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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMON CANAS,

Petitioner,

 v.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 09-0081 MMC (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO

FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS

On January 8, 2009, petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional

Training Facility, Soledad, and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a 2007 decision by the California

Board of Prison Hearings (“Board”) to deny petitioner parole. Respondent has filed an

answer to the petition and petitioner has filed a traverse.

A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit addresses important issues relating to federal

review of parole decisions. See Hayward v Marshall, No. 06-55392, 2010 WL 1664977 (9th

Cir. April 22, 2010) (en banc). Consequently, the parties will be directed to file

supplemental briefs setting forth their respective views as to the effect, if any, of the

Hayward en banc decision on the Court’s determination of the instant petition.

Case 3:09-cv-00081-MMC Document 8 Filed 05/20/10 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

Accordingly, the Court hereby sets the following briefing schedule:

1. No later than ten days from the date this order is filed, respondent shall send to

petitioner a copy of the Hayward en banc decision. 

2. No later than twenty days from the date this order is filed, respondent shall file

and serve on petitioner a supplemental brief addressing the impact of Hayward on the instant

action. 

3. No later than twenty days from the date respondent’s supplemental brief is

filed, petitioner shall file and serve on respondent either a supplemental brief addressing the

impact of Hayward on the instant action or a notice that he does not intend to file such a

brief.

4. The parties’ respective supplemental briefs shall not exceed fifteen pages in length.

5. The matter will be deemed submitted on the date petitioner’s supplemental brief is

due. No extensions of time will be granted to file the supplemental briefs absent a showing

of exceptional circumstances. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 20, 2010 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00081-MMC Document 8 Filed 05/20/10 Page 2 of 2
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 Grandparents.com, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2014 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Steven E. Leber, Chief Executive
Officer, and Riaz Latifullah, Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



Date: August 19, 2014

| | /s/ Steven E. Leber     | 
| | ----------------------- | 
| | Steven E. Leber        
| | Chief Executive Officer
| |                        
| | /s/ Riaz Latifullah     | 
| | Riaz Latifullah        
| | Chief Financial Officer
§ 96.84 Reinstatement of accreditation or approval after suspension or cancellation by the Secretary. ( a ) An agency or person may petition the Secretary for relief from the Secretary's suspension or cancellation of its accreditation or approval on the grounds that the deficiencies necessitating the suspension or cancellation have been corrected. If the Secretary is satisfied that the deficiencies that led to the suspension or cancellation have been corrected, the Secretary shall, in the case of a suspension, terminate the suspension or, in the case of a cancellation, notify the agency or person that it may reapply for accreditation or approval to the same accrediting entity that handled its prior application for accreditation or approval. If that accrediting entity is no longer providing accreditation or approval services, the agency or person may reapply to any accrediting entity with jurisdiction over its application. If the Secretary terminates a suspension or permits an agency or person to reapply for accreditation or approval, the Secretary will so notify the appropriate accrediting entity. If the Secretary terminates a suspension, the Secretary will also take appropriate steps to notify the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law of the reinstatement.
( b ) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Secretary from withdrawing a cancellation or suspension if the Secretary concludes that the action was based on a mistake of fact or was otherwise in error. Upon taking such action, the Secretary will take appropriate steps to notify the accrediting entity and the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law.
#### § 901.21 Record of proceedings.

*Record of proceedings* means the case file maintained by the Board on each grievance case, or separation for cause proceeding.
#### Seaboard Air-Line Railway *v.*Southern Flour & Grain Co.

August 19, 1912.

Trover. Before Judge Pendleton. Fulton superior court. May 9, 1911.

*Brown & Randolph*and *Hugh M. Scott,*for plaintiff in error.

*Walter McBlreath,*contra.

Fish, C. J.

