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

SERVICE EMPLOYEES

INTERNATIONAL UNION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SAL ROSELLI, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-00404 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

EXCEED PAGE LIMIT

Defendants Sal Rosselli, John Borsos, Ralph Cornejo, Marti Garza, Glenn Goldstein,

Emily Gordon, Jason Johnson, Mark Kipfer, Gabe Kristal, Barbara Lewis, Daniel Martin, Jorge

Rodriguez, Fred Seavey, Peter Tappeiner, John Vellardiata, Phyllis Willett, and National Union

of Healthcare Workers move for an order to exceed the 25-page limit for their joint motion for

judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. Defendants seek permission to file a motion up to

60 pages in length. For lack of good cause shown, the motion is DENIED. Defendants should

focus on their best arguments in a concise and organized fashion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00404-WHA Document 650 Filed 05/06/10 Page 1 of 1
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber 

s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 18, 2015

No. 04-14-00620-CV

Rosa Obregon PEREZ, Ricardo O. Perez, individually and as next friend of Rosa Elia Perez, 

Maria Perez Jalomus, Juan Jose Perez, Julio Perez, Jr., and Fernando Perez,

Appellants

v.

THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY,

Appellee

From the 83rd Judicial District Court, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 26130

Robert Cadena, Judge Presiding

O R DER

The Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief is GRANTED. The 

appellant’s reply brief is due on March 18, 2015.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of March, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-49-2020]

On July 24, 2020, Flextronics America, LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 183C, in Austin, Texas.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (85 FR 47165, August 4, 2020). On November 23, 2020, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.                

Dated: November 23, 2020.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2020-26232 Filed 11-25-20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Exhibit 32

           CERTIFICATION 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 September 30, 2003, 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/ Peter Bordes
                                                  -----------------------
                                                  Peter Bordes,
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                                  Arc Communications Inc.
§ 180.400 Service and filing. ( a ) *Service* — ( 1 ) *Service by the Office of Hearings and Appeals.* The Office of Hearings and Appeals shall serve all notices, orders, decisions and other such documents by mail to each party and amicus curiae at the last known address.
( 2 ) *Service by others.* A copy of each filed document shall be served on each party and each amicus curiae. Service shall be made upon counsel if a party is represented by counsel. Service on counsel shall constitute service on the party. Service may be made to the last known address by first-class mail or other more expeditious means, such as: ( i ) Hand delivery to the person to be served or a person of suitable age and discretion at the place of business, residence, or usual place of abode of the person to be served;
( ii ) Overnight delivery; or
( iii ) Facsimile transmission or electronic means. The ALJ may place appropriate limits on service by facsimile transmission or electronic means.
( 3 ) *Certificate of service.* Every document served shall be accompanied by a certificate of service containing a statement as to the date of service, the method of service, the parties served and the address at which they were served, which is signed and dated by the person making service.
( b ) *Filing* — ( 1 ) *Method.* All documents shall be filed with the Docket Clerk. Filing may be by first class mail, delivery, facsimile transmission, or electronic means; however, the ALJ may place appropriate limits on filing by facsimile transmission or electronic means.
( 2 ) *Form.* Every pleading, motion, brief, or other document shall contain a caption setting forth the title of the proceeding, the docket number assigned by the Office of Hearings and Appeals, and the designation of the type of document (e.g., charge, motion).
( 3 ) *Signature.* Every document filed by a party shall be signed by the party or the party's attorney and must include the signer's address and telephone number. The signature constitutes a certification that: the signer has read the document; to the best of the signer's knowledge, information and belief, the statements made therein are true; and the document is not interposed for delay.
[61 FR 52218, Oct. 4, 1996, as amended at 74 FR 4636, Jan. 26, 2009; 87 FR 8197, Feb. 14, 2022]
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOVENDER FLEMING,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

NADIA CLARK, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

VICTOR JONES,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

NADIA CLARK, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C09-1613 BZ

and Consolidated Case

No. C09-4757 BZ

AMENDED TRIAL 

RESCHEDULING ORDER

(Corrects day trial 

 shall start)

The Court’s schedule having changed, IT IS ORDERED that

the jury trial in this matter shall begin on Monday,

November 8, 2010, at 8:30 a.m., in Courtroom G, 15th Floor,

Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco,

California 94102. The pretrial conference shall be held on

Tuesday, October 26, 2010, 4:00 p.m. The March 14, 2011 trial

date and corresponding pretrial conference on February 22,

Case 3:09-cv-01613-BZ Document 117 Filed 07/09/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

2011 are VACATED. The previously issued Pretrial Preparation

Order remains in full force and effect. 

Dated: July 9, 2010 

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\FLEMING v. CLARK\AMENDED SEC SCHED ORD.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-01613-BZ Document 117 Filed 07/09/10 Page 2 of 2
AAM-13-359-E

June 05, 2013

 Exemption No. 9914B

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0545

Mr. Robert A. Anstatt

Director of Operations

Easton Aviation, LLC

3718 Marvel Drive

Trappe, MD 21673

Dear Mr. Anstatt:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 9914, 

as amended. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions 

and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By submission dated May 3, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Easton Aviation, LLC (Easton Aviation) for an extension of Exemption No.

