alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OSTROWITZ & OSTROWITZ, ESQS.
225 Gordons Corner Road
Suite 1-J
Manalapan, New Jersey 07726
(732) 446-2800
Attorneys for Plaintiff

--------------------------------------------------x
SOVERIGN BANK,                                     SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                   LAW DIVISION: MONMOUTH COUNTY
                  Plaintiff,
                                                   DOCKET NO. L-3253-02
         -vs-
                                                   Civil Action
ARC COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and
ARC MESA EDUCATORS, INC.,                          STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
                                                   WITH PREJUDICE AS TO THE
                           Defendants.             DEFENDANT ARC MESA
                                                   EDUCATORS, INC. ONLY
--------------------------------------------------x

     IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, CONSENTED TO AND AGREED, by and between the
parties hereto, that the within action as against the defendant, ARC MESA
EDUCATORS, INC. only, be and the same hereby is dismissed, with prejudice and
without costs.

     IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED, CONSENTED TO AND AGREED, that the consideration
for the within dismissal is the payment to the plaintiff of a substantial sum
which is being applied against the outstanding obligations due and owing by ARC
COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and guaranteed by ARC MESA EDUCATORS, INC. The within
stipulation is specifically requested by ARC COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and ARC MESA
EDUCATORS, INC., and the obligation of ARC COMMUNICATIONS, INC. shall continue
to remain in full force and effect, unabated following the execution of this
stipulation by all parties, no claim, counterclaim, third-party claim or defense
shall be permitted, created nor raised by the execution hereof, the same does
not impair any recourse which any party had or has against any party hereto, and
any claim, counterclaim, third-party claim or defense which could be created or
raised is hereby expressly waived.



<PAGE>

DATED:  April 2, 20034/14/2003

WESTERMAN, BALL, EDERER,            OSTROWITZ & OSTROWITZ, ESQS.
MILLER & SHARFSTEIN, LLP



By: /s/ ALAN C. EDERER                           By:/s/ ALAN R. OSTROWITZ
   ------------------------                         ---------------------
        ALAN C. EDERER                              ALAN R. OSTROWITZ
Attorneys for Dedendants                         Attorneys for Plaintiff
EXHIBIT 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIESAs of December 25, 2009

Interline Brands, Inc.

New JerseyWilmar Financial, Inc.

DelawareWilmar Holdings, Inc.

DelawareGlenwood Acquisition LLC

DelawareEagle Maintenance Supply, Inc.(1)

New JerseyBarnett of the Caribbean, Inc.

Puerto RicoSexauer Ltd.

Ontario, CanadaInterline Brands Hong Kong Limited

Hong Kong, ChinaInterline Brands International Trading (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.

Shenzhen, China


(1)Effective
December 26, 2009, Eagle Maintenance Supply, Inc. was merged into Interline Brands, Inc., a New Jersey corporation.


---



QuickLinks
#### Alvin E. Nelson and Earle S. Nelson, copartners, trading as Nelson Brothers, appellants, v. Edward P. Jones, appellee.

Gen. No. 27,559.

Suit for amount of notes with interest issued on an automobile. Claim for damages by defendant on alleged contract to have said automobile insured. Damages assessed for both parties. Judgment for the difference in favor of defendant. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Daniel P. Trude, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 9, 1923.

Rehearing denied May 23, 1923.

A. J. Deutschman, for appellants. Walter M. Farmer, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.
1

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

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN BURRIS 

JOHN L. BURRIS, ESQ (SBN 69888) 

STEVEN R. YOURKE (SBN 118506) 

7677 Oakport St., Suite 1120 

Oakland, CA 94621 

Phone: (510) 839-5200 

Fax: (510) 839-3882 

Email: steven.yourke@johnburrislaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TIMOTHY MITCHELL, SR., et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

CITY OF PITTSBURG, et al. 

 Defendants. 

CASE NO.: CV 09 - 0794 SI 

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE & 

EXTEND TIME FOR EXPERT 

DISLOURE PER RULE 26 & 

PROPOSED ORDER 

The parties to this action by and through their respective counsel do hereby 

stipulate that the settlement conference presently scheduled for May 3, 2010 be taken 

off calendar and that the deadline for disclosure of expert witnesses be extended 60 

days, from April 30, 2010 until June 30, 2010. 

