alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22434-22435]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11083]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to OMB for 
Review

April 26, 1995.
    The Department of the Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law 96-511. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

OMB Number: 1545-1250
Form Number: IRS Form 9356
Type of Review: Revision
Title: Application for Software Developers to Participate in the 1040PC 
Format for Individual Income Tax Returns
Description: Form 9356 will be filled-in by software developers and 
submitted to IRS as an application for producing software for the Form 
1040PC.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit [[Page 22435]] 
Estimated Number of Respondents: 200
Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent: 15 minutes
Frequency of Response: Annually
Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 50 hours
Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear (202) 622-3869, Internal Revenue 
Service, Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 
20224.
OMB Reviewer: Milo Sunderhauf (202) 395-7340, Office of Management and 
Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 
20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-11083 Filed 5-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-41244 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PRIMITIVO OVIEDO-GALVAN, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-01-CR-424-01

-------------------- June 18, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Primitivo Oviedo-Galvan has moved for leave to withdraw, filing a motion and brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Oviedo-Galvan has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s Anders motion and brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
Steven FIELDMAN and Siqi Sun, Petitioners, v. The UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, Respondent.

No. 1D18-3334

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 24, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

DENIED.
David MORO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-1223.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11552]



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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Dkt. C-3570]


HEALTHSOUTH Rehabilitation Corp.; Prohibited Trade Practices, and 
Affirmative Corrective Actions

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Consent order.

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

SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged violations of federal law prohibiting 
unfair acts and practices and unfair methods of competition, this 
consent order requires, among other things, HEALTHSOUTH, an Alabama-
based corporation, to divest Nashville Rehabilitation Hospital and 
related assets in Nashville, TN. within twelve months to a Commission 
approved entity. If the divestiture is not completed on time, the 
Commission is permitted to appoint a trustee to complete the 
transaction. In addition, the consent order requires HEALTHSOUTH to 
terminate management contracts to operate rehabilitation units at 
Medical Center East in Birmingham, AL. and Roper Hospital in 
Charleston, S.C. Also, the consent order requires HEALTHSOUTH, for ten 
years, to obtain Commission approval before merging, by acquisition, 
lease, management contract or otherwise, any of its rehabilitation 
hospital facilities in any of the three areas with any competing 
facilities in those areas.

DATES: Complaint and Order issued April 12, 1995.\1\

    \1\Copies of the Complaint and the Decision and Order are 
available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, H-130, 6th 
Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Horoschak or Oscar Voss, FTC/S-
3115, Washington, DC 20580. (202) 326-2756 or 326-2750.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Friday, January 27, 1995, there was 
published in the Federal Register, 60 FR 5401, a proposed consent 
agreement with analysis In the Matter of HEALTHSOUTH Rehabilitation 
Corporation, for the purpose of soliciting public comment. Interested 
parties were given sixty (60) days in which to submit comments, 
suggestions or objections regarding the proposed form of the order.
    No comments having been received, the Commission has ordered the 
issuance of the compliant in the form contemplated by the agreement, 
made its jurisdictional findings and entered an order to divest, as set 
forth in the proposed consent agreement, in disposition of this 
proceeding.

(Sec. 6, 38 Stat. 721; 15 U.S.C. 46. Interpret or apply sec. 5, 38 
Stat. 719, as amended; sec. 7, 38 Stat. 731, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 
45, 18)
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11552 Filed 5-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
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

1

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT

Scott Sagaria (State Bar No.217981)

sjsagaria@sagarialaw.com

Elliot Gale (State Bar No. 263326)

egale@sagarialaw.com

Joe Angelo (State Bar No. 268542)

jangelo@sagarialaw.com

SAGARIA LAW, P.C.

3017 Douglas Blvd., Ste. 100

Roseville, California 95661

Telephone: (408) 279-2288

Facsimile: (408) 279-2299

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

VICTOR VAZQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, 

INC.; et. al.,

Defendants.

Federal Case No.: 3:17-CV-00424-RS

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT 

STERLING JEWELERS, INC.

PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF 

CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(A)(1)

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Victor Vazquez, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(a)(1), hereby voluntarily dismisses Defendant Sterling Jewelers, Inc. as to all claims 

in this action, with prejudice.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) provides, in relevant part:

41(a) Voluntary Dismissal 

(1) By the Plaintiff

(a) Without a Court Order. Subject to Rules 23(3), 23.1(c), 23.2, and 66 and any 

applicable federal statute, the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court 

Case 3:17-cv-00424-RS Document 32 Filed 06/16/17 Page 1 of 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

2

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT 

order by filing: 

a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a 

motion for summary judgment. 

