alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Erasmo ESTRADA-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-51188

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 18, 2007.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Alberto M. Ramon, Law Office of Alberto M. Ramon, Eagle Pass, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*263Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Er-asmo Estrada-Rodriguez has filed a motion for leave to withdraw and a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Estrada-Rodriguez has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivo-lous issue. 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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
(May 26, 1960)

#### In the Matter of Thomas Restani, Doing Business as Cadillac Lounge *&*Restaurant, Respondent. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Appellant.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Industrial Commissioner made an initial determination assessing the employer, who operates a restaurant, for unemployment insurance contributions on wages paid to musicians. The determination has been modified by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal B-oard by reversing the assessment except in certain particulars not here in dispute. We are of opinion the Commissioner’s determination of liability for assessments was right and should have been sustained as a matter of law and that there is no substantial evidence in support of the board’s finding that the musicians were not employees of the employer. The question turns on the right of control under the facts of the case. The written agreement between the employer and the American Federation of Musicians representing the employed musicians provided that this employer “ shall at all times have complete control of the services which the employees will render”. The proof of actual performance of the contract did not run counter to the explicit vesting of control; it was consistent with it and showed actual control. Determination of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed and initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner reinstated, without costs. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77274-77275]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28159]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY


Cultural Diversity Advisory Committee Meetings (Teleconference)

AGENCY: National Council on Disability (NCD).
    Time and date: 3 p.m. e.s.t., January 13, 2005.
    Place: National Council on Disability, 1331 F Street, NW., Suite 
850, Washington, DC
    Status: All parts of this meeting will be open to the public. Those 
interested in participating in this meeting should contact the 
appropriate staff member listed below. Due to limited resources, only a 
few telephone lines will be available for the call.
    Agenda: Roll call, announcements, reports, new business, 
adjournment.

Contact person for more information: Geraldine (Gerrie) Drake Hawkins, 
PhD., Program Analyst, NCD, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 850, Washington, 
DC 20004; 202-272-2004 (voice), 202-272-2074 (TTY), 202-272-2022 (fax), 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f99e91988e9290978ab9979a9dd79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2d4a454c5a4644435e6d434e49034a425b">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Cultural Diversity Advisory Committee Mission: The purpose of NCD's 
Cultural Diversity Advisory Committee is to provide advice and 
recommendations to NCD on issues affecting people with disabilities 
from culturally diverse backgrounds. Specifically, the committee will 
help identify issues, expand outreach, infuse participation, and 
elevate the voices of underserved and unserved segments of this 
nation's population that will help NCD develop federal policy that will 
address the needs and advance the civil and human rights of people from 
diverse cultures.


[[Page 77275]]


    Dated: December 17, 2004.
Jeff Rosen,
Acting Executive Director and General Counsel and Director of Policy.
[FR Doc. 04-28159 Filed 12-23-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-MA-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### TREADWELL et al., Respondents, v. J. A. MEAD MFG. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 19, 1902.)

Action by M. H. Treadwell & Co. against the J. A. Mead Manufacturing Company. ' R. B. Knowles, for appellant. J. J. Adams, for respondents.

No opinion. Motion denied, without costs.
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

Law Offices of 

GEORGE C. BOISSEAU 

State Bar Number 75872

740 4 Street th

Second Floor

Santa Rosa, California 95404

Phone: (707) 578-5636

Fax: (707) 578-1141

E-Mail: boisseaugc@msn.com

Attorney for Defendant

ABELARDO GARCIA-REYES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CR-09-0705-MMC 

)

Plaintiff, ) [Proposed]

) STIPULATION AND ORDER 

v. ) CONTINUING SUPERVISED

) RELEASE VIOLATION HEARING

)

ABELARDO GARCIA-REYES, )

)

Defendant. )

 )

 

Defendant, ABELARDO GARCIA-REYES, by and through defendant’s attorney of

record, George C. Boisseau, and agreement of the Government and the United States

Probation Department, hereby requests that the supervised release violation hearing set for

May 13, 2015, be continued until July 15, 2015, at 2:15 in the afternoon. The reason for the

request is that the defense is requesting the retest of the reference samples, sweat patches in

question, and has not received the results, the defendant has been taken off the sweat patches

by the United States Probation Department and has tested negative for any drug use by

1

Case 3:09-cr-00705-MMC Document 34 Filed 05/13/15 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

conventional testing methods, and the parties wish to continue the matter to monitor the

defendant’s progress.

