alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1599. Definitions

As used in this subchapter—

(a) all terms that are defined in the Colorado River Compact shall have the meanings therein defined;

(b) "Colorado River Basin States" means the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.

(Pub. L. 93–320, title II, §209, June 24, 1974, 88 Stat. 275.)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Neilasan Chung, Appellant.

[835 NYS2d 223]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Adler, J.), rendered September 6, 2005, convicting him *559of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the People failed to disprove his defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant caused the victim’s death by stabbing him without reason to believe that the victim, who was unarmed, was about to use deadly physical force against him *(see People v Terrero,*31 AD3d 672 [2006]; *People v Wahedi,*301 AD2d 541, 541-542 [2003]; *People v Henegan,*150 AD2d 606, 607 [1989]). Additionally, the jury could have found that the defendant had the opportunity to retreat safely without resorting to the use of deadly physical force *(see*Penal Law § 35.15 [2] [a]; *People v Wahedi, supra*at 542). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant received the effective assistance of trial counsel *(see People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137 [1981]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review. Prudenti, PJ., Fisher, Garni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
§ 203.400 Method of payment. ( a ) If the application for insurance benefits is acceptable to the Commissioner, payment of the insurance claim shall be made in cash, in debentures, or in a combination of both, as determined by the Commissioner either at, or prior to, the time of payment.
( b ) An insurance claim paid on a mortgage insured under section 223(e) of the National Housing Act shall be paid in cash from the Special Risk Insurance Fund.
[80 FR 51468, Aug. 25, 2015]
### §5818. Repealed. Pub. L. 95–91, title VII, §709(b), Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 608

Section, Pub. L. 93–438, title I, §108, Oct. 11, 1974, 88 Stat. 1241; Pub. L. 94–385, title I, §§162, 163, Aug. 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 1140, 1142; Pub. L. 95–39, title V, §510(b), (c), June 3, 1977, 91 Stat. 200, related to establishment of an Energy Resources Council.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Executive Order No. 11814

Ex. Ord. No. 11814, Oct. 11, 1974, 39 F.R. 36955, as amended by Ex. Ord. No. 11819, Nov. 16, 1974, 39 F.R. 40743; Ex. Ord. No. 11855, May 1, 1975, 40 F.R. 19423, which related to the activation of the Energy Resources Council, was revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 12083, Sept. 27, 1978, 43 F.R. 44813, formerly set out as a note under section 7101 of this title.
#### § 92.78 Translating documents.

Officers of the Foreign Service are not authorized to translate documents or to certify to the correctness of translations. (However, see § 92.56 with regard to interpreting and translating services which may be performed in connection with depositions.) They are authorized to administer to a translator an oath as to the correctness of a translation; to take an acknowledgment of the preparation of a translation; and to authenticate the seal and signature of a local official affixed to a translation. Separate fees should be charged for each of these services, as indicated under the caption “Notarial Services and Authentications” of the Tariff of Fees, Foreign Service of the United States of America (§ 22.1 of this chapter).
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

CHARLES STEVENS,

Petitioner, 

 v.

RON DAVIS, Warden, San Quentin

State Prison

Respondent. /

No. C 9-137 WHA

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER DENYING ATTORNEY

BRYAN’S REQUEST FOR A REPLY

Attorney Bryan has filed a request for the opportunity to reply to Attorney Rifkin’s brief

supporting petitioner’s right to dismiss certain claims from the petition. The request is based on

the fact that Attorney Rifkin’s brief raises “unusual contentions”, the lack of Ninth Circuit or

Supreme Court precedent, and that the “complex arguments necessitate responses.”

Each party has had an opportunity to file one brief on this issue, with Attorney Bryan’s

being twice the length of the other parties. Someone must be allowed to have the last word. In

this instance, it is fair to allow that party to be petitioner. Additionally, the reasons stated in the

request for reply are exceedingly vague. Accordingly, the request is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30 , 2015. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00137-WHA Document 105 Filed 01/30/15 Page 1 of 1
### §7385j. Coordination with other Federal radiation compensation laws

Except in accordance with section 7384u of this title, an individual may not receive compensation or benefits under the compensation program for cancer and also receive compensation under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note) or section 1112(c) of title 38.

(Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [div. C, title XXXVI, §3651], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–512.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 101–426, Oct. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 920, which is set out as a note under section 2210 of this title.
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

RODOLFO R. MIRAMONTES, 

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

HERBE DEL CRUZ, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-5639 CRB (PR)

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a request for "order to resolve discovery disputes,"

noting that he and county counsel met and conferred as ordered by the court

without a "good outcome." Docket # 52 at 1. The court construes the request as

a motion to compel discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and

orders defendants to file a response within 15 days of this order.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 4, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.08\Miramontes, R1.or7.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-05639-CRB Document 56 Filed 06/07/10 Page 1 of 1
ex10_42.htm









Exhibit 10.42


FIRST AMENDMENT


TO THE


EMPLOYMENT AND NON-COMPETITION AGREEMENT







The Sheridan Group, Inc. (the "Employer") and Douglas R. Ehmann (the "Employee") wish to amend the Employee's Employment and Non-Competition Agreement (the "Employment Agreement"), dated April 1, 2007, to bring the Employment Agreement into compliance with the requirements of Internal Revenue Code section 409A and the Treasury Regulations and other authoritative guidance issued under that section.







WHEREAS, pursuant to IRS Notice 2007-86 and the final Treasury Regulations under Code section 409A, the Employment Agreement is being amended to comply with the final Treasury Regulations issued under Code section 409A.







Accordingly, effective April 1, 2007, the Employment Agreement is amended as follows:







1.  The second sentence of the first paragraph of Section 6(e)(iv) is amended by deleting the phrase that appears in brackets (i.e., by deleting "[or less than fifty percent (50%), if the Employee becomes an independent contractor]").







2.  Section 10(g) – Arbitration of Disputes – is amended by adding the following sentence to the end of that Section:







"Any reimbursement of reasonable fees and expenses under this Section shall be paid by the Employer to the Employee by the March 15 following the end of the year during which the Employee prevails in the dispute giving rise to such reimbursement."







In all other respects, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed, effective as specified herein.








	
ATTEST/WITNESS:

	  	
THE SHERIDAN GROUP, INC.


	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	 	/s/ Dale A. Tepp	 	 	/s/ John A. Saxton
	  	  	  	  	  
	
Print Name:

	
Dale A. Tepp

	  	
Print Name:

	
John A. Saxton


	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	 	 	 	 /s/ Douglas R. Ehmann
	 	

/s/ Dale A. Tepp

	 	

Douglas R. Ehmann


	  	  	  	
 


	
Print Name:

	
Dale A. Tepp
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Arc Communications Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, 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 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 as of
and for the periods covered in the Report.



                        /s/ Aaron Dobrinsky
                        -------------------------------
                            Aaron Dobrinsky
                            Chief Executive Officer
                            Arc Communications Inc.



June 10, 2004

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part
of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to ARC Communications Inc. and will be retained by ARC Communications
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-10686 Summary Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus JOSEPH CHRISTOPHER STENSON, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:94-CR-57-2
- - - - - - - - - - April 5, 1996 Before WIENER, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Retained counsel for Joseph Christopher Stenson requests permission to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Stenson has filed an initial and a supplemental response as well as several motions. The evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict convicting Stenson of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and possession with intent to distribute, cocaine base. United States v. Lewis , 902 F.2d 1176, 1180-81 (5th Cir.No. 95-10686 -2- 1990); United States v. Gardea Carrasco , 830 F.2d 41, 44 (5th Cir. 1987). The Government did not breach the plea agreement. United States v. Watson , 988 F.2d 544, 548 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied , 114 S. Ct. 698 (1994). Stenson's general allegations cannot support a claim of selective prosecution. United States v. Sparks , 2 F.3d 574, 580 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied , 114 S. Ct. 720, 899, 1548 (1994). Finally, Stenson's challenge on vagueness grounds to the sentencing guidelines is foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent. United States v. Fisher , 22 F.3d 574, 579 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 529 (1994). An independent review of counsel's brief, the points raised by Stenson in his initial and supplemental responses to the brief, and the record reveals no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. Accordingly, counsel's motion is GRANTED and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. Stenson's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED as moot. Stenson's motion for extension of time to file a supplemental response is DENIED.
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 200.1 Purpose.

This part sets forth requirements that are applicable to several of the programs of the Federal Housing Administration, an organizational unit within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Program requirements applicable to FHA programs and other HUD programs also can be found in 24 CFR part 5. The specific program regulations should be consulted to determine which requirements in this part 200 or 24 CFR part 5 are applicable.

[61 FR 14398, Apr. 1, 1996]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Karen Lawson, Appellant.

