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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

# Time and Date:

11 a.m. Friday, January 7, 2005.

# Place:

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

# Status:

Closed.

# Matters to be Considered:

Surveillance matters.

# Contact Person for More Information:

Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04-28411  Filed 12-22-04; 3:38 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
### §3797ff–1. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3797ff–1 was editorially reclassified as section 10702 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77711-77712]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28372]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Northwest Sacramento Provincial Advisory Committee (SAC PAC)

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Northwest Sacramento Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC) 
will meet on January 13, 2005, at Red Bluff, California. The purpose of 
the meeting is to discuss issues relating to implementing the Northwest 
Forest Plan.

DATES: The meeting will be held on January 13, 2005.
    Location: The meeting will be held in the Conference Room at the 
Fish and Wildlife Service office at 10950 Tyler Road, Red Bluff, CA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Nelson, Committee Coordinator, 
USDA, Shasta-Trinity National Forest, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, CA 
96002 (530) 226-2429; or by e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5238393c373e213d3c1234217c3437367c2721"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="046e6f6a6168776b6a4462772a6261602a7177">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public.

[[Page 77712]]

 Opportunity will be provided for public input and individuals will 
have the opportunity to address the Committee at that time.

    Dated: December 17, 2004.
J. Sharon Heywood,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 04-28372 Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-FK-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### §7233. Experts and consultants

The Secretary may obtain services as authorized by section 3109 of title 5, at rates not to exceed the daily rate prescribed for grade GS–18 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5 for persons in Government service employed intermittently.

(Pub. L. 95–91, title VI, §623, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 598.)

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

#### References in Other Laws to GS–16, 17, or 18 Pay Rates

References in laws to the rates of pay for GS–16, 17, or 18, or to maximum rates of pay under the General Schedule, to be considered references to rates payable under specified sections of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, see section 529 [title I, §101(c)(1)] of Pub. L. 101–509, set out in a note under section 5376 of Title 5.
§ 180.510 Interrogatories. ( a ) Any party may serve on any other party written interrogatories to be answered by the party served. If the party served is a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, or a governmental agency, the interrogatories may be answered by any authorized officer or agent who shall furnish such information as may be available to the party. A party may serve not more than 30 written interrogatories on another party without an order of the ALJ.
( b ) Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath or affirmation, unless it is objected to, in which event, the reasons for the objection shall be stated in lieu of an answer. The answers shall be signed by the person making them, and the objections may be signed by the attorney or other representative making them. The answers and objections shall be served within 15 days after service of the interrogatories.
( c ) It is a sufficient answer to an interrogatory to specify the records from which the answer may be derived or ascertained if: ( 1 ) The answer to the interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the records of the party on whom the interrogatory has been served or from an examination, audit or inspection of such records, or from a compilation, abstract or summary based thereon, and
( 2 ) The burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer is substantially the same for the party serving the interrogatory as the party served. The party serving the interrogatory shall be afforded reasonable opportunity to examine, audit or inspect such records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts or summaries. The specification shall include sufficient detail to permit the interrogating party to locate and identify the individual records from which the answer may be ascertained.
( d ) Objections to the form of written interrogatories are waived unless served in writing upon the party propounding the interrogatories.
#### In the Matter of Edmund F. Wolk, an Attorney, Respondent. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Petitioner.

First Department,

April 6, 1978

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*James D. Porter, Jr.,*of counsel *(Michael Alan Schwarts*with him on the brief), for petitioner.

*692
      *Edmund F. Wolk,*respondent *pro se.*

OPINION OF THE COURT

*Per Curiam.*

Respondent was admitted to practice in the Second Judicial Department on April *4,*1956 and maintains law offices at 25 West 43rd Street, New York, N. Y. in the First Judicial Department. On or about August 30, 1976, respondent was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York of four counts, each a misdemeanor, of unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly failing to file a Federal Income Tax return for the calendar years 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972 (US Code, tit 26, § 7203). He was fined $8,000, which he has paid, and placed on probation for a period of two years.

Respondent does not deny the conviction but contends that a conviction for failure to file income tax returns does not establish professional misconduct. In the absence of very special circumstances, a conviction for failure to file income taxes constitutes professional misconduct. *(Matter of McNiff,*48 AD2d 408; *Matter of Jaffe,*42 AD2d 26; *Matter of Bernstein,*31 AD2d 213; *Matter of Landis,*21 AD2d 488.) None is shown here. We, therefore, confirm the Referee’s report sustaining the charge of professional misconduct.

As for the sanction to be imposed, we are mindful that respondent has had an otherwise satisfactory record during the 23 years since his admission to the Bar, that for the period of time involved he was beset with serious personal problems, that there appears to have been no dishonesty on respondent’s part in the sense of filing a false return, that in each of the years involved, he procured extensions of time to file, and that in the final analysis, no one but respondent was hurt by his misconduct.

