alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### F. M. Hoyt Company, appellee, v. M. J. Kaszeski, appellant.

Gen. No. 27,781.

Action on claim for goods sold and delivered. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Arnold Heap, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed June 20, 1923.

Leander D. Condee, for appellant; Orville W. Lee, of counsel. Henry H. Koven and Max M. Rappaport, for appellee; Sol W. Harris, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice Thomson

delivered the opinión of the court.
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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP TEMPLE, on behalf of himself

individually and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

GUARDSMARK LLC, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-02124 SI

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO

SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD,

SUBMITTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOTION ON THE BRIEFS, AND

CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE

Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on plaintiff’s uniform reimbursement claim

is currently set for oral argument on March 26, 2010. Defendant’s motion references a prior class action

lawsuit in the Sonoma County Superior Court entitled Morris v. Guardsmark, Inc., Case No. 233252.

Defendant states that the prior lawsuit raised uniform reimbursement claims similar to plaintiff’s claims

in this case, and that defendant changed its payment policy after reaching a settlement with the plaintiffs

in Morris. Although defendant has filed a copy of the judgment entered in Morris, defendant has not

provided the Court with a copy of the actual Stipulation of Settlement in that case, or any other

documents which would demonstrate what issues were decided in that case. 

The Court wishes to see the terms of the Morris settlement before ruling on defendant’s

summary judgment motion. Defendant is hereby directed to supplement the record with a copy of the

Stipulation of Settlement from Morris, to be filed electronically no later than March 26, 2010 at 2:00

p.m. The March 26, 2010 hearing on defendant’s motion for summary judgment is hereby VACATED

and the matter will be taken under submission upon receipt of defendant’s supplemental submission.

Case 3:09-cv-02124-SI Document 48 Filed 03/24/10 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

2

The case management conference currently scheduled for March 26, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. is hereby

CONTINUED to April 9, 2010 at 3:00 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02124-SI Document 48 Filed 03/24/10 Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Veterans Affairs

# AGENCY:

Office of Research and Development, VA. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Government-owned invention available for licensing. 

# SUMMARY:

The invention listed below is owned by the U.S. Government as represented by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and is available for licensing in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 and 37 CFR part 404 and/or Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA) Collaboration under 15 U.S.C. 3710a to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally funded research and development. Foreign patents are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for U.S. companies and may also be available for licensing. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Technical and licensing information on the invention may be obtained by writing to: Robert W. Potts, Department of Veterans Affairs, Director Technology Transfer Program, Office of Research and Development, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420; fax: (202) 254-0260; e-mail:                         *bob.potts@hq.med.va.gov*. Any request for information should include the number and title for the relevant invention as indicated below. Issued patents may be obtained from the Commissioner of Patents, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, DC 20231.                     

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The invention available for licensing is: 

International Patent Application No. PCT/US03/07934 “Methods and Compositions Using Cellular Asialodeterminants and Glycoconjugates for Targeting Cells to Tissues and Organs.” 

Dated: December 17, 2004. 

Anthony J. Principi, 

Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 04-28364 Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
Case 3:09-cv-01363-EMC Document 32 Filed 04/05/10 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:09-cv-01363-EMC Document 32 Filed 04/05/10 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:09-cv-01363-EMC Document 32 Filed 04/05/10 Page 3 of 3
### §390h–23. Southern California desert region integrated water and economic sustainability plan

#### (a) Authorization

The Secretary, in cooperation with the Mojave Water Agency is authorized to participate in the design, planning, and construction of projects to implement the "Mojave Water Agency's Integrated Regional Water Management Plan".

#### (b) Cost share

The Federal share of the costs of the projects authorized by this section shall not exceed 25 percent of the total cost.

#### (c) Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, $20,000,000.

(Pub. L. 102–575, title XVI, §16——, as added Pub. L. 110–161, div. C, title II, §214(a), Dec. 26, 2007, 121 Stat. 1955.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is based on section "16——" of Pub. L. 102–575. Two other sections "16——" of Pub. L. 102–575 have been enacted and are classified to sections 390h–21 and 390h–22 of this title.

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

#### Limitation on Funds; Credits Toward Non-Federal Share

Pub. L. 110–161, div. C, title II, §214(c), (d), Dec. 26, 2007, 121 Stat. 1956, provided that:

"(c) Limitation.—The Secretary [of the Interior] shall not provide funds for the operation or maintenance of a project authorized by this section [enacting this section].

"(d) Credits Toward Non-Federal Share.—For purposes of subsection (b) [probably means subsec. (b) of this section] the Secretary shall credit the Mojave Water Agency with the value of all expenditures made prior to the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 26, 2007] that are used toward completion of projects that are compatible with this section."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          37,259
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,693
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                94,262
<PP&E>                                          11,657
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,899)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 102,517
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           88,778
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           151
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,494
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   102,517
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                81,315
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   80,944
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,269)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,640
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,640
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,640
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10
        

</TABLE>
#### Elizabeth Burcham and W. J. Burcham, appellees, v. J. A. Bowman and Thomas Hogg, copartners, appellants.

