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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Navy

# AGENCIES:

Department of the Navy, DOD. Bureau of Reclamation, DOI.

# ACTION:

Notice; Correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Department of the Navy published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         on November 1, 2004, announcing its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Santa Margarita River Conjunctive Use                               ( print page 76456)                            Project, San Diego County, CA and that there would be three public meetings to collect scoping comments. It should have stated there would be two public meetings to collect scoping comments.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Bureau of Reclamation, Mr. Bill Rohwer, telephone 951-695-5310, fax 951-695-5319, or E-Mail:                         *wrohwer@lc.usbr.gov.*

## Correction

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of November 1, 2004, in FR Doc. 69-210, on page 63374, in the second column, correct the                         **Summary**                         caption to read:                    

Two public meetings will be held to collect scoping comments.

Dated: December 15, 2004.

J.H. Wagshul,

Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 04-27853 Filed 12-20-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
Order entered July 1, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00025-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.N.L-B., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-07-17647

ORDER

Before the Court are appellee D.B.’s and appellee M.A.’s June 29, 2016 unopposed 

motions to extend time to file their briefs. The motions are GRANTED. D.B.’s and M.A.’s 

briefs shall be filed by July 28, 2016.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
Case 3:08-cv-01820-CRB   Document 8   Filed 04/08/10   Page 1 of 2

Case 3:08-cv-01820-CRB   Document 8   Filed 04/08/10   Page 2 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Alicia Harris,

Plaintiff,

v.

Vector Marketing Corporation,

Defendant.

________________________________/

Case No. CV08-05198 EMC

ORDER RESETTING JURY TRIAL FROM

10/4/10 TO 5/23/11

Pursuant to the Joint Stipulation re Election of Trial Date filed by parties on February 3,

2010, is it hereby ordered that the 15-day jury trial is reset from 10/4/2010 to 5/23/2011 at 8:30

a.m. in Courtroom D, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate, San Francisco, CA 94102. All other dates will

be set at the 3/17/2010 Status Conference. An updated joint status conference statement shall be

filed by 3/10/2010. Parties shall meet and confer and include in the joint updated status conference

statement an agreeable time line for the FLSA class certification motion.

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 3, 2010 

_______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05198-EMC Document 112 Filed 02/03/10 Page 1 of 1
**
**Exhibit 35.1**

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2019-4 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, (the “Report”), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the “Servicer”), does hereby certify andrepresent that: 

 
 1.
A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as ofSeptember 18, 2019, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2019-4 and Wilmington Trust, National Association (the “Agreement”) duringthe period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision. 

 
 2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theAgreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report. 

 
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.By: /s/ Marc WomackName: Marc WomackTitle: EVP, Head of OperationsDate: March 31, 2023By: /s/ Vikas GuptaName: Vikas GuptaTitle: TreasurerDate: March 31, 2023**
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-04-00224- CV Mark Mc Candless, Joe P etr ocelli, and Powell Lan e P laza P artner ship , Appellan ts v. Met al Bu ildi ng Com ponents, L .P ., Appellee F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN401001 , HO NORAB LE SUZANNE COVINGTO N, JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N Th e pa rt ie s h ave no tif

ie d u s th at th e y

have re a c he d a

me diate d s e ttl e me nt a g re e me nt, one of the terms of whic h was to dismiss this appea l. Accor dingly , we dismiss the appea l acc ording to the parties’ agree ment. SeeTex. R. App. P . 42.1.

