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

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOANNE FUSCO,

Plaintiff,    v.

SONOMA COUNTY JUNIOR COLLEGEDISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants                                                                      /

No. C-09-114 MMC

ORDER VACATING JANUARY 29, 2010HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONSTO DISMISS

Before the Court is defendants Sonoma County Junior College District and Steve

Cohen’s “Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint,” filed November 19,

2009.  Plaintiff Joanne Fusco has filed opposition, to which defendants have replied. 

Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion,

the Court hereby deems the matter suitable for decision on the parties’ respective filings,

and VACATES the hearing scheduled for January 29, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2010                                                             MAXINE M. CHESNEYUnited States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00114-MMC   Document 46   Filed 01/28/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-11T04:03:19-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
#### S. Frank Williamson, as Receiver, etc., v. The Whitney Company.

— Motion for reargument or for leave to appeal denied, with ten dollars costs. Motion for stay granted. Settle order on notice. Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
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 09-01562 MEJ

ORDER VACATING PRETRIAL AND

TRIAL DATES

The Court is in receipt of the Notice of Settlement filed by Defendant GC Services. (Dkt.

#20.) Accordingly, all pretrial and trial dates are hereby VACATED. If the parties have not filed a

dismissal by May 21, 2010, they shall file a joint status report by that date, and shall file a joint

status report every four weeks thereafter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2010 _______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:09-cv-01562-MEJ Document 21 Filed 04/27/10 Page 1 of 1
### §1068a. Appraisal

Upon the filing of an application to purchase any lands subject to the operation of this chapter, together with the required proof, the Secretary of the Interior shall cause the lands described in said application to be appraised, said appraisal to be on the basis of the value of such lands at the date of appraisal, exclusive of any increased value resulting from the development or improvement of the lands by the applicant or his predecessors in interest, and in such appraisal the Secretary shall consider and give full effect to the equities of any such applicant.

(Dec. 22, 1928, ch. 47, §2, 45 Stat. 1070.)
EXHIBIT
99.7
 
 VERMILION
ENERGY TRUST
 CERTIFICATE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
 
 Pursuant
to Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 Subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code
 
 In
connection with the annual report of Vermilion Energy Trust (the “Corporation”)
on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lorenzo
Donadeo, Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 1.
              The Report fully complies with the
      requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934; and
  2.
              The information contained in the
      Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of the
  Corporation.
 
 Dated
at Calgary, Alberta, Canada this 11 day of March 2008.
  
 (“Lorenzo
      Donadeo”)LORENZO
      DONADEO, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER






VERMILION
ENERGY TRUST
 CERTIFICATE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER
 
 Pursuant
to Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 Subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code
 
 In
connection with the annual report of Vermilion Energy Trust (the “Corporation”)
on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Curtis
Hicks, Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 1.
              The Report fully complies with the
      requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934; and
  2.
              The information contained in the
      Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of the
  Corporation.
 
 Dated
at Calgary, Alberta, Canada this 11 day of March 2008.
 
  (“Curtis
      W. Hicks”)CURTIS
      W. HICKS, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
ex10_50.htm









Exhibit 10.50


SECOND AMENDMENT


TO THE


EMPLOYMENT AND NON-COMPETITION AGREEMENT







The Sheridan Group, Inc. (the "Employer") and Gary J. Kittredge (the "Employee") wish to amend the Employee's Employment and Non-Competition Agreement dated April 1, 2007 (the "Agreement") to (i) bring the Agreement into compliance with the requirements of Internal Revenue Code section 409A and the Treasury Regulations and other authoritative guidance issued under that section, pursuant to IRS Notice 2010-6, and (ii) provide additional severance benefits.







Accordingly, the Agreement is amended as follows:







1.  Effective September 1, 2010, a new item (E) is added to Section 6(e)(i) to read as follows:







"and (E) payment of reasonable expenses related to career transition services (outplacement) with a mutually agreed upon provider, in accordance with the Employer's outplacement schedule of benefits."







2.  Effective September 1, 2010, paragraph (ii) of Section 6(e) is amended in its entirety to read as follows:







"(ii) The Employer shall not reduce the amount payable under the provisions of Section 6(e)(i)  if the Employee accepts other employment during the Severance Period."







3.  Effective April 1, 2007, Section 10(g) – Arbitration of Disputes – is amended by deleting the sentence that was added to the end of that Section by Amendment No. 1 and by replacing it in its entirety with the following new language:







"The Employee's right to reimbursement of expenses by the Employer under this Section is available to the Employee during the Employee's lifetime.  The amount of expenses eligible for reimbursement during one calendar year shall not affect the expenses eligible for reimbursement in any other calendar year. Any reimbursement of an eligible expense shall be made to the Employee by the last day of the calendar year following the calendar year in which the expense was incurred."







