alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Plaintiffs’ Certification Regarding Settlement (CASE NO. C 08-4135 (MMC)) 

WEINBERG, ROGER & 

ROSENFELD 

A Professional Corporation 

1001 Marina Village Parkway 

Suite 200 

Alameda, CA 94501-1091 

510.337.1001

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

LINDA BALDWIN JONES, Bar No. 178922 

KRISTINA M. ZINNEN, Bar No. 245346 

WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD 

A Professional Corporation 

1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200 

Alameda, California 94501-1091 

Telephone 510.337.1001 

Fax 510.337.1023 

E-mail: courtnotices@unioncounsel.net 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

PAUL BENSI, BART FLORENCE, JERRY 

KALMAR, and LYLE SETTER, in 

their capacities as Trustees of the 

STATIONARY ENGINEERS LOCAL 39 

PENSION TRUST FUND and STATIONARY 

ENGINEERS LOCAL 39 HEALTH AND 

WELFARE FUND, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

O’CONNOR HOSPITAL, a California 

Corporation; DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY 

HEALTH SYSTEM, a California Corporation, 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C 08-4135 (MMC) 

PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATION 

REGARDING SETTLEMENT

On November 3, 2009, the Court issued an Order of Dismissal to take effect within ninety 

days of said Order or February 1, 2010. The parties are in the process of obtaining all signatures 

on the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release and will have the settlement transaction 

completed within 30 days from the date of this Certification Regarding Settlement. Upon the 

completion of the settlement transaction, the parties will file a stipulation (and proposed order) to 

dismiss the action with prejudice. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs hereby submit this 

AND ORDER THEREON

Case 3:08-cv-04135-MMC Document 36 Filed 01/29/10 Page 1 of 2
 - 2 - 

Plaintiffs’ Certification Regarding Settlement (CASE NO. C 08-4135 (MMC)) 

WEINBERG, ROGER & 

ROSENFELD 

A Professional Corporation 

1001 Marina Village Parkway 

Suite 200 

Alameda, CA 94501-1091 

510.337.1001

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

Certification Regarding Settlement and request that the Court continue the ninety day Order of 

Dismissal for an additional 30 days in order to allow the parties time to complete the settlement 

transaction.

Dated: January 27, 2010 

WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD 

A Professional Corporation 

By: /s/ Linda Baldwin Jones 

 LINDA BALDWIN JONES 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

119080/558547 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Maxine M. Chesney

Dated: January 29, 2010

Case 3:08-cv-04135-MMC Document 36 Filed 01/29/10 Page 2 of 2
Order entered January 7, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01160-CV

RICHARD GEHRKE AND PACIFIC COMPANIES, INC., Appellants

V.

MERRITT HAWKINS AND ASSOCIATES, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-09562

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants’ January 4, 2019 motion for an extension of time to file a 

brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to January 21, 2019. We caution appellants

that further requests for extension in this accelerated appeal will be disfavored.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
Order entered April 28, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01437-CR

STEPHEN GLEN LIMBAUGH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-21347-I

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On April 16, 2014, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to pursue the 

appeal; (2) appellant is indigent and represented by court-appointed counsel David Pire; (3) Mr. 

Pire’s explanation for the delay in filing appellant’s brief is his workload; and (4) Mr. Pire 

requested thirty days from the April 25, 2014 findings to file appellant’s brief.

We ORDER appellant to file his brief by TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2014. 

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to 

counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
### §7274r. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 108–7, div. D, title III, §308, Feb. 20, 2003, 117 Stat. 154, which related to research, development, and demonstration activities with respect to engineering and manufacturing capabilities at covered nuclear weapons production plants, was transferred and is listed in a similar provisions note under the heading Activities at Covered Nuclear Weapons Facilities under section 2812 of Title 50, War and National Defense.

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

#### Engineering and Manufacturing Research, Development, and Demonstration by Plant Managers of Certain Nuclear Weapons Production Plants

Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [div. C, title XXXI, §3156], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–467, which was formerly set out as a note under this section, was renumbered section 4832 of Pub. L. 107–314, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(k)(12), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1785, and is classified to section 2812 of Title 50, War and National Defense.
EXHIBIT 99.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SABANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of MemberWorks Incorporated (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Gary A. Johnson, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company,
certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Gary A. Johnson
Gary A. Johnson
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
MemberWorks Incorporated
May 6, 2003
#### § 14.135 Rulemaking on maximum rates for attorney fees.

