alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Susan Klein et al., Respondents, v. Francis O’Connor, Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, medical expenses and loss of services, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered June 12, 1961 after a jury trial, upon a verdict in favor of the plaintiff wife, Susan Klein, in the sum of $30,419.50, and in favor of the plaintiff husband, Meyer Klein, in the sum of $9,928.42. Judgment reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, unless, within 30 days after entry of the order hereon, plaintiff Susan Klein shall stipulate to reduce to $20,000 the verdict in her favor, and plaintiff Meyer Klein shall stipulate to reduce to $5,000 the verdict in his favor, in which event the judgment, as so reduced, is affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the verdict as to each plaintiff was excessive. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
§ 1000.552 How long must the recipient maintain program records? ( a ) This section applies to all financial and programmatic records, supporting documents, and statistical records of the recipient which are required to be maintained by the statute, regulation, or grant agreement.
( b ) Except as otherwise provided herein, records must be retained for 3 years from the end of the tribal program year during which the funds were expended.
( c ) If any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit or other action involving the records has been started before the expiration of the 3-year period, the records must be retained until completion of the action and resolution of all issues which arise from it, or until the end of the regular 3-year period, whichever is later.
[63 FR 12349, Mar. 12, 1998, as amended at 77 FR 71530, Dec. 3, 2012]
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Sylvia Polinsky et al., as Administrators of the Estate of David G. Polinsky, Deceased. Esther Polinsky et al., Infants, et al., Appellants; Harry Gittleson, Respondent.

In a proceeding for the judicial settlement of the account of the administrators, petitioners Esther Polinsky and Arnold Polinsky, infants over the age of 14 years, and Max Sehulman, an attorney nominated by them for appointment as their special guardian in this proceeding, appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court of Kings County, entered May 2, 1960, which denies the motion of said infants: (1) to vacate an order of said court, dated March 25, 1960, appointing as such special guardian one other than the said nominee of the infants; and (2) to appoint said nominee. Said infants also appeal from the said order of March 25, 1960. Order of May 2, 1960 reversed upon the law and the facts, without costs, and motion of the infants to vacate said order of March 25, 1960 and to appoint their nominee, Max Sehulman, as their special guardian in this proceeding, granted. Appeal from order of March 25, I960, dismissed; no appeal lies therefrom. In our opinion, under the circumstances here present, the infants’ motion for the appointment of their nominee as special guardian should have been granted *(Matter of Dumbra,*254 App. Div. 776). Even though the “initial introduction ” of such nominee may have emanated from the infants’ mother, who is one of the administrators and accounting parties, that fact in itself is not enough to defeat the statutory right of these infants to be represented by the special guardian whom they have chosen, particularly since one of the infants is a 19-year-old college student. The mere fact that the mother may have suggested the selection of said nominee or approved his selection cannot be deemed to vitiate the infants’ statutory right to choose their own special guardian (Surrogate’s Ct, Act, § 64), especially since the integrity and the qualifications of their nominee are unchallenged and nothing whatever has been *739shown to indicate that any conflict of interest exists or may arise. It was, therefore, an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the infants’ motion. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
      32.1




**CERTIFICATION**




I,
      Steven
      Walin, Chief Executive Officer of GVI Security Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”),
      hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(i)
      The
      Company’s accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the six months ended
      June 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(ii)
      The
      information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/
                Steven WalinSteven
              WalinChief
              Executive OfficerDated:
              August 13, 2007
#### § 3280.101 Scope.

Subpart B states the planning requirements in manufactured homes. The intent of this subpart is to assure the adequacy of architectural planning considerations which assist in determining a safe and healthful environment.
### §419. Contract for irrigation project; notice as to lands irrigable, unit of entry, and construction charges

Upon the determination that any irrigation project is practicable, the Secretary of the Interior may cause to be let contracts for the construction of the same, in such portions or sections as it may be practicable to construct and complete as parts of the whole project, providing the necessary funds for such portions or sections are available, and thereupon he shall give public notice of the lands irrigable under such project, and limit of area per entry, which limit shall represent the acreage which, in the opinion of the Secretary, may be reasonably required for the support of a family upon the lands in question; also of the charges which shall be made per acre upon the said entries, and upon lands in private ownership which may be irrigated by the waters of the said irrigation project, and the number of annual installments in which such charges shall be paid and the time when such payments shall commence: Provided, That in all construction work eight hours shall constitute a day's work.

