alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Harold W. Kurtz et al., Appellants, v Abraham Zion et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered October 11, 1977, denying plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and related relief, is unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal to appellants, and the motion for preliminary injunction is granted to the extent of enjoining defendants during the pendency of this action or until further order of the court from making any transfer (by delivery or otherwise) of any of plaintiff Kurtz’ shares of class B stock of the Lombard-*779Wall Group Incorporated held in escrow by Tenzer, Greenblatt, Fallon & Kaplan based on the alleged default in payment of attorneys’ fees totaling $24,518.79 referred to in the complaint (or $20,817.69 referred to in defendant’s first amended answer); and the running of the periods of time during which plaintiffs, or any one of them, are entitled to cure such alleged default under the agreements between the parties, is hereby stayed and tolled during the pendency of this action or until further order of the court. Plaintiffs have shown a meritorious and substantial claim that the alleged default in payment of attorneys’ fees does not trigger the enforcement of the escrow security provisions. The escrowed stock represents control of a close corporation and damages would thus not appear to be an adequate remedy for an improper transfer. Balancing the equities, it appears that the damage to plaintiffs from denial of the preliminary injunction and delivery of the stock out of escrow to defendants Zion or Half Moon would cause substantially greater harm to plaintiffs if they are ultimately proved right in this action, than the harm that would be caused to said defendants by the granting of the preliminary injunction if the defendants are ultimately proved right. In the interest of maintaining the *status quo,*the court exercises its power to stay the running of the grace periods. *(First Nat. Stores v Yellowstone Shopping Center,*21 NY2d 630, 637.) The court will receive suggestions of the parties as to the amount of the bond to be furnished by plaintiffs on the settlement of the order hereon. Settle order on notice. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Fein and Markewich, 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases.

 /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

ORDER SETTING HEARING

RE DEFENDANT’S

DISCOVERY DISPUTE

A further meet-and-confer is SET for THURSDAY, JANUARY 7, 2010, FROM

8:00–10:00 A.M., in connection with defendant’s discovery dispute outlined in counsel’s

letter of January 4. This will take place in the Court’s jury room on the 19th floor. At 10:00 a.m.,

the Court will hold a hearing in Courtroom 9. Plaintiff’s response is due by noon on January 6. 

Counsel are reminded that only those who participate in the further meet-and-confer may

argue at the hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01936-WHA Document 44 Filed 01/05/10 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of the Claim of James B. Innes, Respondent, v. Walsh, Connolly, Senior. & Palmer, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Motion to allow the Globe Indemnity Insurance Company to file a brief *amicus cwics*granted.
SAC-CC SAC SHP PAC PHP10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0010 367$ 449$ 572$511$ 593$11 1.12 1.16 1.05 1.09 1.0711 412$ 519$ 602$555$ 632$12 1.27 1.25 1.13 1.16 1.1312 468$ 563$ 648$595$ 668$13 1.44 1.42 1.30 1.43 1.3813 529$ 637$ 743$730$ 820$14 1.60 1.82 1.79 1.74 1.7414 588$ 816$ 1,023$889$ 1,029$151.99 1.94 1.87 1.8515893$ 1,107$955$ 1,100$101.00 1.00 1.00 1.00111.12 1.05 1.09 1.07121.27 1.13 1.16 1.13131.44 1.30 1.43 1.38141.71 1.79 1.74 1.74151.99 1.94 1.87 1.85Reverse Engineering Relative CostsEstimates for Baseline 3-ton UnitaryEquipment Under New EfficiencyStandards v3.01.001.201.401.601.802.002.2010 11 12 13 14 15Efficiency Level (SEER)

Relative CostSACSHPPACPHPReverse Engineering Cost Estimates for Baseline 3-ton Unitary Equipment Under New EfficiencyStandards v3.0$-$200$400$600$800$1,000$1,20010 11 12 13 14 15Efficiency Level (SEER)