4.  Effective April 1, 2007, Section 10(i) – Governing Law – is amended by adding the following new sentence to the end of that Section:







"To the extent Code section 409A applies, the terms of this Agreement shall be interpreted as necessary to comply with the requirements of Code section 409A."







In all other respects, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.






  





  











  








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed, effective as specified herein.








	
ATTEST/WITNESS:

	  	
THE SHERIDAN GROUP, INC.


	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  
	 	/s/ Dale A. Tepp	 	 	/s/ John A. Saxton
	  	  	  	  	  
	
Print Name:

	
Dale A. Tepp

	  	
Print Name:

	
John A Saxton


	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	
Date:

	
August 31, 2010


	  	  	  	  	  
	 	/s/ Dale A. Tepp	 	/s/ Gary J. Kittredge
	  	  	  	
Gary J. Kittredge


	
Print Name:

	
Dale A. Tepp

	  	  	  
	  	  	  	
Date:

	
September 20, 2010
#### Arthur I. Colombik, Respondent, v. Max Heinrich, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated March 17, 1959, which granted his motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution, unless the cause was restored to the calendar and a note of issue together with a statement of readiness was filed for a specified term of the court. Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied, without costs, and without prejudice to a further motion at Special Term, as indicated herein. The ease was marked off the calendar on October 2, 1957. Not having been restored within one year thereafter, it was automatically dismissed by operation of rule 302 of the Rules of Civil Practice *(Balaka*v. *Stork Restaurant,*3 A D 2d 857; *Roe*v. *KurkMll,*6 A D 2d 716). Consequently, in January, 1959, when the motion was made to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint for failure to prosecute, there was no action pending, and the action could not be restored to the calendar until the dis*1027missal of the complaint had been vacated *(Klein*v. *Vernon Lbr. Corp.}*269 App. Div. 71; *Niewiadowski*v. *Nulp-Waco,*279 App. Div. 974). The Special Term, in its discretion, had power to vacate the dismissal under rule 302 *(Schlesinger*v. *Spingler-Van Bewen Estates,*269 App. Div. 950); but no motion for such relief was made by plaintiff, nor were any facts presented which would have justified such action. If so advised, plaintiff may move at Special Term to vacate the dismissal of his complaint and to restore the action to the calendar, on a proper showing of facts sufficient: (a) to excuse his default in restoring the action to the calendar and his delay in prosecution, and (b) to establish that he has a meritorious cause of action. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
Case 3:09-cr-00749-RS Document 30 Filed 01/19/10 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:09-cr-00749-RS Document 30 Filed 01/19/10 Page 2 of 2
§ 203.331 Definition of default, date of default, and requirement of notice of default to HUD. ( a ) *Default.* If the mortgagor fails to make any payment or to perform any other obligation under the mortgage, and such failure continues for a period of 30 days, the mortgage shall be considered in default for the purposes of this subpart.
( b ) *Date of default.* For the purposes of this subpart, the date of default shall be considered as 30 days after: ( 1 ) The first uncorrected failure to perform any obligation under the mortgage; or
( 2 ) The first failure to make a monthly payment that subsequent payments by the mortgagor are insufficient to cover when applied to the overdue monthly payments in the order in which they became due.
( c ) *Notice of default.* Once each month, on a day prescribed by HUD, the mortgagee shall report to HUD all mortgages that were in default on the last day of the month, or that were reported as in default the previous month. The report shall be made in a manner prescribed by HUD.
( d ) *Number of days in month.* For the purposes of this section, each month shall be considered to have 30 days.
[71 FR 16234, Mar. 31, 2006]
Case 3:09-cr-01163-JSW Document 86 Filed 03/04/10 Page 1 of 2 Case3:09-cr-01163-JSW Document85 Filed03/03/10 Page1 of 2
Case3:09-cr-01163-JSW Document85 Filed03/03/10 Page2 of 2

March 4, 2010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Joseph C. Spero

Case 3:09-cr-01163-JSW Document 86 Filed 03/04/10 Page 2 of 2
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*EDDIE RODRIGUEZ

(AC 24179)

Lavery, C. J., and Schaller and Dranginis, Js.

Submitted on briefs April 29

officially released May 31, 2005

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### § 242.63 Additional indebtedness and leasing.

The mortgagor shall not enter into any long-term debt, short-term debt (including receivables or line of credit financing), equipment leases, or derivative-type transactions, except in conformance with policies and procedures established by HUD.
Exhibit 23.0
 
 Consent of Whittlesey & Hadley,
P.C.