(June 17, 1902, ch. 1093, §4, 32 Stat. 389; May 10, 1956, ch. 256, 70 Stat. 151.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is comprised of part of section 4 of act June 17, 1902. Remainder of such section 4 is classified to section 461 of this title.

#### Amendments

1956—Act May 10, 1956, substituted a period for the comma after "work" in proviso, and struck out "and no Mongolian labor shall be employed thereon."

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

#### Section as Unaffected by Submerged Lands Act

Provisions of this section as not amended, modified, or repealed by the Submerged Lands Act, see section 1303 of this title.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. GERL Y A LVAREZ , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 12- 10574 D . C. N o . 2 : 1 2 - c r - 0 0 0 7 4 - LRH ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da L a rryR . H i c ks , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d Jul y24, 2013 ** B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , C L IF T O N , an dC A L L A H A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. G e r l yA l va r e z appe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nta nd c ha l l e nge s the 51- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d f ol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty - pl e ac onvi c t i on f orbe i ng a d e p o rt e da l i e n f

o u n du n l a w f

u l l yi n th e U n i t e dSt a t e s , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 8 U . S. C. § 1 3 2 6 . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED AU G 01 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 10574 2 A lv a r e z c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt im p o s e das u b s ta n tiv e ly unr e a s onabl e s e nt e nc e i n l i ghtof hi s m i t i ga t i ng f

a c t or s , na m e l yhi s tr oubl e d y outh, s tr i de s t ow a r ds r e habi l i t a t i on, a nd the m i norna tur e a nd a ge of hi s pr i or co n v icti o n s. T h e d istrict co u rt d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n in im p o sin g A lv ar ez ’s s e n te n c e . See G al l

v. U ni ted States , 552 U . S . 38, 51 ( 2007) . T he s e nt e nc e a tthe b o tt o m o f

th e G u i d e l i n e s r a n g e i s s u b s t a n t i v e l yr e a s o n ab l e i n l i g h to f th e 1 8 U . S. C. § 3553( a ) s e nt e nc i ng f

a c t or s a nd the t ot a l i tyof the c i r c um s t a nc e s , i nc l udi ng the f a c ttha tA l va r e z ’ s of

f e ns e i nvol ve d a n a tt e m ptt o s m uggl e i l l e ga l a l i e ns a c r os s the b o r d e r . See id . AF F I RME D.
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.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SAL ROSELLI, JORGE RODRIGUEZ, 

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-00404 WHA

ORDER GRANTING

LEAVE OF COURT FOR

EDUCATION FUND

DEFENDANTS TO FILE

MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

In this labor action, defendants Sal Roselli, John Borsos, Laura Kurre, Ralph Cornejo,

Will Clayton and John Vellardita in their capacities as Trustees or former Trustees of SEIU

United Healthcare-West and Joint Employer Education Fund and Mary Ruth Gross in her

capacity as executive director of the fund have requested leave to file a motion for partial

summary judgment. Their request is GRANTED. Their motion for partial summary judgment

must be filed no later than JANUARY 28, 2010, and shall be heard on a normal 35-day track.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00404-WHA Document 467 Filed 01/27/10 Page 1 of 1
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 12-10781 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. MICHAEL LEWIS, also known as MD, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:06-CR-70-1

Before WIENER, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Michael Lewis, federal prisoner # 35452-177, is serving a 240-month term

o f imprisonment for distributing cocaine base. He appeals the district court’ s d e n i a l o f h is second motion for a reduction of his sentence under 18 U.S.C

. § 3582(c)(2) based on the retroactive ap p l i c a t ion of Amendment 750 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Lewis argues that he is eligible f o r a sentence reduction because the offense of which h e pleaded guilty involved crack cocaine. Section 3582(c)(2) U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Janu ary7, 201 3 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-10781 Document: 00512103927 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2013No. 12-10781

permits the discretionary modification of a defenda n t’s sentence if he was “sentenced to a term of imprisonment bas e d o n a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by th e S e nt e ncing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o).” § 3582(c)(2). Part A of Amendment 750 altered the base offense levels for cocaine base in the drug quantity tables of § 2D1.1(c) and is retroactive. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, Supp. to Appendix C-Vol. III