Production Cost ($ per unit)SAC-CCSACSHPPACPHP
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 9, 2010 

y0830 

Order 

 

September 9, 2010 

141066 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141066 

 COA: 289212 

Oakland CC: 2001-178581-FC 

HARRY JACOB WALTON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 20, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 289

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States PostFirst Class John Marshall Post Office Building’’. nue in Los Angeles, California, as the ‘‘Sergeant al Service located at 8200 South Vermont Ave-

109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 289

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 8200 South Vermont Avenue in Los Angeles,

California, as the ‘‘Sergeant First Class John Marshall

Post Office Building’’.

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

•HR 289 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 8200 South Vermont Avenue in Los Angeles,

4 California, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Ser5 geant First Class John Marshall Post Office Building’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

10 to the ‘‘Sergeant First Class John Marshall Post Office

11 Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives February 1,

2005.

Attest:

Clerk.
§ 241.1015 Processing of applications and required fees. ( a ) *Application.* An application for the issuance of a firm commitment for insurance of an equity or acquisition loan on a project shall be submitted by an approved lender and by the owner or purchaser of the project to the Commissioner on a form prescribed by the Commissioner. No application shall be considered unless the exhibits called for by such forms are furnished.
( b ) *Commitment fees.* An application for a firm commitment shall be accompanied by the payment of an application-commitment fee of $5.00 per thousand dollars of the requested loan amount to be insured.
[61 FR 14417, Apr. 1, 1996]
#### Skylark Enterprises, Inc., Appellant, v. American Central Insurance Co., 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 March Term, beginning February 27, 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 February 10, 1961. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARE ESCENTUALS BEAUTY, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

 INTELLIGENT BEAUTY, LLC,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

Case No. C09-00382 CRB (JCS)

ORDER DENYING INTELLIGENT

BEAUTY’S MOTION TO COMPEL

On December 7, 2009, the Plaintiff Bare Escentuals Beauty, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant

Intelligent Beauty, LLC (“Defendants”) jointly submitted a Letter to the Court, wherein Defendant

moved to compel the production of documents, including the Settlement Agreement entered into by

Plaintiff and L’Oreal (the “L’Oreal Settlement Agreement”).

Having read and considered the Letter, the arguments in support and in opposition to

production, and the case file in this action, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of the L’Oreal Settlement Agreement is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2010 _______________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00382-CRB Document 63 Filed 01/12/10 Page 1 of 1
### §38. Topographic surveys; marking elevations

In making topographic surveys west of the ninety-fifth meridian elevations above a base level located in each area under survey shall be determined and marked on the ground by iron or stone posts or permanent bench marks, at least two such posts or bench marks to be established in each township, or equivalent area, except in the forest-clad and mountain areas, where at least one shall be established, and these shall be placed, whenever practicable, near the township corners of the public-land surveys; and in the areas east of the ninety-fifth meridian at least one such post or bench mark shall be similarly established in each area equivalent to the area of a township of the public land surveys.

(June 11, 1896, ch. 420, 29 Stat. 435.)
### Las Animas Formation (upper Precambrian) in the subsurface of southeastern Colorado

By: Ogden Tweto

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1529G

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
### §1471d. Availability of appropriations for transportation, reprint, telephone, and library membership expenses

Appropriations in this title 1 or appropriations made under this title 1 in subsequent Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts shall on and after October 2, 1992, be available for hire, maintenance, and operation of aircraft; hire of passenger motor vehicles; purchases of reprints; payment for telephone services in private residences in the field, when authorized under regulations approved by the Secretary; and the payment of dues, when authorized by the Secretary, for library memberships in societies or associations which issue publications to members only or at a price to members lower than to subscribers who are not members.

(Pub. L. 102–377, title II, §204, Oct. 2, 1992, 106 Stat. 1332.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This title, referred to in text, is title II of Pub. L. 102–377, Oct. 2, 1992, 106 Stat. 1327. For complete classification of title II to Code, see Tables.

