U.S. Census Bureau. The United States Census Bureau Web Site. 17 Oct 1999. http://www.census.gov (17 Oct 1999).
PERSONS
Universe: Persons
Total................................................................29760021
FAMILIES
Universe: Families
Total.................................................................7139394
HOUSEHOLDS
Universe: Households
Total................................................................10381206
URBAN AND RURAL
Universe: Persons
Urban:
Inside urbanized area.....................................................0
Outside urbanized area....................................................0
Rural.......................................................................0
Not defined for this file............................................29760021
SEX
Universe: Persons
Male.................................................................14897627
Female...............................................................14862394
DETAILED RACE
Universe: Persons
White (800-869, 971).................................................20524327
Black (870-934, 972)..................................................2208801
American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut (000-599, 935-970, 973-975):
American Indian (000-599, 973).......................................236078
Eskimo (935-940, 974)..................................................2552
Aleut (941-970, 975)...................................................3534
Asian or Pacific Islander (600-699, 976-985):
Asian (600-652, 976, 977, 979-982, 985):
Chinese (605-607, 976).............................................704850
Filipino (608, 977)................................................731685
Japanese (611, 981)................................................312989
Asian Indian (600, 982)............................................159973
Korean (612, 979)..................................................259941
Vietnamese (619, 980)..............................................280223
Cambodian (604).....................................................68190
Hmong (609).........................................................46892
Laotian (613).......................................................58058
Thai (618)..........................................................32064
Other Asian (601-603, 610, 614-617, 620-652, 985)...................80195
Pacific Islander (653-699, 978, 983, 984):
Polynesian (653-659, 978, 983):
Hawaiian (653, 654, 978).........................................34447
Samoan (655, 983).................................................31917
Tongan (657).......................................................7919
Other Polynesian (656, 658, 659)...................................1675
Micronesian (660-675, 984):
Guamanian (660, 984)..............................................25059
Other Micronesian (661-675)........................................1566
Melanesian (676-680).................................................5778
Pacific Islander, not specified (681-699)............................2238
Other race (700-799, 986-999).........................................3939070
PERSONS OF HISPANIC ORIGIN
Universe: Persons of Hispanic origin
Total.................................................................7687938
AGE
Universe: Persons
Under 1 year...........................................................424303
1 and 2 years.........................................................1027947
3 and 4 years..........................................................945465
5 years................................................................464440
6 years................................................................443347
7 to 9 years..........................................................1316195
10 and 11 years........................................................827453
12 and 13 years........................................................778136
14 years...............................................................371754
15 years...............................................................378995
16 years...............................................................377610
17 years...............................................................395080
18 years...............................................................423911
19 years...............................................................477552
20 years...............................................................509737
21 years...............................................................495714
22 to 24 years........................................................1505343
25 to 29 years........................................................2854057
30 to 34 years........................................................2832314
35 to 39 years........................................................2500949
40 to 44 years........................................................2138372
45 to 49 years........................................................1620528
50 to 54 years........................................................1282041
55 to 59 years........................................................1133907
60 and 61 years........................................................443446
62 to 64 years.........................................................655873
65 to 69 years........................................................1055174
70 to 74 years.........................................................802047
75 to 79 years.........................................................601809
80 to 84 years.........................................................377415
85 years and over......................................................299107
SEX BY MARITAL STATUS
Universe: Persons 15 years and over
Male
Never married........................................................4034185
Now married, except separated........................................6096047
Separated.............................................................252628
Widowed...............................................................237667
Divorced..............................................................897477
Female
Never married........................................................2939043
Now married, except separated........................................5914528
Separated.............................................................359727
Widowed..............................................................1148050
Divorced.............................................................1281629
PERSONS PER FAMILY
Universe: Families
Persons per family.......................................................3.32
Federal Aviation Administration. FAA - Federal Aviation Administration. 3 Sept 1999. http://www.faa.gov 17 Oct 1999.
