alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 143
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 143 appear at 68 FR 51360, Aug. 26, 2003.

§ 143.34 Investigation. ( a ) *Informal investigation.* ( 1 ) The agency will investigate complaints that are unresolved after mediation or are reopened because of a violation of a mediation agreement.
( 2 ) As part of the initial investigation, the agency will use informal fact finding methods, including joint or separate discussions with the complainant and recipient to establish the facts, and, if possible, settle the complaint on terms that are mutually agreeable. The agency may seek the assistance of any involved State program agency.
( 3 ) The agency will put any agreement in writing and have it signed by the parties and an authorized official of the agency.
( 4 ) The settlement shall not affect the operation of any other enforcement efforts of the agency, including compliance reviews and other individual complaints which may involve the recipient.
( 5 ) The settlement is not a finding of discrimination against a recipient.
( b ) *Formal investigation.* If the agency cannot resolve the complaint through informal investigation, it will begin to develop formal findings through further investigation of the complaint. If the investigation indicates a violation of these regulations, the agency will attempt to obtain voluntary compliance. If the agency cannot obtain voluntary compliance, it will begin enforcement as described in § 143.36.
### §290cc–26. Provision of certain information from State

The Secretary may not make payments under section 290cc–21 of this title to a State unless, as part of the application required in section 290cc–29 of this title, the State submits to the Secretary a statement—

(1) identifying existing programs providing services and housing to eligible homeless individuals and identify gaps in the delivery systems of such programs;

(2) containing a plan for providing services and housing to eligible homeless individuals, which plan—

(A) describes the coordinated and comprehensive means of providing services and housing to homeless individuals; and

(B) includes documentation that suitable housing for eligible homeless individuals will accompany the provision of services to such individuals;

(3) describes the source of the non-Federal contributions described in section 290cc–23 of this title;

(4) contains assurances that the non-Federal contributions described in section 290cc–23 of this title will be available at the beginning of the grant period;

(5) describe any voucher system that may be used to carry out this part; and

(6) contain such other information or assurances as the Secretary may reasonably require.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title V, §526, as added Pub. L. 100–77, title VI, §611(3), July 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 519; amended Pub. L. 101–645, title V, §511, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4729.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 526 of act July 1, 1944, was renumbered section 547 by section 611(2) of Pub. L. 100–77 and is classified to section 290ee–2 of this title.

#### Amendments

1990—Pub. L. 101–645 amended section generally, substituting provisions relating to providing certain information from State for provisions relating to requirement of submission of description of intended use of block grant.
#### VAN ASPEN *vs.*TOWNSEND.

[ACTION 0]? FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER.]

1. *Variance between summons and complaint.*— In an action of forcible entry and detainer, or unlawful detainer, removed by appeal from a justice’s eourtinto the circuit court, (Codo, §2864,) the cause being triable *de novo,*the complaint should not be rejected, on account of a variance between it and the cause of action endorsed on the summons issued by the justice.

Appeal from the City Court of Mobile.

Tried before the Hon. Alex. McKinstry.

This action was brought by the appellant, and was commenced in a justice’s court. The cause of action endorsed on the justice’s summons was, “Unlawful entry and detainer;” while the complaint was for a forcible entry and detainer. After the removal of the cause to the city court, by appeal, the defendant moved to strike the complaint from the files, because of the variance between it and the endorsement of the summons; and the court sustained the motion. This ruling of the court, to which the plaintiff excepted, is now assigned as error.

R. B. Armisíead, for appellant.

OveRall & Moultost, *contra.*

STONE, J.

We think the city court erred in rejecting the complaint, because of a variance between it and the justice’s endorsement on the summons of the cause of action. Proceedings such as this are triable anew, without regard to any defect in the proceedings before the justice. — Code, §2864.

Reversed and remanded.
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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DOUGLAS R. CARAWAY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-08-4371 MMC

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE

On January 11, 2016, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, directing the

government to show cause why its Motion for Ejectment, filed December 16, 2015, should

not be denied as moot. On February 10, 2016, the government withdrew said motion. In

light thereof, the Order to Show Cause is hereby DISCHARGED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2016 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04371-MMC Document 159 Filed 02/10/16 Page 1 of 1
### §3513a. Working capital fund; availability for centralized personnel data collection and reporting and common regional administrative support services

The Working Capital Fund of the Department of Health and Human Services shall on and after January 11, 1971, be available for expenses necessary for centralized personnel data collection and reporting and common regional administrative support services.

