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 EXCLUDING TIME 

CR 09-0880 JSW

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CABN 44332)

United States Attorney

BRIAN STRETCH (CABN 163973)

Chief, Criminal Division

DARYL T. EREMIN (TXBN 24012593)

Special Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 522-6031

Facsimile: (415) 436-7234

E-Mail: Daryl.Eremin@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for the United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALBERTO GODINEZ-GALARZA,

 a/k/a Alberto Godines-Galarsa,

 a/k/a Beto Godines-Galarza,

 a/k/a Ramon Gonzales-Ramires, and

 a/k/a Jose Jesus Hernandez,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Criminal No. CR 09-0880 JSW

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER EXCLUDING TIME FROM

DECEMBER 17, 2009, TO FEBRUARY

18, 2010

The parties appeared before the Honorable Jeffrey S. White on December 17, 2009, and

again on January 28, 2010. The defendant was not present in Court on December 17, 2009. On

January 28, 2010, and with the agreement of counsel for both parties, the Court found and held

as follows:

1. The parties agree to an exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §

3161, from December 17, 2009, to, February 18, 2010, in light of the need for the defendant and

defendant’s counsel to further review discovery. Failure to grant the requested continuance

Case 3:09-cr-00880-JSW Document 24 Filed 01/29/10 Page 1 of 2 Case3:09-cr-00880-JSW Document23 Filed01/29/10 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 EXCLUDING TIME 

CR 09-0880 JSW 2

would unreasonably deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation,

taking into account the exercise of due diligence and the need for counsel to further review the

discovery with the defendant. 

2. Given these circumstances, the Court found that the ends of justice served by

excluding the period from December 17, 2009, to, February 18, 2010, outweigh the best interest

of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). 

3. Accordingly, and with the consent of the defendant, the Court ordered that the period

from December 17, 2009, to, February 18, 2010, be excluded from Speedy Trial Act calculations

under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv).

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED: January 29, 2010 /s/ 

RONALD C. TYLER

Counsel for Alberto Godinez-Galarza

DATED: January 29, 2010 /s/ 

DARYL T. EREMIN

Special Assistant United States Attorney

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:_______________ ________________________________

THE HON. JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case3:09-cr-00880-JSW Document23 Filed01/29/10 Page2 of 2

January 29, 2010

Case 3:09-cr-00880-JSW Document 24 Filed 01/29/10 Page 2 of 2
#### BUISSON, Respondent, v. STATE, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 21, 1905.)

Action by Livina J. Buisson against the state of New York. No opinion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.
#### GOLDBERG v. ZIEGLER et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 21, 1905.)

Res Judicata—Effect of Judgment.

The defense of res judicata in an action for damages for breach of contract to dye furs—it being alleged the work was done so unskillfully that they were injured—is established by a judgment for defendants in an action by them against plaintiff for dyeing the furs, as plaintiff’s claim was matter for defense or counterclaim in the first action, and might there have been fully determined.

Appeal, from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Thirteenth District.

Action by Lyman Goldberg against Samuel Ziegler and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed.

Argued before SCOTT, O’GORMAN, and BLANCHARD, JJ.

Boudin & Liebman, for appellants.

Shafer & Levin, for respondent.

BLANCHARD, J.

This action is brought to recover damages for breach of contract. The plaintiff claims that certain skins and furs delivered by him to the defendants to be dyed were so unskillfully treated by the defendants that they were burnt. At the trial the plaintiff recovered a judgment, from which the defendants appeal.

The only question requiring determination is that raised by the defense of res adjudicata. At the trial the defendants proved a judgment roll of the Municipal Court showing that the defendants here had, as plaintiffs in the former action, recovered a judgment against the plaintiff in this action for the value of their services in dyeing these same skins and furs. The defendants thereby established their defense of former adjudication, because plaintiff’s claim in this action was matter for defense or counterclaim in the former action, and might have been there considered and fully determined. Pray v. Hegeman, 98 N. Y. 351.

The judgment appealed from should be reversed, and judgment rendered in favor of the defendants, with costs. All concur.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2785 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Pantera Technical. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 7, 2005 

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Pantera Technical. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PANTERA TECHNICAL. 

