alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

Filed 3/10/16 In re J.F. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(San Joaquin)

----

In re J.F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court

Law. C 077569

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.F.,

Defendant and Appellant. (Super. Ct. No. 69519)

M inor J.F. appeals from a juvenile court order continuing him as a ward of the

court and placing him on probation subject to a 360

- day commitment to the San J oaquin

County Camp. Minor contends he is entitled to additional predisposition custody credit.

We will modify the juvenile court’s order awarding predisposition credit to award 66

days of pre disposition credit, and affirm the orde r as modified

.2 BACKGROUND

We need not recount the facts of minor’s offenses as such details are not relevant

to the contention on appeal. It is sufficient to explain that on November 16, 2012, minor

admitted allegations in a delinquency petition that he committed felony battery on a

police office r (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (c)(2 ))

, 1 felony vandalism ( § 59 4, subd. (a)(2 )),

misdemeanor resisting an officer ( § 148, subd. (a) (1) ), misdemeanor disorderly conduct

( § 647, subd. (f)), and misdemeanor unlawful use of a controlled substance (Heal th &

Saf. Code, § § 11550 )

. The juvenile court granted deferred entry of judgment but

subsequently lifted it when minor admitted an allegation in a second petition that he

committed misdemeanor false imprisonment. (§ 236.) T he juvenile court committed

minor to 360 days at the San Joaquin County Camp, suspended execution of the

commitment, and p laced minor on probation.

Minor subsequently admitted violating probation. At the disposition hearing, the

juvenile court lifte d the stay on the commitment to the San Joaquin County Camp

,

awarded 39 days of predisposition credit

, and reinstated probation.

DISCUSSION

Minor claims the trial court did not award the predisposition custody credit to

which he was entitle d

. The Attor ney General agrees and we do too

.

Juveniles are entitled to precommitment credit for time spent in custody. ( In re

Eric J. (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 522, 536.) Minor was in custody two times before the

disposition hearing : f

rom November 4, 2013 to December 2, 2 013

, a total of 29 days,

and from August 6, 2014 to September 11, 2014

, a total of 37 days. Accordingly, minor

spent 66 days in pre disposition custody. T he juvenile court awarded 39 days of

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.3

predisposition credit, but we will modify the order to award 66 days of pre disposition

credit

.

DISPOSITION

The order award ing predisposition credit is modified to award 66 days of

pre disposition credit

. T he juvenile court’s order is affirmed as modified

.

/S/

Mauro, J.

We concur:

/S/

Ni cholson, Acting P. J.

/S/

Butz, J.
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

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

RAYMUNDO RANGEL-NINO,

 Defendant.

Case No. 06-5066M

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 ( ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

 ( ) 

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant’s lack of community ties and resources..

 ( X ) Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal,

without prejudice to review..

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 April 6, 2006.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cr-05222-RBL Document 9 Filed 04/06/06 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

INA CO. ele d co,

WAYNE] Co.

BOUNDARY

, STARK

&,
| i wax

—

wi
i197 20

am ~ :

pl Peters Sel
oT

M Assutbee

BM 950)

+
A iceeee ,

a
Wey]

——— { Inland
Gace ee

. Richville

OR

nut Creek,

TUSCARAWAS CO 7 —

Base from U. S. Geol. Survey maps of Canton,
Dover, Massillon, and Navarre quadrangles, Ohio

oR 2 Bkn

DOV, ER

48M 988)

—
|

“sumagir co. |

BULLETIN 1003 PLATE 5

Rew. Bie
41 oc

PORTAGE \CO._*

+/ } mei
; iz a
R/ANDOLPH

.BOUNDARY

a

ae a
UN OLN DS

rN

|
aN

V STARK CO.

Divish,

$4

7 fonrbon ah. Scho.

MAP OF THE CANTON, DOVER, MASSILLON, AND NAVARRE QUADRANGLES, OHIO, SHOWING THICKNESS OF THE “WHITE CLINTON” SAND,
LOCATION OF WELLS DRILLED TO THE SAND, AND OIL OR GAS IN THE SAND

Scale 1:62,500

\A
a.