(Pub. L. 91–667, title II, Jan. 11, 1971, 84 Stat. 2015; Pub. L. 96–88, title V, §509(b), Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 695.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of title II of Pub. L. 91–667, popularly known as the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Appropriation Act, 1971.

Section was formerly classified to section 3510 of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

"Department of Health and Human Services" substituted in text for "Department of Health, Education, and Welfare" pursuant to section 509(b) of Pub. L. 96–88, which is classified to section 3508(b) of Title 20, Education.
§ 20.3 Qualifications. To be eligible for retirement or survivor benefits under this part, a former spouse must— ( a ) Have been a former spouse on February 14, 1981;
( b ) After becoming a former spouse, not have remarried before attaining age 55;
( c ) In the case of any retirement benefit under § 20.5; elect this benefit instead of any survivor annuity for which the former spouse may simultaneously be eligible under this or another retirement system for Government employees; and
( d ) Submit an application to the Department of State by June 22, 1990, in accordance with § 20.9 unless that date is extended as authorized by that section. The deadline for submission of an application for survivor benefits under § 20.5 will be deemed to have been met if the former spouse submits an application for retirement benefits within the deadline.
§ 237.05 Non-impairment of the Guarantee. After issuance of a Guarantee, that Guarantee will be an unconditional, full faith and credit obligation of the United States of America, and will not be affected or impaired by any subsequent condition or event. This non-impairment of the guarantee provision shall not, however, be operative with respect to any loss arising out of fraud or misrepresentation for which the claiming Noteholder is responsible or of which it had knowledge at the time it became a Noteholder. Moreover, the Guarantee shall not be affected or impaired by: ( a ) Any defect in the authorization, execution, delivery or enforceability of any agreement or other document executed by a Noteholder, USAID, the Fiscal Agent or the Borrower in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Guarantee or
( b ) The suspension or termination of the program pursuant to which USAID is authorized to guarantee the Eligible Notes.
Editorial Note on Part 218
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 218 appear at 68 FR 51363, Aug. 26, 2003.

§ 218.33 Mediation. ( a ) *Referral of complaints for mediation.* The agency will refer to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service all complaints that: ( 1 ) fall within the jurisdiction of these regulations; and
( 2 ) Contain all information necessary for further processing.
( b ) Both the complainant and the recipient shall participate in the mediation process to the extend necessary to reach an agreement or make an informed judgment that an agreement is not possible. There must be at least one meeting with the mediator, before the agency will accept a judgment that an agreement is not possible. However, the recipient and the complainant need not meet with the mediator at the same time.
( c ) If the complainant and the recipient reach an agreement, the mediator shall prepare a written statement of the agreement and have the complainant and recipient sign it. The mediator shall send a copy of the agreement to the agency. The agency shall take no further action on the complaint unless the complainant or the recipient fails to comply with the agreement.
( d ) The mediator shall protect the confidentiality of all information obtained in the course of the mediation process. No mediator shall testify in any adjudicative proceeding, produce any document, or otherwise disclose any information obtained in the course of the mediation process without prior approval of the head of the mediation agency.
( e ) The agency will use the mediation process for a maximum of 60 days after receiving a compliant. Mediation ends if: ( 1 ) Sixty days elapse from the time the agency receives the complaints; *or*
( 2 ) Prior to the end of that 60-day period, an agreement is reached; *or*
( 3 ) Prior to the end of that 60-day period, the mediator determines that an agreement cannot be reached.
( f ) The mediator shall return unresolved complaints to the agency.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 06-616 

________________________________________________________________________ 

CIVIL AVIATION 

Transport Services 

 Agreement between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and URUGUAY 

Signed at Montevideo October 20, 2004 

with 

Annexes 

 and 

Exchange of Notes 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 URUGUAY 

Civil Aviation: Transport Services 

Agreement signed at Montevideo October 20, 2004; 

 Entered into force June 16, 2006. 