Gen. No. 7,195.

Action against manufacturers of graphophones on contract for purchase of new graphophone for which old machine was to be taken in part payment. Judgment for plaintiffs. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Stark county; the Hon. Charles V. Miles, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1923.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed August 13, 1923.

J. H. Rennick, for appellants. Brian & McManus, for appellees.

Mr. Presiding Justice Partlow

delivered the opinion of the court.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44316

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

LOREN R. JENSEN ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 333

Filed: January 26, 2017

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for possession of methamphetamine, affirmed

.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Be fore GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Loren R. Jensen pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine , Idaho Code § 37

- 2732(c)(1) . The district court imposed a unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum period
of confinement of three years

. Jensen appeals, contending that the district court abused its
discretion by declining to retain jurisdiction and that his sentence is excessive.
The primary purpose of the retained jurisdiction program is to enable the trial court to
obtain additional information regarding the defendant’s rehabilitative potential and suitability for
probation, and probation is the ultim ate objective of a defendant who is on retained jurisdiction.2

State v. Chapel , 107 Idaho 193, 687 P.2d 583 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565,
567, 650 P.2d 707, 709 (Ct. App. 1982). There can be no abuse of discretion in a trial court’s
refusal to retain jurisdiction if the court already has sufficient information upon which to

conclude that the defendant is not a suitable cand idate for probation. State v. Beebe , 113 Idaho
977, 979, 751 P.2d 673, 675 (Ct. App. 1988); Toohill , 103 Idaho at 567, 650 P.2d at 709. Based
upon the information that was before the district court at the time of sentencing, we hold that the

district cou rt did not abuse its discretion when it declined to retain jurisdiction in this case.
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence ar e well established and
need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.
1984); Toohill , 103 Idaho at 568, 650 P.2d at 71 0 . When reviewing the length of a sentence, we

consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391
(2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say

that the distric t court abused its discretion.
Therefore, Jensen ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
#### In the Matter of Frederick S. Carr, Appellant, v. Paul D. McGinnis, as Commissioner of Correction of the State of New York, Respondent.

Motion by appellant for leave to appeal as a poor person denied. The papers submitted on this motion fail to show any merit in the appeal. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Pette, JJ., concur.
#### Theresa Brusca, Respondent, v Robert Maschino, Doing Business as All Suffolk Painting & Decorating Company, Appellant.

In a proceeding to vacate a mechanic’s lien, defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered June 2, 1977, which, upon his default, denied his motion (a) to be relieved of a prior default and (b) for leave to interpose an answer and (2) a further order of the same court, dated July 5, 1977, which, *inter alia,*denied his renewal motion for the same relief. Appeal from the order entered June 2, 1977 dismissed, without costs or disbursements. No appeal lies from an order made on default. Order dated July 5, 1977 reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted. There is no inherent power in a court to discharge a mechanic’s lien independent of statutory authority *(Benton v Wickwire,*54 NY 226; *Madden v Lennon,*23 Misc 79). On the record before it, Special Term had no statutory basis upon which to vacate the lien; strict compliance with the Lien Law is necessary for a vacatur. Moreover, it was an abuse of discretion for Special Term not to open the default since defendant presented a viable excuse. Martuscello, J. P., Titone, Gulotta and Hawkins, JJ., concur.
### §9871. Authorization of appropriations

For the purpose of making allotments to States to carry out the activities described in section 9874 of this title, there is authorized to be appropriated $13,000,000 for fiscal year 1995.

(Pub. L. 97–35, title VI, §670A, as added Pub. L. 98–558, title I, §109, Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2880; amended Pub. L. 99–425, title III, §301, Sept. 30, 1986, 100 Stat. 967; Pub. L. 101–501, title III, §301, Nov. 3, 1990, 104 Stat. 1248; Pub. L. 103–252, title I, §122, May 18, 1994, 108 Stat. 650.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–252 substituted "is authorized to be appropriated $13,000,000 for fiscal year 1995" for "are authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1990 and 1991, and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1992, 1993, and 1994".

1990—Pub. L. 101–501 substituted "are authorized" for "is authorized", struck out "1987, 1988, 1989, and" before "1990", and inserted "and 1991, and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1992, 1993, and 1994" after "1990".

1986—Pub. L. 99–425 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows: "For the purpose of allotments to States to carry out the activities described in section 9874 of this title, there are authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1985 and 1986."

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

#### Effective Date of 1994 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 103–252 effective May 18, 1994, but not applicable to Head Start agencies and other recipients of financial assistance under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.) until Oct. 1, 1994, see section 127 of Pub. L. 103–252, set out as a note under section 9832 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1990 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 101–501 effective Oct. 1, 1990, see section 1001(a) of Pub. L. 101–501, set out as a note under section 8621 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–425 effective Oct. 1, 1986, see section 1001 of Pub. L. 99–425, set out as a note under section 8621 of this title.

