alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Elijah Tezeno, Petitioner, v City of Watertown et al., Respondents.

[833 NYS2d 422]

Motion for re-argument or, in the alternative, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present—Martoche, J.P., Smith, Centra, Lunn and Fahey, JJ.
### §4053. Adjustment and payment of claims; judicial review; limitations; jurisdiction

The insurance companies and other insurers which form, associate, or otherwise join together in the pool under this part may adjust and pay all claims for proved and approved losses covered by flood insurance in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and, upon the disallowance by any such company or other insurer of any such claim, or upon the refusal of the claimant to accept the amount allowed upon any such claim, the claimant, within one year after the date of mailing of notice of disallowance or partial disallowance of the claim, may institute an action on such claim against such company or other insurer in the United States district court for the district in which the insured property or the major part thereof shall have been situated, and original exclusive jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon such court to hear and determine such action without regard to the amount in controversy.

(Pub. L. 90–448, title XIII, §1333, Aug. 1, 1968, 82 Stat. 583; Pub. L. 98–181, title I [title IV, §451(d)(3)], Nov. 30, 1983, 97 Stat. 1229.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original a reference to "this title" meaning title XIII of Pub. L. 90–448, Aug. 1, 1968, 82 Stat. 572, known as the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4001 of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

1983—Pub. L. 98–181 inserted "original exclusive" before "jurisdiction".

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 120 days following Aug. 1, 1968, or such later date prescribed by the Secretary but in no event more than 180 days following Aug. 1, 1968, see section 1377 of Pub. L. 90–448, set out as a note under section 4001 of this title.
#### § 235.8 Event of Default; Application for Compensation; payment.

At any time after an Event of Default, as this term is defined in an Eligible Note, any Noteholder hereunder, or the Fiscal Agent on behalf of a Noteholder hereunder, may file with USAID an Application for Compensation in the form provided in Appendix A to this part. USAID shall pay or cause to be paid to any such Applicant any compensation specified in such Application for Compensation that is due to the Applicant pursuant to the Guarantee as a Loss of Investment not later than the Guarantee Payment Date. In the event that USAID receives any other notice of an Event of Default, USAID may pay any compensation that is due to any Noteholder pursuant to the Guarantee, whether or not such Noteholder has filed with USAID an Application for Compensation in respect of such amount.
#### Josey *v.*Groves.

June 13, 1912.

Motion for new trial. Before Judge Felton. Bibb superior court. July 13, 1911.

*O. G. Hancock,*for plaintiff in error. *O. A. Glcwson,*contra.

Beck, J.

Under the express provisions of § 6089 of the Civil Code, all applications for a new trial, except in extraordinary cases, must he made during the term at which the trial was had; and when the term continues longer than thirty days, the application shall be filed within thirty days from the trial. Where the party applying for a new trial did not file his application or motion within thirty days from the trial, the court did not err in dismissing the .motion, although within less than thirty days counsel for the party prevailing at the trial entered a written acknowledgment of service, waiving a copy and all further service of the same; such acknowledgment of service not having the effect of curing the failure to comply with the requirements of the statute as to the time of filing the motion.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Case 3:08-cv-04118-BZ Document 104 Filed 08/03/10 Page 1 of 2Case 3:08-cv-04118-BZ Document 104 Filed 08/03/10 Page 2 of 2
Order entered August 1 9 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 01504 - CV KATRINA MCPHERSON, Appellant

V. MELISSA LOPEZ, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC - 18 - 05725 - E



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s August 15, 2019 second motion for an extension of time to file her brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to September 16, 2019

. /s/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2606 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2606

       To suspend temporarily the duty on Fludioxonil Technical.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 24, 2005

  Mr. Terry introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To suspend temporarily the duty on Fludioxonil Technical.

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

SECTION 1. FLUDIOXONIL TECHNICAL.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.90.11      Fludioxonil         Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         Technical 1H-                                                      31/2008
                         Pyrrole-3-
                         carbonitrile, 4-
                         (2,2-difluoro-
                         1,3-benzodioxol-4-
                         yl)- (CAS No.
                         131341-86-1)(prov
                         ided for in
                         subheading
                         2934.99.12)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
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 RE THE TRIAL DATE

