alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1000.416 What is a repayment contract in a form acceptable to HUD? ( a ) The Secretary's signature on a contract shall signify HUD's acceptance of the form, terms and conditions of the contract.
( b ) In loans under title VI of NAHASDA, involving a contract between an issuer and a lender other than HUD, HUD's approval of the loan documents and guarantee of the loan shall be deemed to be HUD's acceptance of the sufficiency of the security furnished. No other security can or will be required by HUD at a later date.
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 

SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et 

al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

JENNIFER KENT,1 Director 

of the California Department of 

Health Care Services, 

 Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. CV 08-5173 SC

ORDER LIFTING STAY AND 

REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING 

Pursuant to the Court's order, ECF No. 138, staying this case 

pending the Supreme Court's decision in Armstrong v. Exceptional 

Child Ctr., 135 S. Ct. 1378 (2015), the parties have filed separate 

(not joint, as ordered) notices of the Supreme Court's decision. 

ECF Nos. 139 ("Pls.' Notice"), 140 ("Def.'s Notice"). As these 

notices explain, the parties disagree about how the Court should 

proceed, with Plaintiffs arguing the Court lacks subject-matter 

jurisdiction in light of Armstrong, while Defendant contends the 

Court should simply lift the stay and decide the already-briefed 

 

1

 Jennifer Kent is automatically substituted as the successor of 

former Director Toby Douglas pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 25(d). 

Case 3:08-cv-05173-SC Document 141 Filed 04/16/15 Page 1 of 2
2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

cross-motions for summary judgment. 

Rather than decide the cross-motions for summary judgment at 

this time, the Court LIFTS the stay, and ORDERS the parties to 

submit supplemental briefing as follows: 

 No later than May 1, 2015, Plaintiffs shall file a brief of no 

more than ten (10) pages confined to the effects of Armstrong 

and any new factual developments.

 No later than May 15, 2015, Defendant shall file a response of 

no more than ten (10) pages confined to the issues raised in 

Plaintiffs' brief and any additional arguments she wishes to 

raise. 

 No later than May 22, 2015, Plaintiffs may submit a reply of 

no more than five (5) pages confined to the issues discussed 

in the opening and response briefs. 

Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, no hearing will be held and 

the matters will be taken under submission on the papers. See Civ. 

L.R. 7-1(b). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated: April 16, 2015 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:08-cv-05173-SC Document 141 Filed 04/16/15 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2705 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2705

 To suspend temporarily the duty on Acetic acid, cyano[3-[(6-methoxy-2-
     benzothiazolyl)amino]-1H-isoindol-1-yl idene]-, pentyl ester.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 26, 2005

 Mrs. Myrick introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on Acetic acid, cyano[3-[(6-methoxy-2-
     benzothiazolyl)amino]-1H-isoindol-1-yl idene]-, pentyl ester.

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

SECTION 1. ACETIC ACID, CYANO[3-[(6-METHOXY-2-BENZOTHIAZOLYL)AMINO]-1H-
              ISOINDOL-1-YLIDENE]-, PENTYL ESTER.

    (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:

``      9902.12.09      Acetic acid,        Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         cyano[3-[(6-                                                       31/2008
                         methoxy-2-
                         benzothiazolyl)am
                         ino]-1H-isoindol-
                         1-ylidene]-,
                         pentyl ester.
                         (CAS No. 173285-
                         74-0) (provided
                         for in subheading
                         3204.11.50)......

