alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### University Gardens Property Owners Association, Inc., Respondent, v. University Gardens Corporation et al., Appellants.

Motion for reargument and for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals referred to the court that rendered the decision. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur. Motion for reargument denied, without costs. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
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

ANTONIO C. GANS,

Petitioner,

v.

R. G. WONG, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-4676 SI (pr)

JUDGMENT

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. Judgment is entered accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.

DATED: April 22, 2010 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04676-SI Document 15 Filed 04/22/10 Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 4900] 

The Department of State announces the following meetings of the International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) to prepare for the ITU Telecommunication Standardization Advisory Group Meeting and ITU-T Study Groups 3, 4, and 17 Meetings. 

                    The ITAC will meet as follows with an agenda for preparations for the ITU-T Telecommunication Standardization Advisory Group (TSAG) meeting: January 19, February 2, February 16, and March 2, 2005. All meetings will be from 2-4 p.m. and will be held in the Washington, DC area. The meeting of February 16 will be a teleconference. People desiring to attend may find the actual location and the call in numbers for a teleconference bridge by e-mailing the secretariat at                     *minardje@state.gov.*

                    The ITAC will meet as follows with an agenda for preparations for the ITU-T Study Group 3 (Tariff and accounting principles) meeting: January 5 and January 11, 2005 from 2-4 p.m.; these meetings will be held in the Washington, DC area. People desiring to attend may find the actual location by e-mailing the secretariat at                     *minardje@state.gov.*

The ITAC will meet to prepare for ITU-T Study Group 17 (Security, languages and telecommunication software) meeting and the ITU-T Study Group 4 (Telecommunication management) meeting on January 26, 2005, at 10 a.m. at the offices of Communication Technologies, Inc. (COMTek), 14151 Newbrook Dr., Suite 400, Chantilly, VA 20151. Driving directions to COMTek may be obtained at (703) 961-9080. People unable to attend in person may attend via conference bridge; call in information may be obtained by calling the secretariat at (303) 499-2145. 

Dated: December 10, 2004. 

Anne Jillson, 

Foreign Affairs Officer, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 04-27806 Filed 12-17-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-07-P
#### Charles H. FORD IV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-1588-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 25, 2007.

*20William Franklyn Joseph (George D. Munroe, on the brief), Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Mary Schuette (Barbara Jane Carey and Jeanmarie Schieler, of counsel), New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.

PRESENT: Hon. GUIDO CALABRESI, Hon. ROSEMARY S. POOLER and Hon. SONIA SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Charles H. Ford IV (“Ford”) appeals from a March 3, 2006 Opinion and Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Crotty, J.), granting the motion for summary judgment of Defendant-Appellee Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (“Con Edison”), and thereby dismissing Ford’s federal and state civil rights claims with prejudice. *Ford v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.,*No. 03 Civ. 9587, 2006 WL 538116, at *19 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.3, 2006). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.

In the district court, Ford asserted race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e *et seq.,*42 U.S.C. § 1981, and New York Executive Law § 296(1). Judge Crotty, in a careful and commendably thorough opinion, dismissed Ford’s Title VII claims as time-barred, and dismissed Ford’s § 1981 and state-law claims on the ground that Ford “fail[ed] to present any concrete, admissible evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that [Con Edison’s] legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its conduct are pretextual.” *Ford,*2006 WL 538116, at *19. On appeal, Ford challenges only the dismissal of his § 1981 and state-law claims.

We have carefully considered Ford’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
### §603a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 94–566, title V, §508(b), Oct. 20, 1976, 90 Stat. 2689; Pub. L. 104–193, title I, §110(a), Aug. 22, 1996, 110 Stat. 2171, which related to reimbursement to State employment offices for expenses incurred for furnishing information requested of such offices by State or local agency administering this part, was transferred to section 655a of this title.
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 DOCUMENT FILED

BY DEFENDANTS ON NOVEMBER 20,

2009

By order filed December 17, 2009, the Court directed all parties to file all documents

in English, or, to the extent a document in a language other than English must be filed, to

provide therewith an English translation of the text. Further, with respect to a document 

filed on November 20, 2009 by defendants Maik Herrmann and Thorsten Palicki, which

document is in the German language, the Court directed defendants to file, no later than

January 15, 2010, an English language version of said document; the Court informed

defendants that the document would be stricken if, by January 15, 2010, defendants had

failed to file an English language version. To date, defendants have failed to file an English

language version of the document they filed on November 20, 2009, or to otherwise

respond to the Court’s December 17, 2009 order.

