alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 6/28/22 G.T. v. Madera County Dept. of Social Services etc. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

G.T.,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

MADERA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

SOCIAL SERVICES/CHILD WELFARE 

SERVICES et al.,

Respondents.

F082701

(Super. Ct. No. MJP018664)

OPINION

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Thomas L. 

Bender, Judge.

Munger Tolles & Olson, Jordan D. Segall and Lloyd S. Marshall; University of 

California at Irvine School of Law, Susan E. Seager and Jack Lerner for Petitioner and 

Appellant.

Regina A. Garza, County Counsel, and Christopher B. Dorian, for Respondent 

Madera County Department of Social Services/Child Welfare Services.

Beth A. Sears, under appointment of the Court of Appeal, for Respondent D.S.

-ooOoo-
2.

In this proceeding, G.T. appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying his 

petition to obtain the juvenile case file of D.S., a deceased child, under Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 827, subdivision (a)(2). G.T. argues the juvenile court erred in 

denying his petition because it: (1) failed to hold a hearing; (2) considered impermissible 

factors when deciding whether to release D.S.’s records; (3) found D.S. had no juvenile 

case file because a dependency petition had not been filed on her behalf; and (4) failed to 

make factual findings to support its denial of his request. G.T asks us to reverse the 

juvenile court’s order and either order release of the D.S. case file or remand the matter to

the juvenile court for it to review his petition under the proper standards.

After G.T. filed this appeal, he filed a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition, 

in which he made the same arguments as in this appeal and sought to compel the juvenile 

court to vacate its order denying his petition and either enter an order granting the 

petition or remand for a hearing under the proper standards. We recently issued an 

opinion in the writ proceeding, in which we granted the writ petition and ordered 

issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate directing the juvenile court to vacate its order 

denying the petition and hold a hearing on G.T.’s request for the disclosure of D.S.’s 

juvenile case file. (Therolf v. Superior Court (June 28, 2022, F082993) [nonpub. opn.].) 

Since we have granted the relief G.T. seeks in this appeal, there is no further relief we 

may grant. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal as moot.
3.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed as moot.1

MEEHAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

LEVY, Acting P. J.

POOCHIGIAN, J.

1 Appellant’s request for judicial notice, filed on July 12, 2021, is denied as moot. 

Respondent D.S.’s request for judicial notice, filed August 25, 2021, is denied as moot.
§ 22.223 Designated entities. ( a ) *Scope.* The definitions in this section apply to §§ 22.201 through 22.227, unless otherwise specified in those sections.
( b ) A small business is an entity that either: ( 1 ) Together with its affiliates and controlling interests has average gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three years; or
( 2 ) Together with its affiliates and controlling interests has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years.
[68 FR 42998, July 21, 2003]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.1 Proceedings before the Commission.

The Commission may on its own motion or petition of any interested party hold such proceedings as it may deem necessary from time to time in connection with the investigation of any matter which it has power to investigate under the law, or for the purpose of obtaining information necessary or helpful in the determination of its policies, the carrying out of its duties or the formulation or amendment of its rules and regulations. For such purposes it may subpena witnesses and require the production of evidence. Procedures to be followed by the Commission shall, unless specifically prescribed in this part, be such as in the opinion of the Commission will best serve the purposes of such proceedings.

(Sec. 403, 48 Stat. 1094; 47 U.S.C. 403)
# LATEST CIC RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS

/ Published Aug. 28, 2017

•In July, **Dr. Paul Shapiro**, CIC Professor, published an article entitled “Cyber Policy: Public Private Partnerships and Securing Our Critical Infrastructure” in the National Maritime Intelligence - Integration Office Technical Bulletin, Volume 12.

• In July, **Maj Brian Young**, USAF and CIC student, published an essay entitled “Commercial Satellites, Critical Information Infrastructure Protection, and Preventing Today's Threat Actors from Becoming Tomorrow's Captain Midnight”, in the book edited by Unal Tatar, Yasir Gokce, and Adrian V. Gheorghe, entitled Strategic cyber defense: A multidisciplinaryperspective in the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series.

