alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEFF POKORNY; et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

DENNIS OBADO,

Objector-Appellant,

 v.

QUIXTAR, INC.; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-17141

D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00201-SC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Samuel Conti, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 5, 2016**

San Francisco, California

Before: SILVERMAN and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges and GARBIS,*** District 

Judge.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge for the United States

District Court for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

FILED

JUL 7 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 

Dennis Obado appeals from a district court order denying his motion to be 

reinstated as a class member after he had previously opted out. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. While there may be circumstances where equity requires a district court 

to allow a person to rejoin a class after opting out, this is not such a case. Obado’s 

motion to rejoin the class was filed more than nine months after the opt-out 

deadline and more than two months after the second claims deadline. His excuse 

for that late filing—that he never received the January 13 claims notice—was 

contradicted by the claims administrator’s representations that the notice was 

mailed to Obado’s address and not returned as undeliverable. Under these 

circumstances, the district court was well within its discretion in denying Obado’s 

motion.

2. Obado’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not cognizable. Such a 

claim does not exist in the civil context. Even if it did exist, it would lack merit 

here. Class counsel did not represent Obado during the relevant proceedings. 

AFFIRMED.
§ 96.93 Reports to the Secretary about accredited agencies and approved persons and their activities. ( a ) The accrediting entity must make annual reports to the Secretary on the information it collects from accredited agencies and approved persons pursuant to § 96.43. The accrediting entity must make semi-annual reports to the Secretary that summarize for the preceding six-month period the following information: ( 1 ) The accreditation and approval status of applicants, accredited agencies, and approved persons;
( 2 ) Any instances where it has denied accreditation or approval;
( 3 ) Any adverse actions taken against an accredited agency or approved person;
( 4 ) All substantiated complaints against accredited agencies and approved persons and the impact of such complaints on their accreditation or approval status;
( 5 ) The number, nature, and outcome of complaint investigations carried out by the accrediting entity as well as the shortest, longest, average, and median length of time expended to complete complaint investigations; and
( 6 ) Any discernible patterns in complaints received about specific agencies or persons, as well as any discernible patterns of complaints in the aggregate.
( b ) The accrediting entity must report to the Secretary within thirty days of the time it learns that an accredited agency or approved person: ( 1 ) Has ceased to provide adoption services; or
( 2 ) Has transferred its intercountry adoption cases and adoption records.
( c ) In addition to the reporting requirements contained in § 96.72, an accrediting entity must immediately notify the Secretary in writing: ( 1 ) When it accredits an agency or approves a person;
( 2 ) When it renews the accreditation or approval of an agency or person; or
( 3 ) When it takes an adverse action against an accredited agency or approved person that impacts its accreditation or approval status.
[71 FR 8131, Feb. 15, 2006, as amended at 79 FR 40636, July 14, 2014]
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

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

LIBERATO CABALO and WILTHELMA

CABALO,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EMC MORTGAGE, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 08-5667 MEJ

ORDER RE: WITHDRAWAL OF

ATTORNEY

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s Withdrawal of Attorney and Request to Proceed In Pro

Per. (Dkt. #62.) As this is the second time Plaintiffs have retained counsel and then requested that

their counsel be permitted to withdraw, and the parties were unable to settle in a recent mediation,

the Court is concerned that withdrawal may lengthen this case further and prejudice the defendants. 

Accordingly, prior to ruling on Plaintiffs’ request, the Court hereby ORDERS the parties to file a

joint status report by August 5, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2010 _______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:08-cv-05667-MEJ Document 63 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 1
### §300x–23. Intravenous substance use

#### (a) Capacity of treatment programs

#### (1) Notification of reaching capacity

A funding agreement for a grant under section 300x–21 of this title is that the State involved will, in the case of programs of treatment for intravenous substance use disorders, require that any such program receiving amounts from the grant, upon reaching 90 percent of its capacity to admit individuals to the program, provide to the State a notification of such fact.

