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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDUARDO DE LA TORRE; LORI 

SAYSOURIVONG,

Plaintiffs-Appellants/

Cross-Appellees,

v.

CASHCALL, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee/

Cross-Appellants.

Nos. 14-17571

15-15042

D.C. No.

3:08-cv-03174-

MEJ

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Maria-Elena James, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 16, 2017

Submitted September 17, 2018

San Francisco, California

Filed October 3, 2018
2 DE LA TORRE V. CASHCALL

Before: A. Wallace Tashima and Andrew D. Hurwitz, 

Circuit Judges, and Lynn S. Adelman,* District Judge.

Per Curiam Opinion

COUNSEL

James C. Sturdevant (argued), The Sturdevant Law Firm,

San Francisco, California; Jessica Riggin and Steven M. 

Tindall, Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP, San Francisco, 

California; Arthur D. Levy, Law Office of Arthur D. Levy, 

San Francisco, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellants/CrossAppellees.

Brad W. Seiling (argued), Donald R. Brown, and Joanna S. 

McCallum, Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP, Los Angeles, 

California, for Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Caryn Becker, Oakland, California, as and for Amicus 

Curiae Center for Responsible Lending.

Ted Mermin, Berkeley, California, as and for Amicus Curiae 

Public Good Law Center.

Michael J. Quirk, Williams Cuker Berezofsky LLC, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Amicus Curiae National 

Association of Consumer Advocates.

 * The Honorable Lynn S. Adelman, United States District Judge for 

the Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation.
DE LA TORRE V. CASHCALL 3

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court of 

California in De La Torre v. CashCall, Inc., No. S241434, 

422 P.3d 1004 (Cal. 2018), the judgment of the district court 

is VACATED and this case is REMANDED to that court 

for further proceedings consistent with that opinion.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Election Assistance Commission

# AGENCY:

U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice of public quarterly conference call for EAC Board of Advisors.

# SUMMARY:

Board of Advisors quarterly meeting (virtual).

# DATES:

Wednesday, January 13, 2021, 2:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. EDT.

# ADDRESSES:

Virtual via Zoom link.

                        The Board of Advisors quarterly meeting is open to the public and will be livestreamed on the U.S. Election Assistance Commission YouTube Channel:                         *https://www.youtube.com/​channel/​UCpN6i0g2rlF4ITWhwvBwwZw.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Phillip Olaya, Telephone: (202) 336-3980, Email:                         *polaya@eac.gov.*

                        For assistance joining the event: Contact the host, Steve Uyak at                         *suyak@eac.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

*Purpose:*                     In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Board of Advisors will conduct a virtual meeting to discuss current EAC activities.                

*Agenda:*                     The Board of Advisors (BOA) will receive updates of EAC activities and Annual Meeting and BOA Committee/Sub-Committee Updates. The Board of Advisors will discuss the next Quarterly BOA Conference Call.                

                    The full agenda will be posted in advance on the EAC website:                     *https://www.eac.gov.*

*Status:*                     Members of the public may submit relevant written statements to the Board of Advisors with respect to the meeting no later than 10:00 a.m. EDT on Wednesday, January 13, 2021. Statements may be sent via email to                     *facaboards@eac.gov,*                     via standard mail addressed to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 633 3rd Street NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20001, or by fax at 301-734-3108.                

Amanda Joiner,

Associate Counsel, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

[FR Doc. 2021-00318 Filed 1-6-21; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7760
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE HORTON, Defendant - Appellant.
No. 05-7863
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE HORTON, Defendant - Appellant.
No. 05-7966
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus- 2 - WILLIE HORTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District Judge. (CR-89-180; CA-05-1166) Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 7, 2006 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Horton, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Sue Straus, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Willie Horton seeks to appeal three district court orders dismissing as untimely his three motions filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Horton has not made the requisite showing. Finally, in accordance with United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Horton’s notices of appeal and informal brief as a motion for authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000), to file a successive habeas corpus motion. To obtain permission to bring a second or successive § 2255 motion, a movant must show that his claim: (1) “relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable” or (2)- 4 - relies on newly discovered facts that tend to establish the movant’s innocence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244. We conclude that Horton has not satisfied either standard. Accordingly, we deny Horton’s implicit application for leave to file a successive § 2255 motion, deny his motions for the appointment of counsel filed in Appeal Nos. 05-7760 and 05-7863, deny Horton’s motions for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 10(i)(ii)

