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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4939 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 2551 Galena Avenue in Simi Valley, California, as the ‘‘Neil Havens Post Office’’. 

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


SSpencer on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4939 RFS

1 SECTION 1. NEIL HAVENS POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 2551 Galena Avenue in Simi Val4 ley, California, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Neil 

5 Havens Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Neil Havens Post Of10 fice’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 8, 

2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


SSpencer on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Cecelia L. Norton, as Executor, Respondent, v. Union Trust Company of New York, Appellant.

Order reversed and motion granted. Opinion

*Per Curiam.*
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANSCISCO DIVISION

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION and

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Debtors.

Chapter 11

Case No. 19-30088 Chapter 11 (DM)

(Lead Case)

(Jointly Administered)

TRANSFER OF CLAIM OTHER THAN FOR SECURITY

A CLAIM HAS BEEN FILED IN THIS CASE or deemed filed under 11 U.S.C. § 1111(a). 

Transferee hereby gives evidence and notice pursuant to Rule 3001(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of 

Bankruptcy Procedure of the transfer, other than for security, of the claim referenced in this evidence and 

notice.

Olympus Peak Master Fund LP Lyles Utility Construction LLC

Name of Transferee Name of Transferor

Phone: 212-373-1189

Last Four Digits of Acct #: N/A

Phone: 559-487-7999

Last Four Digits of Acct #: N/A

Name and Address where notices and payments to 

transferee should be sent: 

Leah Silverman

745 Fifth Avenue

Suite 1604

New York, NY 10151

Claim No: 3632

Case No.: Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

(19-30089)

Date Filed: July 15, 2019

Total Amount of Claim: $911,867.64

Transferred Amount of Claim: $911,867.64

I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided in this notice is true and correct to the 

best of my knowledge and belief.

By: /s/ Leah Silverman Date: August 6, 2019

Transferee/Transferee's Agent

Penalty for making a false statement: Fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both. 

18 U.S.C. §§ 152 & 3571.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3389 Filed: 08/06/19 Entered: 08/06/19 14:37:18 Page 1 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3389 Filed: 08/06/19 Entered: 08/06/19 14:37:18 Page 2 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3389 Filed: 08/06/19 Entered: 08/06/19 14:37:18 Page 3 of

3
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 BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION, 

-andPACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, 

Debtors. 

Case No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) 

(Jointly Administered) 

 Affects PG&E Corporation 

 Affects Pacific Gas & Electric Company 

 Affects both Debtors 

*All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case, 

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 

FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Peter Friedman, whose business address and telephone number are 1625 Eye Street, NW, 

Washington, D.C. 20006, (202) 383-5300, and who is an active member in good standing of the 

bars of Washington, D.C. and New York, having applied in the above-entitled action for 

admission to practice in the Northern District of California on a pro hac vice basis, representing 

(i) Governor Gavin Newsom, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of California, but 

not on behalf of any agency, department, unity or entity of the State of California, and (ii) the 

Department of Finance for the State of California. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the application is granted, subject to the terms and 

conditions of B.L.R. 1001-2(a)(29) and Civil L.R. 11-3. All papers filed by the attorney must 

indicate appearance pro hac vice. Service of papers upon and communication with co-counsel 

designated in the application will constitute notice to the represented party. All future filings in 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2083-1 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/20/19 12:22:06 Page 1

of 2
- 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 

this action are subject to the Bankruptcy Local Rules and Electronic Case Filing Procedures

adopted by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. 

 

Dated: __________________ 

HON. DENNIS MONTALI 

United States Bankruptcy Judge 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2083-1 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/20/19 12:22:06 Page 2

of 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD H. LEVIN; LINDA D. LEVIN, 

Petitioners-Appellants, 

 v. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL 

REVENUE, 

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 19-70314 

IRS No. 11578-14L 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

United States Tax Court

Submitted May 6, 2020**

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Richard H. Levin, an attorney, and Linda D. Levin appeal pro se from the 

Tax Court’s summary judgment upholding the Internal Revenue Service’s 

determination to collect by levy the appellants’ unpaid federal income taxes for the 

year 2010. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 19-70314 

novo the Tax Court’s summary judgment, Johnston v. Comm’r, 461 F.3d 1162, 

1164 (9th Cir. 2006), and for an abuse of discretion the Tax Court’s evidentiary 

rulings, Sparkman v. Comm’r, 509 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm. 