W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pemberton Dismissed on Ag ree d Motion Filed: Apr il 12, 2006
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of John A. Read, as Surviving Trustee of the Trusts under the Will of Alice E. Wilhelm, Deceased.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted. Same memorandum as in the *Matter of Wilhelm,*60 AD2d 32). Present— Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Hancock, Jr., and Denman, JJ.
§ 103.405 Issuance of charge. ( a ) A charge: ( 1 ) Shall consist of a short and plain written statement of the facts upon which the Assistant Secretary has found reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred or is about to occur;
( 2 ) Shall be based on the final investigative report; and
( 3 ) Need not be limited to facts or grounds that are alleged in the complaint filed under subpart B of this part. If the charge is based on grounds that are not alleged in the complaint, HUD will not issue a charge with regard to the grounds unless the record of investigation demonstrates that the respondent has been given notice and an opportunity to respond to the allegation.
( b ) Within three business days after the issuance of the charge, the General Counsel shall: ( 1 ) Obtain a time and place for hearing from the Docket Clerk for the Office of Hearings and Appeals;
( 2 ) File the charge along with the notifications described in 24 CFR 180.410(b) with the Office of Hearings and Appeals;
( 3 ) Serve the charge and notifications in accordance with 24 CFR 180.410(a); and
( 4 ) Notify the Assistant Secretary of the filing of the charge.
[54 FR 3292, Jan. 23, 1989, as amended at 56 FR 55078, Oct. 24, 1991; 59 FR 39956, Aug. 5, 1994; 59 FR 46759, Sept. 12, 1994; 60 FR 58452, Nov. 27, 1995; 62 FR 66433, Dec. 18, 1997; 74 FR 4635, Jan. 26, 2009; 87 FR 8197, Feb. 14, 2022]
§ 96.92 Dissemination of information to the public about complaints against accredited agencies and approved persons. Each accrediting entity must maintain a written record documenting each complaint received and the steps taken in response to it. This information may be disclosed to the public as follows: ( a ) The accrediting entity must verify, upon inquiry from a member of the public, whether there have been any substantiated complaints against an accredited agency or approved person, and if so, provide information about the status and nature of any such complaints.
( b ) The accrediting entity must have procedures for disclosing information about complaints that are substantiated.
[71 FR 8131, Feb. 15, 2006, as amended at 79 FR 40636, July 14, 2014]
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 

Stipulation and Order -1- CASE NO.: C 08-05129 JCS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

VOLTERRA SEMICONDUCTOR 

CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PRIMARION, INC., a Delaware 

Corporation, INFINEON 

TECHNOLOGIES AG, a German 

Corporation, and INFINEON 

TECHNOLOGIES NORTH AMERICA 

CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. C 08-05129 JCS 

ORDER AND PARTIAL JUDGMENT OF 

NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT 

NO. 6,713,823 PURSUANT TO FRCP 54(b) 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. 

 

 On this day the parties’ Stipulation of Partial Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. 

Patent No. 6,713,823 (“`823 Patent”) Pursuant to FRCP 54(b) (“Stipulation”) was presented to 

the Court. After considering the Stipulation, the Court accepts the parties’ Stipulation and the 

rights reserved by the Parties under the Stipulation. The Court finds good cause exists and 

renders final judgment: 

Case3:08-cv-05129-JCS Document787-1 Filed04/26/10 Page1 of 2 Case 3:08-cv-05129-JCS Document 788 Filed 04/28/10 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 

Stipulation and Order - 2 - CASE NO.: C 08-05129 JCS 

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), this Court finds that there is no just 

reason for delay and renders final judgment in favor of all Defendants that Defendants’ PX4640 

and PX 4650 products identified in Plaintiff’s First Amended Infringement Contentions served on 

July 3, 2009 do not infringe claims 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, and 38 of the ‘823 

Patent. Although Defendants have asserted invalidity and unenforceability defenses as well as 

other defenses and counterclaims related to the ‘823 Patent, there is no need to reach these issues 

in view of the non-infringement judgment, and all counterclaims by the Defendants with regard to 

invalidity and/or enforceability of the `823 Patent and/or Defendants’ antitrust counterclaims 

related to the `823 Patent shall be dismissed without prejudice. 

 All parties shall bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs as to any and all matters covered 

by and/or pertaining to this Order And Partial Judgment. 

 The clerk of court shall enter final judgment in accordance herewith. 

Dated: 

JOSEPH C. SPERO 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case3:08-cv-05129-JCS Document787-1 Filed04/26/10 Page2 of 2

04/28/2010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Joseph C. Spero

Case 3:08-cv-05129-JCS Document 788 Filed 04/28/10 Page 2 of 2
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2687 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for the automatic 

acquisition of citizenship by certain Amerasians. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 26, 2005 

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California (for herself, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. 

HONDA, Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia, Ms. WOOLSEY, Ms. LORETTA

SANCHEZ of California, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. FARR, Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. 