• In July, **Mr. Harry Jackson**, CIC student, published a paper entitled “The Need for a Maritime Cyber Risk Management Framework,” in the book edited by Unal Tatar, Yasir Gokce, and Adrian V. Gheorghe, entitled Strategic cyber defense: A multidisciplinary perspective in the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series.
#### §§ 73.659-73.663 [Reserved]
# NDU iCollege awards 21 GIL Masters Degrees at NDU Graduation Ceremony

/ Published June 8, 2012

The National Defense University’s Graduation ceremony was held on Thursday, June 7, 2012, at Fort Lesley J. McNair, located in Washington, DC.   General Martin E. Dempsey, U.S. Army, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was the graduation speaker.  The National Defense University (NDU) iCollege honored 21 graduates; all received a Master’s of Science Degree in Government Information Leadership (GIL).  Students can choose from a selection of courses to meet degree requirements in the  following concentrations:  Chief Financial Officer, Chief Information Officer, Chief Technology Officer, Cyber Leadership, Cyber Security, Enterprise Architecture, Government Strategic Leader, Information Operations, and Information Technology Program Management.  The 21 graduates represented the Department of Defense (Army, Navy, Air Force, and the Army National Guard), Federal Aviation Administration, Defense Finance and Accounting Services, U.S. House of Representatives, Defense Information Systems Agency, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific, U.S. Special Operations Command, Department of Homeland Security, Department of the Navy, and Lockheed Martin Corporation. 

More than 680 students from all NDU colleges (iCollege, National War College, Industrial College of the Armed Forces, and the College of International Security Affairs), walked up to the stage in their cap and gowns, to accept their degrees, and shake hands with the college’s commandants, while VIP’s, faculty, and family members watched proudly; clapping, taking photographs, and cheering their graduates on.  The NDU iCollege faculty and staff wishes all of the graduates the very best. 

To learn more about the NDU iCollege certificate programs and the GIL Master’s Degree, information and an application form
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4839

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to issue regulations concerning use

of the term ‘‘fresh’’ in the labeling of poultry, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 27, 1994

Mr. CONDIT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to issue regulations

concerning use of the term ‘‘fresh’’ in the labeling of

poultry, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. REGULATIONS ON LABELING OF POULTRY.

4 Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment

5 of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall issue final

6 regulations under the Poultry Product Inspection Act (21

7 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) that prohibit the use of the term

8 ‘‘fresh’’ on labeling of any poultry or poultry part, or of

9 any edible portion of the poultry or part, that has been
2

•HR 4839 IH

1 frozen or previously frozen to below 26 degrees Fahrenheit

2 at the center of the poultry, part, or portion.

Æ
###### Editorial Note on Part 74

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 74 appear at 64 FR 4055, Jan. 27, 1999.

#### § 74.797 Biennial Ownership Reports.

The Ownership Report for Commercial Broadcast Stations (FCC Form 2100, Schedule 323) must be electronically filed by December 1 in all odd-numbered years by each licensee of a low power television station or other Respondent (as defined in § 73.3615(a) of this chapter). A licensee or other Respondent with a current and unamended biennial ownership report (*i.e.,* a report that was filed pursuant to this section) on file with the Commission that is still accurate and which was filed using the version of the report that is current on October 1 of the year in which its biennial ownership report is due may electronically validate and resubmit its previously filed biennial ownership report. The information provided on each ownership report shall be current as of October 1 of the year in which the ownership report is filed. For information on filing requirements, filers should refer to § 73.3615(a) of this chapter.

