alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          22,199
<SECURITIES>                                    20,767
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,522
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               181,861
<PP&E>                                          26,905
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 289,528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          244,393
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           164
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,009
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   289,528
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               235,695
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  212,609<F2>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (865)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 24,372<F1>
<INCOME-TAX>                                       201
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,171
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,171
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.41
<FN>
<F1>Includes equity in income of affiliate of $18 and minority interest of $403
<F2>Includes gain on investment, net of $18,061.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Henry Dixon, Appellant, v Chairman of the New York State Board of Parole, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered January 24, 1977, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The issue presented by the parties to this proceeding is whether or not the respondent pursuant to section 75.10 of the Penal Law may add delinquent time of a prior reformatory sentence to a subsequent maximum expiration date imposed for a crime committed while on parole. On June 30, 1977 the Court of Appeals affirmed the case of *Matter of Balmer v New York State Bd. of Parole*(42 NY2d 939, affg 54 AD2d 979). In the *Balmer*case the Appellate Division, Second Department, expressly found that such an addition of reformatory time would violate a convict’s right to due process. As a result of the *Balmer*case, we perceive no alternative to granting the relief requested. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs, and respondent directed to remove the one year of reformatory delinquent time which it has added to petitioner’s maximum expiration date. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Main, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
§ 1000.324 How is the need component developed? After determining the FCAS allocation, remaining funds are allocated by need component. The need component consists of seven criteria. They are: ( a ) American Indian and Alaskan Native (AIAN) Households with housing cost burden greater than 50 percent of formula annual income weighted at 22 percent;
( b ) AIAN Households which are overcrowded or without kitchen or plumbing weighted at 25 percent;
( c ) Housing Shortage which is the number of AIAN households with an annual income less than or equal to 80 percent of formula median income reduced by the combination of current assisted stock and units developed under NAHASDA weighted at 15 percent;
( d ) AIAN households with annual income less than or equal to 30 percent of formula median income weighted at 13 percent;
( e ) AIAN households with annual income between 30 percent and 50 percent of formula median income weighted at 7 percent;
( f ) AIAN households with annual income between 50 percent and 80 percent of formula median income weighted at 7 percent;
( g ) AIAN persons weighted at 11 percent.
i i i i i i



### MEMORANDUM OPI NIO N No. 04-10-00464- CR IN RE J ohnathan TAYLOR Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1 PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: J une 30, 2010 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS DEN I ED On J une 22, 2010, Jonathan Taylor, relator, filed a pro se petition for a wr it of mandamus, asking this court t o d i re ct t h e trial court to set a trial date in the underly ing criminal proce eding
. Counsel has been appointed to repr esent relator in the t ri al court. We conclude that appointed counsel for

relator is also his counsel for a n orig inal proce eding on the issue pre sented. Relator is not entitled to hy brid repr esentatio n . S

ee Patrick v. State , 906 S.W .2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. Ap p . 1 9 9 5 ). The absenc e of a rig ht to hy brid repr esentation means relator’s pro se petition for writ of mandamus will be treated as prese nting nothing for this court’s consideration. See
This proce eding arises out of Ca use No. 2009-CR-7592, sty led State of Texas v. 1 Johnathan Taylor , pending in the 144th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas, the Honora ble Catherine Torre s-Stahl presiding
.0 4
- 1 0
- 0 0 4 6 4
- C R

id. ; see also Gray v. Shipley , 877 S.W .2d 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig
. proce eding ). Consequently , this court has deter mined that relator is not entitled to the relief soug ht. There fore , the petition is denied. T E X . R. A P P . P. 52.8(a)
. PER C URI AM DO NOT PUBL I SH

- 2
-
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

KERRY MCAULEY,

Appellant,

v.

SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, INC.,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-2247

[December 14, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Cheryl Caracuzzo, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2012-CA011139-XXXX-MB.

Kerry McAuley, Boca Raton, pro se.