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

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.05.95 (+/-)-tetrahydrofurfuryl- 

(R)–2-[4-(6- 

chloroquinoxalin-2- 

yloxy)phenoxy] propanoate 

(CAS No. 119738–06–6) 

(provided for in subheading 

2934.99.15) and any mixtures containing such compound (provided for in subheading 3808.30.15) ............ Free Free No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2 

•HR 2785 IH 

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Omtool, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel A. Coccoluto,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, tomy knowledge, that:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ Daniel A. Coccoluto |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Daniel A. Coccoluto     |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |
| August 14, 2008    |   |

 

----
§ 504.2 Applicability. This part applies to demands and requests to current and former employees for factual or expert testimony relating to official information or official duties or for production of official records or information, in legal proceedings in which the BBG is not a named party. This part does not apply to: ( a ) Demands upon or requests for a BBG employee to testify as to facts or events that are unrelated to his or her official duties or that are unrelated to the functions of the BBG;
( b ) Demands upon or requests for a former BBG employee to testify as to matters in which the former employee was not directly or materially involved while at the BBG;
( c ) Requests for the release of records under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, or the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a; or
( d ) Congressional demands and requests for testimony, records or information.
§ 103.25 What information should I provide to HUD? You should provide us with: ( a ) Your name, address, and telephone numbers where you can be reached;
( b ) The name and address of the persons, businesses, or organizations you believe discriminated against you;
( c ) If there is a specific property involved, you should provide the property's address and physical description, such as apartment, condominium, house, or vacant lot; and
( d ) A brief description of how you were discriminated against in an activity related to housing. You should include in this description the date when the discrimination happened and why you believe the discrimination occurred because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, or the presence of children under the age of 18 in a household.
[64 FR 18540, Apr. 14, 1999]
#### Chisholm Ryder Company, Inc., Respondent, v Munro Games, Inc.,

Judgment unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion denied. Appellant. Memorandum: On June 10, 1974 plaintiff, Chisholm Ryder Company, Inc., and defendant, Munro Games, Inc., entered into an agreement whereby an area of plaintiffs warehouse was to be leased to defendant for the storage of games and toys. Following the initial six- month rental period provided for in the lease, the lease arrangement was extended on a month-to-month basis. Defendant contends that due to plaintiffs failure to repair severe leaking problems in the roof which caused extensive damage to its goods, it withheld rental payments from May 1, 1975 to October 1, 1975. Plaintiff served an ex parte order of attachment on the defendant’s goods stored in its warehouse. The parties thereafter agreed to have the attachment order dissolved and defendant executed a promissory note representing the rent due for the period during which the payments were withheld. On December 15, 1975 defendant delivered a promissory note to the plaintiff due January 15, 1976 in the amount of $31,641.91 "without waiver of any claims Munro may ^iave against Chisholm Ryder for roof leaks and bird damage”. Defendant failed to tender payment on the maturity date and on January 20, 1976 plaintiff commenced this action under CPLR 3213, as an action based upon an instrument for the payment of a sum of money only, by service of summons and notice of motion with a supporting affidavit and the overdue note attached. Defendant countered with an answering affidavit contending, *inter alia,*that there existed a related counterclaim for damages which should be fully adjudicated at trial. Special Term granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the note and a judgment was entered for plaintiff in the amount of $31,889.36. The primary purpose of CPLR 3213 is "to provide a speedy and effective means of securing a judgment on claims presumptively meritorious” *(Interman Ind. Prods, v R. S. M. Electron Power,*37 NY2d 151, 154; see *Wagner v Cornblum,*36 AD2d 427). Special Term’s grant of summary judgment violated the well-established rule that it is improper to award summary judgment where a meritorious cause of action exists for an amount equal to or greater than that demanded in the complaint and where the two causes of action are so inseparable that entry of judgment should be withheld pending a plenary trial *(Seneca Trucking Co., Inc. v Overmeyer Co., Inc.,*36 AD2d 894). We believe that this record reveals the existence of a related potentially meritorious counterclaim by defendant against plaintiff and that the plaintiffs claim for rent and defendant’s counterclaim for damages to its goods are so inseparable that the claims should await resolution at trial *(Koondel v Creative Capital Fund,*36 AD2d 587). (Appeal from judgment of Erie Supreme Court— summary judgment.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Cardamone, Simons and Goldman, JJ.
#### §§ 711.152-711.159 [Reserved]
### §4024. Coordination with other programs

In carrying out this chapter, the Administrator shall consult with other departments and agencies of the Federal Government, and with interstate, State, and local agencies having responsibilities for flood control, flood forecasting, or flood damage prevention, in order to assure that the programs of such agencies and the flood insurance program authorized under this chapter are mutually consistent.