9914, as amended. That exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

allows Easton Aviation, which is operating under separate parts of the regulation, to cover its 

safety-sensitive employees under one testing program.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Easton Aviation.
2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9914, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, 

under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the conditions and limitations listed 

below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Easton Aviation are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all 

times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the Easton Aviation part 135 operation, not under part 91.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 9914, as amended, to August 31, 

2015 unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely,

James R. Fraser, M.D.

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon
### §3058ff. Rule of construction

Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to interfere with or abridge the right of an older individual to practice the individual's religion through reliance on prayer alone for healing, in a case in which a decision to so practice the religion—

(1) is contemporaneously expressed by the older individual—

(A) either orally or in writing;

(B) with respect to a specific illness or injury that the older individual has at the time of the decision; and

(C) when the older individual is competent to make the decision;

(2) is set forth prior to the occurrence of the illness or injury in a living will, health care proxy, or other advance directive document that is validly executed and applied under State law; or

(3) may be unambiguously deduced from the older individual's life history.

(Pub. L. 89–73, title VII, §765, as added Pub. L. 109–365, title VII, §705, Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2594.)
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 4527]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01567]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending January 11, 2014

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2014-0004.
    Date Filed: January 9, 2014.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion To Modify 
Scope: January 30, 2014.
    Description: Application of Pentastar Aviation Charter Inc. (PACI) 
requesting authority to conduct interstate air transportation without 
limitation within the United States, using planeload domestic and 
interstate passenger flights for five (5) or more flight between the 
same points per week.

Barbara J. Hairston,
Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Federal Register 
Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2014-01567 Filed 1-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
(July 27, 1960)

#### In the Matter of the Claim of John R. Hilliard, Respondent, against Armour and Company, Appellant. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Claimant worked as a cutter in a meat plant. On January 27, 1956 in the course of his employment he was pushing meat suspended on hooks from a ceiling runner. The meat weighed from 600 to 700 pounds. Claimant testified that as he was pushing the meat two sections of the meat twisted and struck him on the arm and chest. He also testified that in the course of the pushing he experienced a pain in the left arm and chest. Immediately following this incident claimant suffered an acute anteroseptal infarction. There is medical proof that the effort and the striking of the claimant on the arm and chest could have precipitated the acute heart condition described in the record. Although this was the claimant’s usual work, the incident is sufficiently identified in time and place to permit the board to find it was an accident; and there is *870adequate medical association between the accident and the claimant’s subsequent physical disability. Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
#### Beacon Urban Renewal Agency, Appellant, v David Kyriazis et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

In a condemnation proceeding, the Beacon Urban Renewal Agency appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered December 29, 1976, which confirmed the supplemental report of the Commissioners of Appraisal. Order affirmed, with costs. Respondents’ appraisal, as compared with the one submitted by appellant, was exhaustive, complete and in-depth. The confirmation of the report was therefore based on substantial evidence. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
#### Richard Doktor et al., Plaintiffs, v. County Line Stone Company, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Genesee Explosive Sales & Service, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $25 costs and disbursements. (Appeal from order of Genesee Special Term denying motion of third-party defendant to dismiss third-party complaint.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
In the Court of Criminal 

Appeals of Texas

══════════

No. WR-94,074-01

══════════

EX PARTE DAMON SIMMONS, 

Applicant

═══════════════════════════════════════

On Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus 

Cause No. 814816-A in the 179th District Court 

From Harris County 

═══════════════════════════════════════

 YEARY, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SLAUGHTER, J., 

joined. 

Applicant was convicted in 1999 of aggravated robbery and 

sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment. The Fourteenth Court of 

Appeals affirmed his conviction in 2000. Simmons v. State, No. 14-99-

00890-CR, 2000 WL 716470 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] June 1, 

2000). In July of 2011, Applicant filed an application for writ of habeas 
SIMMONS – 2

corpus in the county of conviction. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. In 

his application, he alleges that he received ineffective assistance of 

counsel for failing to conduct an adequate voir dire and that his trial 

counsel failed to provide an adequate defense.

Today, the Court remands this application to the trial court to 

further develop the record. I join the Court’s remand order. But I write 

separately to address my thoughts concerning the doctrine of laches and 

its possible application to this case. See Ex parte Smith, 444 S.W.3d 661 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (holding a trial court has the authority to sua 

sponte consider the doctrine of laches); Ex parte Bazille, ___ S.W.3d ___, 

No. WR-89,851-02, 2022 WL 108348 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 12, 2022) 

(Yeary, J., concurring).

The doctrine of laches ought to be considered in a case like this 

one. Applicant’s appeal was finalized in 2000, but this writ application 

was not filed until eleven years later.1 The record is also silent regarding 

circumstances that may excuse Applicant’s delay, and at least some 

explanation for the long delay in filing should be provided. Consistent 

with this Court’s precedent, the trial court “may sua sponte consider and 

determine whether laches should bar relief.” Smith, 444 S.W.3d at 667.