Any person may file with the Department a petition for rulemaking to increase the maximum rate for attorney fees as provided in 5 U.S.C. 504(b)(1)(A)(ii), in accordance with 24 CFR part 10. The petition should identify the rate the petitioner believes the Department should establish and the types of proceedings in which the rate should be used. It should also explain fully the reasons why the higher rate is warranted. The Department will respond to the petition in accordance with 24 CFR 10.20(b).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 22, 2010 

s1115 

Order 

 

November 22, 2010 

141497 & (46) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141497 

 COA: 290123 

Wayne CC: 2008-010204 

JOEL DAVID STRONG, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 1, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to 

remand is DENIED.
#### Harold A. Towne et al., Individually and as Parents and Guardians of Heath S. Towne, an Infant, Respondents, v *801Ara Asadourian et al., Appellants.

[722 NYS2d 187]

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Dawson, J.), dated July 26, 1999 in Essex County, which denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel.

Defendants seek to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint seeking damages for legal malpractice, negligence and breach of contract on the grounds of collateral estoppel and res judicata. Briefly, they claim that this action is barred by a prior decision of Supreme Court finding that defendant Stephen Johnston is entitled to a Judiciary Law § 475 lien, Johnston having been discharged by plaintiffs in the underlying personal injury action *(see, e.g., Summit Solomon & Feldesman v Matalon,*216 AD2d 91, 92, *lv denied*86 NY2d 711). Fundamentally, because no order or final judgment was ever entered in that action, the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata are inapplicable to the instant matter *(see, e.g., Gallo v Teplitz Tri-State Recycling,*254 AD2d 253, 254; *Begelman v Begelman,*170 AD2d 562, 563; *Berkshire Nursing Ctr. v Len Realty Co.,*168 AD2d 475, 476; *Ott v Barash,*109 AD2d 254, 262-263; *Peterson v Forkey,*50 AD2d 774, 774-775; *see also, Rudd v Cornell,*171 NY 114, 128-129). Indeed, “ -[a] decision * * * upon which no formal judgment [or order] has been entered has no conclusive character and is ineffective as a bar to subsequent proceedings’ ” *(Ruben v American & Foreign Ins. Co.,*185 AD2d 63, 65, quoting 9 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 63:455, at 191; *see,*73 NY Jur 2d, Judgments, § 354, at 436-437). Accordingly, the order appealed from should be affirmed.

Crew III, J. P., Spain, Graffeo and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
### §5106e. Coordination of child abuse and neglect programs

The Secretary shall prescribe regulations and make such arrangements as may be necessary or appropriate to ensure that there is effective coordination among programs related to child abuse and neglect under this subchapter and subchapter III and other such programs which are assisted by Federal funds.

(Pub. L. 93–247, title I, §109, formerly §12, as added Pub. L. 100–294, title I, §101, Apr. 25, 1988, 102 Stat. 116; renumbered title I, §111, Pub. L. 101–126, §3(a)(1), (2), Oct. 25, 1989, 103 Stat. 764; renumbered §109, Pub. L. 104–235, title I, §113(a)(1)(B), Oct. 3, 1996, 110 Stat. 3079.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 109 of Pub. L. 93–247 was renumbered section 107 and is classified to section 5106c of this title.
#### § 519.210 Reporting.

No reporting is required with respect to payments of reasonable compensation made to regularly employed officers or employees of a person.
Editorial Note on Part 17
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 17 appear at 87 FR 8196, Feb. 14, 2022.

