alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

38 40 42



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 07/17 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jul 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL
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

IN RE: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases. /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE

RE VOLUMINOUS MOTIONS

Both sides filed many summary judgment motions. The Court has been patiently working

its way through them and has now issued four separate orders on them. By 9:00 A.M. FRIDAY,

APRIL 9, please advise the Court which, if any, remaining motions counsel truly needs an order

on, even if abbreviated, with one sentence each explaining why it cannot wait until the charging

conference or at least until the final pretrial conference. Do not use this as an opportunity to

submit more argument or authorities or evidence. One page will do. 

Dated: April 8, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01936-WHA Document 59 Filed 04/08/10 Page 1 of 1
§ 530.170 Compliance procedures. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this section applies to all allegations of discrimination on the basis of handicap in programs or activities conducted by the Board.
( b ) The Board shall process complaints alleging violations of section 504 with respect to employment according to the procedures established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1613 pursuant to section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791).
( c ) The Director, Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Civil Rights, shall be responsible for coordinating implementation of this section. Complaints may be sent to Director, Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Civil Rights, Broadcasting Board of Governors, 301 4th Street NW., Washington, DC 20547.
( d ) The Board shall accept and investigate all complete complaints for which it has jurisdiction. All complete complaints must be filed within 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination. The Board may extend this time period for good cause.
( e ) If the Board receives a complaint over which it does not have jurisdiction, it shall promptly notify the complainant and shall make reasonable efforts to refer the complaint to the appropriate government entity.
( f ) The Board shall notify the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board upon receipt of any complaint alleging that a building or facility that is subject to the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4151-4157), or section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 792), is not readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons.
( g ) Within 180 days of the receipt of a complete complaint for which it has jurisdiction, the Board shall notify the complainant of the results of the investigation in a letter containing— ( 1 ) Findings of fact and conclusions of law;
( 2 ) A description of a remedy for each violation found; and
( 3 ) A notice of the right to appeal.
( h ) Appeals of the findings of fact and conclusions of law or remedies must be filed by the complainant within 90 days of receipt from the Board of the letter required by § 530.170(g). The Board may extend this time for good cause.
( i ) Timely appeals shall be accepted and processed by the head of the Board.
( j ) The head of the Board shall notify the complainant of the results of the appeal within 60 days of the receipt of the request. If the head of the Board determines that additional information is needed from the complainant, he or she shall have 60 days from the date of receipt of the additional information to make his or her determination on the appeal.
( k ) The time limits cited in paragraphs (g) and (j) of this section may be extended with the permission of the Assistant Attorney General.
( l ) The Board may delegate its authority for conducting complaint investigations to other Federal agencies, except that the authority for making the final determination may not be delegated to another agency.
[51 FR 22890, 22896, June 23, 1986, as amended at 51 FR 22890, June 23, 1986]
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER I, Robert P. Pinkas, Chief Executive Officer of Brantley Capital Corporation,
certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Brantley Capital
Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting. Dated this 16th day of August 2004. By:
    /S/ ROBERT P. PINKASRobert P. PinkasChief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of General Accident Insurance Company, Respondent, v Shaun Bonefont et al., Respondents, and Teresa A. Williams et al., Appellants.

[716 NYS2d 596]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, Teresa A. Williams and Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance Company appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.H.O.), dated May 9, 2000, which granted the petition and stayed arbitration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*380Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 there is a “very strong” presumption that a vehicle is operated with the consent of the owner. There was no substantial evidence to overcome the presumption with respect to the vehicle owned by Teresa A. Williams *(see, Asaro v McGuire Auto Rental Leasing,*238 AD2d 366; *Albouyeh v County of Suffolk,*96 AD2d 543, *affd*62 NY2d 681; *Stewart v Town of Hempstead,*204 AD2d 431; *State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v White,*175 AD2d 122).

