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 ____________________________________________________________________

Stipulation and Proposed Order Dismissing Action with Prejudice

1

Glenn R. Kantor, Esq. SBN: 122643

 E-Mail: ggkantor@kantorlaw.net 

KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP

19839 Nordhoff Street

Northridge, CA 91324

Telephone: (818) 886-2525

Facsimile: (818) 350-6272

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Mark Blommer

Rebecca A. Hull Bar No. 99802

 E-mail: rebecca.hull@sdma.com

SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP

One Market Plaza

Steuart Tower, 8th Floor

San Francisco, California 94105

Telephone: (415) 781-7900

Facsimile: (415) 781-2635

Attorneys for Defendants Metropolitan Life Insurance Company;

GMAC Mortgage Group Long Term Disability Plan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Mark Anthony Blommer,

Plaintiff,

VS.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY; GMAC MORTGAGE

GROUP LONG TERM DISABILITY

PLAN,

Defendants.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: CV 09-0372 JSW

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER FOR DISMISSAL OF

ACTION WITH PREJUDICE

Following settlement of this matter, Plaintiff Mark Blommer, and Defendants

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and GMAC Mortgage Group Long Term

Disability Plan, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate that

Case 3:09-cv-00372-JSW Document 23 Filed 01/07/10 Page 1 of 2 Case3:09-cv-00372-JSW Document22 Filed01/07/10 Page1 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 ____________________________________________________________________

Stipulation and Proposed Order Dismissing Action with Prejudice

2

this action shall be dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs, expenses

and attorney’s fees. 

DATED: January 7, 2010 KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP

 /S/ Glenn R. Kantor 

GLENN R. KANTOR

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Mark Blommer

DATED: January 7, 2010 SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD

LLP

 /S/ Rebecca A. Hull 

REBECCA A. HULL

Attorney for Defendants

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and

GMAC Mortgage Group Long Term Disability

Plan

**ORDER**

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the above-entitled action is hereby

dismissed with prejudice as to all Defendants. Each party shall bear its own fees and

costs.

DATED: ________________ _________________________________

HONORABLE JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case3:09-cv-00372-JSW Document22 Filed01/07/10 Page2 of 2

January 7, 2010

Case 3:09-cv-00372-JSW Document 23 Filed 01/07/10 Page 2 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit 

No. 18-1386 

UNITED STATES, 

Appellee, 

v. 

TRAVIS J. STINSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________ 

ERRATA SHEET 

The opinion of this Court, issued on October 23, 2020, is 

amended as follows: 

On page 4, line 24, replace "months" with "months'"
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

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 Pacific Biometrics, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Ronald R. Helm, Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Pacific Biometrics, Inc. and will be retained by Pacific
Biometrics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

Date: May 14, 2003

| |                                                      
| | -----------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Ronald R. Helm                                   
| |                                                      
| | Ronald R. Helm,
Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer

-24-
#### Annette H. Slaff v. Jacob Friedman.

Motion for leave to reargue motion of September 6, 1960, granted and, upon reargument, the motion for leave to appeal on the original record is denied. That branch of the motion requesting an extension of time within which to perfect said appeal is granted to the extent of enlarging the appellant’s time to serve and file the record on appeal and the appellant’s points up to and including December 22, 1960, with notice of argument for January 3, 1961, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
§ 103.215 Conduct of investigation. ( a ) In conducting investigations under this part, the Assistant Secretary will seek the voluntary cooperation of all persons to obtain access to premises, records, documents, individuals, and other possible sources of information; to examine, record, and copy necessary materials; and to take and record testimony or statements of persons reasonably necessary for the furtherance of the investigation.
( b ) The Assistant Secretary may conduct and order discovery in aid of the investigation by the same methods and to the same extent that discovery may be ordered in an administrative proceeding under 24 CFR part 180, except that the Assistant Secretary shall have the power to issue subpoenas described in 24 CFR 180.545 in support of the investigation. Subpoenas issued by the Assistant Secretary must be approved by the General Counsel as to their legality before issuance.
[54 FR 3292, Jan. 23, 1989, as amended at 61 FR 41482, Aug. 8, 1996; 61 FR 52218, Oct. 4, 1996; 62 FR 66433, Dec. 18, 1997]
QUICK

CARDTM

Top Four 

Construction Hazards

The top four causes of construction fatalities are:

Falls, Struck-By, Caught-In/Between and

Electrocutions.

