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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD J. MCINTOSH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER JR.,

Defendant. /

No. C09-00750 CRB

ORDER RE REQUEST FOR

CLARIFICATION ON DISCOVERY

ORDER FILED ON MARCH 1, 2016

The Court previously issued an Order regarding the continuing discovery disputes in this

case. See Discovery Order (dkt. 198). The government has requested clarification and argued that

the Court should reconsider a number of its conclusions. See Response by Wilson Leung (dkt. 200). 

For the following reasons, the government’s request for clarification and reconsideration is

DENIED, and the Court ORDERS the government to comply with the Order issued March 1, 2016. 

See Discovery Order (dkt. 198). 

The Court directed the government to “review the Philadelphia undercover file in question

for Brady materials.” See Discovery Order at 2. The government responded that it had already

searched those files for certain names and had already turned over a few pages from them to

McIntosh. See Response by Wilson Leung at 1–2. The government also discusses its interpretation

of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), but it does not cite any controlling authority or advance

any arguments indicating that it cannot review the files in question for Brady materials. McIntosh,

on the other hand, has stated on numerous occasions that if the government is unable to comply with

Case 3:09-cv-00750-CRB Document 203 Filed 05/03/16 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

the Court’s request, McIntosh can easily review the undercover files in question. The Court declines

to provide McIntosh with the files at this time, and again ORDERS the government to “review the

Philadelphia undercover file in question for Brady materials.” See Discovery Order at 2. 

The government also states that it will file a declaration complying with the Court’s

Discovery Order as it relates to certain FBI agent notes. The Court ORDERS the government to file

that declaration along with its declaration regarding the criminal histories discussed in the Discovery

Order, and the Court further ORDERS the government to notify the Court after it has made the “one

arguably relevant document” discussed in the Discovery Order available to counsel for McIntosh. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2016 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00750-CRB Document 203 Filed 05/03/16 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

LINDSAY NICOLE WARREN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 56 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of August, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

BUENROSTRO, et al.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. C 09-0786 JSW

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR

DEFENDANTS WAYNE TUCKER,

RANDOLPH BRANDWOOD, ERIC

MILINA AND ROBERT ROCHE NOT

TO ATTEND THE MEDIATION

Date: April 19, 2010

Mediator: Robert Fries

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the request for defendants former Chief of Police Wayne

Tucker, Sergeant Randolph Brandwood, Officer Eric Milina and Officer Robert Roche to be excused

from attending the April 19, 2010 mediation session before Robert Fries is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 16, 2010 By:

Dated Elizabeth D. Laporte

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00786-JSW Document 49 Filed 04/16/10 Page 1 of 1
§ 223.3 Initiation of proceeding. Whenever the General Counsel has reasonable cause to believe that a former Government employee has violated the statutory or regulatory post-employment restrictions, he or she shall initiate an administrative action by providing the former Government employee with written notice of intention to institute administrative action. Notice must include: ( a ) A statement of allegations and the basis thereof sufficiently detailed to enable the former Government employee to prepare an adequate defense;
( b ) Notification of the right to respond to the allegations in writing and/or to request a hearing, together with an explanation of the method by which a hearing may be requested; and
( c ) A statement that, in the absence of a request for a hearing, the General Counsel shall issue a final decision based upon the evidence gathered to date, including any written reply made by the former Government employee.
§ 1000.414 How is an issuer's financial capacity demonstrated? An issuer must demonstrate its financial capacity to: ( a ) Meet its obligations; and
( b ) Protect and maintain the viability of housing developed or operated pursuant to the 1937 Act.
December 6, 2013

Mr. Paul Gretch

Director, Office of International Aviation

United States Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: US Airways’ Applications Listed in Annex A

Dear Mr. Gretch:

We have polled the air carriers on the attached service list regarding the 

Applications listed in Annex A. We received no objections.

Accordingly, we respectfully request expedited consideration of these

Applications.

