alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 906.7 Conduct of hearing. ( a ) *Authorized attendance.* The parties and, as determined by the Board, a reasonable number of representatives of the parties are entitled to be present at the hearing. The Board may, after considering the views of the parties and of any other individuals connected with the grievance, decide that a hearing should be open to others. No person shall be permitted to attend the hearing when classified material is being discussed unless that person possesses the appropriate security clearance.
( b ) *Procedure.* Hearings shall be conducted by the presiding member so as to assure a full and fair proceeding. The Board shall not be limited by the legal rules of evidence. However, the presiding member shall exclude irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitive evidence. The Board may require the parties to designate one of their representatives as principal spokesperson.
( c ) *Order of presentation.* In cases involving disciplinary action, including separation for cause cases, the Agency will ordinarily present its case first and will retain that order of precedence throughout the hearing. In other cases the grievant will ordinarily present his or her case first and will retain that order of precedence throughout the hearing.
( d ) *Evidence.* Subject to the presiding member's rulings on the relevancy, materiality, and repetitious nature of evidence, the parties may offer such evidence, including interrogatories, depositions and Agency records as they desire. The shall produce such additional evidence as the presiding member shall consider relevant and material. Where deemed appropriate by the Board, the parties may be supplied only with a summary or extract of classified material (also see § 903.9 of this chapter).
( e ) *Testimony.* Testimony at a hearing shall be given under oath or affirmation.
( f ) *Transcript.* A verbatim transcript shall be made of any hearing and shall be part of the record of proceedings.
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

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETYCOMPANY OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff(s),

    v.

DEVELICA LLC et al,

Defendant(s).                                                                      /

No. C 09-0878 MHP

ORDER(Ninety-Day Conditional Dismissal)

The parties hereto, by their counsel, having advised the Court that they have agreed to a

settlement of this action.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice; provided,

however, that if any party hereto shall certify to this Court, with a proof of service of a copy on

opposing counsel, within 90 days from the date hereof, that the agreed consideration for the

settlement has not been delivered over, this Order shall stand vacated, and the action shall be

restored to the calendar to be set for trial.

Dated: 4/2/2010MARILYN HALL PATELUnited States District Court Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00878-MHP   Document 25   Filed 04/02/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-13T14:20:31-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
#### § 208.101 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to require owners of subsidized multifamily projects to electronically submit certain data to HUD for the programs listed in § 208.104. This electronically submitted data is required by HUD Forms, Owner's Certification of Compliance with Tenant's Eligibility and Rent Procedure, Worksheets to Compute Tenant Payment/Rent (Form HUD-50059 and 50059 Worksheets), and the Monthly Subsidy Billing Forms, Housing Owner's Certification and Application for Housing Assistance Payments (HUD-52670), Schedule of Tenant Assistance Payments Due (HUD-52670A, Part 1), Schedule of section 8 Special Claims (HUD-52670A, Part 2), and Special Claims Worksheets, HUD-52671 A through D), as applicable.
### §§1961a to 1961a–5. Repealed. Pub. L. 95–467, title IV, §410(a), Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1316

Section 1961a, Pub. L. 88–379, title I, §100, July 17, 1964, 78 Stat. 329; Pub. L. 92–175, §§1–3, Dec. 2, 1971, 85 Stat. 493, related to water resources research institutes. See section 7811 of this title.

Section 1961a–1, Pub. L. 88–379, title I, §101, July 17, 1964, 78 Stat. 330, authorized appropriations for specific water resources research projects, including regional projects. See sections 7815(a) and 7872 of this title.

Section 1961a–2, Pub. L. 88–379, title I, §102, July 17, 1964, 78 Stat. 330; Pub. L. 92–175, §4, Dec. 2, 1971, 85 Stat. 493, set time and amount of payments to institutes, directed that an accounting officer be appointed to each State institute and submit an annual report to Secretary of the Interior, and required that State replace diminished, lost or misapplied funds. See section 7876 of this title.

Section 1961a–3, Pub. L. 88–379, title I, §103, July 17, 1964, 78 Stat. 330, made appropriated funds available for printing and publishing results of research and for the planning, coordinating and conducting of cooperative research. See section 7812 of this title.

Section 1961a–4, Pub. L. 88–379, title I, §104, July 17, 1964, 78 Stat. 331; Pub. L. 89–404, §2, Apr. 19, 1966, 80 Stat. 130, related to powers and duties of Secretary of the Interior. See section 7813 of this title.