Accidents:
**** 10/15/1999 Preliminary Accident/Incident Data Record RECORD 4 ****
A. Type: Incident Mid Air:N Missing:N Entry date: 10/15/1999
From: WESTERN PACIFIC REGION OPERATIONS CENTER
B. Reg.No.: 16889 M/M: BH06 Desc: JET RANGER/LONG/SEA/KIOWA
Activity: Unknown Phase: Landing GA-A/C: General Aviation
Descr: BELL 206B HELICOPTER LOST CONTROL WHILE ATTEMPTING TO LAND, MADE A
DESCENDING LEFT TURN, AND CRASH-LANDED ON THE TARMAC OF TWY 08,
OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES ARE UNKNOWN, LOS ANGELES, CA.
WX: LAX METAR 142350Z 25009KT 9SM FEW200 19/17 A2983 Damage: Minor
C2. Injury Data: # Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 1 Unk:Y
# Pass: 2 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 2 Unk:Y
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 UNK:
D. Location City: LOS ANGELES State: CA
E. Occ Date: 10/14/1999 Time: 23:31
F. Invest Coverage. IIC: Reg/DO: WP23 DO CTY: LOS ANGELES
DO State: CA Others:
G. Flt Handling. Dep Pt: UNKN Dep Date: / / Time:
Dest: LOS ANGELES, CA Last Radio Cont: HELI FREQ 119.8 Flt Plan: VFR
Last Clearance: CLRD TO LAND WX Briefing:
Other:
**** 10/14/1999 Preliminary Accident/Incident Data Record RECORD 5 ****
A. Type: Accident Mid Air:N Missing:N Entry date: 10/14/1999
From: WESTERN PACIFIC REGION OPERATIONS CENTER
B. Reg.No.: 711BG M/M: C210 Desc: CENTURIAN 210
Activity: Pleasure Phase: Landing GA-A/C: General Aviation
Descr: ACFT LANDING GEAR COLLAPSED ON LANDING, SANTA BARBARA, CA.
WX: SBA METAR 132050Z 24006KT 10SM CLR 26/10 A2994 Damage: Substantial
C2. Injury Data: # Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 UNK:
D. Location City: SANTA BARBARA State: CA
E. Occ Date: 10/13/1999 Time: 20:52
F. Invest Coverage. IIC: Reg/DO: WP01 DO CTY: VAN NUYS
DO State: CA Others: NTSB
G. Flt Handling. Dep Pt: IDAHO Dep Date: 10/13/1999 Time:
Dest: SANTA BARBARA, CA Last Radio Cont: DNWND CLRD TO L Flt Plan: IFR
Last Clearance: CLRD TO LAND WX Briefing:
Other:
**** 10/12/1999 Preliminary Accident/Incident Data Record RECORD 2 ****
A. Type: Incident Mid Air:N Missing:N Entry date: 10/12/1999
From: WESTERN-PACIFIC REGION OPERATIONS CENTER/TOA ATCT
B. Reg.No.: 123FR M/M: C172 Desc: SKYHAWK 172/MESCALERO/CUTLASS
Activity: Pleasure Phase: Landing GA-A/C: General Aviation
Descr: ACFT PORPOISED DOWN THE RWY ON LANDING, DID A GO-AROUND, AND LANDED
AGAIN WITH THE SAME RESULT, THE PILOT THEN WENT AROUND AGAIN,
LANDED, AND TAXIED TO THE RAMP, OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES ARE UNKNOWN,
TORRANCE, CA.
WX: 0055Z 29004KT 25SM SKC 26/06 A2986 Damage: Minor
C2. Injury Data: # Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 3 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 UNK:
D. Location City: TORRANCE State: CA
E. Occ Date: 10/08/1999 Time: 01:25
F. Invest Coverage. IIC: Reg/DO: WP05 DO CTY: LONG BEACH
DO State: CA Others: NTSB
G. Flt Handling. Dep Pt: TORRANCE, CA Dep Date: / / Time:
Dest: TORRANCE, CA Last Radio Cont: GC=TAXIED ACFT Flt Plan: IFR
Last Clearance: GC TAXIED ACFT WX Briefing:
Other:
From:
Project Vote Smart. Project Vote Smart - A Voter's Self-Defense System. 1999. http://www.vote-smart.org/. (2 Nov 1999).