If the trial court does so, it must give Applicant the opportunity to 

explain the reasons for the delay and give the State’s prosecutors and/or 

former counsel for Applicant an opportunity to state whether 

1 “Our revised approach will permit courts to more broadly consider the 

diminished memories of trial participants and the diminished availability of 

the State’s evidence, both of which may often be said to occur beyond five years 

after a conviction becomes final.” Ex parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d 206, 216 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2013) (citing Ex parte Steptoe, 132 S.W.3d 434, 437–39 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2004) (Cochran, J., dissenting)). 
SIMMONS – 3

Applicant’s delay has caused any prejudice to their ability to defend 

against Applicant’s claims. Id. at 670. And ultimately, the trial court 

may include findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the 

doctrine of laches in its response to this Court’s remand order.

With these additional thoughts, I join the Court’s order.

FILED: December 7, 2022

DO NOT PUBLISH
#### GARBER v. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate. Term.

March 21, 1905.)

Evidence—Memorandum—Independent Evidence.

It was error for the court to read as original evidence a memorandum made by a witness which was available only to refresh the witness’ memory, if necessary.

[Edi Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 50, Cent. Dig. Witnesses, § 892.]

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

Action by Samuel Garber against the New York City Railway Company. From a Municipal Court judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

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

Rosario Maggio, for appellant.

William E. Weaver, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

It was error for the court to read in evidence the memorandum made by the officer. It might have been used to refresh the memory of the officer, if necessary, so that he could testify, but as original, independent evidence it was incompetent. The officer was an important witness, and the accuracy of his testimony was of great importance. We cannot say that his corroboration by incompetent evidence did not affect the result.

Judgment reversed,, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.
### **CHAPTER 32—COLORADO RIVER BASIN PROJECT**

#### SUBCHAPTER I—OBJECTIVES

Sec.
1501.
Congressional declaration of purpose and policy.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—INVESTIGATIONS AND PLANNING

1511.
Reconnaissance investigations by Secretary of the Interior; reports; 10-year moratorium on water importation studies.
1511a.
Cooperation and participation by Secretary of the Army with Federal, State, and local agencies.
1512.
Mexican Water Treaty.
1513.
Importation of water; protection of exporting areas.
1514.
Authorization of appropriations.

#### SUBCHAPTER III—AUTHORIZED UNITS; PROTECTION OF EXISTING USES

1521.
Central Arizona Project.
1522.
Orme Dam and Reservoir.
1523.
Power requirements of Central Arizona Project and augmentation of Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund.
1524.
Water furnished from Central Arizona Project.
1525.
Cost of main stream water of Colorado River.
1526.
Water salvage programs.
1527.
Fish and wildlife conservation and development.
1528.
Authorization of appropriations.

#### SUBCHAPTER IV—LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN DEVELOPMENT FUND

1541.
Allocation of costs; repayment.
1542.
Repayment capability of Indian lands.
1543.
Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund.
1544.
Annual report to Congress.

#### SUBCHAPTER V—GENERAL PROVISIONS

1551.
Construction of Colorado River Basin Act.
1552.
Criteria for long-range operation of reservoirs.
1553.
Upper Colorado River Basin; rights to consumptive uses not to be reduced or prejudiced; duties and powers of Commission not impaired.
1554.
Federal reclamation laws.
1555.
Federal Power Act inapplicable to Colorado River between Hoover Dam and Glen Canyon Dam.
1556.
Definitions.
exv10w3






Exhibit 10.3




Amendment No. 1 To The




Alexza Pharmaceuticals, Inc.



2005 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan


Effective September 23, 2010, the Board of Directors of Alexza Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Company”) adopted an amendment to the Company’s 2005 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan
(the “Plan”) so that sections 6(a) and (b) of the Plan were amended and restated to read in their
entirety as follows:




6. Non-Discretionary Grants.




     (a) Initial Grants. Without any further action of the Board, (1) each person who on the IPO
Date is a Non-Employee Director, upon the IPO Date, and (2) each person who after the IPO Date is
elected or appointed for the first time to be a Non-Employee Director, upon the date of his or her
initial election or appointment to be a Non-Employee Director, in each case automatically shall be
granted an Initial Grant to purchase thirty thousand (30,000) shares of Common Stock on the terms
and conditions set forth herein.



     (b) Annual Grants. Without any further action of the Board, on the date of each Annual
Meeting, commencing with the Annual Meeting in 2011, each person who is then a Non-Employee
Director and has served as a Non-Employee Director for at least six (6) months prior to such Annual
Meeting shall automatically be granted an Annual Grant to purchase shares of Common Stock, which
such Annual Grant shall have a fair market value of $40,000, as determined by the then-current
Black-Scholes valuation, calculated as of the date of such Annual Meeting, with possible reductions
in grant size due to option pool size limitations, on the terms and conditions set forth herein.