Sincerely, 

Howard Kass

Vice President, Legal and Government Affairs

Benjamin T. Slocum

Director, Legal and Government Affairs

Attachment

cc: Service List

1401 H Street NW, Suite 1075 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 326-5154 Fax: (202) 898-4810
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that, on December 6, 2013, I caused to be served a copy of the 

foregoing Letter by email upon those addressees listed below:

urskr@state.gov (Department of State)

esta.rosenberg@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

brian.hedberg@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

todd.homan@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

peter.irvine@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

laura.remo@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

brett.kruger@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

john.allen@faa.gov (Federal Aviation Administration)

dan.weiss@united.com (United)

steve.morrissey@united.com (United)

karine.faden@united.com (United)

gmurphy@crowell.com (Counsel for United)

francis.heil@aa.com (American)

robert.wirick@aa.com (American)

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com (Delta)

jhill@dowlohnes.com (Counsel for JetBlue and Hawaiian)

perkmann@dowlohnes.com (Counsel for JetBlue and Hawaiian)

robert.land@jetblue.com (JetBlue)

msinick@ssd.com (Counsel for Alaska)

jyoung@yklaw.com (Counsel for Spirit)

dkirstein@yklaw.com (Counsel for Spirit)

bob.kneisley@wnco.com (Southwest)

leslie.abbott@wnco.com (Southwest)

ethan.blank@rjet.com (Republic)

robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com (Counsel for Republic)

patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com (Counsel for Republic)

john.fredericksen@suncountry.com (Sun Country)

thomas.ting@suncountry.com (Sun Country)

rpommer@atlasair.com (Atlas)

anita.mosner@hklaw.com (Counsel for UPS)

jennifer.nowak@hklaw.com (Counsel for UPS)

cefelts@fedex.com (FedEx)

nssparks@fedex.com (FedEx)

kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com (Polar)

______________________

Benjamin T. Slocum
ANNEX A

Application of US Airways, Inc. for an Exemption

(Various United States Points – Various Venezuela Points)

(Docket DOT-OST-2013-0207)

Application of US Airways, Inc. for an Exemption

(Miami, Florida – La Paz and Santa Cruz, Bolivia)

(Docket DOT-OST-2013-0208)

Application of US Airways, Inc. for an Exemption

(United States – Quito and Guayaquil, Ecuador)

(Docket DOT-OST-2013-0209)

Application of US Airways, Inc. for an Exemption

(Various United States Points – Various Mexico Points)

(Docket DOT-OST-2013-0210)

Application of US Airways, Inc. for Amendment of an Exemption

(Various U.S. Cities – Bermuda)

(Docket DOT-OST-2001-11152)
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

HALSEY MINOR, an individual,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHRISTIE’S INC., a New York

corporation, and DOES 1 through 20,

inclusive,

Defendants. /

CHRISTIE’S INC., a New York

corporation,

Counterclaimant,

 v.

HALSEY MINOR, an individual, and

ROES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Counterdefendants. /

No. C 08-05445 WHA (Lead Case)

Consolidated with:

No. C 09-00471 WHA

ORDER REGARDING 

DEFENDANT’S DAUBERT

MOTION REGARDING 

THE EXPERT TESTIMONY 

OF BEVERLY SCHREIBER

Defendant’s Daubert motion targeting the expert testimony of Beverly Schreiber has been

received. An opposition must be filed no later than NOON ON MAY 10, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-05445-WHA Document 93 Filed 05/07/10 Page 1 of 1
#### § 1000.401 What terms are used throughout this subpart?

As used throughout title VI of NAHASDA and in this subpart:

*Applicant* means the entity that requests a HUD guarantee under the provisions of this subpart.

*Borrower* means an Indian tribe or TDHE that receives funds in the form of a loan with the obligation to repay in full, with interest, and has executed notes or other obligations that evidence that transaction.

