alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 3:09-cv-01094-TEH Document 37 Filed 03/01/10 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:09-cv-01094-TEH Document 37 Filed 03/01/10 Page 2 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Thelton E. Henderson

03/01/10

Case 3:09-cv-01094-TEH Document 37 Filed 03/01/10 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 3.(i)(b)


                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO
                      RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION


       TIME WARNER INC., a corporation  organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Delaware (the "Corporation"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

      A.  The  first  sentence  of  Section  1 of  Article  IV of  the  Restated
Certificate of  Incorporation  of the  Corporation,  as heretofore  amended,  is
hereby further amended to read in its entirety as follows:

            "SECTION 1. The total number of shares of all classes of stock which
      the  Corporation  shall have  authority to issue is 5.85  billion  shares,
      consisting of (1) 250 million shares of Preferred  Stock,  par value $0.10
      per share ("Preferred Stock"), (2) 5.0 billion shares of Common Stock, par
      value $0.01 per share  ("Common  Stock"),  and (3) 600  million  shares of
      Series Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share ("Series Common Stock")."

      B. The foregoing amendment was duly adopted in accordance with Section 242
of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

      IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  Time Warner Inc. has caused this  certificate  to be
signed as of this 24th day of May, 1999.


                                              TIME WARNER INC.

                                              By: /s/ Thomas W. McEnerney
                                                 -------------------------
                                                      Thomas W. McEnerney
                                                      Vice President
### §8831. Municipal waste energy development plan

#### (a) Preparation by Secretary of Energy; consultative requirements

The Secretary of Energy shall prepare a comprehensive plan for carrying out this subchapter. In the preparation of such plan, the Secretary shall consult with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of Commerce, and the head of such other Federal agencies as the Secretary deems appropriate.

#### (b) Transmittal to President and Congress

Not later than 90 days after June 30, 1980, the Secretary shall transmit the comprehensive plan to the President and the Congress.

#### (c) Required statements

The comprehensive plan under this section shall include a statement setting forth—

(1) the anticipated research, development, demonstration, and commercialization objectives to be achieved;

(2) the management structure and approach to be adopted to carry out such plan;

(3) the program strategies, including detailed milestone goals to be achieved;

(4) the specific funding requirements for individual program elements and activities, including the total estimated construction costs of proposed projects; and

(5) the estimated relative financial contributions of the Federal Government and non-Federal participants in the program.

#### (d) Report to President and Congress; contents

Not later than January 1, 1982, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the President and the Congress a report containing a complete description of any financial, institutional, environmental, and social barriers to the development and application of technologies for the recovery of energy from municipal wastes.

(Pub. L. 96–294, title II, §231, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 696.)
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-11-00304-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF FLORENE K. GRACE, DECEASED

From the County Court at Law No. 1

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12,787-PC

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The memorandum opinion of the Court dated December 14, 2011 is withdrawn, 

and the following memorandum opinion is substituted therefor.

Appellant William R. Vance, Jr. has filed a notice that he filed a bankruptcy 

proceeding on September 13, 2011. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.1. Further action in this appeal 

has been automatically stayed. See 11 U.S.C. § 362.

For administrative purposes, this appeal is suspended and will be treated as 

closed unless reinstated on a proper motion. TEX. R. APP. P. 8.2. It may be reinstated on 

motion of any party showing that the stay has been lifted or modified and specifying 

what action, if any, is required from this Court upon reinstatement of the appeal. TEX.

R. APP. P. 8.3.
In the Estate of Grace Page 2

The reporting requirement of Local Rule 17 is suspended. 10TH TEX. APP. (WACO)

LOC. R. 17.

The Clerk of this Court is directed to transmit a copy of this opinion to the 

attorneys of record, the trial court judge, and the trial court clerk.

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Justice Davis,

Justice Scoggins, and

Judge Pozza1

Appeal suspended

Opinion delivered and filed December 21, 2011

[CV06]

 

1 The Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge of the 407th District Court, sitting by assignment of the Chief 

Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas pursuant to section 74.003(a) of the Government Code. See TEX.

