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

1

Although plaintiff did not file a proof of service, it appears defendant has, in effect,

been served with the motion, in that the document was scanned into the district court’s

electronic filing docket by the Clerk of the Court.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security

Defendant

 /

No. C 09-2668 MMC

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ANY

COUNTER-MOTION

Before the Court is the “Motion for Summary Judgment,” filed April 15, 2010 by

plaintiff Daniel Rodriguez, who is proceeding pro se. To date, defendant Michael J. Astrue

has not filed a response.1

Given the brevity of plaintiff’s motion, which, independent of its title, consists of seven

lines of text, the Court finds opposition would assist the Court in resolution of the issues

presented thereby.

Accordingly, the Court sets the following briefing schedule:

1. No later than July 16, 2010, defendant shall file an opposition and/or countermotion, which filing(s) shall address, in addition to any other relevant issue, the effect, if any,

Case 3:09-cv-02668-MMC Document 35 Filed 06/21/10 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

of 8 U.S.C. § 1611(b)(5) on plaintiff’s claim for benefits.

2. No later than August 6, 2010, plaintiff shall file a reply.

3. Unless the Court orders otherwise, as of August 6, 2010, the matter will be

deemed submitted for decision without oral argument.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02668-MMC Document 35 Filed 06/21/10 Page 2 of 2
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 23, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
135669 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 135669 COA: 281337 Muskegon CC: 91-032805-FC JOHNNY LEE MURPHY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the December 27, 2007 order of the Court of Appeal s is considered, and it is DE NIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).

p0616 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 23, 2008

Clerk
#### Laura B. Ledet, as Administratrix of the Estate of Joseph H. Ledet, Deceased, et al., Respondents, v. United Aircraft Corporation, Appellant.

Order, entered on July 1, 1960, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the first, third, fifth and seventh causes of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs to either party. The court is constrained to follow the determination of this court in *Wyman*v. *Pan American Airways*(262 App. Div. 995, same case, 267 App. Div. 947, affd. 293 N. Y. 878) and the determination of the Second Department in *Elliott*v. *Steinfeldt*(254 App. Div. 739). The Federal act, in the case of a death caused by wrongful act upon the high seas, goes only so far as to confer upon the representative of the decedent a “ suit for damages in the district courts of the United States, in admiralty.” Rights of action and remedies in State courts to recover for such a death are, by the act, stated to be not affected insofar as provision for the same is made by “ any State statute ”. But here, the plaintiffs, in their respective alleged causes of action for wrongful death, do not purport to rely upon any statute of this State as the basis therefor, expressly pleading that the same are “brought pursuant to the provisions of Title 46, U.S.C. Section 761, et seq.” Consequently, but for such determinations in this and in the Second Department, we would hold that these alleged causes of action for wrongful death are not maintainable in this court. Such holding would be in accordance with the recent Federal court decisions which most clearly point out that the language of the Federal act and legislative history (see *Higa*case, cited below) do not authorize a cause of action at law to recover for wrongful death upon the high seas. *(Higa*v. *Transocean Airlines,*230 F. 2d 780; *Noel*v. *Linea Aeropostal Venezolana,*247 F. 2d 677, cert. denied 355 U. S. 907; *Wilson*v. *Transocean Airlines,*121 F. Supp. 85; *Lafrate*v. *Compagnie Generale Transatlantique,*106 F. Supp. 619. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Eager, JJ. [24 Misc 2d 1010.]
#### § 221.11 The Guarantee.

Subject to these terms and conditions, the United States of America, acting through A.I.D., agrees to pay to, or upon the instructions of, any Noteholder on each Guarantee Payment Date compensation in Dollars equal to such Noteholder's Loss of Investment under its Eligible Note; provided, however, that no such payment shall be made to any Noteholder, for any such loss arising out of fraud or misrepresentation for which such Noteholder is responsible or of which it had knowledge at the time it became such Noteholder.

This Guarantee shall apply to each Eligible Note registered on the Note Register required to be maintained by the Fiscal Agent.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
 
                            TICKETMASTER GROUP, INC.
 
