alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 15.305 Method of production of material or provision of testimony.

If the production of material or provision of testimony has been authorized, the Department may respond by producing authenticated copies of the documents, to which the seal of the Department has been affixed in accordance with its authentication procedures. The authentication shall be evidence that the documents are true copies of documents in the Department's files and shall be sufficient for the purposes of Rules 803(8) and 902 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Rule 44(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

[73 FR 72207, Nov. 26, 2008]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Michael NIXON, also known as Mike Nixon, DefendantAppellant.

No. 06-20168

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 1, 2007.

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

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Brent Evan Newton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Michael L. Herman, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Larry Michael Nixon appeals the district court’s order of restitution following his guilty plea conviction for two counts of bank fraud. This court reviews the propriety of a particular restitution award for an abuse of discretion. *United States v. Hughey,*147 F.3d 423, 436 (5th Cir.1998). A review of the record shows that the district court’s $9,000,000 restitution order was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
7)

x
287

A S
in t Z!>
| |e ae
| r 5i= O:
at a at 20| 79% 60]
2001 i 2005 0 10 20 40 60 80 100
NN 2002 2006 Kilometers
0 5 10 20 30 40 50
HN 2003 2007 ———<=——<_
2004 Miles

Map A8s-1

Standards and Guidelines
Assessment by Year

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM
### §4771. Method of payment; installments; advances or reimbursement; adjustments

Payments under this chapter may be made in installments, and in advance or by way of reimbursement, as the Office may determine, with necessary adjustments on account of overpayments or underpayments.

(Pub. L. 91–648, title V, §512, Jan. 5, 1971, 84 Stat. 1929; 1978 Reorg. Plan No. 2, §102, eff. Jan. 1, 1979, 43 F.R. 36037, 92 Stat. 3783.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, means the provisions of subchapters I, II, III, and IV of this chapter. See section 4761 of this title.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

"Office", meaning Office of Personnel Management, substituted in text for "Commission", meaning Civil Service Commission, pursuant to Reorg. Plan No. 2 of 1978, §102, 43 F.R. 36037, 92 Stat. 3783, set out under section 1101 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, which transferred functions vested by statute in Civil Service Commission and Chairman thereof to Director of Office of Personnel Management (except as otherwise specified), effective Jan. 1, 1979, as provided by section 1–102 of Ex. Ord. No. 12107, Dec. 28, 1978, 44 F.R. 1055, set out under section 1101 of Title 5.
RVAAC	Communications	Sub - committee #9 October	2,	2014 1:00 - 3:00	PM Agenda Call -in	Number: 888 - 396 - 7314	or	773 - 756 - 0935 Password: 8020595 CART: www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=100214USAB100pm 1. Welcome	and	Self

-introductions 2. Brief	Review	of	September	11	face -to - face	meeting a. Thanks To our	presentation,	we	have	a	better	sense	of	the logistics	involved	in	sign	size	and	placement. b. We	cannot	require announcements;	we	can	require	that	when announcements	are	made,	they	are	accessible c. Should	advertisements	that	are	included	with	announcements also	be	made	accessible?		(e.g.	sponsorships) d. Potential	list	of	recommendations	could	be	created	and	sent	to DOT &	FRA.		Volunteer? 3. Review	Issues	Document and	take	action a. 

### Emergency Notification - i. Use of bed shakers and visible door knocks for people who are deaf or hard -of - hearing ii. Notification of persons with vision impairments iii. Visual emergency alerts (flashing fire alarms and such) in all parts of the rail cars -- compartments, main area, restrooms, etc. b. Examine potential overlaps with FTA and FRA requirements 4. Connecting	emergency	information	to	emergency	lighting 5. Committee	and	Public	comments 6. Next	meeting – November	6 th ? 7. Adjourn No	Handouts
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Carl Pierelli, Appellant.

