alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 203.18a Solar energy system. ( a ) The dollar limitation provided in § 203.18(a) may be increased by up to 20 percent if such an increase is necessary to account for the increased cost of the residence due to the installation of a solar energy system.
( b ) *Solar energy system* is defined as any addition, alteration, or improvement to an existing or new structure which is designed to utilize wind energy or solar energy either of the active type based on mechanically forced energy transfer or of the passive type based on convective, conductive, or radiant energy transfer or some combination of these types to reduce the energy requirements of that structure from other energy sources and which is in conformity with such criteria and standards as shall be prescribed by the Secretary in consultation with the Secretary of Energy.
[45 FR 51770, Aug. 5, 1980]
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2810 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2810

   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 3-(Ethylsulfonly)-2-
                          pyridinesulfonamide.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 8, 2005

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 3-(Ethylsulfonly)-2-
                          pyridinesulfonamide.

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

SECTION 1. 3-(ETHYLSULFONLY)-2-PYRIDINESULFONAMIDE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.33.63 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States is amended by striking ``12/31/2006'' and 
inserting ``12/31/2009''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

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

G:\CRBALL\2009\357\order denying motion to strike.wpd

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK MAHAR,

Plaintiff,

    v.

BNSF RAILWAY CORP.,

Defendant.                                                                      /

No. C 09-00357 CRB

ORDER DENYING MOTION TOSTRIKE AND RESETTING HEARING

The Court is in receipt of Defendant BNSF Railway Corp.’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s

Opposition, as well as Plaintiff’s response thereto.  Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Opposition was

filed three days late, and asks that it be struck, or that the hearing be reset.  Plaintiff responds that its

filing was proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C), though adds that it is willing to stipulate to a

reasonable extension of time.  Having carefully reviewed the parties’ filings and the applicable rules,

the Court hereby DENIES the Motion to Strike.  However, for the Court’s own scheduling purposes,

the motion hearing currently set for January 15, 2010 is hereby VACATED and RESET for

February 12, 2010 at the same time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2010                                                            CHARLES  R. BREYERUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00357-CRB   Document 28   Filed 01/05/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-09T14:01:58-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
Editorial Note on Part 17
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 17 appear at 87 FR 8196, Feb. 14, 2022.

§ 17.1 Scope; definitions. ( a ) This subpart applies to claims asserted under the Federal Tort Claims Act, as amended, accruing on or after January 18, 1967, for money damages against the United States for injury to or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of an officer or employee of the Department while acting within the scope of his office or employment.
( b ) This subpart is issued subject to and consistent with applicable regulations on administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act issued by the Attorney General (31 FR 16616; 28 CFR part 14).
( c ) The terms *Department* and *Organizational unit* are defined in 24 CFR part 5.
[36 FR 24427, Dec. 22, 1971, as amended at 61 FR 5204, Feb. 9, 1996]
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

625 3RD STREET ASSOCIATES, L.P.,

a California limited partnership,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALLIANT CREDIT UNION, an Illinois

corporation, STANLEY ABRAMS, an

individual, and DOES 1 through 15, inclusive,

Defendant. /

No. C 09-00564 WHA

ORDER SETTING

DISCOVERY HEARING

Concerning plaintiff’s discovery dispute, as outlined in its letter of May 5, 2010, counsel

are ORDERED to attend a meet-and-confer on WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 2010, FROM

11:30 A.M.–2:30 P.M. in the Attorney’s Lounge on the eighteenth floor of the federal courthouse. 

At 2:30 p.m. that same day, the Court shall hold a hearing to resolve any remaining issue(s). 

Please note that only those who personally attend the meet-and-confer in the Attorney’s Lounge

may be heard at the hearing. Defendants’ response is due by NOON ON MONDAY, MAY 10.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00564-WHA Document 119 Filed 05/06/10 Page 1 of 1
#### § 518.28 Period of availability of funds.

Where a funding period is specified, a recipient may charge to the grant only allowable costs resulting from obligations incurred during the funding period and any pre-award costs authorized by the Federal awarding agency.
#### Co-Operative Loan and Savings Society, Respondent, v. Patrick J. McDermott et al., Defendants, and United States of America, Appellant.

Motion by appellant, United States of America, to extend its time to perfect the appeal, granted by default; time extended to the January Term, commencing January 3, 1961. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. The record and appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before December 5, 1960. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 4, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00327

- CR

Jim Garcia LONGORIA, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR7801 Honorable Mark R. Luitjen, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due August 13, 2018. Neither an appellant’s brief nor a motion for an extension of time was timely filed. Instead, this court issued a letter notify ing counsel that the brief was late and giving counsel 10 days to respond. Eight days later, counsel filed a motion for an extension of time to file the appellant’s brief. This court granted the motion and ordered counsel for appellant, C. Wayne Huff, to f ile the brief by September 24, 2018. Neither the brief nor a motion for an extension was timely filed.

