alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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

MICHAEL FOSTER

Plaintiff(s), No. C-08-01944 EDL

v. ORDER OF CONDITIONAL DISMISSAL

CITY OF OAKLAND

Defendants.

___________________________________/

The parties hereto, by their counsel, having advised the Court that they have agreed to a

conditional settlement of this case,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is dismissed without prejudice, with leave to reinstate

on or before 90 days for the purpose of proceeding with the litigation in the event a settlement has not

been completed prior to that date. In the event a request to reinstate the case is not filed and served on

opposing counsel on or before the foregoing date, the dismissal will be with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2010 _______________________________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01944-EDL Document 62 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 1
§ 100.303 62 or over housing. ( a ) The provisions regarding familial status in this part shall not apply to housing intended for, and solely occupied by, persons 62 years of age or older. Housing satisfies the requirements of this section even though: ( 1 ) There are persons residing in such housing on September 13, 1988 who are under 62 years of age, provided that all new occupants are persons 62 years of age or older;
( 2 ) There are unoccupied units, provided that such units are reserved for occupancy by persons 62 years of age or over;
( 3 ) There are units occupied by employees of the housing (and family members residing in the same unit) who are under 62 years of age provided they perform substantial duties directly related to the management or maintenance of the housing.
( b ) The following examples illustrate the application of paragraph (a) of this section:
Example (1): John and Mary apply for housing at the Vista Heights apartment complex which is an elderly housing complex operated for persons 62 years of age or older. John is 62 years of age. Mary is 59 years of age. If Vista Heights wishes to retain its “62 or over” exemption it must refuse to rent to John and Mary because Mary is under 62 years of age. However, if Vista Heights does rent to John and Mary, it might qualify for the “55 or over” exemption in § 100.304.
Example (2): The Blueberry Hill retirement community has 100 dwelling units. On September 13, 1988, 15 units were vacant and 35 units were occupied with at least one person who is under 62 years of age. The remaining 50 units were occupied by persons who were all 62 years of age or older. Blueberry Hill can qualify for the “62 or over” exemption as long as all units that were occupied after September 13, 1988 are occupied by persons who were 62 years of age or older. The people under 62 in the 35 units previously described need not be required to leave for Blueberry Hill to qualify for the “62 or over” exemption.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ECOPY, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-04227 JSW

ORDER CONTINUING CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

In light of the pendency of discovery disputes before Magistrate Judge James, this Court

VACATES the case management conferences set in this and related matters. The case

management shall be CONTINUED until April 9, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. An updated joint case

management statement shall be filed no later than April 2, 2010. If the discovery disputes are

resolved earlier, the parties shall immediately notify the Court and submit a joint case

management conference statement within 7 days of the resolution. The Court will then advance

the case management conference, if possible.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-04942-JSW Document 113 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2584 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2584

       To suspend temporarily the duty on Benzoxazole, 2,2'-(2,5-
               thiophenediyl)bis(5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 24, 2005

  Mr. Bonner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To suspend temporarily the duty on Benzoxazole, 2,2'-(2,5-
               thiophenediyl)bis(5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-.

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

SECTION 1. BENZOXAZOLE, 2,2'-(2,5-THIOPHENEDIYL)BIS(5-(1,1-
              DIMETHYLETHYL)-.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following:

``      9902.34.23       Benzoxazole, 2,2-  Free         No Change        No Change        On or Before 12/  ''.
                         (2,5-                                                              31/2008
                         thiophenediyl)bis
                         (5-(1,1-
                         dimethylethyl)-
                         (CAS No. 7128-64-
                         5) (provided for
                         in subheading
                         3204.20.80)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
### §4761. Declaration of purpose

The purpose of this subchapter is to provide for the general administration of subchapters I, II, III, and IV of this chapter (hereinafter referred to as "this chapter"), and to provide for the establishment of certain advisory committees.

(Pub. L. 91–648, title V, §501, Jan. 5, 1971, 84 Stat. 1925.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This subchapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title V of Pub. L. 91–648. See below.

Subchapters I, II, III, and IV of this chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "titles I, II, III, and V of this Act", meaning Pub. L. 91–648, Jan. 5, 1971, 84 Stat. 1909. Titles I, II, and III of the Act are classified generally to subchapters I (§4701 et seq.), II (§4721 et seq.), and III (§4741 et seq.), respectively, of this chapter. Title V of the Act is classified principally to this subchapter. For complete classification of titles I to III and V to the Code, see Tables.
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

DAVID LANCASTER,

Petitioner,

 v.