(Pub. L. 90–448, title XIII, §1317, Aug. 1, 1968, 82 Stat. 581; Pub. L. 98–181, title I [title IV, §451(d)(1)], Nov. 30, 1983, 97 Stat. 1229; Pub. L. 112–141, div. F, title II, §100238(b)(1), July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 958.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original a reference to "this title" meaning title XIII of Pub. L. 90–448, Aug. 1, 1968, 82 Stat. 572, known as the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4001 of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

2012—Pub. L. 112–141 substituted "Administrator" for "Director".

1983—Pub. L. 98–181 substituted "Director" for "Secretary".

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 120 days following Aug. 1, 1968, or such later date prescribed by the Secretary but in no event more than 180 days following Aug. 1, 1968, see section 1377 of Pub. L. 90–448, set out as a note under section 4001 of this title.

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of all functions, personnel, assets, components, authorities, grant programs, and liabilities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including the functions of the Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Management relating thereto, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, see section 315(a)(1) of Title 6, Domestic Security.

For transfer of functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including the functions of the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency relating thereto, to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see former section 313(1) and sections 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6.
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

SERVICE EMPLOYEES

INTERNATIONAL UNION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SAL ROSELLI, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-00404 WHA

SCHEDULE FOR

SECTION 301 BRIEFING

With respect to the Section 301 injunction issue, plaintiffs may file a submission

explaining why injunctive relief is still warranted based on the trial record by MAY 21, with the

opposition due by MAY 31, and any reply due by JUNE 4, all due times being NOON. The Court

has tried to take Mr. DeMain’s complicated calendar into account but if he is unavailable, then

there are many other able lawyers on the team to fill in.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00404-WHA Document 647 Filed 05/04/10 Page 1 of 1
### §300a–41. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–35, title IX, §955(b), title XXI, §2193(f), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 592, 828

Section, Pub. L. 95–626, title VII, §701, Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3601; Pub. L. 96–88, title V, §509(b), Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 695, related to improving coordination of Federal and State policies and programs.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 97–35, title IX, §955(b), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 592, provided that the repeal of this section is effective Oct. 1, 1981.

For effective date, savings, and transitional provisions relating to the repeal of this section by section 2193(f) of Pub. L. 97–35, see section 2194 of Pub. L. 97–35, set out as a note under section 701 of this title.
### §7582. Requirements applicable to clean-fuel vehicles

#### (a) Promulgation of standards

Not later than 24 months after November 15, 1990, the Administrator shall promulgate regulations under this part containing clean-fuel vehicle standards for the clean-fuel vehicles specified in this part.

#### (b) Other requirements

Clean-fuel vehicles of up to 8,500 gvwr subject to standards set forth in this part shall comply with all motor vehicle requirements of this subchapter (such as requirements relating to on-board diagnostics, evaporative emissions, etc.) which are applicable to conventional gasoline-fueled vehicles of the same category and model year, except as provided in section 7584 of this title with respect to administration and enforcement, and except to the extent that any such requirement is in conflict with the provisions of this part. Clean-fuel vehicles of 8,500 gvwr or greater subject to standards set forth in this part shall comply with all requirements of this subchapter which are applicable in the case of conventional gasoline-fueled or diesel fueled vehicles of the same category and model year, except as provided in section 7584 of this title with respect to administration and enforcement, and except to the extent that any such requirement is in conflict with the provisions of this part.

#### (c) In-use useful life and testing

(1) In the case of light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks up to 6,000 lbs gvwr, the useful life for purposes of determining in-use compliance with the standards under section 7583 of this title shall be—

(A) a period of 5 years or 50,000 miles (or the equivalent) whichever first occurs, in the case of standards applicable for purposes of certification at 50,000 miles; and

(B) a period of 10 years or 100,000 miles (or the equivalent) whichever first occurs, in the case of standards applicable for purposes of certification at 100,000 miles, except that in-use testing shall not be done for a period beyond 7 years or 75,000 miles (or the equivalent) whichever first occurs.

