alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 13.3 Withdrawal of data.

HUD shall remove all printed penalty mail envelopes and other materials from circulation or other use within a three month period from the date the National Center receives information or notice that a child, whose picture and biographical information have been made available to HUD, has been recovered or that the parent or guardian's permission to use the child's photograph and biographical information has been withdrawn. The HUD contact person shall be notified immediately and in writing by the National Center of the need to withdraw from circulation penalty mail envelopes and other materials related to a particular child.
### §8003. Contracts to provide congregate services programs

The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (hereinafter referred to as the "Secretary") is authorized to enter into contracts with local public housing agencies under the United States Housing Act of 1937 [42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.] (hereinafter referred to as "public housing agencies") and with nonprofit corporations, utilizing sums appropriated under this chapter, to provide congregate services programs for eligible project residents in order to promote and encourage maximum independence within a home environment for such residents capable of self-care with appropriate supportive congregate services. Each contract between the Secretary and a public housing agency or nonprofit corporation shall be for a term of not less than three years or more than five years and shall be renewable at the expiration of such term. Each public housing agency or nonprofit corporation entering into such a contract shall be reserved a sum equal to its total approved contract amount from the moneys authorized and appropriated for the fiscal year in which the notification date of funding approval falls.

(Pub. L. 95–557, title IV, §404, Oct. 31, 1978, 92 Stat. 2106.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The United States Housing Act of 1937, referred to in text, is act Sept. 1, 1937, ch. 896, as revised generally by Pub. L. 93–383, title II, §201(a), Aug. 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 653, which is classified generally to chapter 8 (§1437 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1437 of this title and Tables.
§ 1000.315 Is a recipient required to report changes to the Formula Current Assisted Stock (FCAS) on the Formula Response Form? ( a ) A recipient shall report changes to information related to the IHBG formula on the Formula Response Form, including corrections to the number of Formula Current Assisted Stock (FCAS), during the time period required by HUD. This time period shall be not less than 60 days from the date of the HUD letter transmitting the form to the recipient.
( b ) The Formula Response Form is the only mechanism that a recipient shall use to report changes to the number of FCAS.
[72 FR 20025, Apr. 20, 2007]
### §7175. Right of Secretary to intervene in Commission proceedings

The Secretary may as a matter of right intervene or otherwise participate in any proceeding before the Commission. The Secretary shall comply with rules of procedure of general applicability governing the timing of intervention or participation in such proceeding or activity and, upon intervening or participating therein, shall comply with rules of procedure of general applicability governing the conduct thereof. The intervention or participation of the Secretary in any proceeding or activity shall not affect the obligation of the Commission to assure procedure fairness to all participants.

(Pub. L. 95–91, title IV, §405, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 586.)
Docket No: FAA-2015-0680 Dir ID: 2014-NM-165-AD
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 Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-4901-N-53]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

December 30, 2004.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in                     *National Coalition for the Homeless*                     v.                     *Veterans Administration,*                     No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.                

Dated: December 22, 2004.

Mark R. Johnston,

Director, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs.

[FR Doc. 04-28440  Filed 12-29-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-29-M
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [File No. 500-1]

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Absolute Health and Fitness, Inc. (“Absolute Health”) because of questions regarding the accuracy of assertions by Absolute Health, and by others, in public statements to investors concerning, among other things, its corporate status and its ownership of certain health and fitness facilities.

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above listed company.

Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST December 15, 2004 through 11:59 p.m. EST, on December 29, 2004.

By the Commission.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04-27766 Filed 12-15-04; 1:39 pm]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
#### § 1000.22 Are the costs of the environmental review an eligible cost?

