alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 710

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 710 appear at 84 FR 37752, Aug. 2, 2019.

#### § 710.1 General.

The following procedures are hereby established with respect to the administrative enforcement of restrictions on post-employment activities (18 U.S.C. 207(a), (b) or (c) and implementing regulations (44 FR 19987 and 19988, April 3, 1979) published by the Office of Government Ethics.
### §3797y. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3797y was editorially reclassified as section 10641 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### §2184. Injunctions; measure of damages

No court shall have jurisdiction or power to stay, restrain, or otherwise enjoin the use of any invention or discovery by a patent licensee, to the extent that such use is licensed by section 2183(b) or 2183(e) of this title. If, in any action against such patent licensee, the court shall determine that the defendant is exercising such license, the measure of damages shall be the royalty fee determined pursuant to section 2187(c) of this title, together with such costs, interest, and reasonable attorney's fees as may be fixed by the court. If no royalty fee has been determined, the court shall stay the proceeding until the royalty fee is determined pursuant to section 2187(c) of this title. If any such patent licensee shall fail to pay such royalty fee, the patentee may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction for such royalty fee, together with such costs, interest, and reasonable attorney's fees as may be fixed by the court.

(Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, title I, §154, as added Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, §1, 68 Stat. 946; renumbered title I, Pub. L. 102–486, title IX, §902(a)(8), Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2944.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to this section were contained in section 1811(c)(3) of this title, prior to the general amendment and renumbering of act Aug. 1, 1946, by act Aug. 30, 1954.
#### § 33.11 Records.

The Office Director, Office of Marine Conservation, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs will have the right to inspect claimants' books and records as a precondition to approving claims. All claims must contain written authorization of the guaranteed party for any international, federal, state, or local governmental Agencies to provide the Office Director, Office of Marine Conservation, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs any data or information pertinent to a claim.
#### Franklin Society Federal Savings and Loan Association, Respondent, v Far-Pap Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

In a mortgage foreclosure action, defendant Far-Pap Corp. appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 24, 1976, as, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of plaintiff and referred the action to a referee to compute the amounts due the parties. Interlocutory judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. Defendant-appellant, a corporation dealing in real property, is the owner of a substantial parcel of real property subject to a first mortgage in the sum of $225,000 held by the plaintiff. Mortgage installments of approximately $1,900 of principal and interest were due and payable on the first day of each month, with the customary 30-day grace period. Appellant’s installment for the month of December, 1974 was late, but was finally paid on January 10, 1975. Unfortunately, the fact that appellant had finally paid the December installment was not communicated to plaintiff’s assistant vice-president, who, by letter dated January 14, 1975, wrote the appellant to inform it that (1) the mortgage was in default, (2) plaintiff had elected to accelerate the entire amount and (3) "partial payments will not be accepted and any payments mailed by * * * [appellant] will be returned.” Appellant thereafter failed to pay the January installment, and plaintiff commenced this action. Upon the record, we agree with Trial Term that plaintiff’s letter of January 14 did not serve as a valid election to accelerate the entire amount; hence, the appellant could have cured its January default at any time before the plaintiff made a further proper and valid election to accelerate. This plaintiff did by the filing of a *lis pendens*and the service of a summons and complaint in February, 1975 (see *Albertina Realty Co. v Rosbro Realty Corp.,*258 NY 472, 476; *Staten Is. Sav. Bank v Carnival,*39 AD2d 779, 780). Further, appellant’s contention that plaintiff was guilty of an "anticipatory breach” of the terms of the mortgage contract lacks merit inasmuch as the doctrine of anticipatory breach is not applied with regard to contracts for the payment of money in fixed monthly installments (see *Kelly v Security Mut. Life Ins. Co.,*186 NY 16, 19; *Long Is. R. R. Co. v*
      *608
      *Northville Inds.,*41 NY2d 455). Margett, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and Suozzi, JJ., concur.
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

JEFFREY BITTON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 08-5585 MMC

ORDER CONTINUING STATUS

CONFERENCE

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Case Status Conference Statement, filed July 1,

2010.

In light of the parties’ representation that the proposed settlement is presently

pending before the San Francisco Board of Supervisors for their consideration, the Status

Conference is hereby CONTINUED from July 9, 2010 to September 24, 2010. A Joint

Status Conference Statement shall be filed no later than September 17, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Vaughn R Walker

