alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT EPSON AMERICA, INC. WITH PREJUDICE

CASE NO: 3:09-CV-00602-SI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORTHPEAK WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

3COM CORPORATION, et al,

Defendants.

Case No: 3:09-cv-00602-SI

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT EPSON AMERICA, INC. WITH PREJUDICE

Having considered Plaintiff NORTHPEAK WIRELESS, LLC.’S (“NorthPeak”) and 

Defendant EPSON AMERICA, INC.’s (“Epson”) Joint Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice 

as to claims and counterclaims asserted by NorthPeak and Epson, it is hereby

ORDERED that NorthPeak’s claims against Epson are dismissed with prejudice, with 

each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Epson’s counterclaims against NorthPeak are 

dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees.

Case 3:09-cv-00602-SI Document 631 Filed 12/28/15 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

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT EPSON AMERICA, INC. WITH PREJUDICE

CASE NO: 3:09-CV-00602-SI

SIGNED this _____ day of _________________, 2015.

___________________________________

The Honorable Susan Illston

United States District Judge

28th Dec.

Case 3:09-cv-00602-SI Document 631 Filed 12/28/15 Page 2 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

Case No. 4:09-cv-1816BZ Page 1 of 2 

REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF CMC

Christopher R. Miller (66862)

PHYSICIANS’ ADVOCATES

821 Bancroft Avenue

Berkeley, CA 94710

Tel: (510) 841-7500

Fax: (510) 841-5022

Attorneys for Defendants and Counter-Claimants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

ENCOMPASS HOLDINGS, INC., 

a Nevada corporation, J. SCOTT WEBBER,

an individual and in his representative

capacity, LARRY J. COOPER, an

individual, KIRK HURFORD an individual

and in is his representative capacity,

LUCAS VALLEY TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

 Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants,

v.

 CAREY F. DALY II, an individual, and

 RANDALL J. LANHAM, an individual,

Defendants and Counter-Claimants.

Case No. 4:09-cv-1816 BZ

REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Date: March 1, 2010

Time: 2:00 p.m.

____________________________________

Due to the necessity of having to review documents that number in excess of 17.000, the parties 

have not yet settled the pleadings on the schedule previously agreed. The First Amended 

Complaint was filed on January 25, 2010, and the Answer to First Amended Complaint and 

Counter-Claims is being filed today, March 1, 2010. For the foregoing reasons, the parties agree 

that it would not be a productive use of the Court’s time to hold the Case Management 

Conference, and respectfully request that it be continued for a period of at least 2 weeks to a date 

convenient to the Court.

Case 3:09-cv-01816-BZ Document 75 Filed 03/01/10 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

Case No. 4:09-cv-1816BZ Page 2 of 2 

REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF CMC

/s/__________________________________

PAUL E. MANASIAN

MANASIAN & ROUGEAU LLP

Attorney for Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants

ENCOMPASS HOLDINGS, INC., J. SCOTT 

WEBBER, LARRY J. COOPER, KIRK 

HURFORD and LUCAS VALLEY 

TECHNOLOGY, INC.

/s/__________________________________

CHRISTOPHER R. MILLER

PHYSICIANS’ ADVOCATES

Attorney for Defendants and Counter-Claimants 

CAREY F. DALY II and RANDALL J. LANHAM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

GRANTED

Judge Bernard Zimmerman

Case Management Conference is continued to 

March 15, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. Case 

Management statements are due 7 days prior 

to the Case Management Conference. 

Dated: 3/1/2010

Case 3:09-cv-01816-BZ Document 75 Filed 03/01/10 Page 2 of 2
#### § 290.1 Applicability.

The requirements of this part supplement the requirements of 12 U.S.C. 1701z-11 for the management and disposition of multifamily housing projects and the sale of HUD-held multifamily mortgages. The goals and objectives of this part are the same as the goals and objectives of 12 U.S.C. 1701z-11, which shall be referred to in this part as “the Statute.” With respect to the disposition of multifamily projects under subpart A, HUD may follow any other method of disposition, as determined by the Secretary.

