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,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE

WORKERS,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-00404 WHA

NOTICE RE JURY

INSTRUCTIONS

After the conference with counsel in chambers, the undersigned judge has reflected further

on the question of jury instructions. We will proceed as agreed but the Court wishes all counsel

to know that thereafter, in the event counsel cannot agree to the proposed instructions and verdict

form or something close to it, then the Court may more formally propose on the record the same

instructions and verdict form, rather than produce a bone-crushing voluminous substitute, with a

further opportunity for each side to object on the record. The Court wants counsel to be aware of

this possibility in making their evaluations. 

Dated: April 1, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00404-WHA Document 591 Filed 04/01/10 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-40448

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CARLOS ALVEAR-OLIVE, also known as Eduardo Renteria-Maldonado,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-286-1

Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Carlos Alvear-Olive

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th

Cir. 2011). Alvear-Olive has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s

brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with

counsel’s assessmentthat the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate

review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 19, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-40448 Document: 00511699170 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/19/2011
No. 11-40448

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 11-40448 Document: 00511699170 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/19/2011
#### Bernice Garzone, Respondent, v. Rose M. Iocona et al., Appellants.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe Trial Term for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 707
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 707 appear at 84 FR 37752, Aug. 2, 2019.

§ 707.22 Requests to permit access of records to an individual other than the individual to whom the record pertains. ( a ) *Access by an authorized individual.* An individual requester who wishes to be accompanied by another individual when reviewing records pertaining to the requester must provide DFC with a signed, written statement authorizing discussion of the information contained in the records in the presence of the accompanying individual. Both parties will be required to verify their identity under § 707.21(c) before access is granted.
( b ) *Release to an authorized individual.* An individual requester who wishes to have copies of records pertaining to the requester released to another individual must provide DFC with a written statement authorizing release of the information contained in the records to the other individual. The identity of the individual to whom the record pertains must be verified under § 707.21(c) before release is authorized.
( c ) *Access or release to parent or guardian.* Guardians will be provided access or copies under the provisions of § 707.21.
# Chico Enterprise-Record 400 E. Park Ave

. Ch ico , Ca 95928 5:3 0
- 896
-77 0 2 erlegal@ c h ic o er. c om 2120551
BUTTE COUNTY AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ATTN : ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 6 29 ENTLER AVENUE STE15 CHICO , CA 95928 

## I N THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORN IA, I N AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BU TTE In The Matter Of 

### Notice of Public Heari ng and Workshop



### .. \ 

## ..

· ' ·,'· 

### FI L E NO. 2016-200
. 1 

## A FFI DAV IT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA } 

# ss. COUNTY OF BUTTE The undersigned resident of the county of Butte , State of Californi a, says : That I am , and at all times herein menti o ned was a citi zen of the Un i ted States and not a party to nor interested in th e abov e entitled matter; that I am the principal clerk of the printer and publisher of The Chico Enterpri se-Record The O roville Mercury-Register That said new spaper is one of general circulat i on as defined by Section 6000 Government Code of the State of California, Case No

. 26796 by the Superior Court of the State of Ca l iforn ia, in and for the County of Butte ; that said newspaper at all t i mes herein mentioned was printed and published daily in the City of Chico and 9 ounty of Butte ; that the notice of w hich the annexed is a**··· ~rue**  printed c opy , was published i n said newspaper on t he foll ow ing days :

Dated Ju ly 16 , 2015 at Chico , Ca li fornia

(Signature ) 

### 7/ 15/2015 Legal No

. 