[82 FR 55772, Nov. 24, 2017, as amended at 87 FR 58206, Sept. 23, 2022]
§ 54.720 Filing deadlines. ( a ) An affected party requesting review or waiver of an Administrator decision by the Commission pursuant to § 54.719, shall file such a request within sixty (60) days from the date the Administrator issues a decision.
( b ) An affected party requesting review of an Administrator decision by the Administrator pursuant to § 54.719(a), shall file such a request within sixty (60) days from the date the Administrator issues a decision.
( c ) In all cases of requests for review filed under § 54.719(a) through (c), the request for review shall be deemed filed on the postmark date. If the postmark date cannot be determined, the applicant must file a sworn affidavit stating the date that the request for review was mailed.
( d ) Parties shall adhere to the time periods for filing oppositions and replies set forth in 47 CFR 1.45.
[80 FR 5991, Feb. 4, 2015]
[Crim. No. 5299.

Fourth Dist., Div. One.

Oct. 12, 1973.]

#### THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RANDOLPH EUGENE GARAUX, Defendant and Appellant.

*612Counsel

Thomas J. Ryan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, Edward A. Hinz, Jr., Chief Assistant Attorney General, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, A. Wells Petersen and Stephen E. Wittman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Opinion

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

Defendant Randolph Eugene Garaux was found guilty of first degree murder and sane. He appeals the judgment.

In the guilt phase, Garaux waived a jury trial. Trial began June 5, 1972. On June 9, 1972, Garaux sought to withdraw his not guilty plea and enter a plea of guilty. The court denied his motion, and he was found guilty on June 26, 1972. The following day a jury trial began to determine the sanity issue. Garaux moved to withdraw his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. The court denied his motion, and three weeks later the jury found him sane when he had murdered. The court sentenced him to life imprisonment with 182 days credit for time already served.

In short, the situation is of a defendant desiring to admit his guilt by pleading guilty, being found guilty, and then appealing.

Garaux contends the court erred during the guilt phase of the trial by allowing his confession of murder into evidence. He had confessed to *613a psychotherapist, Dr. Solomon, appointed by the court at Garaux’s request in an unrelated case in which he was charged with assault with a deadly weapon, burglary, and attempted burglary.1 He claims the admissions were privileged communications between patient and psychotherapist (Evid. Code, § 1014). However, in view of the evidence presented by Garaux in the unrelated first trial where he called Dr. Solomon as his own witness and elicited the admissions, he waived any privilege. Evidence Code section 912 applies. It provides, with exceptions not applicable here, the privilege as to a communication is waived where the holder of the privilege, without coercion, has disclosed a significant part of the communication or has consented to such disclosure.

Since Dr. Solomon’s testimony was properly admitted, there was no miscarriage of justice, as Garaux contends, in admitting it.

Judgment affirmed.

Ault, J., and Cologne, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing was de-nied November 1, 1973, and appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied December 19, 1973.

1

Garaux has appealed this conviction (4 Grim. No. 5231).
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4727

To designate the Federal building located at 125 Market Street in

Youngstown, Ohio, as the ‘‘Thomas D. Lambros Federal Building’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 12, 1994

Mr. TRAFICANT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Public Works and Transportation

A BILL

To designate the Federal building located at 125 Market

Street in Youngstown, Ohio, as the ‘‘Thomas D.

Lambros Federal Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The Federal building located at 125 Market Street

5 in Youngstown, Ohio, shall be known and designated as

6 the ‘‘Thomas D. Lambros Federal Building’’.

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

10 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be
2

•HR 4727 IH

1 a reference to the ‘‘Thomas D. Lambros Federal Build2 ing’’.

Æ
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel Program Projects.                    

*Date:*                         August 4, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Key Bridge Marriott, 1401 Lee Highway, Arlington, VA 22209.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Rita Liu, Health Scientist Administrator, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 3158, MSC 9547, Bethesda, MD 20892-9547, (301) 443-2620.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.277, Drug Abuse Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, Scientist Development Awards, and Research Scientist Awards; 93.278, Drug Abuse National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 93.279, Drug Abuse Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: June 29, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-17097  Filed 7-5-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 973/2005

of 24 June 2005         

determining the extent to which applications lodged in June 2005 for import rights in respect of frozen beef intended for processing may be accepted

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 716/2005 of 12 May 2005 opening and providing for the administration of an import tariff quota for frozen beef intended for processing (1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006) (2), and in particular Article 5(4) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Every application for import rights lodged in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 716/2005 for the period 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006 shall be granted to the following extent, expressed as bone-in beef:

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 25 June 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 24 June 2005.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1899/2004 (OJ L 328, 30.10.2004, p. 67).

