alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

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

G:\CRBALL\2009\618-24\Judgment as to Stancill and OCallaghan.wpd

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANNE O’CALLAGHAN,

Plaintiff,

    v.

CITY OF SAN LEANDRO, et al.,Defendants.

                                                                      /

No. C 09-0624 CRB

JUDGMENT

The Court, having dismissed Plaintiff’s case with prejudice as to Defendant Stancill,

enters judgment in favor of Defendant Stancill and against Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 21, 2010                                                            CHARLES  R. BREYERUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00624-CRB   Document 85   Filed 07/22/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-12T21:47:00-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
### §5681. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5681 was editorially reclassified as section 11191 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Lucille Gordon, Respondent, v Albright Building & Maintenance Co., Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from an amended decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed June 15, 1977, which held that there was compliance with the filing requirements of section 28 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. While performing her duties on a night shift on January 22, 1970, claimant, a cleaning woman, was injured when she ttipped over a mop in an alleged attempt to prevent a robbery in her place of employment. Although she did not file her claim for benefits until more than three years later on April 29, 1973, the board nonetheless found that the filing requirements set forth in section 28 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law had been satisfied and restored the case to the referee calendar for further appropriate action. On this appeal, the employer and insurance carrier contend that the board erred in finding that the claim had been timely filed, and we agree. During the two years immediately following the injury only an employer’s report of injury was filed with the board, and it was stated therein that the injured employee had suffered no disability, had returned to work and had lost no time. Clearly, such a report did not make a claim and none could reasonably be inferred therefrom, and, accordingly, the proposed claim was time-barred pursuant to section 28 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law *(Matter of Gans v Active Equip. Supply,*27 AD2d 788). Our holding is unaffected by the fact that, on May 22, 1973, the carrier filed a notice that claimant’s right to compensation was not controverted. Prior to the first hearing on the matter, the carrier filed a superseding notice, on September 4, 1973, wherein claimant’s right to compensation was contested because, *inter alia,*the claim was not filed within the statutory period. Such being the case, under the express provisions of section 28 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, the ban of the statute was not waived by appellants. In conclusion, we would note that cases heavily relied upon by the board in seeking an affirmance of its decision are readily distinguishable and, therefore, unpersuasive. Contrary to the situation here, in *Matter of Almeida v Cristina Roofing Corp.*(23 AD2d 602, mot for lv to app den 15 NY2d 486), actual hearings were conducted by the board within two years of the injury and in *Matter of Doca v Federal Stevedoring Co.*(308 NY 44) the claimant therein received compensation payments and medical expenses from the employer’s carrier during the two-year period. Decision reversed, and claim dismissed, without costs. Sweeney, J. P., Staley, Jr., Main, Larkin and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1998

<CASH>                                            832,529
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   7,237,109
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                8,794,842
<PP&E>                                         63,125,679
<DEPRECIATION>                                  9,397,812
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 66,158,762
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           6,118,825
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           77,726
<OTHER-SE>                                     50,611,383
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   66,158,762
<SALES>                                         7,634,711
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                7,634,711
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   6,690,889
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 12,617
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,033,464
<INCOME-TAX>                                      367,862
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               665,602
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                       1,780,835
<NET-INCOME>                                    2,446,437
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.31

                                  
        
                                   

</TABLE>
#### Kathleen R. Schiller, Formerly Known as Kathleen R. Smith, Respondent, v Curtiss C. Smith, Appellant.

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: In view of the constant dilatory efforts of the appellant and the inordinate delays in complying with court orders, Special Term properly refused a further extension of time. (Appeal from order and judgment of Monroe Supreme Court—support.) Present— Marsh, P. J., Cardamone, Dillon, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2719

In Re: PIERRE JOLIGARD, a/k/a Georges Pierre

Joligard,

Debtor.

_________________________

WILLIAM E. FINDLER; CHRISTINA M. JOLIGARD,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

versus

PIERRE JOLIGARD, a/k/a Georges Pierre Joligard,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-96-1281, BK-95-13940, AP-95-1484, AP-95-1506)

Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: July 31, 1997

Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Pierre Joligard, Appellant Pro Se. William E. Findler, Christina

M. Joligard, Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order affirming the

bankruptcy court's determination that amounts due to Appellant's

ex-wife and the guardian ad litem appointed to represent their

child's interests were not dischargeable in bankruptcy. We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Findler v. Joligard, Nos. CA-96-1281, BK-95-13940,

