alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

No. C 09-1633 RS (PR)

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 *E-Filed 5/27/10*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

JOHNNY PLACENCIA,

Petitioner,

v.

BEN CURRY,

Respondent. /

No. C 09-1633 RS (PR)

ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER

BRIEFING

A recent en banc decision from the Ninth Circuit addressed important issues relating

to federal review of parole decisions in California. See Hayward v. Marshall, No. 06-55392, 

2010 WL 1664977 (9th Cir. April 22, 2010) (en banc). The Court requests that the parties

submit supplemental briefs (not to exceed 12 pages in length) explaining their views on how

the Hayward en banc decision applies to this parole denial habeas case. The Court sets the

following schedule:

1. Within 10 days of this order, respondent shall send to petitioner a copy of the

Hayward decision.

2. Within 30 days of this order, respondent shall file with the Court and serve on

petitioner a supplemental brief on the impact of Hayward on this action.

Case 3:09-cv-01633-RS Document 10 Filed 05/27/10 Page 1 of 2
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

No. C 09-1633 RS (PR)

2 ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING

3. Within 15 days thereafter, petitioner may file with the Court and serve on

respondent a supplemental brief on the impact of Hayward on this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May ___, 2010 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

27

Case 3:09-cv-01633-RS Document 10 Filed 05/27/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Milton L. Ehrlich, Incorporated, Appellant-Respondent, v. Swiss Construction Corporation et al., Respondents-Appellants.

Order unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to the extent of granting defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint and, as so modified, affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendants-respondents-appellants. As stated at Special Term, plaintiff has participated in the selection of the arbitrators and otherwise taken part in the arbitration proceeding, and is therefore not entitled to stay its further progress. A reading of the complaint indicates that in form plaintiff seeks to rescind the contract containing the arbitration clause because of the fraudulent procurement of the contract. The only damages claimed by plaintiff, however, as a result of the inducing fraud, relate to *“*careless, improper and unworkmanlike work ” in the performance of the contract. Such items of damages can clearly be presented to and determined by the arbitrators pursuant to the demand for arbitration. Furthermore, upon argument defendants consented to a submission of the issue of fraud in the inducement of the contract to arbitration. There is left of the relief sought in the *645complaint, therefore, only the prayer to rescind a contract pursuant to which plaintiff participated in arbitration proceedings long after it had become aware of the alleged fraud practiced by defendants in the procurement of said contract. No possible purpose will be served by permitting the complaint to stand. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and Stevens, JJ. [21 Misc 2d 506.]
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 

DB2/21729560.1 [PROP.] ORDER FURTHER EXTENDING NEC CORPORATION 

OF AMERICA’S DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; CASE NO. C 09-02114 RS 

David N. Kuhn (State Bar No. 73389) 

dnkuhn@pacbell.net 

Attorney-at-Law 

144 Hagar Avenue 

Piedmont, CA 94611 

Telephone: 510-653-4983 

Attorney for Plaintiff Gregory Bender 

Andrew J. Gray IV (State Bar No. 202137) 

agray@morganlewis.com 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

2 Palo Alto Square, Suite 700 

3000 El Camino Real 

Palo Alto, CA 94306 

Telephone: 650.843.4000 

Facsimile: 650.843.4001 

Robert W. Busby (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

rbusby@morganlewis.com 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20004 

Telephone: 202.739.3000 

Facsimile: 202.739.3001 

Attorneys for Defendant NEC CORPORATION 

OF AMERICA 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

Gregory Bender, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC, NEC 

CORPORATION OF AMERICA, 

PIONEER ELECTRONICS (USA) INC., 

and SHARP ELECTRONICS 

CORPORATION 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:09-CV-02114 RS 

[PROPOSED] ORDER FURTHER 

EXTENDING NEC CORPORATION OF 

AMERICA’S DEADLINE TO RESPOND 

TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

 Pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation, Defendant NEC Corporation of America is hereby 

granted an extension of time to answer, plead, or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Second 

Amended Complaint until and including June 30, 2010. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ______________, 2010 ________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

*E-Filed 5/27/10* May 27

Case 3:09-cv-02114-RS Document 85 Filed 05/27/10 Page 1 of 1
#### § 266.610 Method of payment of mortgage insurance premiums.

In the cases that the Commissioner deems appropriate, the Commissioner may require, by means of instructions communicated to all affected mortgagees, that mortgage insurance premiums be remitted electronically.

