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 District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

USA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBINSON,

Defendant.

Case No. 09-cr-00478-SI-1 

SECOND ORDER ON RESTITUTION

Re: Dkt. No. 72

Presently before the Court is pro se defendant Matthew Robinson’s motion for termination 

of restitution, based on his changed circumstances. Dkt. No. 72. A prior order of this Court 

denied defendant’s request for termination, ordering that defendant remain jointly and severally 

liable for the $39,314 payment obligation which defendant stated remained at that time. Dkt. No. 

76. However, the Court found that defendant had articulated a change in circumstance to warrant 

a reduction in his restitution payments; namely, the birth of a child and the assumption of partial 

financial responsibility of two minor children. Id. 

The Court ordered defendant to file, under seal or via confidential mail to the Court, 

evidence of the birth of his youngest child, as well as any additional documentation regarding his 

claim of additional expenses related to the care of the two minor children. Id. Defendant has 

complied with the Court’s request, submitting the birth certificate, as well as information from his 

probation officer regarding his employment status, salary, and care of the two minor children. 

Dkt. Nos. 78, 81 (under seal).

The Court’s prior order also directed the Attorney General to provide such notice to the 

victims and to certify same to the Court. Dkt. No. 76 (citing 18 U.S.C.A. § 3664(k)). The 

Attorney General has complied with the Court’s order. Dkt. No. 79, 82.

Case 3:09-cr-00478-SI Document 83 Filed 07/20/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

In light of the documentation provided, the Court hereby ORDERS the reduction of 

defendant’s monthly restitution payments from $100 to $50. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3664(k) (“A 

restitution order shall provide that the defendant shall notify the court and the Attorney General of 

any material change in the defendant’s economic circumstances that might affect the defendant’s 

ability to pay restitution . . . . Upon receipt of the notification, the court may, on its own motion, or 

the motion of any party, including the victim, adjust the payment schedule, or require immediate 

payment in full, as the interests of justice require.”) Notice of this order will be provided to U.S. 

Attorney’s Victim/Witness Assistance Program and the U.S. Clerk of Court’s Financial Section. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cr-00478-SI Document 83 Filed 07/20/16 Page 2 of 2
#### § 1000.34 What factors must be considered in making an exception to the conflict of interest provisions?

In determining whether or not to make an exception to the conflict of interest provisions, HUD must consider whether undue hardship will result, either to the recipient or to the person affected, when weighed against the public interest served by avoiding the prohibited conflict.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. AP -76,864
EX P ARTE GUADALUP E VASQUEZ, Appli cant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 2004-404,954 IN THE 137TH DISTRICT COURT

F ROM LUBBOCK COUN TY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of assault on a public
serva nt and ag grava

ted assault on a public serva nt, and he was sentenc ed, respe ctively , to concur rent terms of ten year s and ninety-nine year s in prison. T h e Seventh Court of Appea ls aff irmed the
co n v ictions in an unpublished opinion. Vasquez v. State , No. 07-04-000482- CR (Tex. Ap p . – Amarillo del. Aug . 19, 2005). Applicant contends he was denied his right to pursue a petition for discretionar y revie w from the appellate court’s decision. Appellate counsel has provided an aff idavit reg arding the claim, and-2-

based on that aff

idavit, the trial court h as en t ered finding s of fac t and conclusions of law
rec ommending r elief begrante d. See E x parte W ilson , 956 S.W .2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We agree with the trial court and hold that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time p et ition for discretionar y revie w of the judgme nt of the Seventh Court of Appeals in Appea l No. 07-04-000482- CR that aff irmed his conviction i n C au s e No. 2004-404954 from the 137th District Court of Lubbock County
. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary revie w with this C ourt within 30 day s of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Deliver ed: August 22, 2012 Do not publish
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

BARRY J. PORTMAN

Federal Public Defender

SHAWN HALBERT

Assistant Federal Public Defender

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7700

Counsel for Defendant Marshawn Jones

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARSHAWN JONES,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR-09-0970 MMC

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER CONTINUING STATUS

DATE FROM FEBRUARY 10, 2010

TO FEBRUARY 17, 2010 AND

EXCLUDING TIME UNDER 18 U.S.C.

§ 3161

The parties are scheduled to appear before this Court on February 10, 2010 at 2:30 p.m. for

setting or change of plea. The defense requests that the matter be continued by one week to

February 17, 2010 (or the next date convenient to the Court) for the following reason: defense

counsel had a contact visit with Mr. Jones at North County Jail on February 4, 2010, at which time it

became clear that an additional meeting was necessary; the next available contact visit is on the

afternoon of February 9, 2010, but this will not give the parties sufficient time to complete plea

negotiations and submit a plea agreement to the Court in the event that the case is going to resolve

by plea. The government has no objection to that request. 