40%S

TIEN

16

CARROLL Co.

TUSCARAWAS Co “T

SS 30

ARobertson School

at

INTERIOR-GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, WASHINGTON, D.C.

TATN

= ~ gi
: |
So wwe

EXPLANATION

cod
Gas in a “Clinton” sand

a
Show of gas in a “Clinton” sand

‘Show of oil in a “Clinton” sand

*
Gas and oil in a “Clinton” sand

¥*

Oil and a show of gas in
a “Clinton” sand

%
Gas and a show of oil in
a “Clinton” sand

¥

Show of gas and sk show of oil
in a “Clinton” sand

a
Dry hole in the “Clinton” sands

Gas in the “white Clinton” sand

Gated aa acy cali tte
“white Clinton” sand

&

Show of gas in the “white Clinton” sand

Gas and oil in the “white Clinton” sand

Show of gas and show of oil in
the “white Clinton” sand

*

Show of oil in the “white Clinton” sand

Oil in the “white Clinton” sand

30-———
Lines showing thiglmoss of the
“white Clinton” sand; dashed
where inferred
oe

Thickness of the “white Clinton”
sand, in areas where the sand
thickness lines are not shown

on

Probable thickness of the
“white Clinton” sand

a
“White Clinton” sand present but
thickness not determinable

Bio,

Lenses of shale present in the
“white Clinton” ad (“Broken
formation,” “broken sand,” or

‘poe shells of the
driller.)

nt
No log available for well

ISN
No. 68973.

#### B. Altman & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 63/13559, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 CCPA 15, C.A.D. 458), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SPINE HOLDINGS, LLC,

Appellant

v.

ORTHOFIX MEDICAL INC.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2022-1730, 2022-1731

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-

01411, IPR2020-01412.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

JORGE MIGUEL HERNANDEZ, Carstens, Allen, & Gourley, LLP, Plano, TX, argued for appellant. Also represented by DAVID W. CARSTENS, BRIAN ANDREW CARPENTER. 

 J. ANDREW LOWES, Haynes and Boone, LLP, Plano, TX, 

argued for appellee. Also represented by CLINT S. WILKINS; 

DEBRA JANECE MCCOMAS, Dallas, TX; ANGELA M. OLIVER, 

Washington, DC. 

 ______________________ 

Case: 22-1730 Document: 39 Page: 1 Filed: 08/11/2023
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, WALLACH, and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

August 11, 2023 

Date

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

Jarrett B. Perlow

Clerk of Court

Case: 22-1730 Document: 39 Page: 2 Filed: 08/11/2023
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 757 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 757

 Requiring the House of Representatives to take any legislative action 
 necessary to verify the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment as 
 part of the Constitution when the legislatures of an additional three 
               States ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 18, 2007

Mr. Andrews (for himself, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Ms. Jackson-Lee of 
Texas, Mr. Boucher, and Mr. Cohen) submitted the following resolution; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Requiring the House of Representatives to take any legislative action 
 necessary to verify the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment as 
 part of the Constitution when the legislatures of an additional three 
               States ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.

    Resolved, That, when the legislatures of an additional three States 
ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, the House of Representatives shall 
take any legislative action necessary to verify the ratification of the 
Equal Rights Amendment as part of the Constitution.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 2 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 2

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
     relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect 
                               elections.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 21, 1997

 Mr. Hollings (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. 
  Shelby, Mr. Reid, Mr. Ford, and Mr. Reed) introduced the following 
joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
     relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect 
                               elections.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, to be valid only if 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within 7 years after the date of final passage of this joint 
resolution:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. Congress shall have power to set reasonable limits on 
the amount of contributions that may be accepted by, and the amount of 
expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to, a 
candidate for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal 
office.
    ``Section 2. A State shall have power to set reasonable limits on 
the amount of contributions that may be accepted by, and the amount of 
expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to, a 
candidate for nomination for election to, or for election to, State or 
local office.
    ``Section 3. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce 
this article by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 121,452

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,

Appellee,

v.