[63 FR 1303, Jan. 8, 1998]
#### Merchants National Bank & Trust Company of Syracuse, Respondent, v Syracuse Eagles Hockey Club Corp., Defendant, and Domenic Urciuoli et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs, on the opinion at Special Term, Hancock, J., and the following memorandum: We affirm Special Term but note that appellants’ fraud in the inducement defense must be rejected as a matter of law because they have failed to allege justifiable reliance on the bank’s alleged misrepresentation. The improbability of reliance upon the claimed misrepresentation is insufficient standing alone to provide a basis to grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment *(Millerton Agway Corp. v Briarcliff Farms,*17 NY2d 57; *Plastoid Cable Corp. of Amer v TFI Cos.,*55 AD2d 930). Here, however, the terms of the note and guarantee were so completely inconsistent with the alleged oral representations that it strains credulity to believe that these appellants did in fact rely upon the alleged representations after they signed the guarantees. Therefore, appellants have failed to establish the elements of the defense of fraud in the inducement because they cannot claim justifiable reliance upon the alleged oral misrepresentations in the face of the outstanding conflict between those representations and the written terms of the promissory note and guarantee (see *Leumi Fin. Corp. v Richter,*17 NY2d 166, 173). (Appeals from order and judgment of Onondaga Supreme Court—summary judgment.) Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons and Dillon, JJ.
#### § 5.1 Introduction.

This part provides information to the public as required by the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1).
#### § 234.262 Exception to deed in lieu of foreclosure.

All of the provisions of § 203.357 of this chapter relating to acceptance of a deed in lieu of foreclosure shall apply to mortgages insured under this part only if the mortgagee establishes to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that there are no unpaid assessments owed the Association or Cooperative of Owners.
#### Mary V. Ayers, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, *v.*The City of Brooklyn, Impleaded, etc., Appellant.

(Argued. January 25, 1882 ;

decided January 31, 1882.)

*Damid M. De Witt*for appellant.

*Joseph It. Shoudy*for respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur, except Rapallo, J., absent

Judgment affirmed.
### §2907. Compliance with other laws

#### (a) In general

Before conveying an eligible facility under this chapter, the Secretary shall comply with all applicable Federal environmental laws, including—

(1) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);

(2) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and

(3) subtitle III of title 54.

#### (b) Sense of Congress

It is the sense of Congress that any Federal permitting and review processes required with respect to a conveyance of an eligible facility under this chapter should be completed with the maximum efficiency and effectiveness.

(Pub. L. 116–9, title VIII, §8007, Mar. 12, 2019, 133 Stat. 808.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), is Pub. L. 91–190, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 852, which is classified generally to chapter 55 (§4321 et seq.) of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4321 of Title 42 and Tables.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, referred to in subsec. (a)(2), is Pub. L. 93–205, Dec. 28, 1973, 87 Stat. 884, which is classified principally to chapter 35 (§1531 et seq.) of Title 16, Conservation. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1531 of Title 16 and Tables.
### §44. Sale of transfers or copies of data

The Director of the United States Geological Survey shall, if the regular map work of the Survey is in no wise interfered with thereby, furnish to any person, concern, institution, State or foreign government, that shall pay in advance the whole cost thereof with 10 per centum added, transfers or copies of any cartographic or other engraved or lithographic data in the division of engraving and printing of the Survey, and the moneys received by the Director for such transfers or copies shall be deposited in the Treasury.

(June 30, 1906, ch. 3914, 34 Stat. 727; Pub. L. 102–154, title I, Nov. 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 1000.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

"United States Geological Survey" substituted in text for "Geological Survey" pursuant to provision of title I of Pub. L. 102–154, set out as a note under section 31 of this title.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of the Interior, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Interior, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1262, set out under section 1451 of this title.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. ROGELI O PER EZ - GO NZALEZ , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 08- 50476 D. C. No . 3 : 0 8 - c r - 0 1 1 3 8 - BT M ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia B a rryT . M os kow i t z , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d M ay25, 2010 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T H O M A S , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R og el i o P er ez -G on za l ez appeal s f rom the 70 -m on th sent ence i m po se d fol l ow i ng hi s j ury- tri alconv i ct i on for bei ng a deport ed al i en foun d i n the U ni t ed 