GUTIERREZ, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. EMANUEL, Ms. SLAUGHTER, 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD, Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota, Mr. FRANK

of Massachusetts, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide 

for the automatic acquisition of citizenship by certain 

Amerasians. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Amerasian Naturaliza5 tion Act’’. 
2 

•HR 2687 IH 

1 SEC. 2. AUTOMATIC ACQUISITION OF CITIZENSHIP FOR 

2 CERTAIN IMMIGRANTS BORN IN KOREA, 

3 VIETNAM, LAOS, KAMPUCHEA, OR THAILAND. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title III of the Immigration and 

5 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) is amended by 

6 inserting after section 320 (8 U.S.C. 1431) the following: 

7 ‘‘CERTAIN IMMIGRANTS BORN IN KOREA, VIETNAM, LAOS, 

8 KAMPUCHEA, OR THAILAND; CONDITIONS UNDER

9 WHICH CITIZENSHIP AUTOMATICALLY ACQUIRED

10 ‘‘SEC. 321. A person automatically becomes a citizen 

11 of the United States when the person is an alien lawfully 

12 admitted to the United States, and residing in the United 

13 States, having been issued an immigrant visa— 

14 ‘‘(1) pursuant to a classification petition ap15 proved under section 204(f); or 

16 ‘‘(2) under section 584 of the Foreign Oper17 ations, Export Financing, and Related Programs 

18 Appropriations Act, 1988 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note), if 

19 the person was considered a principal alien pursuant 

20 to subsection (b)(1)(A) of such section.’’. 

21 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents 

22 of the Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by in23 serting after the item relating to section 320 the following 

24 new item: 

‘‘Sec. 321. Certain immigrants born in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Kampuchea, or 

Thailand; conditions under which citizenship is automatically 

acquired.’’. 
3 

•HR 2687 IH 

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall take effect 120 days after the date of 

3 the enactment of this Act and shall apply to individuals 

4 who satisfy the requirements of section 321 of the Immi5 gration and Nationality Act (as added by subsection (a)) 

6 before, on, or after such date. 

Æ
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

IN RE: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases.

 /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

ORDER SETTING HEARING

RE DEFENDANT’S

DISCOVERY DISPUTE

A further meet-and-confer is SET for THURSDAY, JANUARY 7, 2010, FROM

8:00–10:00 A.M., in connection with defendant’s discovery dispute outlined in counsel’s

letter of January 4. This will take place in the Court’s jury room on the 19th floor. At 10:00 a.m.,

the Court will hold a hearing in Courtroom 9. Plaintiff’s response is due by noon on January 6. 

Counsel are reminded that only those who participate in the further meet-and-confer may

argue at the hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 317 Filed 01/05/10 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Richard L. Rowland et al., Individually and Doing Business as Colonial Manor Health Related Facility, Appellants, v Robert P. Whalen, as Commissioner of the Department of Health of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 21, 1977, which dismissed the petition in an article 78 proceeding, unanimously reversed, on the law, to grant the petition to the extent of directing an administrative hearing, without costs and without disbursements. Petitioners for many years have been licensed operators of a nursing home in The Bronx. In 1971, they submitted an application for construction and and establishment of a 240-bed health-related facility to be run in conjunction with the nursing home. Upon indication that the New York State Health Commissioner would approve,

*566the petitioners, through a subsidiary, purchased the site. However, thereafter the New York City Board of Estimate amended its zoning requirements, reducing the permissible floor area to total area, which made the site inadequate for a 240-bed facility. When petitioners’ application for a variance was denied, permission was sought from the New York State Department of Health for a 156-bed facility, which would comply with the zoning requirement. The department stated that the project could proceed as a matter of "right” for construction, but that the concept was still to be reviewed. Thereafter, the board of estimate imposed a moratorium on all construction of nursing homes and health-related facilities, and it was not until the determination in *Matter of Temkin v Karagheuzoff*(34 NY2d 324) which held the moratorium illegal, that the petitioners were finally able to proceed with construction. In the meantime, the petitioners had some difficulty with the State Department of Health with respect to the nursing home and some alleged structural defects, pursuant to which the petitioners brought on an article 78 proceeding leading to a stipulation of discontinuance. At the end of 1975, petitioners were informed that the application for a new construction of a 156-bed health-related facility was disapproved on the basis of "competence”, although seemingly, construction previously had been approved and only concept was subject to further approval, and the issue of "competence” was a new item. Petitioners could have asked for a public hearing, but understandably in view of the long delay opted for court review in an article 78 proceeding. There is a question as to whether the determination of lack of "competence” was not arbitrary and capricious. However, this would best be determined in an administrative hearing where the current situation, which seems to be favorable to the petitioners, could also be taken into account. Accordingly, we reverse to the extent of directing such a hearing. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Lupiano, Markewich and Yesawich, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Part 65