, Amendment 750, at 391-98; 416-421 (Amendment 759). The district court accurately noted t h a t Lewis’s base offense level was calculated based solely on the amount of powder cocaine attributable to him for sentencing purposes. His s e nt e ncing guidelines range therefore was not affected by retroactive application of Amendment 750, and the district court did not err by denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion on that basis. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. We caution Lewis that filing repetitive or frivolous requests f o r a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction, or appeals from the denial of such requests, will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Lewis is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are repetitive or frivolous. AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

2 Case: 12-10781 Document: 00512103927 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2013
Editorial Note on Part 3282
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3282 appear at 78 FR 60199, Oct. 1, 2013.

§ 3282.252 Prohibition of sale. ( a ) No distributor or retailer shall make use of any means of transportation affecting interstate or foreign commerce or the mails to sell, lease, or offer for sale or lease in the United States any manufactured home manufactured on or after the effective date of an applicable standard unless: ( 1 ) There is affixed to the manufactured home a label certifying that the manufactured home conforms to applicable standards as required by § 3282.205(c), and
( 2 ) The distributor or retailer, acting as a reasonable distributor or retailer, does not know that the manufactured home does not conform to any applicable standards.
( b ) This prohibition applies to any affected manufactured homes until the completion of the entire sales transaction. A sales transaction with a purchaser is considered completed when all the goods and services that the retailer agreed to provide at the time the contract was entered into have been provided. Completion of a retail sale will be at the time the retailer completes installation of the manufactured home, if the retailer has agreed to provide the installation, or at the time the retailer delivers the home to a transporter, if the retailer has not agreed to transport or install the manufactured home. The sale is also complete upon delivery to the site if the retailer has not agreed to provide installation as completion of sale, except that any sale or lease under subpart M and as provided in § 3286.117(a) will not be considered complete until the purchaser or lessor, as applicable, has been provided with a final site inspection report.
( c ) This prohibition of sale does not apply to manufactured homes which are placed in production prior to the effective date of the standards, and it does not apply to “used” manufactured homes which are being sold or offered for sale after the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than the resale.
[41 FR 19852, May 13, 1976, as amended at 80 FR 53727, Sept. 8, 2015]
### §2403. Rural water programs assessment

#### (a) In general

In consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Director of the Indian Health Service, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary shall develop an assessment of—

(1) the status of all rural water supply projects under the jurisdiction of the Secretary authorized but not completed prior to December 22, 2006, including appropriation amounts, the phase of development, total anticipated costs, and obstacles to completion;

(2) the current plan (including projected financial and workforce requirements) for the completion of the projects identified in paragraph (1) within the time frames established under the provisions of law authorizing the projects or the final engineering reports for the projects;

(3) the demand for new rural water supply projects;

(4) rural water programs within other agencies and a description of the extent to which those programs provide support for rural water supply projects and water treatment programs in Reclamation States, including an assessment of the requirements, funding levels, and conditions of eligibility for the programs assessed;

(5) the extent of the demand that the Secretary can meet with the Program;

(6) how the Program will complement authorities already within the jurisdiction of the Secretary and the heads of the agencies with whom the Secretary consults; and

(7) improvements that can be made to coordinate and integrate the authorities of the agencies with programs evaluated under paragraph (4), including any recommendations to consolidate some or all of the activities of the agencies with respect to rural water supply.

#### (b) Consultation with States

Before finalizing the assessment developed under subsection (a), the Secretary shall solicit comments from States with identified rural water needs.

#### (c) Report

Not later than 2 years after December 22, 2006, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives a detailed report on the assessment conducted under subsection (a).

