alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 v. BONAVENTE, et al.,

CR No. 09-1163 JSW

5

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CA 44332)

United States Attorney

BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN 163973)

Chief, Criminal Division

DENISE MARIE BARTON (MABN 634052)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102-3495

Telephone: (415) 436-7200

Fax: (415) 436-6982

Email: denise.barton@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CANDIDO BONAVENTE, 

JOHN LEGRAND,

a/k/a John Lefrand, 

DAVID BARRIENTOS, 

JOHN NATHAN,

a/k/a Johny Horn, a/k/a Del Taco,

a/k/a Juanito Perez, 

ANTONIO LACERDA,

a/k/a Lacerda Antonio Emiricio, 

and GERALD SULLIVAN,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 09-1163 JSW

[PROPOSED] ORDER

SAN FRANCISCO VENUE

For the reasons set forth by the United States in the Second Ex Parte Motion for Order

Permitting Limited Redaction of Discovery Materials Pursuant to Fed. R. Cr. P. 16(d)(1) and

Declaration in Support thereof, this Court finds that good cause exists to restrict discovery in the

manner requested by the United States. 

//

Case 3:09-cr-01163-JSW Document 65 Filed 02/04/10 Page 1 of 2 Case3:09-cr-01163-JSW Document63 Filed02/02/10 Page5 of 6
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 v. BONAVENTE, et al.,

CR No. 09-1163 JSW

6

Accordingly, this Court authorizes the United States to make the requested redactions to

the pages identified in Attachments 1 to 8 to the Motion, which were filed ex parte and under

seal, prior to producing these materials to defense counsel in the course of discovery. The Court

reserves the right to revisit this Order as this case progresses.

SO ORDERED:

________________________________

DATED: February ___, 2010 HONORABLE JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Court Judge

Case3:09-cr-01163-JSW Document63 Filed02/02/10 Page6 of 6

4

Case 3:09-cr-01163-JSW Document 65 Filed 02/04/10 Page 2 of 2
### §7381d. Definitions

In this subchapter:

(1) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Energy.

(2) The term "Department" means the Department of Energy.

(3) The term "Department research and development facilities" means all Department of Energy single-purpose and multipurpose National Laboratories and research and development facilities and programs, and any other facility or program operated by a contractor funded by the Department of Energy.

(4) The term "local educational agency" has the meaning given that term by section 2891(12) 1 of title 20.

(5) National laboratory.—The term "National Laboratory" has the meaning given the term in section 15801 of this title.

(Pub. L. 101–510, div. C, title XXXI, §3168, formerly §3167, Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1843; Pub. L. 105–245, title III, §309(b)(2)(D), Oct. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1853; renumbered §3168 and amended Pub. L. 109–58, title XI, §§1102(d), 1105(b)(1), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 938, 939; Pub. L. 110–69, title V, §5003(c), Aug. 9, 2007, 121 Stat. 602.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 2891(12) of title 20, referred to in par. (4), was in the original "section 1471(12) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 2891(12))", Pub. L. 89–10, and was omitted in the general amendment of that Act by Pub. L. 103–382, title I, §101, Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 3519. See section 7801 of Title 20, Education.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 3168 of Pub. L. 101–510 was renumbered section 3169 and is classified to section 7381e of this title.

#### Amendments

2007—Par. (5). Pub. L. 110–69 added par. (5).

2005—Par. (3). Pub. L. 109–58, §1102(d), substituted "by the Department of Energy" for "from the Office of Science of the Department of Energy".

1998—Par. (3). Pub. L. 105–245 substituted "Office of Science" for "Office of Energy Research".