[64 FR 72412, Dec. 27, 1999]
§ 125.107 Testers. The following requirements apply to testing activities funded under the FHIP: ( a ) Testers must receive training or be experienced in testing procedures and techniques.
( b ) Testers and the organizations conducting tests, and the employees and agents of these organizations may not: ( 1 ) Have an economic interest in the outcome of the test, without prejudice to the right of any person or entity to recover damages for any cognizable injury;
( 2 ) Be a relative of any party in a case;
( 3 ) Have had any employment or other affiliation, within one year, with the person or organization to be tested; or
( 4 ) Be a licensed competitor of the person or organization to be tested in the listing, rental, sale, or financing of real estate.
[60 FR 58452, Nov. 27, 1995, as amended at 89 FR 22942, Apr. 3, 2024]
§ 26.51 Interlocutory rulings. ( a ) *Interlocutory rulings by the ALJ.* A party seeking review of an interlocutory ruling shall file a motion with the ALJ within 10 days of the ruling requesting certification of the ruling for review by the Secretary. Certification may be granted if the ALJ believes that: ( 1 ) It involves an important issue of law or policy as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion; and
( 2 ) An immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.
( b ) *Petition for review.* Any party may file a petition for review of an interlocutory ruling within 10 days of the ALJ's determination regarding certification.
( c ) *Secretarial review.* The Secretary, or designee, shall review a certified ruling. The Secretary, or designee, has the discretion to grant or deny a petition for review from an uncertified ruling.
( d ) *Continuation of hearing.* Unless otherwise ordered by the ALJ or the Secretary, or designee, the hearing shall proceed pending the determination of any interlocutory appeal, and the order or ruling of the ALJ shall be effective pending review.
#### § 330.50 Administration of multiclass securities.

The GNMA guaranteed multiclass securities will be administered in accordance with the Association's requirements described in the Multiclass Guide.
NO. 07-08-0350-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL C

	SEPTEMBER 11, 2008

	______________________________

	IN RE RUBIO ROBERTO MONTENEGRO, RELATOR

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Relator, Rubio Roberto Montenegro, an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,1 seeks a writ of mandamus to compel Caroline Woodburn, the Potter County District Clerk, to perform her ministerial duty regarding his notice to sue certain plaintiffs for wrongful imprisonment.  He alleges, specifically, that she failed to endorse his petition with a file number, the date and time that it was filed, and affix her official signature thereto.  We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

	This Court has the authority to issue writs of mandamus against a judge of a district or county court in our district and all writs necessary to enforce our jurisdiction.  Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004).  In order for a district clerk to fall within our jurisdictional reach, it must be established that the issuance of the writ of mandamus is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction.  In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692-93 (Tex.App.–San Antonio 1998, no pet.).  Relator has not demonstrated that the exercise of our mandamus authority against the Potter County District Clerk is appropriate to enforce our jurisdiction.  Consequently, we have no authority to issue a writ of mandamus against the Potter County District Clerk.

	Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

							Patrick A. Pirtle

							      Justice
Second Department,

February, 1978

(February 22, 1978)*

#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Lee Higgs, Petitioner, v Superintendent Arthur Kill Correctional Facility et al., Respondents.*1146

*

 Not published with other decisions of February, 1978, 61 AD2d 782. [Rep.

Application by petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus, denied, without costs. Hopkins, J. P., Latham, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.
### §1708. Prices for sales copies of publications; crediting of receipts; resale by dealers; sales agents

The price at which additional copies of Government publications are offered for sale to the public by the Superintendent of Documents shall be based on the cost as determined by the Director of the Government Publishing Office plus 50 percent. A discount may be allowed as determined by the Superintendent of Documents, but the printing may not interfere with prompt execution of work for the Government.

The Superintendent of Documents may prescribe terms and conditions under which he authorizes the resale of Government publications by book dealers, and he may designate any Government officer his agent for the sale of Government publications under regulations agreed upon by the Superintendent of Documents and the head of the respective department or establishment of the Government.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1280; Pub. L. 95–94, title IV, §409(a), Aug. 5, 1977, 91 Stat. 683; Pub. L. 103–69, title II, §207(b), Aug. 11, 1993, 107 Stat. 708; Pub. L. 108–447, div. G, title I, §1301, Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 3191; Pub. L. 113–235, div. H, title I, §1301(c)(1), Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2537.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., §72a (June 30, 1932, ch. 314, §307, 47 Stat. 409).

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2014—Pub. L. 113–235 substituted "Director of the Government Publishing Office" for "Public Printer" in first par.

2004—Pub. L. 108–447, in first par., substituted "may be allowed as determined by the Superintendent of Documents" for "of not to exceed 25 percent may be allowed to book dealers and quantity purchasers".