Mike Thompson
Washington DC Address
415 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-3311
District Address - Eureka
317 3rd Street, Suite 1
Eureka, CA 95501
Phone: 707-269-9595
Fax: 707-269-9598
District Address - Napa
1040 Main Street, Suite 101
Napa, CA 94559
Phone: 707-226-9898
Fax: 707-251-9800
District Address - Fort Bragg
The Fort Building 430 North Franklin Street Post Office Box 2208
Fort Bragg, CA 95437
Phone: 707-962-0933
Fax: 707-962-0934
Committees:
Agriculture [House]
Armed Services [House]
Recent Voting Record:
Date: 10/28/99
Issue: Appropriations
Roll Call Number: 0549
Bill Number: HR 3064
Voted: No.
Date: 10/28/99
Issue: Health
Roll Call Number: 0549
Bill Number: HR 3064
Voted: No.
Date: 10/28/99
Issue: Labor
Roll Call Number: 0549
Bill Number: HR 3064
Voted: No.
Date: 10/27/99
Issue: Health
Roll Call Number: 0544
Bill Number: HR 2260
Voted: No.
Date: 10/21/99
Issue: Appropriations
Roll Call Number: 0528
Bill Number: HR 2466
Voted: No.
Date: 10/21/99
Issue: Education
Roll Call Number: 0526
Bill Number: HR 2
Voted: Yes.
(I could go on)…
Starr, Kevin, Stephen P. Teale Data Center and the California State Home Team. "CA Home Page: Government - Your Elected Officials." The California Home Page. 6 Oct 1999. http://www.ca.gov/s/govt/offices.html (10 Oct 1999).
Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration. 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 Federal Register. 13 Aug 1999. http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html (17 Oct 1999).
1. [Federal Register: January 22, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 14)]
[Notices]
[Page 3551-3571]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22ja99-109]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
Public Comments and Response of the United States; United States
v. Enova Corporation
Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and
Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), that public comments and the
response of the United States thereto have been filed with the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia in United States v.
Enova Corporation, Civil No. 98-CV-583 (RWR).
On March 9, 1998, the United States filed a Complaint seeking to
enjoin a transaction in which Pacific Enterprises (``Pacific'') would
merge with Enova Corporation (``Enova''). Pacific is a California gas
utility company and Enova is a California electric utility company.
Enova sells electricity from plants that use coal, gas, nuclear power,
and hydropower. Pacific is virtually the sole provider of natural gas
transportation and storage services to plants in southern California
that use natural gas to produce electricity. The proposed merger would
have created a company with both the incentive and the ability to
lessen competition in the market for electricity in California. The
[[Page 3552]]
Complaint alleged that the proposed merger would substantially lessen
competition in the market for electricity in California, in violation
of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.
Public comment was invited within the statutory sixty-day comment
period. The two comments received, and the responses thereto, are
hereby published in the Federal Register and filed with the Court.
Copies of the Complaint, Stipulation and Order, Proposed Final
Judgment, Competitive Impact Statement, Public Comments, and
Plaintiff's Response to Public Comments are available for inspection in
Room 215 of the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 325
Seventh Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: (202) 514-2481)
and at the office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia, 333 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20001. Copies of these materials may be obtained on request and payment
of a copying fee.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
United States of America, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust
Division, 325 Seventh Street, NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20530,
Plaintiff, v. Enova Corporation, 101 Ash Street, San Diego, CA
92101, Defendant.
[Case Number: 98-CV-583 (RWR); Judge Richard W. Roberts]
Plaintiff's Response to Public Comments
Pursuant to the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and
Penalties Act (``APPA''), 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h) (``Tunney Act''), the
United States hereby responds to the two public comments received
regarding the proposed Final Judgment in this case.