Dated: May 12, 2015 

 /s/ 

GEORGE C. BOISSEAU

Attorney for Defendant

ABELARDO GARCIA-REYES

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: May 12, 2015

 /s/ 

ANDREW SCOBLE

Assistant U.S. Attorney

ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, finding that the defense needs additional time to retest

the reference samples from the sweat patches at issue in this case, it is hereby ordered that

defendant's supervised release violation hearing on May 13, 2015, be continued to July 15, 

2015, at 2:15 in the afternoon. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

 

HON. MAXINE M. CHESNEY 

U.S. District Judge 

Northern District of California

2

May 13, 2015

Case 3:09-cr-00705-MMC Document 34 Filed 05/13/15 Page 2 of 2
§ 146.45 Exhaustion of administrative remedies. ( a ) A complainant may file a civil action following the exhaustion of administrative remedies under the Act. Administrative remedies are exhausted if: ( 1 ) 180 days have elapsed since the complainant filed the complaint and HUD had made no finding with regard to the complaint; or
( 2 ) HUD issues any finding in favor of the recipient.
( b ) If HUD fails to make a finding within 180 days or issues a finding in favor of the recipient, HUD shall: ( 1 ) Promptly advise the complainant of this fact;
( 2 ) Advise the complainant of his or her right to bring a civil action for injunctive relief; and
( 3 ) Inform the complainant: ( i ) That he or she may bring a civil action only in a United States District Court for the district in which the recipient is located or transacts business;
( ii ) That a complainant prevailing in a civil action has the right to be awarded the costs of the action, including reasonable attorney's fees, but that the complainant must demand these costs in the complaint;
( iii ) That before commencing the action, the complainant must give 30 days' notice by registered mail to the Secretary of HUD, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Attorney General of the United States, and the recipient;
( iv ) That the notice must state: the alleged violation of the Act, the relief requested, the court in which the complainant is bringing the action, and whether or not attorney's fees are demanded in the event the complainant prevails; and
( v ) That the complainant may not bring an action if the same alleged violation of the Act by the same recipient is the subject of a pending action in any court of the United States.
§ 1006.355 Nondiscrimination requirements. Program eligibility under the Act and this part may be restricted to Native Hawaiians. Subject to the preceding sentence, no person may be discriminated against on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or disability, or excluded from program eligibility because of actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status. The following nondiscrimination requirements are applicable to the use of NHHBG funds: ( a ) The requirements of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101-6107) and HUD's implementing regulations in 24 CFR part 146;
( b ) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) and HUD's regulations at 24 CFR part 8; and
( c ) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d *et seq.*) and the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601 *et seq.*), to the extent that nothing in their requirements concerning discrimination on the basis of race shall be construed to prevent the provision of NHHBG assistance: ( 1 ) To the DHHL on the basis that the DHHL served Native Hawaiians; or
( 2 ) To an eligible family on the basis that the family is a Native Hawaiian family.
( d ) The equal access to HUD-assisted or -insured housing requirements in 24 CFR 5.105(a)(2).
[67 FR 40776, June 13, 2002, as amended at 81 FR 80993, Nov. 17, 2016]
1 The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation.
2 The Honorable Paul Benson, United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota. ___________ No. 96-1875

___________ Raymond P. Zajac, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of North Dakota. AgriBank, formerly known as * The Federal Land Bank of * [UNPUBLISHED] Saint Paul, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 9, 1995 Filed: December 13, 1996

___________ Before BOWMAN and LAY, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, 1 District Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM. Raymond Zajac appeals from the order of the District Court 2 granting summary judgment in favor of AgriBank on his claims of abuse of process, trespass, and forcible ejection from real property. We have reviewed carefully the record and the parties' submissions and have concluded that the District Court was clearly correct for the reasons stated in the court's opinion. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. William F. Quesse et al., plaintiffs in error.

Gen. No. 27,939.

Charge of conspiracy. Each defendant guilty in separate verdict and sentenced to imprisonment. Error to the Criminal Court of Cook county; the Hon. McDonald, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 31, 1923.

