alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1.

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING TELECONFERENCE 

SYSTEMS, LLC’S NOTICE OF DISMISSAL OF AT&T, INC. 

Case No. C 09-01550 JSW

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

ANTHONY G. SIMON, Mo. Bar No. 38745 (pro hac vice application pending)

TIMOTHY E. GROCHOCINSKI, Mo. Bar No. 59607 (pro hac vice application pending)

The Simon Law Firm, P.C.

701 Market Street, Suite 1450

Saint Louis, Missouri 63101

Telephone: (314) 241-2929

Facsimile: (314) 241-2029

asimon@simonlawpc.com

ROBERT W. HICKS (Cal. Bar No. 168049)

KENNETH R. WRIGHT (Cal. Bar No. 176325)

Robert W. Hicks & Associates

14510 Big Basin Way, Suite 151

Saratoga, CA 95070

Telephone: (619) 846-4333

Facsimile: (619) 236-3413

rhicks@rwhlaw.com

kwright@rwhlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff

TELECONFERENCE SYSTEMS, LLC and 

MARGALLA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.

Plaintiff,

 vs.

TELECONFERENCE SYSTEMS, LLC and 

MARGALLA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

 Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, 

vs.

THE PROCTOR & GAMBLE COMPANY, 

et. al.

 Third Party Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 09-01550 JSW

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

TELECONFERENCE SYSTEMS, LLC’S 

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL OF AT&T, INC.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Teleconference Systems, LLC’s Notice of Dismissal of AT&T, Inc. (“AT&T”), is 

GRANTED. Third Party Defendant AT&T is hereby dismissed without prejudice. 

Case3:09-cv-01550-JSW Document181-1 Filed05/03/10 Page1 of 2 Case 3:09-cv-01550-JSW Document 182 Filed 05/04/10 Page 1 of 2
2.

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING TELECONFERENCE 

SYSTEMS, LLC’S NOTICE OF DISMISSAL OF AT&T, INC. 

Case No. C 09-01550 JSW

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

DATED: _______________________ ________________________________

The Honorable Jeffrey S. White

U.S. District Court Judge

Case3:09-cv-01550-JSW Document181-1 Filed05/03/10 Page2 of 2

May 4, 2010

Case 3:09-cv-01550-JSW Document 182 Filed 05/04/10 Page 2 of 2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

RE SENTENCING [Case No.: CR 09-0033 WHA] 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY D. SCHINKEL,

Defendant.

Case No.: CR 09-0033 WHA

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE 

SENTENCING

This matter was previously set for sentencing on Tuesday, July 6, 2010, at 2:00 p.m. 

Today, on June 28, 2010, the parties learned for the first time of evidentiary issues that have 

arisen regarding Mr. Schinkelʼs sentencing. The parties plan to meet and confer immediately 

and complete their own investigation regarding these issues. Without the partiesʼ agreement, 

the parties foresee that a fully briefed motion and an evidentiary hearing will be necessary prior 

to sentencing. To conserve court resources, the parties respectfully request that they be 

afforded one last continuance.

The parties stipulate and request that the Court continue the sentencing hearing date in 

this case until Tuesday, August 3, 2010, at 2:00 p.m. 

Case 3:09-cv-00033-SC Document 25 Filed 07/01/10 Page 1 of 2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

RE SENTENCING [Case No.: CR 09-0033 WHA] 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

This will be the last request to continue to sentencing hearing date.

SO STIPULATED:

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO 

United States Attorney

Dated: June 28, 2010 ______/s/______________________

OWEN MARTIKAN

Assistant United States Attorney

Dated: June 28, 2010 _____/s/____________________

EDWIN PRATHER

Attorney for Defendant

JEFFREY D. SCHINKEL

[PROPOSED] ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING and per the partiesʼ stipulation, the sentencing 

hearing in this case is hereby continued until August 3, 2010, at 2:00 p.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ____________________ _______________________________

HON. WILLIAM H. ALSUP

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

July 1, 2010.

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge William Alsup

Case 3:09-cv-00033-SC Document 25 Filed 07/01/10 Page 2 of 2
Opinion issued August 1, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00799-CV

———————————

OLIVIA REYNER, Appellant

V.

AKIKO KIMURA, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1197296

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Olivia Reyner, has failed to timely file a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

38.6(a) (governing time to file brief), 38.8(a) (governing failure of appellant to file 

brief). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did 

not respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case). 
2

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution for failure to timely file 

a brief. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly and Goodman.
#### KLINKER et al. v. GUGGENHEIMER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 21, 1905.)