GOV’T CODE ANN. § 74003(a) (Vernon 2005).
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings-Enforcement Office Update, Department of Transportation Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer Protection
Editorial Note on Part 713
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 713 appear at 84 FR 37752, Aug. 2, 2019.

§ 713.7 What will DFC do with my request? ( a ) *Factors DFC will consider.* DFC may consider various factors in reviewing a request for nonpublic records or testimony of DFC employees, including: ( 1 ) Whether disclosure would assist or hinder DFC in performing its statutory duties or use DFC resources unreasonably, including whether responding to the request will interfere with DFC employees' ability to do their work.
( 2 ) Whether disclosure is necessary to prevent the perpetration of a fraud or other injustice in the matter.
( 3 ) Whether you can get the records or testimony you want from sources other than DFC.
( 4 ) Whether the request is unduly burdensome.
( 5 ) Whether disclosure would violate a statute, executive order, or regulation, such as the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a.
( 6 ) Whether disclosure would reveal confidential, sensitive or privileged information, trade secrets or similar, confidential commercial or financial information, or would otherwise be inappropriate for release and, if so, whether a confidentiality agreement or protective order as provided in § 713.9(a) can adequately limit the disclosure.
( 7 ) Whether the disclosure would interfere with law enforcement proceedings, compromise constitutional rights, or hamper DFC programs or other DFC operations.
( 8 ) Whether the disclosure could result in DFC's appearing to favor one litigant over another.
( 9 ) Any other factors DFC determines to be relevant to the interests of DFC.
( b ) *Review of your request.* DFC will process your request in the order it is received. DFC will try to respond to your request within 45 days, but this may vary, depending on the scope of your request.
( c ) *Final determination.* the Vice-President/General Counsel makes the final determination on requests for nonpublic records or DFC employee testimony. All final determinations are in the sole discretion of the Vice-President/General Counsel. The Vice-President/General Counsel will notify you and the court or other authority of the final determination of your request. In considering your request, the Vice-President/General Counsel may contact you to inform you of the requirements of this part, ask that the request or subpoena be modified or withdrawn, or may try to resolve the request or subpoena informally without issuing a final determination.
#### In the Matter of Gloria D. Schwartz, Appellant, v. Gilbert S. Schwartz, Respondent.

In a proceeding to obtain custody of the children of the parties and for other incidental relief, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated September 6, 1960, dismissing her petition and awarding custody to respondent, after a non jury trial. Appeal discontinued, without costs, upon the stipulation of the parties, dated December 19, 1960. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gregory Johnson, Appellant.

[833 NYS2d 479]

*339Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J.), rendered December 22, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of falsifying business records in the first degree and criminal facilitation in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Defendant received a telephone call from an employee of the Federal Emergency Management Agency stating that a person (the codefendant) had applied for financial assistance and had stated certain facts in support of that application. When asked to confirm this information, defendant did so, knowing it to be completely false. The only logical explanation of defendant’s conduct was that he intended, as well as believing it probable, that the caller’s agency would rely on his false statements and issue undeserved funds to the codefendant. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.
### §16913. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 16913 was editorially reclassified as section 20913 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### K. & S. Manufacturing Company, appellee, v. William R. Johnston Manufacturing Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,400.

Vendor’s action for price of wood frames. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Thomas J. Peden, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1923.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 27, 1923.

Rehearing denied December 8, 1923.

*Certiorari*denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).

Loueks, Eckert & Peterson, for appellant. Brown, Brown & Brown, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### § 712.405 Penalty procedures.

Agencies shall impose and collect civil penalties pursuant to the provisions of the Program Fraud and Civil Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C. sections 3803 (except subsection (c)), 3804, 3805, 3806, 3807, 3808, and 3812, insofar as these provisions are not inconsistent with the requirements herein.
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

NATALIE DYER,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

GC SERVICES,

Defendant(s).

