alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1003.102 Use of recaptured and unawarded funds. ( a ) The Assistant Secretary will determine on a case-by-case basis the use of grant funds which are: ( 1 ) Recaptured by HUD under the provisions of § 1003.703 or § 1003.704;
( 2 ) Recaptured by HUD at the time of the closeout of a program; or
( 3 ) Unawarded after the completion by an Area ONAP of a funding competition.
( b ) The recaptured or unawarded funds will remain with the Area ONAP to which they were originally allocated unless the Assistant Secretary determines that there is an overriding reason to redistribute these funds outside of the Area ONAP's jurisdiction. The recaptured funds may be used to fund the highest ranking unfunded project from the most recent funding competition, an imminent threat, or other uses. Unawarded funds may be used to fund an imminent threat or other uses.
### §6721. Congressional findings of fact and declaration of policy

The Congress finds—

(1) that State and local governments represent a significant segment of the national economy whose economic health is essential to national economic prosperity;

(2) that present national economic problems have imposed considerable hardships on State and local government budgets;

(3) that those governments, because of their own fiscal difficulties, are being forced to take budget-related actions which tend to undermine Federal Government efforts to stimulate the economy;

(4) that efforts to stimulate the economy through reductions in Federal Government tax obligations are weakened when State and local governments are forced to increase taxes;

(5) that the net effect of Federal Government efforts to reduce unemployment through public service jobs is substantially limited if State and local governments use federally financed public service employees to replace regular employees that they have been forced to lay off;

(6) that efforts to stimulate the construction industry and reduce unemployment are substantially undermined when State and local governments are forced to cancel or delay the construction of essential capital projects; and

(7) that efforts by the Federal Government to stimulate the economic recovery will be substantially enhanced by a program of emergency Federal Government assistance to State and local governments to help prevent those governments from taking budget-related actions which undermine the Federal Government efforts to stimulate economic recovery.

(Pub. L. 94–369, title II, §201, July 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 1002.)
§ 100.120 Discrimination in the making of loans and in the provision of other financial assistance. ( a ) It shall be unlawful for any person or entity whose business includes engaging in residential real estate-related transactions to discriminate against any person in making available loans or other financial assistance for a dwelling, or which is or is to be secured by a dwelling, because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
( b ) Practices prohibited under this section in connection with a residential real estate-related transaction include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) Failing or refusing to provide to any person information regarding the availability of loans or other financial assistance, application requirements, procedures or standards for the review and approval of loans or financial assistance, or providing information which is inaccurate or different from that provided others, because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
( 2 ) Providing, failing to provide, or discouraging the receipt of loans or other financial assistance in a manner that discriminates in their denial rate or otherwise discriminates in their availability because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
( 3 ) Conditioning the availability of a loan or other financial assistance on a person's response to harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
( 4 ) Subjecting a person to harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin that affects the availability of a loan or other financial assistance.
[54 FR 3283, Jan. 23, 1989, as amended at 78 FR 11481, Feb. 15, 2013; 81 FR 63074, Sept. 14, 2016]
### §5410. Civil and criminal penalties

(a) Whoever violates any provision of section 5409 of this title, or any regulation or final order issued thereunder, shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty of not to exceed $1,000 for each such violation. Each violation of a provision of section 5409 of this title, or any regulation or order issued thereunder shall constitute, a separate violation with respect to each manufactured home or with respect to each failure or refusal to allow or perform an act required thereby, except that the maximum civil penalty may not exceed $1,000,000 for any related series of violations occurring within one year from the date of the first violation.

(b) An individual or a director, officer, or agent of a corporation who knowingly and willfully violates section 5409 of this title in a manner which threatens the health or safety of any purchaser shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(Pub. L. 93–383, title VI, §611, Aug. 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 705; Pub. L. 96–399, title III, §308(c)(4), Oct. 8, 1980, 94 Stat. 1641.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1980—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 96–399 substituted "manufactured home" for "mobile home".

