alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §3515d. Expenses of Office of Inspector General; protective services; investigating non-payment of child support

For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, $33,849,000: Provided, That of such amount, necessary sums are available for providing protective services to the Secretary and investigating non-payment of child support cases for which non-payment is a Federal offense under section 228 of title 18, each of which activities is hereby authorized in this and subsequent fiscal years.

(Pub. L. 106–554, §1(a)(1) [title II], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–24.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Inspector General Act of 1978, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 95–452, Oct. 12, 1978, 92 Stat. 1101, which was set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, and was substantially repealed and restated in chapter 4 (§401 et seq.) of Title 5 by Pub. L. 117–286, §§3(b), 7, Dec. 27, 2022, 136 Stat. 4206, 4361. For disposition of sections of the Act into chapter 4 of Title 5, see Disposition Table preceding section 101 of Title 5.

#### Codification

Section is from the Department of Health and Human Services Appropriations Act, 2001.
Case 3:08-cv-03972-JW Document 56 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:08-cv-03972-JW Document 56 Filed 07/12/10 Page 2 of 3
at 10:00AM at 3:30PM. July 12 

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Judge Vaughn R Walker

Case 3:08-cv-03972-JW Document 56 Filed 07/12/10 Page 3 of 3
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilmer Edelberto BALMA, a.k.a. Wilmer Edilberto Palma-Torres, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-11885

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 18, 2007.

Todd Hudson Seiden, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Judy K. Hunt, United States Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before ANDERSON, DUBINA and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Todd H. Seiden, appointed counsel for Wilmer Edelberto Balma in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw *813from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Balma’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
### §3796gg–9. Repealed. Pub. L. 109–271, §3(a), Aug. 12, 2006, 120 Stat. 754

Section, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, §2014, as added Pub. L. 109–162, title II, §202, Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 2994, related to sexual assault services. See section 12511 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 109–271, which directed the repeal of section 202 of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109–162), was executed by repealing this section, which was section 2014 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 as added by section 202 of Pub. L. 109–162, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
### §4129. Federal Insurance Administrator; establishment of position

There is hereby established in the Federal Emergency Management Agency the position of Federal Insurance Administrator.

(Pub. L. 90–448, title XI, §1105(a), Aug. 1, 1968, 82 Stat. 567; Pub. L. 96–153, title VI, §603(a), Dec. 21, 1979, 93 Stat. 1138.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 3533a of this title.

Section was enacted as part of the Urban Property Protection and Reinsurance Act of 1968 and also as part of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, and not as part of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 which comprises this chapter.

#### Amendments

1979—Pub. L. 96–153 substituted "Federal Emergency Management Agency" for "Department of Housing and Urban Development".

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

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of all functions, personnel, assets, components, authorities, grant programs, and liabilities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including the functions of the Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Management relating thereto, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, see section 315(a)(1) of Title 6, Domestic Security.

For transfer of functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including the functions of the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency relating thereto, to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see former section 313(1) and sections 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6.
### §3058dd. Technical assistance

#### (a) Other agencies

In carrying out the provisions of this subchapter, the Assistant Secretary may request the technical assistance and cooperation of such Federal entities as may be appropriate.

#### (b) Assistant Secretary

The Assistant Secretary shall provide technical assistance and training (by contract, grant, or otherwise) to persons and entities that administer programs established under this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 89–73, title VII, §763, as added Pub. L. 102–375, title VII, §707, Sept. 30, 1992, 106 Stat. 1291; amended Pub. L. 103–171, §3(a)(11), (13), Dec. 2, 1993, 107 Stat. 1990.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1993—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–171, §3(a)(13), substituted "Assistant Secretary" for "Commissioner".

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 103–171, §13(a)(11), (13), substituted "Assistant Secretary" for "Commissioner" in heading and text.

#### **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.
### §§2737 to 2749. Repealed. Pub. L. 93–203, title VI, §614, Dec. 28, 1973, 87 Stat. 883

Section 2737, Pub. L. 88–452, title I, §120, as added Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §102, Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 683, set out the Congressional statement of purpose in enacting provisions for a program of work and training for youth and adults.

Section 2738, Pub. L. 88–452, title I, §121, as added Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §102, Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 683, covered community program areas and comprehensive work and training programs.