#### (2) Provision of treatment

A funding agreement for a grant under section 300x–21 of this title is that the State involved will, with respect to notifications under paragraph (1), ensure that each individual who requests and is in need of treatment for intravenous substance use disorders is admitted to a program of such treatment not later than—

(A) 14 days after making the request for admission to such a program; or

(B) 120 days after the date of such request, if no such program has the capacity to admit the individual on the date of such request and if interim services are made available to the individual not later than 48 hours after such request.

#### (b) Outreach to persons who inject drugs

A funding agreement for a grant under section 300x–21 of this title is that the State involved, in providing amounts from the grant to any entity for treatment services for persons who inject drugs, will require the entity to carry out activities to encourage individuals in need of such treatment to undergo treatment.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XIX, §1923, as added Pub. L. 102–321, title II, §202, July 10, 1992, 106 Stat. 390; amended Pub. L. 114–255, div. B, title VIII, §8002(b), Dec. 13, 2016, 130 Stat. 1229; Pub. L. 117–328, div. FF, title I, §1241(a)(4), Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 5677.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 1923 of act July 1, 1944, was classified to section 300x–9b of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 102–321.

Another prior section 1923 of act July 1, 1944, was classified to section 300y–2 of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 100–690.

#### Amendments

2022—Pub. L. 117–328, §1241(a)(4)(A), substituted "substance use" for "substance abuse" in section catchline.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 117–328, §1241(a)(4)(B), which directed amendment of subsec. (a) by substituting "substance use disorders" for "drug abuse", was executed by making the substitution both places "drug abuse" appeared, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

2016—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 114–255 substituted "to persons who inject drugs" for "regarding intravenous substance abuse" in heading and "for persons who inject drugs" for "for intravenous drug abuse" in text.
###### Editorial Note on Part 40

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 71 FR 34520 and 34521, June 15, 2006.

#### §§ 40.42-40.49 [Reserved]
Summary of Pixelworks Non-Employee Director Compensation



  
 Exhibit 10.1

 Summary of Pixelworks Non-Employee Director Compensation 
 Cash compensation: 
  

			
	Board Member Retainer	  	$27,000 per year
	Audit Committee Retainer	  	 $8,000 per year, regular member
 $16,000 per year, Chair

	Compensation Committee Retainer	  	 $5,000 per year, regular member
 $10,000 per year, Chair

	Nominating and Governance Committee Retainer	  	 $3,000 per year, regular member
 $6,000 per year, Chair

	Chairman of the Board	  	$35,000 per year

 Cash compensation is paid in quarterly
increments. 
 Stock compensation: 
 New non-employee Board members receive an initial option award to purchase 10,000 shares of the Company’s common stock upon election or appointment to the Board. The option has an exercise price
equal to the closing price of the common stock on the grant date, and a maximum term of six years. The award vests with respect to 25% of the shares on the first anniversary of the grant date, and on a monthly basis thereafter for the next three
years. 
 Non-employee Board members who continue to serve on the Board after each annual meeting will receive an award of 8,000 restricted
stock units (RSUs) upon re-election to the board of directors at the annual meeting of shareholders. These RSUs are scheduled to vest on the first to occur of (1) the day before the next annual meeting of the Company’s shareholders that
follows the grant date or (2) the first anniversary of the grant date and are payable in shares of the Company’s common stock.
### §5665. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5665 was editorially reclassified as section 11171 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5665a, Pub. L. 93–415, title II, §262, as added Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §7263(a)(2)(F), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4445; amended Pub. L. 102–586, §2(h), Nov. 4, 1992, 106 Stat. 5001, related to considerations for approval of applications, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title II, §12210(1), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1880.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Danny Sims, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 4, 1974, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the third degree (two counts) and burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. No questions of fact have been raised on this appeal. The District Attorney candidly concedes, and we agree, that the prosecutor, in the course of his summation, made a number of remarks which deprived defendant of a fair trial. In view of this determination, we have not reached the other questions raised by defendant. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Rabin, JJ., concur.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 05-208 