I. The Complaint and Proposed Judgment
The United States filed a civil antitrust Complaint on March 9,
1998, alleging that the proposed merger of Pacific Enterprises
(``Pacific''), a California natural gas utility, and Enova Corporation
(``Enova''), a California electric utility, would violate Section 7 of
the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. The Complaint alleges that as a result
of the merger, the combined company (``PE/Enova'') would have both the
incentive and the ability to lessen competition in the market for
electricity in California and that consumers would be likely to pay
higher prices for electricity.
The Complaint further alleges that prior to the merger, Pacific's
wholly owned subsidiary, Southern California Gas Company, was virtually
the sole provider of natural gas transmission and storage to natural
gas-fueled electric generating plants in Southern California (``gas-
fired plants''). As a consequence and without regard to the merger, it
had the ability to use that market power to control the supply and thus
the price of natural gas available to the gas-fired plants. Prior to
the merger, however, Pacific did not own any electric generation
plants, so it did not have the incentive to limit its gas
transportation, sales or storage or to raise the price of gas to
electric utilities in order to increase the price of electricity.
The Complaint alleges that in early 1998, the California electric
market experienced significant changes as the result of a legislatively
mandated restructuring. In this new competitive electric market, gas-
fired plants, which are the most costly electric generating plants to
operate, set the price that all sellers receive for electricity in
California in peak demand periods. Thus, if a firm could increase the
cost of the gas-fired plants by raising their fuel prices, it could
raise the price all sellers of electricity in California receive, and
increase the profits of owners of lower cost sources of electricity.
Based on these facts, the Complaint alleges that the merger
violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act because the acquisition of
Enova's low-cost electric generating plants gave Pacific a means to
benefit from any increase in electric prices. The Complaint challenges
2. [Federal Register: January 20, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 12)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 3015-3026]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20ja99-8]
====================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
27 CFR Part 9
RIN 1512-AA07
[T.D. ATF-407; Ref Notice No. 856]
Establishment of the San Francisco Bay Viticultural Area and the
Realignment of the Boundary of the Central Coast Viticultural Area (97-
242)
ACTION: Treasury decision, final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Treasury decision establishes a viticultural area in the
State of California to be known as ``San Francisco Bay,'' under 27 CFR
part 9. The viticultural area is located mainly within five counties
which border the San Francisco Bay and partly within two other
counties. These counties are: San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara,
Alameda, Contra Costa, and partly in Santa Cruz and San Benito
Counties. The ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area encompasses
approximately 2,448 square miles total and contains nearly 5,800 acres
planted to grapes and over 39 wineries. In conjunction with
establishing the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area, ATF is
amending the boundaries of the Central Coast viticultural area to
include the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area. The previous
boundaries of the Central Coast viticultural area already encompassed
part of the ``San Francisco Bay'' viticultural area. Approximately 639
square miles is added to Central Coast with an additional 2,827 acres
planted to grapes.
3. [Federal Register: January 22, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 14)]
[Notices]
[Page 3483-3486]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22ja99-37]
====================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[I.D. 011399B]
Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report and Habitat Conservation Plan/ Sustained
Yield Plan for the Headwaters Forest Project
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Commerce; Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of a joint final
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR)
and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/Sustained Yield Plan (SYP) relating
to several proposed actions by the Secretary of the Interior, FWS,
NMFS, California Wildlife Conservation Board, the California Department
of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), and the California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG), and alternatives to those actions intended to
achieve the following: to protect, in accordance with the Federal and
state Endangered Species Acts (ESAs), species listed as threatened or
endangered under one or both of the ESAs; to provide permanent
protection for the Headwaters Forest and Elk Head Springs Forest
through their transfer into public ownership; to provide for sustained
production of timber products, consistent with Federal and state laws,
on lands owned by The Pacific Lumber Company and its wholly owned
subsidiaries, Scotia Pacific Company, L.L.C., and Salmon Creek
Corporation (hereafter collectively referred to as ``PALCO''); and to
reduce public controversy regarding PALCO's management of its
timberlands, particularly the Headwaters Forest.