ANDREIA RENEE BRONNENBERG,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Montgomery District Court; F. WILLIAM CULLINS, judge. Opinion filed April 24, 

2020. Affirmed.

Submitted for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6820(g) and (h).

Before ARNOLD-BURGER, C.J., LEBEN, J., and MCANANY, S.J.

PER CURIAM: While she was on probation for felony attempted burglary, the State 

alleged that Andreia Bronnenberg had violated her probation by committing several new 

crimes. At a hearing to address Bronnenberg's probation and the new charges, 

Bronnenberg pleaded no contest to burglary of a nondwelling, a felony. Based on that 

new crime, the court revoked her probation and imposed her underlying 10-month prison 

sentence. See K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3716(c)(7)(C) (giving the district court the discretion 

to revoke probation if the defendant commits a new felony or misdemeanor while on 

probation).

Bronnenberg has now appealed the district court's decision to revoke her 

probation. On appeal, she does not challenge the district court's finding that she 
2

committed a new crime. Nor does she contest that a statute, K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-

3716(c)(7)(C), gave the court discretion to revoke her probation upon such a finding. 

Instead, she argues that the district court abused its discretion.

Unless the district court has made a legal or factual error (which isn't claimed 

here), we will set aside its discretionary decision only if no reasonable person could agree 

with the court's decision. State v. Jones, 306 Kan. 948, Syl. ¶ 7, 398 P.3d 856 (2017). 

Bronnenberg committed felony burglary while she was already on probation for an 

attempted felony burglary. Based on that, a reasonable person could conclude that 

probation had not changed Bronnenberg's behavior and that she wasn't a good candidate 

to continue on it. 

On Bronnenberg's motion, we accepted this appeal for summary disposition under 

K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6820(g) and (h) and Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2019 Kan. S. 

Ct. R. 47). After reviewing the record available to the sentencing court, we find no error 

in the sentence the it imposed. 

We therefore affirm its decision.
Before the First Division,

September 28, 1959

No. 63393.

protests 58/8544, etc. (New York).

#### Burleigh Brooks, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of photographic lenses similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 61107, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
f{F"

# ilt i

# /[ ri tlF 

## F,I {: i}

# it
2016 

### f

# tB I

# I t)l'l 2: l+ I CBIC 

### Control Number 

# 308148*$ 0PpT-2006,0621 

# Daikin Public 

# Report PFOA

# Stewardship ProgramTable 

## I

## - Rcportcd Emissions and Product Gontcnt of 

### PFOA Prucursors, and Hishar t{omologucs (2015 

### rapoilinsvca6 submittad in 2015) 

### from U.S. 5 submittad 1 Company Ghcmical Gatsgory Rclcasca

### to all

madie 

### from FP andTclomcr Manuf;rctr.rring 

### fts) Rclcascs 

### to all

mcdia fr,,om FP andTclomer Manufacturing 

### (ks/ks) Product 

### Gorilcnt

in Disparsiont (ppm

## w#rrdgtrt basis) Produst 

### Contcril

in otihcr Fluoropotymcru (ppm 

### drrwcietrt basis) Product Cofltcnt

inTalomcrs (ppm

### drnvcidrt basis, 

### unlcs stated otherrise)

Daikin PFOA 0 0 0 0 0

Prucuruons and 

### Hirhcr Homologuas 0 0 Nst Applicable Not Applicablc 0

Tablc 

## 2

## - Rcpottsd 

### Pcrcont Rcductions in Emissions and Prcduc{ Contsnt 

### of PFOA, 

### Prtcurrons, u. s. 5 gubmittad in

Gompany Chcmical Catcgpry 

## * Rtduc,tion in Emiseions 

# I Rcdustion in Produst Contcnt 

# I Rcduetions in 

### lrlcarcr from basclinc yGar Dispensions

(ppm wot-uvoigfrt hasir) 