Respondent should be censured. (Cf. *Matter of Driscoll,*54 AD2d 99.)

Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Lane, Markewich and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Respondent censured.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Billy Joe FINNEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-10233

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 17, 2007.

Michael J. Worley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mark Allem McAdoo, Law Offices of Mark A. McAdoo, Arlington, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Billy Joe Finney appeals following his guilty-plea conviction and 151-month sentence for distribution of more than five grams of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base, and aiding and abetting. Finney argues that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because the district court imposed a two-level firearm enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l) to which he did not admit and that was not proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby violating his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.

Finney’s waiver-of-appeal provision does not bar claims relating to the voluntariness of the plea. To the extent that Finney’s challenge to his guilty plea is based on a violation of the Sixth Amendment, his argument is without merit. Finney was sentenced in January 2006, after the Supreme Court’s decision in *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). *Booker*solved the Sixth Amendment problem of judicial fact-finding by making the Guidelines advisory. *See United States v. Johnson,*445 F.3d 793, 797 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 2884, 165 L.Ed.2d 908 (2006). After *Booker,*the sentencing court is still required to calculate the guideline range in the same manner as before *Booker*and to make factual findings by a preponderance of the evidence. *Id.*at 798.

The plea colloquy shows that Finney was fully aware of the consequences of pleading guilty. *See United States v. Rivera,*898 F.2d 442, 447 (5th Cir.1990). Accordingly, Finney has not shown that his guilty plea is involuntary or that there are due process concerns associated with his plea. *See id.; United States v. Pearson,*910 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir.1990).

In view of the foregoing, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s motion for summary affir-mance is GRANTED.

*

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TRANSCEND THERAPEUTICS, INC. FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD
ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,145,752
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,543,957
<PP&E>                                          76,189
<DEPRECIATION>                                  33,349
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,796,383
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,189,859
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 21,067,350
<COMMON>                                         7,898
<OTHER-SE>                                (15,468,724)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,796,383
<SALES>                                      5,000,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,000,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,472,609
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,552,637
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,552,637
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,552,637
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.83
        

</TABLE>
#### Seagraves *et al. v.*Blake.

May 14, 1912.

Complaint. Before Judge Daniel. Pike superior court. May 20, 1912.

*B. C. Armistead,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Cleveland & Goodrich,*contra.

Lumpkin, J.

The evidence authorized a finding in favor of the plaintiff; and, as against the defendants, there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial and allowing the verdict to stand, after being reduced as to the amount of interest and attorney’s fees due on the note upon which the suit was based.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

RE SENTENCING [Case No.: CR 09-0033 WHA] 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY D. SCHINKEL,

Defendant.

Case No.: CR 09-0033 WHA

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE 

SENTENCING

This case was previously set for sentencing on Tuesday, May 11, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. In 

order to provide the Probation Officer with the additional time that she requires to prepare the 

initial Pre-Sentence Report, the parties stipulate and request that the Court continue the 

sentencing in this case until Tuesday, June 8, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. 

SO STIPULATED:

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO 

United States Attorney

Dated: April 14, 2010 ______/s/______________________

OWEN MARTIKAN

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:09-cr-00033-WHA Document 45 Filed 04/19/10 Page 1 of 2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

RE SENTENCING [Case No.: CR 09-0033 WHA] 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

Dated: April 14, 2010 _____/s/____________________

EDWIN PRATHER

Attorney for Defendant

JEFFREY D. SCHINKEL

[PROPOSED] ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING and per the partiesʼ stipulation, the sentencing 

hearing in this case is hereby continued until June 8, 2010, at 2:00 p.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ____________________ _______________________________

HON. WILLIAM H. ALSUP

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

April 19, 2010.

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge William Alsup

Case 3:09-cr-00033-WHA Document 45 Filed 04/19/10 Page 2 of 2
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,864

EX PARTE GUADALUPE VASQUEZ, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 2004-404,954 IN THE 137TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM LUBBOCK COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of assault on a public

servant and aggravated assault on a public servant, and he was sentenced, respectively, to concurrent

terms of ten years and ninety-nine years in prison. The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed the

convictions in an unpublished opinion. Vasquez v. State, No. 07-04-000482-CR (Tex. App. –

Amarillo del. Aug. 19, 2005). 