Appellant has filed second a motion for an extension of time to file the appellant’s brief.

We ORDER that the motion is granted in part and ORDER couns el for appellant, C. Wayne Huff, to file the appellant’s brief by November 12, 2018. Counsel is advised that no further extensions of time will be granted absent a timely motion that (1) demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay, (2 ) advises the court of the efforts counsel has expended in preparing the brief, and (3) provides the court reasonable assurance that the brief will be completed and filed by the requested extended deadline. The court does not generally consider a heavy wor k schedule to be an extraordinary circumstance.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 4th day of October, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
#### (A) Fibertex Fabrics, Inc., Appellant, v. Clay Sickles et al., Respondents. (B) Morris Simon, Appellant, v. David M. Potts et al., Respondents.

[in each action] Appeals dismissed, without costs, unless appellants shall file and serve records, briefs and notes of issue for the September 1962 Term on or before August 1, 1962, in which event motions denied. Present—Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 1 (Monday, January 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 140]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-33061]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Twenty-Fifth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee (214) Standards for 
Air Traffic Data Communication Services (Joint With EUROCAE WG-78)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Twenty-Fifth RTCA Special Committee 214 Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
Twenty-Fifth RTCA Special Committee 214 meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held January 13, 2016 from 08:00 a.m.-10:00 
a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, Tel: (202) 330-0680.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or 
Karan Hofmann, Program Director, RTCA, Inc., khofmann@rtca.org, (202) 
330-0680.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 214. The meeting's 
objectives will be to resolve issues that arose following the last 
plenary resolution; approve comments received during FRAC/Open 
consultation of Revision A to Baseline 2 Standards SPR and INTEROPS; 
and to approve documents for submission to RTCA PMC and EUROCAE Council 
for publication. The agenda will include the following:

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

1. Welcome/Introduction/Administrative Remarks
2. Approval of the Agenda of Plenary 25
3. Approval of the Minutes of Plenary 24
4. Description of new finding and approach to resolve
5. Approval of resolution and submission of documents to RTCA PMC and 
EUROCAE Council for publication
6. Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be 
provided upon request. Persons who wish to present statements or obtain 
information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a 
written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 29, 2015.
Latasha Robinson,
Management & Program Analyst, Next Generation, Enterprise Support 
Services Division, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-33061 Filed 12-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
(April 7, 1977)

#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Karl Davis, Also Known as Alan Pickering, Appellant, v Jesse Arnette, as Superintendent of the Queensboro Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

In a habeas corpus proceeding, which this court deems to be a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel respondents to credit petitioner with certain jail time, petitioner appeals (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 11, 1977, which dismissed the proceeding and (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated March 21, 1977, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination. Appeal from the judgment dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements. The judgment was superseded by the order made upon reargument. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and respondent Malcolm is directed to recompute the jail time credit due to petitioner in accordance herewith. Petitioner commenced this habeas corpus proceeding, seeking certain jail time credit, against the respondent Jesse Arnette, the State official charged with the custody of his person, and Benjamin Malcolm, the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Corrections, who is charged with the responsibility of computing and certifying the jail credit to which petitioner is entitled. Petitioner contends that his jail time credit was improperly computed by respondent Malcolm and that he is therefore entitled to be released by respondent Arnette. The writ of habeas corpus is an alternative remedy and may be refused in the exercise of discretion where full relief may be obtained in other more appropriate proceedings (see *People ex rel. Brinkman v Barr,*248 NY 126; *People ex rel. Anderson v Warden, N. Y. City Correctional Inst. for Men,*68 Misc 2d 463, 465; 25 NY Jur, Habeas Corpus, § 6, p 506). Under the circumstances of this case Criminal Term, which heard the petition, should have deemed the proceeding to be one pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondent Malcolm to recompute petitioner’s jail time credit and to certify the same to the New York State Department of Correctional Services in accordance with law (Penal Law, § 70.30, subd 3; CPLR 7803, subd 1). We now treat this as an article 78 proceeding (CPLR 103, subd [c]). Respondent Malcolm concedes that under the holding of this court in *Matter of Rhymer v Byfield*(55 AD2d 650), petitioner is entitled to jail time credit for the period of January 20, 1975 until June 10, 1975. Accordingly, the order should be reversed insofar as it is appealed from and petitioner should be credited with an additional 142 *563days of jail time. We note that upon oral argument of this appeal, the respondents stipulated in open court that they would consent to the vacatur of the automatic stay under CPLR 5519 (subd [a], par 1) on any appeal from the order of this court to be made in this proceeding (see CPLR 2104). Cohalan, Acting P. J., Hawkins, Mollen and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
Case 3:08-cv-03710-CRB Document 15 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 2Case 3:08-cv-03710-CRB Document 15 Filed 04/15/10 Page 2 of 2
#### § 1000.138 What constitutes adequate insurance?