4. [Federal Register: September 16, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 179)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 50393-50415]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16se99-19]
[[Page 50393]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Commerce
_______________________________________________________________________
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
50 CFR Part 223
Endangered and Threatened Species; Threatened Status for Two Chinook
Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) in California; Final
Rule
[[Page 50394]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223
[Docket No. 990303060-9231-03; I.D. 022398C]
RIN 0648-AM54
Endangered and Threatened Species; Threatened Status for Two
Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) in California
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule; notice of determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Previously, NMFS completed a comprehensive status review of
west coast chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) populations in
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California and identified 15 ESUs within
this range. After soliciting additional data to resolve scientific
disagreements, NMFS now issues a final rule to list two ESUs as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Central Valley
spring-run ESU was originally proposed as endangered, but new
information indicates that the ESU should instead be considered a
threatened species. The California Coastal ESU was originally proposed
as threatened, as part of a larger Southern Oregon and California
Coastal ESU, but new information supports a threatened listing for a
revised ESU consisting of California coastal chinook salmon populations
from Redwood Creek (Humboldt County) south through the Russian River.
Other coastal populations to the north of this ESU (and originally
proposed as threatened) are now considered part of a separate Southern
Oregon and Northern California Coastal ESU that does not warrant
listing at this time.
NMFS is also making final listing determinations for two other
chinook salmon ESUs originally proposed as threatened. It has
considered new information about the Central Valley fall and late fall-
run ESU and has determined that listing is not warranted at this time,
but it will consider it a candidate species. In the case of the
proposed ESU expansion for threatened Snake River fall-run chinook
salmon, NMFS has determined that the ESU does not include Deschutes
River populations and that listing this latter population is not
warranted at this time.
In the two ESUs identified as threatened, only naturally spawned
populations of chinook salmon are listed. At this time, no hatchery
populations are deemed essential for recovery in either of the two
listed ESUs, so no hatchery populations are part of this final listing
determination.
NMFS intends to issue protective regulations under section 4(d) of
the ESA for these threatened ESUs. Even though NMFS is not now issuing
protective regulations for the threatened ESUs, Federal agencies are
required under section 7 to consult with NMFS if any activity they
authorize, fund, or carry out may affect listed chinook salmon in these
ESUs.
5. [Federal Register: September 15, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 178)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 50036-50041]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15se99-40]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[FRL-6431-9]
Regulation of Fuel and Fuel Additives: Extension of California
Enforcement Exemptions for Reformulated Gasoline Beyond December 31,
1999
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: With this document, EPA proposes to continue to exempt
refiners, importers, and blenders of gasoline subject to the State of
California's reformulated gasoline regulations from certain enforcement
provisions in the Federal reformulated gasoline regulations. Current
exemptions applicable under the Federal Phase I reformulated gasoline
program will expire after December 31, 1999, when the Federal Phase II
reformulated gasoline program begins. Today's proposed rule would
extend the California enforcement exemptions beyond that date. The
Agency is publishing a separate direct final rule in today's Federal
Register, because it does not expect this action to be controversial.
U.S. EPA. OPPT Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Home Page. 15 Sept 1999. http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/tri/ (17 Oct 1999).
See figure IIIE.
United States General Accounting Office. GAO Home Page. 4 Oct 1999. http://www.gao.gov (17 Oct 1999).
Tax Policy and Administration: California Taxes on Multinational
Corporations and Related Federal Issues (Letter Report, 07/11/95,
GAO/GGD-95-171).