Applicant contends he was denied his right to pursue a petition for discretionary review from

the appellate court’s decision. Appellate counsel has provided an affidavit regarding the claim, and
-2-

based on that affidavit, the trial court has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law

recommending relief be granted. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

We agree with the trial court and hold that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an

out-of-time petition for discretionary review of the judgment of the Seventh Court of Appeals in

Appeal No. 07-04-000482-CR that affirmed his conviction in Cause No. 2004-404954 from the

137th District Court of Lubbock County. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary review

with this Court within 30 days of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Delivered: August 22, 2012

Do not publish
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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

VIRGINIA ROBERSON,

Defendant. /

No. CR 09-0523 WHA

ORDER REGARDING

LETTER FROM DEFENDANT

The Court has received the appended letter from defendant. Defendant is referred to

counsel for follow up. The Court has already accommodated Ms. Roberson considerably and

will not make further orders absent a strong motion and one demonstrating that the Court still

has jurisdiction to grant further relief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cr-00523-WHA Document 151 Filed 08/22/10 Page 1 of 8
Case 3:09-cr-00523-WHA Document 151 Filed 08/22/10 Page 2 of 8
Case 3:09-cr-00523-WHA Document 151 Filed 08/22/10 Page 3 of 8
Case 3:09-cr-00523-WHA Document 151 Filed 08/22/10 Page 4 of 8
Case 3:09-cr-00523-WHA Document 151 Filed 08/22/10 Page 5 of 8
Case 3:09-cr-00523-WHA Document 151 Filed 08/22/10 Page 6 of 8
Case 3:09-cr-00523-WHA Document 151 Filed 08/22/10 Page 7 of 8
Case 3:09-cr-00523-WHA Document 151 Filed 08/22/10 Page 8 of 8
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

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEMAN SALOMON MYVETTREGINA AGUIRE MYVETT,

Plaintiffs,

    v.

LITTON LOAN SERVICING, LP,

Defendant.                                                                      /

No. C 08-5797 MMC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On March 26, 2010, plaintiffs failed to appear as ordered at a regularly scheduled

Case Management Conference in the above-entitled action.  Counsel for defendants

appeared.

Accordingly, plaintiffs are hereby ordered to show cause, in writing, filed with the

Court and served on opposing counsel no later than April 9, 2010, why the case should not

be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

If plaintiffs fail to timely respond to this Order, the case will be dismissed pursuant to

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  March 26, 2010                                                  MAXINE M. CHESNEYUnited States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05797-MMC   Document 85   Filed 03/26/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-10T19:28:29-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
#### Mohamed Al Fayed, Respondent, v Daphne Barak, Appellant.

[833 NYS2d 500]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered October 25, 2006, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment against her, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant’s arguments that plaintiffs service of the summons, pursuant to CPLR 308 (2), was not proper, and that the *372court did not, therefore, obtain personal jurisdiction over her, were not raised in the motion court, and are unpreserved *(see Rosenberg v Haddad,*208 AD2d 468 [1994]). We do not reach them, but were we to do so, we would find that service was properly left with the doorman of defendant’s building, access to the building having been prohibited to the process server *(id.; F.I. duPont, Glore Forgan & Co. v Chen,*41 NY2d 794, 798 [1977]), who was informed that defendant was not at home *(see Charnin v Cogan,*250 AD2d 513, 517 [1998]; *Board of Mgrs. of Le Trianon Condominium v 1439 Realty Corp.,*186 AD2d 437 [1992]).

The factual allegations contained in plaintiffs affidavit pursuant to CPLR 3215 (f) sufficiently support the claims against defendant. Having failed to answer the allegations, defendant is deemed to have “admitted] all traversable allegations in the complaint, including the basic allegations of liability” *(Rokina Opt. Co. v Camera King,*63 NY2d 728, 730 [1984]), and since plaintiff, by reason of defendant’s failure to answer, does not have the benefit of discovery, “the affidavit or verified complaint need only allege enough facts to enable a court to determine that a viable cause of action exists” *(Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp.,*100 NY2d 62, 71 [2003]; *see also Joosten v Gale,*129 AD2d 531, 535 [1987]).

The overwhelming evidence from the hearing establishes that defendant deliberately evaded service of process, and actually received the mailed summons, but rejected it. Under these circumstances, defendant was not entitled to have her default vacated, either under CPLR 317 or CPLR 5015 *(see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co.,*67 NY2d 138, 143 [1986]; *Kaplan v D'Agostino Supermarkets,*210 AD2d 79 [1994]; *Pena v Mittleman,*179 AD2d 607, 610 [1992]).

We do not consider defendant’s arguments regarding the substantive remedies contained in the judgment. They were not raised before the court in the arguments leading to the order appealed from, and are not properly before us *(see Zimmerman v Gaines Serv. Leasing Corp.,*249 AD2d 215, 216 [1998]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Sweeny, Malone and Kavanagh, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2820 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2820

        To suspend temporarily the duty on certain volleyballs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 8, 2005

  Mr. Neal of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To suspend temporarily the duty on certain volleyballs.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN VOLLEYBALLS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.95.10       Volleyballs        Free         Free             No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         (provided for in                                                   31/2009
                         subheading
                         9506.62.80)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```