#### Short Title

For short title of this subchapter as the "State Dependent Care Development Grants Act", see section 670H of Pub. L. 97–35, set out as a note under section 9801 of this title.
### §3505. Seal

The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services is authorized to adopt an official seal to be used as directed by the said Secretary on appropriate occasions in connection with the functions of such Department or of any office, bureau, board, or establishment which is or shall hereafter become a part of such Department, and such seal shall be judicially noticed. Copies of any books, records, papers, or other documents in the Department of Health and Human Services shall be admitted in evidence equally with the originals thereof when authenticated under such seal.

(May 9, 1941, ch. 97, 55 Stat. 184; 1953 Reorg. Plan No. I, §5, eff. Apr. 11, 1953, 18 F.R. 2053, 67 Stat. 631; Pub. L. 96–88, title V, §509(b), Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 695.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 623d of former Title 5, Executive Departments and Government Officers and Employees, prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, by Pub. L. 89–554, §1, Sept. 1, 1966, 80 Stat. 378.

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

#### Change of Name

"Secretary of Health and Human Services" and "Department of Health and Human Services" substituted in text for "Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare" and "Department of Health, Education, and Welfare", respectively, pursuant to section 509(b) of Pub. L. 96–88, which is classified to section 3508(b) of Title 20, Education.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Functions of Federal Security Administrator transferred to Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and all agencies of Federal Security Agency transferred to Department of Health, Education, and Welfare by section 5 of Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1953, set out as a note under section 3501 of this title. Federal Security Agency and office of Administrator abolished by section 8 of Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1953.

#### Creation of Federal Security Agency

The Federal Security Agency was created by Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1939, §201, eff. July 1, 1939, 4 F.R. 2727, 53 Stat. 1423, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
### §466. Surveys to correct errors or inequalities in original basis of project

On each project existing prior to December 5, 1924, where, in the opinion of the Secretary, it appears that on account of lack of fertility in the soil, an inadequate water supply, or other physical causes, settlers are unable to pay construction costs, or whenever it appears that the cost of any reclamation project by reason of error or mistake or for any cause has been apportioned or charged upon a smaller area of land than the total area of land under said project, the Secretary is authorized to undertake a comprehensive and detailed survey to ascertain all pertinent facts, and report in each case the result of such survey to the Congress, with his recommendations: Provided, That the cost and expense of each such survey shall be charged to the appropriation for the project on account of which the same is made, but shall not be charged as a part of the construction or operation and maintenance cost payable by the water users under the project.

(Dec. 5, 1924, ch. 4, §4, subsec. K, 43 Stat. 703.)

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

#### Definitions

The definitions in section 371 of this title apply to this section.
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

NOTICE OF NON-SETTLEMENT

3962935.1 -- AL109.W383

Katy Sullivan

In Pro Per

2628 Sutter Street, #B

San Francisco, California 94115

Telephone: (510) 551-6885

Attorneys for Plaintiff

KATY SULLIVAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KATY SULLIVAN, also known as KATY 

MARIE SULLIVAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA, 

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, National 

Association, BANK OF AMERICA, 

National Association, CALIFORNIA 

RECONVEYANCE COMPANY; and 

DOES 1 through 50, inclusive Defendants.

Case No. 3:09-cv-02161 EMC

NOTICE OF NON-SETTLEMENT

Dept: 5 - 17th Floor

Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen

Action Filed: 4/22/09

IT IS HEREBY NOTICED that the parties have not finalized critical terms of the 

settlement. Specifically, Plaintiff has not received the Loan Modification Agreement. Plaintiff 

respectfully requests that the court extends the action without dismissal a further 90 days in order 

for Defense counsel to provide Plaintiff with the Loan Modification Agreement. Plaintiff further 

requests that the finalized Loan Modification Agreement be filed with the court.

Dated: April 27, 2015 Plaintiff, In Pro Per

_/s/Katy Sullivan________________________

Katy Sullivan

Case 3:09-cv-02161-EMC Document 147 Filed 04/30/15 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

NOTICE OF NON-SETTLEMENT

3962935.1 -- AL109.W383

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: , 2015

By: ____________________________________

Hon. Edward Chen

4/30

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:09-cv-02161-EMC Document 147 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 2
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3061

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the dollar limitation 

on contributions to funeral trusts. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 24, 2005

Mr. CHOCOLA (for himself and Mr. MATHESON) 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 repeal 

the dollar limitation on contributions to funeral trusts.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF DOLLAR LIMITATION ON CON4 TRIBUTIONS TO FUNERAL TRUSTS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c) of section 685 of 

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to treatment 

7 of funeral trusts) is repealed. 

8 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subsections (d), 

9 (e), and (f) of such section are redesignated as subsections 

10 (c), (d), and (e), respectively. 
2

•HR 3061 IH 

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2005.

Æ