This report provides information on (1) California's experience in
conducting formulary apportionment audits of multinational corporations
and (2) issues that would have to be considered before adopting a
formulary system at the federal level. In its discussion of issues that
would need to be considered before a federal formulary apportionment
system could be adopted, GAO considered the views of tax experts on
worldwide formulary apportionment. Separately, GAO discusses the
policies and procedures of the California Franchise Tax Board, which is
the state agency responsible for administering individual and corporate
Income tax in California.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-95-171
TITLE: Tax Policy and Administration: California Taxes on
Multinational Corporations and Related Federal Issues
DATE: 07/11/95
SUBJECT: State taxes
Multinational corporations
Accounting procedures
Financial records
Tax administration
Income taxes
Tax law
Tax administration systems
California has an OSHA approved state plan, so info is from the California OSHA site, not the federal site:
California State Department of Industrial Relations. California State Department of Industrial Relations Home Page. 11 August 1999. http://www.dir.ca.gov/ (17 Oct 1999).
Cal/OSHA Fines Quantic Industries $146,475 for Safety Violations
SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Department of Industrial Relations' Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) today cited Quantic Industries, Inc. for 26 alleged violations of the state workplace safety regulations as a result of its investigation into the Feb. 11, 1999 fatal explosion at the company's Hollister location.
FindLaw, Inc. "9th Circuit Court Opinions." FindLaw. 15 Oct 1999. http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/courts/9th.html (17 Oct 1999).
1. Recent opinion:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
No. 98-16625
Plaintiff-Appellee,
D.C. No.
v.
CV-96-00255-LDG
RIDGE HARVEY DAWSON,
OPINION
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Lloyd D. George, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
May 12, 1999--San Francisco, California
Filed October 6, 1999
Before: Betty B. Fletcher and Barry G. Silverman,
Circuit Judges, and Donald E. Walter, District Judge.*
Opinion by Judge Silverman;
Dissent by Judge B. Fletcher
ceedings are evaluated by the harmless error standard of
review.
When appellant Ridge Dawson pled guilty to robbery of a
federal credit union in 1977, the district court failed to inform
him of his right to confrontation and his privilege against self-
incrimination. In 1993, Dawson was again convicted of fed-
eral crimes. The district court sentenced him under the Armed
Career Criminals Act.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. In a memorandum
decision, the court held that Dawson could not collaterally
attack his 1977 conviction in the 1993 prosecution so long as
he had been apprised of his right to counsel in the earlier case.
NORMAN YOURISH,ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
KENNETH YOURISH,ON BEHALF OF
No. 98-56932
HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS
D.C. No.
SIMILARLY SITUATED,
CV-97-04293-CBM
Plaintiff,
OPINION
v.
CALIFORNIA AMPLIFIER; IRA CORON;
DAVID NICHOLS; MICHAEL FERRON;
ARTHUR HAUSMAN; WILLIAM
McKENNA,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Consuelo B. Marshall, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
July 15, 1999--San Francisco, California
Filed October 8, 1999
Before: Charles Wiggins, Ferdinand F. Fernandez, and
Sidney R. Thomas, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Wiggins
_________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY
The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court,
is copyrighted C 1999 by West Group.
_________________________________________________________________
Securities/Fraud
The court of appeals affirmed a judgment of the district court. The court held that in an action for securities fraud under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission, a complaint's unsupported claim of the existence of non-public information that is inconsistent with the substance of identified representations by the defendant is insufficient to satisfy the pleading
particularity requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).
In a class action on behalf of individuals who bought common stock of appellee California Amplifier (Cal Amp) during a specific period, appellants Norman and Kenneth Yourish alleged that Cal Amp insiders made false and misleading
statements to securities analysts and the market to manipulate and inflate the price of Cal Amp common stock.
The complaint charged that the defendants made various false representations, including statements regarding Cal Amp's MultiCipher Plus product lines and its international business. To satisfy the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b), the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants knew that the statements were false when made because of the existence of "true facts" that were known only to them due to their access to confidential non-public information about Cal Amp.