STIP. AND ORDER CONT. STATUS DATE

AND EXCLUDING TIME 

No. CR-09-0970 MMC - 1 -

Case 3:09-cr-00970-MMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/10 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

The parties also agree that the time between February 10, 2010 and February 17, 2010 should

be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act. The continuance is necessary for effective preparation of

counsel, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (h)(7)(B)(iv), and the ends of justice served by granting

such a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

SO STIPULATED:

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO 

United States Attorney

DATED: February 5, 2010 /s/ 

MATT MCCARTHY

Assistant United States Attorney 

DATED: February 5, 2010 /s/ 

SHAWN HALBERT

Assistant Federal Public Defender

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the continuance of time for the next hearing

before this court from February 10, 2010 to February 17, 2010 is warranted because the failure to

grant the requested continuance would deny the defense effective preparation of counsel; thus, the

ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant

in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(7)(A), (h)(7)(B)(iv).

SO ORDERED.

DATED: ______________ _______________________________________

 THE HONORABLE MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Court Judge

STIP. AND ORDER CONT. STATUS DATE

AND EXCLUDING TIME 

No. CR-09-0970 MMC - 2 -

February 8, 2010

Case 3:09-cr-00970-MMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/10 Page 2 of 2
### §4277. Compensation of members

(a) Members of the Commission who are Members of Congress, officers of the executive branch of the Federal Government, Governors, or full-time salaries officers of city and county governments shall serve without compensation in addition to that received in their regular public employment, but shall be allowed necessary travel expenses (or, in the alternative, a per diem in lieu of subsistence and mileage not to exceed the rates prescribed in subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5), without regard to subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, the Standardized Government Travel Regulations, or section 5731(a) of title 5, and other necessary expenses incurred by them in the performance of duties vested in the Commission.

(b) Unless prohibited by State or local law, members of the Commission, other than those to whom subsection (a) is applicable, shall receive compensation at the rate of $50 per day for each day they are engaged in the performance of their duties as members of the Commission and shall be entitled to reimbursement for travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred by them in the performance of their duties as members of the Commission, as provided for in subsection (a) of this section.

(Pub. L. 86–380, §7, Sept. 24, 1959, 73 Stat. 706; Pub. L. 89–733, §5, Nov. 2, 1966, 80 Stat. 1162.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

In subsec. (a), "subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5" substituted for "the Travel Expense Act of 1949, as amended" and for "the Travel Expense Act of 1949, as amended (5 U.S.C. 835–842)", and "section 5731(a) of title 5" substituted for "section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1933, (5 U.S.C. 73(b)", on authority of Pub. L. 89–554, §7(b), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 631, the first section of which enacted Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

Section was formerly classified to section 2377 of Title 5 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, by Pub. L. 89–554, §1, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 378.