The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in considering the settlement 

officer’s declaration and administrative record when evaluating the motion for 

summary judgment. See Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) (authentication requirement is 

satisfied by “evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the 

proponent claims it is”); Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1) and (7) (authentication by witness 

testimony and evidence that document was filed in a public office); United States 

v. Pang, 362 F.3d 1187, 1191-93 (9th Cir. 2004) (Rule 901 permits a court to 

admit evidence if sufficient proof has been introduced so that a trier of fact can 

find in favor of authenticity or identification). 

We do not consider issues raised by the appellants in their brief which are 

not supported by argument. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 

1992). 

AFFIRMED.
#### CHESTER D. TURNER et al. v. SOUTHEASTERN GRAIN AND LIVESTOCK COMPANY et al.

(Filed 21 October, 1925.)

Judgments — Excusable Neglect — Motions—Appeal and Error.

Upon refusal of plaintiff’s motion to set aside a judgment for surprise, mistake or excusable neglect, tbe findings by tbe judge below upon these questions adverse to plaintiff are not reviewable on bis appeal.

Appeal by several of the plaintiffs from *Barnhill, J.,*at February Term, 1925, of CeaveN.

Motion of plaintiffs, Chester D. Turner, Devereaux Turner, George Lord and wife, Margaret Lord, to set aside judgment, rendered in this cause at the September Term, 1924, Craven Superior Court, on the grounds (1) that the appealing plaintiffs were not duly represented by counsel authorized to appear for them at the time of the entry of said judgment; and (2) that the same was taken through mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect as to them. C. S., 600. Motion denied, and plaintiffs, as above named, appeal.

*A. W. Graham & Son, C. D. Turner for plaintiffs.*

*Ward & Ward, D. L. Ward, T. D. Warren for defendants.*

Stacy, C. J.

The judge found the facts, as he is required to do, and embodied them in the judgment. *Smith v. Holmes,*148 N. C., 210. Upon the findings made, supported, as they are, by competent evidence, the motion was properly overruled. *Bartholomew v. Parrish, ante,*151.

Not only did the judge find, upon ample evidence, that the appealing plaintiffs were duly represented by reputable and solvent counsel at *332the time of tbe entry of tbe judgment in question and that tbe same was taken tbrougb no mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect on their part or on tbe part of tbe appealing plaintiffs, but be went further and found that tbe plaintiffs bad no meritorious cause of action in tbe matters alleged and upon which suit was based. *Crumpler v. Hines,*174 N. C., 284. These findings are fatal to tbe appeal of tbe plaintiffs. *Bank v. Duke,*187 N. C., 386; *Norton v. McLaurin,*125 N. C., 185. And they are binding on us. *Gaster v. Thomas,*188 N. C., 346.

There is no error appearing on tbe record.

Affirmed.
F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT July 23, 20 08 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1491 3 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 06-00238 -CV -H LM- 4 ALEA L ONDON L IMI TED,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us TONY F. COOK, in di vi du al ly andd.b .a. T.F. Coo k C on st ru ct io n,
D efendant-T hird- Party -Plaintiff- Appe llant, JAME S MA TT HE W

HO OV ER , D ef en da nt- A ppe llant, EMERGENCY W ATER EXTRACTION SERVICE, LLC., d.b .a. EW ES, et al ., D ef en da nts , v e r s u s2

SPENCER & ASS OCIATES, INC.,
T hir d- Party -D ef en da nt.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 23 , 200 8) Be fo re T JO FL A T , D U BI N A a nd B L A CK , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: T his is anappe al f

ro m the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t i n favor of A le a L ondo n L im ite d ( “ A le a” ) in a de cl ar at or

y j udgm en t a ct ion
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt ba se d it ’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t onthe f

ac t tha t the ins ur ed , Tony F. Cook (“ Cook”), on a c omm ercia l general liability policy issued byAle a, fa ile d to giv e not ic e to A le a of a n a cc ide nt, w hic h w as the ba sis f or a n un de rl y ing action in Georgia state c ourt as required by the insurance policy
. The district court furthe r fo und tha t C ook ha d de m onstra te d no r ea sona ble j ust if ic at ionor e xc use f or fai li ng to pro vi de no ti ce. W e re vie w adis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t de novo
. Brooks v. Co un ty Co mm’n o

f Je ff er so n C ou nt y, Ala ., 44 6 F .3d 11 60 , 11 61 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ).3