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
             (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT SHARE AND PER SHARE INFORMATION)
                                  (UNAUDITED)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                             THREE MONTHS ENDED JULY
                                                       31,                SIX MONTHS ENDED JULY 31,
                                            -------------------------     -------------------------
                                               1996           1997           1996           1997
                                            ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------
<S>                                         <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Weighted average number of common shares
  outstanding.............................  15,310,405     25,855,246     15,310,405     25,669,324
Common Stock equivalents from outstanding
  stock options...........................         n/a         92,740            n/a            116
                                            ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------
                                            15,310,405     25,947,986     15,310,405     25,669,440
                                            ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========
Net income (loss).........................  $     (439)    $    1,979     $   (2,418)    $    3,860
                                            ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========
Net income (loss) per share...............  $    (0.03)    $     0.08     $    (0.16)    $     0.15
                                            ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========
</TABLE>
#### § 27.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to implement requirements for the administration of the Multifamily Mortgage Foreclosure Act of 1981 (the Act) (12 U.S.C. 3701-3717), that clarify, or are in addition to, the requirements contained in the Act, which are not republished here and must be consulted in conjunction with the requirements of this subpart. The Act creates a uniform Federal remedy for foreclosure of multifamily mortgages. Under a delegation of authority published on February 5, 1982 (47 FR 5468), the Secretary has delegated to the HUD General Counsel his powers under the Act to appoint a foreclosure commissioner or commissioners and to substitute therefor, to fix the compensation of commissioners, and to promulgate implementing regulations.
EXHIBIT 99.1
   
  
  The
undersigned, Joseph Panepinto, Vice President of The Bank of New York Mellon (formerly The Bank of New York), a New York corporation (the
Trustee), hereby certifies in such capacity that, based on his knowledge, the Trustee has complied, in all
material respects, with all conditions and covenants applicable to the Trustee under the Standard Terms for Trust
Agreements dated February 20,1998 between Merrill Lynch Depositor, Inc. as depositor (the Depositor) and the
Trustee, as successor to United States Trust Company of New York, as trustee and securities intermediary (the
Securities Intermediary), in each case as amended by a series supplement between the Depositor, the Trustee and
the Securities Intermediary for each trust series listed in the attached schedule with the exception of the items identified below:


- With respect to the PPLUS Trust Series JPM-1 distribution on June 16, 2008, the amount of interest to be paid by the Trust was calculated incorrectly.  As such, on September 25, 2008, BNY corrected this error and a revised 8-K was filed on October 6, 2008.
- With respect to the PreferredPLUS Trust Series GEC-1, the September 15, 2008 Exhibit 99.1 within the Form 8-K incorrectly referenced the March 17, 2008 distribution date. On March 5, 2009 a revised 8-K was filed to reflect the correct distribution date.

Very truly yours,
The Bank of New York Mellon (formerly

        The Bank of New York), as TrusteeBy:
      /s/
Joseph PanepintoName:
      Joseph PanepintoTitle:
      Vice President




---






---
#### PEOPLE ex rel. McCABE et al. v. MATTHIES et al., Town Auditors.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 30, 1903.)

Proceeding by the people of the state of New York, on the relation of William F. McCabe and John Duffy, against Charles A. Matthies, John J. Haley, and James D. Wright, as the board of town auditors of the town of White Plains.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal denied.
MFG Process

 TS-DL12Y4 & TS-DL13Y4 Manufacturing Process 

 Confidential

 

Sanitized
§ 3286.211 Expiration and renewal of installation licenses. ( a ) *Expiration.* Each installation license issued or renewed under this subpart C will expire 3 years after the date of its issuance or renewal.
( b ) *Renewal.* An application for the renewal of an installation license must include the information required by, and must be submitted to, HUD in accordance with § 3286.207, and must be submitted at least 60 days before the date the license expires. Any person applying for a license renewal after the date the license expires must apply for a new installation license following the requirements established under this subpart C for application for an initial installation license.
# Jf**ourtf) Court** **of is>an** **Antonio, TEexasf** **August 1,2014** **No. 04-13-00751-CR** **Roland S.** **Perkins, Appellant** **v. The** **State of** **Texas, Appellee** **Trial Court** **Case No.** **2012CR5082**