1 See References in Text note below.
### Source Categories Emissions (tons/yr)%Cumulative %

Adhesives and Sealants 9.55E-02 0.02 0.02 Cement, Hydraulic (not subject to Portland Cement MACT) 9.85E-02 0.02 0.05 Chemicals and Allied Products, nec 3.52E-01 0.09 0.14 Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Production [1] 1.40E+00 0.35 0.49 Hydrochloric Acid Production 1.81E-01 0.05 0.53 Industrial Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing 3.60E-01 0.09 0.62 Industrial Organic Chemicals Manufacturing 1.08E+00 0.27 0.89 Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing (MON) 1.91E+00 0.48 1.37 Municipal Landfills 3.14E+00 0.78 2.15 Nonmetallic Mineral Products Manufacturing 2.50E-03 0.00 2.15 Paper And Allied Products 9.50E+00 2.37 4.52 Paper Mills (not subject to Pulp and Paper MACT) 1.34E+01 3.34 7.86 Pharmaceuticals Production 1.15E+01 2.87 10.72 Plastic Parts and Products (Surface Coating) 3.25E+00 0.81 11.53 Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) 3.52E+02 87.85 99.38 Secondary Lead Smelting 2.02E-02 0.01 99.39 Sewage Sludge Incineration 1.32E+00 0.33 99.71 Space Research and Technology 2.50E-03 0.00 99.71 Tire Production 6.72E-02 0.02 99.73 Unsupported Plastics Film & Sheet 1.08E+00 0.27100.00

Total Emissions400.87100.00

Foot Notes [1] Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Production was titled Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Production (not subject to petroleum refining MACT) in the May 1999 Report

### Chloroform
#### Julia Koi v. P. S. *&*M. Catering Corp.

Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.
Amendment No. 1 to the Rewards Network Inc. 2010 Incentive Compensation Plan.



  
 Exhibit 10.7

 AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE 
 TO THE 
 REWARDS NETWORK INC. 

2010 INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN 
 WHEREAS, Rewards Network Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), has heretofore adopted and maintains the Rewards Network Inc. 2010 Incentive Compensation Plan (the “Plan”);
and 
 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Corporation has retained the power to amend the Plan. 

NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the power of amendment contained in the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of the date hereof, as
follows: 
 1. The first sentence under the heading General Terms and Conditions is hereby amended by inserting the
phrase “as the same may be amended from time to time,” immediately after the word “Plan” where it appears therein. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this instrument to be executed by its duly authorized agent on this 16th day of August, 2010. 

 

			
	REWARDS NETWORK INC.
	
	By:    /s/ Ronald L. Blake
	Name: Ronald L. Blake
	Title: President and CEO
121 STAT. 980 PUBLIC LAW 110–87—SEPT. 28, 2007 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 954: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007): 

Sept. 5, considered and passed House. 

Sept. 11, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–87 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 365 West 

125th Street in New York, New York, as the ‘‘Percy Sutton Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. PERCY SUTTON POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 365 West 125th Street in New York, New York, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Percy Sutton Post Office 

Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Percy Sutton Post Office Building’’. 

Approved September 28, 2007. 

Sept. 28, 2007 

[H.R. 954] 


jbridges on GSDDPC57 with PUBLIC LAWS
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 77828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28402]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending December 10, 2004

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: OST-2004-19848.
    Date Filed: December 6, 2004.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: December 27, 2004.
    Description: Application of Starair (Ireland) Limited requesting a 
Foreign Air Carrier Permit to engage in foreign charter air 
transportation of persons, property and mail between a point or points 
in Ireland and a point or points in the United States, including 
service via intermediate stops, and to engage in other Fifth Freedom 
charter operations in foreign air transportation.

    Docket Number: OST-2004-19849.
    Date Filed: December 6, 2004.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: December 27, 2004.
    Description: Application of Starair (Ireland) Ltd., requesting an 
exemption to permit it to operate foreign charter combination air 
transportation between a point or points in Ireland and a point or 
points in the United States, including service via intermediate stops, 
and to conduct Fifth Freedom combination charter operations in foreign 
air transportation.
    Docket Number: OST-2004-19850.
    Date Filed: December 6, 2004.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: December 27, 2004.
    Description: Application of Air Comet S.A. d/b/a Air Plus Comet, 
requesting a five year permit to engage in charter foreign air 
transportation of persons, property, and mail between points in the 
Kingdom of Spain and the United States.

    Docket Number: OST-2004-19877.
    Date Filed: December 8, 2004.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: December 29, 2004.
    Description: Application of GoJet Airlines LLC requesting a 
certificate of public convenience and necessity to engage in interstate 
and foreign scheduled air transportation of persons, property and mail.

