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

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CSBN 44332)

United States Attorney

BRIAN J. STRETCH (CSBN 163973)

Chief, Criminal Division

ARVON J. PERTEET (CSBN 242828)

Special Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, 11 Floor th

San Francisco, CA 94102

Telephone: 415.436.6598

Facsimile: 415.436.7234

Email: arvon.perteet@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 Plaintiff, 

v.

APPROXIMATELY $4,138.00 IN

UNITED STATES CURRENCY, et.al.,

Defendant.

 /

MATTHEW D. GRAVES, 

 Claimant.

__________________________________________/.

No. CV 09 2277 MMC

JOINT STATUS REPORT

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA and Claimant MATTHEW D. GRAVES, through their respective counsel, that this

matter be continue to be stayed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(g).

2. There exists a related state felony criminal prosecution of Claimant in People v.

Graves, Mendocino County Superior Court Case No. MCUK-CRCR-08-87560-02.

Case 3:09-cv-02277-MMC Document 17 Filed 06/15/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Some of the issues in that case are related to this forfeiture proceeding. Mr. Graves’ criminal

trial was continued to August 2, 2010.

3. If this case were to proceed, claimant’s Fifth Amendment rights against selfincrimination will be burdened in the related criminal case. 

4. Pursuant to the above representations, and the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(2), the

parties hereby stipulate and agree to a continued stay of this civil forfeiture proceeding until the

completion of the criminal proceedings in Mendocino County state court or until such earlier

time as either party, or this Court, may request that the matter be heard.

IT IS SO STIPULATED:

Dated: June 9, 2010 JOSEPH P. RUSSIONELLO

United States Attorney

S/ARVON J. PERTEET__

ARVON J. PERTEET

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Attorney for the United States of America

Dated: June 9, 2010

S/DAVID M. MICHAEL___

DAVID M. MICHAEL

Attorney for Claimant

MATTHEW D. GRAVES

JOINT STATUS REPORT

CV 09 2277 MMC 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Maxine M. Chesney

Dated: June 15, 2010

Case 3:09-cv-02277-MMC Document 17 Filed 06/15/10 Page 2 of 2
### §3796ee–8. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796ee–8 was editorially reclassified as section 10409 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 243 (Monday, December 20, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 75900]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27813]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Notice of Mineral County Resource Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393) the Lolo National 
Forest's Mineral County Resource Advisory Committee will meet on the 
first Tuesday of each of the next five months from January 2005 through 
May 2005. Meetings begin at 6 p.m. in Superior, Montana and are open to 
the public. Meetings normally last two hours.

DATES: January 4, February 1, March 1, April 5, and May 3, 2005.

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the Mineral County Courthouse, 
300 River Street, Superior, MT 59872.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Harper, Designated Forest 
Official (DFO), District Ranger, Lolo National Forest, at (406) 822-
4233.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda topics for all five meetings will 
focus on presentation and discussion of new project proposals, as 
authorized under Title II of P.L. 106-393. Selection of projects will 
occur at the April and May meetings. Meetings will be announced in 
local newspapers, the Mineral Independent and the Missoulian.

    Dated: December 14, 2004.
Deborah L. R. Austin,
Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. 04-27813 Filed 12-17-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
#### PEOPLE ex rel. RUTHERFORD, Respondent, v. STEWART, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 9, 1903.)

Proceeding by the people of the state of New York, on the relation of Francis M. Rutherford, against Perex M. Stewart, as superintendent, etc. W. B. Crowell, for appellant. A. S. Gilbert, for respondent.

No opinion. Order reversed, with costs, on the authority of People ex rel. O’Toole v. Stewart (decided Nov. 7, 1902) 78 N. Y. Supp. 473.
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

((((((((((((((((

No. 04-0831

((((((((((((((((

Richard J. Segal, And Judith Segal, Joe Fogarty And Nancy Fogarty,

v.

EMMES CAPITAL, LLC

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

On Petition for Petition for Review

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

**ORDER**

1.The joint motion to abate appeal, filed on March 15, 2005, is granted, and this case is **ABATED** to allow the parties to proceed with settlement negotiations.

2.This case is removed from the Court's active docket subject to reinstatement upon proper motion.  All motions and other documents pending or filed are abated subject to being reurged in the event the petition is reinstated.  It is the responsibility of the parties to immediately notify this Court about any changes in status in the settlement proceedings.

Done at the City of Austin, this 25th day of March, 2005.

Andrew Weber, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ciabattino Raphael McSHAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-7934.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 26, 2007.

Decided: May 1, 2007.