1. Pleadings—Amendment—Conditions—Payment of Costs.

Where, after the reversal of a judgment on appeal, defendant was bound to be' defeated and to be mulcted in costs as the record then stood, she should be allowed to amend only on the payment of the costs already accrued.

2. Appeals—Appealable Obdebs.

An order granting defendant leave to amend is not appealable, under the Municipal Court act (Laws 1902, p. 1486, c. 580).

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

Action by William H. Klinker and another against Adelaide E. Guggenheimer. From an order granting defendant leave to amend, plaintiffs appeal. Dismissed.

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

Frank Herwig, for appellants.

Charles E. Le Barbier, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The justice was authorized to grant the "amendment, but, under the circumstances, he should have imposed the payment of costs as a condition. As the record stood before the amendment, the defendant was bound to be defeated and to be mulcted in costs, for the ground on which the reversal of the former judgment went left no other alternative. 43 Misc. Rep. 393, 87 N. Y. Supp. 474. She should not by an amendment at this late day not only defeat the plaintiffs’ claim, but also escape the payment of the costs already accrued. We cannot, however, entertain this appeal, because the order sought to be reviewed is not appealable, under the Municipal Court act (Laws 1902, p. 1486, c. 580). Leavitt v. Katzoff, 43 Misc. Rep. 26, 86 N. Y. Supp. 495.

Appeal dismissed, without costs.
**Exhibit 32.2**Section 906 CertificationCertification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officers of PRA International (the “Company”) hereby certify, to such officers’knowledge, that:(i) the accompanying Annual Report of Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31,2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;and(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated: March 14, 2007   /s/ J. Matthew Bond      J. Matthew Bond  Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2886 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2886

       To suspend temporarily the duty on Acetoacet-p-Anisidine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 2005

  Mr. Chabot introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To suspend temporarily the duty on Acetoacet-p-Anisidine.

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

SECTION 1. ACETOACET-P-ANISIDINE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.11.10      Butanmide, N (4     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         Methoxyphenyl) 3                                                   31/2008
                         Oxo (CAS No. 5437-
                         98-9) (provided
                         for in subheading
                         2924.29.75)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, David D. Wesselink, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Metris Companies Inc.
(the Registrant); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
to materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial
reporting. 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
Registrants auditors and the audit committee of the Registrants board of
directors of: (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the Registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control
over financial reporting. Date: August 9, 2004 /s/ David D. WesselinkSignatureName:
    
    David D. WesselinkTitle:
    
    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2140
LATRESE D. SCOTT-BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM COHEN, Secretary of Defense, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-3570-AW) Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: December 30, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Latrese D. Scott-Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Frank Corcoran, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer Lilore Huesman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Latrese D. Scott-Brown appeals from the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to the Defendants as to some claims and a monetary judgment based upon a jury verdict in her favor as to other claims in this action pursuant to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Scott-Brown v. Cohen , No. CA00-3570-AW (D. Md. Aug. 14, 2001; July 15, 2002; filed July 18 and entered July 24, 2002). 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
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

BARRY J. PORTMAN

Federal Public Defender

ELIZABETH M. FALK

Assistant Federal Public Defender

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7700

Counsel for Defendant MONDRAGON

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

AMALIA MONDRAGON,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 09-910 VRW

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER CONTINUING

SENTENCING

Date: February 25, 2010

Time: 2:00 p.m.

Court: The Honorable Vaughn R.

Walker

STIPULATION

The parties agree to continue the sentencing in the above-captioned matter from February 25,

2010 until March 11, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. The purpose of the continuance is to enable defense counsel

to provide all relevant mitigating sentencing information to the Probation Officer to ensure the

Presentence Report is complete. Under the current schedule, the Presentence Report draft would

need to be completed by mid January. This is not adequate time for defense counsel to provide the

mitigating information to the Probation Officer, as defense counsel is trying to track down files and

probation officers in Santa Rosa and Santa Clara counties.

Assistant United States Attorney Benjamin Tolkoff has no objection to continuing the

sentencing to March 11, 2010, as evidenced by his signature at the conclusion of this stipulation. 

Moreover, United States Probation Officer Brian Casai has been contacted by defense counsel, and 

Case 3:09-cr-00910-VRW Document 19 Filed 01/12/10 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

STIP & ORDER CONTINUING

SENTENCING - 09-910 VRW - 2 -

has no objection to continuing the sentencing to March 11, 2010 at 2:00 p.m.