Yes, costs of completing the environmental review are eligible.
#### In the Matter of Francis Blaisdell, Appellant, v New York State Teachers’ Retirement System, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered May 10, 1977 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to compel respondent to pay petitioner an optional retirement allowance. Petitioner is the widower of Lauris Blaisdell and the designated beneficiary of an optional retirement allowance for which Mrs. Blaisdell applied prior to her death. Mrs. Blaisdell, a member of the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System, executed an application for disability retirement on June 2, 1976 and mailed it to respondent’s office on June 4. Respondent notified her that her application had been received on June 7 and that her "retirement will take effect on 7/7/76 * * * contingent on the recommendation of our medical board and the approval of the retirement board.” The notice also requested completion of the "Election of Retirement Benefit” form. Mrs. Blaisdell died at approximately 8:30 on the evening of July 6, 1976. That day respondent received the election form selecting Option 1 under section 513 of the Education Law, and designating petitioner as beneficiary. By letter dated July 9, respondent advised petitioner that the election of benefits form was unacceptable because his wife’s signature was not affixed in the presence of a notary public. The letter continued: "upon receipt of a death certificate, this System will *1117proceed in processing any benefits due as a result of your wife’s death.” After demand for payment in November, 1976, and respondent’s refusal, petitioner brought this proceeding to compel payment of retirement benefits. Special Term rejected respondent’s contention that the proceeding was untimely, reasoning that the proceeding was in the nature of mandamus requiring a demand and refusal to commence the period of limitations. The petition was brought within four months of the refusal (CPLR 217). We agree with this ruling. Special Term dismissed the petition, however, adopting respondent’s contention that Mrs. Blaisdell died within 30 days after she filed for retirement, rendering her election of benefits ineffective (Education Law, § 513, subd 1). Petitioner appeals from the dismissal. In order to sustain the decision we would have to find that the decedent had not lived through a 30-day period when she mailed her application Friday, June 4, it was received Monday, June 7, and she died July 6. The statute sets the date of filing as the first day of the period and filing ordinarily occurs when the document is received in the proper office *(Matter of Robillard v Levitt,*44 AD2d 611). Petitioner argues that if not for the intervening weekend, the application would have been received earlier. That ignores both the uncertainties of postal service and the definition of "filing”. Since death came 29 days after filing, we are constrained by the Education Law to affirm the judgment of Special Term. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Kane, Staley, Jr., and Main, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York v. Joseph Walsh.

Motion for an order adding appeal to the June 1962 Calendar of this court denied in all respects. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6910
MICHAEL RANKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GREGORY BONNER; STOP SHOP STORE; JOHN SOTIROPOLOS; BRENDA K. SPRUILL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-303-5-BO) Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: August 26, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Rankins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Michael Rankins appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Rankins v. Bonner , No. CA-02-303-5-BO (E.D.N.C. June 10, 2002). 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.

AFFIRMED
§ 309.2 Scope. ( a ) *Applicability of Federal Claims Collection Standards (FCCS).* Peace Corps hereby adopts the provisions of the Federal Claims Collections Standards (31 CFR parts 900-904) and, except as set forth in this part or otherwise provided by law, Peace Corps will conduct administrative actions to collect claims (including offset, compromise, suspension, termination, disclosure and referral) in accordance with the FCCS.
( b ) This part is not applicable to: ( 1 ) Peace Corps claims against another Federal agency, any foreign country or any political subdivision thereof, or any public international organization.
( 2 ) Debts arising out of acquisitions contracts subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) shall be determined, collected, compromised, terminated, or settled in accordance with those regulations (see 49 CFR part 32).
( 3 ) Claims where the Peace Corps Director (or designee) determines that the achievement of the purposes of the Peace Corps Act, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 2501 *et seq.,* or any other provision of law administered by the Peace Corps require a different course of action.
### §8421. Information

#### (a) Authority of Secretary

For purposes of carrying out his responsibilities under this chapter, the Secretary may require, under the authority of this chapter or any other authority administered by him, any person owning, operating or controlling any electric powerplant, or any other person otherwise subject to this chapter to submit such information and reports of any kind or nature directly to the Secretary necessary to implement the provisions of this chapter, and insure compliance with the provisions of this chapter, and any rule or order thereunder. The provisions of section 796(d) of title 15 shall apply with respect to information obtained under this section to the same extent and in the same manner as it applies with respect to energy information obtained under section 796 of title 15.

#### (b) Authority of President and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

In the case of responsibilities expressly given by this chapter to the President or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, subsection (a) shall be applied as if the references to the Secretary were references to the President or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, as the case may be.

#### (c) Natural gas usage by electric utilities

(1) For purposes of section 8374(b) of this title and other emergency authorities, the Secretary shall obtain data necessary to determine—

(A) within 6 months after August 13, 1981, the total quantities of natural gas used as a primary energy source by each electric utility during calendar year 1977, and

(B) on a semiannual basis, the total quantities of natural gas used as a primary energy source during the previous 6-month period by each electric utility.

(2) Repealed. Pub. L. 104–66, title I, §1051(e), Dec. 21, 1995, 109 Stat. 716.

(Pub. L. 95–620, title VII, §711, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3332; Pub. L. 97–35, title X, §1021(b), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 615; Pub. L. 100–42, §1(c)(17), May 21, 1987, 101 Stat. 313; Pub. L. 104–66, title I, §1051(e), Dec. 21, 1995, 109 Stat. 716.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 95–620, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3289, known as the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 8301 of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

1995—Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 104–66 struck out par. (2) which read as follows: "The Secretary shall include in each annual report to the Congress under section 8482 of this title a summary of information received by the Secretary under this subsection."

