alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert Maher, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an *835order of the County Court, Kings County, dated January 22, 1962, which denied, without a hearing, his application to vacate a judgment of said court, rendered May 27, 1960, on his plea of guilty entered during trial, convicting him of attempted burglary in the third degree and sentencing him to serve a term of two and one-half to five years. The basis of defendant’s application is that a promise was made by the court, with the acquiescence of the Assistant District Attorney, that if defendant would plead guilty to attempted burglary in the third degree all other informations then pending against him in the Court of Special Sessions would bo dismissed; and that his guilty pica was entered in reliance on such promise. Defendant now contends that, although said informations have since been dismissed in accordance with the promise made, they were not dismissed until the present application was made; hence, he now has the right to choose whether to accept the promise or to withdraw his guilty plea and stand trial. The petition does not allege any coercion on the part of the court or the prosecutor to induce the plea made, and the defendant does not “quarrel with the sentence.” Order affirmed. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Hill, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 41
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 41 appear at 71 FR 34521 and 34522, June 15, 2006.

§ 41.57 International cultural exchange visitors. ( a ) *International cultural exchange visitors* — ( 1 ) *Requirements for classification under INA section 101(a)(15)(Q)(i).* A consular officer may classify an alien under the provisions of INA 101(a)(15)(Q)(i) if: ( i ) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien qualifies under the provisions of that section, and
( ii ) The consular officer has received official evidence of the approval by DHS of a petition or the extension by DHS of the period of authorized stay in such classification.
( 2 ) *Approval of petition.* DHS approval of a petition does not establish that the alien is eligible to receive a nonimmigrant visa.
( 3 ) *Validity of visa.* The period of validity of a visa issued on the basis of this paragraph (a) must not exceed the period indicated in the petition, notification, or confirmation required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
( 4 ) *Alien not entitled to Q classification.* The consular officer must suspend action on the alien's application and submit a report to the approving DHS office if the consular officer knows or has reason to believe that an alien does not qualify under INA section 101(a)(15)(Q)(i).
( b ) [Reserved]
[65 FR 14770, Mar. 17, 2000, as amended at 66 FR 52502, Oct. 16, 2001; 85 FR 38321, June 26, 2020]
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

CITY OF ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NUVEEN MUNICIPAL HIGH INCOME

OPPORTUNITY FUND,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-04575 SI

THIRD

PRETRIAL PREPARATION ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED pursuant to F.R.C.P. and the Local Rules of this Court:

FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT: July 16, 2010 at 3:00 p.m.

Counsel must file a joint case management statement seven days in advance of the conference.

DISCOVERY PLAN: Per F.R.Civ.P and Local Rules, subject to any provisions below.

NON-EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF is September 3, 2010.

DESIGNATION OF EXPERTS: 9/24/10; REBUTTAL: 10/15/10. Parties SHALL conform to Rule 26(a)(2).

EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF is November 12, 2010.

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS SHALL be filed by December 3, 2010; 

Opp. Due December 17, 2010; Reply Due December 23, 2010;

 and set for hearing no later than January 14, 2011 at 9:00 AM.

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE: February 22, 2011 at 3:30 PM.

JURY TRIAL DATE: March 7, 2011 at 8:30 AM., Courtroom 10, 19th floor.

TRIAL LENGTH is estimated to be days.

SPECIAL DISCOVERY AND PRETRIAL PROVISIONS:

By April 16, 2010, counsel shall inform the Court of the type of ADR procedure and the date it’s

scheduled to occur. The parties have agreed to participate in an ADR process either late June 2010 or

early July 2010.

The parties have agreed to increase the number of interrogatories up to 50, 

The pretrial conference SHALL be attended by trial counsel prepared to discuss all aspects of the case,

including settlement. Parties SHALL conform to the attached instructions. Plaintiff is ORDERED to

serve a copy of this order on any party subsequently joined in this action.

Case 3:08-cv-04575-SI Document 123 Filed 04/08/10 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

Dated: 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04575-SI Document 123 Filed 04/08/10 Page 2 of 2
### §2241. Atomic safety and licensing boards; establishment; membership; functions; compensation

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 556(b) and 557(b) of title 5, the Commission is authorized to establish one or more atomic safety and licensing boards, each comprised of three members, one of whom shall be qualified in the conduct of administrative proceedings and two of whom shall have such technical or other qualifications as the Commission deems appropriate to the issues to be decided, to conduct such hearings as the Commission may direct and make such intermediate or final decisions as the Commission may authorize with respect to the granting, suspending, revoking or amending of any license or authorization under the provisions of this chapter, any other provision of law, or any regulation of the Commission issued thereunder. The Commission may delegate to a board such other regulatory functions as the Commission deems appropriate. The Commission may appoint a panel of qualified persons from which board members may be selected.