Section 2739, Pub. L. 88–452, title I, §122, as added Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §102, Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 683, set out provisions covering prime sponsors and delegate agencies. See section 812 of Title 29, Labor.

Section 2740, Pub. L. 88–452, title I, §123, as added Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §102, Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 684, set out the eligible activities for work and training programs.

Section 2741, Pub. L. 88–452, title I, §124, as added Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §102, Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 686; amended Pub. L. 90–575, title V, §503, Oct. 16, 1968, 82 Stat. 1062, set out special conditions for programs.

Section 2742, Pub. L. 88–452, title I, §125, as added Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §102, Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 686; amended Pub. L. 92–424, §5, Sept. 19, 1972, 86 Stat. 690, covered program participants.

Section 2743, Pub. L. 88–452, title I, §126, as added Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §102, Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 686, provided for programs dealing with long-term unemployment of persons fifty-five years and older.

Section 2744, Pub. L. 88–452, title I, §127, as added, Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §102, Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 687, provided for pilot projects.

Section 2745, Pub. L. 88–452, title I, §128, as added Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §102, Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 687, covered technical assistance and training.

Section 2746, Pub. L. 88–452, title I, §129, as added Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §102, Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 687, provided for role to be played by States.

Section 2747, Pub. L. 88–452, title I, §130, as added Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §102, Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 687, provided for equitable distribution of assistance.

Section 2748, Pub. L. 88–452, title I, §131, as added Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §102, Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 687, set limitation on Federal assistance.

Section 2749, Pub. L. 88–452, title I, §132, as added Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §102, Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 688; amended Pub. L. 92–424, §27(b)(1), (3), Sept. 19, 1972, 86 Stat. 705, provided for development and implementation of program data.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 93–203, title VI, §614, Dec. 28, 1973, 87 Stat. 883, provided that the repeal by that section is effective with respect to fiscal years after June 30, 1974.
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\2008\2261\Mtn for Extension of Time.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

AUGUSTINE FALLAY,

Plaintiff,

    v.

SF CITY AND COUNTY et al.,Defendants.

                                                                      /

No. C 08-2261 CRB

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OFTIME

Defendants’ motion for a six-day extension of time to e-file reply to Plaintiff’s

opposition is GRANTED.  Defendants’ reply is now due March 25, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2010                                                            CHARLES  R. BREYERUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-02261-CRB   Document 98   Filed 03/22/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-10T21:52:57-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
#### East Hills Metro, Inc., Respondent-Appellant, v J.M. Dennis Construction Corp., Appellant-Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[717 NYS2d 202]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, the defendant J.M. Dennis Construction Corp. appeals, and the plaintiff cross-appeals, from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), dated January 20, 2000, which denied the motion of the defendants, J.M. Dennis Construction Corp. and Hofstra University, for summary judgment discharging the lien as a willful exaggeration pursuant to Lien Law § 39, and on a counterclaim pursuant to Lien Law § 39-a.

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed, for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this Court *(see,*22 NYCRR 670.8 [c], [e]), and on the ground that the plaintiffs are not aggrieved by the order cross-appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that so much of the appeal of the defendant J.M. Dennis Construction Corp. as purports to be taken from that portion of the order denying summary judgment to the defen*349dant Hofstra University is dismissed, as the appellant is not aggrieved by that portion of the order; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court properly held that the appellant failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff wilfully exaggerated the subject lien *(see, Fidelity N. Y. v KensingtonJohnson Corp.,*234 AD2d 263). The fact that a lien may contain improper charges does not, in and of itself, establish that a plaintiff wilfully exaggerated a lien *(see, Goodman v Del-Sa-Co Foods,*15 NY2d 191; *Fidelity N. Y. v Kensington-Johnson Corp., supra; Balemian v LB Real Estate Dev. Corp.,*226 AD2d 223; *Coppola Gen. Contr. Corp. v Noble House Constr.,*224 AD2d 856; *Howdy Jones Constr. Co. v Parklaw Realty,*76 AD2d 1018, *affd*53 NY2d 718). This is particularly true in light of the requirement that Lien Law § 39-a must be strictly construed in favor of the party against whom the penalty is sought to be imposed (see, *Goodman v Del-Sa-Co Foods,*supra;*Pyramid Champlain Co. v Brosseau & Co.,*267 AD2d 539; *Guzman v Estate of Fluker,*226 AD2d 676). Santucci, J. P., Thompson, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
AMENDMENT TO 2010 LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN



  
 EXHIBIT 10.1

 REGIONS FINANCIAL CORPORATION 
 2010 LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN 
 Section 12 of the Plan is hereby
amended in its entirety to read as follows: 
 12. OTHER AWARDS 

The Committee may grant other types of equity-based or equity-related Awards (including unrestricted shares of Stock) in
such amounts and subject to such terms and conditions as the Committee will determine and may include, without limitation, Awards that upon grant are fully vested and non-forfeitable. However, the Committee’s ability to grant Other Awards is
limited to those situations where such grant is made in lieu of cash compensation. Such Other Awards may entail the issue or transfer of actual shares of Stock or otherwise of amounts based on the value of shares of Stock. The terms and conditions
applicable to Other Awards will be as determined by the Committee and set forth in an Award Agreement.
#### § 901.15 Exclusive representative.

*Exclusive representative* means any labor organization which is certified as the exclusive representative of the bargaining unit of which the grievant or charged employee is a member.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Michelle A. Piervencenti, Appellant. Crest/Good Manufacturing Company, Inc., Respondent; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[834 NYS2d 404]—

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 25, 2006, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant worked for Crest/Good Manufacturing Company, Inc. as a sales representative. After her employment was terminated, she applied for unemployment insurance benefits and the Department of Labor issued an initial determination finding her eligible for such benefits. Crest/Good objected and requested a hearing, contending that claimant was dismissed because of misconduct. Following a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge overruled the initial determination and found claimant to be disqualified from receiving benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. “Whether a claimant is guilty of disqualifying misconduct, within the meaning of the Labor Law, presents a *1109factual issue for resolution by the Board and its decision, so long as it is supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed” *(Matter of Pitts [Reeb Millwork Corp. of N.Y—Commissioner of Labor],*309 AD2d 1121, 1121 [2003] [citation omitted]; *see Matter of Law [Software Workshop, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor],*20 AD3d 847, 848 [2005]. Furthermore, “[i]t is well settled that an employee’s insubordinate and disrespectful behavior toward a supervisor may constitute disqualifying misconduct” *(Matter of Montanye [Commissioner of Labor],*10 AD3d 830, 831 [2004]). Here, the testimony of claimant’s supervisor established that claimant was late for work on multiple occasions and had to be reprimanded for several acts of unprofessional and/or insubordinate behavior prior to the conversation that resulted in her discharge *(see Matter of Terry [Commissioner of Labor],*23 AD3d 727, 728 [2005]; *Matter of Sona [Commissioner of Labor],*13 AD3d 799, 800 [2004]). To the extent that claimant’s testimony differed from that of her supervisor, it created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve *(see Matter of Lambert [Commissioner of Labor],*34 AD3d 948 [2006]; *Matter of Kretchmer [Commissioner of Labor],*8 AD3d 849, 850 [2004]).

Mercure, J.E, Crew III, Peters, Spain and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
§ 518.26 Non-Federal audits. ( a ) Recipients and subrecipients that are institutions of higher education or other non-profit organizations (including hospitals) shall be subject to the audit requirements contained in the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 (31 U.S.C. 7501-7507) and revised OMB Circular A-133, “Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations.”
( b ) State and local governments shall be subject to the audit requirements contained in the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 (31 U.S.C. 7501-7507) and revised OMB Circular A-133, “Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations.”
( c ) For-profit hospitals not covered by the audit provisions of revised OMB Circular A-133 shall be subject to the audit requirements of the Federal awarding agencies.
( d ) Commercial organizations shall be subject to the audit requirements of the Federal awarding agency or the prime recipients as incorporated into the award document.
[59 FR 39440, Aug. 3, 1994, as amended at 62 FR 45939, 45941, Aug. 29, 1997]
§ 521.30 The hearing and burden of proof. ( a ) The ALJ shall conduct a hearing on the record in order to determine whether the defendant is liable for a civil penalty or assessment under § 521.3, and if so, the appropriate amount of any such civil penalty or assessment considering any aggravating or mitigating factors.
( b ) The Broadcasting Board of Governors shall prove defendant's liability and any aggravating factors by a preponderance of the evidence.
( c ) The defendant shall prove any affirmative defenses and any mitigating factors by a preponderance of the evidence.
( d ) The hearing shall be open to the public unless otherwise ordered by the ALJ for good cause shown.
First Department,

January, 1959 

(January 29, 1959)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jack Meikle, Appellant.