*Issuer* means an Indian tribe or TDHE that issues or executes notes or other obligations. An issuer can also be a borrower.
```

[110th Congress Public Law 93]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ093.110]

[[Page 121 STAT. 999]]

Public Law 110-93
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To make permanent the waiver authority of the Secretary of Education 
   with respect to student financial assistance during a war or other 
      military operation or national emergency. <<NOTE: Sept. 30, 
                         2007 -  [H.R. 3625]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 20 USC 1098aa note.>> SENSE OF CONGRESS.

    It is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students 
        Act of 2003 addresses the unique situations that active duty 
        military personnel and other affected individuals may face in 
        connection with their enrollment in postsecondary institutions 
        and their Federal student loans; and
            (2) the provisions authorized by such Act should be made 
        permanent, thereby allowing the Secretary of Education to 
        continue providing assistance to active duty service members and 
        other affected individuals and their families.
SEC. 2. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF WAIVER AUTHORITY.

    The Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 
(Public Law 108-76; 20 U.S.C. 1070, note) is amended by striking section 
6.

    Approved September 30, 2007.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3625:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007):
            Sept. 25, considered and passed House.
            Sept. 27, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### § 96.62 Scope.

The provisions in this subpart establish the procedures for renewal of an agency's accreditation or a person's approval.

[71 FR 8131, Feb. 15, 2006, as amended at 79 FR 40636, July 14, 2014]
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

281Although the Stipulation refers to the existing cutoff as January 29, 2010, the cutoff

was previously extended, at the parties’ request, to January 31, 2010.  (See Order, filedDecember 9, 2009.)

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KINGVISION PAY-PER-VIEW, LTD., 

Plaintiff    v.

HECTOR ANTONIO ORELLANA, et al.,

Defendants                                                                      /

No. C-09-0219 MMC

ORDER DENYING STIPULATIONREGARDING DISCOVERY DEADLINE

Before the Court is the parties’ Stipulation Regarding Discovery Deadline, filed

January 21, 2010, by which the parties request that the non-expert discovery cutoff be

continued from January 31, 2010 to March 1, 2010.1

In support thereof, the parties state, with no elaboration, that such continuance is

necessary because of “third-party underlying fact discovery, which must be completed” and

“settlement negotiations.”  (See Stipulation at 1:26-27.)  Moreover, the parties fail to

address the effect of their proposed extension on the remaining pretrial dates, such as the

February 22, 2010 deadline to disclose experts and the March 5, 2010 deadline to file

dispositive motions, and on the June 7, 2010 trial date.

Accordingly, the Stipulation is hereby DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  January 21, 2010                                                    MAXINE M. CHESNEYUnited States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00219-MMC   Document 27   Filed 01/21/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-13T03:19:53-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
#### In the Matter of Marianne K. Montagna, Respondent, v James C. Krok, Appellant.

In a custody proceeding, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Putnam County, dated August 3, 1977, which, after a hearing, awarded custody of the parties’ infant son to the petitioner mother. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The mother left the marital home in January, 1976 with the parties’ seven- and one-half-year-old son and instituted a divorce action. On March 26, 1976, in a habeas corpus proceeding, the Supreme Court awarded temporary custody to the father, with limited visitation to the mother, after a hearing at which the court interviewed the child and heard the testimony of the parties and of the headmistress of the child’s school. In the divorce action, each of the parties was granted a divorce and the issue of custody was referred to the Family Court. The mother then remarried. On the parties’ stipulation, and after interviewing the child and two psychiatrists engaged by the parties, Judge Bowers suggested a "temporary program” with increased visitation on alternate weekends for the mother. He referred to the need for stability, but expressed concern as to the sufficiency of the child’s nonintellectual recreational pursuits and stated that the mother could help round out the child’s personality and interests. Judge Miller held a plenary hearing during which he heard the testimony not only of the parents and the school headmistress, but also of the mother’s new husband, the child’s present teacher, the two psychiatrists, the father’s housekeeper and the parties’ neighbors and friends. At the hearing, the mother was described as warm, kindly and flexible, while the father was referred to as a methodical and disciplined person who leads a regimented life. It further appeared that on the Mondays following visitation with his mother, the child cried in school inconsolably the entire morning and was cranky and irritable when he returned home to his father in the afternoon. Judge Miller also had the advantage of receiving the school records and the reports of the Law Guardian and the probation department. There was ample evidence that it was in the child’s best interests to award custody permanently to the mother and Judge Miller’s determination should not be disturbed. The parties should participate in appropriate counseling under the supervision of the Family Court to the end that they will co-operate to assure the development and maintenance of the continuing long-term relationships favored by the law and modem pediatric psychology (see *Braiman v Braiman,*61 AD2d 995). Martuscello, J. P., Bamiani, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
#### JONES *v.*THE STATE.

May 14, 1912.

1. Where a female witness is hesitant to testify concerning a matter of delicacy, which is relevant to the ease, it is not error for the court to admonish her to answer the question, however unpleasant it may be to her.

2. The evidence supports the verdict.

' Indictment for rape. Before Judge Daniel. Upson superior court. February 13, 1912.

*W. Y. Allen*and *Hugh Thurston,*for plaintiff in error.

*T. 8. Felder, attorney-general,*and *J. W. Wise, solicitor-general,*contra.

Evans, P. J.

1. The accused was convicted of the offense of rape, and recommended to mercy. The prosecution submitted testimony to -the effect that the accused sent a message to the female upon whom the assault was alleged to have been committed, requesting her to come to his home for a letter from her uncle which his wife had brought from Columbus. She appeared at the house of the accused in response to his summons, where she found him alone, 'and he had carnal knowledge of her forcibly and against her will. She was eighteen years of age, and had little use of her right arm, as a result of an illness when an infant. She returned to her home crying, and immediately reported to her mother what had happened.

When the mother was testifying as a witness, on the cross-examination she was asked the result of the examination of the person of her daughter. The court said to her: “Tell those gentlemen [meaning the jury] all about it, no matter how unpleasant; just tell what her condition, was when you found it.” Exception is taken to this remark of the court. There is no direct statement in the record that the remark was addressed to the witness when she was apparently loath to discuss the subject-matter of the in*137quiry; but the nature of the question, and the whole environment of the trial indirectly, though surely, indicate that the court’s remark was made at a time when the witness shrank from the ordeal of publicly stating facts of such delicacy, and so trying to virtuous modesty. We find nothing in the remark prejudicial to the accused. The court was simply admonishing the witness of her duty to answer a relevant question.

2. The testimony was sufficient to authorize the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
### §3255. Repealed. Pub. L. 91–512, title I, §104(a), Oct. 26, 1970, 84 Stat. 1228

Section, Pub. L. 89–272, title II, §206, Oct. 20, 1965, 79 Stat. 999, authorized grants to State and interstate agencies for surveys of solid-waste disposal practices and problems, and for development of solid-waste disposal plans.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2922 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 4-chloro-benzonitrile. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 15, 2005 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 4-chloro-benzonitrile. 

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-BENZONITRILE. 

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: 

‘‘ 9902.09.09 4-chloro-benzonitrile (CAS 

No. 623–03–0) (provided for 

in subheading 2926.90.14) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

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

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

•HR 2922 IH 

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

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
```