(Pub. L. 109–451, title I, §104, Dec. 22, 2006, 120 Stat. 3348.)
(proposed) Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion For

Extension of Time To Serve 

Defendant Jin K. Chung Case No. CV 09-2555 MMC 

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

Gretchen L. Lowe, DC Bar No. 421995 

glowe@cftc.gov

Toye A. Olarinde, VA Bar No. 43075 

aolarinde@cftc.gov

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

1155 21st St. N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20581 

Telephone (202) 418-5322 

Facsimile (202) 418-5531 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

_________________________________________

 ) 

UNITED STATES COMMODITY FUTURES ) 

TRADING COMMISSION, ) Case No. CV 09-2555 MMC 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) (proposed) ORDER GRANTING

) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

vs. ) EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE 

 ) DEFENDANT JIN K. CHUNG 

SNC ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., SNC ) 

INVESTMENTS, INC., PETER SON, and ) 

JIN K. CHUNG, )

 ) 

 Defendants, ) 

 ) 

and, ) 

 ) 

ANN LEE, )

 ) 

 Relief Defendant. ) 

_________________________________________)

Case 3:09-cv-02555-MMC Document 47 Filed 07/08/10 Page 1 of 2
(proposed) Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion For

Extension of Time To Serve 

Defendant Jin K. Chung Case No. CV 09-2555 MMC 

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

By Order issued April 2, 2010, (Docket Entry No. 44), plaintiff, the U.S. Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission (“Commission”), was granted until June 30, 2010, to effect service upon 

defendant Jin K. Chung. 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Defendant Jin K. 

Chung. Plaintiff represents that it continues to make attempts to serve defendant Chung through 

the Korean authorities. Additionally plaintiff represents that the extradition process is ongoing 

and seeks additional time to effect service during or after the extradition of the defendant to the 

United States.

Upon consideration of the plaintiff’s Motion the Court hereby GRANTS the plaintiff’s 

request for additional time to serve the defendant. The plaintiff shall have until September 30, 

2010 to serve defendant Chung. 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated: June _____, 2010. 

 ___________________________________ 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY 

United States District Judge 

July 7

/s/ Vaughn R Walker for

Case 3:09-cv-02555-MMC Document 47 Filed 07/08/10 Page 2 of 2
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T S VE T A A R UT UN YA N, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 73348 A ge nc yN o. A 098- 144- 320 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M a y25, 2010 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T H O M A S , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S ve t aA rutuny a n, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of A rm e ni a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ or de rdi s m i s s i ng he rappe a l f r om a n i m m i gr a t i on j ud ge’ s dec i si on denyi ng her app l i cat i on for a sy l um . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f o rs ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e a n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility



# FI LED JU N 08 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 73348 2 d e te rm in a tio n , S i dh u v . I NS , 220 F . 3d 1085, 1088 ( 9th C i r . 2000) , a nd w e de nythe p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the a ge nc y ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyde t e rm i na t i on b a s e dup o n A ru tu n y a n ’s s ub m is s io n o f af r au du le n t b irth c e rtif

ic a te , se e D es ta v. A s h c r o ft , 365 F . 3d 741, 745 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( f r audul e ntdoc um e nt s goi ng t o the he a rtof the c l a i m m a yj us t i f

ya n a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyf i ndi ng) , the om i s s i on f

r om A rutuny a n’ s t e s t i m onyof e l e c t i on a c t i vi t i e s tha ta c c or di ng t o he ra s y l um ap p lic a tio n le dh e r2 0 0 3 b e a tin g a n dd e te n tio n , s e e L i v . A s h c r o ft , 378 F . 3d 959, 9 6 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) , a n dA ru tu n y a n ’s m is id e n tif ic a tio n o f

h e rp a rty ’s c a n d id a te du ri n g th e 2 0 0 3 el ect i o n s, s e e id . In th e ab sen ce o f cred i b l e t est i m o n y, A ru tu n y a n ’s a s y lu m c la im f a ils . Se e Fa ra h v . A s h c r o ft , 3 4 8 F .3 d1 1 5 3 , 1 1 5 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
D:\netsite-docs\lps89283\Biological Opinion.PDF
### §868. Representation of Indian claimants in suits to determine right to school lands

In any suit instituted in the Supreme Court of the United States to determine the right of a State to what are commonly known as school lands within any Indian Reservation or any Indian cession where an Indian tribe claims any right to or interest in the lands in controversy, or in the disposition thereof by the United States, the right of such State may be fully tested and determined without making the Indian tribe, or any portion thereof, a party to the suit if the Secretary of the Interior is made a party thereto; and the duty of representing and defending the right or interest of the Indian tribe, or any portion thereof, in the matter shall devolve upon the Attorney General upon the request of such Secretary.

(Mar. 2, 1901, ch. 808, 31 Stat. 950.)