Motion [for leave to appeal as a poor person from an order of the Court of General Sessions of the County of New York, entered October 27, 1958, denying a motion for a writ of error *comm nobis,*and for leave to have the appeal heard on the original record and typewritten points] denied. Concur — ■ Botein, P. J., M. M. Frank, Valente, McNally and Bergan, JJ.
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

No. 08-cv-01327-MMC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

31525862 

BRUCE G. VANYO (SBN: 60134) 

EMAIL: bruce.vanyo@kattenlaw.com

RICHARD H. ZELICHOV (SBN: 193858) 

EMAIL: richard.zelichov@kattenlaw.com 

KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP 

2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600 

Los Angeles, California 90067-3012 

Telephone: 310.788.4400 

Facsimile: 310.788.4471 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Camtek, Ltd., Rafi Amit, Ronit Dulberg, 

Yotam Stern, and Moshe Amit 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

(SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION) 

YUVAL LAPINER, Individually and on 

Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

CAMTEK, LTD., RAFI AMIT, RONIT 

DULBERG, YOTAM STERN and MOSHE 

AMIT

 Defendants. 

Case No. 08-cv-01327-MMC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

Case 3:08-cv-01327-MMC Document 99 Filed 06/04/10 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

1

No. 08-cv-01327-MMC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

31525862 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

The Case Management Conference currently scheduled for July 9, 2010 shall be continued 

until August 20, 2010. 

Dated: June ___, 2010 ___

United States District Court Judge 

September 10, 2010. A Joint Case Management Statement shall be filed no

later than September 3, 2010.

4

Case 3:08-cv-01327-MMC Document 99 Filed 06/04/10 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

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

ECOPY, INC.,

Defendant(s).

_____________________________________/

No. C 08-4227 JSW (MEJ)

Consolidated with C 08-4942 JSW (MEJ)

ORDER RE: APPOINTMENT OF

SPECIAL MASTER (DKT. #153)

On April 7, 2010, the undersigned Ordered the parties to submit a joint stipulation and

proposed order in an attempt to comply with Judge White’s directive to “slim this case down.” 

(Order Re: Joint Discovery Dispute Letter 2:11-14, Dkt. #145; RT 18:3-5, Dkt. #132.) This Court

was unable to ascertain from the file any attempts by the parties to slim down the case. In the Joint

Letter submitted by the parties to the undersigned on March 11, 2010, (Dkt. #144), I.R.I.S. made a

proposal, which appeared in line with Judge White’s directive, and the undersigned Ordered the

parties to attempt to reach a stipulation. The undersigned has reviewed the parties’ stipulation and

proposed order, in which Nuance stated that it was not willing to proceed on the 24 claim charts

produced by I.R.I.S., apparently insisting on production of the 55 additional claim charts in order to

address the “pig in the poke” problem. (Joint Stipulation 3:4-7, Dkt. #150; Joint Letter at 1, Dkt.

#144.) 

To be consistent with Judge White’s April 12, 2010 Order Re Intent to Appoint A Special

Master, (Dkt. #153), where Judge White indicated his intent to appoint a Special Master to prepare a

Report and Recommendation “regarding the order of the patents, claims and terms to be adjudicated

in this, and all related, matters[,]” the undersigned will defer ruling on I.R.I.S.’s production of

further claim charts until after the Special Master prepares a Report and Recommendation and Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04227-JSW Document 154 Filed 04/13/10 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

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

White has made a further ruling. Within ten days following a further ruling by Judge White, the

undersigned ORDERS the parties to submit to this Court a further joint letter regarding their

positions on this issue. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2010

_______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:08-cv-04227-JSW Document 154 Filed 04/13/10 Page 2 of 2