Dated: July 8, 2010 

VAUGHN R WALKER for

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05585-MMC Document 40 Filed 07/08/10 Page 1 of 1
#### Jonathan A. Korn, Appellant, v First UNUM Life Insurance Company, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[717 NYS2d *356606]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover ¡damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Marbach, R), dated February 11, 1999, as denied his motion for a protective order directing the defendant First UNUM Life Insurance Company to relinquish possession of his Federal personal income tax returns, suppressing use of the information contained therein, and denying further disclosure of his Federal personal income tax returns, denied his separate motion to compel the defendant First UNUM Life Insurance Company to produce certain documents, and granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendant First UNUM Life Insurance Company which was to dismiss the sixth cause of action for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs sixth cause of action, alleging a violation of General Business Law § 349, was properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action *(see,*CPLR 3211 [a] [7]). Viewing the complaint with the assumption that all the allegations contained therein are true *(see, Becker v Schwartz,*46 NY2d 401, 408; *Sotomayor v Kaufman, Malchman, Kirby & Squire,*252 AD2d 554; *S.A.E. Motor Parts Co. v Tenenbaum,*226 AD2d 518), the plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support his contention that the defendant First UNUM Life Insurance Company violated General Business Law § 349. Since the complaint essentially alleges a private contract dispute over policy coverage that is unique to the parties, rather than conduct that affects consumers at large, the complaint fails to state a cause of action pursuant to General Business Law § 349 *(see, Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v Marine Midland Bank,*85 NY2d 20, 25; *Pellechia & Pellechia v American Natl. Fire Ins. Co.,*244 AD2d 395; *Jim & Phil’s Family Pharmacy v National Prescription Adm’r,*233 AD2d 423; *Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. v Wender,*940 F Supp 62).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of C. D. R. Enterprises, Ltd., Petitioner, v Harrison J. Goldin et al., Respondents. In the Matter of Antonio Damigos, Also Known as John Durandes, Petitioner, v Harrison J. Goldin, Respondent.

—Determination of respondent Comptroller dated April 23, 1976, in each proceeding, unanimously annulled and the petitions granted on consent, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Evans, Capozzoli and Yesawich, JJ.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4185 

To direct the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to establish 

a loan guarantee program to assist small business concerns that manufacture clean energy technologies in the United States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 8, 2012 

Ms. MATSUI (for herself and Mrs. CAPPS) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Small Business 

A BILL 

To direct the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to establish a loan guarantee program to assist 

small business concerns that manufacture clean energy 

technologies in the United States, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Small Business Clean 

5 Energy Financing Act of 2012’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4185 IH

1 SEC. 2. CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY LOAN GUARANTEE 

2 PROGRAM. 

3 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Administrator of the 

4 Small Business Administration shall establish a program 

5 under which the Administrator is authorized to guarantee 

6 the loans of small business concerns that manufacture a 

7 clean energy technology in the United States. 

8 (b) ADMINISTRATION.—Except as otherwise specified 

9 in this section and to the extent practicable, the Adminis10 trator shall carry out the program under subsection (a) 

11 in a manner similar to the loan program under section 

12 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)). 

13 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following defi14 nitions apply: 

15 (1) CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY.—The term 

16 ‘‘clean energy technology’’ means a technology re17 lated to the production, use, transmission, storage, 

18 control, or conservation of energy that will con19 tribute to a stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse 

20 gas concentrations through reduction, avoidance, or 

21 sequestration of energy-related emissions and— 

22 (A) reduce the need for additional energy 

23 supplies by using existing energy supplies with 

24 greater efficiency or by transmitting, distrib25 uting, or transporting energy with greater effecVerDate Mar 15 2010 20:15 Mar 09, 2012 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4185.IH H4185

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4185 IH

1 tiveness through the infrastructure of the 

2 United States; or 

3 (B) diversify the sources of the energy sup4 ply of the United States to strengthen energy 

5 security and to increase supplies with a favor6 able balance of environmental effects if the en7 tire technology system is considered. 

8 (2) SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN.—The term 

9 ‘‘small business concern’’ has the meaning given 

10 that term under section 3(a) of the Small Business 

11 Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)). 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### §5208. Repealed. Pub. L. 112–74, div. D, title III, Dec. 23, 2011, 125 Stat. 963

Section, Pub. L. 110–161, div. E, title III, Dec. 26, 2007, 121 Stat. 2064, related to Federal Emergency Management Agency monthly Disaster Relief reports.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4411 

To extend the temporary reduction of duty on certain polyacrylonitrile tow. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 19, 2012 

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary reduction of duty on certain 

polyacrylonitrile tow. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN POLYACRYLONITRILE TOW. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.40.22 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 polyacrylonitrile tow) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/ 

7 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 subsection (a) apply with respect to goods entered, or 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4411 IH

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
###### Editorial Note on Part 707

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 707 appear at 84 FR 37752, Aug. 2, 2019.

#### § 707.11 Scope and purpose.

This part applies to all records in systems of records maintained by DFC that are retrievable by an individual's name or personal identifier. The rules in this part describe the procedures by which individuals may request access to records about themselves, request amendment or correction of those records, or request an accounting of disclosures of records by DFC. These rules should be read in conjunction with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, which provides additional information about records maintained on individuals.
**EXHIBIT99.1**

 

**Certification**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, UnitedStates Code), each of the undersigned officers of On Command Corporation, aDelaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’sknowledge, that:

 

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterended March 31, 2003 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany as of March 31, 2003, and 2002 and for the three months ended March 31,2003 and 2002.

 

 
| Dated: May 15,  2003 |   | /s/ Christopher  Sophinos                       |
|----------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                 |   | Christopher  Sophinos                           |
|                 |   | President and  Chief Executive Officer          |
|                 |   |                                            |
|                 |   |                                            |
| Dated: May 15,  2003 |   | /s/ Bernard G.  Dvorak                          |
|                 |   | Bernard G.  Dvorak                              |
|                 |   | Senior Vice  President, Chief Financial Officer |
|                 |   | and Treasurer                                   |

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solelypursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is notbeing filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.