Edgardo Ferreyra, Jr. and Jack Luks of Luks, Santaniello, Petrillo & 

Jones, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
T28N
thfinder
Reservoir:
27 ]
|
a
25 “rie
* servoir
2
q 8
23
s*
| 2
6:
lins, 21
+ ’ TM~
y 20
@ 2 r
j oN) | eng 19 |
{ ‘a By
= | -@ | ))
| 18
j 4 rn a 17 Saratoga im
+ Q %
ae fo
TT 46 Waal
ogly !
Ee " ry 15
Fle. Encampment |
aS F 14
a a
(70) if
j 13
f eo.
ae emt £9190 89, 788! 87) 86 85 | gd) 8
T12N

| Classification A - Open to Leasing with Standard Stipu

lations

Classification B - Open to Leasing with Minor Constraints

(Classification C - Open to Leasing with Major Constrai
HE Classification D - Closed to Leasing

(See Table 2-1 for additional information)

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM

nts

(si)

= i
—

| Medicine Bow
4
- _ Rock River
, \ é
i 30%
4 za
|
ai <i
ia UN
|
= AS, ele) we J.
}
| ©
ois
(0)
®
82. 81 78-71 7675

|

74

Laramie

73 72

Cheyenne
@
67° 66 65 64 63 62 ROIW G
1020 40 60 80 100
Kilometers
0 5 10 20 30 40 50

Miles

Map 2-36
Oil and Gas Classifications
Alternative 2
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 246 (Thursday, December 23, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 76947]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28063]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices, Acquisitions of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies; Correction

    This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 04-27578) published on page 
75314 of the issue for Thursday, December 16, 2004.
    Under the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis heading, the entry for 
Martin B. Rowe, Harrisburg, Illinois, is revised to read as follows:
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Randall C. Sumner, Vice 
President) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
    1. Martin B. Rowe, Harrisburg, Illinois, individually and as a 
member of the Rowe Family Control Group, which consists of Martin B. 
Rowe, the Burt H. Rowe, Jr. Marital Trust and the Anne Rowe Family 
Trust, all of Harrisburg, Illinois; Marianna R. Deal, Rachelle L. Rowe, 
and Caroline C. Rowe, all of St. Louis, Missouri; and Anne Rowe, St. 
Louis, Missouri; to acquire control of First Eldorado Bancshares, Inc., 
Eldorado, Illinois, and thereby indirectly acquire control of Dana 
Bancorp, Inc., Dana, Indiana, The First National Bank of Dana, Dana 
Indiana, and First State Bank of Eldorado, Eldorado, Illinois.
    Comments on this application must be received by January 3, 2005.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 17, 
2004.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 04-28063 Filed 12-22-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2626

To amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act to prohibit 

coverage under the Medicare and Medicaid Programs of sex-enhancing 

drugs for individuals convicted of a sex offense. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 25, 2005

Mr. EDWARDS (for himself and Mr. BONILLA) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 

addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act 

to prohibit coverage under the Medicare and Medicaid 

Programs of sex-enhancing drugs for individuals convicted of a sex offense.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 2626 IH 

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF COVERAGE UNDER THE MEDI2 CARE AND MEDICAID PROGRAMS OF SEX-EN3 HANCING DRUGS FOR INDIVIDUALS CON4 VICTED OF A SEX OFFENSE. 

5 (a) MEDICARE PROGRAM.—Section 1860D6 2(e)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w7 102(e)(2)(A)) is amended by adding at the end the fol8 lowing: ‘‘Such term also does not include prescription 

9 drugs, such as Viagra, used for sex enhancement for any 

10 individual who has been convicted of a sex offense, as de11 fined by the Secretary and including rape, sexual assault, 

12 and child molestation.’’. 