//

Case 3:08-cv-04050-MMC Document 93 Filed 01/22/10 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

Accordingly, the document filed by defendants on November 20, 2009 is hereby

STRICKEN.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04050-MMC Document 93 Filed 01/22/10 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:08-cv-02252-CRB   Document 16   Filed 07/27/10   Page 1 of 2

Case 3:08-cv-02252-CRB   Document 16   Filed 07/27/10   Page 2 of 2
###### Editorial Note on Subpart A of Part 147

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subpart A appear at 84 FR 37577, Aug. 1, 2019.

#### § 147.5 Discrimination prohibited.

The Department must comply with Revised 508 Standards when it develops, procures, maintains, or uses ICT. The Department must ensure that individuals with disabilities who are Federal employees or members of the public have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to that provided to Federal employees or members of the public without disabilities, unless providing comparable access would impose an undue burden on the Department.

[81 FR 32646, May 24, 2016, as amended at 84 FR 37577, Aug. 1, 2019]
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4379 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4379

To amend title IV of the Social Security Act to permit States to exempt 
     single parents with children under 60 months of age from TANF 
                    participation rate requirements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 18, 2012

  Mr. Stark (for himself, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Ms. Moore, Ms. Lee of 
 California, Mr. McDermott, Ms. Woolsey, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. DeLauro, 
Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Ms. Richardson, Ms. Norton, Mr. 
Conyers, Mr. Davis of Illinois, and Mr. Rush) introduced the following 
  bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in 
addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for a period 
    to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title IV of the Social Security Act to permit States to exempt 
     single parents with children under 60 months of age from TANF 
                    participation rate requirements.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Women's Option to Raise Kids Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASED AGE LIMIT FOR EXEMPTION FROM TANF PARTICIPATION RATE 
              REQUIREMENTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 407(b)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 607(b)(5)) is amended by striking ``12 months'' each place it 
appears and inserting ``36 months''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to fiscal years beginning after fiscal year 2012.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 92.61 Transcription and signing of record of examination.

After the examination of a witness is completed, the stenographic record of the examination must be fully transcribed and the transcription attached securely to any document or documents to which the testimony in the record pertains. (See § 92.63 regarding the arrangement of papers.) The transcribed deposition must then be submitted to the witness for examination and read to or by him, unless such examination and reading are waived by the witness and by the parties to the action. Any changes in form or substance desired by the witness should be entered upon the deposition by the notarizing officer with a statement of the reasons given by the witness for making the changes. The witness should then sign the transcript of his deposition and should initial in the margin each correction made at his request. However, the signature and initials of the witness may be omitted if the parties to the action by stipulation waive the signing or if the witness is ill, refuses to sign, or cannot be found. If the deposition is not signed by the witness, the notarizing officer should sign it and should state on the record the reason for his action, *i.e.*, the waiver of the parties, the illness or absence of the witness, or the refusal of the witness to sign, giving the reasons for such refusal. The deposition may then be used as though signed by the witness except when, on the motion to suppress, the court holds that the reasons given for the refusal to sign require the rejection of the deposition in whole or in part. (Rules 30 (e) and 31 (b), Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts of the United States.)

[22 FR 10858, Dec. 27, 1957, as amended at 60 FR 51723, Oct. 3, 1995]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          20,991
<SECURITIES>                                    83,026
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,130
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,663
<PP&E>                                          49,520
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,243
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 381,028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,583
<BONDS>                                         14,461
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       454,580
<OTHER-SE>                                    (117,332)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   381,028
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,773
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,615
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,481
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 404
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (31,216)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (31,216)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (31,216)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.28)
        

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

[716 NYS2d 304]

—Judgment, Su*154preme Court, New York County (Bonnie Wittner, J.), rendered. November 6, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 15 years and 10 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The proof was legally sufficient and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The requisite larcenous intent can be reasonably inferred from the evidence. Defendant’s related arguments are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.
### §5319. Community participation in programs

No community shall be barred from participating in any program authorized under this chapter solely on the basis of population, except as expressly authorized by statute.