IT IS SO STIPULATED:

DATED: 1/8/10 _____/S/______________________________

ELIZABETH M. FALK

Assistant Federal Public Defender

DATED: 1/8/10 _____/S/______________________________

BENJAMIN TOLKOFF

Assistant United States Attorney

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Based upon the aforementioned representations of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that the

sentencing in this matter be continued from February 25, 2010 to March 11, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. It is

further ORDERED that the Final Presentence Report is due to this Court no later than February 25,

2010.

DATED: ______________________ _____________________________________________

THE HONORABLE VAUGHN R. WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

January 12, 2010 

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Vaughn R Walker

Case 3:09-cr-00910-VRW Document 19 Filed 01/12/10 Page 2 of 2
### SUBCHAPTER XXX—NAVAJO IRRIGATION PROJECT, NEW MEXICO; SAN JUAN-CHAMA PROJECT, COLORADO-NEW MEXICO
#### Seraphima Shagoury, Respondent, v Stephen Shagoury, Appellant.

[835 NYS2d 215]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fitzmaurice, J.), dated May 24, 2005, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, granted the plaintiff wife a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new trial, before a different justice.

The plaintiff wife commenced this action seeking, inter alia, a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. The husband counterclaimed for a judgment of separation on the same ground, but based, in effect, on allegations of abandonment and adultery. Contrary to the husband’s contention, the wife presented evidence which, if believed, would support the Supreme Court’s finding of cruel and inhuman treatment *(see Hessen v Hessen,*33 NY2d 406, 411 [1974]; *Meltzer v Meltzer,*
      *528255 AD2d 497, 497-498 [1998]). Nevertheless, under the unusual circumstances presented, a new trial is required because the trial court impermissibly and repeatedly precluded the husband from eliciting relevant testimony in his defense, as well as in support of the factual allegations contained in his counterclaim, and thereby deprived him of a fair trial *(see Arbital v Allstate Ins. Co.,*282 AD2d 560, 561 [2001]; *cf. Habib v Habib,*278 AD2d 277, 278 [2000]).

In light of our determination, we do not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions. Crane, J.E, Goldstein, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur. [As amended by unpublished order entered May 4, 2007.]
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

RULE 54(b) JUDGMENT

AFTER JURY TRIAL

A jury trial was held in this matter on all claims except whether the Education Fund

defendants breached any duty under ERISA in adopting or implementing an amendment to the

trust agreement governing the Education Fund. Pursuant to Rule 54(b) and based on the

accompanying jury verdict, the Court finds that there is no just reason to delay entry of judgment

on those claims decided by the verdict. Judgment is therefore entered in favor of plaintiffs and

against defendant John Borsos in the amount of $66,600, defendant Ralph Cornejo in the amount

of $36,600, defendant Marti Garza in the amount of $36,600, defendant Glenn Goldstein in the

amount of $73,850, defendant Emily Gordon in the amount of $31,400, defendant Jason Johnson

in the amount of $36,600, defendant Mark Kipfer in the amount of $40,600, defendant Gabe

Kristal in the amount of $73,850, defendant Barbara Lewis in the amount of $66,600, defendant

Daniel Martin in the amount of $66,600, defendant Jorge Rodriguez in the amount of $36,600,

defendant Sal Rosselli in the amount of $70,600, defendant Fred Seavey in the amount of

$36,600, defendant Peter Tappeiner in the amount of $36,600, defendant John Vellardita in the

Case 3:09-cv-00404-WHA Document 627 Filed 04/12/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

amount of $77,850, defendant Phyllis Willett in the amount of $66,600, and defendant National

Union of Healthcare Workers in the amount of $724,000, and against plaintiffs and in favor of

defendants Gail Buhler, Joan Emslie, Michael Krivosh, Paul Kumar, Laura Kurre, Freja Nelson,

Andrew Reid and Ian Selden. Judgment shall be entered later on the ERISA claim against

Education Fund defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00404-WHA Document 627 Filed 04/12/10 Page 2 of 2
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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Ketchikan Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Ketchikan, Alaska, February 17, 2005. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss potential projects under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held February 17, 2005.

# ADDRESSES:

                        The meeting will be held at the Southeast Alaska Discovery Center Theater (front entrance), 50 Main Street, Ketchikan, Alaska. Send written comments to Ketchikan Resource Advisory Committee, c/o Acting District Ranger, USDA Forest Service, 3031 Tongass Ave., Ketchikan, AK 99901, or electronically to                         *ikolund@fs.fed.us.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lynn Kolund, Acting District Ranger, Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, (907) 228-4100.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting is open to the public. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. However, public input opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Committee at that time.

Dated: December 14, 2004.

Forrest Cole,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 04-28373 Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M