alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Quomo Paul Shea, Appellant, against J. Edwin La Vallee, as Warden of Clinton Prison, *866Respondent.

Motion for leave to prosecute appeal as a poor person granted. The appeal may be perfected upon one typewritten copy of the record and five typewritten copies of the brief. Motion, in all other respects, denied. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
#### Grover C. Campbell, appellee, v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, appellant.

Action under Federal Employers’ Liability Act, against railroad. Verdict for employee. Appeal from the Circuit Court of White county; the Hon. Julius C. Kern, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1923.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed July 2, 1923.

Rehearing denied October 23, 1923.

Charles T. Randolph and Kramer, Kramer & Campbell, for appellant; Morison R. Waite and William A. Eggers, of counsel. F. M. Parish, for appellee; W. C. Kane, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### Rogers *v.*Brown, Governor.

September 28, 1912.

Forfeiture of recognizance. Before Judge Morris. Cobb superior court. January 14, 1911.

*Mozley & Moss,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. P. Broohe, solicitor-general,*contra.

Atkinson, J.

1. It is essential to the validity oí a recognizance for the . personal appearance for trial of a person charged with a penal offense, that the bond show on its face the cause of the arrest. *Nicholson*v. *State,*2 *Ga.*363.

2. But it is not necessary that the offense be stated with the same degree, of particularity as is required in an indictment; and it is sufficient if the offense be named generally as “accessory after the fact,” which under the Penal Code, § 48, if nothing more appeared, would be equivalent to a charge as for a misdemeanor. See *Rich*v. *Colquitt,*61 *Ga.*197; *Vinson*v. *Northen,*94 *Ga.*698 (19 S. E. 991).

3. But in a proceeding to forfeit a recognizance of the character described in the first headnote, where the evidence relied on to support the action showed that the only chai'ge preferred against the principal was that of being accessory after the fact by receiving stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen, and the indictment failed to allege that the principal thief had been convicted (Penal Code, § 168), or that the principal thief could not be taken so as to be prosecuted and convicted (Penal Code, § 189), the indictment for these reasons being fatally defective *(Jordan*v. *State,*56 *Ga.*92), the evidence did not support a judgment of forfeiture, although it was shown by extrinsic evidence, which was admitted over appropriate objection, thgb the principal thief had been convicted. *McDaniel*v. *Campbell,*78 *Ga.*188; *Candler*v. *Kirksey,*113 *Ga.*309 (38 S. E. 825, 84 Am. St. R. 247); *Salter*v. *State,*125 *Ga.*760 (54 S. E. 685).

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4385 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4385

 To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit employers to pay 
                    higher wages to their employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 18, 2012

 Mr. Rokita (for himself, Mr. Gowdy, Mr. Quayle, Mr. Schweikert, Mrs. 
Bachmann, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. McHenry, Mr. 
   Rooney, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr. Duncan of South 
    Carolina, Mr. Graves of Georgia, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. 
Huizenga of Michigan, Mr. Flores, Mr. Harris, Mr. Yoder, Mr. Huelskamp, 
Mr. Fleming, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Manzullo, and Mr. Akin) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 
                             the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit employers to pay 
                    higher wages to their employees.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Rewarding Achievement and 
Incentivizing Successful Employees Act'' or the ``RAISE Act''.

SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF HIGHER WAGES.

    Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(a)) 
is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(2) Notwithstanding a labor organization's exclusive 
representation of employees in a unit, or the terms and conditions of 
any collective bargaining contract or agreement then in effect, nothing 
in either--
            ``(1) section 8(a)(1) or 8(a)(5), or
            ``(2) a collective bargaining contract or agreement renewed 
        or entered into after the date of enactment of the RAISE Act,
shall prohibit an employer from paying an employee in the unit greater 
wages, pay, or other compensation for, or by reason of, his or her 
services as an employee of such employer, than provided for in such 
contract or agreement.''.
                                 <all>
```
lps88709
### SUBCHAPTER XXVII—SPOKANE VALLEY PROJECT, WASHINGTON AND IDAHO
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

LORENZO HALL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-09-1047 MMC

ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO

CHANGE PRETRIAL ORDER

Before the Court is the parties’ stipulation, filed April 22, 2010, to continue the trial in

the above-titled action from September 13, 2010 to February 28, 2011, and for various

extensions of all pretrial deadlines and dates in connection therewith.

The asserted grounds are a trial in which counsel for the parties presently are

engaged, and upcoming trials in which plaintiff’s counsel anticipates he will be engaged

during the month of April and “part of” the month of May 2010. (See Stipulation at 1:26 -

2:3.)

The current trial date and pretrial schedule herein were set at a Case Management

Conference conducted on August 7, 2009, well over a year before the scheduled trial date;

counsel for both parties appeared at that time and no party voiced any concern about or

identified any conflict with the dates selected. Nor have the parties made any showing as

to their diligence in conducting discovery in the months prior to the filing of the instant

Case 3:09-cv-01047-MMC Document 26 Filed 04/26/10 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

2

stipulation.

Accordingly, good cause not having been shown, the stipulation is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01047-MMC Document 26 Filed 04/26/10 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York v. Juan Cruz (Alfredo Gracias, Impleaded).

Motion for designation of counsel granted and Alfred Norick, Esq., James D. C. Murray, Esq., and Sidney J. Feltenstein, Esq., are assigned as counsel for the defendant-appellant, Juan Cruz, for the purposes of the appeal *nunc pro tunc*as of August 9, 1960. Concur — Valente, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2980 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2980

     To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the 
    nonrecognition of gain on real property which is involuntarily 
  converted as the result of the exercise of eminent domain, without 
              regard to whether such property is replaced.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 17, 2005

 Mr. Tancredo introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the 
    nonrecognition of gain on real property which is involuntarily 
  converted as the result of the exercise of eminent domain, without 
              regard to whether such property is replaced.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Eminent Domain Relief Act''.

SEC. 2. NONRECOGNITION TREATMENT FOR REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS 
              INVOLUNTARILY CONVERTED AS A RESULT OF EXERCISE OF 
              EMINENT DOMAIN.

    (a) In General.--Section 1033 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to involuntary conversions) is amended by redesignating 
subsection (k) as subsection (l) and by adding after subsection (j) the 
following new subsection:
    ``(k) Condemnation of Real Property.--If real property held by the 
taxpayer is (as the result of its seizure, requisition, or 
condemnation, or threat or imminence thereof) compulsorily or 
involuntary converted, at the election of the taxpayer (in such form 
and manner as the Secretary may prescribe)--
            ``(1) no gain shall be recognized, and
            ``(2) subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply with respect 
        to such conversion.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to dispositions of converted property occurring after December 31, 
2004.
                                 <all>
```
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 (CABN 44332)

