alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Stephen N. Hart, Respondent, v Hanson, Fassler, Kolody, Inc., Appellant.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 14, 1977, insofar as it denied defendant’s request for an order striking certain of plaintiff’s interrogatories and denied a protective order prohibiting the right to depose a nonparty witness, unanimously modified, on the facts, by striking plaintiff’s Interrogatories Nos. 6 through 8, 11 through 14, 32(b) and (c), and 37(b) and (c), and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Items Nos. 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13 do not have any material bearing on plaintiff’s causes of action for breach of the alleged oral agreement for commission compensation or for wrongful discharge. Plaintiff has withdrawn Item No. 14. Items Nos. 32(b) and (c) and 37(b) and (c) are unduly *961broad and burdensome, and also do not have a bearing on plaintiffs causes of action, and in addition are adequately covered in Interrogatories Nos. 26 and 27. There are special circumstances for the deposition of the nonparty witness, as set out in plaintiffs affidavit *(Villano v Conde Nast Pub.,*46 AD2d 118). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Birns, Fein, Lane and Lynch, JJ.
Exhibit 99.2

**** 

**Report Of Independent**

**Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

To the Board of Directors

Structured Obligations Corporation

New York, New York

 

 

We have examined the compliance of Structured Obligations Corporation (Depositor) and U.S. Bank National Association (Trustee) with the Base Trust Agreement and the Select Notes Trust Supplement LT 2004-1 (the Agreements) relating to the administration of the underlying securities and related credit support deposited in or held by the Select Notes Trust LT 2004-1 for the year ended December 31, 2010. Depositor’s management is responsible for compliance with those requirements. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance with the Agreements based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about Depositor’s and Trustee’s compliance with those requirements described above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination of Depositor’s and Trustee’s compliance with specified requirements.

 

In our opinion, Depositor and Trustee complied, in all material respects, with the requirements described above of the Agreements for the year ended December 31, 2010.

 

This report is intended solely for the information and use of Structured Obligations Corporation, U.S. Bank National Association, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Certificate Holders of the Select Notes Trust LT 2004-1, and is not intended to be, and should not be used by anyone other than those specified parties.

 

 

        /s/ RubinBrown LLP         

 

Overland Park, Kansas 

February 28, 2011

 

 

----
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Marie Lewis, Respondent, v. Avcord Realty Corporation, Appellant. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Application for an order extending the time limited to perfect the appeal and for permission to appeal as a poor person. Upon condition. that on or before June 1, 1962 appellant shall secure the payment of the award and future *859awards by deposit of cash in the amount of $2,250 or the posting of bond in that amount with the Workmen’s Compensation Board; the order of conditional dismissal entered February 9, 1962 will be amended to provide that the appeal herein be dismissed without costs unless appellant shall file and serve record, brief and note of issue for the September 1962 Term on or before July 2, 1962. Motion in all other respects denied. Appellant’s attention is invited to rule VII of the rules of this court.
### §1456a. Repealed. Pub. L. 95–164, title III, §306(b), Nov. 9, 1977, 91 Stat. 1322

Section, Pub. L. 93–153, title IV, §405, Nov. 16, 1973, 87 Stat. 590, provided for appointment by the President of head of Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective 120 days after Nov. 9, 1977, see section 307 of Pub. L. 95–164, set out as an Effective Date of 1977 Amendment note under section 801 of Title 30, Mineral Lands and Mining.
### §280h–1. Applied research program

#### (a) In general

The Secretary, acting through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and in consultation with the Director of the National Institutes of Health, shall—

(1) conduct research to better understand the relationship between physical activity, diet, and health and factors that influence health-related behaviors;

(2) develop and evaluate strategies for the prevention and treatment of obesity to be used in community-based interventions and by health professionals;

(3) develop and evaluate strategies for the prevention and treatment of eating disorders, such as anorexia and bulimia;

(4) conduct research to establish the prevalence, consequences, and costs of childhood obesity and its effects in adulthood;

(5) identify behaviors and risk factors that contribute to obesity;

(6) evaluate materials and programs to provide nutrition education to parents and teachers of children in child care or pre-school and the food service staff of such child care and pre-school entities; and

(7) evaluate materials and programs that are designed to educate and encourage physical activity in child care and pre-school facilities.

