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

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SERVICE EMPLOYEES

INTERNATIONAL UNION, et al., No. C 09-00404 WHA

Plaintiffs. ORDER TO PAY ADDITIONAL

 vs. ATTENDANCE FEE

SAL ROSSELLI, et al.,

 Defendants.

 )

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1871(b)(2), petit jurors required to attend more than ten (10)

days in hearing one case may be paid, in the discretion of the trial judge, an additional fee, not

exceeding $10.00 more than the $40.00 attendance fee, for each day in excess of ten (10) days on

which the juror is required to hear such case.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that each member of the jury hearing the above case

shall receive a total attendance fee of $50.00 per day for each day of service in excess of ten (10)

days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2010 WILLIAM ALSUP

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00404-WHA Document 585 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Marie F. Benigaza, v. Estate of Vincent P. Dudek, Deceased.

Appeal dismissed unless records and briefs are filed and served on or before April 12, 1961. Respondent’s brief must be filed on or before April 27, 1961 if appeal is to be argued at May 1961 Term.
#### § 3280.501 Scope.

This subpart sets forth the requirements for condensation control, air infiltration, thermal insulation and certification for heating and comfort cooling.
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

ARTHUR CHING, on behalf of himself and all

others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant. /

No. C 09-2613 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART STATE FARM’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

AFFORDING LEAVE TO FILE SECOND

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE

Before the Court is defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s

(“State Farm”) Motion for Summary Judgment, filed February 12, 2010. The matter came

on regularly for hearing on May 7, 2010. Richard L. Kellner appeared on behalf of plaintiff

Arturo Ching. Laura L. Goodman and Andrew J. King appeared on behalf of defendant.

 Having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion,

and the arguments of counsel, the Court, for the reasons stated on the record at the

hearing, rules as follows:

1. To the extent defendant seeks summary judgment on plaintiff’s First and Fourth

Causes of Action, the motion is hereby GRANTED. 

2. To the extent defendant seeks summary judgment on plaintiff’s Second and Third

Causes of Action, the motion is hereby DENIED.

Case 3:09-cv-02613-MMC Document 53 Filed 05/07/10 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

2

3. The above-referenced denial is without prejudice to defendant’s filing a second

motion for summary judgment, for the limited purpose of addressing the issue of policy

interpretation and its effect on the remaining causes of action. 

4. In light of the above, the Case Management Conference is hereby CONTINUED

from May 21, 2010 to August 13, 2010; a Joint Case Management Statement shall be filed

no later than August 6, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02613-MMC Document 53 Filed 05/07/10 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 30
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 30 appear at 87 FR 8197, Feb. 14, 2022.

§ 30.20 Ethical violations by HUD employees. ( a ) *General.* The General Counsel, or his or her designee, may initiate a civil money penalty action against HUD employees who improperly disclose information pursuant to section 103 of the HUD Reform Act of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 3537a(c)) and 24 CFR part 4, subpart B.
( b ) *Maximum penalty.* The maximum penalty is $24,496 for each violation.
[61 FR 50215, Sept. 24, 1996, as amended at 72 FR 5588, Feb. 6, 2007; 81 FR 38935, June 15, 2016; 82 FR 24524, May 30, 2017; 83 FR 32793, July 16, 2018; 84 FR 9453, Mar. 15, 2019; 85 FR 13044, Mar. 6, 2020; 86 FR 14373, Mar. 16, 2021; 87 FR 24420, Apr. 26, 2022; 88 FR 9748, Feb. 15, 2023; 89 FR 13616, Feb. 23, 2024]
### §739. Senate and House document rooms; superintendents

There shall be one document room of the Senate and one of the House of Representatives, to be designated, respectively, the "Senate and House document room." Each shall be in charge of a superintendent, who shall be appointed by the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House, respectively, together with the necessary assistants. The Senate document room shall be under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Senate.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1254; Pub. L. 104–186, title II, §223(5), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1751.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., §165 (Jan. 12, 1895, ch. 23, §60, 28 Stat. 610; Mar. 3, 1901, ch. 830, §1, 31 Stat. 962).