13 (b) MEDICAID PROGRAM.—The first sentence of sec14 tion 1905(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)) is amend15 ed, in the matter following paragraph (28)—

16 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph 

17 (A); 

18 (2) by striking the period at the end of sub19 paragraph (B) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

20 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub21 paragraph: 

22 ‘‘(C) any such payments with respect to pre23 scribed drugs, such as Viagra, used for sex enhance24 ment for any individual who has been convicted of 

25 a sex offense, as defined by the Secretary under sec26 tion 1860D-1(e)(2)(A).’’. 
3

•HR 2626 IH 

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

3 of this Act and shall apply to drugs dispensed after such 

4 date.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Piazza, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from: (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered February 3, 1976, convicting him of arson in the third degree, conspiracy in the second degree and criminal solicitation in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing consecutive sentences; and (2) (by permission) an order of the same court, dated December 17, 1976, which, after a hearing, denied his motion to vacate the judgment. Order affirmed. Judgment modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provision that the sentences shall be served consecutively and substituting therefor a provision that the sentences shall run concurrently. As so modified, judgment affirmed and case remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). Under the circumstances, the imposition of consecutive sentences was improper (see Penal Law, § 70.25, subd 2; *People ex rel. Maurer v Jackson,*2 NY2d 259; *People v Christman,*23 NY2d 429). Mollen, P. J., Titone, Suozzi and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### § 1000.18 What environmental review requirements apply?

The environmental effects of each activity carried out with assistance under this part must be evaluated in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321) and the related authorities listed in HUD's implementing regulations at 24 CFR parts 50 and 58. An environmental review does not have to be completed prior to HUD approval of an IHP.
Editorial Note on Part 42
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 42 appear at 71 FR 34522, June 15, 2006.

§ 42.21 Immediate relatives. ( a ) *Entitlement to status.* An alien who is a spouse or child of a United States citizen, or a parent of a U.S. citizen at least 21 years of age, shall be classified as an immediate relative under INA 201(b) if the consular officer has received from DHS an approved Petition to Classify Status of Alien Relative for Issuance of an Immigrant Visa, filed on the alien's behalf by the U.S. citizen and approved in accordance with INA 204, and the officer is satisfied that the alien has the relationship claimed in the petition. An immediate relative shall be documented as such unless the U.S. citizen refuses to file the required petition, or unless the immediate relative is also a special immigrant under INA 101(a)(27) (A) or (B) and not subject to any numerical limitation.
( b ) *Spouse of a deceased U.S. citizen.* The spouse of a deceased U.S. citizen, and each child of the spouse, will be entitled to immediate relative status after the date of the citizen's death provided the spouse or child meets the criteria of INA 201(b)(2)(A)(i) or of section 423(a)(1) of Public Law 107-56 (USA Patriot Act) and the Consular Officer has received an approved petition from the DHS which accords such status, or official notification of such approval, and the Consular Officer is satisfied that the alien meets those criteria.
( c ) *Child of a U.S. citizen victim of terrorism.* The child of a U.S. citizen slain in the terrorist actions of September 11, 2001, shall retain the status of an immediate relative child (regardless of changes in age or marital status) if the child files a petition for such status within two years of the citizen's death pursuant to section 423(a)(2) of Public Law 107-56, and the consular officer has received an approved petition according such status or official notification of such approval.
[56 FR 49676, Oct. 1, 1991, as amended at 64 FR 55419, Oct. 13, 1999; 67 FR 1415, Jan. 11, 2002]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 10, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6192-6193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2840]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 04-30; MB Docket No. 03-164; RM-10737]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Marmet and Montgomery, WV

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 68 FR 43704 
(July 24, 2003), this document reallots Channel 227A from Montgomery, 
West Virginia, to Marmet, West Virginia, and provides Marmet with its 
first local aural transmission service. The coordinates for Channel 
227A at Marmet are 38<deg<ls-thn-eq>13[min]09[sec] North Latitude and 
81<deg<ls-thn-eq>25[min]05[sec] West Longitude, with a site restriction 
of 13.4 kilometers (8.3 miles) east of Marmet, West Virginia.

DATES: Effective March 1, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau, (202) 
418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MB Docket No. 03-164, adopted January 14, 2004, and 
released January 16, 2004. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Washington, DC. This document may also be purchased from 
the Commission's duplicating contractors, Qualex International, Portals 
II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, 
telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cdbcb8aca1a8b5a4a3b98daca2a1e3aea2a0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4534302429203d2c2b3105242a296b262a28">[email protected]</span></a>.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio, Radio broadcasting.

