alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Honorable John B. Jones, United States District Judge for the District of 1

South Dakota, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2523

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western 

* District of Missouri.

Calvin Porter, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 12, 1998

Filed: January 23, 1998

___________

Before BOWMAN, MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and JONES, District Judge. 1

___________

PER CURIAM.

Calvin Porter was traveling from California to St. Louis when two kilograms of

cocaine were discovered in his bag in the luggage compartment of the bus during a stop

in Springfield, Missouri. The district court suppressed the cocaine evidence on the

basis that it had been seized in violation of the fourth amendment, and the United States

appealed. We reversed after agreeing with the district court that the law enforcement

agent who boarded the bus had reasonable suspicion permitting him to ask
Porter to step off the bus to identify his luggage but concluding that Porter’s rights were

not violated by seizure of a bag he had abandoned. See United States v. Porter, 107

F.3d 582, 584 (8th Cir. 1997). We remanded so that the district court could rule on

Porter’s other motion to suppress based on the alleged failure to inform him of his

Miranda rights before he made certain statements. On remand the district court found

that Porter had been informed of his rights but went on to reexamine the search and

seizure issue and again suppressed the cocaine evidence after changing its earlier view

that the agent had reasonable suspicion when he asked Porter to step off the bus. The

United States appeals once again. The district court erred in reopening a fourth

amendment issue already decided on appeal. See United States v. Bartsh, 69 F.3d 864,

866 (8th Cir. 1995). The order suppressing the cocaine is reversed, and the case is

remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinions of this court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE 2ND QUARTER ENDED 6/30/97 CONTAINED IN
THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
REPORT ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          31,979
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,943
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (389)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,977
<PP&E>                                           6,145
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,090)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,993
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,225
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            76
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,112
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,993
<SALES>                                         25,974
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,974
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,963
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,369
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   157
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,618
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,440
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,178
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,178
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.28
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on October 28, 2004, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Joint Venture under ATP Award No. 70NANB4H3028 has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to section  6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties are Carbon Nanotechnologies, Inc., Houston, TX; Johnson Matthey Fuel Cells, Inc., West Chester, PA; and Motorola Inc., Motorola Labs, Microelectronics & Physical Sciences Lab, Tempe, AZ. The nature and objectives of the venture are: to exploit the unique properties of single-wall carbon nanotubes (SWNT) in order to achieve major breakthroughs in Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cell performance, durability and manufacturability.

Dorothy B. Fountain,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 04-27067 Filed 12-9-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 77708]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28277]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Foreign Agricultural Service


Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers

AGENCY: Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), approved a 
petition for trade adjustment assistance (TAA) that was filed on 
November 18, 2004, by the Louisiana Shrimp Association, Grand Isle, 
Louisiana. The certification date is January 10, 2005. Beginning on 
this date, shrimpers who land their catch in Louisiana will be eligible 
to apply for fiscal year 2005 benefits during an application period 
ending April 11, 2005.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Upon investigation, the Administrator 
determined that increased imports of farmed shrimp contributed 
importantly to a decline in the landed prices of shrimp in Louisiana by 
27.5 percent during January 2003 through December 2003, when compared 
with the previous 5-year average.
    Eligible producers must apply to the Farm Service Agency for 
benefits. After submitting completed applications, producers shall 
receive technical assistance provided by the Extension Service at no 
cost and may receive an adjustment assistance payment, if certain 
program criteria are satisfied. Applicants must obtain the technical 
assistance from the Extension Service by July 11, 2005, in order to be 
eligible for financial payments.
    Producers of raw agricultural commodities wishing to learn more 
about TAA and how they may apply should contact the Department of 
Agriculture at the addresses provided below for General Information.
    Producers Certified as Eligible for TAA, Contact: Farm Service 
Agency service centers in Louisiana.
    For General Information About TAA, Contact: Jean-Louis Pajot, 
Coordinator, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers, FAS, USDA, (202) 
720-2916, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#681c1a090c0d46090c021d1b1c050d061c280e091b461d1b0c09460f071e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8bfff9eaefeea5eaefe1fef8ffe6eee5ffcbedeaf8a5fef8efeaa5ece4fd">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: December 15, 2004.
A. Ellen Terpstra,
Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service.
[FR Doc. 04-28277 Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-10-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
(May 10, 1977)

#### John Grace & Co., Inc., Respondent, v State University Construction Fund, Appellant.

Motion for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted, without costs. No issue of fact was considered by this court. Pursuant to CPLR 5713, this court certifies that the following question of law, decisive of the correctness of its determination, has arisen, which in its opinion ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals: "Did Special Term err as a matter of law in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint?” Koreman, P. J., Sweeney, Mahoney, Herlihy and Larkin, JJ., concur.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2825 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 4-Chloro-3-[[3-(4-methoxyphenyl)–1,3- 

dioxopropyl]-amino]-do decyl ester. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 8, 2005 

Mr. SPRATT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 4-Chloro-3-[[3-(4- 

methoxyphenyl)–1,3-dioxopropyl]-amino]-do decyl ester. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 4-CHLORO-3-[[3-(4-METHOXYPHENYL)–1,3- 

4 DIOXOPROPYL]-AMINO]-DODECYL ESTER. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 
2 

•HR 2825 IH 

‘‘ 9902.09.01 4-Chloro-3-[[3-(4- 

methoxyphenyl)–1,3- 

dioxopropyl]-amino]-dodecyl 

ester (CAS No. 33942–96– 

0) (provided for in subheading 2924.29.71) ............ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

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

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
#### § 236.14 Arbitration.