Prevent Falls 

• Wear and use personal fall arrest

equipment.

• Install and maintain perimeter 

protection.

• Cover and secure floor openings 

and label floor opening covers.

• Use ladders and scaffolds safely.

Prevent Struck-By

• Never position yourself between

moving and fixed objects.

• Wear high-visibility clothes near

equipment/vehicles.

Prevent Caught-In/Between 

• Never enter an unprotected trench 

or excavation 5 feet or deeper 

without an adequate protective 

system in place; some trenches

under 5 feet deep may also need

such a system.

• Make sure the trench or excavation is protected either by sloping,

shoring, benching or trench 

shield systems.

Prevent Electrocutions

• Locate and identify utilities before 

starting work.

• Look for overhead power lines

when operating any equipment.

• Maintain a safe distance away

from power lines; learn the safe distance requirements.

• Do not operate portable electric tools unless they are

grounded or double insulated.

• Use ground-fault circuit interrupters for protection.

• Be alert to electrical hazards when working with 

ladders, scaffolds or other platforms.

OSHA 3216-6N-06

U.S. Department of Labor

www.osha.gov (800) 321-OSHA

For more complete information:

Occupational

Safety and Health

Administration
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

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, et al.,

Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants,

 v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al.,

Defendants/Counterclaimants. /

No. C 08-00986 SI

ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S

REQUEST TO ALLOW DEPOSITION OF

WILLIAM TRIGGS

On March 24, 2010, the Court issued an order directing the parties to further meet and confer

regarding Samsung’s request to allow the deposition of William Triggs. The parties were unable to

come to an agreement during the meet and confer, and Samsung has renewed its motion. The Court now

grants Samsung’s request. 

There is no dispute that Samsung served the deposition subpoena on Mr. Triggs several weeks

prior to the fact discovery deadline of March 5, 2010, and that the deposition did not occur before the

close of discovery because the witness was unavailable. The Court recognizes the importance of

adhering to the discovery schedule, but does not wish to penalize Samsung simply because the witness

was not available before the deadline.

Samsung’s request to allow the deposition of Mr. Triggs is GRANTED. The parties shall

schedule the deposition at their convenience, but in any event no later than April 23, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2010 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00986-SI Document 428 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 1
### §7428. State boards

(a) 1 Not later than the date one year after August 7, 1977, each applicable implementation plan shall contain requirements that—

(1) any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under this chapter shall have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders under this chapter, and

(2) any potential conflicts of interest by members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed.

A State may adopt any requirements respecting conflicts of interest for such boards or bodies or heads of executive agencies, or any other entities which are more stringent than the requirements of paragraph (1) and (2), and the Administrator shall approve any such more stringent requirements submitted as part of an implementation plan.

(July 14, 1955, ch. 360, title I, §128, as added Pub. L. 95–95, title I, §125, Aug. 7, 1977, 91 Stat. 725.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Aug. 7, 1977, except as otherwise expressly provided, see section 406(d) of Pub. L. 95–95, set out as an Effective Date of 1977 Amendment note under section 7401 of this title.

1 So in original. Section enacted without a subsec. (b).
§ 1000.234 Can HUD's determination regarding the non-compliance of an IHP or a modification to an IHP be appealed? ( a ) Yes. Within 30 days of receiving HUD's disapproval of an IHP or of a modification to an IHP, the recipient may submit a written request for reconsideration of the determination. The request shall include the justification for the reconsideration.
( b ) Within 21 days of receiving the request, HUD shall reconsider its initial determination and provide the recipient with written notice of its decision to affirm, modify, or reverse its initial determination. This notice will also contain the reasons for HUD's decision.
( c ) The recipient may appeal any denial of reconsideration by filing an appeal with the Assistant Secretary within 21 days of receiving the denial. The appeal shall set forth the reasons why the recipient does not agree with HUD's decision and include justification for the reconsideration.
( d ) Within 21 days of receipt of the appeal, the Assistant Secretary shall review the recipient's appeal and act on the appeal. The Assistant Secretary will provide written notice to the recipient setting forth the reasons for the decision. The Assistant Secretary's decision constitutes final agency action.
SERVED: September 25, 2013 