Insurance is adequate if it is a purchased insurance policy from an insurance provider or a plan of self-insurance in an amount that will protect the financial stability of the recipient's IHBG program. Recipients may purchase the required insurance without regard to competitive selection procedures from nonprofit insurance entities which are owned and controlled by recipients and which have been approved by HUD.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77739-77740]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28260]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee meeting date change.

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

[[Page 77740]]

SUMMARY: On Monday, October 4, 2004 (69 FR 59214) the Department of 
Defense announced closed meetings of the Defense Science Board (DSB) 
Task Force on December 9-10, 2004, at the Institute for Defense 
Analyses, 4850 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA. These meetings will 
now be held at Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 
500, Arlington, VA.

    Dated: November 29, 2004.
Jeannette Owings-Ballard,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 04-28260 Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2896 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2896

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to remove 
  the 100 percent tariff imposed on roasted chicory and other roasted 
                          coffee substitutes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 2005

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to remove 
  the 100 percent tariff imposed on roasted chicory and other roasted 
                          coffee substitutes.

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

SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF 100 PERCENT TARIFF ON ROASTED CHICORY AND OTHER 
              ROASTED COFFEE SUBSTITUTES.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter III of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by striking heading 
9903.02.37.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--Chapter 21 of such Schedule is amended 
by striking footnote 1 to subheading 2101.30.00.
                                 <all>
```
§ 1006.340 Treatment of program income. ( a ) *Defined.* Program income is income realized from the use of NHHBG funds. If gross income is used to pay costs incurred that are essential or incidental to generating the income, these costs may be deducted from gross income to determine program income. Program income includes income from fees for services performed; from the use or rental of real or personal property acquired or assisted with NHHBG funds; from the sale of property acquired or assisted with NHHBG funds; from payments of principal and interest on loans made with NHHBG funds; and from payments of interest earned on investment of NHHBG funds pursuant to section 812(b) of the Act.
( b ) *Authority to retain.* The DHHL may retain any program income that is realized from any NHHBG funds if: ( 1 ) That income was realized after the initial disbursement of the NHHBG funds received by the DHHL; and
( 2 ) The DHHL agrees to use the program income for affordable housing activities in accordance with the provisions of the Act and this part; and
( 3 ) The DHHL disburses program income before disbursing additional NHHBG funds in accordance with 2 CFR 200.305.
( c ) *Exclusion of amounts.* If the amount of income received in a single fiscal year by the DHHL, which would otherwise be considered program income, does not exceed $25,000, such funds may be retained but will not be considered program income.
[67 FR 40776, June 13, 2002, as amended at 80 FR 75945, Dec. 7, 2015; 89 FR 9763, Feb. 12, 2024]
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 200.76 Smoke detectors.

Smoke detectors and alarm devices must be installed in accordance with standards and criteria acceptable to the Commissioner for the protection of occupants in any dwelling or facility bedroom or other primary sleeping area.
### §8435. Citizens suits

#### (a) General rule

Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b), any aggrieved person may commence a civil action for mandatory or prohibitive injunctive relief, including interim equitable relief, against the Secretary or the head of any Federal agency which has a responsibility under this chapter if there is an alleged failure of the Secretary or such agency head to perform any act or duty under this chapter which is not discretionary. The United States district courts shall have jurisdiction over actions brought under this section, without regard to the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties.

#### (b) Notice to Secretary or agency head

No action may be commenced under subsection (a) before the 60th calendar day after the date on which the plaintiff has given notice of such action to the Secretary or the agency head involved. Notice under this subsection shall be given in such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe by rule.

#### (c) Authority of Secretary to intervene

In any action brought under subsection (a), the Secretary, if not a party, may intervene as a matter of right.

#### (d) Costs of litigation

The court, in issuing any final order in any action brought under subsection (a), may award costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to any party, whenever the court determines such award is appropriate.

#### (e) Other remedies to remain available

Nothing in this section shall restrict any right which any aggrieved person (or class of aggrieved persons) may have under any statute or common law to seek enforcement of this chapter or any rule thereunder, or to seek any other relief (including relief against the Secretary or the agency head involved).

(Pub. L. 95–620, title VII, §725, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3335.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (e), 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.
### **CHAPTER 1—BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT**

Sec.
1.
Repealed.
2.
Duties concerning public lands.
3 to 5.
Repealed or Omitted.
6.
Duties of employees to certify, record, etc., patents.
7 to 10.
Repealed or Omitted.
11.
Restriction on officers, clerks, and employees.
12.
Seal, books, and records.
13.
Original papers on file as evidence.
14.
Returns relative to lands.
15.
Issuance and signing of patents by Secretary of the Interior; delegation of authority; notice.
16.
Engrossing and recording patents.
17.
Plats of land surveyed.
18.
Copies of papers filed.
19 to 25b.
Repealed.