                                                                                                                           Exhibit 31.1

                                                             CERTIFICATION

I, Kelly Absher, certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K,  and all reports on Form 8-K  containing  distribution  or servicing  reports
filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of the Select Notes Trust LT 2004-1;

2.       Based on my  knowledge,  the  information  in these  reports,  taken as a whole,  does not contain any untrue  statement  of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements  made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such
statements were made, not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3.       Based on my  knowledge,  the  distribution  or servicing  information  required to be provided to the depositor by the trustee
under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;

4.       I am responsible for reviewing the activities  performed by the depositor and the trustee under the pooling and servicing,  or
similar agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual  compliance review required under that agreement,  and except as disclosed
in the reports, the depositor and the trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.

5.       The reports  disclose all  significant  deficiencies  relating to the  compliance  by the trustee and the  depositor  with the
minimum servicing or similar standards based upon the report provided by an independent  public  accountant,  after conducting a review
in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation  Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar  procedure,  as set forth in the pooling and
servicing, or similar agreement, that is included in these reports.

In giving the  certifications  above, I have reasonably  relied on information  provided to me by the following  unaffiliated  parties:
U.S. Bank Trust National Association.

                                                        By:  /s/ Kelly Absher                 
                                                           Name:   Kelly Absher
                                                           Title:  Authorized Signatory
                                                           Structured Obligations Corporation
                                                           Date:   March 28, 2007
```

----

```

```