alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EXPEREXCHANGE, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

DOCULEX, INC.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

Case No. C08-03875 JCS

ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL

MATERIALS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 

Defendants have filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, which is set for hearing on

April 2, 2010. In order to rule on Defendants’ motion, the Court requires the following additional

materials:

1. Evidence for all counsel as to whom fees are sought that their rates are in line with

the prevailing rates in the particular geographical areas in which they practice in light

of their experience and qualifications. This evidence should consist of surveys,

awards in other cases, or declarations by practitioners who practice in the relevant

legal market. 

2. A chart listing all depositions Defendants’ counsel attended and the number and

names of the attorneys who attended those depositions, as well as the time spent by

each attorney at each of the depositions; where more than one attorney attended a

deposition, Defendants shall provide a declaration addressing why the participation of

more than one attorney was required.

3. A chart or declaration identifying any time entries listed on the time sheets provided

to the Court in which time was spent by new counsel to familiarize themselves with

the case.

4. A declaration addressing whether the exercise of billing judgment as to any time

entries is appropriate and, if so, identifying time entries that may be excluded from

the Court’s fee award, if any.

Defendants shall file these additional materials no later than March 26, 2010. Plaintiff’s

Case 3:08-cv-04725-JCS Document 67 Filed 03/11/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

counsel shall be permitted to address these new materials at oral argument and in addition, shall be

permitted to submit a supplemental brief to address the materials following the hearing, if necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2010

___________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04725-JCS Document 67 Filed 03/11/10 Page 2 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

ANTHONY J. BRASS (CASBN. 173302)

Attorney at Law

3223 Webster Street

San Francisco, California 94123

Telephone: (415) 922-5462

Facsimile: (415) 346-8987

Attorney for Defendant 

IRINA REBEGENEAU

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

IRINA REBEGENEAU,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: CR 09-0862 MHP

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF RELEASE TO 

ALLOW TRAVEL TO FLORENCE, ARIZON

)

Parties, by and through their respective attorneys, Christine Wong, AUSA for the 

United States and Anthony J. Brass, attorney for Irina Rebegeneau hereby stipulate and agree as 

follows:

1. The court set conditions of release on Ms. Rebegeneau not to travel outside of the 

Northern and Eastern Districts of California.

2. The parties agree to a modification of the release conditions to allow Ms. Rebegeneau 

to travel to Florence, Arizona for a vacation. Ms. Rebegeneau will fly on May 6, 

2010 from Sacramento to Phoenix, Arizona. She will then drive to Florence, Arizona 

Case 3:09-cr-00862-MHP Document 112 Filed 05/04/10 Page 1 of 3
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

lodging at the St. Anthony Monastery until May 11, 2010. On May 11, 2010 she will 

drive back to Phoenix and fly back to Sacramento California.

3. Pre-trial services officer Josh Libby has no objection to this proposed modification.

Dated: April 23, 2010 /s/

ANTHONY J. BRASS

Attorney for IRINA REBEGENEAU

Dated: April 23, 2010

Christine Wong

Assistant United States Attorney

IT IS SO ORDERED:

____________________________ Dated:

HONORABLE ELIZABETH LAPORTE

U.S. Magistrate Judge

______________________________________________________________________________

May 3, 2010

Case 3:09-cr-00862-MHP Document 112 Filed 05/04/10 Page 2 of 3
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

Case 3:09-cr-00862-MHP Document 112 Filed 05/04/10 Page 3 of 3
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

ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT PUGET SOUND

COMMERCE CENTER, INC., f/k/a TODD SHIPYARDS CORPORATION

BRAYTON

 ̃PURCELL LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

222 RUSH LANDING ROAD

P O BOX 6169

NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169

(415) 898-1555

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAULA ROBERTSON, as Successor-inInterest to and Wrongful Death Heir of

JOHN ROBERTSON, Deceased, and

DIANA SPINT, as Legal Heir of JOHN

ROBERTSON, Deceased,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CARRIER CORPORATION, et al., 

Defendants.

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 ) 

 )

 

No. 3:08-cv-04490-CRB

ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF

DEFENDANT PUGET SOUND

COMMERCE CENTER, INC., f/k/a

TODD SHIPYARDS CORPORATION

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. All claims against Defendant

PUGET SOUND COMMERCE CENTER, INC., f/k/a TODD SHIPYARDS CORPORATION

are hereby dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Dated: August 10, 2015 By: Charles R. Breyer