Judgment of conviction affirmed. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente and Bastow, JJ.; Stevens, J., dissents and votes to reverse in the following memorandum: I dissent and vote to reverse the conviction of the defendant Carl Pierelli on the ground that his guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. I might also comment that in my view the sentence imposed was excessive. The defendant had no prior criminal record, and to impose a sentence of $125 or 25 days and 30 days in my view far exceeds the demands of justice.
### §6914a. Labeling of lubricating oil

For purposes of any provision of law which requires the labeling of commodities, lubricating oil shall be treated as lawfully labeled only if it bears the following statement, prominently displayed:

### "DON'T POLLUTE—CONSERVE RESOURCES; RETURN USED OIL TO COLLECTION CENTERS".

(Pub. L. 89–272, title II, §2005, as added Pub. L. 96–463, §4(a), Oct. 15, 1980, 94 Stat. 2056.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2005 of Pub. L. 89–272 was renumbered section 2006 and is classified to section 6915 of this title.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Hunter, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 4, 1976, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered as to the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. The facts have been considered and are determined to have been established. The appellant became embroiled in an altercation with cab driver Joseph Sebastiano which resulted in his arrest and indictment for various crimes, including criminal possession of a weapon (dangerous knife) in the fourth degree. At the trial, the appellant, admitting to the possession of the knife, testified that he drew that instrument in self-defense, upon viewing Sebastiano’s return from an office with a baseball bat in his possession. The trial court refused the request of appellant’s counsel to instruct the jury as to the defense of justification. The jury returned a verdict convicting the appellant of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. Upon this appeal the appellant contends, and the People concede, that the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on the defense of justification constituted reversible error. We agree and have ordered a new trial on that count of the indictment. The most favorable view of the evidence as contained in the record indicates that the issue of justification was raised at the trial (see *People v Steele,*26 NY2d 526, 528-529). A conviction under subdivision (2) of section 265.01 of the Penal Law requires that the People establish that the appellant possessed a *dangerous knife with the intent to use it unlawfully against another.*The appellant admits to possession of a knife and does not challenge its characterization as a "dangerous” knife. Although possession of a dangerous knife is *presumptive evidence*of intent to use the instrument unlawfully (see Penal Law, §265.15, subd 4), here such presumption was insufficient to maintain a conviction since the jury could have found that appellant used the instrument in self-defense against Sebastiano, who was in possession of a baseball bat, thus negating the requisite intent. We have reviewed the appellant’s remaining arguments and have found them to be without merit. Hopkins, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Margett, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Woodson Hobbs, dohereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to: 

 

•                  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof the Intellisync Corporation for the quarter ended October 31, 2005,fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

•                  the information contained in suchQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Intellisync Corporation. 

 

 
| Dated:  December 12, 2005           |
|------------------------------------------|
|                                     |
|                                     |
| /s/ WOODSON HOBBS                        |   |
| **Woodson  Hobbs**                       |
| *President  and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
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

JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MALAYTHONG BUSH a/k/a

MALAYTHONG SINGH, individually

and d/b/a LUCKY PIZZA,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-00454 WHA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. sued defendant Malaythong Bush for allegedly

exhibiting at a commercial establishment a pay-per-view fight telecast to which plaintiff claims

to have owned the exclusive domestic commercial exhibition rights. On May 5, 2010, plaintiff

filed a stipulation of dismissal on the grounds that the parties had settled this action (Dkt. No.

39). Now plaintiff has filed a “motion to set aside settlement and reopen action” on the grounds

that defendants have allegedly failed to honor the terms of the settlement agreement.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3, any brief in opposition to plaintiff’s motion was due

on July 22, 2010, but no such opposition has been received. Defendant is ordered to respond by

AUGUST 3, 2010, at noon, and show cause for its failure to respond to the motion in accordance

with Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) or alternatively to file a statement of nonopposition to the motion

as required by Civil Local Rule 7-3(b). This order to show cause does not constitute permission

Case 3:09-cv-00454-WHA Document 42 Filed 07/27/10 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

to file a late opposition. The hearing on August 12, 2010, is VACATED. A new hearing shall be

noticed by the Court if necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00454-WHA Document 42 Filed 07/27/10 Page 2 of 2
## Support Documents for

Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) on

Premanufacture Notice (PMN)

P-03-722

EPA Docket EPA

- HQ

- OPPT -2011-0577

## Index

A-001 Structure Activity Team (SAT) Report for

PMN P-03-722

A-002 Initial Review Engineering Report for

PMN P-03-722

A-003 Initial Review Exposure Report for

PMN P-03-722

## A-001

Structure Activity Team (SAT) Report

for PMN P-03-722

## A-002

Initial Review Engineering Report

for PMN P-03-722

## A-003

Initial Review Exposure Report

for PMN P-03-722
§ 97.4 Issuance of a Hague Adoption Certificate or a Hague Custody Declaration (outgoing Convention case). ( a ) Once the Convention has entered into force for the United States, the Secretary shall issue a Hague Adoption Certificate or a Hague Custody Declaration if the Secretary, in the Secretary's discretion, is satisfied that the adoption or grant of custody was made in compliance with the Convention and the IAA.
( b ) If compliance with the Convention can be certified but it is not possible to certify compliance with the IAA, the Secretary personally may authorize issuance of an appropriately modified Hague Adoption Certificate or Hague Custody Declaration, in the interests of justice or to prevent grave physical harm to the child.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HALSEY MINOR, an individual,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHRISTIE’S INC., a New York

corporation, and DOES 1 through 20,

inclusive,

Defendants. /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

No. C 08-05445 WHA (Lead Case)

Consolidated with:

No. C 09-00471 WHA

ORDER REGARDING 

DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS

The Court has reviewed the Gladstone deposition designations submitted by counsel. In

making these designations, counsel did not follow the procedures set forth in paragraph 20 of the

undersigned’s “Guidelines for Trial and Final Pretrial Conference in Civil Jury Cases.” As a

result of this failure, it was difficult for the Court to know what has and has not been objected to

by counsel. Nevertheless, the undersigned worked through the Gladstone deposition designations

and it is ready to be picked up from the Court’s deputy clerk, Dawn Toland. The undersigned,

however, did not attempt to review the Blaine deposition designations and will not do so until the

procedures set forth in paragraph 20 of the guidelines have been followed. The Blaine deposition

designations are also available for immediate pickup from Ms. Toland.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-05445-WHA Document 100 Filed 05/12/10 Page 1 of 1
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-01T18:54:41-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
#### Joseph Woolsleger, Respondent, v. Fred Cornell, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur.
#### § 230.06 Transferability of Guarantee; Note Register.

A Noteholder may assign, transfer or pledge an Eligible Note to any Person. Any such assignment, transfer or pledge shall be effective on the date that the name of the new Noteholder is entered on the Note Register required to be maintained by the Fiscal Agent pursuant to the Fiscal Agency Agreement. USAID shall be entitled to treat the Persons in whose names the Eligible Notes are registered as the owners thereof for all purposes of this Guarantee and USAID shall not be affected by notice to the contrary.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 02

- 00391

- CV

Aero Nautical Leasing Corporation and Lawrence Allen, Appellants

v.

State of Texas; City of College Station, Texas; and County of Brazos, Texas, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 250TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GV103293, HONORABLE DARLENE BYRNE, JUDGE PRESIDING

The parties have filed an agreed motion to reverse the judgment of the trial court, remand

for further proceedings, and to tax co sts against the party incurring same.

In accordance with the agreement, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause

remanded for further proceedings. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(d).

__________________________________________
Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices Patterson and Puryear

Reversed and Remanded on Agreed Motion

Filed: September 26, 2002

Do Not Publish
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2776 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 4 [(4 amino phenyl) azo] 

benzene sulfonic acid. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 7, 2005 

Mr. CLAY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 4 [(4 amino 

phenyl) azo] benzene sulfonic acid. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 4 [(4 AMINO PHENYL) AZO] BENZENE SULFONIC 

4 ACID. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.02.41 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 4 [(4 amino phenyl) azo] benzene sulfonic acid) is amend8 ed by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2009’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•HR 2776 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
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

G:\CRBALL\2009\0103\osc 2255.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ANTHONY JOHNSTON,

Defendant. /

No. C 09-00103-9 CRB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Defendant has filed a motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Mot. (dkt.