1 See References in Text note below.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Ferguson, Appellant.

[833 NYS2d 806]—

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (John J. Connell, J.), entered September 12, 2005. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 *et seq.).*Contrary to defendant’s contention, County Court did not err in assessing 10 points for sexual misconduct while confined. The case summary states that, on February 4, 2005, defendant was cited for tier II infractions for, inter alia, “Lewd Exposure.” 7 NYCRR 270.2 (B) (2) (in) provides that an inmate shall not intentionally expose “the private parts of his or her body” in the presence of an employee except for an authorized purpose. The court rejected the explanation of defendant that he was using the bathroom facilities while a female employee was within sight, and there is no basis in the record before us to disturb that determination. We note that the court reduced the score on the risk assessment instrument from 145 to 110, and we conclude that the court’s determination that defendant is a level three risk is supported by clear and convincing evidence *(see People v Vacanti,*26 AD3d 732, 733 [2006], *lv denied*6 NY3d 714 [2006]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Lunn, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.
#### In re COLEMAN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 9, 1903.)

In the matter of the petition of Denis Coleman for leave to issue execution and sell certain real property.

No opinion. Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted. Questions to be certified to be settled on notice before Mr. Justice WILLARD BARTLETT.
#### § 248.3 Applicability.

The requirements of subparts B and C of this part apply to any project that is eligible low income housing, as defined in subparts B and C of this part respectively, on or after November 1, 1987, except that such requirements shall not apply to a project which receives assistance under title IV, subtitle B of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act in connection with a homeownership program approved by the Commissioner thereunder.
#### § 1007.60 Liability under guarantee.

The liability under a guarantee provided under this section shall decrease or increase on a pro rata basis according to any decrease or increase in the amount of the unpaid obligation under the provisions of the loan agreement involved.
§ 248.231 Incentives to extend low income use. The Commissioner may agree to provide one or more of the following incentives to induce the project owner to extend the low income use of the project, if the Commissioner determines that such incentives are warranted under the standards in § 248.233 of this part: ( a ) An increase in the allowable distribution, or other measures to increase the rate of return;
( b ) Revisions to the method of calculating equity;
( c ) Increased access to residual receipts funds or excess reserve for replacements funds;
( d ) Provision of insurance for an equity loan;
( e ) An increase in the rents permitted under an existing section 8 contract, within statutory and regulatory limits otherwise applicable, or (subject to the availability of amounts provided in appropriations Acts) additional assistance under section 8 or an extension of any project-based assistance attached to the housing;
( f ) Provision of a capital improvement loan;
( g ) Other actions to facilitate a transfer or sale of the housing to a qualified nonprofit organization, limited equity tenant cooperative, public agency, or other entity acceptable to the Commissioner, such as expedited review of a request for approval of a transfer of physical assets;
( h ) Provision of flexible subsidy assistance;
( i ) Termination of HUD's limitations on distributions, and release of residual receipts and reserve for replacements funds, through prepayment of the mortgage; and
( j ) Any other incentives for which the owner is eligible.
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

DEAN APOSTOL,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

TOM VILSACK,

Defendant(s).

_____________________________________/

No. C 09-01807 MEJ

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

 On January 13, 2010, Defendant filed three discovery dispute letters in this case. (Dkt. ##

16-18.) Upon review of the letters, the Court noted that two (Dkt. ##16-17) did not contain

Plaintiff’s position on the disputed issues, and in the third (Dkt. #18), Plaintiff requests a deadline

extension without providing any legal authority or reasoning for the request. As the letters did

not comply with the undersigned’s discovery standing order, the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve on

Defendant his portion of the joint letters by January 15, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. (Dkt. #19.) As to Docket

#18, which pertains to certain Social Security disability records, the Court informed Plaintiff that his

request for an extension shall not be granted without establishing good cause for the request. The

Court ordered Defendant to then file the joint letters by January 19, 2010. The Court warned

Plaintiff that if he failed to serve his portion of the joint letters by January 15, 2010, the Court would

consider the imposition of sanctions, including evidence exclusion.