### ORDER**The Court** **has reviewed** **the record** **and briefs** **in this** **appeal and** **has determined** **that oral** 

### argument**will not** **significantly aid** **it in** **determining the** **legal and** **factual issues** **presented in** **the appeal.** **See Tex.** **R. App.** **P. 39.8.** **Therefore, all** **requests for** **oral argument** **are denied,** **and the** **cause is** **advanced for** **ON BRIEFS** **submission on** **September 10,** **2014, to** **the following** **panel: Justice** **Marion, Justice** **Barnard, and** **Justice Chapa.** **All parties** **will be** **notified of** **the Court's** **decision in** **this appeal** **in accordance** **with Tex.** **R. App.** **P. 48.** **Either party** **may file** **motion requesting** **the Court** **to reconsider** **its determination** **that oral** **argument will** **not significantly** **aid the** **Court in** **determining the** **legal and** **factual issues** 

### presented**in the** **appeal. See** **Tex. R.** **App. P.** **39.8. Such** **motion should** **be filed** **within ten** **(10) days** **from the** **date of** **this order.** **It is** **so ORDERED** **on August** **1, 2014.** **Sandee Marion,** **Justice**

## IN**WITNESS WHEREOF,** **have hereunto** **set my** **hand and** **a/fixed the** **seal o/the** **said court** **on this** **August 1,** **2014.**
#### 146 East 52nd Street Corporation, Respondent, v Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Appellant.

Appeal from order of Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 20, 1977, unanimously dismissed as nonappealable. The respondent shall recover of the appellant $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Were we to entertain the appeal *748on the merits, we would affirm. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Fein and Markewich, JJ.; Silverman, J., concurs in the result only.
# Wright Brothers Day, 2004

On Wright Brothers Day, we honor the achievement and imagination of Orville and Wilbur Wright, two bicycle mechanics from Dayton, Ohio, who changed the world with their optimism, creativity, and persistence. On this day, we recall a monumental event in the history of our Nation and in the story of mankind.

On a cold December morning in 1903 on the Outer Banks of North Carolina, a small wood and canvas aircraft sent America on a journey far beyond the sands of Kitty Hawk. The flight spanned 120 feet and lasted just 12 seconds, yet it ushered in a new era of unimaginable advances in aviation and aerospace technology. Today, air travel is vital to our country, helping bring people together and sustain our security. In addition, the aviation industry strengthens our economy by supporting millions of jobs.

The spirit that led the Wright Brothers to powered flight continues today in America's space program. From providing surveys of the sun to images of the planets, our spacecraft are exploring the outer edges of our solar system and revolutionizing our view of the universe. Under my Vision for Space Exploration Program, we will proudly carry on the Wright Brothers' tradition of innovation. As we embark on the next century of flight, that spirit of discovery will help our Nation and the world realize the full promise of tomorrow.

The Congress, by a joint resolution approved December 17, 1963 (77 Stat. 402; 36 U.S.C. 143) as amended, has designated December 17 of each year as “Wright Brothers Day” and has authorized and requested the President to issue annually a proclamation inviting the people of the United States to observe that day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim December 17, 2004, as Wright Brothers Day.

                    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventeenth day of December, in the year of our Lord two thousand four, and of the                           ( print page 76596)                        Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-ninth.                

[FR Doc. 04-28111

Billing code 3195-01-P
### §8277. Advisory committee

#### (a) Establishment

There is hereby established an advisory committee to assist the Secretary in the establishment and conduct of the programs established under this part.

#### (b) Membership

Such committee shall be composed of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Administrator of the General Services Administration, the Secretary of Transportation, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, the Postmaster General, and such other persons as the Secretary deems necessary. The Secretary shall appoint such other nongovernmental persons to the extent necessary to assure that the membership of the committee will be fairly balanced in terms of the point of view represented and the functions to be performed by the committee.

#### (c) Termination

The advisory committee shall terminate October 1, 1981.