Renee V. Wright,
Supervisory Dockets Officer, Alternate Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 04-28402 Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1165

CELANESE CHEMICALS, LTD.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY

and CHANG CHUN PETROCHEMICAL CO., LTD.,

Defendants-Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in

case no. 04-00594, Judge Delissa A. Ridgway.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Upon consideration of the United States' unopposed motion for a 25-day

extension of time, until May 22, 2009, to file its brief,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

FOR THE COURT

APR 10 2009

/s/ Jan Horbalv

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk

FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

APR 10 2009

JAPI HORIMtY

CLERK
cc:	Gracia M. Berg, Esq.

Alexander H. Schaefer, Esq.

Mary Jane Alves, Esq.

s8

2009-1165	 2
### §6399. Intrastate natural gas

No provision of this chapter shall permit the imposition of any price controls on, or require any allocation of, natural gas not subject to the jurisdiction of the Secretary or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

(Pub. L. 94–163, title V, §529, Dec. 22, 1975, 89 Stat. 964; Pub. L. 95–91, title III, §301(a), title IV, §402, title VII, §§703, 707, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 577, 583, 606, 607.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 94–163, Dec. 22, 1975, 89 Stat. 871, known as the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 6201 of this title and Tables.

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

#### Transfer of Functions

"Secretary or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission" substituted for "Federal Power Commission" pursuant to sections 301(a), 402, 703, and 707 of Pub. L. 95–91, which are classified to sections 7151(a), 7172, 7293, and 7297 of this title and which terminated the Federal Power Commission and transferred its functions to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Secretary of Energy.
#### § 511.1 Definitions.

*Board.* Board means the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

*Act.* Act means the Federal Tort Claims Act, as amended, and codified in 28 U.S.C., sections 2671-2680.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GENESTHER TAYLOR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY 

SERVICES,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-15159

D.C. No. 2:13-cv-02336-MCEDAD

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2017**

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 

Genesther Taylor appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing her employment action alleging Title VII and state law claims. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 23 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
16-15159 2

dismissal on the basis of the applicable statute of limitations. Lukovsky v. City & 

County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed as time-barred Taylor’s Title VII 

claims because Taylor filed this action years after the applicable statute of 

limitations had run. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (statute of limitations for Title 

VII action is ninety days from receipt of a right-to-sue letter); Odonell v. Vencor 

Inc., 466 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2006) (Title VII claims are not equitably tolled 

during the pendency of a related action, where the related action is commenced 

after the ninety-day statute of limitations has run). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over Taylor’s state law claims after dismissing her 

federal claims. See Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 

1997) (en banc) (“[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated 

before trial, the balance of factors . . . will point toward declining to exercise 

jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” (citation and internal quotation 

marks omitted)); see also Costanich v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 627 F.3d 

1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review). We treat the dismissal of the state 

law claims as a dismissal without prejudice. See Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. Police 

Dep’t, 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994) (“When . . . the court dismisses the 

federal claim leaving only state claims for resolution, the court should decline 
16-15159 3

jurisdiction over the state claims and dismiss them without prejudice.” (citation 

and internal quotation marks omitted; alteration in original)). 

Because we affirm the dismissal of Taylor’s action as time-barred, we do not 

consider Taylor’s contentions regarding the merits of her claims.