                               CLERK'S CERTIFICATE

     I,  Eric R.  Fischer,  Clerk  of UST  Corp.,  do  hereby  certify  that the
following  is a true  copy of a vote  duly  adopted  by said  Board at a regular
meeting  thereof held on September 17, 1996, a quorum of Directors being present
and voting throughout:

         VOTED:   that, upon the recommendation of UST Corp.'s Employee Benefits
                  Committee,  the Board hereby  amends the UST Employee  Savings
                  Plan,  effective  January 1, 1997:  (i) to improve the Company
                  match to 100% of the first 2% contributed  and 25% of the next
                  4%  (maximum  Company  match  equals  3% of pay);  AND (ii) to
                  increase the maximum  employee  contribution  from 10% to 12%;
                  AND (iii) to allow employees who are regularly scheduled,  for
                  more than 20 hours and on the payroll by November 15, 1996, to
                  join the Plan as of January 1, 1997; AND (iv) to authorize the
                  Senior Vice  President/Human  Resources to take such steps and
                  to execute such documents as may be required (or deemed by her
                  desirable) to effect this amendment.

     I do hereby certify that the above vote has not been rescinded,  revoked or
modified and has been duly entered in the minute books of UST Corp.

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  I  have  hereunto set my hand and affixed  hereto the
seal of UST Corp. this 2nd day of October, 1996.

                                             UST Corp.
         (SEAL)
                                             /s/ Eric R. Fischer
                                             -----------------------
                                             Eric R. Fischer
                                             Clerk
#### 12.209 Determination of price reasonableness.

While the contracting officer must establish price reasonableness in accordance with 13.106-3, 14.408-2, or subpart 15.4, as applicable, the contracting officer should be aware of customary commercial terms and conditions when pricing commercial products and commercial services. Commercial product and commercial service prices are affected by factors that include, but are not limited to, speed of delivery, length and extent of warranty, limitations of seller's liability, quantities ordered, length of the performance period, and specific performance requirements. The contracting officer must ensure that contract terms, conditions, and prices are commensurate with the Government's need.

[66 FR 53484, Oct. 22, 2001, as amended at 86 FR 61022, Nov. 4, 2021]
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 21 - SUBSIDIARIES OF BANCORP


      The following table sets forth all of Bancorp's subsidiaries  as
of the date of this report.

                                                         State of
                                                       Jurisdiction
                                       % of Voting    Under the Laws
                                        Securities        of which
                                          Owned          Organized

The Provident Bank                        100                  Ohio
  Provident Commercial Group, Inc.        100                  Ohio
  Provident Securities and Investment
    Company                               100                  Ohio
  PB Realty, Inc.                         100                  Ohio
  Provident Consumer Financial
    Services, Inc.                        100                  Ohio
  Information Leasing Corporation         100                  Ohio
  Procurement Alternatives Corporation    100                  Ohio
The Provident Bank of Kentucky            100                Kentucky
Provident Investment Advisers, Inc.       100                  Ohio
Provident Mortgage Company                100                  Ohio
Provident Capital Trust I                 100                Delaware
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Samuel McCloud, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the former County Court, Kings County, rendered April 14, 1961 after a jury trial, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the second degree and assault in the second degree, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted. The findings of fact implicit in the jury’s verdict have not been considered. In our opinion, under all the circumstances, the interests of justice require as a matter of law that this defendant be accorded a new trial (see *People*v. *Sprinkler,*16 A D 2d 705). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED January 9, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-40207 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TREVATHAN JABAR GLEEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