405). He argues that his prior offenses do not qualify as crimes of violence and that his

constitutional claim under Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) is viable. See

generally id. Good cause appearing therefor, the Government is hereby ORDERED to file an

opposition to Defendant’s motion within 60 days of this Order. Defendant may file a

response within 30 days thereafter, if he wishes to do so.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 31, 2016 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cr-00103-CRB Document 409 Filed 05/31/16 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of the City of New York, Appellant, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property Required for Lincoln Square Slum Clearance Project. D. M. Haber & Sons, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Motion [No. 155] for an extension of time granted to the extent and upon the conditions set forth in the order of this court on motion No. 183, decided simultaneously herewith. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.
# **Exhibit 4.6**

 
| **[LOGO UNION  BANK OF CALIFORNIA]** | **ENERGY CAPITAL SERVICES** |
|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------|

 

 

 

 

 

September 21, 2001

 

 

 

Edge Petroleum Corporation

Edge Petroleum ExplorationCompany

Edge Petroleum OperatingCompany, Inc.

2100 Texaco Heritage Plaza

Houston, Texas 77002

Attention: Mr. Mike Long

 

Gentlemen:

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement in the amount of$25.0 million by and among Edge Petroleum Corporation , Edge PetroleumExploration Company and Edge Petroleum Operating Company, Inc. as Borrowers andUnion Bank of California, N.A. as Agent and Lender dated as of October 6, 2000(the “Credit Agreement”). All capitalized terms herein shall have the meaningassigned to such terms in the Credit Agreement unless otherwise defined herein.

 

The purpose of this letter isto inform you that the Agent and sole Lender has redetermined the BorrowingBase and the amount of the monthly Borrowing Base reduction pursuant to Section2.10 of the Credit Agreement. Effective immediately, the Borrowing Base shallremain at the amount of $14.0 million and the monthly Borrowing Base reductionshall be zero. Both such figures shall be effective until the nextredetermination thereof pursuant to Section 2.10 of the Credit Agreement.

 

All other terms and conditionscontained in the Credit Agreement remain unchanged and in full force andeffect.

 

If you are in agreement withthe forgoing please evidence your agreement by executing this letter in thespace provided and returning one fully-executed counterpart to the undersigned.

 
| Sincerely,               |
|--------------------------|
|                     |
| /s/ Damien  G. Meiburger |
| Damien G.  Meiburger     |
| Senior Vice  President   |

 

ACCEPTED and AGREED

This 24 day of September, 2001

 

 
|                 |
|----------------------|
|                 |
| /s/ Michael  G. Long |

Authorized Officer on behalf ofEdge Petroleum Corporation,

Edge Petroleum ExplorationCompany and Edge Petroleum Operating Company, Inc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

# **4200 LINCOLN PLAZA, 500 NORTH AKARD, DALLAS,TEXAS 75201**

214 922 4200                Fax 214 922 4209
#### In the Matter of Herbert Nagle, Respondent, v Priscilla Cunningham, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 8, 1977, denying the appellant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. In 1963, the parties entered into a separation agreement providing, among other things, for the petitioner father to make payments of $600 per annum for support of the sole child, the custody of whom was given to the appellant wife. Some 13 years went by, during which the petitioner was abroad and made no payments nor visited the child. He now seeks visitation, and the appellant asks for an order of protection to enjoin the petitioner from communicating with the son, and a hearing is scheduled. Inasmuch as it is the best interest of the child with which we are concerned, we should not by summary judgment foreclose the possibility, however doubtful, that visitation might be beneficial. However, as evidence of the father’s good faith, it would be in order for the court to require that the payments for the support of the child, long past due, should be made. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Silverman, Evans, Lane and Sullivan, JJ.