When an owner delivers goods to a carrier for transportation to a destination beyond its line, and for that purpose to be delivered by it to a connecting carrier in order to continue the transportation, or where it becomes necessary for that purpose to make successive deliveries from one to another upon a continuous line or succession of carriers, the first and each succeeding carriel-, if each conducts business independently of the others, becomes the agent of the owner to make delivery of the goods to the next carrier; and if, in such case, the initial carrier gives to the owner a bill of lading by the .terms of which the goods are to be delivered at the terminus of its line to a named connecting carrier to be transported over the latter’s line and certain other designated lines to destination, and, by the fault or negligence of the initial carrier, the goods are transported to destination over other lines than those named in the bill of lading, the final carrier has the right to pay the charges for freight, if within the ordinary rates and apparently regular, of the prior connecting carriers over whose lines the goods were transported, and to hold the goods for reimbursement, as well as for its own share of the fx-eight earned and for demurrage due it; provided, the final carrier had no knowledge or notice of the agreement between the owner and the initial carrier-, embodied in the bill of lading, as to a different routing of the goods. *Bird*v. *Georgia R.,*72 *Ga.*655; *Georgia R. Co.*v. *Murrah,*85 *Ga.*343 (11 S. E. 779), and authorities cited; *Goodin*v. *Southern Railway Co.,*125 *Ga.*630, 634 (54 S. E. 720, 5 Ann. Cas. 573); *Seaboard Air-Line Ry.*v. *Friedman,*128 *Ga.*316, 318 (57 S. E. 778); 1 Hutch. Car. (3d ed.) § 139; 4 Elliott on Railroads (2d ed.), § 1451; 5 A. & E. Enc. Law (2d ed.), 406, 408; 11 Notes to American Decisions 747, annotations to Briggs *v.*Boston *&*L. R. Co., 6 Allen, 246 (83 Am. D. 626).

*(а)*The final carrier and the next preceding conneetixig carrier would be none the less independent carriers merely because the settlement of the proportionate freight charges due each of them, according to regular published rates for goods carried over both lines, was made by their respective auditors at stated intervals, instead of such charges beixxg paid at the junctional point by the receiving line to the delivering line.

(б) Applying the law as above anxxounced to the facts of this case, the trial judge erred in directing a verdict for the plaintiff in an action of trover and bail, brought by the owner of goods against the final carrier; and in overruling the motion for new trial made by the defendant. *Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

Lumpkin and Atkinson, JJ.,

concur because in their opinion the case is controlled by the decision in *Bird*v. *Georgia R.,*72 *Ga.*655.
ex10_1.htm






EXHIBIT 10.1







LOGITECH INTERNATIONAL S.A.







Compensation Terms for Non-Executive Board Members for September 2010 – September 2011 Board Year







Set out below is a summary of the compensation to be paid to non-executive members of the Logitech Board of Directors for the period beginning September 9, 2010 continuing until the date of the Logitech Annual General Meeting of Shareholders in September 2011.








	
·  

	
An annual retainer of CHF 60,000.













	
·  

	
An additional annual retainer of CHF 20,000 to the lead independent director.













	
·  

	
An additional annual retainer of CHF 40,000 to the chair of the audit committee.













	
·  

	
An additional annual retainer for non-Chair members of the audit committee of CHF 15,000.













	
·  

	
An additional annual retainer of CHF 30,000 to the chair of the compensation committee.













	
·  

	
An additional annual retainer for non-Chair members of the compensation committee of CHF 10,000.













	
·  

	
An additional annual retainer for non-Chair members of the nominating committee of CHF 3,000.













	
·  

	
For continuing members, a grant of 7,400 restricted stock units with an approximate value at grant of CHF 120,000, to vest in full on August 31, 2011.













	
·  

	
For new members, a grant of 14,900 restricted stock units with an approximate value at grant of CHF 240,000, to vest in three annual increments from the date of grant, except the final increment to vest on August 31, 2013.













	
·  

	
Compensation, paid annually in arrears, for the number of travel days, or part of a travel day, spent traveling to attend Board and committee meetings, at the rate of CHF 2,500 per day or part of a day of travel.  Board members will not be compensated for any travel that occurs on the day of the Board or the Committee meetings in addition to the compensation they already receive for attendance at those meetings.













	
·  

	
Reimbursement of reasonable expenses for non-local travel (business class). Expenses are reimbursed immediately, upon presentation of an expense report to the local regional headquarters.











  





1











  








 



	
·  

	
Reimbursement for the cost of continuing education programs associated with Logitech Board or Committee service.













	
·  

	
Non-executive Board members may elect to take their Board fees in Logitech shares, net of withholdings.  Any such shares are to be issued under the 2006 Stock Incentive Plan.  The acquisition price per share shall be determined based on the closing price of Logitech shares on the date of purchase.