§ 17.99 Written agreement to repay debt as alternative to salary offset. ( a ) *Notification by employee.* The employee may propose, in response to a Notice of Intent, a written agreement to repay the debt as an alternative to salary offset. Any employee who wishes to do this must submit a proposed written agreement to repay the debt, which is received by the Secretary within 20 calendar days of the date of the Notice of Intent.
( b ) *Secretary's response.* In response to timely notice by the debtor as described in paragraph (a) of this section, the Secretary will notify the employee whether the employee's proposed written agreement for repayment is acceptable. It is within the Secretary's discretion to accept a repayment agreement instead of proceeding by offset. In making this determination, the Secretary will balance the Department's interest in collecting the debt against hardship to the employee. If the debt is delinquent and the employee has not disputed its existence or amount, the Secretary will accept a repayment agreement instead of offset only if the employee is able to establish that offset would result in undue financial hardship or would be against equity and good conscience.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7208

JULIAN THOMAS TAYLOR,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-98-1404-2)

Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: January 28, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julian Thomas Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel John Munroe, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Julian Thomas Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1999). Taylor’s case was referred to a magistrate

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate

judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Taylor that

failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the

recommendation. Despite this warning, Taylor failed to object to

the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by

failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Furthermore, Taylor’s motion to appoint counsel is denied.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Thomas J. Vidler, appellee, v. Clara E. Humphreys et al., appellant.

Bill to foreclose real estate mortgage. Decree for complainant. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Christian county; the Hon. F. B. Dove, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 23, 1923.

Rehearing denied June 26, 1923.

Charles E. Springstun and Humphreys Springstun, for appellant. J. H. Fornoff and Hogan & Beese, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Shurtleff

delivered the opinion of the court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

THOMAS WOOD,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 312 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 5th day of December, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
#### § 232.525 Note and security form.

The lender shall present for insurance a note and security instrument, if required, on forms approved by the Commissioner for use in the jurisdiction in which the property to be improved is located.
### SUBCHAPTER VIII—PUBLIC AIRPORTS
### §§7274m to 7274o. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 7274m, Pub. L. 103–337, div. C, title XXXI, §3163, Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 3097, which related to safety oversight and enforcement at defense nuclear facilities, was renumbered section 4642 of Pub. L. 107–314, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(i)(13)(A)–(C), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1779, and is classified to section 2732 of Title 50, War and National Defense.

Section 7274n, Pub. L. 104–201, div. C, title XXXI, §3143, Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2836, which related to projects to accelerate closure activities at defense nuclear facilities, was renumbered section 4421 of Pub. L. 107–314, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(g)(11)(A)–(C), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1766, and was classified to former section 2601 of Title 50, War and National Defense, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 113–66, div. C, title XXXI, §3146(e)(10), Dec. 26, 2013, 127 Stat. 1077.

Section 7274o, Pub. L. 104–201, div. C, title XXXI, §3159, Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2842; Pub. L. 105–85, div. A, title XIII, §1305(c), (d), Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1954; Pub. L. 106–65, div. C, title XXXI, §3163(f), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 946, which related to reports on critical difficulties at nuclear weapons laboratories and nuclear weapons production plants, was renumbered section 4213 of Pub. L. 107–314, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(e)(14), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1760, and is classified to section 2533 of Title 50, War and National Defense.

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

#### Submittal of Annual Report on Status of Security Functions at Nuclear Weapons Facilities

Pub. L. 105–85, div. C, title XXXI, §3162, Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 2049, as amended by Pub. L. 106–65, div. C, title XXXI, §3142(h)(2), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 934, which was formerly set out as a note under section 7274m of this title, was renumbered section 4506 of Pub. L. 107–314, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(h)(7)(A)–(C), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1773, and is classified to section 2657 of Title 50, War and National Defense.