With respect to the trial date, it will be left at May 10, 2010, but it may have to trail

another large earlier trial that will likely still be underway when May 10 arrives. The actual start

date for the Schwab trial may (or may not) slip to the week of May 17. Not having the luxury to

move the start date to the following week, the Court must ask counsel and witnesses to be flexible

and adjust, being ready to go as scheduled, as well as trailing as necessary. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-02878-WHA Document 27 Filed 03/24/10 Page 1 of 1
§ 309.17 Procedures for salary offset. Unless otherwise provided by statute or contract, the following procedures apply to salary offset: ( a ) *Method.* Salary offset will be made by deduction at one or more officially established pay intervals from the current pay account of the employee without his or her consent.
( b ) *Source.* The source of salary offset is current disposable pay.
( c ) *Types of collection* — ( 1 ) *Lump sum payment.* Ordinarily debts will be collected by salary offset in one lump sum if possible. However, if the amount of the debt exceeds 15 percent of disposable pay for an officially established pay interval, the collection by salary offset must be made in installment deductions.
( 2 ) *Installment deductions.* ( i ) The size of installment deductions must bear a reasonable relation to the size of the debt and the employee's ability to pay. If possible, the size of the deduction will be that necessary to liquidate the debt in no more than 1 year. However, the amount deducted for any period must not exceed 15 percent of the disposable pay from which the deduction is made, except as provided by other regulations or unless the employee has agreed in writing to greater amount.
( ii ) Installment payments of less than $25 per pay period will be accepted only in the most unusual circumstances.
( iii ) Installment deductions will be made over a period of not greater than the anticipated period of employment.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edwin Chase, Appellant.

Motion by appellant to dispense with printing granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers (including the typed minutes) and on appellant’s typewritten brief. The appellant is directed to file six copies of his typewritten brief and to serve one copy on the District Attorney. Appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is further enlarged to the April Term, beginning March 27,1961; appeal ordered on the calendar for said term. Motion for assignment of counsel granted. Anthony F. Marra, Esq., 100 Centre Street, New York 13, New York, is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Fette, JJ., concur.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

Y.B.L.Y., the father,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-3142

[January 7, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach 

County; Gregory M. Keyser, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2015-DP-300700-XXXXMB.

Gary L. Pickett, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Andrew Feigenbaum of Children’s Legal Services, West Palm Beach, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, CONNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Frank A. Lardarello, Appellant.

Judgment of the Court of Special Sessions, New York County, convicting the defendant of a violation of section 1140 of the Penal Law, and sentencing him to a term of four months in the Workhouse, but suspending its operation during good behavior, unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts, the information dismissed and the defendant discharged. We are of the opinion that the evidence in this case, when considered with defendant’s character evidence, did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt defendant’s guilt of the willful and lewd exposure required by section 1140 of the Penal Law. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7174 

TERRY SANJUAN HILL-BEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JAMES V. PEGUESE, Warden; J. JOSEPH CURRAN,

JR., Attorney General of the State of

Maryland,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-05-212-AW)

Submitted: December 22, 2005 Decided: December 30, 2005

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry Sanjuan Hill-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Terry Hill-Bey, a Maryland prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) as untimely under the Antiterrorism and

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. An appeal may not be taken

from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the

district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by

the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that HillBey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32

Certification

Each of the undersigned officers of Allin Corporation (the Company), certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | the Companys report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by
the Company for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



|             |  |  |  |                        
|------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------
|May 15, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Richard W. Talarico
|             |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
|             |  | 
|May 15, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Dean C. Praskach   
|             |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 521.40 Stays ordered by the Department of Justice.

If at any time the Attorney General or an Assistant Attorney General designated by the Attorney General transmits to the Director a written finding that continuation of the administrative process described in this part with respect to a claim or statement may adversely affect any pending or potential criminal or civil action related to such claim or statement, the Director shall stay the process immediately. The Director may order the process resumed only upon receipt of the written authorization of the Attorney General.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

                    The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) North Florida District Advisory Council located in Jacksonville, Florida, will host a public meeting at 12 p.m. e.s.t. on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 at the SBA North Florida District Office located at 7825                           ( print page 76513)                        Baymeadows Way, Jacksonville, FL 32256, to discuss such matters that may be presented by members, and staff of the U.S. Small Business Administration, or others present. Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation to the Board must contact Wilfredo J. Gonzalez, District Director, in writing by letter or fax no later than Monday, January 3, 2005, in order to be placed on the agenda.                 

*Contact information:*                     Wilfredo J. Gonzalez, District Director, U.S. Small Business Administration, 7825 Baymeadows Way; Suite 100B, Jacksonville, FL 32256, Telephone (904) 443-1900, FAX (202) 481-4188.                 