 With annexes. 

 And exchange of notes.
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

GALLUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BUSINESS RESEARCH BUREAU (PVT.)

LTD., d/b/a GALLUP PAKISTAN, IJAZ

SHAFI GILANI, GALLUP BUSINESS

RESEARCH SERVICES (PVT.) LTD.,

d/b/a PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD.,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-01577 WHA

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT 

REGARDING FEDERAL

PRO BONO PROJECT

In the event that a trial on the merits is warranted, defendant Gilani — who has been

proceeding pro se — must appear or retain counsel to appear on his behalf. Defendant, however,

has stated on numerous occasions (including in a recent declaration) that he sought representation

in the United States but was unable to afford retained counsel (see Dkt. No. 110 (“Gilani Decl.”) 

¶ 8). This notice informs defendant that he may request, by letter or motion to the Court, the

appointment of an attorney to represent him in this litigation. This request, however, will not

guarantee that a pro bono attorney will be appointed. If such a request is made, the Court will

refer the action to the Federal Pro Bono Project for evaluation.

For additional information on the Federal Pro Bono Project, defendant should visit the

Northern District of California website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ and click on the “Pro

Bono Project Guidelines” link. 

Case 3:08-cv-01577-WHA Document 116 Filed 03/04/10 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

Any request or motion by defendant for the appointment of counsel must be received by

the Court no later than FRIDAY, APRIL 9, 2010.

Dated: March 4, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01577-WHA Document 116 Filed 03/04/10 Page 2 of 2
### §3766. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3766 was editorially reclassified as section 10201 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
DATA FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. DOLLAR AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS,
EXCEPT EARNINGS PER SHARE.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             126
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      108
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   869
<PP&E>                                           5,730
<DEPRECIATION>                                     510
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,707
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,692
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,465
<COMMON>                                            27
<OTHER-SE>                                     (7,428)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,707
<SALES>                                            296
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   296
<CGS>                                               83
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       83
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,153
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 669
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,609)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,609)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,609)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.77)
        

</TABLE>
### §3712d. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, §105, as added Pub. L. 109–162, title XI, §1158(a), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 3114, which related to Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management, was renumbered section 109 of Pub. L. 90–351 by Pub. L. 109–271, §8(e), Aug. 12, 2006, 120 Stat. 766, and transferred to section 3712h of this title.
BRAD W. SEILING (BarNo. CA 143S15) 

DONALD R. BROWN (Bar No. CA 156548) 

2 BRANDON P. REILLY (Bar No. CA 278012) 

MANA TT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 

3 11355 West Olympic Boulevard 

Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614 

4 Telephone: (31 0) 312-4000 

Facsimile: (31 0) 312-4224 

5 E-mail: bseiling@manatt.com; dbrown@manatt.com; 

breilly@manatt.com 

6 

7 Attorneys for Defendant 

CashCall, Inc. 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KRISTA O'DONOVAN and EDUARDO 

DE LA TORRE, individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

VS. 

CASHCALL, INC., a California 

Case No. C 08-03174 MEJ 

JOINT REPORT REGARDING TRIAL 

SCHEDULING 

Judge: Hon. Maria-Elena James 

Courtroom: B - 151

h Floor 

16 corporation, and DOES 1 through DOE 50, 

inclusive, 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

·-24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

MANATT, PHELPS & 

PHILLIPS, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

los ANGELES 

Defendants. 

JOINT REPORT REGARDING TRIAL SCHEDULING 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

GRANTED

Judge Maria-Elena James

Case 3:08-cv-03174-TSH Document 278 Filed 02/20/15 Page 1 of 2
Counsel for the parties have met and conferred regarding the options for trial 

. :2 that the Court presented at the telephonic conference held on February 13, 2015. 

3 The parties agree to proceed with the trial before this Court commencing on June 

4 22, 2015, with a three-day estimate for a bench trial. The parties further request 

5 that the Court continue by approximately thirty (30) days the pre-trial deadlines set 

6 forth in the Case Management Order dated August 25, 2014 (ECF Dkt. No. 227). 