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–186 substituted "Clerk" for "Doorkeeper".
§ 583.410 Obligation and deobligation of funds. ( a ) *Obligation of funds.* When HUD and the applicant execute a grant agreement, funds are obligated to cover the amount of the approved assistance under subpart B of this part. The recipient will be expected to carry out the supportive housing or supportive services activities as proposed in the application.
( b ) *Increases.* After the initial obligation of funds, HUD will not make revisions to increase the amount obligated.
( c ) *Deobligation.* ( 1 ) HUD may deobligate all or parts of grants for acquisition, rehabilitation, acquisition and rehabilitation, or new construction: ( i ) If the actual total cost of acquisition, rehabilitation, acquisition and rehabilitation, or new construction is less than the total cost anticipated in the application; or
( ii ) If proposed activities for which funding was approved are not begun within three months or residents do not begin to occupy the facility within nine months after grant execution.
( 2 ) HUD may deobligate the amounts for annual leasing costs, operating costs or supportive services in any year: ( i ) If the actual leasing costs, operating costs or supportive services for that year are less than the total cost anticipated in the application; or
( ii ) If the proposed supportive housing operations are not begun within three months after the units are available for occupancy.
( 3 ) The grant agreement may set forth in detail other circumstances under which funds may be deobligated, and other sanctions may be imposed.
( 4 ) HUD may: ( i ) Readvertise the availability of funds that have been deobligated under this section in a notice of fund availability under § 583.200, or
( ii ) Award deobligated funds to applications previously submitted in response to the most recently published notice of fund availability, and in accordance with subpart C of this part.
#### § 225.119 Research undertaken without the intention of involving human subjects.

Except for research waived under § 225.101(i) or exempted under § 225.104, in the event research is undertaken without the intention of involving human subjects, but it is later proposed to involve human subjects in the research, the research shall first be reviewed and approved by an IRB, as provided in this policy, a certification submitted by the institution to the Federal department or agency component supporting the research, and final approval given to the proposed change by the Federal department or agency component.
### §422h. Planning and construction; transfer of funds

The planning and construction of projects undertaken pursuant to this subchapter shall be subject to all procedural requirements and other provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401), as amended (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.). The Secretary shall transfer to the Fish and Wildlife Service or to the National Marine Fisheries Service, out of appropriations or other funds made available under this subchapter, such funds as may be necessary to conduct the investigations required to carry out the purposes of this section.

(Aug. 6, 1956, ch. 972, §8, 70 Stat. 1047; Pub. L. 89–553, §1(5), Sept. 2, 1966, 80 Stat. 377; Pub. L. 99–546, title III, §308, Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3055.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

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

#### Amendments

1986—Pub. L. 99–546 inserted provisions which related to transfer of funds for conduct of investigations to Fish and Wildlife Service or to National Marine Fisheries Service.

1966—Pub. L. 89–553 substituted "the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended" for "the Act of Aug. 14, 1946 (60 Stat. 1080)".
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00095-CR

Douglas Lynn Kirk

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

§

From the 297th District Court

of Tarrant County (1266320R)

January 23, 2014

Opinion by Justice McCoy

Dissent by Justice Dauphinot

(p)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Bob McCoy___________________

 Justice Bob McCoy
§ 581.2 Applicability. ( a ) This part applies to Federal real property which has been designated by Federal landholding agencies as unutilized, underutilized, excess or surplus and is therefore subject to the provisions of title V of the McKinney Act (42 U.S.C. 11411).
( b ) The following categories of properties are not subject to this subpart (regardless of whether they may be unutilized or underutilized). ( 1 ) Machinery and equipment.
( 2 ) Government-owned, contractor-operated machinery, equipment, land, and other facilities reported excess for sale only to the using contractor and subject to a continuing military requirement.
( 3 ) Properties subject to special legislation directing a particular action.
( 4 ) Properties subject to a court order.
( 5 ) Property not subject to survey requirements of Executive Order 12512 (April 29, 1985).
( 6 ) Mineral rights interests.
( 7 ) Air space interests.
( 8 ) Indian Reservation land subject to section 202(a)(2) of the Federal Property and Administrative Service Act of 1949, as amended.
( 9 ) Property interests subject to reversion.
( 10 ) Easements.
( 11 ) Property purchased in whole or in part with Federal funds if title to the property is not held by a Federal landholding agency as defined in this part.
### §332. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Aug. 7, 1917, ch. 48, 40 Stat. 250, suspended expenditure and cultivation requirements during World War I.
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF SOLO CUP COMPANY

The following is a list of subsidiaries of Solo Cup Company, a Delaware corporation as of December 31, 2006.