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 65 appear at 64 FR 54540, Oct. 7, 1999.

#### § 65.4 Copies of regulations to Department of State.

In order to enable the Secretary of State of the Department of State to reply to inquiries received from the governments of the other American republics, the Department of State shall be promptly supplied with copies of the regulations drafted by the other departments and agencies of the Government and of subsequent amendments thereto.
#### The People of the State of New York v. Roberta Cleveland.

Motion for change of venue denied.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT


TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned Officer of ERF Wireless, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






November 22, 2010
/s/ Richard R. Royall

Richard R. Royall

Chief Financial Officer
§ 1003.5 Eligible applicants. ( a ) Eligible applicants are any Indian tribe, band, group, or nation, including Alaska Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos, and any Alaska native village of the United States which is considered an eligible recipient under Title I of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450) or which had been an eligible recipient under the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 (31 U.S.C. 1221). Eligible recipients under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act will be determined by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and eligible recipients under the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 are those that have been determined eligible by the Department of Treasury, Office of Revenue Sharing.
( b ) Tribal organizations which are eligible under Title I of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act may apply on behalf of any Indian tribe, band, group, nation, or Alaska native village eligible under that act for funds under this part when one or more of these entities have authorized the tribal organization to do so through concurring resolutions. Such resolutions must accompany the application for funding. Eligible tribal organizations under Title I of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act will be determined by the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Indian Health Service, as appropriate.
( c ) To apply for funding in a given fiscal year, an applicant must be eligible as an Indian tribe or Alaska native village, as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, or as a Tribal organization, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, by the application submission date.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2577-0191)
§ 125.501 Fair Housing Organizations Initiative. ( a ) The Fair Housing Organizations Initiative of the FHIP provides funding to develop or expand the ability of existing eligible organizations to provide fair housing enforcement, and to establish, on a single-year or multi-year basis contingent upon annual performance reviews and annual appropriations, new fair housing enforcement organizations.
( b ) *Continued development of existing organizations* — ( 1 ) *Eligible applicants.* Eligible for funding under this component of the Fair Housing Organizations Initiative are: ( i ) Qualified fair housing enforcement organizations;
( ii ) Fair housing enforcement organizations; and
( iii ) Nonprofit groups organizing to build their capacity to provide fair housing enforcement.
( 2 ) *Operating budget limitation.* ( i ) Funding under this component of the Fair Housing Organizations Initiative may not be used to provide more than 50 percent of the operating budget of a recipient organization for any one year.
( ii ) For purposes of the limitation in this paragraph, *operating budget* means the applicant's total planned budget expenditures from all sources, including the value of in-kind and monetary contributions, in the year for which funding is sought.
( c ) *Establishing new organizations* — ( 1 ) *Eligible applicants.* Eligible for funding under this component of the Fair Housing Organizations Initiative are: ( i ) Qualified fair housing enforcement organizations;
( ii ) Fair housing enforcement organizations; and
( iii ) Organizations with at least three years of experience in complaint intake, complaint investigation, and enforcement of meritorious claims involving the use of testing evidence.
( 2 ) *Targeted areas.* FHIP Notices of Funding Availability may identify target areas of the country that may receive priority for funding under this component of the Fair Housing Organizations Initiative. An applicant may also seek funding to establish a new organization in a locality not identified as a target area, but in such a case, the applicant must submit sufficient evidence to establish the proposed area as being currently underserved by fair housing enforcement organizations or as containing large concentrations of protected classes.