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

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

U

For the Northern District of California

NITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

ELIZABETH KARNAZES,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO,

Defendant(s).

_____________________________________/

No. C 09-0767 MMC (MEJ)

ORDER SCHEDULING JOINT

HEARING RE: DKT. ## 72, 79

Pending before the Court are Defendants’ Motion for an Order to Show Cause (Dkt. #72) and

Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. #79). As the matters are currently scheduled for separate hearing dates,

the Court hereby SCHEDULES a joint hearing on July 1, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom B, 15th

Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. 

Further, although Plaintiff filed a notice of unavailability from June 3 through June 27, 2010,

(Dkt. #80), Defendants filed both motions prior to her notice; therefore, she is expected to comply

with the briefing requirements established in Civil Local Rule 7.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2010 _______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:09-cv-00767-MMC Document 83 Filed 06/01/10 Page 1 of 1
Survey of Participants in Technical Assistance or Continuing Education Activities

Instructions: At the conclusion of a technical assistance or a continuing education activity, 

please distribute a survey to determine whether the participants found the activity 

beneficial. This information will assist you as you plan future activities with your state VR 

agencies and their partners. The information you collect will also help RSA determine the 

effectiveness of the technical assistance and continuing education you are providing. 

Questions that must be included in your survey for participants in Technical Assistance 

Activities

Relevance question: The assistance provided was relevant to the goals of my agency:

 strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree 

Effectiveness question: These technical assistance activities will be useful in improving 

my agency’s policies/practices/capacity:

 strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree

Quality question: Overall, I found that this was high quality technical assistance:

 strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree

Questions that must be included in your survey for participants in Continuing Education

Activities 

Relevance question: The content presented was relevant to my job:

 strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree

Effectiveness question: This training activity increased my knowledge/skills/abilities:

 strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree

Quality question: Overall, I found that this was a high quality training activity:

 strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree

Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a 

collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. Public 

reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3 minutes per 

response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering 

and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. 

The obligation to respond to this collection is voluntary. Send comments regarding the burden 

estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing 

this burden, to the U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave., SW, Washington, DC 

20210-4537 or email ICDocketMgr@ed.gov and reference the OMB Control Number 1820-

0690. Note: Please do not return the completed Survey of Participants in Technical Assistance or 

Continuing Education Activities to this address.
### §8457. Use of petroleum and natural gas in combustors

The Secretary shall conduct a detailed study of the uses of petroleum and natural gas as a primary energy source for combustors and installations not subject to the prohibitions of this chapter. In conducting such study, the Secretary shall—

(1) identify those categories of major fuel-burning installations in which the substitution of coal or other alternate fuels for petroleum and natural gas is economically and technically feasible, and

(2) determine the estimated savings of natural gas and petroleum expected from such substitution.

Within 1 year after the effective date of this chapter, the Secretary shall submit a detailed report on the results of such study to the Congress, together with any recommendations for legislation he may consider appropriate.

(Pub. L. 95–620, title VII, §747, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3344.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 95–620, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3289, known as the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 8301 of this title and Tables.

The effective date of this chapter, referred to in text, is the effective date of Pub. L. 95–620. See section 901 of Pub. L. 95–620, set out as an Effective Date note under section 8301 of this title.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 77712]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28245]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area (SRA) Advisory Council

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area Advisory Council meeting 
will convene in Stayton, Oregon on Wednesday, January 26, 2005. The 
meeting is scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m., and will conclude at 
approximately 8:30 p.m. The meeting will be held in the South Room of 
the Stayton Community Center located on 400 West Virginia Street in 
Stayton, Oregon.
    The Opal Creek Wilderness and Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area Act 
of 1996 (Opal Creek Act) (Pub. L. 104-208) directed the Secretary of 
Agriculture to establish the Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area Advisory 
Council. The Advisory Council is comprised of thirteen members 
representing state, county and city governments, and representatives of 
various organizations, which include mining industry, environmental 
organizations, inholders in Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area, economic 
development, Indian tribes, adjacent landowners and recreation 
interests. The council provides advice to the Secretary of Agriculture 
on preparation of a comprehensive Opal Creek Management Plan for the 
SRA, and consults on a periodic and regular basis on the management of 
the area. Tentative agenda items include: Current project updates; 
begin identifying new projects using Council's project ranking process, 
and discuss District program of work.
    A direct public comment period is tentatively scheduled to begin at 
8 p.m. Time allotted for individual presentations will be limited to 3 
minutes. Written comments are encouraged, particularly if the material 
cannot be presented within the time limits of the comment period. 
Written comments may be submitted prior to the January 26th by sending 
them to Designated Federal Official Paul Matter at the address given 
below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information regarding this 
meeting, contact Designated Federal Official Paul Matter; Willamette 
National Forest, Detroit Ranger District, HC 73 Box 320, Mill City, OR 
97360; (503) 854-3366.