Willard M. McEwen, Charles P. R. Macaulay and -Cruiee, Langille & Harrington, for plaintiffs in error. Robert E. Crowe, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error; Edwin J. Raber, E. E. Wilson and Wm. S. Stewart, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Vertrue Incorporated (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary A. Johnson,
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, certify, to my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Gary A. Johnson
-------------------
Gary A. Johnson
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
Vertrue Incorporated
May 10, 2005













A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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

ALICIA HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

VECTOR MARKETING CORPORATION,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-08-5198 EMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO QUASH; AND GRANTING

IN PART, DENYING IN PART, AND

DEFERRING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL 30(b)(6)

DEPOSITION

(Docket Nos. 186, 190)

On July 21, 2010, the Court held a hearing on two discovery motions filed by Plaintiff: (1) a

motion to quash and (2) a motion to compel. This order memorializes the rulings made by the Court

at the hearing.

(1) The motion to quash is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant is entitled to

information verifying that Plaintiff attended and/or graduated from the schools at issue. The

information shall be provided by July 28, 2010. The remaining information sought by Defendant

shall not be produced.

(2) The motion to compel is granted in part, denied, in part, and deferred in part.

(a) The motion is denied with respect to Plaintiff’s request for a 30(b)(6)

deposition on the subject matter of the disposition of the knife sample kit upon being returned by a

Sales Rep to Defendant.

(b) The motion is granted to the extent Plaintiff seeks information about the sales

completed by Sales Reps in the period soon after completing the initial training. The motion is

Case 3:08-cv-05198-EMC Document 211 Filed 07/23/10 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

deferred with respect to Plaintiff’s request for information about the compensation received by Sales

Reps. Plaintiff shall have until July 23, 2010, to file evidence supporting her contention that

Defendant engaged in more than mere puffery regarding the amount of money earned by Sales Reps. 

Defendant shall have until July 27, 2010, to file a response to Plaintiff’s evidentiary submission.

(c) The motion is denied with respect to Plaintiff’s request for information about

the compensation of managers.

(d) The motion is granted with respect to Plaintiff’s request for information about

Sales Reps younger than eighteen years of age.

(e) The motion is denied with respect to Plaintiff’s request for information about

advanced training.

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 186 and 190.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2010

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05198-EMC Document 211 Filed 07/23/10 Page 2 of 2
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 05-509 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Acquisition and Cross-Servicing 

 Agreement between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and MALAYSIA 

Signed May 9, 2005 

with 

Annexes 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

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

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

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

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

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

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

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

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

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

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

or authentication thereof.” 
MALAYSIA 

Defense: Acquisition and Cross-Servicing 

 Agreement signed May 9, 2005; 

 Entered into force May 9, 2005. 

 With annexes.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Baudelio VEGA-VILLARREAL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-41125

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 18, 2007.

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

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Baudelio Vega-Villarreal has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Vega-Villarreal has not responded to counsel’s motion.

*277Our independent review of the brief filed by counsel and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 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.

*

 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.
§ 2004.26 Restrictions that apply to testimony. ( a ) The Counsel may impose conditions or restrictions on the testimony of OIG employees including, for example, limiting the areas of testimony or requiring the requester and other parties to the legal proceeding to agree that the transcript of the testimony will be kept under seal or will only be used or made available in the particular legal proceeding for which testimony was requested. The Counsel may also require a copy of the transcript of testimony at the requester's expense.
( b ) The OIG may offer the employee's written declaration in lieu of testimony.
( c ) If authorized to testify pursuant to this part, an employee may testify as to facts within his or her personal knowledge, but, unless specifically authorized to do so by the Counsel, the employee shall not: ( 1 ) Disclose confidential or privileged information;
( 2 ) Testify as to facts when the Counsel determines such testimony would not be in the best interest of OIG, HUD and the United States; or
( 3 ) Testify as an expert or opinion witness with regard to any matter arising out of the employee's official duties or the functions of OIG. This provision does not apply to requests from the United States for expert or opinion testimony.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel. RFP SBIR TOPIC 207—Synthesis Modules of Radio Pharmaceutical Production.                     

*Date:*                         February 23, 2005.                    

*Time:*                         12 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6130 Executive Blvd., Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Kenneth L Bielat, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 7147, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-7576,                         *bielatk@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS.) 

Dated: December 20, 2004.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04-28314  Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M