alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §4333. Conformity of administrative procedures to national environmental policy

All agencies of the Federal Government shall review their present statutory authority, administrative regulations, and current policies and procedures for the purpose of determining whether there are any deficiencies or inconsistencies therein which prohibit full compliance with the purposes and provisions of this chapter and shall propose to the President not later than July 1, 1971, such measures as may be necessary to bring their authority and policies into conformity with the intent, purposes, and procedures set forth in this chapter.

(Pub. L. 91–190, title I, §103, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 854.)
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2549

To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Red 188. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2005

Mr. LANGEVIN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Red 188.

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

3 SECTION 1. PIGMENT RED 188. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.09.83 Pigment Red 188 (CAS No. 

61847–48–1) (provided for 

in subheading 3204.17.04) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 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

•HR 2549 IH 

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

2 the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
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

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.08\Miramontes, R1.eot2.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODOLFO R. MIRAMONTES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HERBE DEL CRUZ,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 08-5639 CRB (PR)

ORDER

Good cause appearing, plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file an opposition

to defendant(s)'s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file an

opposition by no later than July 30, 2010, and defendant(s) shall file a reply within 15 days

thereafter. 

No further extensions of time will be granted.

The clerk shall terminate the motion in docket number 57. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 25, 2010 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05639-CRB Document 59 Filed 06/29/10 Page 1 of 1
#### BLANSETT, Appellant, v. DUFFY, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 1, 1905.)

Action by Charles T. Blansett against Walter S. Duffy. No opinion. Appeal dismissed, under general rule 39.
### §2731. Repealed. Pub. L. 89–794, title I, §112(a), Nov. 8, 1966, 80 Stat. 1454

Section, Pub. L. 88–452, title I, §111, Aug. 20, 1964, 78 Stat. 512, set out the statement of purpose for the work-training programs.
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

JOINT STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL

C08-4248 SC 1

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CSBN 44332)

United States Attorney

JOANN M. SWANSON (CSBN 88143)

Chief, Civil Division

MICHAEL T. PYLE (CSBN 172954 )

Assistant United States Attorney

U.S. Attorney’s Office/Civil Division

450 Golden Gate Avenue, 9th Floor

San Francisco, California 94102-3495

Telephone: (415) 436-7322

Facsimile: (415) 436-6748

E-mail: michael.t.pyle@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Federal Defendants

William S. Eubanks II

Howard M. Crystal

Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal

1601 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 700

Washington, DC 20009

Attorneys for Plaintiff

[Additional counsel and parties listed on signature page]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

SIERRA CLUB,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE ET AL.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 08-4248 SC

JOINT STIPULATION FOR

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement reached by the parties in this matter, Plaintiffs Sierra

Club has received various records under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) in

satisfaction of the FOIA requests that formed the basis of this litigation. Accordingly, the parties

Case 3:08-cv-04248-SC Document 65 Filed 04/07/10 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

 The parties agree to bear their own fees and costs except as set forth in the Settlement

Agreement.

JOINT STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL

C08-4248 SC

hereby jointly dismiss this matter with prejudice, and pursuant to the terms and conditions of the

Settlement Agreement. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).1

Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ William S. Eubanks II 

WILLIAM S. EUBANKS II, N.C. BAR NO. 36743

HOWARD M. CRYSTAL, D.C. BAR. NO. 446189

Pro hac vice

 /s/ Kristin Henry

KRISTIN HENRY, CAL. BAR NO. 220908

Sierra Club

85 2nd Street, 2nd Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105

(415) 977-5716, (415) 977-5793 fax

Kristin.Henry@sierraclub.org

Attorneys for Plaintiff Sierra Club 

 /s/ Michael T. Pyle

MICHAEL T. PYLE, CAL. BAR NO. 172954

Attorney for Federal Defendants

 /s/ James Goldberg 

JAMES GOLDBERG, CAL. BAR NO. 107990

DEBORAH A. GOLDFARB CAL. BAR NO. 291942

Attorneys for Intervenor-Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Samuel Conti