|                                             |  |                                  
|-------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------
|Name or Organization                         |  | State or Country of Incorporation
|SF Holdings Group, Inc.                      |  | Delaware                         
|CEGI (Hong Kong) Limited                     |  | Hong Kong                        
|Solo Cup Operating Corporation               |  | Delaware                         
|Solo Manufacturing LLC                       |  | Delaware                         
|S Credit Corporation                         |  | Illinois                         
|P.R. Solo Cup, Inc.                          |  | Illinois                         
|Yugen Kaisha Solo Cup Asia Pacific           |  | Japan                            
|Solo Cup Japan Co., Ltd.                     |  | Japan                            
|Solo Cup Panama, S.A.                        |  | Panama                           
|SC Management de Mexico, S. de R. L. de C.V. |  | Mexico                           
|Solo Cup (Australia) Pty Ltd                 |  | Australia                        
|Solo Cup UK Limited                          |  | England and Wales                
|Insulpak Holdings Limited                    |  | England and Wales                
|Solo Cup Europe Limited                      |  | England and Wales                
|Lily-Canada Holding Corporation              |  | Delaware                         
|Solo Cup Canada Inc.                         |  | Canada                           
|Solo Cup Mexico, S.A. de C.V.                |  | Mexico                           
|Global Cup, S.A. de C.V.                     |  | Mexico
§ 180.800 Post-termination proceedings. ( a ) A respondent adversely affected by the order terminating, discontinuing, or refusing Federal financial assistance in consequence of proceedings pursuant to this title may request the Secretary for an order authorizing payment, or permitting resumption, of Federal financial assistance. Such request shall: ( 1 ) Be in writing;
( 2 ) Affirmatively show that, since entry of the order, the respondent has brought its program or activity into compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements; and
( 3 ) Set forth specifically, and in detail, the steps taken to achieve such compliance.
( b ) If the Secretary denies such request, the respondent may request an expeditious hearing. The request for such a hearing shall be addressed to the Secretary within 30 days after the respondent is informed that the Secretary has refused to authorize payment or permit resumption of Federal financial assistance and shall specify why the Secretary erred in denying the request.
( c ) The procedures established by this part shall be applicable to any hearing.
- Front Matter
Title Page

- Introduction
- Background
- Data and Methodology
- Contraceptive Discontinuation Rates
- Contraceptive Discontinuation Rates and Reasons for Discontinuation
- Contraceptive Switching Behavior
- Contraceptive Failure Rates
- Summary and Conclusions
- References
- Demographic and Health Surveys Working Papers Series

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-02T02:33:29-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
### **CHAPTER 21—NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION**

Sec.
2101.
Definitions.
2102.
Establishment.
2103.
Officers.
2104.
Administrative provisions.
2105.
Personnel and services.
2106.
Reports to Congress.
2107.
Acceptance of records for historical preservation.
2108.
Responsibility for custody, use, and withdrawal of records.
2109.
Preservation, arrangement, duplication, exhibition of records.
2110.
Servicing records.
2111.
Material accepted for deposit.
2112.
Presidential archival depository.
2113.
Depository for agreements between States.
2114.
Preservation of audio and visual records.
2115.
Reports; correction of violations.
2116.
Legal status of reproductions; official seal; fees for copies and reproductions.
2117.
Limitation on liability.
2118.
Records of Congress.
2119.
Cooperative agreements.
2120.
Online access of founding fathers documents.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2014**—Pub. L. 113–187, §3(c)(2), Nov. 26, 2014, 128 Stat. 2008, substituted "Preservation of audio and visual records" for "Preservation of motion-picture films, still pictures, and sound recordings" in item 2114.

**2008**—Pub. L. 110–404, §4(c), Oct. 13, 2008, 122 Stat. 4283, added item 2120.

**2004**—Pub. L. 108–383, §5(b), Oct. 30, 2004, 118 Stat. 2219, added item 2119.

**1984**—Pub. L. 98–497, title I, §102(c)(1), Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2282, amended analysis generally, substituting "National Archives and Records" in chapter heading, adding items 2102 to 2106 and redesignating former items 2103 to 2114 as 2107 to 2118, respectively.
#### Lorenzo Hernandez, Individually and as Guardian ad Litem of Ronald Hernandez, an Infant, Respondent, v. Frank Storino, Jr., Doing Business as Hill Krest Service Station, Appellant. Cimbar Corporation, Defendant-Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff; Esso Standard Oil Company, Third-Party Defendant.