_____________________________________/

No. C 09-1562 MEJ

ORDER RE STATUS

On April 21, 2010, the Court ordered the parties to file a stipulation for dismissal or joint

status report by May 21, 2010. (Dkt. #21.) To date, the parties have not responded to the April 21

Order. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS the parties to file a stipulation for dismissal or joint

status report by June 8, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2010 _______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:09-cv-01562-MEJ Document 22 Filed 05/25/10 Page 1 of 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

27

28

1

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

BRAYTON

 ̃PURCELL LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

222 RUSH LANDING ROAD

P O BOX 6169

NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169

(415) 898-1555

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARBARA HULSEN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,

et al.,

Defendants.

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

3:09-cv-02012-CRB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

IT IS SO ORDERED. All claims in this Federal case are hereby dismissed, without

prejudice, against all Defendants named in this case pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

Dated: July 25, 2016 By: Charles R. Breyer 

 United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02012-CRB Document 25 Filed 07/27/16 Page 1 of 1
#### John Klaas et al., Respondents, v Hobbs Equipment Company et al., Defendants, and Collins Tree Service, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[715 NYS2d 664]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Collins Tree Service, Inc., and Sav-A-Tree, Inc., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Fredman, J.), entered January 28, 2000, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion to appoint a guardian ad litem for the plaintiff John Klaas, and (2) an order of the same court, entered February 28, 2000, as denied that branch of their motion which was for leave to correct the pleadings pursuant to CPLR 3024.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered January 28, 2000, is dismissed, as the appellants are not aggrieved by the portion of the order appealed from (see, CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered February 28, 2000, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; arid it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiffs are awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellants’ motion which was for leave to correct the pleadings, as the complaint is not vague or ambiguous *(see,*CPLR 3024 [a]). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Ira Stroud and Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellant procures the record on appeal and appellant’s points to be served and filed on or before May 31, 1962, with notice of argument for June 12, 1962, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
a
Yyy yj
ely

([) Big Horn Sheep CIAA
Big Horn Sheep Herd Areas
[-) Rawlins RMPPA

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM

0 20 40 80 120 160 200
Et
Kilometers.

0 10 20 40 60 80 100
a

Miles

Map 4-3
Bighorn Sheep
Cumulative Impact Analysis Area
§ 241.1069 Escrow requirements. ( a ) An equity loan provided in connection with a plan of action under subpart B of part 248 of this chapter shall provide for the lender to deposit, on behalf of the borrower, 10 percent of the loan amount in an escrow account, controlled by the Commissioner or a State housing finance agency approved by the Commissioner, which shall be made available to the borrower upon the expiration of the 5-year period beginning on the date the loan is made, subject to compliance with § 248.147 of this chapter.
( b ) An equity loan provided in connection with a plan of action under either subpart B or subpart C of part 248 of this chapter shall provide for the lender to phase in advances to reflect project rent levels.
#### Virtuoso Building Company, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v Thompson Roofing Co., Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Judgments unanimously affirmed, with costs. Same memoran-

dum as in *Torrie v Virtuoso Bldg. Co.,*58 AD2d 982.) (Appeal from judgments of Niagara Supreme Court—negligence.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Simons, Dillon and Witmer, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>    5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the financial
statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                               91,957
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                       329,276
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                       4,483,364
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  4,974,143
<PP&E>                            1,750,122
<DEPRECIATION>                      216,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    6,896,938
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             4,081,380
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                             500
<COMMON>                                400
<OTHER-SE>                        2,800,658
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      6,896,938
<SALES>                           3,242,620
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  3,242,620
<CGS>                             2,662,511
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     2,662,511
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    8,614
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     227,552
<INCOME-TAX>                         58,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 169,352
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                        169,352
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                           .04
        

</TABLE>
### §1314. Rights and powers retained by United States; purchase of natural resources; condemnation of lands

(a) The United States retains all its navigational servitude and rights in and powers of regulation and control of said lands and navigable waters for the constitutional purposes of commerce, navigation, national defense, and international affairs, all of which shall be paramount to, but shall not be deemed to include, proprietary rights of ownership, or the rights of management, administration, leasing, use, and development of the lands and natural resources which are specifically recognized, confirmed, established, and vested in and assigned to the respective States and others by section 1311 of this title.