Good cause exists for taking the settlement conference off calendar and for 

extending the time for disclosing experts, to wit, Plaintiff intends to move the Court to 

be allowed to add two new defendants. 'HIHQGDQWVZLOOQRWRSSRVHSODLQWLII¶VPRWLRQ

to amend the complaint to add such new defendants. Settlement of this action will not 

be feasible until all defendants are before the Court. The deadline for disclosing 

expert witnesses is presently set for April 30, 2010. Such deadline should be extended 

Case 3:09-cv-00794-SI Document 45 Filed 04/29/10 Page 1 of 2
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

for 60 days in order to allow the parties to depose the anticipated new defendants 

before disclosing experts. 

Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN BURRIS 

_________________________

Steven R. Yourke, Esq. 

Attorney for all plaintiffs 

 EDRINGTON, SCHIRNER & MURPHY 

 ___________________________ 

 JAMES MARZAN 

 Attorney for all Defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The settlement conference presently set in this action for May 3, 2010 is hereby 

cancelled. 

The deadline for disclosure of expert witnesses pursuant to Rule 26 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is hereby extended until June 30, 2010. 

 __________________________ 

 Hon. Susan Illston, 

 United States District Court 

The May 7, 2010 case management conference remains on

calendar.

Case 3:09-cv-00794-SI Document 45 Filed 04/29/10 Page 2 of 2
### §7385a. Subrogation of the United States

Upon payment of compensation under this subchapter, the United States is subrogated for the amount of the payment to a right or claim that the individual to whom the payment was made may have against any person on account of injuries referred to in section 7385 of this title.

(Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [div. C, title XXXVI, §3642], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–509; Pub. L. 108–375, div. C, title XXXI, §3162(b), Oct. 28, 2004, 118 Stat. 2186.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2004—Pub. L. 108–375 substituted "this subchapter" for "part B".
#### § 120.69 Port Directors.

*Port Directors* means the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Port Directors at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Ports of Entry (other than the port of New York, New York where their title is the Area Directors).
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-07-14T18:33:47-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
§ 245.416 Initial submission of materials to HUD: Conversion from project-paid utilities to tenant-paid utilities or a reduction in tenant utility allowances. In the case of a conversion from project-paid utilities to tenant-paid utilities or a reduction in tenant utility allowances, the mortgagor must submit the following materials to the local HUD office: ( a ) A copy of the notice to tenants;
( b ) In the case of a proposed conversion from project-paid utilities to tenant-paid utilities— ( 1 ) A statement indicating: ( i ) The type of utility or utilities involved;
( ii ) The number of units in the project by type and size;
( iii ) The average utility consumption data by unit type and size for comparable projects, and utility rate information, as obtained from the utility supplier;
( iv ) The estimated monthly cost of the utilities to be paid by the tenants by unit type and size, based upon the consumption data and rate information described in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section;
( v ) The monthly cost for the past year of paying for the utility or utilities involved on a project basis (actual cost) and by unit type and size (estimated breakdown);
( vi ) An estimate of the cost of conversion, as obtained from the utility supplier or from bids from contractors;
( vii ) The source and terms of financing for the conversion (to the extent known); and
( viii ) The estimated effect of the conversion on the total housing costs of the tenants by unit type and size, taking into account the estimated cost of conversion (including the cost of its financing), the estimated monthly cost of utilities to be paid by the tenants by unit type and size, the proposed utility allowances, and the estimated change in the rents paid to the mortgagor resulting from the conversion; and
( 2 ) A copy of the portion of the project's Energy Conservation Plan which addresses the cost-effectiveness determination associated with converting the project to tenant-paid utilities; and
( c ) In the case of a proposed reduction in tenant utility allowances, a statement indicating the information described in paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), (b)(1)(iii) and (b)(1)(iv) of this section, the utility allowances proposed for reduction, and a justification of the proposed reduction.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2502-0310)
Byron Mallott

Lieutenant Governor State Capitol Juneau, Alaska 99811 907.465.3520 465.5400 Fax WWW.LTGOV.ALASKA.GOV 530 West 7th Ave. Suite 1700 Anchorage. Alaska 99501 907.269.7460 269.0263 L T.GOVERNOR@ALASKA.GOV


### OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

ALASKA

MEMORANDUM
TO: Gary Mendivil, AAC Contact

Department of Environmental Conservation 

### FROM: Scott Meriwether

Special Assistant 907.465.4081 

### DATE: March 18, 2015 

### RE: Filed Permanent Regulations: Department of Environmental Conservation

Regulations re: air quality, the Mendenhall Valley limited maintenance area, transportation conformity, and the state implementation plan (18 AAC 50.010(1)(A); 18 AAC 50.015(b)(2),(e); 18 AAC 50.020(a); 18 AAC 50.030; 18 AAC 50.035(a)(8),(b); 18 AAC 50.040; 18 AAC 50.215(a)(3),(d); 18 AAC 50.220(c)(1)(E),(2); 18 AAC 50.700 - 18 AAC 50.750; 18 AAC 50.990(32),(90)(121),(130),(141)-(148))

Attorney General bile: Regulation Filed: Effective Date: Print: JU2013200372 (Part 2) March 18, 2015 April 17, 2015 214, July 2015

cc with enclosures: Linda Miller, Department of Law Genevieve Wojtusik, Administrative Regulation Review Committee Judy Herndon, LexisNexis
#### Fannie Loftus, administratrix of the estate of Michael Loftus, deceased, plaintiff in error, v. Chicago Railways Company, defendant in error.

Gen. No. 27,976.

Action for damages for death. Verdict of guilty. Damages assessed at one dollar. Judgment on the verdict. Error to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Anton T. Zeman, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1923.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed June 26, 1923.

Daniel L. Madden and Roy C. Merrick, for plaintiff in error. *668Charles Le Boy Brown, for defendant in error; John B. Guilliams, Frank L. Kriete and P. L. McArdle, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Fitch

delivered the opinion of the court.
### **CHAPTER 10—UNDERGROUND-WATER RECLAMATION GRANTS**
IN PART

and having considered the Government's response

1 18

1
relating to pretrial filings 

before setting a 

trial date.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2705 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Acetic acid, cyano[3-[(6-methoxy-2- 

benzothiazolyl)amino]-1H-isoindol-1-yl idene]-, pentyl ester. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 26, 2005 

Mrs. MYRICK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Acetic acid, cyano[3- 

[(6-methoxy-2-benzothiazolyl)amino]-1H-isoindol-1-yl 

idene]-, pentyl ester. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ACETIC ACID, CYANO[3-[(6-METHOXY-2- 

4 BENZOTHIAZOLYL)AMINO]-1H-ISOINDOL-1- 

5 YLIDENE]-, PENTYL ESTER. 

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

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 
2 

•HR 2705 IH 

‘‘ 9902.12.09 Acetic acid, cyano[3-[(6- 

methoxy-2- 

benzothiazolyl)amino]-1Hisoindol-1-ylidene]-, pentyl 

ester. (CAS No. 173285–74– 

0) (provided for in subheading 3204.11.50) ............ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

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
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-40643.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 17, 2007.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

After considering the briefs, oral arguments and pertinent parts of the record in this case, we remain uncertain about the district court’s reasoning when it refused to credit Perez’s federal sentence for the nine months he had served in state custody on an offense for which he had not at the date of sentencing been formally charged in state court. The court probably erred if it was trying to apply U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b); it overlooked U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c); and we cannot discern the legal basis for its deferring the decision whether to award credit for the ongoing state imprisonment. We need not further analyze these issues, however, because Perez was recently sentenced on a guilty plea to serve a lengthy state imprisonment on the underlying state offenses. We therefore VACATE and REMAND the sentence with instructions to the district court to exercise its discretion, pursuant to the Guidelines and *Booker,*in light of the foregoing development, and to articulate the reasons for its decision.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 26, 2019

NO. 03-18-00344-CV

Personal Care Products, Inc., Appellant

v.

Charles Smith, Executive Commissioner of The Texas Health and Human Services 

Commission; and Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Office of Inspector 

General, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 200TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND KELLY

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on April 19, 2018. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. The 

appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
### §§8281 to 8281b. Repealed. Pub. L. 99–412, title II, §201(a), Aug. 28, 1986, 100 Stat. 943

Section 8281, Pub. L. 95–619, title VII, §710, as added Pub. L. 96–294, title V, §565, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 752, provided that definitions in section 8211 of this title apply to this subchapter and defined additional terms.