1993—Pub. L. 103–69, in first par., struck out at end "Receipts from general sales of publications in excess of the total costs and expenses incurred in connection with the publication and sale thereof, as determined by the Public Printer, shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of miscellaneous receipts."

1977—Pub. L. 95–94 substituted "Receipts from general sales of publications in excess of the total costs and expenses incurred in connection with the publication and sale thereof, as determined by the Public Printer," for "Surplus receipts from sales".

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

#### Effective Date of 1993 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 103–69 effective Oct. 1, 1993, see section 207(c) of Pub. L. 103–69, set out as a note under section 309 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1977 Amendment

Pub. L. 95–94, title IV, §409(b), Aug. 5, 1977, 91 Stat. 683, provided that: "The amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall take effect on October 1, 1977."
### §§521, 522. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–272, §7(b), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1379

Section 521, Pub. L. 91–518, title II, §201, Oct. 30, 1970, 84 Stat. 1329, authorized report designating routes and basic service on intercity passenger system.

Section 522, Pub. L. 91–518, title II, §202, Oct. 30, 1970, 84 Stat. 1329, directed review of preliminary report of Secretary designating the basic system.
#### § 248.251 Consultation with other interested parties.

The Commissioner will confer with any appropriate State or local government agency to confirm any State or local assistance that is available to achieve the purposes of this part and will give consideration to the views of the State or local agency when making the determinations under §§ 248.221 and 248.233 of this part. The Commissioner also will confer with other interested parties that the Commissioner believes could assist in the development of a plan of action that best achieves the purposes of this part.
de sty

Parraguirre



### C 11,2 4 Cherry 

### Sunde v. Contel of California, 112 Nev. 541, 542-43, 915 P.2d 298, 299 (1996) (explaining that nonlawyers may not represent entities in court); 

### Salman v. Newell, 110 Nev. 1333, 1336, 885 P.2d 607, 608 (1994) (observing that no statute or rule permits a nonlawyer to represent an entity and concluding that an entity cannot proceed in proper person). As we do not allow laypersons to represent parties or entities and business entities are not permitted to appear or file documents in proper person, respondent's answer and all other motions and documents filed in the district court by respondent were improper and should have been stricken by the district court. 

### Stu's Bail Bonds, 115 Nev.at 436 n.1, 991 P.2d at 470 n.1; 

### Sunde, 112 Nev. at 542-43, 915 P.2d at 299; 

### Salman, 110 Nev. at 1336, 885 P.2d at 608. Respondent's motion to dismiss was, therefore, also improperly considered by the district court and the district court erred in considering and granting the motion. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.'


## /

"In light of this order, we deny as moot appellant's December 19, 2012, proper person motion.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A m3(t_ 111 2cc: Hon. Scott N. Freeman, District Judge Alexander Falconi Corazon Real Estate Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 3
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3169 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3169

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To provide the Secretary of Education with waiver authority for 
students who are eligible for Pell Grants who are adversely affected by 
                          a natural disaster.

    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 ``Pell Grant Hurricane and Disaster 
Relief Act''.

SEC. 2. WAIVERS OF FEDERAL PELL GRANT REPAYMENT BY STUDENTS AFFECTED BY 
              DISASTERS.

    Section 484B(b)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1091b(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(D) Waivers of federal pell grant repayment by 
                students affected by disasters.--The Secretary may 
                waive the amounts that students are required to return 
                under this section with respect to Federal Pell Grants 
                if the withdrawals on which the returns are based are 
                withdrawals by students--
                            ``(i) who were residing in, employed in, or 
                        attending an institution of higher education 
                        that is located in an area in which the 
                        President has declared that a major disaster 
                        exists, in accordance with section 401 of the 
                        Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
                        Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170);
                            ``(ii) whose attendance was interrupted 
                        because of the impact of the disaster on the 
                        student or the institution; and
                            ``(iii) whose withdrawal ended within the 
                        academic year during which the designation 
                        occurred or during the next succeeding academic 
                        year.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 7, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 3169