AFFIRMED.
Editorial Note on Part 200
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 200.940 Supplementary specific requirements under the HUD building product standards and certification program for sealed insulating glass units. ( a ) *Applicable standards.* ( 1 ) All sealed insulating glass units shall be designed, manufactured, and tested in compliance with the American Society for Testing and Materials standard: ASTM E-774-92 Standard Specification for Sealed Insulating Glass Units.
( 2 ) This standard has been approved by the Director of the Federal Register for incorporation by reference. The standard is available from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. This standard is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
( b ) *Labeling.* Under the procedures set forth in § 200.935(d)(6) concerning labeling of a product, the administrator's validation mark and the manufacturer's certification of compliance with the applicable standards are issued by the administrator to the manufacturer. Each sealed insulating glass unit shall be marked as conforming to UM 82a. The label shall be located on each sealed insulating unit so that it is available for inspection. The label shall include the manufacturer's name and plant location.
( c ) *Periodic tests and quality assurance inspections.* Under the procedures set forth in § 200.935(d)(8) concerning periodic tests and quality assurance inspections, the frequency of testing for a product shall be described in the specific building product certification program. In the case of sealed insulating glass units, testing and inspection shall be conducted as follows: ( 1 ) At least once a year, the administrator shall visit the manufacturer's facility to select a sample, of the maximum size commercially available, for testing in a laboratory approved by the administrator.
( 2 ) The administrator shall also review the quality assurance procedures twice a year to assure that they are being followed by the manufacturer.
[58 FR 67674, Dec. 22, 1993]
§ 14.330 Decision. The adjudicative officer shall issue an initial decision on the application within 30 days after completion of proceedings on the application. The decision shall include written findings and conclusions on such of the following as are relevant to the decision: ( a ) The applicant's status as a prevailing party;
( b ) The applicant's qualification as a *party* under 5 U.S.C. 504(b)(1)(B);
( c ) Whether the agency's position was substantially justified;
( d ) Whether special circumstances make an award unjust;
( e ) Whether the applicant during the course of the proceedings engaged in conduct that unduly and unreasonably protracted the final resolution of the matter in controversy; and
( f ) The amounts, if any, awarded for fees and other expenses, with reasons for any difference between the amount requested and the amount awarded.
If the applicant has sought an award against more than one agency, the decision shall allocate responsibility for payment of any award made among the agencies, and shall explain the reasons for the allocation made.
Editorial Note on Part 17
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 17 appear at 87 FR 8196, Feb. 14, 2022.

§ 17.69 Review within HUD of a determination that an amount is past due and legally enforceable. ( a ) *Notification by the debtor.* A debtor who receives notice of intent to offset pursuant to § 17.65 has the right to a review of the case and to present evidence that all or part of the debt is not past due or not legally enforceable. The debtor may send a copy of the notice with a letter notifying the Office of Hearings and Appeals of his or her intention to present evidence. Failure to give this notice shall not jeopardize the debtor's right to present evidence within the 60 calendar days provided for in paragraph (b) of this section. If the Office of Hearings and Appeals has additional procedures governing the review process, a copy of the procedures shall be mailed to the debtor after the request for review is received and docketed by the Office of Hearings and Appeals.
( b ) *Submission of evidence.* If the debtor wishes to submit evidence showing that all or part of the debt is not past due or not legally enforceable, the debtor must submit such evidence to the Office of Hearings and Appeals within 60 calendar days after the date of the notice of intent to offset. Failure to submit evidence will result in a dismissal of the request for review by the OHA.
( c ) *Review of the record.* After timely submission of evidence by the debtor, the OHA will review the evidence submitted by the Department that shows that all or part of the debt is past due and legally enforceable. The decision of an administrative judge of the OHA will be based on a preponderance of the evidence as to whether there is a debt that is past due and whether it is legally enforceable. The administrative judge of the OHA shall make a determination based upon a review of the evidence that comprises the written record, except that the OHA may order an oral hearing if the administrative judge of the OHA finds that: ( 1 ) An applicable statute authorizes or requires the Department to consider a waiver of the indebtedness and the waiver determination turns on credibility or veracity; or
( 2 ) The question of indebtedness cannot be resolved by review of the documentary evidence.
( d ) *Previous decision by an administrative judge of the Office of Hearings and Appeals.* The debtor is not entitled to a review of the Department's intent to offset if an administrative judge of the OHA has previously issued a decision on the merits that the debt is past due and legally enforceable, except when the debt has become legally unenforceable since the issuance of that decision, or the debtor can submit newly discovered material evidence that the debt is presently not legally enforceable.
#### § 1000.114 How long does HUD have to review and act on a proposal to provide assistance to non-low-income families or a model housing activity?

Whether submitted in the IHP or at any other time, HUD will have 60 calendar days after receiving the proposal to notify the recipient in writing that the proposal to provide assistance to non-low-income families or for model activities is approved or disapproved. If no decision is made by HUD within 60 calendar days of receiving the proposal, the proposal is deemed to have been approved by HUD.

[77 FR 71525, Dec. 3, 2012]