Case 3:08-cv-04248-SC Document 65 Filed 04/07/10 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                         4905000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   313000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    3626000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               9569000
<PP&E>                                        25610000
<DEPRECIATION>                                11091000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                25247000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2796000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          4385
<OTHER-SE>                                    13409000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  25247000
<SALES>                                        6605000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               6605000
<CGS>                                          4459000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4459000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1567000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              154000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 425000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    170000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             255000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    255000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             5,633
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    156,928
<ALLOWANCES>                                       6,500
<INVENTORY>                                       39,039
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 264,084
<PP&E>                                                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   474,390
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            278,226
<BONDS>                                          116,205
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                       1,007,919
<OTHER-SE>                                      (927,960)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     474,390
<SALES>                                          310,237
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 310,237
<CGS>                                            242,006
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    242,006
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  71,474
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 4,359
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (4,102)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (4,102)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (4,102)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0



</TABLE>
### §5781. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5781 was editorially reclassified as section 11311 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### §§300o to 300o–3. Repealed. Pub. L. 96–79, title II, §202(a), Oct. 4, 1979, 93 Stat. 632

Sections 300o to 300o–3, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XVI, §§1601–1604, as added Jan. 4, 1975, Pub. L. 93–641, §4, 88 Stat. 2258–2260; amended Aug. 1, 1977, Pub. L. 95–83, title I, §106(r)–(v), 91 Stat. 385, were repealed by Pub. L. 96–79, title II, §202(a), Oct. 4, 1979, 93 Stat. 632.

Section 300o related to statement of purpose.

Section 300o–1 provided for promulgation of regulations and required provisions.

Section 300o–2 related to State medical facilities plans, submission and approval of plans as prerequisite for approval of project assistance applications, required provisions, and procedure upon disapproval of plans.

Section 300o–3 provided for medical facility project applications, covering in submission of applications, required provisions, waivers, and projects subject to requirements, criteria for approval, procedure for disapproval, amendment of approved applications, and review by health systems agencies.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1979, see section 204 of Pub. L. 96–79, set out as an Effective Date of 1979 Amendment note under section 300q of this title.
#### In the Matter of the Incorporation of the Village of Atlantic Beach. Mabel F. McGirr et al., Appellants; Fred Lager et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding under the Village Law (§ 2 *et seq.)*for the incorporation as a village of certain territory in Nassau County known as Atlantic Beach, eight objecting property owners appeal, pursuant to section 18 of the Village Law, from a decision of the County Court, Nassau County, dated February 10, 1961, which sustained a referendum held January 5, 1961, approving the proposition for the territory’s incorporation as a village. The statute (Village Law, § 18) authorizes an appeal to this court from the decision. Decision affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
### §3712. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3712 was editorially reclassified as section 10102 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 243 (Monday, December 20, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 75936]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27755]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting Cancellations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Red Lessons Learned 
meeting scheduled for December 16-17, 2004, will not be held.

    Dated: December 15, 2004.
Jeannette Owings-Ballard,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 04-27755 Filed 12-17-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
#### Boleslaw Romatowski, Appellant, v. Murray Greenman, Doing Business as Duraluminum Manufacturing Company, et al., Respondents.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff in a fall from an allegedly defective ladder, manufactured by defendant Greenman, and thereafter sold by defendant Acme Scaffold Company, Inc., to the plaintiff’s employer, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered December 5, 1960 upon a jury verdict in favor of defendants, after trial. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to plaintiff to abide the event. In our opinion, the trial court’s charge to the jury was seriously prejudicial to plaintiff’s case, and deprived him of a fair trial. In the interests of justice a new trial is required. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
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

C 08-02313

ORDER SETTING DATE FOR JOINT STATUS REPORT

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

U

For the Northern District of California

NITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

Oakland Division

U-HAUL CO. OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

CITY OF BERKELEY,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. C 08-02313 LB

ORDER SETTING DATE FOR JOINT

STATUS REPORT

On June 15, 2010, the parties filed a Joint Status Report in this matter. (Dkt. #53.) 

According to the parties, Judge Whitely of the Alameda County Superior Court sustained

Defendant’s demurrer on March 12, 2010. (Dkt. #51 at 2.) Plaintiff filed a Motion for

Reconsideration and the matter was set for hearing in Alameda County Superior Court on June 2,

2010. (Id.) Judge Whitely continued the hearing to July 14, 2010. (Dkt. #53 at 2.) As a result, the

Court hereby ORDERS the parties to file a Joint Status Report by July 30, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2010 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02313-LB Document 54 Filed 06/15/10 Page 1 of 1
#### § 910.6 Pending grievances.