	
·  

	
Fees are paid in arrears at the time of the Annual General Meeting each year, for service in the prior year.
















  





2
§ 401.23 Hearings. ( a ) The time and place of the hearing or hearings of an application shall be fixed by the Chairmen of the two sections.
( b ) The secretaries shall forthwith give written notice of the time and place of the hearing or hearings to the applicant, the Governments and all persons who have presented statements in response to the Commission. Except as otherwise provided by the Commission, the secretaries shall also cause such notice to be published in the Canada Gazette and the Federal Register and once each week for three successive weeks in two newspapers, published one in each country and circulated in or near the localities which, in the opinion of the Commission, are most likely to be affected by the proposed use, obstruction or diversion of water.
( c ) All hearings shall be open to the public.
( d ) The applicant, the Governments and persons interested are entitled to present oral and documentary evidence and argument that is relevant and material to any issue that is before the Commission in connection with the application.
( e ) The presiding chairman may require that evidence to be under oath.
( f ) Witnesses may be examined and cross-examined by the Commissioners and by counsel for the applicant, the Governments and the Commission. With the consent of the presiding chairman, cousel for a person other than the applicant may also examine or cross-examine witnesses.
( g ) The Commission may require further evidence to be given and may require printed briefs to be submitted at or subsequent to the hearing.
( h ) The Commissioners shall be free to determine the probative value of the evidence submitted to it.
( i ) A verbatim transcript of the proceedings at the hearing shall be prepared.
( j ) The hearing of the application, when once begun, shall proceed at the times and places determined by the Chairmen of the two sections to ensure the greatest practicable continuity and dispatch of proceedings.
##### 



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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Lason, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, each of the undersigned hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
that:  (1)
    
    such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Lason, Inc. for the
quarter ended June 30, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
of Lason, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Lason, Inc. August 10, 2004
    
    /s/      Ronald D. RisherRonald D. RisherChief Executive OfficerAugust 10, 2004
    
    /s/      Douglas S. KearneyDouglas S. KearneyChief Financial Officer
### §3797n. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3797n was editorially reclassified as section 10565 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
§ 100.307 Verification of occupancy. ( a ) In order for a housing facility or community to qualify as housing for persons 55 years of age or older, it must be able to produce, in response to a complaint filed under this title, verification of compliance with § 100.305 through reliable surveys and affidavits.
( b ) A facility or community shall, within 180 days of the effective date of this rule, develop procedures for routinely determining the occupancy of each unit, including the identification of whether at least one occupant of each unit is 55 years of age or older. Such procedures may be part of a normal leasing or purchasing arrangement.
( c ) The procedures described in paragraph (b) of this section must provide for regular updates, through surveys or other means, of the initial information supplied by the occupants of the housing facility or community. Such updates must take place at least once every two years. A survey may include information regarding whether any units are occupied by persons described in paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(3), and (e)(4) of § 100.305.
( d ) Any of the following documents are considered reliable documentation of the age of the occupants of the housing facility or community: ( 1 ) Driver's license;
( 2 ) Birth certificate;
( 3 ) Passport;
( 4 ) Immigration card;
( 5 ) Military identification;
( 6 ) Any other state, local, national, or international official documents containing a birth date of comparable reliability; or
( 7 ) A certification in a lease, application, affidavit, or other document signed by any member of the household age 18 or older asserting that at least one person in the unit is 55 years of age or older.
( e ) A facility or community shall consider any one of the forms of verification identified above as adequate for verification of age, provided that it contains specific information about current age or date of birth.
( f ) The housing facility or community must establish and maintain appropriate policies to require that occupants comply with the age verification procedures required by this section.
( g ) If the occupants of a particular dwelling unit refuse to comply with the age verification procedures, the housing facility or community may, if it has sufficient evidence, consider the unit to be occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older. Such evidence may include: ( 1 ) Government records or documents, such as a local household census;
( 2 ) Prior forms or applications; or
( 3 ) A statement from an individual who has personal knowledge of the age of the occupants. The individual's statement must set forth the basis for such knowledge and be signed under the penalty of perjury.
( h ) Surveys and verification procedures which comply with the requirements of this section shall be admissible in administrative and judicial proceedings for the purpose of verifying occupancy.
( i ) A summary of occupancy surveys shall be available for inspection upon reasonable notice and request by any person.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2529-0046) [64 FR 16330, Apr. 2, 1999]
§ 513.405 Causes for suspension. ( a ) Suspension may be imposed in accordance with the provisions of §§ 513.400 through 513.413 upon adequate evidence: ( 1 ) To suspect the commission of an offense listed in § 513.305(a); or
( 2 ) That a cause for debarment under § 513.305 may exist.
( b ) Indictment shall constitute adequate evidence for purposes of suspension actions.
### §12565. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–188, title III, §301(a), Nov. 26, 2014, 128 Stat. 2018