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective upon the expiration of 180 days following Aug. 22, 1974, see section 627 of Pub. L. 93–383, set out as a note under section 5401 of this title.
#### § 234.251 Definitions.

The definitions in § 203.251 of this chapter apply to this subpart.

[61 FR 60163, Nov. 26, 1996]
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

NO. 03-18-00279-CV

David E. Jones, Appellant

v.

Dr. Alissa Sherry; Alissa Sherry Consulting, PLLC;

Legal Consensus, PLLC; Michelle Munevar, Appellees

FROM THE 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-GN-17-006851, HONORABLE JOHN K. DIETZ, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

We withdraw our opinion and judgment dated June 21, 2018. On that date, this 

Court dismissed appellant David E. Jones’s appeal for want of prosecution because no clerk’s 

record had been filed due to his failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the trial clerk’s 

fee for preparing the clerk’s record, and he had not responded to our notice requiring him to 

provide us with written verification of payment or payment arrangements by June 11, 2018. See 

Jones v. Sherry, No. 03-18-00279-CV, 2018 WL 3060088, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin June 21, 

2018, no pet. h.).
2

We have since been informed that appellant had paid the trial court before 

June 11, but that the record had not yet been processed by the trial-court clerk when we issued 

our opinion. We grant the motion for rehearing and reinstate the appeal.

It is ordered on July 25, 2018.

__________________________________________

Scott K. Field, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Field
###### Editorial Note on Part 17

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 17 appear at 87 FR 8196, Feb. 14, 2022.

#### § 17.77 Stay of referral for offset.

If the debtor timely submits evidence in accordance with § 17.69(b), the referral to the Treasury in § 17.65 shall be stayed until the date of the issuance of a written decision by an administrative judge of the OHA that determines that a debt or part of a debt is past due and legally enforceable.
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

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER 1

ERSKINE & TULLEY

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

MICHAEL J. CARROLL (St. Bar #50246)

220 Montgomery Street, Suite 303

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 392-5431

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE AUTOMOTIVE

INDUSTRIES, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

 

vs. 

 

SIMI MANAGEMENT CORP, a corporation

doing business as CONNELL AUTO

JEEP/CHRYSLER

 

Defendant. 

____________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. C 09 1332 JCS

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE

CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE; ORDER 

The parties have agreed that mediation is appropriate in

this case, but could not take place on May 11, 2010 due to illness.

It would be a waste of the Court’s time to hold a conference before

the mediation takes place.

IT IS STIPULATED that the Case Management Conference be

continued from May 14, 2010 to July 16, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom

A, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco.

////

Case 3:09-cv-01332-JCS Document 30 Filed 05/12/10 Page 1 of 2 Case3:09-cv-01332-JCS Document29 Filed05/10/10 Page1 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

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER 2

Date: May 10, 2010 ERSKINE & TULLEY

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

By: /s/Michael J. Carroll

 Michael J. Carroll

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Date: May 10, 2010 KAY & MERKEL, LLP

By: /s/ Douglas A. Marshall

 Douglas A. Marshal

 Attorneys for Defendant

ORDER

IT IS TO ORDERED ________________________

 Honorable Joseph C. Spero

Case3:09-cv-01332-JCS Document29 Filed05/10/10 Page2 of 2

Dated: May 11, 2010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Joseph C. Spero

Case 3:09-cv-01332-JCS Document 30 Filed 05/12/10 Page 2 of 2
### §6929. Retention of State authority

Upon the effective date of regulations under this subchapter no State or political subdivision may impose any requirements less stringent than those authorized under this subchapter respecting the same matter as governed by such regulations, except that if application of a regulation with respect to any matter under this subchapter is postponed or enjoined by the action of any court, no State or political subdivision shall be prohibited from acting with respect to the same aspect of such matter until such time as such regulation takes effect. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit any State or political subdivision thereof from imposing any requirements, including those for site selection, which are more stringent than those imposed by such regulations. Nothing in this chapter (or in any regulation adopted under this chapter) shall be construed to prohibit any State from requiring that the State be provided with a copy of each manifest used in connection with hazardous waste which is generated within that State or transported to a treatment, storage, or disposal facility within that State.