Specifically, the complaint alleged that appellee Ira Coron stated to securities analysts in 1995 that with respect to a large contract with IBC in Southeast Asia, follow-along business for Cal Amp would be $1 million to $2 million, but in 1996,
Coron stated that "we ended last fiscal year and through the first quarter with some very heavy shipments to Southeast Asia on new systems that were being launched; and we knew that was not going to repeat." The plaintiffs also attempted to establish the falsity of various optimistic statements in June and July 1996 about Multi-
Cipher Plus by means of the temporal proximity of Cal Amp's disclosure in August that shipments of MultiCipher Plus would be delayed indefinitely.
The breaking story here is not just this specific case, but the possibility of fraud across the board with high-tech stocks. In California specifically, stocks for high-tech companies are still skyrocketing and drawing large amounts of investment—but are all the companies telling the truth about their prospects? Here’s at least one case where that was suspect.
To do the story we would have to look for similar cases in this, state and local courts and try to find people who have been seriously burned by investing in companies that made their prospects seem higher than reality.
Public Disclosure Inc. FECInfo Home Page. 17 Oct 1999. http://www.tray.com/ (17 Oct 1999).
SHORENSTEIN, WALTER H (D) $482,500.00 SAN FRANCISCO
E & J GALLO WINERY (D) $415,000.00 MODESTO
WALT DISNEY COMPANY (R and D) $340,000.00 BURBANK
IRS. "Tax Statistics—IRS ." IRS—The Digital Daily. 19 June 1996. <http://www.irs.gov/tax_stats/index.html> (17 Oct 1999).
Total, 1995: $149,185,087,000
U.S. Census Bureau. "November 1996 Voting and Registration Tables for States." U.S. Census Bureau. 17 Aug 1999. <http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting/96sttabs.html> (17 Oct 1999).
Did not vote
Registered Voted Not Registered
Total # % # % Total Reg. Not citizen D/K+NA
CALIFORNIA
TOTAL. 22871 12827 56.1 11079 48.4 11792 1748 10044 4790 1569
18 TO 24 YEARS . . . . 3040 1290 42.4 971 32.0 2069 319 1750 732 194
25 TO 44 YEARS . . . . 10480 5117 48.8 4187 40.0 6293 930 5363 2778 756
45 TO 64 YEARS . . . . 6001 4000 66.7 3692 61.5 2310 309 2001 934 388
65 YEARS AND OVER. . . 3349 2420 72.2 2229 66.6 1120 190 930 345 231
Legal Information Institute. LII: Supreme Court Collection. 12 Oct 1999. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/ (17 Oct 1999).
Nos. 92-1384 and 92-1839
BARCLAYS BANK PLC, PETITIONER 92-1384 v. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA COLGATE
PALMOLIVE COMPANY, PETITIONER 92-1839
on writs of certiorari to the court of appeal of california, third appellate district
[June 20, 1994]
Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner in No. 92-1384, Barclays Bank PLC (Barclays), is a United Kingdom corporation in the Barclays Group, a multinational banking enterprise. The petitioner in No. 92-1839, Colgate Palmolive Co. (Colgate), is the United States based parent of a multinational manufacturing and sales enterprise. Each enterprise has operations in California. During the years here at issue, California determined the state corporate franchise tax due for these
operations under a method known as "worldwide combined reporting." California's scheme first looked to the worldwide income of the multinational enterprise, and then attributed a portion of that income (equal to the average of the proportions of worldwide payroll, property, and sales located in California) to the California operations. The State imposed its tax on the income thus attributed to Barclays' and Colgate's California business.
Barclays urges that California's tax system distinctively burdens foreign based multinationals and results in double international taxation, in violation of the Commerce and Due Process Clauses. Both Barclays and Colgate contend that the scheme offends the Commerce Clause by frustrating the Federal Government's ability to "speak with one voice when regulating commercial relations with foreign governments." Japan Line, Ltd. v. County of Los Angeles,
441 U.S. 434, 449 (1979) (internal quotation marks omitted). We reject these arguments, and hold that the Constitution does not impede application of California's corporate franchise tax to Barclays and Colgate. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the California Court of Appeal.
Grundfest, Joseph A. "Securities Class Action Clearinghouse -
2TheMart.com Inc. Filings." Stanford Securities Class Action Clearinghouse. 13 Sept 1999. http://securities.stanford.edu/cases/tmrt.html (17 Oct 1999).