(2) In the case of light-duty trucks of more than 6,000 lbs gvwr, the useful life for purposes of determining in-use compliance with the standards under section 7583 of this title shall be—

(A) a period of 5 years or 50,000 miles (or the equivalent) whichever first occurs in the case of standards applicable for purposes of certification at 50,000 miles; and

(B) a period of 11 years or 120,000 miles (or the equivalent) whichever first occurs in the case of standards applicable for purposes of certification at 120,000 miles, except that in-use testing shall not be done for a period beyond 7 years or 90,000 miles (or the equivalent) whichever first occurs.

(July 14, 1955, ch. 360, title II, §242, as added Pub. L. 101–549, title II, §229(a), Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2513.)
Case 3:09-cr-00753-EMC   Document 12   Filed 06/28/10   Page 1 of 2

Case 3:09-cr-00753-EMC   Document 12   Filed 06/28/10   Page 2 of 2
### §673a. Interstate compacts

The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take all possible steps to encourage and assist the various States to enter into interstate compacts (which are hereby approved by the Congress) under which the interests of any adopted child with respect to whom an adoption assistance agreement has been entered into by a State under section 673 of this title will be adequately protected, on a reasonable and equitable basis which is approved by the Secretary, if and when the child and his or her adoptive parent (or parents) move to another State.

(Pub. L. 96–272, title I, §101(a)(4)(B), June 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 512.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, and not as part of the Social Security Act which comprises this chapter.

#### **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.
#### Clayton *v.*Newberry.

Atkinson, J.

1. Specific performance of a contract for the sale of land will not be decreed unless the land which is the subject-matter of the alleged sale is clearly identified in the contract. A description of land in a written contract as “part of lot No. 200 in the sixth district and second section of said county [the county being elsewhere named], containing fifteen acres, more or less,” is insufficient. *Estes*v. *Winn,*136 *Ga.*344 (71 S. E. 470).

2. There was no effort to reform the writing upon which the action was founded; and henee the plaintiff must abide by the contract as written.

3. The questions decided in the first note control the case. They were *736raised by demurrer to the petition, objections to the admissibility of evidence, motion for nonsuit, and exception as to the sufficiency of the evidence to authorize the judgment. In each instance the judge erred in deciding contrary to the rulings above announced, and *in*directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

September 27, 1912.

Specific performance. Before Judge Morris. Gilmer superior court. May 16, 1911.

*A. H. Burtz,*for plaintiff in error. *J. Z. Foster,*contra.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
§ 1006.410 Performance reports. ( a ) *Requirement.* For each fiscal year, the DHHL must: ( 1 ) Review the progress the DHHL has made during that fiscal year in achieving goals stated in its housing plan; and
( 2 ) Submit a report in a form acceptable to HUD, within 90 days of the end of the DHHL's fiscal year, describing the conclusions of the review.
( 3 ) DHHL may submit a written request for an extension of the deadline. HUD will establish a new date for submission if the extension is granted.
( b ) *Content.* Each report submitted under this section for a fiscal year shall: ( 1 ) Describe the use of grant amounts provided to the DHHL for that fiscal year;
( 2 ) Assess the relationship of the use referred to in paragraph (b)(1), of this section, to the goals identified in its housing plan;
( 3 ) Indicate the programmatic accomplishments of the DHHL; and
( 4 ) Describe the manner in which the DHHL would change its housing plan as a result of its experiences administering the grant under the Act.
( c ) *Public availability* — ( 1 ) *Comments by Native Hawaiians.* In preparing a report under this section, the DHHL shall make the report publicly available to Native Hawaiians who are eligible to reside on the Hawaiian Home Lands and give a sufficient amount of time to permit them to comment on that report, in such manner and at such time as the DHHL may determine, before it is submitted to HUD.
( 2 ) *Summary of comments.* The report under this section must include a summary of any comments received by the DHHL from beneficiaries under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, regarding the program to carry out the housing plan.
( d ) *HUD review.* HUD will: ( 1 ) Review each report submitted under the Act and this part; and
( 2 ) With respect to each such report, make recommendations as HUD considers appropriate to carry out the purposes of the Act.
[67 FR 40776, June 13, 2002, as amended at 89 FR 9764, Feb. 12, 2024]