Any controversy or claim between USAID and any Noteholder arising out of the Guarantee shall be settled by arbitration to be held in Washington, DC in accordance with the then prevailing rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrators may be entered in any court of competent jurisdiction.
### §5185. Emergency communications

The President is authorized during, or in anticipation of, an emergency or major disaster to establish temporary communications systems and to make such communications available to State and local government officials and other persons as he deems appropriate.

(Pub. L. 93–288, title IV, §418, formerly §415, May 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 158; renumbered §418, Pub. L. 100–707, title I, §106(j), Nov. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 4705.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 418 of Pub. L. 93–288 was renumbered section 421 by Pub. L. 100–707 and is classified to section 5188 of this title.
#### FCC National Bank, Respondent, v Joseph Shantal, Defendant. Andrew F. Capoccia Law Centers, L. L. C., Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 623]

Mercure, J. P.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (O’Brien, III, J.), entered June 16, 1999 in Madison County, which imposed sanctions on defendant’s counsel.

In defense of this action to recover the balance due on a credit card account, defendant, by his attorneys, Andrew F. Capoccia Law Centers, L. L. C. (hereinafter Capoccia), raised a number of affirmative defenses and counterclaims, e.g., claims that the credit card agreement was unconscionable and that plaintiff failed to comply with Personal Property Law article 10 and the Truth in Lending Act (15 USC § 1601*et seq.),*which had no basis in fact and which this Court has previously found to be frivolous in other cases *(see, Citibank [S. D.] v Coughlin,*274 AD2d 658; *Citibank [S. D.] v Jones,*272 AD2d 815, *lv denied*95 NY2d 764). Plaintiff moved for summary judgment *520on its cause of action for judgment on an account stated and to impose sanctions against Capoccia. Supreme Court granted both motions and imposed sanctions in the amount of $500 for interposing an answer that contained false denials and affirmative defenses without merit in order to delay plaintiffs recovery. Capoccia appeals only the award of sanctions.

We affirm. We reject the contention that Capoccia’s due process rights were violated because it did not receive notice that Supreme Court was considering sanctions and was not afforded a hearing on the matter. To the contrary, plaintiff made an express request in its summary judgment motion that sanctions be imposed against Capoccia (see, *Matter of Minister, Elders & Deacons of Refm. Prot. Dutch Church v 198 Broadway,*76 NY2d 411, 413), and no formal hearing was required as Capoccia had the opportunity to, and in fact did, respond to the request for sanctions (see, *Matter of Lupoli,*227 AD2d 560, 561; *Matter of Gordon v Marrone,*202 AD2d 104, 110-111, *lv denied*84 NY2d 813; *Grasso v Mathew,*187 AD2d 758; *compare, Household Fin. Corp. III v Dynan,*274 AD2d 656). Capoccia’s claims concerning the merit of the defenses and counterclaims asserted in the answer in this case have already been considered and rejected in other similar cases (see, *Citibank [S. D.] v Coughlin,*supra;*Citibank [S. D.] v Jones, supra),*and its remaining contentions have been considered and found to be lacking in merit as well.

Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
#### BELCHER et al., Appellants, v. FLETCHER, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 8, 1905.)

Action by Isaac Belcher and others, as heirs of Roswell Belcher, deceased, suing for the benefit of Isaac Belcher, against Delos M. Fletcher. No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
#### Penrhyn Aston, Respondent, v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company, Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated September 29, 1960, as grants plaintiff’s motion to strike out the defendant’s answer unless it submits to an examination before trial, and as denies defendant’s cross motion for discovery of plaintiff’s medical and roentgenologist reports. Order insofar as appealed from affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Defendant’s time to submit to the examination in order to avoid the striking out of its answer, extended until 30 days after entry of the order hereon. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 62
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 62 appear at 64 FR 54539, Oct. 7, 1999, and 67 FR 17612, 17613, Apr. 11, 2002.