________________________________________________________________________ 

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT 

Article 98 

 Agreement between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and GUINEA-BISSAU 

Effected by Exchange of Notes at 

Dakar and Bissau January 28, February 2, and 

March 14, 2005 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 GUINEA-BISSAU 

 International Criminal Court: Article 98 

 Agreement effected by exchange of notes at 

 Dakar and Bissau January 28, February 2, and 

 March 14, 2005; 

 Entered into force February 8, 2005.
### §617. Limitation on Federal authority

No officer or employee of the Federal Government may regulate the conduct of States under this part or enforce any provision of this part, except to the extent expressly provided in this part.

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title IV, §417, as added Pub. L. 104–193, title I, §103(a)(1), Aug. 22, 1996, 110 Stat. 2159; amended Pub. L. 105–33, title V, §5514(c), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 620.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 617, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title IV, §417, formerly §418, as added Oct. 13, 1988, Pub. L. 100–485, title VI, §603(a), 102 Stat. 2408; renumbered §417, Nov. 10, 1988, Pub. L. 100–647, title VIII, §8105(7), 102 Stat. 3798, related to Assistant Secretary for Family Support, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 104–193, §103(a)(1), as amended by Pub. L. 105–33, title V, §5514(c), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 620.

#### Amendments

1997—Pub. L. 105–33 made technical amendment to directory language of Pub. L. 104–193, §103(a)(1), which enacted this section.

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

#### Effective Date of 1997 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–33 effective as if included in the provision of Pub. L. 104–193 amended at the time the provision became law, see section 5518(d) of Pub. L. 105–33, set out as a note under section 862a of Title 21, Food and Drugs.

#### Effective Date

Section effective July 1, 1997, with transition rules relating to State options to accelerate such date, rules relating to claims, actions, and proceedings commenced before such date, rules relating to closing out of accounts for terminated or substantially modified programs and continuance in office of Assistant Secretary for Family Support, and provisions relating to termination of entitlement under AFDC program, see section 116 of Pub. L. 104–193, as amended, set out as a note under section 601 of this title.
### §3753. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3753 was editorially reclassified as section 10154 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### §3796aa–5. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796aa–5 was editorially reclassified as section 10335 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
## 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. AP -76,958

EX P ARTE ROLANDO RAMIREZ , Appli cant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 10-59837-X IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 6 FROM DALLAS 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. 1 9 6 7 ). Ap p l icant was convicted of burg lary of a habitation and sente nced to f ive y ear s’ imprisonment. He did not appea l his conviction. Applicant contends that his plea was involuntary beca use the p l ea agreement cannot be followed. The trial court deter

mined that Ap plicant pled g uilty pursuant to an ag ree ment that this sentenc e would run concur rently with a fede ral sentenc e. The fede ral judgme nt require s the fede ral sentenc e to beg in when the state sentenc e expires. Applicant is entitled to relief

. Ex parte Huerta ,2

692 S.W .2d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). R el i ef i s g rante d. The judgment i n Cause No. F- 10-59837-X in the criminal district court number 6 of D allas County is se t a side, and Applicant is r emande d to the custody of the Sheriff of Dallas County to answe r the char g es as set out in the indictment. The trial court shall issue any
nece ssary bench w arr ant within 10 day s after the mandate of this Court issues. Co p ie s o f th is o p in io n shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice–Corre cti o n a l I nstitut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: J anuar