A.P. KANE, Warden,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 08-1880 MMC (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO

FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS

On December 3, 2007, petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at the

Correctional Training Facility, Soledad, and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a 2006 decision by the

California Board of Prison Hearings (“Board”) to deny petitioner parole. Respondent has

filed an answer to the petition and petitioner has filed a traverse.

A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit addresses important issues relating to federal

review of parole decisions. See Hayward v Marshall, No. 06-55392, 2010 WL 1664977 (9th

Cir. April 22, 2010) (en banc). Consequently, the parties will be directed to file

supplemental briefs setting forth their respective views as to the effect, if any, of the

Hayward en banc decision on the Court’s determination of the instant petition.

Case 3:08-cv-01880-MMC Document 11 Filed 05/20/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Accordingly, the Court hereby sets the following briefing schedule:

1. No later than ten days from the date this order is filed, respondent shall send to

petitioner a copy of the Hayward en banc decision. 

2. No later than twenty days from the date this order is filed, respondent shall file

and serve on petitioner a supplemental brief addressing the impact of Hayward on the instant

action. 

3. No later than twenty days from the date respondent’s supplemental brief is

filed, petitioner shall file and serve on respondent either a supplemental brief addressing the

impact of Hayward on the instant action or a notice that he does not intend to file such a

brief.

4. The parties’ respective supplemental briefs shall not exceed fifteen pages in length.

5. The matter will be deemed submitted on the date petitioner’s supplemental brief is

due. No extensions of time will be granted to file the supplemental briefs absent a showing

of exceptional circumstances. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 20, 2010 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01880-MMC Document 11 Filed 05/20/10 Page 2 of 2
#### § 1000.141 What is “useful life” and how is it related to affordability?

Useful life is the time period during which an assisted property must remain affordable, as defined in section 205(a) of NAHASDA.

[77 FR 71525, Dec. 3, 2012]
#### § 71.8 Assistance to American Red Cross.

Officers and employees of the Foreign Service may cooperate fully with the American Red Cross within their respective districts and subject to the limitations prescribed in § 102.806 (22 CFR, 1947 Supp.). They shall, however, avoid taking an active part in the solicitation of memberships or the collection of funds.
### §4952. Authority to operate VISTA program

This part shall be administered by one of the Assistant Directors appointed pursuant to section 12651e(d)(1)(A) of this title. Such Director may recruit, select, and train persons to serve in full-time volunteer programs consistent with the provisions and to carry out the purpose of this part.

(Pub. L. 93–113, title I, §102, Oct. 1, 1973, 87 Stat. 396; Pub. L. 98–288, §3, May 21, 1984, 98 Stat. 189; Pub. L. 101–204, title I, §101(d)(1), Dec. 7, 1989, 103 Stat. 1811; Pub. L. 103–82, title III, §322(a), Sept. 21, 1993, 107 Stat. 899.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1993—Pub. L. 103–82 substituted "This part shall be administered by one of the Assistant Directors appointed pursuant to section 12651e(d)(1)(A) of this title. Such Director" for "The Director".

1989—Pub. L. 101–204 struck out subsec. (a) designation before "The Director may", struck out subsec. (b) which related to replacement of applicants who become unavailable for service, and struck out subsec. (c) which related to age quotas.

1984—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 98–288 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).

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

#### Effective Date of 1993 Amendment

Pub. L. 103–82, title III, §322(b), Sept. 21, 1993, 107 Stat. 899, provided that: "The amendments made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall take effect on the effective date of section 203(b)." [Section 203(b) of Pub. L. 103–82 is effective 18 months after Sept. 21, 1993, or on such earlier date as the President shall determine to be appropriate and announce by proclamation in the Federal Register, see section 203(d) of Pub. L. 103–82, set out as a note under section 12651 of this title.]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Deborah Custalow, Appellant.

[715 NYS2d 147]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Kahn, J.), rendered May 22, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing her, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the court’s agency charge was deficient in that it did not discuss the theory that defendant may have acted as the agent of the other person with whom she was arrested is unpreserved *(see, People v Tarangelo,*269 AD2d 163, *lv denied*94 NY2d 953), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that there was no reasonable view of the evidence to support such a charge *(see, People v Johnson,*249 AD2d 417, *lv denied*92 NY2d 926; *compare, People v Feldman,*50 NY2d 500).