The resolution by the Supreme Court of the issues regarding the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given the evidence is supported by the record and will not be disturbed *(see, John Eric Jacoby, M.D., P. C. v Loper Assocs.,*249 AD2d 277). The fact that Williams’ testimony was not contradicted does not, by itself, overcome the presumption that the vehicle was being operated with permission *(see, Lewis v Caldwell,*236 AD2d 896; *Horvath v Lindenhurst Auto Salvage,*104 F3d 540). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, S. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
|     |                                                                                                                                        |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|     |                                                                                                                                                         |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. |

|                           |
|---------------------------|
|                           |  |
| /s/ ROBERT A. HAMWEE |
| Name:                     | Robert A. Hamwee |
| Date:                     | March 4, 2020 |
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77234-77235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28126]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB review; comment request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 
26, 2005.
    Title and OMB Number: West Point Engineering Graduates Survey; OMB 
Control Number 0702-0116.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 350.
    Responses Per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 350.
    Average Burden Per Response: 35 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 203.
    Needs and Uses: An assessment of perceptions of graduates on the 
effectiveness of the U.S. Military Academy programs and curricula is 
needed for periodic accreditation by the Accreditation Board for 
Engineering and Technology. The information collected will be used to 
evaluate programs/curricula and make changes deemed advisable.
    Affected Public: Individuals or household.

[[Page 77235]]

    Frequency: On occasion (every three years).
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Lewis Oleinick.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Mr. Oleinick at the Office of Management 
and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings, WHS/ESCD/Information Management 
Division, 1225 South Clark Street, Suite 504, Arlington, VA 22202-4326.

    Dated: December 17, 2004.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 04-28126 Filed 12--23-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrea GARAY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-11237

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 2, 2007.

Mark L. Nichols, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Raymond J. Rodgers, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

*332PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Andrea Garay preserves for further review her contention that her sentence, based upon facts not alleged in the indictment or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, is unreasonable because this court’s post *-Booker*
      ****
      **rulings have effectively reinstated the mandatory Sentencing Guideline regime condemned in *Booker.*Garay concedes that her argument is foreclosed by *United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005), and its progeny, which have outlined this court’s methodology for reviewing sentences for reasonableness. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and 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.

*United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).
#### §§ 530.152-530.159 [Reserved]
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-01T18:56:37-0400
      - 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Fudge, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Rensselaer County, rendered October 14, 1976, convicting defendant on his plea of guilty of one count of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, six counts of illegal possession of a vehicle identification number plate, seven counts of criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, three counts of forgery of a vehicle identification number, one count of grand larceny in the third degree, and three counts of grand larceny in the second degree. While proceeding to defendant’s garage, and armed with a search warrant, a police investigator encountered defendant driving a motor vehicle. After questioning defendant and observing the license number of the vehicle, the officer computerized the license number and ascertained the vehicle identification number. Thereafter defendant’s residence was searched without a warrant and it was determined several of the vehicles found there were stolen and they were towed away and laboratory tests performed thereon. Since no search warrant existed at the time the investigators inspected the vehicles, defendant contends that the searches were illegal and invalid. We reject defendant’s initial contention that the information obtained from computerizing the license number was tainted by illegality *(Katz v United States,*389 US 347). We also reject as immaterial defendant’s contention that no exigent circumstances existed negating the need for a search warrant and that there was ample time for the officers to obtain one. The record reveals that the issue presented is whether defendant voluntarily consented to the search. This is a question of fact *(People v Kuhn,*33 NY2d 203). While defendant denied giving consent, all three investigators present at the time testified that defendant did consent and detailed the circumstances surrounding the consent. We are thus presented with a question of credibility and are guided by the principle that much weight must be accorded the determination of the trial court in such a situation *(People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759). We are unable to say from an examination of this record that the testimony of the investigators was not credible. Considering the record in its entirety, in light of the criteria recently enunciated by the Court of Appeals in *People v Gonzalez*(39 NY2d 122), we are of the view that the prosecution has satisfied its burden of proving the voluntariness of the consents. Defendant’s remaining, contention concerns the disposal by the State Police of the vehicles seized. Defendant argues that since the prosecution disposed of the evidence he was denied his due process and Sixth Amendment rights. By his plea of guilty, however, *953defendant waived objection to all nonjurisdictional defects in any prior state of the proceeding except those which go to the validity of the plea itself *(People v Meachem,*50 AD2d 953). The conviction, therefore, should be affirmed. Judgment affirmed. Koreman, P. J., Sweeney, Mahoney, Larkin and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
### §5903c. Moneys received by Secretary from fossil energy activity; payment into Treasury; reports to House and Senate Committees