(9:04-CR-26-1) Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Trevathan Jabar Gleen moves for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Gleen has not filed a response. Our review of the record and counsel’s brief shows there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is G RANTED ,2

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and this appeal is DISMISSED . See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
<PAGE>


                                                                 Exhibit 32(a)



                                 TXU GAS COMPANY
                       Certificate Pursuant to Section 906
                         of Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002
                              CERTIFICATION OF CEO


      The undersigned, M.S. Greene, Vice Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive of TXU Gas Company (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

  1.  The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
      2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

  2.  Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
      Company.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be
executed this 13th day of August, 2004.





                                    /s/  M. S. Greene
                              ------------------------------------------------
                              Name:    M.S. Greene
                              Title:   Vice Chairman of the Board and
                                       Chief Executive





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to TXU Gas Company and will be retained by TXU Gas Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### BRC Electric Corporation et al., Appellants, v Brian R. Cripps, et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

— In an action for conversion, an accounting and to set aside a conveyance, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated March 13, 1978, which denied their motion to confirm an order of attachment and granted defendants’ cross motion to vacate said order of attachment. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The plaintiffs’ affidavits failed to include a statement that the amount demanded from the defendants exceeds all counterclaims known to plaintiffs. This is required by CPLR 6212 (subd [a]) and the failure to include it is a fatal defect. Hopkins, J. P., Suozzi, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
# OAR Box 

# 1828

Prepped byOllie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 162 ) ll-K

- (B ) -16 1
Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7 p. i

Printed 11/12/200811:12:53 AM Sheet 162 of 325P. 2



## ENERGYAN D ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS , INC . 165 5 NORT

HPOR T MYE RDRIV E ARLINGTON

, VIRGINI

A 2220 9 703/528-190 0 

# A-83-2 7

Marc h7 , 198 5 II-K-(B)-16 1

Mr . Rober t Shor t Economi c Analysi s Branc h U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y Mai l Drop-1 2 Researc hTriangl e Park , N C 2771 1 Subject : EPA

Contrac t No . 68-02-4202 , Wor kAssignmen t # 3 Calculatio no f Levelize dIndustria l Fue l Price s
Dea r Robert :
Th e attache dtabl e present s anexampl e o f the procedur e use dt o calculat e a levelize dfue l price . A levelize dfue l pric e i s th e produc t o f a capita l recovery facto r an

dthe su

m (presen t value ) o f discounte dfue l prices .

TH/c e
Enclosure

cc : Dr . A . Weh e (EPA ) F . Porte r (EPA ) B . Rea d(Radian ) Sincerely ,

/ JU**. KPT^4^-m Ti m Hoga n

MANAGEMEN

T / ECONOMIC S /

ENGINEERINGP. 3

t.- ^



### EXAMPL E DERIVATIONO F ALEVELIZE D FUE L PRICE * (198 2 $/MMBtu )



### t

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 Yea r

198 7 198 8 198 9 199 0 199 1 199 2 199 3 199 4 199 5 199 6 199 7 199 8 199 9 200 0 200 1 

### Pric e

4.8 6 4.9 7 5.0 9 5.2 0 5.3 2 5.4 5 5.5 8 5.7 1 5.8 4 5.9 9 6.1 4 6.3 0 6.4 6 6.6 3 6.8 0 Discounted

price 0

4.4 2 4.1 1 3.8 2 3.5 5 3.3 0 3.0 8 2.8 6 2.6 6 2.4 8 2.3 1 2.1 5 2.0 1 1.8 7 1.7 5 1.6 3 

### 42.0 0

Referenc e cas e fue l pric e scenario

. Federa l regio n5 , Midwes t 0. 8 percen t sulfu r residua l fue l oil

. Levelize dfue l pric e = 42.0 0 * 0.1314 7 = 5.5 2 ( $ 1982/MMBtu)
. Th e capita l recover yfactor , 0.13147 , i s base do n a 1 0 percen t interes t rat e an d a 15-yea r period