AP-95-1484, AP-95-1506 (E.D. Va. Nov. 12, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
```

[Federal Register: April 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 83)]
[Notices]               
[Page 22769-22770]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30ap10-57]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

 
Sunshine Act Notice

AGENCY: U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Virtual Public Forum for EAC Standards Board.

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

Date and Time: Monday, May 17, 2010, 9 a.m. EDT through Tuesday, June 
1, 2010, 9 p.m. EDT.

Place: EAC Standards Board Virtual Meeting Room at http://www.eac.gov. 
Once at the main page of EAC's Web site, viewers should click the link 
to the Standards Board Virtual Meeting Room. The virtual meeting room 
will open on Monday, May 17, 2010, at 9 a.m. EDT and will close on 
Tuesday, June 1, 2010, at 9 p.m. EDT. The site will be available 24 
hours per day during that 16-day period.

Purpose: The EAC Standards Board will review and provide comment on 
three draft chapters of the Election Management Guidelines. The draft 
chapters contain best practices and recommendations regarding: 
Accessibility, Elections Office Administration, and Technology in 
Elections.
    The EAC Standards Board Virtual Meeting Room was established to 
enable the Standards Board to conduct business in an efficient manner 
in a public forum, including being able to review and discuss draft 
documents, when it is not feasible for an in-person board meeting. The 
Standards Board will not take any votes or propose any resolutions 
during the 16-day forum of May 17-June 1, 2010. Members will post 
comments about the three draft chapters of the Election Management 
Guidelines.
    This activity is open to the public. The public may view the 
proceedings of this special forum by visiting the EAC Standards Board 
Virtual Meeting Room at http://www.eac.gov at any time between Monday, 
May 17, 2010, 9 a.m. EDT and Tuesday, June 1, 2010, 9 p.m.

[[Page 22770]]

EDT. The public also may view the three draft chapters of the election 
management guidelines, which will be posted on EAC's Web site beginning 
May 17, 2010. The public may file written statements to the EAC 
Standards Board at standardsboard@eac.gov and by copying Sharmili 
Edwards at sedwards@eac.gov. Data on EAC'S Web site is accessible to 
visitors with disabilities and meets the requirements of section 508 of 
the Rehabilitation Act.

Person to Contact for Information: Bryan Whitener, Telephone: (202) 
566-3100.

Gineen Bresso Beach,
Commissioner, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-10208 Filed 4-28-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-KF-P
```
### §7270c. Annual assessment and report on vulnerability of facilities to terrorist attack

(a) The Secretary shall, on an annual basis, conduct a comprehensive assessment of the vulnerability of Department facilities to terrorist attack.

(b) Not later than January 31 each year, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the assessment conducted under subsection (a) during the preceding year. Each report shall include the results of the assessment covered by such report, together with such findings and recommendations as the Secretary considers appropriate.

(Pub. L. 95–91, title VI, §663, as added Pub. L. 107–107, div. C, title XXXI, §3154(a), Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1377.)
### §914. Office of Women's Health

#### (a) Establishment

The Secretary shall establish within the Office of the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, an office to be known as the Office of Women's Health. The Office shall be headed by a director who shall be appointed by the Administrator.

#### (b) Purpose

The Director of the Office shall—

(1) report to the Administrator on the current Administration level of activity regarding women's health across, where appropriate, age, biological, and sociocultural contexts;

(2) establish short-range and long-range goals and objectives within the Health Resources and Services Administration for women's health and, as relevant and appropriate, coordinate with other appropriate offices on activities within the Administration that relate to health care provider training, health service delivery, research, and demonstration projects, for issues of particular concern to women;

(3) identify projects in women's health that should be conducted or supported by the bureaus of the Administration;

(4) consult with health professionals, nongovernmental organizations, consumer organizations, women's health professionals, and other individuals and groups, as appropriate, on Administration policy with regard to women; and

(5) serve as a member of the Department of Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women's Health (established under section 237a(b)(4) of this title).

#### (c) Continued administration of existing programs

The Director of the Office shall assume the authority for the development, implementation, administration, and evaluation of any projects carried out through the Health Resources and Services Administration relating to women's health on March 23, 2010.

#### (d) Definitions

For purposes of this section:

#### (1) Administration

The term "Administration" means the Health Resources and Services Administration.

#### (2) Administrator

The term "Administrator" means the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration.

#### (3) Office

The term "Office" means the Office of Women's Health established under this section in the Administration.

#### (e) Authorization of appropriations

For the purpose of carrying out this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2014.