Su m m ar y j udgm en t i s w ar

rante d w he n th er e is n o ge nui ne dis put e as to an y
m at eri al fact . Fed . R. Civ . P. 56 (c). A ft er r ev ie w ing the r ec or d a nd r ea din g th e pa rt ie s’ br ie fs , w e ag re e w iththe district court that Alea w as entitled to su m m ary j udgm ent based on Cook ’ s failure to co m pl y wit h t he po li cy ’s no ti ce re qu ire m en ts . AFFIR MED.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5151 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5151

     To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require certain 
    information be included in loan disclosure statements prior to 
                 disbursement, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 17, 2014

   Mr. Murphy of Florida (for himself and Mr. Schock) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 
                             the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require certain 
    information be included in loan disclosure statements prior to 
                 disbursement, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Student Loan Transparency for 
Success Act''.

SEC. 2. INFORMATION REQUIRED IN LOAN DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS.

    Section 455(p) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1087e(p)) is amended by striking ``shall prescribe,'' and all that 
follows and inserting the following: ``shall prescribe--
            ``(1) comply with each of the requirements under section 
        433 that apply to a lender with respect to a loan under part B; 
        and
            ``(2) include in the disclosure for a loan required under 
        subsection (a) of section 433--
                    ``(A) the total aggregate amount borrowed by the 
                borrower under loans under this part;
                    ``(B) the estimated number of payments and total 
                amount to be paid by the borrower to repay such loan 
                based on a standard repayment plan; and
                    ``(C) based on the most recent data available from 
                the American Community Survey available from the 
                Department of Commerce, the estimated average income 
                and percentage of employment in the State of domicile 
                of the borrower for persons with--
                            ``(i) a high school diploma or equivalent;
                            ``(ii) some post-secondary education 
                        without completion of a degree or certificate;
                            ``(iii) a bachelor's degree; and
                            ``(iv) a post-baccalaureate degree.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: PG&E CORPORATION.,

Case No. 23-cv-01735-HSG 

RE: PG&E Corporation

Bankruptcy Case: 19-30088-DM

Adversary No.:

BAP No.: 19-30088-DM

Appellant: Spiro Jannings

The appeal has been assigned to the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr..

When the parties have perfected the record on appeal in accordance with the federal and 

local bankruptcy rules, the Bankruptcy Court will transmit to this court a notice that the record is 

available electronically. 

Pursuant to the federal and local bankruptcy rules, unless the assigned District Judge 

orders otherwise, briefs in this matter shall be due in accordance with the following schedule:

Appellant’s principal brief: no more than 30 days after docketing of notice that the record 

is available electronically on the District Court’s docket.

Appellee’s principal and response brief: no more than 30 days after service of appellant's 

brief. If the appellee has filed a cross-appeal, the brief of appellee shall contain both the issues 

and arguments pertinent to the cross-appeal and the response to the appellant’s brief.

Appellant’s response and reply brief: no more than 30 days after service of appellee’s 

brief. 

Appellee’s reply brief: no more than14 days after service of the appellant’s response and 

reply brief, but also no more than 7 days before scheduled argument.

Briefs shall comply with Bankruptcy Rules 8014-8018, as applicable.

Pursuant to B.L.R 8019-1, upon completion of the briefing, the assigned District Judge 

will set a date for oral argument, unless the judge determines that oral argument is unnecessary 

under the Bankruptcy Local Rules; in that case, the matter will be deemed submitted for 

decision.

Dated: 4/11/2023 For the Court

Mark B. Busby, Clerk

By: Mia Buensuceso-Cuenco

Deputy Clerk

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13669 Filed: 04/13/23 Entered: 04/13/23 16:20:00 Page 1

of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S.DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,791
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   74,525
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,648
<INVENTORY>                                     87,806
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               172,012
<PP&E>                                          49,264
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,471
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 200,910
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,390
<BONDS>                                         78,967
<COMMON>                                           809
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      60,116
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   200,910
<SALES>                                         65,267
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,267
<CGS>                                           43,014
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,014
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (546)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   452
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,249
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,654)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (645)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,009)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,009)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)
        

</TABLE>
ex10_1.htm


Exhibit 10.1



SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.