### 00 0552 68 55 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND WORKSHOP NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Butte County Air Quality Management District (District) Governing Board will hold a public workshop and public hearing to consider the proposed amendments to Regulation Ill, Rule 300-

. Open Burning Requirements, Prohibitions and Exemptions to streamline the rule to fulfill the program require1ments needed for full approval into the District's federal : State Implementation Plan. ; The time, date, and location of the public workshop and hearing are given below: I Public Workshop: Monday, July 20, 2015 at 10 a.m., Butte 1county Public Library, 1108 Sherman Avenue, Chico, CA. l public Hearing to Consider Adoption: Thursday, Augus t : 27, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., Chico City Council Chambers , 421 rMain Street, Chico, CA. l The Staff Report and proposed rule may be reviewed at t the District office at the address below or on the Dist rict**website:** ';','Ww.bcaqmd.org,_ For additional information**please** contact Ursula Parker at (530) 332-9400, ext. 104

. \ Written comments on the proposed amended rule must t be submitted by August 18, 2015 to: Board Clerk, Butte < county Air Quality Management District, 629 Entler Aver nue, Suite 15, Chico, CA 95928. ( DATED: July 15,2015 

# I By:\ \\W. James Wagoner AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER Publish: 7/15/15
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 2, 2016

d1026 

# Order

Clerk November 2, 2016

151795

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151795

COA: 319400

Marquette CC: 12

- 050218

- FH

ROSCOE RICO MARTIN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 2, 2015

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. Although the

Court of Appeals in this case relied on People v Herron , 303 Mich App 392 (2013),

which this Court overruled in People v Lockridge , 498 Mich 358 (201 5), we are not

persuaded that the defendant has established a threshold showing of plain error under

Lockridge or that the questions presented should otherwise be reviewed by this Court.

The application for leave to appeal is therefore DENIED.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Linda Abrahams, Respondent, v. Acme Offset *&*Printing Company et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Decedent, who worked on a blueprint machine, was found near the machine by a fellow employee sitting “ slouched on the chair ”, holding his head. There was “ a little red blotch ” on his head near the temple and decedent said to the fellow worker: “Banged my head”. To make a blueprint it was necessary to reach down under the frame of the machine and the fellow employee testified that in doing the work “ I banged my head quite a few times”. There is medical proof associating the death due to subarachnoid hemorrhage with a head blow. In the opinion of a physician, a blow on the head either directly caused the death "or was a contributory factor”. Although a fellow employee testified he had given decedent an order to make a blueprint just before the incident, the actual process and the accident were unobserved. The presumption attaching to an unwitnessed accident is strengthened here by the fact the decedent was observed with a red spot on his head and sitting holding his head after having performed a function in which striking the head was experienced from time to time by another worker while performing the same process. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7339
LEE ODIS ALFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARTIN J. MCDADE; FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Defendants - Appellees, and JAMES B. HUNT; JUANITA H. BAKER, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-95-369) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lee Odis Alford, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).23 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying relief in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) action and dismissing several claims for Appellant's failure to comply with the district court's order to particularize them. We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Alford v. McDade , No. CA-95-369 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 16, 1995). We dispense withoral 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

SHAWN HALBERT

Assistant Federal Public Defender

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7700

Counsel for Defendant Saul Pinon-Villa

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAUL PINON-VILLA,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 09-001125 MMC

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER CONTINUING DATE FOR

CHANGE OF PLEA AND

SENTENCING FROM MARCH 3,

2010 TO MARCH 17, 2010 AND

EXCLUDING TIME UNDER 18 U.S.C.

§ 3161

The parties are scheduled to appear before this Court for change of plea and sentencing on

March 3, 2010. Because the parties received the expedited PSR just one week before the scheduled

sentencing date, defense counsel did not have sufficient time to meet with her client at the jail with

an interpreter to review the PSR and then file a sentencing memorandum. The defense needs an

additional week to accomplish this work. The government has no objection but government counsel

is unavailable on March 10, 2010. The parties suggest that the next court date be March 17, 2010, if

that is convenient to the Court.