Ciabattino Raphael McShan, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ciabattino Raphael McShan seeks to appeal from the district court’s order dismissing in part his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and directing additional briefing on the remaining issues. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order McShan seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
#### KNICKERBOCKER INV. CO., Respondent, v. VOORHEES et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 10, 1905.)

Action by the Knickerbocker Investment Company against Foster M. Voorhees and others. H. Barry, for appellants. E. Van Schaick, for respondent. No opinion. Appeal from order denying motion for reargument dismissed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3085

AN ACT

To amend the National Trails System Act to update the 

feasibility and suitability study originally prepared for 

the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail and provide 

for the inclusion of new trail segments, land components, 

and campgrounds associated with that trail, and for 

other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2

•HR 3085 EH 

1 SECTION 1. REVISION OF FEASIBILITY AND SUITABILITY 

2 STUDY OF TRAIL OF TEARS NATIONAL HIS3 TORIC TRAIL. 

4 Section 5(a)(16) of the National Trails System Act 

5 (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)(16)) is amended—

6 (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘sub7 sections’’ and inserting ‘‘sections’’; and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub9 paragraph: 

10 ‘‘(C) Not later than 6 months after the date of the 

11 enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall 

12 complete the remaining criteria and submit to Congress 

13 a study regarding the feasibility and suitability of desig14 nating, as additional components of the Trail of Tears Na15 tional Historic Trail, the following routes and land compo16 nents by which the Cherokee Nation was removed to Okla17 homa: 

18 ‘‘(i) The Benge and Bell routes. 

19 ‘‘(ii) The land components of the designated 

20 water routes in Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and 

21 Tennessee. 

22 ‘‘(iii) The routes from the collection forts in 

23 Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee to 

24 the emigration depots. 
3

•HR 3085 EH 

1 ‘‘(iv) The related campgrounds located along 

2 the routes and land components described in clauses 

3 (i) through (iii).’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 17, 2006. 

Attest:

Clerk. 
109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3085

AN ACT

To amend the National Trails System Act to uppurposes. grounds associated with that trail, and for other new trail segments, land components, and camp- Historic Trail and provide for the inclusion of nally prepared for the Trail of Tears National date the feasibility and suitability study origi-
#### ELDRIDGE, Respondent, v. CORNING, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 16, 1905.)

Action by George I. Eldridge against Anna Corning.

PER CURIAM.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellant, on or before April 15, 1905, file and serve th° printed papers on appeal, as provided by rule 41, and pay respondent’s attorneys $10 costs of this motion, in which event said motion is denied; and, in case said printed papers are not served and filed as above provided, upon filing due proof of such default, the respondent may enter an order dismissing said appeal absolutely, with costs, without further notice.
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

VICTOR WOODARD,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

GREGORY AHERN, et al., 

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-0203 CRB (PR)

ORDER REFERRING PLAINTIFF

TO FEDERAL PRISONER PRO

BONO PROJECT AND STAYING

PROCEEDINGS PENDING

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

The plaintiff having requested and being in need of counsel to assist him/her in

this matter, and good and just cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff shall be referred to the Federal Prisoner Pro

Bono Project in the manner set forth below:

(1) The clerk of this court shall forward to the Federal Prisoner Pro Bono

Project: (a) a copy of this order, (b) a memorandum summarizing the claims and status

of the action, and (c) a copy of the court file.

(2) Upon an attorney being located to represent plaintiff, that attorney shall be

appointed as counsel for plaintiff in this matter until further order of the court.

(3) All proceedings in this action are stayed until four weeks from the date an

attorney is appointed to represent plaintiff in this action.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 30, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge 

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.09\Woodard, V1.refer.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-00203-CRB Document 46 Filed 07/30/10 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Sonia Farber, Respondent, v. Harbor Shoes Company, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appellants appeal from an award in a heart case which established accident and death resulting therefrom. The decedent, who had been suffering from a pre-existing heart condition, was a shoe salesman working for the employer herein. On February 1, 1957, there was a heavy snowstorm as the result of which business was very slow and the decedent, together with others, spent most of the day shifting shoe boxes to various locations. His wife testified when he arrived home that evening he was ashen white, complained of pains in his chest, and he told her of the unusual work he had been doing at the store on *579that day. He ate very little, went to bed early and the next morning his wife suggested that he not go to work. That day, Saturday, they were busy in the store and while in the performance of his duties he collapsed, was taken in an ambulance to a hospital where he died on February 25, 1957. Certain employees of the store testified as to the type of work which the decedent did on the days involved and the board determined that as a result of the extra exertion on both dates, he sustained an accidental injury. The cause of death resulting from the heart attack was a myocardial coronary infarction. The autopsy performed on February 25 established that the infarct was about three weeks old and the doctor for the claimant testified that the activities which decedent performed on February 1 and 2 aggravated the underlying coronary condition and precipitated the condition which caused his death. The doctor for the carrier admitted that the decedent had suffered an acute coronary occlusion on February 2, 1957 but said it was due to natural progression of a pre-existing condition. The board has resolved this factual medical question in favor of the claimant and there is substantial testimony to support its finding. Decision and award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson and Herlihy, JJ., concur; Reynolds, J., dissents, and votes to reverse.
Exhibit
      32.2