### Othcr

Fluoropotymcru (ppm

### drrwright basis) Tclomcrs

(ppm 

### drrwdeht basis, unlcss 

### statcd otjrcrwisc)

Daikin PFOA 100r 

### t00r 

### t0or 100r

Prcoursors and 

### Hificr Homoloxurs 

### l00r Hst Applicablr NotApplicable 1

### 00r

### Appendix 1-1 

# TSCACBI - Sanitized 

# * Environmental Releases 

## of PFOA 

## -from 

## Fluoropolymer Production



# TSCA 

# CBI - Sanitized ?rEmulsilier" hf,s changed from PFOA in 2000to non-PFOA altemative emulsifiers in 2012 (

### Total PFOA Used ) ( 

### Production



### vol'meof Fluoropolymer Products 

### Mrnufactured using 

### Emulsifer* ) (tons/year) Releases 

### to all 

### environmental



### from F-polymer manufacture
( 

### PFOA) (kg$ kss of 

### PFOA

tons of F-polymers

### Appendix 1-2 

# TSCA 

# CBI - Sanitized

O Environmental Releases 

## of 

## PFOA, Precursors and 

# Higher homologues 

# from Telomer 

## Production
( 

### Production volume of Telomer Products 

### )

(tons/year) Releases to

### all environmental compartments 

### from F-telomer manufacture 

### Tyle of moiety kss of moietv tons of telomers*



# TSCA

# CBI - Sanitized

### Appendix 1-3 

# O Concentrationof 

## PFOA 

# in Fluoropolymer Products 

# TSCACBI - Sanitized

( Sales volume 

### of Fluoropolymer Products 

### Manufactured Emulsifer* )
(tons/year) Concentration of PFOA in Products
( 

### PFOA) (kss) kgs of 

### PFOA

tons of 

### F-polymers



# TSCA 

# CBI - Sanitized "Emulsifierrr has changed from PFOA in 2000 to non-PFOA alternative emulsifiers in 2012

### Appendix 1-4 

# TSCA 

# CBI - Sanitized 

# ) Concentration 

# ofPFOA, Precurcorc 

## & 

# Higher homologues 

# in Telamer 

# Produc* (PFOA, 

## Alcohol" 

# OleftA lodide)
( Sales volume 

### of Telomer Products 

### )

(tons/year) Concentration of Moiety 

### in Products

Type of moiety kss

### of moietv tons oftelomers



# TSCA

# CBI - Snnitized
No. 62842.

#### Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/2817(B) (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

The protest was dismissed.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

NORTHWEST ADMINISTRATORS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

D.J. & SONS TRUCKING, INC.,

a Washington Corporation,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C06-391-MAT

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO CONTINUE NOTING

DATE OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant filed a motion to continue the noting date of plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment. (Dkt. 13.) Defendant’s counsel seeks to continue the noting date from September 8,

2006 to September 29, 2006. He requests the continuance due to his obligations in a variety of

other legal matters. Plaintiff objects to defendant’s request. (Dkt. 16.) In support, plaintiff points

to the objective of promptly resolving Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”)

cases of this kind, and the fact that defendant did not raise any substantive defenses in its answer

to plaintiff’s complaint. 

Having considered defendant’s motion and plaintiff’s objection, the Court hereby finds and

ORDERS:

(1) Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. Defendant reasonably requests a relatively 

short extension of the noting date and provides sufficient justification for the requested extension.

Case 2:06-cv-00391-MAT Document 19 Filed 08/23/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER

PAGE -2

Moreover, plaintiff fails to provide any compelling reason for denying defendant’s request. As

such, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 9) is hereby renoted for consideration on

September 29, 2006.

(2) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel for plaintiff and 

defendant.

DATED this 23rd day of August, 2006.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00391-MAT Document 19 Filed 08/23/06 Page 2 of 2
# Official Journal C 401A/7 No

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 401A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 617 November 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 401A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 617 November 2018

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2018/C 401 A/01 | Call for applications | 1 |

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2018/C 401 A/01

Call for applications

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
EXHIBIT K 

Plaintiff Gordon’s Answers and Responses 

to Defendant Virtumundo’s First 

Interrogatories and Requests for Production 

of Documents to Gordon, pp. 1, 4 

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 102-12 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 1 of 3

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 102 Att. 11

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 102-12 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 102-12 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 3 of 3