Exhibit
23.0
 
 
 
 
 
 CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-124840 and No. 333-119499 on Form S-8 of Naugatuck Valley Financial
Corporation of our report, dated March 20, 2009 appearing in this annual report
on Form 10-K of Naugatuck Valley Financial Corporation for the year ended
December 31, 2008.
   /s/ WHITTLESEY &
HADLEY, P.C.
   Hartford,
Connecticut
 March 31,
2009
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of W. Lawrence Newins, Deceased. Esther C. Newins, Appellant; Stanley Fowler, Respondent.

Motion by respondent to dismiss appeal denied, on condition that appellant perfect the appeal and be ready to argue or submit it at the February Term, beginning January 30, 1961. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. The record and appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before January 19, 1961. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
See T EX . R. A PP . P. 5 2

. 8 ( d ) ( “ W h e n d e n y i n g r e l i e f , t h e c o u r t m a y h a n d d o w n a n o p i n i on b ut 1 i s n o t r e q u i re d to d o s o .”) ; T EX . R. A PP . P . 4 7 .4 (d i s ti n g u i s h i n g o p i n i o n s a n d m e m o ra n d u m o p i n i o n s ). 

### NUM BER 13-1 0-00 048- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG IN RE A NT ONIO C. M UÑ OZ On Petit ion fo r Writ of M an da mus . M EM ORA ND UM OPIN ION Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, Garza, a nd B en av ide s Per Curia m M emor andum Opini on 1 Relato r, Anto nio C. Muño z , has filed a pro se pet ition for w rit of man dam us in this Co u rt , c o m p la in in g th a t t h e r e sp o n d e n t, La u ra Hin o jo sa , t h e Dist rict Cl e rk o f Hid a lgo Coun ty, T ex as, has not forwarded doc uments rela ted t o an arti cl e 11. 07 w ri t of habeas cor pus to t he Texas Cou rtof Cr imi nal Appea ls

. SeeT EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . ar t. 11.07 (V er non S u p p . 2008); see als o In reEs car eno , 297 S.W .3d 2 88 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 200 9).2

T his Court do es no t have ma nda mu s j u ri s d iction over district cl erks unless it is show n tha t i ss uance of the w ri t i s n ecessa ry t o enforc e our j ur is dicti on. SeeT EX . G OV ' T C OD E A NN . § 2 2

. 2 2 1 ( a ) , ( b ) ( V e r n o n 2004) ; In r e Washing ton , 7 S

. W

. 3 d 1 8 1 , 1 8 2 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 199 9, or ig . proceed ing ); In r e C o ronado , 980 S.W .2d 6 91, 6 92 (Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 1998, or ig . proceed ing ); see als o In r e Nubi ne , No. 13- 08- 507- CV , 2 0 0 8 T e x. Ap p . L EXI S 6 5 3 4 , a t * 1 (T e x. Ap p .– Co rp u s Ch ris ti Au g. 2 7 , 2 0 0 8 , o rig. proceed ing ) (p er

cu ri am) (mem. op)

. Mo re ov er , w hil e c our ts of appeal s h av e mandamus jur is dicti on i n c ri minal matte rs, only the Tex as Cou rtof Cr imi nal Appea lshas j ur is dicti on in final pos t- conv icti on felony proceed ing s. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 11.07 § 3 ( Ver non Su pp. 2 008) ; In r e McAf ee , 53 S.W .3d 7 15, 717 (Tex

. App.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 1, orig. proceed ing). T he Cou rt, having examine d an d f ully conside red the petitio n for w rit of man dam us, is of t he opi nio n that w e lac k jur is dicti on to cons ide r thi s matter . Ac cordin g ly , t he pet it ion for w ri t of mandamus i s D ISM ISSE D for want o f jur is dicti on. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52. 8(a). PERC UR IAM Do not p ubl is h. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 2(b). Del ivered and filed the 8th day of Febr uar

y , 201 0.
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

TERRA INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NEW YORK LIFE INVESTMENT

MANAGEMENT, LLC,

Defendant. /

No. C 09-01609 WHA

ORDER RE TRIAL

The Court has heard a rumor that this case has settled. Counsel should advise the Court

immediately if this is true. Be aware that until the case is dismissed, it will be called for trial on

Monday (June 21) morning at 7:30 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-01609-WHA Document 171 Filed 06/15/10 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.4





Exhibit 10.4




SOMAXON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




This Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of September 15,
2010 (the “Effective Date”), and amends the Employment Agreement (the “Employment Agreement”)
between Somaxon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Tran
Nguyen, an individual (“Executive”) dated April 12, 2010. Except as otherwise set forth herein,
all capitalized terms have the same meaning as set forth in the Employment Agreement.



W I T N E S S E T H:




Whereas, the Company desires to amend the Employment Agreement with Executive to
extend the housing allowance for an additional six (6) months.