United States Attorney

BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN 163973)

Chief, Criminal Division

TAREK J. HELOU (CABN 218225)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Ave., Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7200

Fax: (415) 436-7234

E-Mail: Tarek.J.Helou@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MALU TAYLOR,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 09-102 VRW

[PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING

TIME FROM MAY 6, 2010 THROUGH

JUNE 17, 2010

The defendant, Malu Taylor, represented by Laura Robinson, and the government,

represented by Tarek Helou, appeared before the Court on May 6, 2010 for the parties’ first

status conference. The parties represented that the government had produced discovery and the

defendant needed to review the discovery and continue to investigate the charges.

The matter was continued to June 17, 2010 for a status conference or change of plea. 

Counsel for the defendant requested that time be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act from May

6, 2010 through June 17, 2010 because she needed that period of time to review the discovery

and to conduct necessary investigation. The government stated that it had no objection to

excluding time.

ORDER EXCL. TIME

Case No. CR 09-102

Case 3:09-cr-00102-RS Document 71 Filed 06/17/10 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

Based upon the representation of counsel and for good cause shown, the Court finds that

failing to exclude the time from May 6, 2010 through June 17, 2010 would unreasonably deny

the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation of counsel, taking into

account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The Court further finds

that the ends of justice served by excluding the time from May 6, 2010 through June 17, 2010

from computation under the Speedy Trial Act outweigh the best interests of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the time from May 6,

2010 through June 17, 2010 shall be excluded from computation under the Speedy Trial Act. 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv). 

DATED: ___________________ _________________________________

HONORABLE VAUGHN R. WALKER

Chief United States District Judge

ORDER EXCL. TIME

Case No. CR 09-102 -2-

6/17/2010 

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Judge Vaughn R Walker

Case 3:09-cr-00102-RS Document 71 Filed 06/17/10 Page 2 of 2
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-22-00107-CR

MARCELO RUIZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 462nd District Court

of Denton County (F19-570-211)

June 15, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Mike Wallach___________________

 Justice Mike Wallach
§ 203.22 Payment of insurance premiums or charges; prepayment privilege. ( a ) *Payment of periodic insurance premiums or charges.* Except with respect to mortgages for which a one-time mortgage insurance premium is paid pursuant to § 203.280, the mortgage may provide for monthly payments by the mortgagor to the mortgagee of an amount equal to one-twelfth of the annual mortgage insurance premium payable by the mortgagee to the Commissioner. Such payments continue only so long as the contract of insurance shall remain in effect or for such shorter period as mortgage insurance premiums are payable by the mortgagee to the Commissioner.
( b ) *Prepayment privilege.* The mortgage shall contain a provision permitting the mortgagor to prepay the mortgage in whole or in part at any time and in any amount. The mortgage shall not provide for the payment of any charge on account of such prepayment.
[36 FR 24508, Dec. 22, 1971, as amended at 37 FR 8661, Apr. 29, 1972; 48 FR 28804, June 23, 1983; 50 FR 25914, June 24, 1985; 61 FR 36263, July 9, 1996; 79 FR 50837, Aug. 26, 2014]
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 INTERNATIONAL

UNION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SAL ROSELLI, JORGE RODRIGUEZ, 

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-00404 WHA

ORDER RE MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE

AMENDED ANSWER

Defendants have requested permission to move for leave to file an amended answer to

plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. Defendants shall submit their motion for leave to file an

amended answer no later than NOON ON JANUARY 28, 2010. Any opposition to the motion shall

be submitted no later than NOON ON FEBRUARY 1, 2010. Any reply shall be submitted no later

than NOON ON FEBRUARY 2, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00404-WHA Document 466 Filed 01/27/10 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 25, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 75391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26196]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of 
the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the 
Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee will 
hold a public meeting on Thursday, December 3, 2020.