Defendant Sterling Jewelers, Inc. has neither answered Plaintiff’s Complaint, nor filed a 

motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the matter may be dismissed against it for all 

purposes and without an Order of the Court. 

Dated: June 16, 2017 Sagaria Law, P.C. 

By: /s/ Elliot W. Gale

Elliot W. Gale

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Victor Vazquez

Case 3:17-cv-00424-RS Document 32 Filed 06/16/17 Page 2 of 2
1 

PHASE Scientific International, Ltd.: INDICAID COVID-19 Rapid Antigen At-Home Test

12-month to 15-month self-life extension granted by the FDA June 16, 2023 

Lot number Tests with this printed 

expiration date

Now have this extended 

expiration date

22S0142 - 22S0166

22X0052 - 22X0058 April 2023 July 2023

22A0008 - 22A0016

22E0004 - 22E0006

22G0003 - 22G0005

22S0167 - 22S0213

22S0215 - 22S0216

22S0218

22T0001

22X0059 - 22X0109 May 2023 August 2023

22A0017

22E0007 - 22E0009

22G0006 - 22G0007

22L0003 - 22L0008

22S0214

22S0217

22S0219 - 22S0237

22S0239 - 22S0246

22S0248 - 22S0251

22S0253 - 22S0272

22S0275 - 22S0276

22T0002 - 22T0003

22X0110 June 2023 September 2023

22S0277 - 22S0286

22S0289 - 22S0290

22S0292

22S0294 - 22S0302

22S0304 - 22S0305

22S0307 - 22S0309 July 2023 October 2023

22T0006 - 22T0008 August 2023 November 2023

22S0344 - 22S0345

22S0347 - 22S0352

22S0360 - 22S0365

22S0370 - 22S0371

22S0384

22T0004 - 22T0005

22T0009 - 22T0012 September 2023 December 2023
2 

Lot number Tests with this printed 

expiration date

Now have this extended 

expiration date

22S0366 - 22S0369

22S0372 - 22S0374

22T0013 - 22T0020

22T0022 - 22T0051 October 2023 January 2024

22S0376

22S0380

22S0383

22S0385

22S0388

22S0404 - 22S0405 November 2023 February 2024

22S0408

22S0410 - 22S0411 December 2023 March 2024

23S0002 - 23S0005

23T0001 - 23T0007 January 2024 April 2024

23S0029

23S0032

23T0008 - 23T0012 April 2024 July 2024
Case 3:17-mj-70212-LB Document 2 Filed 02/13/17 Page 1 of 1
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 3:17-cv-00898-LB Document 2 Filed 02/22/17 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 3:17-cv-00898-LB Document 2 Filed 02/22/17 Page 2 of 2
Dolphus L. COLLINS, petitioner, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

No. 12-9305.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
Case 3:05-cv-01967-CRB Document 37 Filed 07/31/06 Page 1 of 2Case 3:05-cv-01967-CRB Document 37 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 2
#### Learie A. DALY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Calvin MCCORMICK, District Director, Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 03-7769.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2004.

Decided April 27, 2004.

Learie A. Daly, Appellant pro se.

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Learie A. Daly, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Daly v. McCormick,*No. CA-03-2742-AMD (D.Md. Oct. 6, 2003). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
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

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;

OTTOMOTTO LLC; and OTTO

TRUCKING LLC,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULE

FOR MOTIONS TO CONTINUE

TRIAL DATE OR FOR OTHER

RELIEF BASED ON FEDERAL

CIRCUIT PROCEEDINGS OR

AFTERMATH

As discussed at the hearing on September 6, any motion to continue the trial date

currently set for October 10 or for other relief based on the status of pending Federal Circuit

proceedings (or for any other reason) must be filed by SEPTEMBER 29 AT NOON, with responses

due by OCTOBER 1 AT NOON and a hearing (if needed) on OCTOBER 3 AT 8:00 A.M. The last

day we can call off the venire will be OCTOBER 6. 

Any party that fails to make such a motion will be deemed to have consented to trial and

to have forgone the issues involved in the pending Federal Circuit proceedings, as well as any

other relevant issues or concerns that could have been raised before trial. For example, the

Court understands that plaintiff Waymo LLC already agreed to limit its trade secrets case to

nine asserted claims. Any motion to continue the trial date so that more asserted trade secret

claims may be included in the trial will be subject to the foregoing schedule, and failure to so

move will constitute consent to trying only those claims currently selected for trial.