# FI LED JU N 10 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 50476 2 S ta te s , in v io la tio n o f

8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f

f irm . P er ez -G on za l ez cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y app l yi ng a 16-l evel e nha nc e m e ntunde rU . S . S . G . § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) be c aus e hi s pr i orc onvi c t i ons f or as saul tw i th a deadl y w eapo n, i n v i ol at i on of C al i forni a P enalC od e § 24 5(a) (1), and i nfl i ct i ng corporal i nj ury on a spou se , i n v i ol at i on of C al i forni a P enalC od e § 2 7 3 .5 , d o n o t q u a lif

ya s c r im e s o f

v io le n c e u n d e rth e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s . T h is c o n te n tio n is f

o r e c lo s e d . Se e U

ni te d States v . G raj e da , 581 F . 3d 1186, 1191- 97 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( ho l di ng thata c on vi ct i on un der C al i forni a P enalC od e § 2 4 5 ( a ) ( 1 ) is c a te g o r ic a llya“c r im e o f v io le n c e ” u n d e rth e G u id e lin e s ) ; see a l so U ni te d States v . L aur i c o- Y e no , 5 9 0 F .3 d8 1 8 , 8 2 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) ( h o ld in g th a t a c onvi c t i on unde rC a l i f

orni aP e na l C ode § 273. 5 i s c a t e gor i c a l l ya“ c r i m e of vi ol ence ” und erthe G ui del i nes) . AF F I RME D.
### An annotated list of the mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies of the Sand Creek basin, Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve, Colorado, 2004 and 2005

By: Robert E. Zuellig**Boris C. KondratieffDavid E. RuiterRichard A. Thorp

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds183

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area
#### CÆSAR et al. v. KULLA.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 21, 1905.)

Partnership—Agreement to Pay Firm Debts—Enforcement by Creditor.

Where defendant agreed with one member of a firm that, if he would sell his interest to defendant’s brother at a certain price, defendant would pay the firm debts, but it did not appear that defendant received any of the firm assets, the promise was for the protection of the retiring partner only, and a firm creditor could not maintain an action thereon.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Seventh District.

Action by Henry A. Caesar and another against Jacob Kulla. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before SCOTT, O’GORMAN, and BLANCHARD, JJ.

Goldfogle, Cohn & Lind, for appellant.

Morris J. Hirsch, for respondents.

SCOTT, J.

The plaintiffs were creditors.of a copartnership composed of Jacob Kollenberg and Joseph Kulla, a brother of defendant. Differences arose between the partners, and they both consulted defendant, who was' not a member of the firm, or interested in any wavin its business. It was suggested that Kollenberg should sell out his interest in the firm, and retire from it, which he agreed to do upon receipt of $300. The defendant thereupon gave his brother a check for this sum, which the brother indorsed over to Kollenberg; and thereupon a dissolution agreement was entered into between Joseph Kulla and Kollenberg, whereby the latter assigned and transferred to Joseph Kulla all right, title, and interest in the copartnership assets, and Joseph Kulla agreed to assume and pay all the copartnership debts. Jacob Kulla was not a party to this agreement. Although the evidence is somewhat confused, and in certain particulars conflicting, the foregoing facts may be said to be certainly established. The plaintiffs’ claim rests upon Kollenberg’s assertion that Jacob Kulla agreed with him that, if he (Kollenberg) would take $300 for his interest in the firm, defendant would pay the firm debts. There is no evidence whatever that Jacob Kulla received any of the assets of the firm, or any of the proceeds thereof, except that after the dissolution Joseph Kulla paid a part of his indebtedness to his brother out of the proceeds of the assets which he was able to sell. The facts thus established bring the present case precisely within the facts of Berry v. Brown, 107 N. Y. 659, 14 N. E. 289, wherein it was held that such an agreement as the defendant is alleged to have made, taking the version most favorable to plaintiffs, which is supported by credible evidence, was merely an agreement for the benefit of the retiring partner, to relieve him from and indemnify him against the debts of the firm, with no intention to secure any benefit to the firm creditors; and, since no sale was made to the defendant, and no consideration passed to him, the plaintiffs, strangers to the agreement, could not enforce it. It was further held that such an agreement was void under the statute of frauds.

The judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.
§ 232.840 Date of default. In computing loan insurance benefits, the date of default shall be considered as: ( a ) The date of the lender's acceleration of the debt because of the borrower's uncorrected failure to perform a covenant or obligation under the note or security instrument; or
( b ) The date of the first failure to make a monthly payment which subsequent payments by the borrower are insufficient to cover when applied to the overdue monthly payments in the order in which they become due.
STIPULATION AND ORDER

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 

 

HARVEY P. SACKETT (72488) 

1055 Lincoln Avenue 

Post Office Box 5025 

San Jose, California 95150-5025 

Telephone: (408) 295-7755 

Facsimile: (408) 295-7444 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

/jgl 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

RICHARD A. WYANT, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 

Commissioner, 

Social Security Administration, 

 Defendant. 

 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No: C09-01723 RS 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

Plaintiff and Defendant, through their respective attorneys, hereby stipulate that 

Plaintiff shall have a second extension of time of (30) days up through and including 

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 in which to e-file his Motion for Summary Judgment. This 

extension is necessitated by the number of other cases (4) Plaintiff's counsel currently has 

before this district court and other district courts that also require briefing around this time. 

*E-Filed 5/24/10*

Case 3:09-cv-01723-RS Document 20 Filed 05/24/10 Page 1 of 2
STIPULATION AND ORDER

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 

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO

United States Attorney 

 

Dated: May 24, 2010 /s/ 

 TIMOTHY R. BOLIN 

 Special Assistant U.S. Attorney 

 

Dated: May 24, 2010 /s/ 

 HARVEY P. SACKETT 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 RICHARD A. WYANT 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

HON. RICHARD SEEBORG 

United States Magistrate Judge 

5/24/10 District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01723-RS Document 20 Filed 05/24/10 Page 2 of 2
### §2223. Plan elements

#### (a) Plan provisions

Elements of the contingency plans prepared pursuant to section 2222 of this title may include, but are not limited to, any or all of the following:

(1) Water banks.

(2) Appropriate water conservation actions.

(3) Water transfers to serve users inside or outside authorized Federal Reclamation project service areas in order to mitigate the effects of drought.

(4) Use of Federal Reclamation project facilities to store and convey nonproject water for agricultural, municipal and industrial, fish and wildlife, or other uses both inside and outside an authorized Federal Reclamation project service area.

(5) Use of water from dead or inactive reservoir storage or increased use of ground water resources for temporary water supplies.

(6) Water supplies for fish and wildlife resources.

(7) Minor structural actions.

#### (b) Federal Reclamation projects

Each contingency plan shall identify the following two types of plan elements related to Federal Reclamation projects:

(1) Those plan elements which pertain exclusively to the responsibilities and obligations of the Secretary pursuant to Federal Reclamation law and the responsibilities and obligations of the Secretary for a specific Federal Reclamation project.

(2) Those plan elements that pertain to projects, purposes, or activities not constructed, financed, or otherwise governed by the Federal Reclamation law.

#### (c) Drought levels

The Secretary is authorized to work with other Federal and State agencies to improve hydrologic data collection systems and water supply forecasting techniques to provide more accurate and timely warning of potential drought conditions and drought levels that would trigger the implementation of contingency plans.

#### (d) Compliance with law

The contingency plans and plan elements shall comply with all requirements of applicable Federal law, including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321), section 2265(a) of title 33, and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.], and shall be in accordance with applicable State law.

#### (e) Review

The contingency plans shall include provisions for periodic review to assure the adequacy of the contingency plan to respond to current conditions, and such plans may be modified accordingly.

(Pub. L. 102–250, title II, §203, Mar. 5, 1992, 106 Stat. 57.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, referred to in subsec. (d), is Pub. L. 91–190, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 852, which is classified generally to chapter 55 (§4321 et seq.) of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4321 of Title 42 and Tables.

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, referred to in subsec. (d), is act Mar. 10, 1934, ch. 55, 48 Stat. 401, which is classified generally to sections 661 to 666c–1 of Title 16, Conservation. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 661(a) of Title 16, Short Title note set out under section 661 of Title 16, and Tables.
Exhibit 32.2

GMH COMMUNITIES TRUST

CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY
RULE 13a-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, J. Patrick O'Grady, acting in the capacity of Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of GMH Communities Trust, a Maryland real estate investment
trust (the "Company"), hereby certify that, to my knowledge:



*
* *

|/s/J. PATRICK O'GRADYJ. Patrick O'Grady Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer) |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

Date:
April 29, 2008

---



QuickLinks