Defendant’s contention that the court failed to respond meaningfully to a jury note that was ultimately withdrawn by the jury is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that defendant has failed to establish that she was substantially prejudiced by the court’s delay in responding to the note *(see, People v Agosto,*73 NY2d 963, 966; *People v Lourido,*70 NY2d 428, 435). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Wallach, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          56,867
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,243
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,224
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               102,482
<PP&E>                                       1,046,263
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,735
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,307,862
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          168,375
<BONDS>                                        340,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           406
<OTHER-SE>                                     459,437
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,307,862
<SALES>                                         54,098
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                54,525
<CGS>                                           37,245
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,245
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,592
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,722
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (31,034)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (31,034)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (31,034)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.76)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.76)


</TABLE>
§ 512.22 Deduction from pay. ( a ) Deduction by salary offset, from an employee's disposable current pay, shall be subject to the following circumstances: ( 1 ) When funds are available, the Board will collect debts owed the United States in full in one lump-sum. If funds are not available or the debt exceeds 15% of disposable pay for an officially established pay interval, collection will normally be made in installments.
( 2 ) The installments shall not exceed 15% of the disposable pay from which the deduction is made, unless the employee has agreed in writing to a larger amount.
( 3 ) Deduction will commence with the next full pay interval following notice that deductions will commence.
( 4 ) Installment deductions will not be made over a period greater than the anticipated period of employment.
[52 FR 43897, Nov. 17, 1987, as amended at 55 FR 3051, Jan. 30, 1990]
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

ANTHONY WAYNE CHISMAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COUNTY OF DEL NORTE, CALIFORNIA, et

al.,

Defendants

 /

No. C-08-4793 MMC

SECOND ORDER DIRECTING

PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT CHAMBERS

COPY IN COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL

ORDER 45 AND THE COURT’S

STANDING ORDERS

On January 29, 2010, plaintiff electronically filed his opposition to defendants’ motion

for summary judgment, as well as two declaration in support thereof. Plaintiff has violated

General Order 45 and the Court’s Standing Orders, however, by failing to deliver to the

Clerk’s Office “no later than noon on the business day following the day that the papers are

filed electronically, one paper copy of each document that is filed electronically

. . . marked ‘Chambers Copy’ and . . . clearly marked with the judge’s name, case number,

and ‘Chambers Copy-Do Not File.’” See General Order 45 § VI.G; see also Standing

Orders for Civil Cases Assigned to the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney ¶ 2.

Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to comply with General Order 45 and the Court’s

Standing Orders by immediately submitting a chambers copy of the above-referenced

documents.

Case 3:08-cv-04793-MMC Document 27 Filed 02/03/10 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

The Court has previously advised plaintiff of his failure to comply with General Order

45 and the Court’s Standing Order in connection with earlier-filed documents. (See Order,

filed December 10, 2008.) Such reminder appears to have had little to no effect on

compelling compliance therewith.

Parties are expected to comply with court rules without repeated reminders. 

Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby advised that the Court will impose sanctions, including, but

not limited to, striking from the record any electronically-filed document of which a

chambers copy has not been timely provided to the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04793-MMC Document 27 Filed 02/03/10 Page 2 of 2
### §3441. Repealed. Pub. L. 106–310, div. B, title XXXIV, §3405(b), Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1221

Section, Pub. L. 89–793, title IV, §401, Nov. 8, 1966, 80 Stat. 1448, related to establishment of outpatient services.
### §3509. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–362, title VI, §601(a)(2)(C), Nov. 10, 1998, 112 Stat. 3285

Section, Pub. L. 91–513, title IV, §1200, Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1296; Pub. L. 96–88, title V, §509(b), Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 695; Pub. L. 103–437, §15(m), Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4593, related to annual report by Secretary of Health and Human Services on statutory advisory councils.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                       1,016,357
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  957,447
<ALLOWANCES>                                    72,197
<INVENTORY>                                  4,690,190
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,538,534
<PP&E>                                       4,186,166
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,365,489)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,197,215
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,695,274
<BONDS>                                      8,023,958
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        47,017
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,180,966
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,197,215
<SALES>                                     10,973,253
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,973,253
<CGS>                                        3,786,447
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,786,447
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             266,772
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (926,561)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (370,625)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (555,936)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                161,567
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (717,503)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.15)
        

</TABLE>
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-01T19:12:06-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
#### J. A. Steele, appellee, v. F. R. Johnston, appellant.

Assumpsit for damages for failure to comply with contract for digging a ditch. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Johnson county; the Hon. A. E. Somers, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1923.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed July 2, 1923.

H. A. Spann, for appellant. O. R. Morgan, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Higbee

delivered the opinion of the court.