Matthew K. Becker, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 04-27831 Filed 12-20-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### In the Matter of Adrian G. Bancker, Appellant, v. Henry A. Sahm et al., Constituting the Town Board of the Town of North Hempstead, Respondents.

In a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court,, Nassau County, dated March 12, 1959, denying his motion to direct the respondents, constituting the Town Board of the Town of North Hempstead, to hold a public hearing on his application for a permit to store inflammable materials, to be used in connection with a proposed gasoline service station, on petitioner’s premises. Order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
#### § 240.3 The Guarantee.

Subject to the terms and conditions set out in this part, the United States of America, acting through USAID, guarantees to Noteholders the Borrower's repayment of 100% of principal and interest due on Eligible Notes. Under this Guarantee, USAID agrees to pay to any Noteholder compensation in Dollars equal to such Noteholder's Loss of Investment under its Eligible Note; provided, however, that no such payment shall be made to any Noteholder for any such loss arising out of fraud or misrepresentation for which such Noteholder is responsible or of which it had knowledge at the time it became such Noteholder. This Guarantee shall apply to each Eligible Note registered on the Note Register.
#### § 518.47 Contract administration.

A system for contract administration shall be maintained to ensure contractor conformance with the terms, conditions and specifications of the contract and to ensure adequate and timely follow up of all purchases. Recipients shall evaluate contractor performance and document, as appropriate, whether contractors have met the terms, conditions, and specifications of the contract.
Case 3:08-cv-05453-VRW Document 53 Filed 02/23/10 Page 1 of 2
2/23/2010 

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Vaughn R Walker

Case 3:08-cv-05453-VRW Document 53 Filed 02/23/10 Page 2 of 2
### §5633. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5633 was editorially reclassified as section 11133 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.

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

#### Costs and Implications of Removal of Juveniles From Adults in Jails; Report to Congress

Pub. L. 96–509, §17, Dec. 8, 1980, 94 Stat. 2761, provided that the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, not later than 18 months after Dec. 8, 1980, submit a report to the Congress relating to the cost and implications of any requirement added to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 which would mandate the removal of juveniles from adults in all jails and lockups, such report to include an estimate of the costs likely to be incurred by the States, an analysis of the experience of States which required the removal of juveniles from adults in all jails and lockups, an analysis of possible adverse ramifications which might result from such requirement of removal, and recommendations for such legislative or administrative action as the Administrator considers appropriate.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Robert F. Korth, Appellant, v Harold J Smith, as Superintendent of the Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Relator is serving an indeterminate sentence up to four years imposed on October 27, 1975 following his plea of guilty for attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. On April 28, 1976 relator was granted a writ of habeas corpus upon a petition which alleged that his conviction was illegally obtained. The record at the hearing on the application reveals that relator had an appeal pending from his judgment of conviction and sentence. For that reason, the trial court dismissed the petition on July 21, 1976. Relator’s subsequent request that his appeal be dismissed was granted by order dated October 12, 1976. This appeal from the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition followed. Thus, the factual posture of the case before us is different from that before the trial court because there is now no appeal pending. Such distinction does not compel a different result. Habeas corpus is not to be utilized as a substitute for an appeal absent reason of practicality or necessity *(People ex rel. Keitt v McMann,*18 NY2d 257, 262). In this case relator elected not to pursue his appeal where the alleged error could have been reviewed. Such election does not constitute a reason of practicality or necessity to warrant the granting of habeas corpus relief *(People ex rel. Tanner v Vincent,*44 AD2d 170, 174, affd 36 NY2d 773; *People ex rel. Davis v Smith,*54 AD2d 1131). (Appeal from judgment of Wyoming Supreme Court—habeas corpus.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Cardamone, Dillon, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 201
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 201 appear at 62 FR 38027, July 16, 1997.

§ 201.21 Notice to supplier. The importer is responsible for providing the supplier with the following information (either through the invitation for bids, the request for quotations or otherwise): ( a ) Notice that the transaction is to be financed by USAID under this part 201;
( b ) The identification number of the implementing document;
( c ) All additional information prerequisite to USAID financing and contained in the instructions from the borrower/grantee to the importer (for example, eligible source of commodity, periods during which deliveries must be made, shipping provisions, and documentation requirements); and, where appropriate,
( d ) Notice of the marking requirements in § 201.31(d), when the importer is the government of the cooperating country or any if its subdivisions or instrumentalities.
### §3796bb. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796bb was editorially reclassified as section 10351 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
APPENDIX M: GEOTECHNICAL STUDY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Georgetown University Boathouse 

Environmental Assessment 

April 2006