Section, Pub. L. 101–610, title I, §120, as added Pub. L. 111–13, title I, §1205, Apr. 21, 2009, 123 Stat. 1483, provided for a 10-year longitudinal study and reports on the impact of the activities carried out under this division.
§ 521.32 Location of hearing. ( a ) The hearing may be held: ( 1 ) In any judicial district of the United States in which the defendant resides or transacts business;
( 2 ) In any judicial district of the United States in which the claim or statement in issue was made; or
( 3 ) In such other place as may be agreed upon by the defendant and the ALJ.
( b ) Each party shall have the opportunity to present arguments with respect to the location of the hearing.
( c ) The hearing shall be held at the place and at the time ordered by the ALJ.
#### § 1000.66 Housing counseling.

Housing counseling, as defined in 24 CFR 5.100, that is required under or provided in connection with IHBG funds must be carried out in accordance with 24 CFR 5.111. Housing counseling conducted in connection with the IHBG program may only be conducted by individuals who are HUD-certified in accordance with 24 CFR part 214, subpart F.

[89 FR 49808, June 12, 2024]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey Medaro, Appellant.

[715 NYS2d 646]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Perone, J.), rendered March 25, 1999, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

*253Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In response to the prosecutor’s exercise of a peremptory challenge against a black female venireperson, the defense counsel raised a challenge pursuant to *Batson v Kentucky*(476 US 79). The prosecutor provided an explanation for the peremptory challenge, and although defense counsel argued that the explanation was pretextual, the trial court accepted the prosecutor’s explanation as race-neutral and dismissed the venireperson. On appeal, the defendant claims that this was error. We disagree.

Where, as here, the prosecutor offers a facially race-neutral reason for his or her challenge, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that the explanation offered was pretextual *(see, Purkett v Elem,*514 US 765; *People v Allen,*86 NY2d 101, 104; *People v Moore,*231 AD2d 532; *People v Rudd,*225 AD2d 710; *People v Richie,*217 AD2d 84). The defendant failed to demonstrate that the peremptory challenge was racially-motivated. Accordingly, the trial court’s ruling was proper.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review, as he failed to raise the issue before the trial court *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Bynum,*70 NY2d 858, 859; *People v Vega,*183 AD2d 864, 865). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defense counsel’s failure to move to reopen the case during jury deliberations does not, under the circumstances of this case, demonstrate that the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel *(see, People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137; *People v Lam,*226 AD2d 554).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Krausman, J. P., Florio, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
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

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRANK J. LAEREMAN,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 09-0972-MHP

[PROPOSED] 

ORDER EXCLUDING TIME 

UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

 ORDER

For the reasons stated by the parties at the January 25, 2009 status conference, the

Court finds that the ends of justice served by continuing the trial setting outweigh the best

interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial because additional time is

required to allow for continuity of counsel and to allow defendant Frank Laereman and

his counsel, Geoffrey Hansen, adequate time to review the government’s discovery; to

prepare this matter for trial; and to prepare witnesses for trial.

 IT IS ORDERED that the period of delay from January 25, 2009 to February 22, 2010

shall be excluded pursuant to 18 U. S.C., § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (h)(B)(iv) as the ends of

justice served by this continuance allowing for continuity of counsel and for adequate 

///

///

///

Case 3:09-cr-00972-MHP Document 14 Filed 01/27/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[proposed] Order Excluding Time Under The

Speedy Trial Act (NO. 09-00972-MHP 2

preparation outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 

ORDERED this day of January, 2010 at San Francisco, California.

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26th

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:09-cr-00972-MHP Document 14 Filed 01/27/10 Page 2 of 2