#### (b) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, §399X, as added Pub. L. 106–310, div. A, title XXIV, §2401, Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1159.)
#### § 203.317 Termination by voluntary agreement.

The contract of insurance shall be terminated if the mortgagor and mortgagee jointly request termination.
### §1607. Village Corporations

#### (a) Organization of Corporation prerequisite to receipt of patent to lands or benefits under chapter

The Native residents of each Native village entitled to receive lands and benefits under this chapter shall organize as a business for profit or nonprofit corporation under the laws of the State before the Native village may receive patent to lands or benefits under this chapter, except as otherwise provided.

#### (b) Regional Corporation: approval of initial articles; review and approval of amendments to articles and annual budgets; assistance in preparation of articles and other documents

The initial articles of incorporation for each Village Corporation shall be subject to the approval of the Regional Corporation for the region in which the village is located. Amendments to the articles of incorporation and the annual budgets of the Village Corporations shall, for a period of five years, be subject to review and approval by the Regional Corporation. The Regional Corporation shall assist and advise Native villages in the preparation of articles of incorporation and other documents necessary to meet the requirements of this subsection.

#### (c) Applicability of section 1606

The provisions of subsections (g), (h) (other than paragraph (4)), and (o) of section 1606 of this title shall apply in all respects to Village Corporations, Urban Corporations, and Group Corporations.

(Pub. L. 92–203, §8, Dec. 18, 1971, 85 Stat. 694; Pub. L. 96–487, title XIV, §1401(b), Dec. 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 2492; Pub. L. 100–241, §6, Feb. 3, 1988, 101 Stat. 1795; Pub. L. 104–10, §1(b), May 18, 1995, 109 Stat. 157.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1995—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 104–10 substituted "(h) (other than paragraph (4))" for "(h)".

1988—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 100–241 amended subsec. (c) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (c) read as follows: "The provisions concerning stock alienation, annual audit, and transfer of stock ownership on death or by court decree provided for regional corporations in section 1606 of this title, including the provisions of section 1606(h)(3) of this title shall apply to Village Corporations Urban Corporations and Native Groups; except that audits need not be transmitted to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives or to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate."

1980—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 96–487 inserted provision making provisions of section 1606 of this title, including section 1606(h)(3) of this title, applicable to Village Corporations, Urban Corporations, and Native Groups and substituted provision that audits need not be transmitted to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate for provision that audits need not be transmitted to the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3049

To amend section 42 of title 18, United States Code, popularly known 

as the Lacey Act, to add certain species of carp to the list of injurious 

species that are prohibited from being imported or shipped. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 23, 2005

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To amend section 42 of title 18, United States Code, popularly known as the Lacey Act, to add certain species 

of carp to the list of injurious species that are prohibited 

from being imported or shipped.

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 ‘‘Asian Carp Prevention 

5 and Control Act’’. 
2

•HR 3049 IH 

1 SEC. 2. ADDITION OF SPECIES OF CARP TO THE LIST OF IN2 JURIOUS SPECIES THAT ARE PROHIBITED 

3 FROM BEING IMPORTED OR SHIPPED. 

4 Section 42(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 

5 amended by inserting after ‘‘Dreissena polymorpha;’’ the 

6 following: ‘‘of the black carp of the species 

7 Mylopharyngodon piceus; of the bighead carp of the spe8 cies Hypophthalmichthys nobilis; of the silver carp of the 

9 species Hypophthalmichthys molitrix; of the largescale sil10 ver carp of the species Hypophthalmichthys harmandi;’’.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Roberto RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-50376.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 9, 2007 *.

Filed March 14, 2007.