All moneys received by the Secretary from any fossil energy activity shall be paid into the Treasury to the credit of miscellaneous receipts, except that on December 1 of each year the Secretary shall provide to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report of all such receipts for the preceding fiscal year, including, but not limited to, the amount and source of such revenues and the program and subprogram activity generating such revenues.

(Pub. L. 95–39, title I, §106, June 3, 1977, 91 Stat. 184; Pub. L. 95–91, title III, §301(a), title VII, §§703, 707, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 577, 606, 607; Pub. L. 103–437, §15(c)(8), Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4592.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 which comprises this chapter.

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–437 substituted "Committee on Science, Space, and Technology" for "Committee on Science and Technology".

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

#### Transfer of Functions

"Secretary", meaning Secretary of Energy, substituted in text for "Administrator", meaning Administrator of Energy Research and Development Administration, pursuant to sections 301(a), 703, and 707 of Pub. L. 95–91, which are classified to sections 7151(a), 7293, and 7297 of this title and which terminated Energy Research and Development Administration and transferred its functions and functions of Administrator thereof (with certain exceptions) to Secretary of Energy.
Ernest W. Klatte, III

Direct Dial: (714) 641-3491

E-mail: eklatte@rutan.com

February 5, 2010 

Rut an & Tuc k er , LLP | 6 11 Ant o n Bl vd, Sui t e 14 0 0, Cos t a M es a, CA 9262 6 

PO Bo x 1 950, Cos t a M es a, CA 9262 8- 19 50 | 7 14- 641- 5 100 | F a x 7 14- 54 6- 903 5 

O r ange C ount y | P al o Al t o | ww w. r ut an. c om 

307/013229-0143 

1043304.01 a02/05/10

VIA ELECTRONIC FILING

Chief Magistrate Judge James Larson 

Northern District of California 

U.S. Courthouse 

450 Golden Gate Avenue 

Courtroom F, 15th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94102-3483 

Re: Mehdi Saberi v. BFS Retail & Commercial Operations

Case No.C08-4232 JL 

Dear Chief Magistrate Judge James Larson: 

I write to request permission, on behalf of Defendant BFS Retail & Commercial 

Operations, LLC, to appear telephonically at the upcoming Case Management Conference, 

scheduled for February 17, 2010 at 10:30 a.m. 

Plaintiff does not oppose our appearing telephonically. 

If permission is granted, my direct dial is (714) 641-3491. I or the other attorney on the 

pleadings, Summer Young Agriesti, will be standing by at the time of the hearing for a telephone 

call from your clerk. Thank you for extending me this courtesy. 

Very truly yours, 

Ernest W. Klatte, III 

for RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP 

EWK:mp 

Case 3:08-cv-04232-JL Document 53 Filed 02/09/10 Page 1 of 1 Case3:08-cv-04232-JL Document52 Filed02/05/10 Page1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 273 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 273

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the cap on the 
 cover over of tax on distilled spirits to Puerto Rico and the Virgin 
                                Islands.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2005

 Mrs. Christensen introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the cap on the 
 cover over of tax on distilled spirits to Puerto Rico and the Virgin 
                                Islands.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CAP ON COVER OVER OF TAX ON DISTILLED SPIRITS TO 
              PUERTO RICO AND VIRGIN ISLANDS.

    (a) In General.--Section 7652 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to limitation on cover over of tax on distilled spirits) is 
amended by striking subsection (f) and by redesignating subsections (g) 
and (h) as subsections (f) and (g), respectively.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 7652(f) of such Code (as so 
redesignated) is amended by striking ``subsection (f) of this section'' 
in paragraph (1)(B) and inserting ``section 5001(a)(1)''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on January 1, 2005.
                                 <all>
```