(2)OJ L 121, 13.5.2005, p. 53.

----
§ 73.1670 Auxiliary transmitters. ( a ) A licensee of a broadcast station may, without further authority from the FCC, install and use with the main antenna system one or more auxiliary transmitters for the following purposes: ( 1 ) The transmission of regular programs upon failure of the main transmitter.
( 2 ) The transmission of regular programs during maintenance or modification of the main transmitter.
( 3 ) Emergency broadcast system operation.
( 4 ) The transmission of regular programs by an AM station authorized for Presunrise (PSRA) and/or Postsunset (PSSA) operation.
( 5 ) The transmission of tests to determine the operating condition of the auxiliary transmitter or auxiliary antenna.
( 6 ) For testing, upon the request of representatives of the FCC.
( b ) Authorization to install an auxiliary transmitter for use with other than the main antenna or authorized auxiliary antenna must be obtained by filing an application for a construction permit on FCC form 301 (FCC form 340 for noncommercial educational stations).
( c ) The following technical and operating standards apply to auxiliary transmitters: ( 1 ) The auxiliary transmitter may be operated on only the station's authorized frequency and within the required carrier frequency departure tolerance for the type of station.
( 2 ) The carrier frequency of the auxiliary transmitter must be measured as often as necessary to ensure that it is maintained within the prescribed tolerance.
( 3 ) When using an auxiliary transmitter, the operating power may be less than the authorized power but may not exceed the authorized power within the permitted tolerance for the type of station. If operation with an auxiliary transmitter at reduced power continues for a period exceeding 10 days, the FCC in Washington, DC must be notified. (See § 73.51, AM; § 73.267, FM; § 73.567, NCE-FM; and § 73.663, TV).
( 4 ) Normal operator requirements apply to the operation of the auxiliary transmitter.
Note:
After January 1, 1979, new licenses will not be issued nor will existing licenses be renewed for auxiliary transmitters that are operated into the main antenna system.
[43 FR 53741, Nov. 17, 1978, as amended at 44 FR 22740, Apr. 17, 1979; 48 FR 36463, Aug. 11, 1983; 48 FR 42960, Sept. 20, 1983; 48 FR 44806, Sept. 30, 1983; 50 FR 32417, Aug. 12, 1985; 51 FR 32088, Sept. 9, 1986]
§ 76.60 Compensation for carriage. A cable operator is prohibited from accepting or requesting monetary payment or other valuable consideration in exchange either for carriage or channel positioning of any broadcast television station carried in fulfillment of the must-carry requirements, except that ( a ) Any such station may be required to bear the costs associated with delivering a good quality signal or a baseband video signal to the principal headend of the cable system; or
( b ) A cable operator may accept payments from stations which would be considered distant signals under the cable compulsory copyright license, 17 U.S.C. 111, as indemnification for any increased copyright liability resulting from carriage of such signal. Note:
A cable operator may continue to accept monetary payment or other valuable consideration in exchange for carriage or channel positioning of the signal of any local commercial television station carried in fulfillment of the must-carry requirements, through, but not beyond, the date of expiration of an agreement between a cable operator and a local commercial television station entered into prior to June 26, 1990.
( c ) A cable operator may accept payments from stations pursuant to a retransmission consent agreement, even if such station will be counted towards the must-carry complement, as long as all other applicable rules are adhered to.
[58 FR 17362, Apr. 2, 1993, as amended at 59 FR 62345, Dec. 5, 1994]
No. 10-1410.

#### Canal Barge Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.