0
Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as 
follows:

[[Page 6193]]

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for Part 73 reads as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

0
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under West Virginia, 
is amended by adding Marmet, Channel 227A, and removing Montgomery, 
Channel 227A.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 04-2840 Filed 2-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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 1

The substantive merits of claim 23 were also briefed; however this claim was

dismissed in the June 26, 2015 order granting in part respondent’s motion to dismiss.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES STEVENS,

Petitioner,

 v.

RON DAVIS, Warden,

Respondent.

/

No. C09-0137 WHA

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY

ROBERT BRYAN’S MOTION TO

WITHDRAW AS LEAD COUNSEL,

STAYING CASE PENDING

APPOINTMENT OF NEW

COUNSEL, AND VACATING

BRIEFING

For the reasons stated in a concurrently filed, sealed order on the CJA docket, Attorney

Robert Bryan’s motion to withdraw as lead counsel is GRANTED. The case is STAYED pending

the appointment of new counsel.

The substantive briefing on claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 18 and 241

 is VACATED (Dkt. 120, 123

and 129). Following the appointment of new counsel, a new briefing schedule for the resolution

of these claims and the other pending claims will be established.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February __, 2016 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17

Case 3:09-cv-00137-WHA Document 132 Filed 02/17/16 Page 1 of 1
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

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CABN 44332)

United States Attorney

BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN 163973)

Chief, Criminal Division

BARBARA BRENNAN SILANO (MASSBAR 055540)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Ave., Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7223

Facsimile: (415) 436- 7234

E-mail: barbara.silano@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLARK WILKENSON,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 09-1140 MHP

[PROPOSED] SPEEDY TRIAL ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING the Court finds, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A), that

the ends of justice served by excluding time from February 8, 2010 and March 22, 2010

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The case involves

thousands of pages of documents which must be reviewed by the defense. Moreover, the Court

finds, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B) that failure to grant such a continuance would deny

the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the

exercise of due diligence. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the time period between February 8, 2010 and

///

///

Case 3:09-cr-01140-CRB Document 22 Filed 02/18/10 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

SPEEDY TRIAL ORDER 2

March 22, 2010 is excluded from calculations pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A) and B.

DATED:

_______________________________

HON. MARILYN HALL PATEL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

2/17/2010

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:09-cr-01140-CRB Document 22 Filed 02/18/10 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eddie Sanjurjo, Appellant.

[832 NYS2d 440]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered January 12, 2004, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of marihuana in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

At trial, defense counsel argued that the trial testimony of a detective, who had been the sole witness to testify at the suppression hearing, contradicted his earlier testimony regarding the circumstances of the defendant’s arrest, and moved to reopen the suppression hearing on that basis. The Supreme Court properly denied that motion. Any discrepancies in the witness’s testimony were minor and did not undermine either the witness’s credibility or the Supreme Court’s finding that the arrest, and the subsequent search incident to the arrest, were lawful *(see People v Clark,*88 NY2d 552, 554-556 [1996]; *People v March,*271 AD2d 700, 701 [2000]; *People v Mack,*224 AD2d 447, 448 [1996]; *cf. People v Kuberka,*215 AD2d 592, 593 [1995]; *People v Perez,*104 AD2d 454, 456 [1984]). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Dolores Rankin, Respondent, v Randolph A. Rankin, Appellant.

In a proceeding to enforce the terms of an order of support, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated September 7, 1976, as determined that he was obligated to pay $350 per month as child support. By order dated June 6, 1977, this court remitted the proceeding to the Family Court to hear and report, with findings of fact, on the issue of whether the stipulation dated September 19, 1975 was intended by the parties to permanently raise appellant’s child support obligation from $300 per month to $350 per month without regard to the continuance of the therapy, and the appeal has been held in abeyance in the interim *(Matter of Rankin v Rankin,*58 AD2d 584). The hearing has been held and the report has been received. Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. No opinion. Martuscello, J. P., Damiani, Titone and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
April 8 

UNITED STATES

D

I

STRICT COURT

NORTHERN

DIST

RI

CT

OF CALIFORNIA

Judge

Vaughn

R

Walker