Any grievance pending before the Board prior to February 15, 1981 shall be resolved under the provisions of the Foreign Service Act of 1946 as amended, and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

[50 FR 31358, Aug. 2, 1985. Redesignated at 56 FR 55460, Oct. 28, 1991]
Exhibit 32



Certification



Each of the undersigned officers of Allin Corporation (the Company), certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | the Companys report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



This Certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



|                  |  | 
|----------------- |  | 
|November 12, 2003 |  | 
|                  |  | 
|                  |  | 



|                  |  | 
|----------------- |  | 
|November 12, 2003 |  | 
|                  |  | 
|                  |  | 



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
26 So.2d 292

#### ALBA v. HOLSTEAD.

No. 38114.

April 22, 1946.

See, also, 208 La. 301, 23 So.2d 100.

Leonard E. Yokum, of Hammond, for Frank M. Edwards, Sheriff, defendant-appellant.

S. S. Reid, of Amite, for John C. Holstead, defendant-appellant.

Benj. W. Miller, of Bogalusa, for Mrs. Ella V. Joiner.

Spiller & Spiller, of Hammond, for plaintiffs-appellee.

HAMITER, Justice.

On a previous hearing, in which the plaintiff herein was recognized as the owner of the 281 acres of land in dispute, we remanded this case to the district court for the purpose of having determined the amounts due under existing claims for rent and taxes. Further, it was decreed that certain described instruments, affecting the land’s title and recorded in the Conveyance Records of Tangipahoa Parish, be annulled and cancelled upon plaintiff’s reimbursing some of the defendants, or depositing in the registry of the district court, the amount of taxes which the latter had paid on the property. Also, it was ordered that judgment be rendered in favor of one of the defendants (Mrs. *78Joiner) under her call in warranty. 208 La. 301, 23 So.2d 100.

The district court, on the remand, received and heard further evidence and rendered a judgment carrying out the directions of our decree. Additionally, its judgment ordered cancelled from the records of Tangipahoa Parish two instruments affecting the title to the disputed property, neither of which was mentioned in the decree of this court.

Complaining of the cancellation of one of these two instruments (an adjudication to the State of Louisiana for 1933 taxes) the tax collector of Tangipahoa Parish, a defendant herein, appealed to this court from that part of the judgment. The plaintiff has moved to dismiss his appeal.

 The appellant was duly cited in this cause; he has an interest in the determination of the litigation and is a proper party defendant; and his appeal appears to have been regularly perfected. The question of whether or not the district court had authority in law to consider and pass upon issues other than those for which the cause was remanded is one which must be decided by us on the appeal, not on a motion to dismiss the appeal.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2643 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2643

  To protect innocent parties from certain fees imposed by depository 
      institutions for dishonored checks, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 2005

Mr. Weiner (for himself, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Berman, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. 
  Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Cummings, Mr. DeFazio, Ms. 
 DeLauro, Mr. Engel, Mr. Evans, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Hastings of Florida, 
    Mr. Hinchey, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Ms. 
   Kilpatrick of Michigan, Mr. Kucinich, Ms. Lee, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. 
McDermott, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, 
   Mr. Owens, Mr. Payne, Mr. Sanders, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Stark, Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz, Ms. Watson, Mr. Waxman, and Mr. Wynn) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To protect innocent parties from certain fees imposed by depository 
      institutions for dishonored checks, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Innocent Check Depositor Protection 
Act''.

SEC. 2. CERTAIN CHECK DISHONORMENT FEES PROHIBITED.

    (a) In General.--Section 607 of the Expedited Funds Availability 
Act (12 U.S.C. 4006) (relating to miscellaneous provisions) is amended 
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(f) Fees on Dishonored Checks.--
            ``(1) Receiving depository institution.--In the case of a 
        check drawn on an account at an originating institution which 
        is dishonored by the originating institution due to the lack of 
        sufficient funds in such account to pay the check, a receiving 
        depository institution may not impose any fee on the depositor, 
        in connection with such check, due to such dishonorment.
            ``(2) Rule of construction.--No provision of this section 
        shall be construed as affecting any intervening depository 
        institution or the costs of the services provided by such 
        depository institution.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
after the end of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```