Now, Therefore, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants hereinafter
set forth, and intending to be legally bound hereby, it is hereby agreed as follows:




	 	1.	 	The third sentence of Section 7(b) is amended and restated in its entirety as follows:






“The Company shall reimburse Executive for (1) reasonable temporary living expenses
in the San Diego, California area until Executive’s permanent relocation to such
area, (2) a monthly housing allowance of up to $4,250 until April 12, 2011, and (3)
the transportation costs for one round-trip every four weeks for Executive between
the San Francisco Bay Area and San Diego, California until Executive’s permanent
relocation to the San Diego, California area.”



In Witness Whereof, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first
above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	COMPANY:



Somaxon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Richard W. Pascoe
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Richard W. Pascoe 	 
	 	 	Title:  	President and Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 
	 	EXECUTIVE:

 	 
	 	/s/ Tran Nguyen
 	 
	 	Tran Nguyen
### §316d. Notice of establishment and alteration of grazing district; hearings

Before establishing or altering a district the Secretary shall publish once a week for a period of six consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in each judicial division in which the district proposed to be established or altered is located, a notice describing the boundaries of the proposed district or the proposed alteration, announcing the date on which he proposes to establish such district or make such alteration and the location and date of hearings required under this section. No such alteration shall be made until after public hearings are held with respect to such alteration in each such judicial division after the publishing of such notice.

(Mar. 4, 1927, ch. 513, §5, 44 Stat. 1453; Pub. L. 90–403, §1, July 18, 1968, 82 Stat. 358.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 471d of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.

#### Amendments

1968—Pub. L. 90–403 required publication of notice of alteration of a grazing district in each judicial division in which the district proposed to be altered is located, the notice to describe the boundaries of the proposed alteration and location and date of requisite hearings, and also public hearings with respect to the alteration to be held in each such judicial division prior to making the alteration.
Served: December 3, 2013 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Issued by the Department of Transportation 

on the 3rd of December, 2013 

Essential Air Service at 

DODGE CITY, KANSAS 

GARDEN CITY, KANSAS 

GREAT BEND, KANSAS 

HAYS, KANSAS 

LIBERAL, KANSAS 

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq. 

DOCKET DOT -OST -1998-3502 

DOCKET DOT -OST -1998-3503 

DOCKET DOT -OST -1998-3496 

DOCKET DOT-OST-1998-3497 

DOCKET DOT -OST -1998-3498 

NOTICE EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR PROPOSALS AT DODGE CITY, 

GARDEN CITY, GREAT BEND, HAYS, AND LIBERAL, KANSAS 

By Order 2013-11-2, November 1, 2013, the Department requested proposals for EAS at the five 

communities in Kansas above, with proposals due no later than December 2. On December 2, 

SkyWest Airlines requested a one-week extension to that deadline. 

We will grant the extension request. Proposals at Dodge City, Garden City, Great Bend, 

Hays, and Liberal, Kansas, are now due on December 9, 2013. 

--K.e~in D. Schlemmer, Chief 

EAS and Domestic Analysis 

· An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at 

http:/ /www.regulations.gov
#### Scarlett Letters, Inc., Respondent, v Compugraphic Corporation, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 3, 1977, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal payable to respondent. In affirming Special Term’s determination that the complaint stated valid causes of action, we assume that the court gave due consideration to the affidavits submitted in opposition to the motion which set forth allegations of unconscionability and inconspicuous notice (Uniform Commercial Code, §§ 2-302, 1-201, subd 10) in avoidance of the disclaimer provisions of the lease-purchasing agreement in issue, upon which defendant in its motion relied. (CPLR 3211, subd [c].) Otherwise, the complaint, which pleaded the agreement, a copy of which was annexed thereto, may, superficially, have failed to state a cause of action. But the test for us is not whether the complaint states a cause of action but whether the pleader has, in fact, a cause of action. As was stated in *Rovello v Orofino Realty Co.*(40 NY2d 633, 635-636), "affidavits may be used freely to preserve inartfully pleaded, but potentially meritorious, claims (see, e.g., *Kelly v Bank of Buffalo,*32 AD2d 875; *Raimondi v Fedeli,*30 AD2d 802).” Concur—Silverman, J. P., Evans, Lynch, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.
§ 3280.104 Ceiling heights. ( a ) Every habitable room and bathroom shall have a minimum ceiling height of not less than 7 feet, 0 inches for a minimum of 50 percent of the room's floor area. The remaining area may have a ceiling with a minimum height of 5 feet, 0 inches. Minimum height under dropped ducts, beams, etc. shall be 6 feet, 4 inches.
( b ) Hallways and foyers shall have a minimum ceiling height of 6 feet, 6 inches.