(b) In time of war or when necessary for national defense, and the Congress or the President shall so prescribe, the United States shall have the right of first refusal to purchase at the prevailing market price, all or any portion of the said natural resources, or to acquire and use any portion of said lands by proceeding in accordance with due process of law and paying just compensation therefor.

(May 22, 1953, ch. 65, title II, §6, 67 Stat. 32.)
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

ERIC GUNDERSEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

LENNAR ASSOCIATES MANAGEMENT

LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 09-2270 CRB (MEJ)

DISCOVERY ORDER RE CONTACT

INFORMATION DISPUTE

(DKT #65)

The Court is in receipt of the parties’ joint letter, filed May 5, 2010, regarding Plaintiff’s

request for Defendant Lenmar Associates Management (“Lenmar”) to disclose contact information

for putative class members in this alleged overtime misclassification case. (Dkt. #65.) Plaintiff

seeks the name, home address, and telephone number for all 462 current and former Lenmar

Assistant Construction Managers (“ACMs”) in California. Defendant argues that it has already

produced contact information for 47 ACMs, but Plaintiff has made little effort to substantiate his

allegations by contacting these putative class members.

Upon review of the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown why a

representative sample of 47 ACMs is not sufficient to substantiate his allegations. However, the

Court notes that the contact information for some of the 47 ACMs may no longer be valid. 

Accordingly, the Court shall permit Plaintiff the opportunity to obtain the contact information for a

representative sample of ACMs whose contact information is still valid. To facilitate this, the Court

ORDERS as follows: Plaintiff shall provide a list of those ACMs out of the 47 already provided

whose contact information is no longer valid, and Lenmar shall then provide contact information for

the same number of ACMs. The parties shall meet and confer to determine which ACMs’ contact

information shall be provided. Said production shall be on a statewide basis. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: May 26, 2010 _______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:09-cv-02270-CRB Document 66 Filed 05/26/10 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:09-cv-02231-EMC Document 38 Filed 04/14/10 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:09-cv-02231-EMC Document 38 Filed 04/14/10 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1
                             MOORE STEPHENS, P.C.
                          

Board of Directors
Dynamic International Ltd.

As noted in Note 3 to the condensed consolidated financial statements of
Dynamic International, Ltd. and Subsidiaries (the Company) as of and for the
nine months ended January 31, 1998, the Company changed its method of
determining the cost of inventories from the LIFO method to the FIFO method.
Management believes the newly adopted accounting principle is preferable in
the circumstances because under the current economic environment of low
inflation, the Company believes that the FIFO method will result in a better
measure of operating results. At your request, we have reviewed and discussed
with management the circumstances, business judgment, and planning that formed
the basis for making this change in accounting principles.

It should be recognized that professional standards have not been established
for selecting among alternative principles that exist in this area or for
evaluating the preferability of alternative accounting principles. Accordingly,
we are furnishing this letter solely for purposes of the Company's compliance
with requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and it should not
be used or relied on for any other purpose.

Based on our review and discussion, we concur with management's judgment that
the newly adopted accounting principle is preferable in the circumstances. In
formulating this position, we are relying on management's business planning and
judgment, which we do not find unreasonable.

We have not audited any consolidated financial statements of Dynamic
International, Ltd. and Subsidiaries as of any date or for any period
subsequent to April 30, 1997. Accordingly, we are unable to express an opinion
on whether the method of accounting for the effect of the change is in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles or if the financial
information included in Part 1 of this Form 10-Q is fairly presented.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Moore Stephens, P.C.

March 17, 1998
#### City of Chicago, appellee, v. George Einstein, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,689.

Suit against City of Chicago. Judgment for city. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Howard Hayes, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district.

Affirmed for failure of appellant to file record.

See City v. Salmitsky, 210 Ill. App. 159.

Opinion filed June 25, 1923.

No appearance for appellant. No appearance for appellee.

Per Curiam.
#### GALLAGHER, Respondent, v. NEWMAN, Appellant

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 24, 1905.)

Action by Annie Gallagher, as administratrix, against Edgar B. Newman. E. P. Mowton, for appellant. J. A. Allen, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.