(Pub. L. 95–619, title V, §568, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3281.)
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Viola Jones, Appellant, v Dresser Industries, Inc., et al., Respondents, and Special Disability Fund, Respondent. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed January 29, 1976, which disallowed a claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Decedent was granted a company disability pension retirement due to permanent pulmonary emphysema effective October 1, 1966. He died on January 13, 1973 and claimant, his widow, was awarded death benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Law because of death due to silicosis or other dust disease. There was no appeal in that case. However, a later board decision reversed a referee’s determination that claimant also be awarded compensation for the period of decedent’s total disability resulting from occupational silicosis. On appeal, claimant’s position is that this subsequent board decision is not based upon substantial evidence and, further, that it displays an erroneous interpretation of applicable statutory provisions governing awards made after the death of an injured employee citing *Matter of Sienko v Bopp & Morgenstern*(248 NY 40). The rule established in *Sienko*is not at issue on this appeal, nor does the recent case of *Matter of Collins v Aluminum Co. of Amer.,*(44 NY2d 692), have a bearing on its outcome. The decision under review merely states, in effect, that there is insufficient *credible*evidence to conclude decedent’s disability following his retirement *1114in 1966 was due to silicosis. After examination of the record, which presents a complicated medical history disclosing numerous conditions from which claimant suffered, we cannot say the board’s decision was based on other than substantial evidence (see *Matter of Currie*v *Town of Davenport,*37 NY2d 472; *Matter of Buttery v International Paper Co.,*47 AD2d 687). Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Main, Larkin and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
### §7352. Contents of review

Each comprehensive review prepared for submission under section 7351 of this title shall include—

(1) the name of the component of the Department responsible for administering the program;

(2) an identification of the objectives intended for the program and the problem or need which the program was intended to address;

(3) an identification of any other programs having similar or potentially conflicting or duplicative objectives;

(4) an assessment of alternative methods of achieving the purposes of the program;

(5) a justification for the authorization of new budget authority, and an explanation of the manner in which it conforms to and integrates with other efforts;

(6) an assessment of the degree to which the original objectives of the program have been achieved, expressed in terms of the performance, impact, or accomplishments of the program and of the problem or need which it was intended to address, and employing the procedures or methods of analysis appropriate to the type or character of the program;

(7) a statement of the performance and accomplishments of the program in each of the previous four completed fiscal years and of the budgetary costs incurred in the operation of the program;

(8) a statement of the number and types of beneficiaries or persons served by the program;

(9) an assessment of the effect of the program on the national economy, including, but not limited to, the effects on competition, economic stability, employment, unemployment, productivity, and price inflation, including costs to consumers and to businesses;

(10) an assessment of the impact of the program on the Nation's health and safety;

(11) an assessment of the degree to which the overall administration of the program, as expressed in the rules, regulations, orders, standards, criteria, and decisions of the officers executing the program, are believed to meet the objectives of the Congress in establishing the program;

(12) a projection of the anticipated needs for accomplishing the objectives of the program, including an estimate if applicable of the date on which, and the conditions under which, the program may fulfill such objectives;

(13) an analysis of the services which could be provided and performance which could be achieved if the program were continued at a level less than, equal to, or greater than the existing level; and

(14) recommendations for necessary transitional requirements in the event that funding for such program is discontinued, including proposals for such executives or legislative action as may be necessary to prevent such discontinuation from being unduly disruptive.

(Pub. L. 95–91, title X, §1002, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 612.)
### Summary of total mercury concentrations in fillets of selected sport fishes collected during 2000-2003 from Lake Natoma, Sacramento County, California

By: Michael K. SaikiDarrell G. SlottonThomas W. MayShaun M. AyersCharles N. Alpers**

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds103

#### Links

- More information:  **Publisher Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (1.3 MB pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

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

No. C 09-2465 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 3/26/10*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

HENRY GLOVER,

Petitioner,

v.

SUPREME COURT, 

Respondent. /

No. C 09-2465 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

This is a federal habeas corpus action filed by a pro se state prisoner pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was ordered to file a complete application to proceed in forma

pauperis by November 18, 2009 or face dismissal of the action. Petitioner still has not filed a

complete application or paid the filing fee. Accordingly, the petition, and thereby the action,

is DISMISSED without prejudice. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is

DENIED. 

The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent, terminate the pending motion,

and close the file. This order terminates Docket No. 4. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 26, 2010 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02465-RS Document 9 Filed 03/26/10 Page 1 of 1