Please do not move to continue the trial date for any specific length (e.g., four weeks). 

The Court’s trial calendar is impacted and finding a new trial date — if a motion to continue is

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1499 Filed 09/08/17 Page 1 of 2
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

2

granted — would be problematic. If the October 10 trial date is vacated, then a new trial date

will eventually be found.

Finally, briefing on any motion to continue the trial date should also discuss the

advisability of using a court-appointed trial expert pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706 —

if a motion to continue is granted — to address the technical issues involved in the asserted

trade secret and patent claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1499 Filed 09/08/17 Page 2 of 2
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MUKESH SINGH, A# 73-218-766,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

Attorney General of the United States; et

al.,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 10-35480

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00397-JLR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 10, 2011

Seattle, Washington

Before: B. FLETCHER, PAEZ, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Mukesh Singh (“Singh”) appeals from the district court’s order denying his

habeas petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We dismiss the appeal as

moot.

FILED

MAR 02 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Simultaneously, with the filing of this order, we filed an order in the related

case of Singh v. Holder, No. 03-72088, granting Singh’s 2009 Motion to Reinstate

Petition for Review. With the reinstatement of the Petition for Review, Singh has

achieved all the relief that he seeks in the instant appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss

the appeal as moot. 

DISMISSED.
EX PARTE T.J.

1161152 (2160597)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

November 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
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

PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL

3:17-cv-00635 CRB Page 1

Glenn Katon SBN 281841

KATON.LAW

385 Grand Avenue, Suite 200

Oakland, CA 94610

gkaton@katon.law

(510) 463-3350

(510) 463-3349 (fax)

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

CALIFORNIA PARENTS FOR THE 

EQUALIZATION OF EDUCATIONAL 

MATERIALS, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

TOM TORLAKSON, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-00635-CRB

PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER 

SEAL

Plaintiffs file this Administrative Motion to File Document Under Seal pursuant to Local 

Rule 79-5(e), so they can file their opposition to nonparty Jonathan Kenoyer’s Motion to Retain 

Confidential Designation of Records (Dkt 141). Kenoyer’s motion seeks to maintain as 

confidential a series of emails, the content of which is recounted and analyzed in Plaintiffs’ 

opposition. Because even the parts of the case law argued by Plaintiffs could reveal 

characteristics of the emails Plaintiffs seek to analogize or distinguish, Plaintiffs submit that the 

opposition should be sealed in its entirety. 

The Declaration of Glenn Katon In Support of Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File 

Document Under Seal, filed in connection with this motion, sets forth factual basis for the relief 

sought.

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 147 Filed 06/28/18 Page 1 of 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

PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL

3:17-cv-00635 CRB Page 2

DATED: June 28, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

KATON.LAW

/s/ Glenn Katon

Glenn Katon

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS CALIFORNIA 

PARENTS FOR THE EQUALIZATION OF 

EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS; ARVIND 

RAGHAVAN, individually and as parent and next 

friend of M.R. and N.R.; VISHNUKUMAR THUMATI, 

individually and as parent and next friend of P.T. and 

N.T.; SHAILESH SHILWANT, individually and as 

parent and next friend of P.S. and P.S.S.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On the date indicated below, I emailed to counsel for nonparty movant Jonathan Kenoyer 

the following documents: (1) Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File Document Under Seal, (2) 

Declaration of Glenn Katon In Support of Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File Document 

Under Seal, and (3) Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Jonathan Kenoyer’s Motion to Retain Confidential 

Designation Of Records

To: Gesina S.Carson <carsongs@doj.state.wi.us> and Claire Dalle Molle 

<claire.dallemolle@wisc.edu>

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 

28, 2018.

/s/ Glenn Katon

Glenn Katon

Case 3:17-cv-00635-CRB Document 147 Filed 06/28/18 Page 2 of 2
Kyle ETTEL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Fredrick KENNEDY, Deborah Kennedy and Concrete Modular Systems, Inc., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1248

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 18, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted. Dismissed.
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CHRIS MONET,

Plaintiff,

v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00623-BLF 

REFERRAL FOR PURPOSE OF 

DETERMINING RELATIONSHIP

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12(c), the above-entitled case is hereby REFERRED to the 

Honorable Lucy H. Koh for consideration of whether the case is related to Monet v. JPMorgan 

Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. 16-cv-00372-LHK.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2017

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge
In re Lan TRAN, petitioner.

No. 12-9864.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.