. 4, 1965, 79 Stat. 430; Pub. L. 96–88, title V, §509(b), Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 695.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 553 of former Title 31, Money and Finance.

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

#### Change of Name

"Secretary of Health and Human Services" and "Department of Health and Human Services" substituted in text for "Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare" and "Department of Health, Education, and Welfare", respectively, pursuant to section 509(b) of Pub. L. 96–88, which is classified to section 3508(b) of Title 20, Education.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Neil Whipple, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Essex County, rendered July 23, 1976, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree, a class C felony. On this appeal defendant raises two issues. As to defendant’s first contention, that the trial court erred in not affirmatively advising him of his right to allocution, the record reveals that prior to sentencing the court gave both the District Attorney and the defendant’s attorney an opportunity to speak and that both declined. The court then offered defendant a chance to speak, which defendant used to request that he be allowed to do "his time in Vermont”. Thereupon the court imposed the sentence. The fact that the court did not again, after passing sentence, give the defendant or his attorney an opportunity to speak violates neither statutory nor case law (CPL 380.50; *People v Bressette,*41 AD2d 781). As to defendant’s contention that the sentence was excessive, we note the sentence imposed was considerably less than the maximum allowed by statute for a class C felony. Judgment affirmed. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Mahoney, Main and Larkin, JJ., concur.
Health effects of heat

Watch out for early symptoms. You may need medical help.

People react differently − you may have just a 

few of these symptoms, or most of them.

Two types of heat illness:

Heat Exhaustion Heat Stroke

Dizziness Headache Sweaty skin

Fast heart beat

Red, hot, dry skin High temperature Confusion Convulsions

Cramps Nausea, vomiting Fainting

Weakness

1

Stay safe and healthy!

“Easy does it” on your first days of work in the heat. You need to get used to it. 

Rest in the shade – at least 5 minutes as needed to cool down. 

WATER. REST. SHADE. The work can’t get done without them.

Rest in the shade.

Watch out for 

each other.

Wear hats and 

light-colored 

clothing.

Drink water even if you aren’t 

thirsty — every 15 minutes.

2
Be prepared for an emergency

 When you call for help, you need to:

• Be prepared to describe the symptoms.

• Give specific and clear directions to your 

 work site.

Heat kills -- get help right away!

 If someone in your crew has symptoms:

1) Tell the person who has a radio/phone and can call 

the supervisor – you need medical help.

2) Start providing first aid while you wait for the 

ambulance to arrive.

3) Move the person to cool off in the shade.

4) Little by little, give him water (as long as he is not 

vomiting).

5) Loosen his clothing.

6) Help cool him: fan him, put ice packs in groin and 

underarms, or soak his clothing with cool water. 

3

Heat illness can be prevented!

We are extra careful when there is a heat 

wave or temperature goes up. Then we 

may change our work hours, and we all 

need more water and rest. 

At our work site, we have:

Water Shade to rest and cool down

Training and emergency plan 4

Developed by 

CAL/OSHA

For more information: 

1-800-321-OSHA (6742) • TTY 1-877-889-5627 • www.osha.gov

OSHA 3431-04N 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
MARCH 31, 1998 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE-MONTH PERIOD
ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE FOOTNOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,128
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,280
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    400,417
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               406,979
<PP&E>                                       2,462,565
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,251,544
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,123,104
<BONDS>                                      1,176,674
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,480,303
<OTHER-SE>                                 (15,751,079)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,251,544
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               205,142
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             248,658
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (453,800)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (453,800)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.09)
        

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

[715 NYS2d 353]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements and physical evidence obtained by the police on the ground that the police exceeded the scope of permissible questioning during their initial encounter with him *(see, People v Hollman,*79 NY2d 181, 184-185). That contention, however, was not raised in defendant’s motion paper's or at the *Huntley*hearing, and it is thus not preserved for our review *(see, People v Jamison,*219 AD2d 853, *lv denied*87 NY2d 974, 88 NY2d 966). Defendant’s posthearing memorandum of law did not preserve the contention for our review because the contention “was not raised at a time when the People had an evidentiary opportunity to counter” it *(People v Rodriguez,*188 AD2d 564, *lv denied*81 NY2d 892).

Viewed in the light most favorable to the People, the circumstantial evidence is legally sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt *(see, People v Williams,*84 NY2d 925, 926; *People v Brown,*231 AD2d 956, 957). We reject the contention of defendant that double jeopardy bars his second trial: The misconduct prompting defendant’s motions for a mistrial at the first trial “does not constitute that type of prosecutorial overreaching * * * [that would bar] reprosecution on the ground of double jeopardy” *(People v Copeland,*127 AD2d 846, 847; *see, People v Buffin,*244 AD2d 925, 926, *lv denied*91 NY2d 924). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct on summation *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Kidd,*265 AD2d 859, *lv denied*94 NY2d 824), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see,*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.

*877We reject the contention, raised in the *pro se*supplemental brief, that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel based upon counsel’s failure to move to dismiss the indictment on the ground of double jeopardy. That motion would have been unsuccessful, and thus, “inasmuch as defendant suffered no prejudice [,] there can be no finding of ineffectiveness” *(People v Ruise,*248 AD2d 749, 750, *lv denied*92 NY2d 860). The other alleged instance of ineffectiveness is based upon materials outside the record and thus is not subject to review on direct appeal (see, *People v Williams,*272 AD2d 986; *People v Ford,*184 AD2d 1013, *lv denied*80 NY2d 929). (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.
#### Esther Murray, appellee, v. City of Chicago, appellant.

Gen. No. 27,774.

Suit for damages for personal injuries by falling into open ditch dug in connection with lighting system of city. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Timothy D. Hurley, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 9, 1923.

Samuel A. Ettelson, Corporation Counsel, and William H. Devenish, City Attorney, for appellant; Robert H. Farrell, of counsel. Quin O’Brien, for appellee; Urban P. Gallagher, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice Thomson

delivered the opinion of the court.
### Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions

NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(r eleased the week prior to May 12, 2020 

### )

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of

Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES :



### None Available

The above

- listed memorandum opinions c an be viewed online through the

appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebra ska.gov:

http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/

.

Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here:

http s ://www.nebraska.gov/courts/s c cales/

.