*473Anna Lou Tirol, Esq., USSD — Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michelle D. Anderson, Esq., Law Offices of Michelle D. Anderson, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: RYMER, WARDLAW, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Roberto Rodriguez appeals his sentence after pleading guilty without a plea agreement to a charge of importation of almost 100 kilograms of marijuana. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court did not err in refusing to grant Rodriguez a decrease in his offense level based on a minor role under USSG § 3B1.2. We review a district court’s application of the sentencing guidelines for abuse of discretion. *United States v. Rojas-Millan,*234 F.3d 464, 472 (9th Cir.2000). “The defendant has the burden of proving that he is entitled to a downward adjustment based on his role in the offense by a preponderance of the evidence.” *United States v. Rosales-Rodriguez,*289 F.3d 1106, 1112 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting *United States v. Davis,*36 F.3d 1424, 1436 (9th Cir.1994)). Here, the district court applied the proper legal standard, and correctly noted that “the fact that a defendant acted as a drug courier does not necessarily mean that his role was minimal or minor.” (citing *Davis,*36 F.3d at 1436). Significant evidence weighed against finding that Rodriguez played a minor role. He admitted driving two different load vehicles across the border and was paid large sums of money. Rodriguez knowingly transported a large volume of narcotics in the load vehicles. He also participated in filling out DMV documents for one of the two load vehicles. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that this evidence outweighed any evidence suggesting that Rodriguez played a minor role.

Even assuming that the footnote in Rodriguez’s Sentencing Memorandum was sufficient to preserve the vindictive prosecution claim, no such claim is established here. Unlike the situation where the government files additional charges or seeks a sentencing enhancement by filing an information alleging prior convictions, *cf. United States v. Gamez-Orduño,*235 F.3d 453, 462 (9th Cir.2000), the decision whether or not to make a role adjustment is entirely within the court’s, and not the government prosecutor’s, discretion.

*474Accordingly, the sentence is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1

 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION DEADLINE 

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

Michael W. Barrett, City Attorney, State Bar No. 155968 

David C. Jones, Deputy City Attorney, State Bar No. 129881 

NAPA CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 

CITY OF NAPA 

P.O. Box 660 

955 School Street 

Napa, CA 94559 

Telephone: (707) 257-9516 

Fax: (707) 257-9274 

Gregory M. Fox, State Bar No. 070876 

BERTRAND, FOX & ELLIOT 

The Waterfront Building 

2749 Hyde Street 

San Francisco, California 94109 

Telephone: (415) 353-0999 

Facsimile: (415) 353-0990 

Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF NAPA, POLICE CHIEF RICHARD MELTON 

And OFFICER GARTH BENDER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LUZ HERNANDEZ, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

CITY OF NAPA, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 Case No.: C09-2782 EDL

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CONTINUING THE EARLY NEUTRAL 

EVALUATION (ENE) DEADLINE 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties hereto, through their respective undersigned 

attorneys of record, that the date for completion of the Early Neutral Evaluation, currently set by the 

Court for April 1, 2010, be continued to April 30, 2010. The parties, in cooperation with the ENE 

Evaluator Patrick Robbins have agreed on April 22 2010 as a mutually convenient date for the ENE. 

The parties were unable to agree on a mutually convenient date for March because of calendar 

conflicts and the first date available to all parties and the ENE Evaluator was April 22. The parties 

have continued cooperating in discovery matters. 

So Stipulated: 

Case 3:09-cv-02782-EDL Document 61 Filed 03/23/10 Page 1 of 2 Case3:09-cv-02782-EDL Document60 Filed03/22/10 Page1 of 2
2

 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION DEADLINE 

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

Dated: March 19, 2010 LAW OFFICES OF TIM A. PORI 

 By: /s/ 

TIM A. PORI 

Attorneys for Plaintiff LUZ HERNANDEZ 

Dated: March19, 2010 MEYERS NAVE RIBACK SILVER & WILSON

 By: /s/ 

KEVIN E. GILBERT 

Attorneys for Defendant JOHN HALLMAN 

Dated: March19, 2010 BERTRAND, FOX & ELLIOT 

 By: /s/ 

GREGORY M. FOX 

Attorneys for Defendants

CITY OF NAPA, RICHARD MELTON, and 

GARTH BENDER 

ATTORNEY ATTESTATION 

I hereby attest that I have on file all holograph signatures for any signatures indicated by a 

conformed signature (“/s/”) within this E-filed document. 

Dated: March 19, 2010 /s/ 

 Gregory M. Fox 

ORDER

 Good cause appearing, 

 THE STIPULATION IS SO ORDERED. The time to complete ENE in the above captioned 

matter is extended to April 30, 2010. 