. °Price/(l.l) t



### .
Editorial Note on Part 842
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

§ 842.46 Definitions. ( a ) *Foreign country.* A national state other than the United States, including any place under jurisdiction of the United States in a foreign country.
( b ) *Inhabitant of a foreign country.* A person, corporation, or other business association whose usual place of abode is in a foreign country. The term “inhabitant” has a broader meaning than such terms as “citizen” or “national”, but does not include persons who are merely temporarily present in a foreign country. It does not require foreign citizenship or domicile.
( c ) *Appointing authority.* An Air Force official authorized to appoint members to foreign claims commissions (FCC).
[55 FR 2809, Jan. 29, 1990. Redesignated at 81 FR 83692, Nov. 22, 2016]
### §95. Prohibition of acts deemed injurious to commerce in naval stores

The following acts are hereby declared injurious to commerce in naval stores and are hereby prohibited and made unlawful:

(a) The sale in commerce of any naval stores, or of anything offered as such, except under or by reference to United States standards.

(b) The sale of any naval stores under or by reference to United States standards which is other than what it is represented to be.

(c) The use in commerce of the word "turpentine" or the word "rosin," singly or with any other word or words, or of any compound, derivative, or imitation of either such word, or of any misleading word, or of any word, combination of words, letter, or combination of letters, provided herein or by the Secretary of Agriculture to be used to designate naval stores of any kind or grade, in selling, offering for sale, advertising, or shipping anything other than naval stores of the United States standards.

(d) The use in commerce of any false, misleading, or deceitful means or practice in the sale of naval stores or of anything offered as such.

(Mar. 3, 1923, ch. 217, §5, 42 Stat. 1436.)
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Aedan McCarthy

*W. Paul Flynn,*assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

No appearance for the appellant (defendant).

Argued October 1

decided October 1, 1974

No one having appeared in support of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County, the motion is dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 9 (Thursday, January 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 3233]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00599]


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

UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE


Notice of Meeting

    Agency: United States Institute of Peace.
    Date/Time: Friday, January 22, 2021 (10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.)
    Location: Virtual Board Meeting Information: Join by video:https://usip-org.zoomgov.com/j/1610908606?pwd=YmZoRFhvU2pSdm1FajRvbGtvL25XQT09.
    Dial-in option: +1-646-828-7666.
    Meeting ID: 161 090 8606/Password: 220238.
    Status: Open Session--Portions may be closed pursuant to Subsection 
(c) of Section 552(b) of Title 5, United States Code, as provided in 
subsection 1706(h)(3) of the United States Institute of Peace Act, 
Public Law 98-525.
    Agenda: January 22, 2021 Board Meeting: Chair's Report; Vice 
Chair's Report; President's Report; approval of minutes of the October 
23, 2020 Board meeting; Reports on USIP Priorities: Afghanistan, 
Ethiopia, Strategic Stability and Security, Latin America and the 
Global Fragility Act; Reports from USIP Building, Program, Audit & 
Finance, and Security Committees.
    Contact: Megan O'Hare, Chief of Staff: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f4999b9c958691b481879d84da9b8693"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8be6e4e3eaf9eecbfef8e2fba5e4f9ec">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Authority:  22 U.S.C. 4605(h)(3).

    Dated: January 7, 2021.
Megan O'Hare,
Chief of Staff.
[FR Doc. 2021-00599 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 8222.

#### The City of Toledo *v.*Older.

(Decided October 13 1903.)

Error to Circuit Court of Lucas county.

*Messrs. Denman & Friedman,*for plaintiff in error:

*Mr. P. G. Prentiss*and *Messrs. Beney & Johnson,*foY defendant in error.

Jndgment affirmed.

Spear, Shauck and Crew, JJ,, concur.