(Pub. L. 93–383, title I, §120, as added Pub. L. 95–557, title I, §103(i), Oct. 31, 1978, 92 Stat. 2084.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title I of Pub. L. 93–383, Aug. 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 633, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of title I to the Code, see Tables.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1978, see section 104 of Pub. L. 95–557, set out as an Effective Date of 1978 Amendment note under section 1709 of Title 12, Banks and Banking.
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

ANTONIO C. GANS,

Petitioner,

v.

R. G. WONG, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-4676 SI (pr)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner has filed a notice of appeal from the order denying his petition for writ of

habeas corpus. He has not requested a certificate of appealability, but the notice of appeal will

be treated as such a request. See United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997).

(if no express request for COA, notice of appeal shall be deemed request for certificate). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue here because petitioner has not made "a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This is not

a case in which "reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional

claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

 The Clerk shall forward this order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit, from which Petitioner may also seek a certificate of appealability. See United States,

116 F.3d at 1270. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 1, 2010 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

G:\SI\HABEAS\2008\08-4676\08-4676.06.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-04676-SI Document 18 Filed 07/01/10 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2607 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2607

     To suspend temporarily the duty on Formulations of Clodinafop-
                               propargyl.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 24, 2005

  Mr. Terry introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To suspend temporarily the duty on Formulations of Clodinafop-
                               propargyl.

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

SECTION 1. FORMULATIONS OF CLODINAFOP-PROPARGYL.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.90.12      Formulations of     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         Clodinafop-                                                        31/2008
                         propargyl which
                         include
                         ClodinafopTechnic
                         al - Propanoic
                         acid, 2-[4-[(5-
                         chloro-3-fluoro-2-
                         pyridinyl)oxy]-
                         phenoxy]-2-
                         propynyl ester
                         (CAS No. 105512-
                         06-9) (provided
                         for in subheading
                         3808.30.15)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
### §§6081 to 6083. Repealed. Pub. L. 106–402, title IV, §401(a), Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1737

Section 6081, Pub. L. 88–164, title I, §161, as added Pub. L. 98–527, §2, Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2683; amended Pub. L. 100–146, title V, §501(a), Oct. 29, 1987, 101 Stat. 857; Pub. L. 101–496, §20, Oct. 31, 1990, 104 Stat. 1203; Pub. L. 103–230, title V, §502, Apr. 6, 1994, 108 Stat. 328, stated the purpose of this subchapter.

A prior section 6081, Pub. L. 88–164, title I, §145, as added Pub. L. 94–103, title I, §105, Oct. 4, 1975, 89 Stat. 495; amended Pub. L. 95–602, title V, §§504(b)(2), (3), 513, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 3006, 3016; Pub. L. 96–32, §3(a), July 10, 1979, 93 Stat. 82; Pub. L. 97–35, title IX, §913, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 563; Pub. L. 98–221, title III, §305, Feb. 22, 1984, 98 Stat. 35, set forth grant authority for special projects grants, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 98–527.

Section 6082, Pub. L. 88–164, title I, §162, as added Pub. L. 98–527, §2, Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2683; amended Pub. L. 100–146, title V, §502, Oct. 29, 1987, 101 Stat. 857; Pub. L. 101–496, §21, Oct. 31, 1990, 104 Stat. 1204; Pub. L. 103–230, title V, §503, Apr. 6, 1994, 108 Stat. 328; Pub. L. 105–12, §9(l)(4), Apr. 30, 1997, 111 Stat. 28, related to the Secretary's grant authority.

Section 6083, Pub. L. 88–164, title I, §163, as added Pub. L. 98–527, §2, Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2684; amended Pub. L. 100–146, title V, §503, Oct. 29, 1987, 101 Stat. 858; Pub. L. 101–496, §22, Oct. 31, 1990, 104 Stat. 1204; Pub. L. 103–230, title V, §504, Apr. 6, 1994, 108 Stat. 331; Pub. L. 104–183, §5, Aug. 6, 1996, 110 Stat. 1695, authorized appropriations.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
INTERMEDIA CAPITAL PARTNERS IV, L.P.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           8,373
<SECURITIES>                                    45,999
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,070
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,616)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,095
<PP&E>                                         316,551<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 945,303
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,064
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           13,468
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (18,263)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   945,303
<SALES>                                         65,352
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,352
<CGS>                                           15,301<F2>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   68,647
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   305
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,519
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (21,916)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,595)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (20,550)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (20,550)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>PP&E IS SHOWN NET OF ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION.
<F2>INCLUDES PROGRAM FEES AND OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>