§ 62.3 Sponsor eligibility. ( a ) The following types of entities are eligible to apply for designation as a sponsor of an exchange visitor program: ( 1 ) U.S. local, state, and federal government agencies to include the District of Columbia; and government agencies of any U.S. territories and outlying possessions;
( 2 ) International agencies or organizations of which the United States is a member and that have an office in the United States; or
( 3 ) Reputable organizations that are United States Persons.
( b ) To be eligible for designation as a sponsor, an entity is required to: ( 1 ) Demonstrate, to the Department of State's satisfaction, its ability to comply and remain in continual compliance with all applicable provisions of this part;
( 2 ) Meet at all times its financial obligations and responsibilities attendant to successful sponsorship of its exchange visitor program; and
( 3 ) Demonstrate that the organization or its proposed Responsible Officer has no fewer than three years' experience in international exchange.
[79 FR 60307, Oct. 6, 2014]
### §6864a. Private sector investments

#### (a) In general

The Secretary shall, to the extent funds are made available for such purpose, provide financial assistance to entities receiving funding from the Federal Government or from a State through a weatherization assistance program under section 6863 or section 6864 of this title for the development and initial implementation of partnerships, agreements, or other arrangements with utilities, private sector interests, or other institutions, under which non-Federal financial assistance would be made available to support programs which install energy efficiency improvements in low-income housing.

#### (b) Use of funds

Financial assistance provided under this section may be used for—

(1) the negotiation of such partnerships, agreements and other arrangements;

(2) the presentation of arguments before State or local agencies;

(3) expert advice on the development of such partnerships, agreements, and other arrangements; or

(4) other activities reasonably associated with the development and initial implementation of such arrangements.

#### (c) Conditions

(1) Financial assistance provided under this section to entities other than States shall, to the extent practicable, coincide with the timing of financial assistance provided to such entities under section 6863 or section 6864 of this title.

(2) Not less than 80 percent of amounts provided under this section shall be provided to entities other than States.

(3) A recipient of financial assistance under this section shall have up to three years to complete projects undertaken with such assistance.

(Pub. L. 94–385, title IV, §414A, as added Pub. L. 102–486, title I, §142(a), Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2842.)
#### Raymond H. Sharp, Respondent, v. City of Hornell et al., Appellants.

— Motion granted to extend appellants’ time for filing and serving records and *976briefs to October 20,1960. Respondent’s brief must be filed on or before November 17,1960 if appeal is to be argued at November 1960 Term; otherwise motion denied; see rule V-a of the rules of this court.
### §4842. Consultation by Secretary with other departments and agencies

In carrying out their respective authorities under this chapter, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall each cooperate with and seek the advice of the heads of any other departments or agencies regarding any programs under their respective responsibilities which are related to, or would be affected by, such authority.

(Pub. L. 91–695, title V, §502, Jan. 13, 1971, 84 Stat. 2080; Pub. L. 94–317, title II, §204(d), June 23, 1976, 90 Stat. 706; Pub. L. 96–88, title V, §509(b), Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 695.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–317 substituted "In carrying out their respective authorities under this chapter, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall each" for "In carrying out the authority under this chapter, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall".

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

#### Change of Name

"Secretary of Health and Human Services" substituted in text for "Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare" pursuant to section 509(b) of Pub. L. 96–88, which is classified to section 3508(b) of Title 20, Education.
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 

- 1 - 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING BURGER KING’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL, 

Case No. CV 08-4262 WHA 

GLYNN & FINLEY, LLP 

CLEMENT L. GLYNN, Bar No. 57117 

ADAM FRIEDENBERG, Bar No. 205778 

MAUREEN RODGERS, Bar No. 245876 

One Walnut Creek Center 

100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 500 

Walnut Creek, CA 94596 

Telephone: (925) 210-2800 

Facsimile: (925) 945-1975 

Email: cglynn@glynnfinley.com

afriedenberg@glynnfinley.com

mrodgers@glynnfinley.com

GENOVESE JOBLOVE & BATTISTA P.A. 

MICHAEL D. JOBLOVE (admitted pro hac vice) 

JONATHAN E. PERLMAN (admitted pro hac vice) 

Bank of America Tower 

100 Southeast 2nd Street, 44th Floor 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone: (305) 349-2300 

Facsimile: (305) 349-2310 

Email: mjoblove@gjb-law.com

 jperlman@gjb-law.com

Attorneys for Defendant Burger King Corporation 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MIGUEL CASTANEDA, KATHERINE 

CORBETT, and JOSEPH WELLNER on 

behalf of themselves and others similarly 

situated 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

BURGER KING CORPORATION 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. CV 08-4262 WHA

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANT BURGER KING 

CORPORATION’S ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENT 

UNDER SEAL

Case 3:08-cv-04262-WHA Document 311 Filed 02/18/10 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 

- 2 - 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING BURGER KING’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL, 

Case No. CV 08-4262 WHA 

Having considered the parties’ submissions to file the proposed documents under seal, and 

good cause appearing therefore, it is hereby ordered that Exhibit A to the Declaration of Michael 

Joblove submitted in support of BKC’s motion to extend discovery cut-off and to take individualized 

discovery as to opt-in plaintiffs (Docket No. 287), currently lodged with the Court, be filed under 

seal pursuant to Civil Local Rules 79-5(d) and 7-11. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

 Dated: 

 The Honorable William Alsup 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

February 18, 2010.

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge William Alsup

Case 3:08-cv-04262-WHA Document 311 Filed 02/18/10 Page 2 of 2