7 Subject to the Court's availability, the parties accordingly propose the following 

8 amendments to the Court's Case Management Order of August 25, 2014 (Dkt. 

9 227), which will otherwise remain in effect: 

10 

11 Deadline for lead counsel to meet and confer 

12 regarding Joint Pretrial Conference Statement and to 

13 exchange papers required by Rule 26(a)(3) 

14 Joint Pretrial Statement to be Filed 

15 Motions in Limine Due 

16 Oppositions to Motions in Limine Due 

17 Initial Pretrial Conference 

18 Trial Briefs Due 

19 Final Pretrial Conference 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

'~ 26 

27 

28 

March 20, 2015 

April 6, 2015 

April6, 2015 

April 14, 2015 

May 8, 2015 

MANATT, PHELPS & 

PHILLIPS, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

Los ANGELES 

JOINT REPORT REGARDING TRIAL SCHEDULING 

-

-

Bench Trial: June 22, 23 and 24, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.

The Court adopts the following schedule as listed above. 

Dated: 2/20/2015

April 28, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. June 18, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.

Case 3:08-cv-03174-TSH Document 278 Filed 02/20/15 Page 2 of 2
### §2995d. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 88–452, title IX, §905, as added Pub. L. 92–424, §27(a), Sept. 19, 1972, 86 Stat. 705, allowed head of any agency administering a program authorized under this chapter to conduct evaluations and take other action to same extent as Director under this subchapter, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 93–644, §12, Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2327.
#### § 237.07 Fiscal Agent obligations.

Failure of the Fiscal Agent to perform any of its obligations pursuant to the Fiscal Agency Agreement shall not impair any Noteholder's rights under this Guarantee, but may be the subject of action for damages against the Fiscal Agent by USAID as a result of such failure or neglect. A Noteholder may appoint the Fiscal Agent to make demand for payment on its behalf under this Guarantee.
(November 9, 2000)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Skinner, Appellant.

[715 NYS2d 412]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard Fried, J.), rendered July 30, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant made a series of statements during a single interrogation session, in which he implicated himself in two separate homicides, one in New York City and the other in Utica. At the Utica trial, defendant denied that he had made the statements related to the Utica murder but never mentioned that he had been physically abused prior to making the statements. During this trial of the New York City murder, he claimed that he had been coerced into making the inculpatory statements related to the instant murder. The trial court then allowed the prosecutor to impeach defendant with his cross-examination in the Utica trial, resulting in the disclosure of the underlying facts of the Utica homicide. We agree that where, as here, the “given circumstances make it most unnatural to omit” to mention the information regarding.defendant’s physical abuse during his trial testimony in the Utica case, the fact of the omission was admissible for purposes of impeachment (P*eople v Savage,*50 NY2d 673, 679, *cert denied*449 US 1016; *People v Hock,*183 AD2d 497, *1v denied*80 NY2d 904). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Mazzarelli and Rubin, JJ.
### §4130. No cause of action

No cause of action shall exist and no claim may be brought against the United States for violation of any notification requirement imposed upon the United States by this subtitle or any amendment made by this subtitle.

(Pub. L. 112–141, div. F, title II, §100249, July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 969.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This subtitle, referred to in text, is subtitle A (§§100201–100249) of title II of div. F of Pub. L. 112–141, known as the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012. For complete classification of this subtitle to the Code, see Short Title of 2012 Amendment note set out under section 4001 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, and also as part of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, also known as the MAP–21, and not as part of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 which comprises this chapter.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 15

- 00407

- CR

LANNEY DARRELL EAST APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRI CT COURT NO. 3 OF TA RRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1396968D

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

ON PERMANENT ABATEMENT OF APPEAL

----------

We have considered the “Motion To Abate Appeal ” filed by counsel for

appellant Lanney Darrell East, including the attached certificate of death showing

that Ea st died on November 17, 2015. Because we have not issued our

mandate, we grant the motion and permanently abate the appeal. See T ex

. R.

App

. P . 7.1(a)(2)

.

1 See Tex. R. App

. P. 47.1.2 PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and SUDDERTH, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

TEX. R. APP. P . 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: January 14 , 2015