US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

MARTINAIRE AVIATION, LLC 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2013- 0040 

NOTICE 

Ira Leibowitz, Attorney-Advisor is retiring on September 30, 2013. 

All future communications should be directed to the undersigned at: 

Richard C. Goodwin, 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, Attn: Room E11-310 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

(Richard. Goodwin@dot.gov) 

Administrative matters should be directed to Patricia Matthews, Staff Assistant (202) 366-5121 

(Patricia.Matthews({V,dot. gov) 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
2 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WI0001 

ONE COPY 

Michael L. Dworkin, Respondent's Counsel 

Michael L. Dworkin and Associates Law Offices 

465 California Street, Suite 210 

San Francisco, CA 94104-1808 

TEL: 415-421-2500 

FAX: 415-421-2560 

James Archier, Complainant's Counsel 

Agency Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Suite 6E 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

TEL: 817-222-5074 

FAX: 817-222-5092 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202.:366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0040 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
#### § 203.345 Postponement of principal payments—mortgagors in military service.

In addition to the special forbearance relief afforded by §§ 203.340 through 203.342, if the mortgagor is a person in the military service (as defined in the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940), the mortgagee may, by written agreement with the mortgagor, postpone for the period of military service and three months thereafter any part of the monthly payment which represents amortization of principal. The agreement shall contain a provision for the resumption of monthly payments after such period in amounts which will completely amortize the mortgage debt within the maturity as provided in the original mortgage. The agreement shall in no way affect the amount of the annual MIP which will continue to be calculated in accordance with the original amortization provisions of the mortgage.
### §300gg–12. Prohibition on rescissions

A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall not rescind such plan or coverage with respect to an enrollee once the enrollee is covered under such plan or coverage involved, except that this section shall not apply to a covered individual who has performed an act or practice that constitutes fraud or makes an intentional misrepresentation of material fact as prohibited by the terms of the plan or coverage. Such plan or coverage may not be cancelled except with prior notice to the enrollee, and only as permitted under section 300gg–2(b) 1 or 300gg–42(b) of this title.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXVII, §2712, as added Pub. L. 111–148, title I, §1001(5), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 131.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 300gg–2(b) of this title, referred to in text, was in the original a reference to section "2702(c)" of act July 1, 1944, which was translated as meaning section 2703(b) of act July 1, 1944, to reflect the probable intent of Congress. Section 2702(c), which is classified to section 300gg–1 of this title, relates to special rules for network plans, while section 2703(b) specifies the reasons for which a health insurance issuer may nonrenew or discontinue health insurance coverage offered in connection with a health insurance coverage offering in the group or individual market. Section 300gg–2(b) also parallels section 300gg–42(b) which appears in the same context in this section as the reference to section 300gg–2(b).

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 300gg–12, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXVII, §2712, as added Pub. L. 104–191, title I, §102(a), Aug. 21, 1996, 110 Stat. 1964, which related to guaranteed renewability of coverage for employers in a group market, was renumbered section 2732 of act July 1, 1944, amended, and transferred to subsecs. (b) to (e) of section 300gg–2 of this title, by Pub. L. 111–148, title I, §§1001(3), 1563(c)(9), formerly §1562(c)(9), title X, §10107(b)(1), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 130, 267, 911.

Another prior section 2712 of act July 1, 1944, was successively renumbered by subsequent acts and transferred, see section 238k of this title.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective for plan years beginning on or after the date that is 6 months after Mar. 23, 2010, see section 1004 of Pub. L. 111–148, set out as a note under section 300gg–11 of this title.