#### Amendments

1966—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 89–733 inserted "Unless prohibited by State or local law".
```

[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 77759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28314]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel. RFP SBIR TOPIC 207--Synthesis Modules of Radio Pharmaceutical 
Production.
    Date: February 23, 2005.
    Time: 12 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6130 Executive Blvd., 
Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Kenneth L Bielat, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer 
Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard, 
Room 7147, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-7576, [email protected].

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

    Dated: December 20, 2004.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 04-28314 Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JACQUELYN FISHER,

Appellant,

v.

ROBERT LAMANO STEVEN,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-2344

[November 4, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Glenn D. Kelley, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502018CA000948.

Scott J. Liotta of Dan Newlin & Partners, Orlando, for appellant.

Kansas R. Gooden of Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., Miami, and Lara J. 

Edelstein of Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, C.J., MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 200.159 Relief on account of lost, stolen, destroyed, mutilated or defaced debentures.

The statutes of the United States and the regulations of the Treasury Department governing relief on account of the loss, theft, destruction, mutilation or defacement of United States securities, so far as applicable and as necessarily modified to relate to debentures, are adopted as the regulations of the Commissioner for the issuance of substitute debentures or the payment of lost, stolen, destroyed, mutilated or defaced debentures.
### §7275. Definitions

As used in sections 7275 to 7276c of this title:

(1) The term "Administrator" means the Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration.

(2) The term "integrated resource planning" means a planning process for new energy resources that evaluates the full range of alternatives, including new generating capacity, power purchases, energy conservation and efficiency, cogeneration and district heating and cooling applications, and renewable energy resources, in order to provide adequate and reliable service to its electric customers at the lowest system cost. The process shall take into account necessary features for system operation, such as diversity, reliability, dispatchability, and other factors of risk; shall take into account the ability to verify energy savings achieved through energy conservation and efficiency and the projected durability of such savings measured over time; and shall treat demand and supply resources on a consistent and integrated basis.

(3) The term "least cost option" means an option for providing reliable electric services to electric customers which will, to the extent practicable, minimize life-cycle system costs, including adverse environmental effects, of providing such service. To the extent practicable, energy efficiency and renewable resources may be given priority in any least-cost option.

(4) The term "long-term firm power service contract" means any contract for the sale by Western Area Power Administration of firm capacity, with or without energy, which is to be delivered over a period of more than one year.

(5) The terms "customer" or "customers" means any entity or entities purchasing firm capacity with or without energy, from the Western Area Power Administration under a long-term firm power service contract. Such terms include parent-type entities and their distribution or user members.

(6) For any customer, the term "applicable integrated resource plan" means the integrated resource plan approved by the Administrator under sections 7275 to 7276c of this title for that customer.

(Pub. L. 98–381, title II, §201, as added Pub. L. 102–486, title I, §114, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2799.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984, and not as part of the Department of Energy Organization Act which comprises this chapter.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 7275, Pub. L. 98–381, title II, §201, Aug. 17, 1984, 98 Stat. 1340, related to energy conservation program of Western Area Power Administration, prior to the general amendment of title II of Pub. L. 98–381 by section 114 of Pub. L. 102–486.
#### In the Matter of Keith M. and Others, Infants. Erie County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Kimberly M., Appellant.

[833 NYS2d 421]—

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret O. Szczur, J.), entered June 30, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order, among other things, adjudged the subject children to be neglected children.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P, Gorski, Smith, Fahey and Green, JJ.
Case 3:09-cr-00880-JSW Document 42 Filed 07/29/10 Page 1 of 2Case 3:09-cr-00880-JSW Document 42 Filed 07/29/10 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rosendo Torres, Appellant.

Two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County, both rendered September 12, 1976, affirmed. No opinion. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel granted (see *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631). Hopkins, J. P., Margett, Shapiro and Suozzi, JJ., concur.
69–008 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 110–432 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL (H.R. 3688) TO IMPLEMENT 

THE UNITED STATES-PERU TRADE PROMOTION AGREEMENT 

NOVEMBER 6, 2007.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Ms. MATSUI, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 801] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 801, by a record vote of 10 to 0 (with one Member voting 

Present), report the same to the House with the recommendation 

that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 3688, the 

‘‘United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation 

Act,’’ under a closed rule providing three hours of debate, with 45 

minutes in favor of the bill controlled by Representative Rangel of 

New York or his designee, 45 minutes in favor of the bill controlled 

by Representative McCrery of Louisiana or his designee, 45 minutes in opposition to the bill controlled by Representative Michaud 

of Maine or his designee, and 45 minutes in opposition to the bill 

controlled by the Minority Leader or his designee. 

The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of 

the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The 

resolution provides that the bill shall be considered as read. The 

resolution waives all points of order against the bill. This waiver 

does not affect the point of order available under clause 9 of rule 

XXI (regarding earmark disclosure). The resolution provides that 

pursuant to section 151(f)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974, the previous 

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage 

without intervening motion. Finally, the resolution permits the 

Chair, during consideration of the bill, to postpone further consideration of it to a time designated by the Speaker. 

EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

The waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill 

(except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI) includes a 

waiver of clause 4(a) of rule XIII (regarding availability of comVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:10 Nov 07, 2007 Jkt 069008 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR432.XXX HR432

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
2 

mittee report). Although the rule waives all points of order against 

the bill, the Committee is not aware of any points of order against 

the bill. The waiver of all points of order against the bill is prophylactic in nature. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

The results of each record vote on an amendment or motion to 

report, together with the names of those voting for and against, are 

printed below: 

Rules Committee record vote No. 383 

Date: November 6, 2007. 

Measure: H.R. 3688. 

Motion by: Mr. McGovern. 

Summary of motion: To report the rule. 

Results: Adopted 10–0, with one Member voting Present. 

Vote by Members: McGovern—Yea; Matsui—Yea; Cardoza—Yea; 

Welch—Yea; Castor—Yea; Arcuri—Yea; Sutton—Pres; Dreier—

Yea; Diaz-Balart—Yea; Sessions—Yea; Slaughter—Yea. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMRPT
§ 103.100 Notification and referral to substantially equivalent State or local agencies. ( a ) Whenever a complaint alleges a discriminatory housing practice that is within the jurisdiction of a substantially equivalent State or local agency and the agency is certified or may accept interim referrals under 24 CFR part 115 with regard to the alleged discriminatory housing practice, the Assistant Secretary will notify the agency of the filing of the complaint and refer the complaint to the agency for further processing before HUD takes any action with respect to the complaint. The Assistant Secretary will notify the State or local agency of the referral by certified mail.
( b ) The Assistant Secretary will notify the aggrieved person and the respondent, by certified mail or personal service, of the notification and referral under paragraph (a) of this section. The notice will advise the aggrieved person and the respondent of the aggrieved person's right to commence a civil action under section 813 of the Fair Housing Act in an appropriate United States District Court, not later than two years after the occurrence or termination of the alleged discriminatory housing practice. The notice will state that the computation of this two-year period excludes any time during which a proceeding is pending under this part or part 180 with respect to complaint or charge based on the alleged discriminatory housing practice. The notice will also state that the time period includes the time during which an action arising from a breach of a conciliation agreement under section 814(b)(2) of the Fair Housing Act is pending.
[54 FR 3292, Jan. 23, 1989, as amended at 61 FR 52218, Oct. 4, 1996]