    (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>
```
#### § 1000.140 May a recipient use grant funds to purchase insurance for privately owned housing to protect NAHASDA grant amounts spent on that housing?

Yes. All purchases of insurance must be in accordance with §§ 1000.136 and 1000.138.
Amendment to the Company's 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.75 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 
 SHURGARD STORAGE CENTERS, INC. 
 2004 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN 
  
 WHEREAS, Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. (the “Company”), maintains
and sponsors the Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) for the benefit of its eligible employees and the eligible employees of its subsidiaries; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) has
the authority to amend the Plan at any time pursuant to Section 18.1 of the Plan; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Board has determined that it is in the best interests of the Company to amend the Plan. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
  
 1. A new Section 2.6(d) shall be added to state: 
  
 “(d) The occupying of a majority of the seats (other than vacant seats) on the Board by individuals who
were neither nominated or appointed by a majority of the Incumbent Directors; or” 
  
 2. A new Section 2.6(e) shall be added to state: 
  
 “(e) The acquisition, directly or indirectly, by any Person of beneficial ownership of 15% or more of
the combined voting power of the then outstanding voting securities of the Company entitled to vote generally in the election of directors, which acquisition is not approved in advance by a majority of the Incumbent Directors.” 
  
 3. “Incumbent Director” shall be defined as
follows: 
  
 “Incumbent Director 

 
 “Incumbent Director” means a member of the
Board who has been either (a) nominated by a majority of the directors of the Company then in office, or (b) appointed by directors so nominated, but excluding, for this purpose, any such individual whose initial assumption of office
occurs as a result of either an actual or threatened election contest (as such terms are used in Rule 14a-11 of Regulation 14A promulgated under the Exchange Act) or other actual or threatened solicitation of proxies or consents by or on behalf of a
Person other than the Board.” 
  
 4.
“Person” shall be defined as follows: 
  
 “Person 
  
 “Person”
means any individual, entity or group (as such term is used in Section 13(d)(3) or 14(d)(2) of the Exchange Act).” 







 5. Governing Law. This First Amendment shall be construed and governed by the laws
of the State of Washington, without giving effect to conflicts of laws principles thereof which might refer such interpretations to the laws of a different state or jurisdiction. 
  
 6. Full Force and Effect of the Plan. Except as specifically amended herein, all other provisions of
the Plan shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. All references in the Plan to “the Plan” shall be deemed to refer to the Plan as amended by this First Amendment. 
  

 - 2 -
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2563 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2563

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility 
studies to address certain water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and 
        Payette River systems in Idaho, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT FEASIBILITY STUDIES.

    (a) Authority.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the 
Bureau of Reclamation, is authorized to conduct feasibility studies on 
projects that address water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and 
Payette River systems in Idaho, and deemed appropriate for further 
study by the 2006 Bureau of Reclamation Boise Payette water storage 
assessment report. Studies conducted under this section must comply 
with Bureau of Reclamation policy standards and guidelines for studies.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior $3,000,000 to carry out 
this section.
    (c) Sunset of Authority.--The authority of the Secretary of the 
Interior to carry out this section shall terminate 10 years after the 
date of the enactment of this section.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 10, 2006.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2563

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility 
studies to address certain water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and 
        Payette River systems in Idaho, and for other purposes.
```
§ 504.5 Factors the BBG will consider. The General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, may grant an employee permission to testify on matters relating to official information, or produce official records and information, in response to a demand or request. Among the relevant factors that the General Counsel may consider in making this decision are whether: ( a ) The purposes of this part are met;
( b ) Allowing such testimony or production of records would be necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice;
( c ) Allowing such testimony or production of records would assist or hinder the BBG in performing its statutory duties;
( d ) Allowing such testimony or production of records would be in the best interest of the BBG or the United States;
( e ) The records or testimony can be obtained from other sources;
( f ) The demand or request is unduly burdensome or otherwise inappropriate under the applicable rules of discovery or the rules of procedure governing the case or matter in which the demand or request arose;
( g ) Disclosure would violate a statute, Executive Order or regulation;
( h ) Disclosure would reveal confidential, sensitive, or privileged information, trade secrets or similar, confidential or financial information, otherwise protected information, or information which would otherwise be inappropriate for release;
( i ) Disclosure would impede or interfere with an ongoing law enforcement investigation or proceeding, or compromise constitutional rights or national security interests;
( j ) Disclosure would result in the BBG appearing to favor one litigant over another;
( k ) The request was served before the demand;
( l ) A substantial Government interest is implicated;
( m ) The demand or request is within the authority of the party making it; and
( n ) The demand or request is sufficiently specific to be answered and/or can be limited to information to that which would be consistent with the factors specified herein.
### §5714–23. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5714–23 was editorially reclassified as section 11243 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
Case 3:08-cv-05774-MEJ Document 20 Filed 08/10/10 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:08-cv-05774-MEJ Document 20 Filed 08/10/10 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 -

JOHN YZURDIAGA

Attorney at Law

State Bar No. 49031

800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1510

Los Angeles, California 90017

Telephone: (213) 622-9262

Facsimile: (213) 622-0445

Email: johnxyz@sbcglobal.net

Attorney for Defendant

TOMAS CASTANEDA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOMAS CASTANEDA,

Defendant.

______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: 3:09-CR-00079-MHP

[PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING

CHANGE OF PLEA HEARING AND

REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME

UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

Current Date: 02/01/2010

New Date: 03/08/2010

FINDINGS OF FACT

Upon consideration of the stipulation between defendant Tomas

Castaneda and plaintiff United States of America, and for good

cause shown, the Court finds that:

1. The parties agree to the continuance.

2. The additional time requested herein is not sought for

purposes of delay.

3. The additional time requested by this stipulation is

excludable in computing the time within which the trial

herein must commence pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18

U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A), (h)(7)(B)(i) and (h)(7)(B)(iv).

//

Case 3:09-cr-00079-MHP Document 23 Filed 01/27/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

For all of the above-stated reasons, the ends of justice would

be best served by a continuance of the change of plea hearing.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The ends of justice served by granting said continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a

speedy trial, since the failure to grant said continuance would be

likely to result in a miscarriage of justice, and would deny

defendant continuity of counsel, taking into account the exercise

of due diligence.

The continuance sought herein is excludable under the Speedy

Trial Act, 18, U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), when considering the factors

under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(B)(i) and (h)(7)(B)(iv).

ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the February 1, 2010 change of

plea hearing be vacated and continued to March 8, 2010, at the hour

of 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED this _____ day of

_______________________, 2010.

_____________________________________

HONORABLE MARILYN H. PATEL

United States District Judge

10:00 26th January 

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:09-cr-00079-MHP Document 23 Filed 01/27/10 Page 2 of 2
Forgiveness
of Debt


    


    ALAN
PRITZKER hereby forgives the sum of $32,500, said sum being the total accrued
salary earned by the undersigned for the period July 2008 through December 31,
2008 from InovaChem, Inc. The undersigned hereby waives all rights to this
accrued sum.

    


    DATED:  November 17,
2009

    


    
      	 
      	
              /s/ Alan Pritzker

            	 
      
	 
      	
              Alan
      Pritzker
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 247 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 247

  To increase the numerical limitation on the number of asylees whose 
   status may be adjusted to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 
                          permanent residence.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2005

   Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To increase the numerical limitation on the number of asylees whose 
   status may be adjusted to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 
                          permanent residence.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Increase in Numerical Limitation for 
Asylees Adjustment Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN NUMERICAL LIMITATION ON ASYLEE ADJUSTMENT.

    (a) In General.--Section 209(b) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (8 U.S.C. 1159(b)) is amended by striking ``10,000'' and inserting 
``25,000''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 2003.
                                 <all>
```
LAW OFFICES OF 

JAMES B. CHANIN 

3050 SHATTUCK AVENUE 

BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94705 

(510) 848-4752 

FAX (510) 848-5819 

January 19, 2010

VIA E-FILING AND CHAMBERS COPY

The Honorable James Larson

United States District Court

Northern District of California

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: Oliver, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al.

Case No. C08-04914 TEH

Dear Judge Larson:

Pursuant to Mr. Chanin’s conversation with your assistant, Ms. Thomas, last week, I am 

writing to confirm that all counsel are available for a further settlement conference in the aboveentitled action on Monday, March 1, 2010 at 10:15 a.m. Therefore, we are requesting that the 

Court set the further settlement conference for that date and time.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Very truly yours,

/S

Julie M. Houk

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document 44 Filed 01/21/10 Page 1 of 1 Case3:08-cv-04914-TEH Document43 Filed01/19/10 Page1 of 1
§ 225.108 IRB functions and operations. ( a ) In order to fulfill the requirements of this policy each IRB shall: ( 1 ) Have access to meeting space and sufficient staff to support the IRB's review and recordkeeping duties;
( 2 ) Prepare and maintain a current list of the IRB members identified by name; earned degrees; representative capacity; indications of experience such as board certifications or licenses sufficient to describe each member's chief anticipated contributions to IRB deliberations; and any employment or other relationship between each member and the institution, for example, full-time employee, part-time employee, member of governing panel or board, stockholder, paid or unpaid consultant;
( 3 ) Establish and follow written procedures for: ( i ) Conducting its initial and continuing review of research and for reporting its findings and actions to the investigator and the institution;
( ii ) Determining which projects require review more often than annually and which projects need verification from sources other than the investigators that no material changes have occurred since previous IRB review; and
( iii ) Ensuring prompt reporting to the IRB of proposed changes in a research activity, and for ensuring that investigators will conduct the research activity in accordance with the terms of the IRB approval until any proposed changes have been reviewed and approved by the IRB, except when necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to the subject.
( 4 ) Establish and follow written procedures for ensuring prompt reporting to the IRB; appropriate institutional officials; the department or agency head; and the Office for Human Research Protections, HHS, or any successor office, or the equivalent office within the appropriate Federal department or agency of ( i ) Any unanticipated problems involving risks to subjects or others or any serious or continuing noncompliance with this policy or the requirements or determinations of the IRB; and
( ii ) Any suspension or termination of IRB approval.
( b ) Except when an expedited review procedure is used (as described in § 225.110), an IRB must review proposed research at convened meetings at which a majority of the members of the IRB are present, including at least one member whose primary concerns are in nonscientific areas. In order for the research to be approved, it shall receive the approval of a majority of those members present at the meeting.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0990-0260)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2463
STEPHEN D. MELLIN, Petitioner, versus MARINE WORLD-WIDE SERVICES; OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (98-425-BRB, 97-LHC-187) Submitted: July 26, 2001 Decided: August 14, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jean M. McKeen, RUTTER, WALSH, MILLS & RUTTER, L.L.C., Norfolk, Virginia; Charles Robinowitz, Portland, Oregon, for Petitioner. Ronald W. Atwood, RONALD W. ATWOOD, P.C., Portland, Oregon, for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Stephen D. Mellin seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial of longshore benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 2000). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’sdecision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. See Mellin v. Marine World-Wide Serv. , No. 98-425-BRB; 97-LHC-137 (BRB Nov. 30, 1998; June 30, 1999). 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
#### § 301.1 Introduction.

The following regulations implement Executive Order 12356 and provide guidance for members of the public desiring a review for declassification of a document of the Peace Corps.