(Pub. L. 89–272, title II, §3009, as added Pub. L. 94–580, §2, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2812; amended Pub. L. 96–482, §14, Oct. 21, 1980, 94 Stat. 2342; Pub. L. 98–616, title II, §213(b), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3242.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1984—Pub. L. 98–616 inserted "Nothing in this chapter (or in any regulation adopted under this chapter) shall be construed to prohibit any State from requiring that the State be provided with a copy of each manifest used in connection with hazardous waste which is generated within that State or transported to a treatment, storage, or disposal facility within that State."

1980—Pub. L. 96–482 prohibited construction of this chapter as barring a State from imposing more stringent requirements than provided in Federal regulations.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

February 3, 2004

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street, N.W


Washington, D.C. 20549


Ladies and Gentlemen:

The certification set forth below is being
submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for
the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code. This
certification is not to be deemed filed pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and does not constitute a part
of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the
Report) accompanying this letter.

H. Wayne Huizenga, the Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of Boca Resorts, Inc., and Wayne Moor, the
Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of
Boca Resorts, Inc., each 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 operations of Boca Resorts, Inc.



| |                                   
| | ----------------------------------
| | /s/ H. WAYNE HUIZENGA             
| |                                   
| | Name:        H.
    Wayne Huizenga
| | Chairman of the Board and         
| | Chief Executive Officer           
|
| | /s/ WAYNE MOOR                    
| |                                   
| | Name:        Wayne
    Moor       
| | Senior Vice President, Treasurer  
| | and Chief Financial Officer       

19
109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2978

AN ACT

To allow the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck 

Indian Reservation to enter into a lease or other temporary conveyance of water rights recognized under the 

Fort Peck-Montana Compact for the purpose of meeting 

the water needs of the Dry Prairie Rural Water Association, Incorporated, and for other purposes.
2

•HR 2978 EH 

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

3 SECTION 1. MONTANA INDIAN TRIBES; AGREEMENT WITH 

4 DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION, 

5 INCORPORATED. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes 

7 of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation (referred to in this 

8 section as the ‘‘Tribes’’) may, with the approval of the 

9 Secretary of the Interior, enter into a lease or other tem10 porary conveyance of water rights recognized under the 

11 Fort Peck-Montana Compact (Montana Code Annotated 

12 85–20–201) for the purpose of meeting the water needs 

13 of the Dry Prairie Rural Water Association, Incorporated 

14 (or any successor entity), in accordance with section 5 of 

15 the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act of 

16 2000 (Public Law 106–382; 114 Stat. 1454). 

17 (b) CONDITIONS OF LEASE.—With respect to a lease 

18 or other temporary conveyance described in subsection 

19 (a)—

20 (1) the term of the lease or conveyance shall 

21 not exceed 100 years; 

22 (2) the lease or conveyance may be approved by 

23 the Secretary of the Interior without monetary com24 pensation to the Tribes; and 
3

•HR 2978 EH 

1 (3) the Secretary of the Interior shall not be 

2 subject to liability for any claim or cause of action 

3 relating to the compensation or consideration re4 ceived by the Tribes under the lease or conveyance. 

5 (c) NO PERMANENT ALIENATION OF WATER.—Noth6 ing in this section authorizes any permanent alienation of 

7 any water by the Tribes.

Passed the House of Representatives May 16, 2006. 

Attest:

Clerk. 
109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2978

AN ACT

To allow the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the 

tion, Incorporated, and for other purposes.needs of the Dry Prairie Rural Water AssociaCompact for the purpose of meeting the water rights recognized under the Fort Peck-Montana lease or other temporary conveyance of water Fort Peck Indian Reservation to enter into a
#### BAKER, Respondent, v. JUDSON et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 29, 1905.)