1987—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–42 struck out "or major fuel-burning installation" after "powerplant".

1981—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 97–35 added subsec. (c).

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

#### Effective Date of 1981 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–35 effective Aug. 13, 1981, see section 1038 of Pub. L. 97–35, set out as a note under section 6240 of this title.
#### Anthony Prizzia et al., Respondents, v Kathleen Prizzia, Also Known as Catherine Prizzia, et al., Appellants.

Appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered September 27, 1976 in Ulster County, which confirmed a Referee’s report, partitioned certain real property among the parties and ordered that the remaining property held in common be sold and the proceeds distributed to the parties. Appellants contend that the interlocutory judgment directs an inequitable division and apportionment of the property in question, and urge either its reversal or that the judgment of partition be modified in accordance with certain other alternatives offered by appellants to the partition as recommended by the Referee and adopted by Special Term. On this record we find that the claimed inequities in the distribution of the property have no basis in fact. The appellants consented to an order of reference, made pursuant to section 911 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, which directed the Referee to ascertain the rights, shares and interests of the parties. In this proceeding appellants sought to enforce an agreement entered into by the parties in 1958 as tenants in common of the subject property, entitling each of them to one acre lots having the same frontage as a similar lot conveyed to the plaintiff Rosario Prizzio at the time the agreement was entered into. The parties agreed to submit this controversy to the Referee with the 1958 agreement as a guideline. The order of reference directed the Referee "to report whether the property or any part *723thereof is so circumstanced that a partition thereof cannot be made without great prejudice to the owners and in such event to report whether a partition in kind to the extent of one acre lots to the parties hereto, other than the plaintiff, Rosario Prizzia, can be made without great prejudice to the owners.” In his report the Referee recommended that appellants were to receive lots with 85 feet more frontage and 42% more acreage than required by the 1958 agreement. Clearly, the recommendation is fair and equitable, and appellants have made no showing to the contrary. The alternatives submitted by appellants to the partition as directed by Special Term are nothing more than an attempt to substitute their view of an equitable distribution for that of the court as recommended by the Referee. In any event, the sale of the entire property, offered as one of the alternatives, could not be pursued in this case since the statute permits such a sale only where the property cannot be partitioned without great prejudice to the owners *(Vlcek v Vlcek,*42 AD2d 308, 311; Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, § 915). Having failed to show great prejudice, or, indeed, any inequity, appellants would not be entitled to this option. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Main, 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JO ANNE E. HASELTINE,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Defendant.

))))))))))

No. C 08-5782 BZ

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant bring an unredacted

copy of the Analyst’s Report referred to in Document 52-3 to

the FEBRUARY 17, 2010 hearing should the Court need to review

it in camera.  

Dated:  February 16, 2010

          Bernard Zimmerman 

  United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\HASELTINE v. ASTRUE\MISC ORDER.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-05782-BZ   Document 61   Filed 02/16/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-10T23:05:18-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Hopper, Appellant.

[717 NYS2d 123]

—Judgment, Supreme *172Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered October 27, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2V2 to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

While we are perturbed by the prosecutor’s comment on defendant’s failure to prove certain matters mentioned in defense counsel’s opening statement, which had been stricken, the comment does not warrant reversal in light of the court’s instructions on the burden of proof, which instructions the jury is presumed to have followed (see, *People v D’Alessandro,*184 AD2d 114, 118-119, *lv denied*81 NY2d 884; *compare, People v Brown,*91 AD2d 639). Defendant’s remaining challenge to the prosecutor’s summation is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the prosecutor’s brief and isolated “safe streets” argument was not inflammatory and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial.

The court’s statement at sentencing that defendant’s act of pointing or waving his weapon at another person was an aggravating factor did not constitute consideration of a count upon which defendant was acquitted. Although defendant was acquitted of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, which requires intent to use the weapon unlawfully against another person, the verdict does not necessarily imply that defendant never pointed or waved his weapon at the complainant. The court stated that it interpreted the verdict as implying an absence of unlawful intent, but that defendant’s conduct, even if committed with a different mental state, was still an aggravating factor.

The record fails to support defendant’s claim that the sentence was based on misinformation. Defendant’s claim rests on a statement by the court during a bail application at the end of trial. However, at sentencing, the court had before it a complete probation report containing the correct information.

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.