The parties also agree that the time between March 3, 2010 and March 17, 2010 should be

excluded under the Speedy Trial Act. The continuance is necessary for effective preparation of

STIP. & ORDER

No. CR 09-001125 MMC - 1 -

Case 3:09-cr-01125-MMC Document 15 Filed 03/02/10 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

counsel, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (h)(7)(B)(iv), and the ends of justice served by granting

such a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

SO STIPULATED:

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO 

United States Attorney

DATED: March 1, 2010 /s/ 

PATRICIA SPALETTA

Special Assistant United States Attorney 

DATED: March 1, 2010 /s/ 

SHAWN HALBERT

Assistant Federal Public Defender

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the continuance of time for the next date before

this court from March 3, 2010 to March 17, 2010 is warranted because the failure to grant the

requested continuance would deny the defense effective preparation of counsel; thus, the ends of

justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a

speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(7)(A), (h)(7)(B)(iv).

SO ORDERED.

DATED:______________ _______________________________________

 THE HONORABLE MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Court

STIP. & ORDER

No. CR 09-001125 MMC - 2 -

March 2, 2010

Case 3:09-cr-01125-MMC Document 15 Filed 03/02/10 Page 2 of 2
#### MUNSUR ABDULLAH *v.*CARL EISENMAN ET AL.

(AC 25833)

Flynn, Gruendel and Harper, Js.

Submitted on briefs April 29

officially released May 31, 2005

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

VIRGINIA ROBERSON,

Defendant. /

No. CR 09-0523 WHA

ORDER RE SFPD’S MOTION

TO QUASH SUBPOENA

A hearing on the San Francisco Police Department’s motion to quash a subpoena by

defendant Virginia Roberson was held on January 26, 2010. The San Francisco police

department is ordered to search its files for any documents that could potentially support a claim

of vindictive prosecution by defendant Roberson. By NOON ON FEBRUARY 9, 2010, the San

Francisco police department shall submit all such documents to the Court for in camera review,

or alternatively shall submit a sworn declaration that no such documents exist.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cr-00523-WHA Document 75 Filed 01/27/10 Page 1 of 1
#### § 203.417 Rate of interest of certificate of claim.

Each certificate of claim shall provide that there shall accrue to the holder thereof with respect to the face amount of such certificate, an increment at the rate of 3 percent per annum.
#### Kimberly Lata, Appellant, v Stephen M. Dole, Respondent.

[832 NYS2d 836]—

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Rose H. Sconiers, J.), entered January 11, 2006 in a personal injury action. The judgment, upon a jury verdict, dismissed the complaint and awarded defendant costs and disbursements.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

*1254Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding that defendant was not negligent in this personal injury action. We reject the contention of plaintiff that Supreme Court erred in denying her posttrial motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence. “[T]he preponderance of the evidence in favor of plaintiff is not so great that the verdict could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence, nor is the verdict palpably wrong or irrational” *(Kettles v City of Rochester,*21 AD3d 1424, 1425 [2005]; *see generally Lolik v Big V Supermarkets,*86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit or are moot in light of our determination. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P, Gorski, Smith, Fahey and Green, JJ.
#### § 232.555 Security instrument and lien.

The security instrument shall cover the entire property included in the project, shall be a lien on the real property of the project under the laws of the jurisdiction in which the project is located, and may be junior to such prior liens or mortgages indebtedness as the Commissioner may approve. The Commissioner may from time to time require such other security, in lieu of, or in addition to, a lien on real property as he may prescribe.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 27, 2017

s1218 

# Order

Clerk December 27, 2017

154884

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 154884

COA: 334040

Wayne CC: 09

- 013374

- FC

DEREK TERRELL WORTHY

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 12 , 2016

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00229-CR

DIHO LLOYD BROWN,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-0673

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Diho Brown, has filed a motion requesting the dismissal of this appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). We have not issued a decision in the appeal, and appellant and 

his attorney have personally signed the motion. See id. Accordingly, we grant the motion 

and hereby dismiss appellant’s appeal.
Brown v. State Page 2

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed November 2, 2016

Do not publish

[CR25]
Form 8886-T

(Rev. December 2019)

Disclosure by Tax-Exempt Entity Regarding 

Prohibited Tax Shelter Transaction

Department of the Treasury 

Internal Revenue Service ▶ Go to www.irs.gov/Form8886T for instructions and the latest information.