    Dated: December 20, 2004.
Dallas J. Emch,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 04-28245 Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
Editorial Note on Part 200
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 200.47 Firm commitments. A valid firm commitment must be in effect at the time the mortgage instrument is endorsed. ( a ) *Insurance upon completion.* The commitment shall provide the terms and conditions for the insurance of the mortgage: ( 1 ) After completion of construction or substantial rehabilitation of the project; or
( 2 ) Upon completion of required work, except as deferred by the Commissioner in accordance with terms, conditions and standards established by the Commissioner, for an existing project without substantial rehabilitation.
( b ) *Insured advances.* The commitment shall provide for insurance of the mortgage as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, and for the insurance of mortgage money advanced in accordance with terms and conditions established by the Commissioner during: construction; substantial rehabilitation; or other work acceptable to the Commissioner.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James Louis JONES, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-8061.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 11, 2007.

Decided: May 8, 2007.

James Louis Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Erik Russell Barnett, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Louis Jones appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for modification of his sentence. On appeal, Jones abandons the claims raised below and asserts only grounds not presented to the district court. Claims raised initially on appeal are not entitled to appellate review. *Muth v. United States,*1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993). Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. 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.*
### §3713b. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3713b was editorially reclassified as section 30104 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
§ 712.500 Secretary of Defense. ( a ) The Secretary of Defense may exempt, on a case-by-case basis, a covered Federal action from the prohibition whenever the Secretary determines, in writing, that such an exemption is in the national interest. The Secretary shall transmit a copy of each such written exemption to Congress immediately after making such a determination.
( b ) The Department of Defense may issue supplemental regulations to implement paragraph (a) of this section.
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

01731.51443/3154645.2 Case No. 08-CV-04909-SI 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING GENENTECH’S EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

GENENTECH, INC. and BIOGEN IDEC 

INC.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND 

GMBH, SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, and 

SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. INC., 

Defendants.

 CASE NO. 08-CV-04909-SI 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

GENENTECH’S EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO 

FILE THE DECLARATION OF 

STEPHANIE MENDELSOHN UNDER 

SEAL

 Having considered Genentech, Inc.’s (“Genentech’s”) Ex Parte Application for an Order 

Allowing It to File Under Seal the Declaration of Stephanie Mendelsohn In Support of 

Genentech’s Opposition to Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH’s Motion to Compel, and pursuant 

to the Protective Order entered by this Court on August 8, 2009, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 The Declaration of Stephanie Mendelsohn In Support of Genentech’s Opposition to 

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH’s Motion to Compel shall be filed under seal in accordance 

with Civil L.R. 79-5. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 October __, 2009 ____________________________________ 

 The Honorable Susan Illston 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:08-cv-04909-SI Document 272 Filed 02/01/10 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    Sep-30-1998
  
<CASH>                                              707,648
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     6,530,827
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0 
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  7,709,755
<PP&E>                                           73,602,057
<DEPRECIATION>                                   12,811,783
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   72,136,082
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             6,640,351
<BONDS>                                          13,850,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                             77,723
<OTHER-SE>                                       50,408,125
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     72,136,082
<SALES>                                          11,615,967
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 11,615,967
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    11,228,430
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   37,180
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     474,110
<INCOME-TAX>                                        176,917
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 297,193
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                         1,780,835
<NET-INCOME>                                      2,078,028
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0.27
        


                                       

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of William Mertens, As a Judge of the Civil Court of the City of New York.

Motion of Tom Goldstein, of the New York Times, for release of the record of this proceeding is granted to the extent of releasing the portions of the record relevant to the charges sustained by the Referee. Under *Matter of Nichols v Gamso*(35 NY2d 35 and 38 NY2d 907) we may apparently only release the portions of the record relating to charges which have been sustained, to the extent that that material is severable from the remainder of the record. The Referee sustained some but not all of the charges. And we disagreed with the Referee as to some of the charges that he had sustained. However, we stated (56 AD2d 456, 463): "We accept the Referee’s findings on the facts (with one or two exceptions, insignificant in number or effect for our purposes, where the Referee made some inadvertent errors). Accepting the Referee’s findings as to the underlying facts, we must consider whether these findings amount to cause for judicial removal or censure.” Thus, we agreed with the Referee’s findings and disagreed with him only as to legal conclusions. For the purpose of release we deem the Referee’s findings of fact sustained by us. Thus, release of portions of the record relating to the charges sustained by the Referee will not involve release of any false accusations. We note also that with the publication of our opinion, practically everything in the charges which the Referee had sustained (except some supporting detail) is already public. As to the question of severability, the briefs before us (including the appendix to petitioner’s reply brief) were addressed almost exclusively—in principle exclusively—to the charges which the Referee had sustained. Accordingly, the material released will consist of the following material: (a) briefs in this court; (b) the Referee’s report insofar as relates to charges which he sustained and the charges themselves to that extent; (c) testimony and exhibits bearing on such charges. Disputes between the parties as to whether any particular item falls within our direction as material to be released may be referred to a Justice of this court to be designated by the Presiding Justice. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Birns, Silverman, Markewich and Lynch, JJ.
PUBLIC LAW 111–243—SEPT. 30, 2010 124 STAT. 2617 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3562: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 111–414 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010): 