Section 8281a, Pub. L. 95–619, title VII, §711, as added Pub. L. 96–294, title V, §565, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 754, provided that this subchapter apply to any public utility for which coverage is provided under section 8212 of this title.

Section 8281b, Pub. L. 95–619, title VII, §712, as added Pub. L. 96–294, title V, §565, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 754, related to rules of the Secretary for submission and approval of plans.

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

#### Demonstration Projects for Energy Efficiency in Commercial Buildings

Pub. L. 99–412, title II, §202, Aug. 28, 1986, 100 Stat. 943, provided that: "The Secretary of Energy shall, using funds appropriated for energy conservation activities of the Department of Energy, carry out demonstration projects by sharing the cost of the construction and development by nongovernmental entities of facilities which demonstrate innovative technologies for utility applications that increase energy efficiency in commercial buildings."
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

March 2 3 , 2020

s0318 

# Order

Clerk March 2 3 , 2020

160261

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 160261

COA: 342613

Lapeer CC: 16

- 012503

- FC

JOSHUA JERROLD TIETZ,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 25, 2019

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### § 206.51 Eligibility of mortgages involving a dwelling unit in a condominium.

If the mortgage involves a dwelling unit in a condominium, the project in which the unit is located must be acceptable to the Commissioner as set forth in 24 CFR 203.43b.

[84 FR 41877, Aug. 15, 2019]
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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

RENE NAVAREZ,

Defendant. /

No. CR 09-00320 WHA

REQUEST FOR PROBATION

AND GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Defendant Rene Navarez has filed, pro se, a motion to reduce his sentence. The

government and probation are requested to respond by NOON ON AUGUST 18, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cr-00320-WHA Document 91 Filed 08/03/16 Page 1 of 1
###### Editorial Note on Part 61

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 61 appear at 64 FR 54539, Oct. 7, 1999.

#### § 61.1 Purpose.

The Department of State administers the “Beirut Agreement of 1948”, a multinational treaty formally known as the Agreement for Facilitating the International Circulation of Visual and Auditory Material of an Educational, Scientific and Cultural Character. This Agreement facilitates the free flow of educational, scientific and cultural audio-visual materials between nations by providing favorable import treatment through the elimination or reduction of import duties, licenses, taxes, or restrictions. The United States and other participating governments facilitate this favorable import treatment through the issuance or authentication of a certificate that the audio-visual material for which favorable treatment is sought conforms with criteria set forth in the Agreement.
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 LEUNG DECLARATION

In response to an Order by this Court, AUSA W.S. Wilson Leung filed a declaration

(dkt. 122) detailing the government’s efforts to comply with the Court’s discovery order (dkt.

63). It is apparent from Leung’s declaration that the government failed to comply with the

Court’s discovery order, including that it failed to contact the FBI, DEA, U.S. Marshal

Service, or ATF to locate responsive documents. Accordingly, Shapiro is hereby

GRANTED permission to serve subpoenas on the relevant agencies to obtain materials

responsive to the discovery order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2015 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00750-CRB Document 123 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 1
#### West Virginia Pulp & Paper Company, Respondent, v. Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Motion for reargument denied, without costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
§ 9.7 Identification and marking. ( a ) Classified information shall be marked pursuant to the standards set forth in section 1.6 of the Executive Order, 32 CFR part 2001, subpart C, and internal Department guidance in 5 Foreign Affairs Manual.
( b ) Foreign government information shall retain its original classification markings or be marked and classified at a U.S. classification level that provides a degree of protection at least equivalent to that required by the entity that furnished the information. Foreign government information retaining its original classification markings need not be assigned a U.S. classification marking provided the responsible agency determines that the foreign government markings are adequate to meet the purposes served by U.S. classification markings.
( c ) Information assigned a level of classification under predecessor executive orders shall be considered as classified at that level of classification despite the omission of other required markings.
( d ) Prior to public release, all declassified records shall be appropriately marked to reflect their declassification.
#### § 10.18 Petitions for reconsideration.

Petitions for reconsideration of a final rule will not be considered. Such petitions, if filed, will be treated as petitions for rulemaking in accordance with § 10.20.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Aurello Barnes, Also Known as Escalante Barnes, Appellant.

[831 NYS2d 915]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated December 17, 2001 *(People v Barnes,*289 AD2d 413 [2001]), affirming a judgment and an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, both rendered January 7, 2000.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz, 2*NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, PJ., Miller, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.