OMB No. 1545-0047

Open to Public 

Inspection 

For calendar year 20 , or tax year beginning , 20 , and ending , 20

Name of tax-exempt entity Employer identification number 

In care of (if applicable) 

Number, street, and room or suite no. (or P.O. box number if mail is not delivered to street address) 

City or town, state, and ZIP code 

1 Check the applicable box that describes the tax-exempt entity. 

An organization described in section 501(c) or 501(d) 

A state, a possession of the United States, or the 

District of Columbia, a political subdivision of a state or 

possession of the United States 

An Indian tribal government 

A plan described in section 401(a) which includes a trust 

exempt from tax under section 501(a) 

An annuity plan described in section 403(a) or annuity 

contract described in section 403(b) 

A qualified tuition program described in section 529 

An eligible deferred compensation plan described in 

section 457(b) which is maintained by an employer 

described in section 457(e)(1)(A) 

An individual retirement account 

An individual retirement annuity 

An Archer MSA 

A custodial account treated as an annuity contract 

under section 403(b)(7)(A) 

A Coverdell education savings account 

A health savings account 

A qualified ABLE program

2 Identify the type of prohibited tax shelter transaction. Check all the box(es) that apply. See instructions. 

a Listed transaction b Confidential c Contractual protection 

3 If the transaction is a listed transaction or substantially similar to a listed transaction, identify the listed transactions. See 

instructions. 

4 Identity of other parties (whether taxable or tax-exempt) to the transaction, if known. Attach additional sheets, if necessary. 

Name of party 

Number, street, and room or suite no. 

City or town, state, and ZIP code 

Name of party 

Number, street, and room or suite no. 

City or town, state, and ZIP code 

Sign 

Here 

I declare under penalty of perjury that I am authorized to sign this disclosure, that I have examined this disclosure, including any accompanying attachments, 

and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct, and complete. 

▲

Signature of director, trustee, officer, or other authorized official Date 

Type or print name of signer Type or print title or authority of signer 

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the separate instructions. Cat. No. 49103E Form 8886-T (Rev. 12-2019)
# MD5 checksums generated by MD5summer (http://www.md5summer.org)
# Generated 10/7/2009 1:38:04 PM

476f9be3dcdbf7bc4a8f9d2158b9055b *540ar93513.pdf
Exhibit 99.2



Report Of Independent
 Registered Public Accounting Firm

Board of Directors
Structured Obligations Corporation
 New York, New York

We have examined the compliance of Structured Obligations Corporation (Depositor) and U.S. Bank National Association (Trustee) with the Base Trust Agreement and the Select Notes Trust Supplement LT 2004-1 (the Agreements) relating to the administration of the underlying securities and related credit support deposited in or held by the Select Notes Trust LT 2004-1 for the year ended December 31, 2017.  Depositor's management is responsible for compliance with those requirements.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance with the Agreements based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about Depositor's and Trustee's compliance with those requirements described above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination of Depositor's and Trustee's compliance with specified requirements.

In our opinion, Depositor and Trustee complied, in all material respects, with the requirements described above of the Agreements for the year ended December 31, 2017.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Depositor, the Trustee, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Certificate Holders of the Select Notes Trust LT 2004-1, and is not intended to be, and should not be used by anyone other than those specified parties.

/s/ RubinBrown LLP



Kansas City, Missouri

March 29, 2018
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Curtiss H. Crawford, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Judgment insofar as it imposes sentence unanimously reversed, on the law, and otherwise judgment affirmed, and matter remitted to Erie County Court for resentence in accordance with same memorandum as in *People v Crawford*(57 AD2d 702). (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court—attempted criminal possession controlled substance, seventh degree.) Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Dillon and Witmer, JJ.