alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
California High-Speed Rail Authority 

Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section 

Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact 

Report/Environmental 

Impact Statement 

Appendix 2-F 

Interim Use 

November 2017 
Appendix 2-F 

Interim Use 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 

This page intentionally left blank 
Appendix 2-F 

Interim Use 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 2-F-1 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 

APPENDIX 2-F: INTERIM USE 

A number of technical appendices included as part of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) have not been 

recreated for the purposes of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS because the information contained 

within the technical appendix would remain applicable to the F-B LGA. Appendix 2-F did not 

require an update for the F-B LGA analysis and therefore is not included in Volume II of the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. To review the appendix in its entirety, 

please refer to the Authority’s Final EIR/EIS: Fresno to Bakersfield website. 
Appendix 2-F 

Interim Use 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

2-F-2 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 

This page intentionally left blank
Filed 12/17/20 One Ford Road Homeowners Assn. v. Johnson CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

ONE FORD ROAD HOMEOWNERS 

ASSOCIATION,

 Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and 

Respondent,

v.

STACIE JOHNSON et al.,

 Defendants, Cross-complainants and 

Appellants.

 G058269

 (Super. Ct. No. 30‐2017‐00945540)

 O P I N I O N

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, 

Kathleen E. Scherger, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) 

Reversed.

Law Office of Philip A. Levy and Philip A. Levy for Defendants, 

Cross-complainants and Appellants.

Richardson  Ober  DeNichilo, Kelly G. Richardson and Daniel C. Heaton 

for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent.

* * *

Stacie Johnson and Lloyd Rucker appeal from a postjudgment order 

granting the motion of One Ford Road Homeowners Association (the Association) for 

attorney fees. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that Johnson and Rucker had 
2

violated the covenants, conditions, and restrictions of One Ford Road, a planned unit 

development in Newport Beach, and judgment was entered in favor of the Association. 

The judgment included a decree that the Association is the prevailing party entitled to 

recover attorney fees pursuant to motion. After entry of judgment, the Association 

brought a motion to recover attorney fees based on a fee provision in the CC&R’s. The 

trial court granted the motion and awarded the Association $109,760 in attorney fees out 

of $154,744 requested. 

In a related appeal, we are reversing the judgment in favor of the

Association with directions to enter judgment in favor of Johnson and Rucker. (One 

Ford Road Homeowners Association v. Johnson et al. (Dec. 17, 2020, G057674) 

[nonpub. opn.].) An order awarding attorney fees “‘falls with a reversal of the judgment 

on which it is based.’” (California Grocers Assn. v. Bank of America (1994) 22 

Cal.App.4th 205, 220; see Ryan v. California Interscholastic Federation-San Diego 

Section (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1048, 1082 [“Because we reverse the judgment to the 

extent that Ryan prevailed, we must also reverse the postjudgment order that followed 

awarding attorney fees and costs to his counsel”].) 

We are reversing the judgment, therefore, the order granting the 

Association’s motion for attorney fees is reversed too. Appellants to recover costs on 

appeal.

FYBEL, J.

WE CONCUR:

MOORE, ACTING P. J.

ARONSON, J.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 72 (Monday, April 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 18959]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7121]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of the Census


2010 Census Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau) is giving notice 
of a meeting of the 2010 Census Advisory Committee. Committee members 
will address policy, research, and technical issues related to the 2010 
Decennial Census Program. Working groups will be convened to assist in 
planning efforts for the 2010 Census and the American Community Survey. 
Last-minute adjustments to the agenda are possible, which could prevent 
giving advance notification of schedule changes.

DATES: May 17-18, 2007. On May 17, the meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. 
and end at approximately 5:15 p.m. On Friday, May 18, 2007, the meeting 
will begin at 9 a.m. and end at approximately 12 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 
Silver Hill Road, Suitland, Maryland 20746.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jeri Green, Committee Liaison 
Officer, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H153, 
Washington, DC 20233, telephone (301) 763-2070, TTY (301) 457-2540.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 2010 Census Advisory Committee is 
composed of a Chair, Vice-Chair, and 20 member organizations--all 
appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The Committee considers the 
goals of the decennial census, including the American Community Survey 
and related programs, and users' needs for information provided by the 
decennial census from the perspective of outside data users and other 
organizations having a substantial interest and expertise in the 
conduct and outcome of the decennial census. The Committee has been 
established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, Section 10(a)(b)).
    A brief period will be set aside at the meeting for public comment. 
However, individuals with extensive statements for the record must 
submit them in writing to the Census Bureau Committee Liaison Officer 
named above at least three working days prior to the meeting. Seating 
is available to the public on a first-come, first-served basis.
    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to the Census Bureau Committee Liaison Officer as 
soon as known, and preferably two weeks prior to the meeting.