(b) Board members may be appointed by the Commission from private life, or designated from the staff of the Commission or other Federal agency. Board members appointed from private life shall receive a per diem compensation for each day spent in meetings or conferences, and all members shall receive their necessary traveling or other expenses while engaged in the work of a board. The provisions of section 2203 of this title shall be applicable to board members appointed from private life.

(Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, title I, §191, as added Pub. L. 87–615, §1, Aug. 29, 1962, 76 Stat. 409; amended Pub. L. 91–560, §10, Dec. 19, 1970, 84 Stat. 1474; renumbered title I, Pub. L. 102–486, title IX, §902(a)(8), Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2944.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original "this Act", meaning act Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, as added by act Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, §1, 68 Stat. 919, known as the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2011 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

In subsec. (a), "sections 556(b) and 557(b) of title 5" substituted for "sections 7(a) and 8(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act [5 U.S.C. 1006(a), 1007(a)]" on authority of Pub. L. 89–554, §7(b), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 631, the first section of which enacted Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

#### Amendments

1970—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 91–560 required that two members of the board should have such technical or other qualifications the Commission deems appropriate to the issues to be decided.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Henry L. Dennis, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered June 28, 1977, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. This appeal also brings up for review the denial of the defendant’s motion to set aside his conviction on the ground of juror misconduct. Judgment reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered. The prosecution’s summation to the jury in this case was so improper and inflammatory that the defendant was denied a fair trial. Therefore, the defendant’s conviction must be reversed. In commenting on the defendant’s contention that he had been arrested by the police officers involved as an act of revenge, the prosecutor said that the defense was asking the jury to believe that the defendant "was set up as an act of vengeance because for whatever reason five years ago he escaped conviction when he was arrested and brought to trial for selling dope.” With respect to the defendant’s testimony that he was elsewhere when the crime was committed, the prosecutor stated: "I submit to you that that’s ludicrous. The whole story is ludicrous and it defies any type of imagination. He was the peddler of the poison.” While discussing the defendant’s character witnesses, the prosecution drew an obvious parallel between the defendant and former President Nixon, by saying: "Think during the course of the history of man how many great leaders, how many people could have marched before you an impressive list of witnesses to tell you that this individual is law abiding. A leader who is now enjoying the scorn * * * of his fellow Americans. You know, it’s the same thing.” Finally, the prosecutor told the jurors that if they believed the defendant, they had to believe that all involved, including himself, had concealed and tailored evidence and had "conspired to get” the defendant. He thus made himself an unsworn witness and used his position and own veracity to buttress his case. (Cf. *People v Lovello,*1 NY2d 436.) As an officer of the court, and as a representative of the People of the State, a prosecutor must refrain from summing up in a manner that denies the defendant his right to a fair trial. We have considered the other contentions raised by the defendant and find them to be without merit. Shapiro, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O’Connor, 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HALSEY MINOR, an individual,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHRISTIE’S INC., a New York corporation, 

and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants. /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

CHRISTIE, MANSON & WOODS, LTD., 

a United Kingdom corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HALSEY MINOR, an individual,

and ROES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-05445 WHA (Lead Case)

Consolidated with:

No. C 09-00471 WHA

ORDER ON STIPULATION TO

CONTINUE HEARING DATE

The stipulated request to continue the hearing this week is DENIED AS MOOT. All

motions scheduled for oral argument this week have been resolved.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-05445-WHA Document 184 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 1
### §6620. Release of scientific research results

#### (a) Principles

Not later than 90 days after August 9, 2007, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the heads of all Federal civilian agencies that conduct scientific research, shall develop and issue an overarching set of principles to ensure the communication and open exchange of data and results to other agencies, policymakers, and the public of research conducted by a scientist employed by a Federal civilian agency and to prevent the intentional or unintentional suppression or distortion of such research findings. The principles shall encourage the open exchange of data and results of research undertaken by a scientist employed by such an agency and shall be consistent with existing Federal laws, including chapter 18 of title 35 (commonly known as the "Bayh-Dole Act"). The principles shall also take into consideration the policies of peer-reviewed scientific journals in which Federal scientists may currently publish results.

#### (b) Implementation

Not later than 180 days after August 9, 2007, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall ensure that all civilian Federal agencies that conduct scientific research develop specific policies and procedures regarding the public release of data and results of research conducted by a scientist employed by such an agency consistent with the principles established under subsection (a). Such polices 1 and procedures shall—

(1) specifically address what is and what is not permitted or recommended under such policies and procedures;

(2) be specifically designed for each such agency;

(3) be applied uniformly throughout each such agency; and

(4) be widely communicated and readily accessible to all employees of each such agency and the public.