The Court is now in receipt of Defendant’s resubmitted letters, in which Defendant states

that he has received no response from Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to

show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to comply with discovery

obligations, as well as his failure to comply with this Court’s January 14, 2010 Order. Plaintiff shall

file a declaration by January 28, 2010, and the Court shall conduct a hearing on February 4, 2010 at

10:00 a.m. in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 19, 2010 _______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:09-cv-01807-MEJ Document 23 Filed 01/19/10 Page 1 of 1
### §3796gg–10. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796gg–10 was editorially reclassified as section 10452 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2994 

To make qualified tuition programs permanent and to amend the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction for amounts contributed 

to qualified tuition programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 20, 2005 

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To make qualified tuition programs permanent and to amend 

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction 

for amounts contributed to qualified tuition programs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Securing Affordable 

5 Vocational and Collegiate Education (SAVE) Act of 

6 2005’’. 
2 

•HR 2994 IH 

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE SUNSET WITH RESPECT TO QUALI2 FIED TUITION PROGRAMS. 

3 Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 

4 Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall not apply to section 402 

5 of such Act. 

6 SEC. 3. DEDUCTION FOR PAYMENTS TO QUALIFIED TUI7 TION PROGRAMS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part VII of subchapter B of chap9 ter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 

10 additional itemized deductions for individuals) is amended 

11 by redesignating section 224 as section 225 and by insert12 ing after section 223 the following new section: 

13 ‘‘SEC. 224. PAYMENTS TO QUALIFIED TUITION PROGRAMS. 

14 ‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION.—In the case of an 

15 individual, there shall be allowed as a deduction an 

16 amount equal to the amount paid by the taxpayer during 

17 the taxable year to any qualified tuition program (as de18 fined in section 529) for the benefit of any designated ben19 eficiary (as defined in such section). 

20 ‘‘(b) DOLLAR LIMITATION.—The deduction allowed 

21 by subsection (a) for the taxable year shall not exceed 

22 $5,000 ($10,000 in the case of a joint return).’’. 

23 (b) DEDUCTION ALLOWED IN COMPUTING AD24 JUSTED GROSS INCOME.—Section 62(a) of such Code is 

25 amended by redesignating paragraph (19) (relating to 

26 costs involving discrimination suits, etc.) as paragraph 
3 

•HR 2994 IH 

1 (20) and by inserting after paragraph (20) the following 

2 new paragraph: 

3 ‘‘(21) PAYMENTS TO QUALIFIED TUITION PRO4 GRAMS.—The deduction allowed by section 224.’’. 

5 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sec6 tions for part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such 

7 Code is amended by redesignating the item relating to sec8 tion 224 as an item relating to section 225 and by insert9 ing after the item relating to section 223 the following 

10 new item: 

‘‘Sec. 224. Payments to qualified tuition programs.’’. 

11 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

13 December 31, 2004. 

Æ
### §2012. Authorization for appropriation

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior to carry out his responsibilities under this chapter not to exceed $500,000 for the fiscal year ending on September 30, 1978, and not to exceed $1,000,000 for the fiscal year ending on September 30, 1979.

(Pub. L. 95–617, title V, §512, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3164.)
#### § 241.900 No vested right in fund.

Neither the lender nor the borrower shall have any vested or other right in the General Insurance Fund.
§ 220.812 Notice of default. ( a ) If the default as defined in § 220.810 is not cured within the 30 day grace period, the lender shall, within 30 days thereafter, notify the Commissioner in writing of such default.
( b ) The lender shall give notice in writing to the Commissioner of the failure of the borrower to comply with any covenant or obligation under the security instrument or note regardless of the fact the lender may not have elected to accelerate the debt.