 United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04490-CRB Document 45 Filed 08/10/15 Page 1 of 1
```

[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 77834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28363]

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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Office of Research and Development; Government Owned Invention 
Available for Licensing

AGENCY: Office of Research and Development, VA.

ACTION: Notice of Government-owned invention available for licensing.

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

SUMMARY: The invention listed below is owned by the U.S. Government as 
represented by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and is available for 
licensing in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 and 37 CFR part 404 and/or 
Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA) Collaboration 
under 15 U.S.C. 3710a to achieve expeditious commercialization of 
results of federally funded research and development. Foreign patents 
are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for U.S. 
companies and may also be available for licensing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technical and licensing information on 
the invention may be obtained by writing to: Robert W. Potts, 
Department of Veterans Affairs, Director Technology Transfer Program, 
Office of Research and Development, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, 
DC 20420; fax: (202) 254-0260; e-mail: [email protected]. Any 
request for information should include the number and title for the 
relevant invention as indicated below. Issued patents may be obtained 
from the Commissioner of Patents, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 
Washington, DC 20231.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The invention available for licensing is:
    International Patent Application No. PCT/US03/32602 ``Detection/
Localization and Staging of Tumors Using Labeled Activated Lymphocytes 
Directed to a Tumor Specific Epitope.''

    Dated: December 17, 2004.
Anthony J. Principi,
Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs.
[FR Doc. 04-28363 Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
```
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 10, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 6364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2823]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 4618]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Nicholas and Alexandra: At Home With the Last Tsar 
and His Family''

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Nicholas and Alexandra: At Home with the 
Last Tsar and his Family,'' imported from abroad for temporary 
exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The 
objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign 
owners. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit 
objects at the Museum of Fine Arts, Santa Fe, New Mexico, from on or 
about May 28, 2004 until on or about September 6, 2004, at the Newark 
Museum, Newark, New Jersey, from on or about September 27, 2004 until 
on or about January 9, 2005, at the Cinncinati Museum Center, 
Cincinnati, Ohio, from on or about January 29, 2005 until on or about 
May 1, 2005, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is 
in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is 
ordered to be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact the Office of the Legal Adviser, 
U.S. Department of State, telephone: (202) 619-6982. The address is 
U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street SW., Room 700, 
Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: February 3, 2004.
C. Miller Crouch,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 04-2823 Filed 2-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
#### § 1000.60 Can HUD prevent improper expenditure of funds already disbursed to a recipient?

Yes. In accordance with the standards and remedies contained in § 1000.532 relating to substantial noncompliance, HUD will use its powers under a depository agreement and take such other actions as may be legally necessary to suspend funds disbursed to the recipient until the substantial noncompliance has been remedied. In taking this action, HUD shall comply with all appropriate procedures, appeals, and hearing rights prescribed elsewhere in this part.

[77 FR 71524, Dec. 3, 2012]
§ 192.11 Applicable benefits. ( a ) Captives are entitled to receive or have credited to their account, for the period in captive status, the same pay and allowances to which they were entitled at the beginning of that period or to which they may have become entitled thereafter.
( b ) A person designated as a captive (or a family member of a principal) under subpart A of this subchapter whose captivity commenced on or after November 4, 1979, is also entitled to receive a cash payment from the captive's employing agency, for each day held captive, in an amount equal to but not less than one-half of the amount of the world-wide average per diem rate established under 5 U.S.C. 5702.
#### J. Phillips Tudor Realty, Inc., Respondent, v James M. Weiland et al., Appellants.

In an action, *inter alia,*for a permanent injunction arising out of the alleged violation of a covenant not to compete, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 23, 1977, *1032which, upon condition that plaintiff file an undertaking in the amount of $1,500, granted its motion for a preliminary injunction precluding the defendants, their representatives, agents, servants and employees, from practicing as real estate brokers or salespersons within a radius of one mile from plaintiff’s offices located at 79-20 Eliot Avenue, Middle Village, New York, pending the determination of the underlying lawsuit. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion denied, and case remanded to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for an immediate trial of the issues. In granting the preliminary injunction, Special Term improperly accorded plaintiff-respondent the full relief to which it would be entitled were it to prevail on the merits. In addition, it should be noted that the specific agreements allegedly signed by defendants-appellants were never in evidence before Special Term, plaintiff alleging that the aforesaid agreements had inexplicably disappeared from its files. As for the sufficiency of the alleged "copy” supplied to Special Term, the printed form contract (1) did not purport to be signed by either defendant, (2) made reference to an office of plaintiffs not in existence at the time defendants supposedly signed the agreements and (3) was ambiguous on its face, in that it provided, *in haec verba,*that: "At the termination of his employment for any reason whatever the Employee will not become engaged in, nor in any manner whatsoever become interested, directly or indirectly, as either Employee, owner, partner, agent, director or officer of a corporation, in any business, trade or occupation similar to the one of the Employer herein, *within a radius of one (1) mile for a term of one (1) year.”*(Emphasis supplied.) The agreement does not, however, indicate from which of plaintiff’s four offices the radius of one mile shall be measured and, if from *each*of them, a serious question is raised as to the reasonableness of the restriction. Gulotta, J. P., Shapiro, Cohalan and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
§ 216.9 Bilateral and multilateral studies and concise reviews of environmental issues. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in these procedures, the Administrator may approve the use of either of the following documents as a substitute for an Environmental Assessment (but not a substitute for an Environmental Impact Statement) required under these procedures: ( a ) Bilateral or multilateral environmental studies, relevant or related to the proposed action, prepared by the United States and one or more foreign countries or by an international body or organization in which the United States is a member or participant; or
( b ) Concise reviews of the environmental issues involved including summary environmental analyses or other appropriate documents.
[45 FR 70249, Oct. 23, 1980]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20640

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARIO MORA SOSA, also known as Carmelino Sesa, also known as Mario 

Mora, also known as Mariano Sosa Mora,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-330-1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Mario Mora Sosa has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Mora Sosa has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 19, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20640 Document: 00514277692 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/19/2017
No. 15-20640

2

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, counsel’s 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.