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

    To provide the Secretary of Education with waiver authority for 
students who are eligible for Pell Grants who are adversely affected by 
                          a natural disaster.
```
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19D0142. NEVILLE CURTIS TURNBULL v. THE STATE.

A jury found Neville Turnbull guilty of aggravated child molestation,

aggravated sodomy, rape and child molestation, and his convictions were affirmed in

an unpublished decision. See Turnbull v. State, Case Number A13A1846, decided

Jan. 9, 2014. Turnbull subsequently filed an extraordinary motion for new trial on

newly discovered evidence, which the trial court denied on September 14, 2018.

Turnbull then filed this application for discretionary appeal on October 16, 2018,

seeking review of that order. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

An application for discretionary appeal must be filed within 30 days of the

entry of the order or judgment to be appealed. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). The

requirements of OCGA § 5-6-35 are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an

application for appeal made beyond 30 days. See Boyle v. State, 190 Ga. App. 734,

734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989). Here, Turnbull filed his application 32 days after the trial

court’s order was entered. Accordingly, the application is untimely and is hereby

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

November 15, 2018

11/15/2018
```

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 232 (Wednesday, December 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77480-77481]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26540]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Delegation of Authority No.492]

Delegation of the Authority To Submit to the Congress Certain 
Notifications and Explanations Relating to the Voluntary Offer 
Agreement

    By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State, 
including Section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act, as 
amended (22 U.S.C. 2651a) and the Presidential Memorandum dated 
September 2, 2020, relating to Section 1 of the July 2, 1980, Senate 
Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification of the Agreement 
between the United States of America and the International Atomic 
Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards in the United States of 
America, with attached Protocol, signed at Vienna on November 18, 1977 
(the ``Voluntary Offer Agreement''), I hereby delegate to the Assistant 
Secretary for International Security and Nonproliferation, to the 
extent authorized by law, the authority to provide to the Congress the 
notifications and explanations specified in Section 1 of the Senate's 
Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification of the Voluntary Offer 
Agreement.
    Any act, executive order, regulation, or procedure subject to, or 
affected by, this delegation shall be deemed to be such act, executive 
order, regulation, or procedure as amended from time to time. The 
Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, and the Under Secretary for Arms 
Control and International Security may at any time exercise any 
authority

[[Page 77481]]

or function delegated by this delegation of authority.
    This delegation of authority does not amend, supersede, or affect 
the validity of any other delegation of authority dealing with 
submission of reports to the Congress. This delegation of authority 
shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: November 3, 2020.
Michael R. Pompeo,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2020-26540 Filed 12-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-27- P
```
### §618h. Termination of existing lease of Hoover Power Plant; lessees as agents of United States; termination of agency

The Secretary is authorized to negotiate for and enter into a contract for the termination of the existing lease of the Hoover Power Plant made pursuant to the Project Act [43 U.S.C. 617 et seq.], and in the event of such termination the operation and maintenance, and the making of replacements, however necessitated, of the Hoover Power Plant by the United States, directly or through such agent or agents as the Secretary may designate, is authorized. The powers, duties, and rights of such agent or agents shall be provided by contract, which may include provision that questions relating to the interpretation or performance thereof may be determined, to the extent provided therein, by arbitration or court proceedings. The Secretary in consideration of such termination of such existing lease is authorized to agree (a) that the lessees therein named shall be designated as the agents of the United States for the operation of said power plant; (b) that (except by mutual consent or in accordance with such provisions for termination for default as may be specified therein) such agency contract shall not be revocable or terminable; and (c) that suits or proceedings to restrain the termination of any such agency contract, otherwise than as therein provided, or for other appropriate equitable relief or remedies, may be maintained against the Secretary. Suits or other court proceedings pursuant to the foregoing provisions may be maintained in, and jurisdiction to hear and determine such suits or proceedings and to grant such relief or remedies is conferred upon, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, with the like right of appeal or review as in other like suits or proceedings in said court. The Secretary is authorized to act for the United States in such arbitration proceedings.

(July 19, 1940, ch. 643, §9, 54 Stat. 777; Apr. 30, 1947, ch. 46, 61 Stat. 56; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, §32(b), 62 Stat. 991; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, §127, 63 Stat. 107.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Project Act, referred to in text, is defined in section 618k of this title.

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

#### Change of Name

"United States District Court for the District of Columbia" substituted in text for "the district court of the United States for the District of Columbia" on authority of act June 25, 1948, as amended by act May 24, 1949.

"Hoover Power Plant" substituted for "Boulder Power Plant" on authority of act Apr. 30, 1947, which changed name of Boulder Dam to Hoover Dam.
#### § 35.500 Purpose and applicability.

The purpose of this subpart F is to establish procedures to eliminate as far as practicable lead-based paint hazards in HUD-owned single family properties that have been built before 1978 and are sold with mortgages insured under a program administered by HUD. The requirements of this subpart apply to any such residential properties offered for sale on or after September 15, 2000.