2TheMart.com Inc. (OTC BB: TMRT)
1.Harrington v. 2TheMart.com, Inc., et al.
U.S.D.C. C.D. California
Case no. 99-CV-01127 [9/13/99]
Class period: 01/19/99 - 08/26/99
Class contacts:
Stull Stull & Brody of Los Angeles, CA at 1.888.388.4605 or 1.310.209.2468 (Michael D. Braun, mdb@secfraud.com)
Weiss & Yourman of Los Angeles, CA at 1.800.437.7918 or 1.310.208.2800 or wyinfo@wyca.com
(Kevin J. Yourman)
Docket as of 9/15/99 [retrieved 10/5/99]
Summary: According to a Business Wire story dated 9/13/99, the Complaint alleges that the company disseminated false and misleading information about its financial position and prospects and about the prospect of benefit to shareholders. As a result, company stock traded at artificially inflated share prices during the class period.
From:
Legal Counsel State of California. Official California Legislative Information. 1999. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/ (17 Oct 1999).
Murphy Austin Adams Schoenfeld LLP. Murphy Austin Adams Schoenfeld LLP Sacramento California Law Firm. 27 May 1999. http://www.murphyaustin.com/ (17 Oct 1999).
Russell J. Austin, University of California Santa Barbara, University of California, Berkeley Boalt Hall School.
Cary M. Adams, University of Virginia, University of Maryland School of Law.
Dennis R. Murphy, University of California, Los Angeles.
Michael Schoenfeld, University of California at Davis, Hastings College.
The State Bar of California. The State Bar of California. 26 June 1998. http://www.calbar.org (24 Oct 1999).
Main Office
180 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 538-2000
The Bar Association of San Francisco. The Bar Association of San Francisco. 24 Oct 1999. http://www.sfbar.org/ (24 Oct 1999).
465 California Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, California 94104-1826
Phone: (415) 982-1600
Fax: (415) 477-2388
City of Sacramento. City of Sacramento Home Page. 3 May 1999. http://www.sacto.org/ (24 Oct 1999).
The City of Sacramento was founded in 1849, and is the oldest incorporated city in California. In 1920, Sacramento City voters adopted a City Charter (municipal constitution) and a City Council~City Manager form of government, which are still used today.
The City Council consists of a Mayor elected by all City voters, and Councilmembers elected to represent the eight separate Council districts in the City. Each district is a separate geographical area with a population of about 46,000 residents. Each Councilmember must be a registered voter and live in the district they represent. Elected members serve 4 year terms and elections are staggered every two years in even numbered years.
The Council establishes City policies, ordinances, and land uses; approves the City's annual budget, contracts, and agreements; hears appeals of decisions made by City staff or citizen advisory groups; and appoints four Charter Officers, a City Manager, City Attorney, City Treasurer, and City Clerk. Councilmembers serve on several working committees, such as Law and Legislation, and Personnel and Public Employees. Councilmembers do not receive a City salary. They are paid for their attendance at official City meetings.
California State Association of Counties. CSAC Home Page. 1999. http://csac.counties.org/ (24 Oct 1999).
The basic provisions for the government of California counties are contained in the California Constitution and the California Government Code. A county is the largest political subdivision of the state having corporate powers. It is vested by the Legislature with the powers necessary to provide for the health and welfare of the people within its borders. The specific organizational structure of a county in California will vary from county to county.
County as Distinguished from a City
There is a fundamental distinction between a county and a city. Counties lack broad powers of self-government that California cities have (e.g., cities have broad revenue generating authority and counties do not). In addition, legislative control over counties is more complete than it is over cities. Unless restricted by a specific provision of the state Constitution, the Legislature may delegate to the counties any of the functions which belong to the state itself. Conversely, the state may take back to itself and resume the functions which it has delegated to counties (e.g., state funding of trial courts).
More info available on the site cited above.