 Case: 15-20640 Document: 00514277692 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/19/2017
### §300aa–34. Termination of program

#### (a) Reviews

The Secretary shall review the number of awards of compensation made under the program to petitioners under section 300aa–11 of this title for vaccine-related injuries and deaths associated with the administration of vaccines on or after December 22, 1987, as follows:

(1) The Secretary shall review the number of such awards made in the 12-month period beginning on December 22, 1987.

(2) At the end of each 3-month period beginning after the expiration of the 12-month period referred to in paragraph (1) the Secretary shall review the number of such awards made in the 3-month period.

#### (b) Report

(1) If in conducting a review under subsection (a) the Secretary determines that at the end of the period reviewed the total number of awards made by the end of that period and accepted under section 300aa–21(a) of this title exceeds the number of awards listed next to the period reviewed in the table in paragraph (2)—

(A) the Secretary shall notify the Congress of such determination, and

(B) beginning 180 days after the receipt by Congress of a notification under paragraph (1), no petition for a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine on or after December 22, 1987, may be filed under section 300aa–11 of this title.

Section 300aa–11(a) of this title and subpart B of this part shall not apply to civil actions for damages for a vaccine-related injury or death for which a petition may not be filed because of subparagraph (B).

(2) The table referred to in paragraph (1) is as follows:

| **** Period reviewed: | **Total number of awards by the end of the period reviewed** |
| --- | --- |
| 12 months after December 22, 1987 | 150 |
| 13th through the 15th month after December 22, 1987 | 188 |
| 16th through the 18th month after December 22, 1987 | 225 |
| 19th through the 21st month after December 22, 1987 | 263 |
| 22nd through the 24th month after December 22, 1987 | 300 |
| 25th through the 27th month after December 22, 1987 | 338 |
| 28th through the 30th month after December 22, 1987 | 375 |
| 31st through the 33rd month after December 22, 1987 | 413 |
| 34th through the 36th month after December 22, 1987 | 450 |
| 37th through the 39th month after December 22, 1987 | 488 |
| 40th through the 42nd month after December 22, 1987 | 525 |
| 43rd through the 45th month after December 22, 1987 | 563 |
| 46th through the 48th month after December 22, 1987 | 600. |

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXI, §2134, as added Pub. L. 100–203, title IV, §4303(f), Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1330–222.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

In subsecs. (a) and (b), "December 22, 1987" substituted for "the effective date of this subpart" on authority of section 323 of Pub. L. 99–660, as amended, set out as an Effective Date note under section 300aa–1 of this title.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements for the quarter ended June 30, 1999 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           6,571
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,675
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,448
<PP&E>                                         278,396
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 400,101
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,873
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           305
<OTHER-SE>                                     176,508
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   400,101
<SALES>                                         62,564
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                62,564
<CGS>                                           28,483
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,483
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                40,089
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,404
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,412)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        48
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,460)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,460)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.28)


</TABLE>
#### Malsby Machinery Company *v.*Parker.

Evans, P. J.

1. Where the holder of a note wherein title was retained •renewed it by taking a new note, reserving title to himself to the same property, and subsequently by mistake of his counsel an attachment was sued out, based on an indebtedness alleged to be due on the first note, which was levied on the same property, and, on discovery of the mistake, was dismissed, and where subsequently a levy was made on the same property by virtue of a fi. fa. in favor of a third party, and the holder of the second note reserving title interposed a claim, it was error to dismiss the claim on the ground that such facts estopped the claimant from insisting on his title to the property. *Cooper*v. *Smith,*125 *Ga. 167 (53 S.*E. 1013).

2. Where a vendor of personal property takes from the vendee a note re. serving title in the vendor until the purchase-money is paid, which ia duly recorded, and obtains judgment thereon, both general and special, against his vendee, such suit and judgment do not bar the vendor from asserting his title by interposing a claim to a levy of a fi. fa. in favor ^of a third party on the property, where the vendor has not filed a deed *769or bill of sale to his vendee in the clerk’s office, nor caused a levy to be made on the property.

October 15, 1912.

Claim. Before Judge Sheppard. Liberty superior court. September 19, 1911.

*J. V. Kelley,*for plaintiff in error.

*L. L. Thomas*and *Way & BurJchalter,*contra.

3. Applying the principles enunciated in the foregoing headnotes, the court erred in dismissing the claim.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*