 

----
§ 100.7 Liability for discriminatory housing practices. ( a ) *Direct liability.* ( 1 ) A person is directly liable for: ( i ) The person's own conduct that results in a discriminatory housing practice.
( ii ) Failing to take prompt action to correct and end a discriminatory housing practice by that person's employee or agent, where the person knew or should have known of the discriminatory conduct.
( iii ) Failing to take prompt action to correct and end a discriminatory housing practice by a third-party, where the person knew or should have known of the discriminatory conduct and had the power to correct it. The power to take prompt action to correct and end a discriminatory housing practice by a third-party depends upon the extent of the person's control or any other legal responsibility the person may have with respect to the conduct of such third-party.
( 2 ) For purposes of determining liability under paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this section, prompt action to correct and end the discriminatory housing practice may not include any action that penalizes or harms the aggrieved person, such as eviction of the aggrieved person.
( b ) *Vicarious liability.* A person is vicariously liable for a discriminatory housing practice by the person's agent or employee, regardless of whether the person knew or should have known of the conduct that resulted in a discriminatory housing practice, consistent with agency law.
[81 FR 63074, Sept. 14, 2016]
### §5775. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5775 was editorially reclassified as section 11294 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher B. Hill, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[715 NYS2d 682]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The record establishes that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal *(see, People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 736; *People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273, 280). That waiver encompasses the contention of defendant that Supreme Court erred in denying his suppression motion *(see, People v Duncan,*267 AD2d 995, *lv denied*94 NY2d 918; *People v Frank,*258 AD2d 900, *lv denied*93 NY2d 924; *People v Outling,*231 AD2d 911, *lv denied*89 NY2d 945). The waiver also encompasses defendant’s contention that the sentence is harsh and excessive *(see, People v Hidalgo, supra,*at 734). In any event, we conclude that the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. Although a defendant always retains the right to challenge the legality of a sentence *(see, People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1, 10), the record does not support defendant’s contention that the sentence on one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [4]) is illegal. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Burns, J.— Criminal Possession Weapon, 3rd Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Kehoe and Balio, JJ.
Letter agreement



  
 Exhibit 10(e)

 October 29, 2010 
 Parker
S. Kennedy 
 1 First American Way 

Santa Ana, California 92707 
 Dear
Mr. Kennedy: 
 In connection with the June 1, 2010, separation of The First American Corporation (“FAC”) into First
American Financial Corporation (“FAFC”) and CoreLogic, Inc. (“CoreLogic”), you entered an Amended and Restated Change in Control Agreement between you, FAC and FAFC, dated May 31, 2010 (the “Change in
Control Agreement”), and a letter agreement between you, FAC and FAFC, dated May 31, 2010, relating to the treatment of your benefits in connection with the separation (the “Letter Agreement”). 

As part of a recent review of benefit programs undertaken by both FAFC and CoreLogic, both companies determined that it would be in the best interests of
each company’s respective shareholders to terminate the existing three-party Change in Control Agreement in exchange for each of FAFC and CoreLogic entering into a new, separate change in control agreement with you. You have been provided with
copies of the new change in control agreements, one between you and FAFC and the other between you and CoreLogic, which agreements are expected to become effective on December 31, 2010. By signing below, you hereby acknowledge and agree that
effective December 31, 2010, the existing Change in Control Agreement between you, FAFC and FAC shall terminate and be of no further force or effect. 
 In addition, upon the termination of the existing Change in Control Agreement, paragraph 8 of the Letter Agreement will no longer have any relevance as it reflected the terms of the existing Change in
Control Agreement. As such, by signing below, you also acknowledge and agree that effective December 31, 2010, paragraph 8 of the Letter Agreement between you, FAFC and FAC shall terminate and be of no further force or effect; provided,
however, that the remainder of the Letter Agreement shall not be affected by the termination of paragraph 8 thereof and thus shall remain in effect unaltered by this letter agreement. 

[signature page follows] 







  
 
			
	Sincerely,
	
	FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	/s/ Dennis J. Gilmore
		 	Dennis J. Gilmore
		 	Chief Executive Officer


  

			
	CORELOGIC, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Stergios Theologides
		 	Stergios Theologides
		 	SVP, General Counsel


 By signing this letter, I am
acknowledging and agreeing to the above: 
  

									
		 		 	
					
	Signature:	 	/s/ Parker S. Kennedy	 		 	Date:	 	October 29, 2010
		 	Parker S. Kennedy	 		 		 	


  
 2
Exhibit 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), the undersigned, Lisa M. De La Pointe, Chief Financial Officer of Puradyn
Filter Technologies, Incorporated ("the Company") has executed this
certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended September 30, 2002 (the Report).

         The undersigned certifies that: (1) the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as
of the 14th day of November 2002.



                                               /s/ Lisa M. De La Pointe
                                               -------------------------
                                               Name: Lisa M. De La Pointe
                                               Title: Chief Financial Officer