PLACE: The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to 
the public. The meeting will be conducted by remote means and/or at the 
Commission's headquarters, 100 F St. NE, Washington, DC 20549. Members 
of the public may watch the webcast of the meeting on the Commission's 
website at www.sec.gov.

STATUS: This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a majority of 
the Commission may attend the meeting. On November 4, 2020, the 
Commission published notice of the Committee meeting (Release Nos. 33-
10885; 34-90338), indicating that the meeting is open to the public and 
inviting the public to submit written comments to the Committee.

MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda for the meeting includes: Welcome 
remarks; announcement of results of officers election; approval of 
previous meeting minutes; a panel discussion regarding corporate 
disclosure during COVID-19; a panel discussion regarding COVID-19 
implications for next proxy season; subcommittee reports; and a non-
public administrative session.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; 
please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary 
at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: November 23, 2020.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-26196 Filed 11-23-20; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6691** 

TERRY LYNN EVERETT , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
JOYCE FRANCIS, Warden; VALORIE RAPPOLD, A. W. Operations; KAREN LAMBRIGHT, Health Service Administrator; ELIZABETH BO RAM, Assistant Health Service Administrator; ELLEN MACE, Clinical Director; EDDIE ANDERSON, F.C.I. Physician , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Wheeling

. Frederick P . Stamp, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 5:07

- cv - 00135

- FPS

- JES )

Submitted : July 27 , 2010 Decided: August 9, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge and WILKINSON and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Terry Lynn Everet t, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel W. Dickinson, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Terry Lynn Evere tt appeals the district court ’ s ord er accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

A ccordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Everett v. Francis , No. 5:07

- cv - 00135

- FPS

- JES (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 13, 2010) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### §398. Sales of Government certificates to obtain funds for advances

For the purpose of providing the Treasury with funds for the advances to the reclamation fund, provided for in section 397 of this title, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to issue certificates of indebtedness of the United States in such form as he may prescribe and in denominations of $50, or multiples of that sum; said certificates to be redeemable at the option of the United States at any time after three years from the date of their issue and to be payable five years after such date, and to bear interest, payable semiannually, at not exceeding 3 per centum per annum; the principal and interest to be payable in gold coin of the United States. The certificates of indebtedness herein authorized may be disposed of by the Secretary of the Treasury at not less than par, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, giving all citizens of the United States an equal opportunity to subscribe therefor, but no commission shall be allowed and the aggregate issue of such certificates shall not exceed the amount of all advances made to said reclamation fund, and in no event shall the same exceed the sum of $20,000,000. The certificates of indebtedness herein authorized shall be exempt from taxes or duties of the United States as well as from taxation in any form by or under State, municipal, or local authority; and a sum not exceeding one-tenth of 1 per centum of the amount of the certificates of indebtedness issued under this section is appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to pay the expense of preparing, advertising, and issuing the same.

(June 25, 1910, ch. 407, §2, 36 Stat. 835.)
§ 266.110 Reserve requirements. ( a ) *HFAs with an issuer credit rating of “A” or better or overall rating of “A” or better on general obligation bonds.* An HFA with an issuer credit rating of “A” or better, or an equivalent designation, or an HFA with an overall rating of “A” or better on its general obligation bonds, is not required to have additional reserves so long as the HFA maintains that designation or rating, unless the Commissioner determines that a prescribed level of reserves is necessary. If the designation or rating is lost, the HFA must immediately establish a reserve account funded in accordance with the requirements set forth in paragraph (b) of this section. The reserve account must reflect all loans in the HFA's portfolio endorsed under this part.
( b ) *Other HFAs.* ( 1 ) For other HFAs, a specifically identified dedicated account consisting entirely of liquid assets (*i.e.,* cash or cash equivalents or readily marketable securities) must be established and maintained in a financial institution acceptable to HUD. This account may be drawn upon by HUD and may be used by the HFA only with the prior written approval of HUD for the purpose of meeting the HFA's risk-sharing obligations under this part. The account must be established prior to the execution of any risk-sharing agreement under this part in an initial amount of not less than $500,000. Thereafter, the HFA must deposit at each loan closing and thereafter maintain the following additional amounts in the dedicated account: ( i ) $10.00 per $1,000 of the unpaid principal balance that is equal to or less than $50 million; plus
( ii ) $7.50 per $1,000 of the unpaid principal balance that is greater than $50 million and less than $150 million; plus
( iii ) $5.00 per $1,000 of the unpaid principal balance that is greater than $150 million.
( 2 ) The Commissioner may determine that higher levels of reserves may be necessary.
[59 FR 62524, Dec. 5, 1994, as amended at 85 FR 83441, Dec. 22, 2020]
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 200.853 [Reserved]