Mar. 23, 24, considered and passed House. 

Aug. 5, considered and passed Senate, amended. 

Sept. 15, 16, House considered and concurred in Senate amendments. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–243 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the federally occupied building located at 1220 Echelon Parkway 

in Jackson, Mississippi, as the ‘‘James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Michael 

Schwerner, and Roy K. Moore Federal Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. BUILDING DESIGNATION. 

The Administrator of General Services shall ensure that the 

federally occupied building located at 1220 Echelon Parkway in 

Jackson, Mississippi, is known and designated as the ‘‘James 

Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, and Roy K. Moore 

Federal Building’’. 

SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

With respect to the period in which the building referred to 

in section 1 is federally occupied, any reference in a law, map, 

regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States 

to that building shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘James 

Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, and Roy K. Moore 

Federal Building’’. 

Approved September 30, 2010. 

Sept. 30, 2010 

[H.R. 3562] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
#### King-Hodgson Company *v.*Stone.

October 15, 1912.

Petition for injunction. Before Judge Brand. Jackson superior court. May 23, 1912.

*J. B. Gamble,*for plaintiff. *W. W. Stark,*for defendant.

Evans, P. J.

There was no abuse of discretion in refusing a temporary injunction. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
**Section II A Industrial Sites Controlled by**  **the Submitter** 

### Reactants Solvent



## Rea Bag 

## Conden ser Wastewat

Recovere Reactor cleaned with

Solvent

**Final Packaging:**  Tran

**Grindin g**  : Air 

### 1 **2**

**5 3**  **4**

**4 Process Summary**  **:**

Reactants and solvent are charged to the re actor and heated to form the New Chemical Substance (NCS) . At the end of the reaction the volatiles are evaporated and sent to a solvent recovery system . Filter **1** prevents any of the NCS from reaching the solvent recovery system. The reactor is cleaned with water which is transferred to temporary storage before being transported to a wastewater treatment facility (**2** ). After the volatiles have been removed, the NCS is either discharged directly to the final packaging or discharged to temporary storage and tran sferred to a grinding system before packaging ( **3** ). Air filter **5** traps dust generated during the grinding and packaging operation. Process samples are taken of the NCS before and after grinding at points **4A** and **4B** . **Worker Exposure and Environmental Releas e:**  Filter Changing: Wo rker exposure to the NCS is expected to occur when filters **1** and **5** are changed. Workers will be expected to use the following equipment for protection: Wo rk Uniform and/or Tyvek Coveralls Suit, Gloves, Safety Shoes, Safety Glasses/Goggles/Face Shield , Dust Mask or Half- Face Respirator . Filter **1** will be changed approximately every 250 batches, and approximately 110 kg of NCS will be released to municipal waste each time the filter is changed. Changing filter **1** is expected to take approximately 4 hours and involve 1 – 2 different workers per site per year. Filter **5** will be changed approximately 2 -3 times per year, and approximately 15 kg of NCS will be released to municipal waste each time the filter is changed. Changing filter **5** is expected to take approximately 20 minutes and involve 1 -2 different workers per site per year. Reactor Cleaning: The reactor will be cleaned with heated water every 10 – 20 batches. Each cleaning is expected to release approx. 5 kg of NCS to a wastewater treatment facility (**2** ) . Reactor Discharge and Grinding: Wo rker exposure to the NCS is expected to occur durin g discharge from the reactor and during grinding and packaging ( **3** ). Discharging the reactor is expected to involve 1 – 2workers per site. Grinding is expected to involve 1 worker. The air in the grinding area

will be passed through at particle filter ( **5** ) and the workers will be provided with safety equipment such as the following: Wo rk Uniform and/or Tyvek Coveralls Suit, Gloves, Safety Shoes, Safety Glasses/Goggles/Face Shield , Dust Mask or Half- Face Respirator . Process samples of the NCS before and after grinding will be taken at points **4A** and **4B** . Sampling is expected to take 2 minutes at each point and involve 1 worker.