(Pub. L. 110–69, title I, §1009, Aug. 9, 2007, 121 Stat. 581.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the America COMPETES Act, also known as the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act, and not as part of the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 which comprises this chapter.

1 So in original. Probably should be "policies".
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

BARRY J. PORTMAN

Federal Public Defender

LOREN D. STEWART

Assistant Federal Public Defender

19th Floor Federal Building – Box 36106

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7700

Counsel for Defendant Brooks

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

LEONARD BROOKS,

Defendant.

_____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR-09-0109 EMC

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER

CONTINUING STATUS HEARING

Current Hearing Date: July 13, 2010

Time: 9:15 a.m.

Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen

Proposed Hearing Date: July 28, 2010

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen

The above-captioned case is currently on calendar at 9:15 a.m. on July 13, 2010, for a

status hearing and for further proceedings regarding detention. Lead counsel for Mr. Brooks,

Geoffrey Hansen, had a family emergency out-of-state and is unavailable next week. Mr. Hansen

also has a scheduling conflict on July 21, 2010 because of an evidentiary hearing before Judge

Alsup. Accordingly, counsel for Mr. Brooks respectfully requests that the Court vacate the July

13th hearing and add the matter to the Court’s calendar on July 28, 2010, at 10:00 a.m.

Undersigned defense counsel has confirmation from AUSA Acadia Senese of her

availability for the proposed date, and also confirmed with Your Honor’s Courtroom Deputy that

the Court is available on the proposed hearing date and time. Accordingly, the parties jointly

STIP & [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING

STATUS HEARING, 09-0109 EMC 1

Case 3:09-cr-00109-EMC Document 38 Filed 07/09/10 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

request that the Court vacate the July 13, 2010, hearing date and re-set the matter for July 28,

2010, at 10:00 a.m.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

 July 8, 2010 /s/ 

DATED ACADIA SENESE

Assistant United States Attorney

 July 8, 2010 /s/ 

DATED LOREN STEWART for GEOFFREY HANSEN

Attorneys for Leonard Brooks

[PROPOSED] ORDER

For good cause shown, the status conference now scheduled for Tuesday, July 13, 2010 is

vacated. The matter shall be added to the Court’s calendar on Wednesday, July 28, 2010 at

10:00 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

DATED HON. EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

STIP & [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING

STATUS HEARING, 09-0109 EMC 2

Case 3:09-cr-00109-EMC Document 38 Filed 07/09/10 Page 2 of 2
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Ground-water levels in theUnited States. South-central states.**
 
1956-59 | 1960-64 | 1965-69 | 1970-74
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.13:
Item Number:0625 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001104688
 
August 22, 2019
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando Alejandro JIMENEZ-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-20268

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 2, 2007.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Yolanda E. Jarmon, Law Offices of Yolanda Jarmon, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Court-appointed counsel for Armando Jimenez-Flores has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Jimenez-Flores has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *321the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           7,172
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  119,525
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     13,216
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               193,730
<PP&E>                                         108,914
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 868,257
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          433,024
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           186
<OTHER-SE>                                     421,975
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   868,257
<SALES>                                        140,443
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               140,443
<CGS>                                          101,050
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  101,050
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                39,731
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,481
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,819)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,063)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,756)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (1,098)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,854)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.32)


</TABLE>
#### Tasheen T. Williams et al., Appellants, v Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Mount Vernon, Respondent.

[717 NYS2d 190]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), entered November 15, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The infant plaintiff was injured when he put his arm through a window while attempting to hit a fellow student during a fight in the boys’ restroom at Mount Vernon High School. This action was commenced against the defendant to recover damages based on an alleged lack of proper supervision.

Schools have a duty to adequately supervise their students and may be liable for foreseeable injuries proximately caused by the lack of adequate supervision *(see, Mirand v City of New York,*84 NY2d 44, 49). However, liability for injuries resulting from a fight between two students cannot be predicated on negligent supervision if the plaintiff was a voluntary participant in the fight *(see, Pitner v Brentwood Union Free School Dist.,*254 AD2d 340; *Danna v Sewanhaka Cent. High School Dist.,*242 AD2d 361; *Borelli v Board of Educ.,*156 AD2d 903).

While there is a question of fact as to whether the infant plaintiff specifically agreed to engage in the fight with his fel*374low student, it is clear from his own testimony that he voluntarily participated in the fight once it began and that he was injured, not by the other student, but by his own conduct. Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Santucci, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 42

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 42 appear at 71 FR 34522, June 15, 2006.

#### § 42.68 [Reserved]