In an action by the infant plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries and by his father to recover damages for medical expenses, defendant Storino appeals from an order of the County Court, Westchester County, dated September 5, 1961, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to him, pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order reversed, without costs, motion granted, and complaint dismissed as to the defendant Storino. The infant plaintiff sustained a cut when he came in contact with an old running board lying on the property of the codefendant Cimbar Corporation. Plaintiffs have nothing to offer but *674conjecture in support of their theory that said defendant Storino, who conducted a gasoline service station and made minor automobile repairs, threw the running board onto the adjacent property of the Cimbar Corporation. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
39–008

105TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 105–73

PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1275, THE

CIVILIAN SPACE AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS

1998 AND 1999

APRIL 23, 1997.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. MCINNIS, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 128]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 128, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 1275, the

‘‘Civilian Space Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999’’

under an open rule. The rule provides one hour of general debate

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science.

The rule waives clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI (three-day availability

for committee reports) against consideration of the bill.

The rule also makes in order the Committee on Science amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. It further provides that the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered by title, with each

title being considered as read.

Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Record

prior to their consideration will be given priority in recognition to

offer their amendments if otherwise consistent with House rules.

Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Æ
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

ANTHONY BENEDETTO , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 1879

[ August 31, 2017 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Bernard I. Bober

, Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 91

- 2758CF10B and 96

- 18372CF10A

.
Anthony K. Benedetto, Lake Butler, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

G ERBER , C.J

., D AMOORGIAN and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Editorial Note on Part 5
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 5 appear at 65 FR 16715, Mar. 29, 2000.

§ 5.2011 Effect on other laws. ( a ) Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to supersede any provision of any Federal, State, or local law that provides greater protection than this section for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
( b ) All applicable fair housing and civil rights statutes and requirements apply in the implementation of VAWA requirements. See § 5.105(a).
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

ELIZABETH TACKBERRY, JASMINE

ELIZABETH LOPEZ, by and through her

Guardian ad Litem, Jovita Munoz Lopez

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ALAMEDA

COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,

SHERIFF GREGORY AHERN, individually

and in his official capacity, SANTA RITA

JAIL, LIVERMORE POLICE

DEPARTMENT, and DOES 1 to 100,

inclusive

Defendants. /

No. C 08-05762 WHA

ORDER RE IMMIGRATION

PAROLE FOR GUARDIAN AD

LITEM JOVITA MUNOZ LOPEZ

Plaintiff in this matter is four years old. Her mother and guardian ad litem, Jovita

Munoz Lopez, is a Mexican citizen who seeks to enter the United States on “temporary parole”

in order to give her deposition and participate in the mediation of this matter from February

22–26, 2010, plus reasonable travel time before and after those dates. Based on the stipulation

of the parties and good cause shown, this order finds that it would be in the best interest of the

parties and in the interests of justice and the efficient administration of this matter that Guardian

Ad Litem Lopez appear in the San Francisco Bay Area to participate in her deposition and the

mediation of this matter from February 22–26, 2010. Guardian Ad Litem Lopez is ordered to

seek parole from United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to so appear. However,

Case 3:08-cv-05762-WHA Document 68 Filed 02/09/10 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

no extensions of the case schedule shall be granted based on any delay in (or denial of) the

issuance of parole to Guardian Ad Litem Lopez.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-05762-WHA Document 68 Filed 02/09/10 Page 2 of 2
§ 576.301 Metropolitan cities and urban counties. Grant funds returned by a metropolitan city or urban county will be reallocated as follows: ( a ) *Eligible recipient.* HUD will make the funds available to the State in which the city or county is located.
( b ) *Notification of availability.* HUD will promptly notify the State of the availability of the amounts to be reallocated.
( c ) *Application requirement.* Within 45 days after the date of notification, the State must submit to HUD a substantial amendment to its consolidated plan in accordance with 24 CFR part 91.
( d ) *Restrictions that apply to reallocated amounts.* The same requirements that apply to grant funds allocated under § 576.3 apply to grant funds reallocated under this section, except that the State must distribute the reallocated funds: ( 1 ) To private nonprofit organizations and units of general purpose local government in the geographic area in which the metropolitan city or urban county is located;
( 2 ) If funds remain, to private nonprofit organizations and units of general purpose local government located throughout the State.