Dated: ___________________, 2010 __________________________________________ 

 Honorable Elizabeth D. Laporte 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case3:09-cv-02782-EDL Document60 Filed03/22/10 Page2 of 2

March 23

Case 3:09-cv-02782-EDL Document 61 Filed 03/23/10 Page 2 of 2
### §§681 to 687. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–193, title I, §108(e), Aug. 22, 1996, 110 Stat. 2167

Section 681, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title IV, §481, as added Oct. 13, 1988, Pub. L. 100–485, title II, §201(b), 102 Stat. 2360, related to purpose of part and definitions.

Section 682, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title IV, §482, as added Oct. 13, 1988, Pub. L. 100–485, title II, §201(b), 102 Stat. 2360; amended Oct. 31, 1994, Pub. L. 103–432, title II, §241(a), 108 Stat. 4466, related to establishment and operation of State programs.

Section 683, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title IV, §483, as added Oct. 13, 1988, Pub. L. 100–485, title II, §201(b), 102 Stat. 2369, related to coordination of Federal and State programs.

Section 684, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title IV, §484, as added Oct. 13, 1988, Pub. L. 100–485, title II, §201(b), 102 Stat. 2370, related to provisions generally applicable to provision of services.

Section 685, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title IV, §485, as added Oct. 13, 1988, Pub. L. 100–485, title II, §201(b), 102 Stat. 2371, related to contract authority.

Section 686, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title IV, §486, as added Oct. 13, 1988, Pub. L. 100–485, title II, §201(b), 102 Stat. 2372, related to initial State evaluations.

Section 687, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title IV, §487, as added Oct. 13, 1988, Pub. L. 100–485, title II, §203(b), 102 Stat. 2378; amended Oct. 31, 1994, Pub. L. 103–432, title II, §242, 108 Stat. 4466, related to performance standards.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective July 1, 1997, with transition rules relating to State options to accelerate such date, rules relating to claims, actions, and proceedings commenced before such date, rules relating to closing out of accounts for terminated or substantially modified programs and continuance in office of Assistant Secretary for Family Support, and provisions relating to termination of entitlement under AFDC program, see section 116 of Pub. L. 104–193, as amended, set out as an Effective Date note under section 601 of this title.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 292 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 292

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to increase the amount of the 
           military death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 20, 2005

    Mr. Bachus (for himself, Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr. Tom Davis of 
Virginia, Mr. Young of Florida, Ms. Hooley, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Moran of 
 Kansas, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, 
    Mr. Baca, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Weller, Mr. 
 Tancredo, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Leach, Ms. Lee, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Chandler, 
Mr. Otter, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Olver, Mr. Baker, Mr. Shays, 
 Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Doggett, Mr. 
  Filner, Mr. Beauprez, Mr. Cole of Oklahoma, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Gene 
Green of Texas, Mr. Gutierrez, Ms. Herseth, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Holt, Mrs. 
 Jones of Ohio, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Kind, Mrs. Maloney, Mrs. McCarthy, Mr. 
  McDermott, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr. Payne, Mr. Scott of 
   Georgia, Mr. Spratt, Mr. Stupak, Mrs. Tauscher, and Mr. Aderholt) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to increase the amount of the 
           military death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000.

    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 ``Military Death Benefit Improvement 
Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN DEATH GRATUITY PAYABLE WITH RESPECT TO MEMBERS OF 
              THE ARMED FORCES.

    (a) Amount of Death Gratuity.--Section 1478(a) of title 10, United 
States Code, is amended by striking ``$12,000'' and inserting 
``$100,000''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to deaths occurring on or after September 11, 2001.
    (c) Funding.--
            (1) Source of funds.--Amounts for the payment during fiscal 
        year 2005 of death gratuities by a Secretary concerned under 
        sections 1475 through 1477 of title 10, United States Code, as 
        amended by subsection (a), shall be derived from amounts 
        available for such fiscal year to that Secretary for operation 
        and maintenance.
            (2) Secretary concerned defined.--In this subsection, the 
        term ``Secretary concerned'' has the meaning given such term in 
        section 101(a)(9) of title 10, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```