    Dated: April 11, 2007.
Charles Louis Kincannon,
Director, Bureau of the Census.
[FR Doc. E7-7121 Filed 4-13-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated statement of operations, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               jun-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                          6,394,160
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   7,991,518
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     906,294
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                15,624,789
<PP&E>                          684,573
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  17,084,009
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           3,665,360
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        74,695
<OTHER-SE>                      0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    13,407,549
<SALES>                         11,254,860
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                11,254,860
<CGS>                           9,391,958
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   9,391,958
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 502,064
<INCOME-TAX>                    170,912
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    331,152
<EPS-BASIC>                   0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0.07



</TABLE>
(Reap. Dec. 9261)

#### H. A. Gogarty, Inc., a/c Nife, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 838048-1/7, etc.

*586(Decided November 25, 1958)

*Lane, Young & Fox*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

LaweenCE, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” attached to and made part of the decision herein, have been consolidated for determination.

The parties hereto have entered into a stipulation of fact, which reads as follows:

> 1. That on the respective dates of exportation each Nife Battery was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of Sweden, the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States, at the prices stated in Schedule A.

> 2. That the prices for such or similar merchandise offered for sale for exportation to the United States were not higher than the respective prices stated in Paragraph 1 above.

> 3. That the appeals for reappraisement as to any and all merchandise not stated in Schedule A are hereby abandoned.

Upon the record before the court, I find and hold that foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. §1402 (c)), as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, is the proper basis for determining the value of the Nife batteries and parts in controversy, and that said value is as set forth in schedule “A,” attached to and made part of the decision herein. As to all other merchandise, the appeals are dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
ex_10-1.htm


    
      

      

    

    Exhibit
10.1

     

    

    
      
        
        

      

      
        1

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

    

    
      
        
        

      

      
        2

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

    

    
      
        
        

      

      
        3

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

    

    
      
        
        

      

      
        4

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

    

    
      
        
        

      

      
        5

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

    

    
      
        
        

      

      
        6

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

    

    
      
        
        

      

      
        7

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

    

    
      
        
        

      

      
        8

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

    

    
      
        
        

      

      
        9

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

    

    
      
        
        

      

      
        10

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

    

    
      
        
        

      

      
        11
# C_2007297EN.01001201.xml

| 8.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-217/06) (1)

1

(Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations - Public works contracts - Directive 71/305/EEC - Meaning and definition of a public works contract - Failure which has produced all its effects)

(2007/C 297/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, agent and M. Mollica, avocat,)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia and S. Fiorentino, agents.)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 3 and 12 of Council Directive 71/305/EEC of 26 July 1971 concerning the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1971 L 185, p. 5) — Award, after private negotiation and without publication of a notice of invitation to tender, of a works contract for the performance of works specified in resolution No 48 of the Municipal Council of Stintino of 14 December 1989, in particular: ‘the design and execution of works relating to the technical and structural modernisation, maintenance and completion of the water supply and drainage networks, the road network, and structures and facilities serving the centre of population, the external villages and the tourist zones of the territory of the commune of Stintino, and including the cleaning and decontamination of the coast and tourist centres of that commune’

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | declares that by allowing execution of at least one of the operations entrusted by the commune of Stintino to the company Maresar Soc. Cons arl under the Agreement No 7/91 signed on 2 October 1991 and additional measures subsequently agreed by the same parties, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 71/305/EEC of 26 July 1971 concerning the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, and in particular Articles 3 and 12 thereof; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declares that by allowing execution of at least one of the operations entrusted by the commune of Stintino to the company Maresar Soc. Cons arl under the Agreement No 7/91 signed on 2 October 1991 and additional measures subsequently agreed by the same parties, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 71/305/EEC of 26 July 1971 concerning the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, and in particular Articles 3 and 12 thereof;

| 2. | orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 178 of 29.7.2006.

1

---