Judgment insofar as it imposes sentence unanimously reversed and defendant remanded to Monroe County Court for resentencing. Memorandum: At the time of sentencing, after her conviction based on a plea of guilty to the criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law, § 220.39), defendant challenged the constitutionality of CPL 720.10 (subd 2, par [a]) which precluded otherwise eligible youths from consideration for youthful offender treatment if the crime with which they were charged was a class A felony. Defendant’s constitutional objection was rejected; youthful offender status was denied; and the court sentenced the defendant to the mandatory indeterminate term of imprisonment having a minimum period of one year and a maximum of life. Commendably, the District Attorney has conceded that under *People v Drummond*(40 NY2d 990), the court was in error. Accordingly, the sentence must be reversed, and defendant remanded for consideration of youthful offender status. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance, third degree.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Dillon, Hancock, Jr., Denman and Witmer, JJ.
#### § 231.01 Purpose.

The purpose of the regulations in this part is to prescribe the procedures and standard terms and conditions applicable to loan guarantees issued for the benefit of the Arab Republic of Egypt (“Borrower”), pursuant to the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2003, Public Law 108-11. The loan guarantees will apply to sums borrowed from time to time between September 23, 2005 and September 30, 2005, not exceeding an aggregate total of two billion United States Dollars ($2,000,000,000) in principal amount. The loan guarantees shall insure the Borrower's repayment of 100% of principal and interest due under such loans. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is pledged for the full payment and performance of such guarantee obligations. The loan guarantees will be issued pursuant to a Loan Guarantee Commitment Agreement between the Borrower and the United States dated September 12, 2005.
#### § 232.595 Eligibility of title.

In order for the property which is to be the security for a loan to be insured under this subpart to be eligible for insurance, the Commissioner shall determine that the title to the property is vested in the borrower as of the date the security instrument is filed for record. The title evidence will be examined by the Commissioner and the endorsement of the credit instrument for insurance shall be evidence of its acceptability.
#### § 203.424 Maximum amount of distributive shares.

In no event shall a distributive share of the Participating Reserve Account exceed the aggregate scheduled annual premiums of the mortgagor to the year of termination of the insurance.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00347-CV

In re H.F. §

§

§

§

§

Original Proceeding

From the 89th District Court

of Wichita County (184,345-C)

November 14, 2016

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered Relator Mother’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

We conditionally grant Relator Mother’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus. We are 

confident that the trial court will vacate its order denying Mother’s motion to strike 

Grandmother’s petition in intervention signed August 30, 2016. Writ will issue 

only if the trial court fails to do so.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

 Justice Lee Gabriel
#### § 234.63 Location of property.

The mortgage, to be eligible for insurance, shall be on property located in a State, as defined in § 203.251 of this chapter, and not located on “Hawaiian home lands,” as that term is defined in section 247(d)(2) of the Act.
First Department,

November, 2000

(November 2, 2000)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marvel Jones, Appellant.

[715 NYS2d 402]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Bradley, J.), rendered June 30, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted robbery in the first degree, attempted robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 12 years, 6 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request for removal of his counsel and for permission to proceed *pro se.*The court conducted an adequate inquiry of defendant’s counsel. Further, the application was made after five of the People’s seven witnesses had testified, and defendant did not establish “compelling circumstances” warranting a mid-trial change of status *(People v McIntyre,*36 NY2d 10, 17). Defendant’s conclusory and unsubstantiated attacks on his counsel’s performance did not establish compelling circumstances. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Rubin, JJ.
**EXHIBIT      32.2 **

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO **

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350, **

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 **

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

|   | (2) | The                information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Registrant. |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                             |                                                              |                           |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
|                                                        |                                                         |                      |
| Dated                this 27th                day of June, 2007. | By:                                                     | /s/                Jibin Zhang |
|                                                             | Jibin                Zhang Chief                Financial Officer |

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nathan R. Stevenson, Appellant.

[835 NYS2d 791]

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank E Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered February 25, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law former § 265.03 [2]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request for youthful offender status. “The determination whether to grant youthful offender status rests within the sound discretion of the court and ‘depends upon all the attending facts and circumstances of the case’ ” *(People v Smith,*286 AD2d 878, 878 [2001], *lv denied*98 NY2d 641 [2002]; *see People v Boyce, 2*AD3d 984, 987 [2003], *lv denied 2*NY3d 796 [2004]). In view of, inter alia, the serious nature of the offense and defendant’s repeated failure to abide by the presentencing conditions set by the court, we cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion. Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.
§ 203.463 Notice and date of termination by Commissioner. The Commissioner shall notify the lender that the contract of insurance has been terminated and the effective termination. The termination date shall be the last day of the month in which: ( a ) The loan was prepaid; or
( b ) A voluntary termination request is received by the Commissioner, or
( c ) The contract of insurance is otherwise terminated with the consent of the Commissioner.
### §1167. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 1167 was editorially reclassified as section 2507 of this title.