1 See References in Text note below.
#### § 518.45 Cost and price analysis.

Some form of cost or price analysis shall be made and documented in the procurement files in connection with every procurement action. Price analysis may be accomplished in various ways, including the comparison of price quotations submitted, market prices and similar indicia, together with discounts. Cost analysis is the review and evaluation of each element of cost to determine reasonableness, allocability and allowability.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Miles, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 11, 1975, convicting him of attempted possession of weapons, etc., as a felony, upon a plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. Judgment aflirmed. After a hearing, the court denied defendant’s motion to suppress the .22 calibre revolver which was seized from his person after he was stopped and frisked. The failure of the court to make the requisite findings is not, in and of itself, reversible error, since the defendant was accorded a full and fair suppression hearing and an adequate record was made upon which this court can make such findings on review (see *People v Massiah,*47 AD2d 931; *People v Russo,*45 AD2d 1040). With respect to the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing, Officer Orlando testified that at approximately 5:00 p.m. on May 24, 1974, while on anticrime patrol in an unmarked car, he observed defendant standing on a corner in Brooklyn. Defendant was wearing a sports jacket which did not fit well and manifested nervousness by not standing still and by seeming to be undecided as to which way he should turn. According to Orlando, when defendant saw him, he turned and started to walk down the block. Orlando followed in the unmarked car and saw defendant enter a parking lot and walk toward another man. Although defendant and the other person motioned to each other and walked toward one another, they never made formal contact because Orlando pulled his vehicle to within one or two feet of defendant and observed a bulge on the latter’s left hip which, the officer said, "represented the outline of a gun.” At that point Orlando stopped and frisked the defendant. In patting him down he felt a heavy metal object. He then reached in, pulled out a loaded .22 calibre revolver and a holster, and then arrested defendant. Viewing the uncontradicted and unimpeached testimony of the prosecution’s witness, Orlando, the sole witness to testify at the suppression hearing, we believe the People have proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the stop and frisk of defendant was proper in all respects (see *People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759). Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Titone and Rabin, JJ., concur.
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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARE ESCENTUALS BEAUTY, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

 INTELLIGENT BEAUTY, LLC,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

Case No. C09-00382 CRB (JCS)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT ALL

PENDING DISCOVERY MOTIONS

[Docket Nos. 66, 70, 75, 79, 80, 82 and 83]

The parties to this matter have advised the Court that they have agreed to a settlement. IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that all pending discovery motions [docket nos. 66, 70, 75, 79, 80, 82 and 83]

are DENIED as moot, and the hearing date of March 12, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2010 _______________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00382-CRB Document 112 Filed 03/09/10 Page 1 of 1
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

In accordance with Title 41 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Section 102-3.65(a), notice is hereby given that the Charter for the National Toxicology Program Board of Scientific Counselors was renewed for an additional two-year period on November 14, 2020.

                    It is determined that the National Toxicology Program Board of Scientific Counselors is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the National Institutes of Health by law, and that these duties can best be performed                           ( print page 76087)                        through the advice and counsel of this group.                

                    Inquiries may be directed to Claire Harris, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 1000, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 (Mail Stop Code 4875), Telephone (301) 496-2123, or                     *harriscl@mail.nih.gov*.                

Dated: November 20, 2020.

Tyeshia M. Roberson, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2020-26167 Filed 11-25-20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Exhibit 15.1

May 8,
2008

Securities
and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20549

We
are aware that Monster Worldwide, Inc. has incorporated by reference in its previously filed open Registration Statements on Form S-8
(Nos. 333-81843, 333-63631, 333-50699, 333-18937 and 333-131899) its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008, which includes our report dated May 5, 2008 covering the unaudited interim financial information contained therein. Pursuant to Regulation C of the Securities Act
of 1933 (the "Act"), that report is not considered part of the registration statement prepared or certified by our firm or a report prepared or certified by our firm within the meaning of
Sections 7 and 11 of the Act. It should be noted that we have not performed any procedures subsequent to May 5, 2008.

New
York, New York

---



QuickLinks