#### Employee Incentives for Employees at Closure Project Facilities

Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [div. C, title XXXI, §3136], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–458, which was formerly set out as a note under section 7274n of this title, was renumbered section 4603 of Pub. L. 107–314, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(i)(4)(A)–(C), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1777, and was classified to section 2703 of Title 50, War and National Defense, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 113–66, div. C, title XXXI, §3146(g)(3)(A), Dec. 26, 2013, 127 Stat. 1079.
§ 220.253 Substitute mortgagors. ( a ) *Selling mortgagor.* The mortgagee may effect the release of a mortgagor from personal liability on the mortgage note only if it obtains the Commissioner's approval of a substitute mortgagor, as provided by this section.
( b ) *Purchasing mortgagor.* ( 1 ) The Commissioner may approve a substitute mortgagor with respect to any mortgage insured under subpart A of this part, if the substitute mortgagor is to occupy the dwelling as a principal residence or a secondary residence (as these terms are defined in § 220.30(d)).
( 2 ) The Commissioner may approve as a substitute mortgagor an eligible non-occupant mortgagor (as defined in § 220.30(d)) with respect to any mortgage insured under this part, only if the outstanding balance of the mortgage does not exceed the Commissioner's estimate of: ( i ) The replacement cost of the property as of the date the mortgage was originally accepted for insurance, or the date the substitute mortgagor is approved by the Commissioner, which ever is greater, in the case of a dwelling described in § 220.30(a) (1) or (2); or
( ii ) The cost of repair or rehabilitation, plus the Commissioner's estimate of the replacement cost of the property as of either the date the mortgage was originally accepted for insurance, or the date the substitute mortgagor is approved by the Commissioner, whichever is greater, in the case of a dwelling described in § 220.30(a) (3) or (4).
( c ) *Applicability—current mortgagor.* Paragraph (b) of this section applies to the Commissioner's approval of a substitute mortgagor, only if the mortgage executed by the original mortgagor met the conditions of § 203.258(c) of this chapter.
( d ) *Applicability—earlier mortgagor.* The occupancy and similar requirements set forth in § 203.258(d) of this chapter apply to mortgages insured under subpart A of this part.
( e ) Mortgagees approved for participation in the Direct Endorsement program under § 203.3 may, subject to limitations established by the Commissioner, themselves approve an appropriate substitute mortgagor under this section for mortgages which they own or service, and need not obtain further specific approval from the Commissioner.
( f ) *Definition.* As used in this section, the term *substitute mortgagor* includes: ( 1 ) Persons who, upon the release by a mortgagee of a previous mortgagor from personal liability on the mortgage note, assume this liability and agree to pay the mortgage debts; and
( 2 ) persons who purchase without assuming liability on the mortgage note, or purchase where no release is given by the mortgagee to the previous mortgagor.
[55 FR 34808, Aug. 24, 1990, as amended at 57 FR 58351, Dec. 9, 1992]
000readme.txt,  September 28, 1998 Explanation of digital data files for the 'Digital geologic map of the Rosalia 1:100,000 quadrangle, Washington and Idaho: a digital database for the 1990 S.Z. Waggoner map' -- USGS Open-File Report 98-357.   To import the Arc/Info EXPORT-format files into your workspace, open Arc/Info on your workstation and enter '&run 00import' at the Arc: prompt. Your working directory should contain the following files:000readme.txt - this UNIX text filereadme.txt - the 000readme.txt file in a DOS ASCII format00import.aml -  Arc/Info program to import Arc/Info EXPORT-format files into the user's workspace.ros100k.met - FGDC formal metadata file for the digital geologic mapPrimary Arc/Info EXPORT-format files (*.e00) for the digital geologic map:ros100k.e00 - principal line and polygon geologic map coveragerospnt.e00 -  point coverage (strike and dips, etc.)Additional Arc/Info EXPORT-format files (*.e00) necessary to re-create the geologic map plates:alcgeol.mrk.e00 -  markersetcalcomp1.shd.e00 - shadesetfnt038.e00 - font 38fnt039.e00 - font 39fnt040.e00 - font 40geology.mrk.e00 - markersetrosnet.e00 - a coverage containing the latitude and longitude neatline hatch marks. Arc/Info AML, graphics, key, lineset, and text files necessary to re-create the geologic map quadrangle plates:ros100k.aml - a program that creates a graphics file of the Rosalia 1:100,000 quadrangle, WA and ID map plate.scale2a.aml - AML to generate the customary and metric bar scales and representative fraction for the scales.index.gra - index map showing location of the map arearoslin.key - lineset keyfile for the map plate.rospol.key - primary shadeset keyfile for the map plate.rospnt.key - markerset keyfile for the map plate.geology.lin - lineset fileros.crd - textfile listing map credits on the map plateros.ref - a textfile listing map references on the map platerosdisc.txt - a textfile with the map disclaimer messagePlotter calibration file:cal.dat - the color calibration file used in the Arc/Info 'HPGL2' command to create plot files of the plates for plotting on the USGS HP650C in the Spokane Field Office.  This file is a custom file for this particular plotter.  Other plotters will require their own custom color calibration file.Arc/Info graphic (*.gra), HPGL2 (*.hp), and encapsulated PostScript (*.eps) files for the  geologic map plate:ros100k.gra - Arc/Info GRA fileros100k.hp - HPGL2 plot file ros100k.eps - encapsulated PostScript file