**CERTIFICATION**




I,
      Joseph
      Restivo, Chief Financial Officer of GVI Security Solutions, Inc. (the
“Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
      knowledge:




(i)
      The
      Company’s accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended
      March 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(ii)
      The
      information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/
                Joseph RestivoJoseph
                RestivoChief
                Financial Officer




Dated:
      May 13, 2008
#### § 3280.816 Examination of equipment for safety.

The examination or inspection of equipment for safety, according to this standard, shall be conducted under uniform conditions and by organizations properly equipped and qualified for experimental testing, inspections of the run of goods at factories, and service-value determinations through field examinations.
**Exhibit 31.2**
I, Diana Garvis Purcel, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of FamousDave’s of America, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this quarterly report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this quarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designatedunder our system, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterlyreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis quarterly report basedon such evaluation; and c) disclosed in this quarterly report any changes in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s first quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent function):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Dated: November 9, 2004   /s/ Diana Garvis Purcel      Diana Garvis Purcel   Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
### §882. Surveyed lands taxable notwithstanding lien; provisos

No lands granted to any railroad corporation by any Act of Congress shall be exempt from taxation by States, Territories, and municipal corporations on account of the lien of the United States upon the same for the costs of surveying, selecting, and conveying the same, or because no patent has been issued therefor; but this provision shall not apply to lands unsurveyed: Provided, That any such land sold for taxes shall be taken by the purchaser subject to the lien for costs of surveying, selecting, and conveying, to be paid in such manner by the purchaser as the Secretary of the Interior may by rule provide and to all liens of the United States, all mortgages of the United States, and all rights of the United States in respect of such lands: Provided further, That sections 882 to 885 of this title shall apply only to lands situated opposite to and coterminous with completed portions of said roads, and in organized counties: Provided further, That at any sale of lands under the provisions of sections 882 to 885 of this title the United States may become a preferred purchaser, and in such case the lands sold shall be restored to the public domain and disposed of as provided by the laws relating thereto.

(July 10, 1886, ch. 764, §1, 24 Stat. 143.)
§ 2004.1 Scope and purpose. ( a ) This part sets forth the policy for service of a subpoena issued by the Office of Inspector General (OIG), and policies and procedures that you must follow when you submit a demand or request to an employee of the OIG to produce official records and information, or provide testimony relating to official information, in connection with a legal proceeding. You must comply with these requirements when you request the release or disclosure of official records and information.
( b ) The OIG intends these provisions to: ( 1 ) Promote economy and efficiency in its programs and operations;
( 2 ) Minimize the possibility of involving OIG in controversial issues not related to OIG's functions;
( 3 ) Maintain OIG's impartiality among private litigants where OIG is not a named party; and
( 4 ) Protect sensitive, confidential information and the deliberative processes of OIG.
( c ) In providing for these requirements, OIG does not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States.
( d ) This part provides guidance for the internal operations of OIG. This part does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, that a party may rely upon in any legal proceeding against the United States.
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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK FAHY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ORPHEOS TARBOX, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-09-01420-MMC (DMR)

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL (DOCKET NO. 115)

A further settlement conference in this case has been set before Judge James on September

27, 2010 (Docket No. 123). In light of the continuing settlement proceedings, Plaintiff’s Motion to

Compel Responses to Interrogatories and to Provide Initial Disclosures (Docket No. 115) is hereby

stricken, and the associated orders (Docket Nos. 121 and 122) are vacated. 

The parties are directed to inform the Court of the outcome of the September 27, 2010

settlement conference by letter brief, filed and served on all parties no later than October 11, 2010. 

Future discovery motions may not be filed without permission of Judge Ryu. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2010 _______________________________

 DONNA M. RYU

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01420-MMC Document 126 Filed 07/23/10 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Rosenthal-Block China Corporation et al., and Rosenthal-Porzellan Aktiengesellschaft.

Motion for a stay granted on condition that the appeal is argued or submitted when reached on September 20, 1960. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.