y 30, 2013 Do not publish
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William O’Rourke, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on July 7, 1977, unanimously affirmed. The case is remitted to the Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). No opinion. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Fein, Lane, Markewich and Sullivan, JJ.
§ 225.115 IRB Records. ( a ) An institution, or when appropriate an IRB, shall prepare and maintain adequate documentation of IRB activities, including the following: ( 1 ) Copies of all research proposals reviewed, scientific evaluations, if any, that accompany the proposals, approved sample consent forms, progress reports submitted by investigators, and reports of injuries to subjects.
( 2 ) Minutes of IRB meetings, which shall be in sufficient detail to show attendance at the meetings; actions taken by the IRB; the vote on these actions including the number of members voting for, against, and abstaining; the basis for requiring changes in or disapproving research; and a written summary of the discussion of controverted issues and their resolution.
( 3 ) Records of continuing review activities, including the rationale for conducting continuing review of research that otherwise would not require continuing review as described in § 225.109(f)(1).
( 4 ) Copies of all correspondence between the IRB and the investigators.
( 5 ) A list of IRB members in the same detail as described in § 225.108(a)(2).
( 6 ) Written procedures for the IRB in the same detail as described in § 225.108(a)(3) and (4).
( 7 ) Statements of significant new findings provided to subjects, as required by § 225.116(c)(5).
( 8 ) The rationale for an expedited reviewer's determination under § 225.110(b)(1)(i) that research appearing on the expedited review list described in § 225.110(a) is more than minimal risk.
( 9 ) Documentation specifying the responsibilities that an institution and an organization operating an IRB each will undertake to ensure compliance with the requirements of this policy, as described in § 225.103(e).
( b ) The records required by this policy shall be retained for at least 3 years, and records relating to research that is conducted shall be retained for at least 3 years after completion of the research. The institution or IRB may maintain the records in printed form, or electronically. All records shall be accessible for inspection and copying by authorized representatives of the Federal department or agency at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0990-0260)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY LLC, a

Delaware Limited Liability Company,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MARCO VENTURES, INC., a California

Corporation, dba FORD OF MARIN, and

ROBERT A. BRUTYN,

Defendants. /

No. CV-08-4906 MMC

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

() Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues

have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

(X) Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The

issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED 

1. Plaintiff is entitled to recover from defendants, jointly and severally, principal in

the amount sought, specifically, $1,045,214.94.

2. Plaintiff is entitled to recover from defendants, jointly and severally, the

attorney’s fees incurred herein, which the Court finds were reasonably incurred,

specifically, fees in the total amount of $27,930.00.

3. Plaintiff is entitled to recover from defendants, jointly and severally, its costs

incurred herein, which the Court finds were reasonably incurred, specifically costs in the

total amount of $2295.53.

Case 3:08-cv-04906-MMC Document 65 Filed 05/26/10 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

4. Plaintiff’s requests for prejudgment interest and for additional sums identified in

the motion as “charges” and “expenses” are deemed withdrawn.

Judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendants, jointly and

severally, in the total amount of $1,075,440.47.

Dated: May 26, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Tracy Lucero

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:08-cv-04906-MMC Document 65 Filed 05/26/10 Page 2 of 2
### §3941. State or local taxation or regulation; access to judicial process

Nothing contained in this chapter shall preclude a State or other local jurisdiction from imposing, in accordance with the laws of such State or other local jurisdiction, any valid nondiscriminatory tax, obligation, or regulation on the partnership as a taxable and or legal entity, but no limited partner of the partnership not otherwise subject to taxation or regulation by or judicial process of a State or other local jurisdiction shall be subject to taxation or regulation by or subject to or denied access to judicial process of such State or other local jurisdiction, or be subject or denied access to any greater extent, because of activities of the corporation or partnership within such State or other local jurisdiction.

(Pub. L. 90–448, title IX, §912, as added Pub. L. 91–351, title VIII, §711, July 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 463.)
#### § 237.11 Subrogation of USAID.

In the event of payment by USAID to a Noteholder under this Guarantee, USAID shall be subrogated to the extent of such payment to all of the rights of such Noteholder against the Borrower under the related Note.
#### § 911.2 Filing complaint.

If the dispute is not satisfactorily resolved at the agency level, the moving party may file a complaint within 45 calendar days from the date of the response (or in any case must file within 90 days of filing the implementation dispute) with the Board in writing and with specificity as to the nature of the violation.