Action by Edgar R. Baker, by Mary D. Baker, his guardian ad litem, against George F. Judson and Edwin Crutts.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment against the appellant Judson unanimously affirmed, with costs, and judgment against the appellant Crutts reversed as against the weight of evidence, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant Crutts, as against respondent, to abide event.
Exhibit 32.1

                   Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350

     In  connection  with the  filing  with the  United  States  Securities  and
Exchange Commission of Emergent Group Inc.'s (the "Company") Quarterly Report on
Form  10-QSB for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  2005 (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  the Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  hereby certifies that
(i)  in my  capacity  as an  officer  of the  Company,  (ii)  to my  own  actual
knowledge, and (iii) solely for the purpose of compliance with 18 U.S.C.ss.1350,
that:

     (1)  the Report fully complies with the  requirements  of ss.13(a) or 15(d)
          of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (2)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

     The  above  certification  is  given as of the  date of the  Report  and is
limited to the periods covered by the Report.

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  undersigned  have executed this  Certificate  on
November 18, 2005.



                                               By:   /s/ Bruce J. Haber
                                                     ------------------
                                                     Bruce J. Haber
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1398 CA 13-01062 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

JILL D. KLIMASEWSKI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER

COUNTY OF MONROE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

FARACI LANGE, LLP, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN G. SCHWARZ OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT.
MERIDETH H. SMITH, COUNTY ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (MICHELE ROMANCE CRAIN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (J. Scott Odorisi, J.), entered April 19, 2013. The order denied the motion of defendant to bifurcate the trial, granted those parts of the cross motion of plaintiff for partial summary judgment with respect to the issue of serious injury and defendant’s third and fifth affirmative defenses, and otherwise denied the cross motion.
Now, upon the stipulation discontinuing action signed by the attorneys for the parties on October 8 and 10, 2013, and filed in the Monroe County Clerk’s Office on October 11, 2013,
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation.

Entered: December 27, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Bracey and Tyrell Foster-Bey, Appellants.

Appeals by defendants from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County, one rendered May 9, 1974, as to defendant Bracey, and one rendered May 30, 1974, as to defendant Foster-Bey, convicting them of attempted robbery in the second degree and unlawful possession of a weapon as a misdemeanor, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. By orders dated June 9, 1975 (as to defendant Bracey) and December 22, 1975 (as to defendant Foster-Bey), this court reversed the judgments, on the law, and dismissed the indictment *(People v Bracey,*48 AD2d 860; *People v Foster-Bey,*50 AD2d 870). On February 17, 1977 the Court of Appeals reversed the orders of this court, reinstated the judgments of conviction and remitted the cases to this court for review of the facts *(People v Bracey*and *People v Foster-Bey,*41 NY2d 296). Judgments affirmed. No opinion. Latham, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2897

To amend title 4, United States Code, to provide for the proper display 

of the flag over a one-way street. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 14, 2005

Mr. MCNULTY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To amend title 4, United States Code, to provide for the 

proper display of the flag over a one-way street.

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

3 SECTION 1. DISPLAY OF FLAG OVER ONE-WAY STREET. 

4 Section 7(j) of title 4, United States Code, is amend5 ed—

6 (1) by striking ‘‘of the street’’ and inserting ‘‘of 

7 a two-way street’’; and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘When 

9 the flag is displayed over the middle of a one-way 

10 street, it should be suspended vertically with the 
2

•HR 2897 IH 

1 union to the left of an observer moving in the direc2 tion of traffic.’’.

Æ
#### § 203.321 Effect of termination.

Upon termination of the contract of insurance, the obligation to pay any subsequent periodic MIP or open-end insurance charge shall cease and all rights of the mortgagor and mortgagee shall be terminated, except as otherwise provided in this part.

[48 FR 28807, June 23, 1983]