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title VII, §713, as added Pub. L. 111–148, title III, §3509(f), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 535.)
§ 9a.4 Classification. ( a ) Section 1 of E.O. 11932, August 4, 1976 directs that information and material obtained pursuant to the International Energy Program and which requires protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interest of the national defense or foreign relations of the United States shall be classified pursuant to Executive Order 11652.
( b ) Information and material, including transcripts, records, and communications, in the possession of the United States Government which has been obtained pursuant to ( 1 ) section 252(c)(3), (d)(2) or (e)(3) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (89 Stat. 871, 42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(3), (d)(2), (e)(3)), or
( 2 ) The Voluntary Agreement and Program Relating to the International Energy Program (40 FR 16041, April 8, 1975), or
( 3 ) the Voluntary Agreement and Plan of Action to Implement the International Energy Program (41 FR 13998, April 1, 1976), or
( 4 ) Any similar Voluntary Agreement and Program entered into under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act shall be reviewed by an officer of the Department of State with classifying authority for the purpose of determining whether such information or material should be classified pursuant to E.O. 11652. If the officer determines that the information or material warrants classification, he shall assign it the appropriate classification. Such information or material may be exempted from the General Declassification Schedule established by section 5 of Executive Order No. 11652 if it was obtained by the United States on the understanding that it be kept in confidence, or if it might otherwise be exempted under section 5(B) of such Order.
( c ) In classifying such information or material, officers of the Department of State shall follow the standards in E.O. 11652 and the provisions of 22 CFR 9.5 through 9.8.
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

In connection with the Annual Report of Reynolds Consumer Products Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Graham, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Date: March 10, 2020 |   | By:    | /s/ Michael Graham |
|----------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|                 |   |   | Michael Graham          |
|                 |   |   | Chief Financial Officer |
#### § 1005.115 Equal access.

The equal access to HUD-assisted or -insured housing requirements in 24 CFR 5.105(a)(2) apply to this part.

[81 FR 80993, Nov. 17, 2016]
#### § 1000.112 How will HUD determine whether to approve model housing activities?

HUD will review all proposals with the goal of approving the activities and encouraging the flexibility, discretion, and self-determination granted to Indian tribes under NAHASDA to formulate and operate innovative housing programs that meet the intent of NAHASDA.
### §5418. Use of services, research and testing facilities of public agencies and independent laboratories

The Secretary, in exercising the authority under this chapter, shall utilize the services, research and testing facilities of public agencies and independent testing laboratories to the maximum extent practicable in order to avoid duplication.

(Pub. L. 93–383, title VI, §619, Aug. 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 711.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective upon the expiration of 180 days following Aug. 22, 1974, see section 627 of Pub. L. 93–383, set out as a note under section 5401 of this title.
#### Stephen J. Brooks et al., Plaintiffs, v Judlau Contracting, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Thunderbird Constructors, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

[831 NYS2d 734]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated October 2, 2001, which denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the third-party claim for contractual indemnification.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from the order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]; *Brooks v Judlau Contr., Inc.,*39 AD3d 447 [2007] [decided herewith]). Crane, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Fisher, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 200.1001 Cross-reference.

The provisions in subpart B of part 5 of this title apply to Social Security Numbers and Employer Identification Numbers for assistance applicants and participants.

[61 FR 11118, Mar. 18, 1996]
### SUBCHAPTER XV—TOWN SITES, PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS, AND SCHOOL SITES
DESCRIPTION OF AN AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF 

A SUBSTITUTE TO THE PROVISIONS OF H.R. 5053, THE 

“PREVENTING IRS ABUSE AND PROTECTING FREE SPEECH ACT” 

The Chairman’s amendment in the nature of a substitute modifies H.R. 5053. The 

amendment replaces “subsection” with “section” on line 18 of page 4 of H.R. 5053. 

The following presents the estimated Federal fiscal year budget effects of the Chairman’s 

amendment. 

Fiscal Years 

[Millions of Dollars] 

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2016-21 2016-26

 

--- -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -7 -16 

NOTE: Details do not add to totals due to rounding. 

JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION 

April 27, 2016 

JCX-42-16
#### § 1000.522 How will HUD give notice of on-site reviews?

HUD shall generally provide a 30 day written notice of an impending on-site review to the Indian tribe and TDHE. Prior written notice will not be required in emergency situations. All notices shall state the general nature of the review.
§ 96.60 Length of accreditation or approval period. ( a ) The accrediting entity will accredit or approve an agency or person for a period of four years, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section. The accreditation or approval period will commence on the date that the agency or person is granted accreditation or approval.
( b ) In order to stagger the renewal requests from agencies and persons applying for accreditation or approval and to prevent the renewal requests from coming due at the same time, the accrediting entity may extend the period of accreditation it has previously granted for no more than one year and such that the total period of accreditation does not exceed five years, as long as the agency or person remains in substantial compliance with the applicable standards in subpart F of this part. The only agencies and persons that may qualify for an extension are: Those that have no pending Complaint Registry investigations or adverse actions (see § 96.70); and those that have not undergone a change in corporate or internal structure (such as a merger or change in chief executive or financial officer) during their current accreditation or approval period. For agencies and persons that meet these two criteria, the Secretary, in his or her discretion, may consider additional factors in deciding upon an extension including, but not limited to, the agency's or person's volume of intercountry adoption cases in the year preceding the application for renewal or extension, the agency's or person's state licensure record, and the number of extensions available.
[80 FR 50196, Aug. 19, 2015]