AMENDED AND RESTATED

SEVERANCE PLAN FOR DIRECTORS

(as amended and restated effective May 19, 2009)









1.           Purpose.  The purpose of the Southwest Airlines Co. Amended and Restated Severance Plan for Directors (the “Plan”) is to improve the ability of Southwest Airlines Co. (the
“Company”) to (a) attract and retain highly qualified individuals to serve as outside directors of the Company, (b) provide competitive remuneration for Board service, and (c) recognize service on the Company’s Board of Directors.





2.           Effective Date.  The Plan shall be effective as of May 19, 2009, the date of its adoption by the Board of Directors.





3.           Severance Benefits for Outside Board Members. Upon retirement from the Board of Directors, a non-Employee Director who has served at
least five years as such as of the date of his or her retirement shall be entitled to a cash payment of $35,000, and a non-Employee Director who has served at least ten years as such as of the date of his or her retirement shall be entitled to a cash payment of $75,000.  Further, a non-Employee Director who has served at least ten years as such as of the date of his or her retirement shall be entitled to an unlimited number of Nonrevenue Must Ride passes for the use of the Director and his or her spouse
for the remainder of the life of the Director.  Use of such passes shall be subject to the regulations of the Company for nonrevenue travel.





4.           Modification and Termination.  The Board, in its discretion, may amend, alter, or terminate the Plan at any time.
100154355.1 0099865-30600

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

PG&E CORPORATION and PACIFIC 

GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Debtors.

Case No. 19-30088 (Main)

Case No. 19-30089 (Jointly Administered)

Chapter 11

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY 

GABRIELLE GLEMANN PRO HAC VICE

Gabrielle Glemann, whose business and telephone number is 

Gabrielle Glemann

STOEL RIVES LLP

600 University Street, Suite 3600

Seattle, WA 98101

Telephone: 206.624.0900

and who is an active member in good standing of the bar of the State of New York having applied 

in the above-entitled action for admission to practice in the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern 

District of California on a pro hac vice basis representing Avangrid Renewables, LLC, et al.

1

; 

Enel Green Power North America, Inc. et al.

2 and Enel X; Capital Dynamics, Inc. et al.3

; FTP

 1 This representation includes the following subsidiaries of Avangrid Renewables, LLC: Klondike Wind Power III 

LLC and Shiloh I Wind Project LLC.

2 This representation includes the following subsidiaries of Enel Green Power North America, Inc.: Sierra Energy 

Storage, LLC, Kingston Energy Storage, LLC, Cascade Energy Storage, LLC, El Dorado Hydro, LLC and Rock 

Creek Hydro, LLC.

Signed and Filed: February 6, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

February 06, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 333 Filed: 02/06/19 Entered: 02/06/19 15:01:00 Page 1 of 2
100154355.1 0099865-30600

Power LLC, et al.

4

; and Gill Ranch Storage, LLC. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the application of Gabrielle Glemann is granted, 

subject to the terms and conditions of Civil L.R. 11-3. All papers filed by the attorney must 

indicate appearance pro hac vice. Service of papers upon and communication with co-counsel 

designated in the application will constitute notice to the represented party. All future filings in 

this action are subject to the Bankruptcy Local Rules and Electronic Case Filing Procedures 

adopted by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. 

*** END OF ORDER ***

3 This representation includes the following subsidiaries of Capital Dynamics, Inc.: CA Flats Solar 150, LLC, Lost 

Hills Solar, LLC, Blackwell Solar, LLC, Parrey, LLC, and North Star Solar, LLC.

4 This representation includes the following subsidiaries of FTP Power LLC: Western Antelope Blue Sky Ranch A 

LLC, 87RL 8me LLC, Aspiration Solar G LLC, Bayshore Solar A, LLC, Bayshore Solar B, LLC, and Bayshore 

Solar C, LLC.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 333 Filed: 02/06/19 Entered: 02/06/19 15:01:00 Page 2 of 2