Section 1961a–5, Pub. L. 88–379, title I, §105, July 17, 1964, 78 Stat. 331, related to legal relationship of educational institutions and State governments and Federal control or direction of education. See section 7814 of this title.
§ 203.283 Refund of one-time MIP. ( a ) The Commissioner shall provide for the refund to the mortgagor of a portion of the unearned MIP paid pursuant to § 203.280 if the contract of insurance covering the mortgage is terminated: ( 1 ) By coveyance to one other than the Commissioner and a claim for the insurance benefits is not presented for payment (§ 203.315),
( 2 ) By prepayment of the mortgage (§ 203.316), or
( 3 ) By voluntary agreement with the approval of the Commissioner (§ 203.317).
( b ) The Commissioner shall determine the amount of the premium refund by multiplying the amount the premium paid at the time the mortgage was insured by the applicable premium refund percentage for mortgages insured in the year the mortgage was endorsed for insurance. The Commissioner shall determine the applicable premium refund percentage for each year in an equitable manner and in accordance with sound financial and actuarial practice, taking into account: ( 1 ) Projected salaries and expenses,
( 2 ) prospective losses generated by insurance claims, and
( 3 ) expected future payments of premium refunds.
[48 FR 28806, June 23, 1983, as amended at 52 FR 1327, Jan. 13, 1987]
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

JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MALAYTHONG BUSH a/k/a

MALAYTHONG SINGH, individually

and d/b/a LUCKY PIZZA,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-00454 WHA

ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND

TERMINATING JURISDICTION

The order of dismissal in this matter (Dkt. No. 40) retained jurisdiction to enforce the

parties’ settlement agreement until August 1, 2010. Before that time elapsed plaintiff filed a

“motion to set aside settlement and reopen action” on the grounds that defendants have

allegedly failed to honor the terms of the settlement agreement. Defendants filed a statement of

nonopposition and the matter was reopened.

A further case management conference was held on August 12, 2010. Plaintiff failed to

appear. Because plaintiff has failed to diligently prosecute its case, this action is DISMISSED. 

Case 3:09-cv-00454-WHA Document 46 Filed 08/13/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

The Court shall not maintain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement that is in place and

under which payments have been made. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00454-WHA Document 46 Filed 08/13/10 Page 2 of 2
### §5782. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5782 was editorially reclassified as section 11312 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
§ 180.655 Witnesses. ( a ) Witnesses shall testify under oath or affirmation.
( b ) If a witness fails or refuses to testify, the failure or refusal to answer any question found by the ALJ to be proper may be grounds for striking all or part of the testimony that may have been given by the witness, or for any other action deemed appropriate by the ALJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
12 MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 HAVE BEEN RESTATED TO REFLECT THE MERGER WITH
M-R GROUP PLC, ACCOUNTED FOR AS A POOLING-OF-INTERESTS.  SEE PART I, ITEM 1,
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - NOTE 2.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           6,910
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  105,530
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     12,649
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               151,221
<PP&E>                                          84,714
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 507,146
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           91,560
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           176
<OTHER-SE>                                     329,888
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   507,146
<SALES>                                        362,367
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               362,367
<CGS>                                          227,304
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  227,304
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                91,617
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,923
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 38,523
<INCOME-TAX>                                    15,355
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             23,168
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,168
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.40


</TABLE>
#### § 203.261 Calculation of periodic MIP.

The amount of any periodic MIP shall be calculated in accordance with the original amortization provisions of the mortgage, without taking into account delinquent payments, prepayments, agreements to postpone payments, or agreements to recast the mortgage.

[48 FR 28805, June 23, 1983]
### §§3908, 3909. Repealed. Pub. L. 98–181, title I [title IV, §474(e)], Nov. 30, 1983, 97 Stat. 1239

Section 3908, Pub. L. 90–448, title IV, §409, Aug. 1, 1968, 82 Stat. 516, related to encouragement of small builders in new community construction under this chapter.

Section 3909, Pub. L. 90–448, title IV, §410, Aug. 1, 1968, 82 Stat. 516, related to labor standards in construction under this chapter.
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

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

JEFFREY BITTON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,    v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,et al.,

Defendants.                                                                      /

No. C 08-5585 MMC

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TOAPPEAR AT STATUS CONFERENCE

By order filed March 3, 2010, the Court directed the parties to file, no later than May

21, 2010, a Joint Status Report, setting forth therein the status of the parties’ settlement. 

The parties did not comply with said order.

Thereafter, at the request of the Court, the Clerk, as a courtesy, called counsel for

both parties on May 26, 2010, and left messages advising counsel of the need to comply

with the Order of March 3, 2010.  Again, the parties did not comply with said order.

Accordingly, the parties are hereby DIRECTED to appear at a Status Conference on

July 9, 2010, at 10:30 a.m.  Further, no later than July 2, 2010, the parties shall file a Joint

Status Conference Statement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2010                                                    MAXINE M. CHESNEYUnited States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05585-MMC   Document 37   Filed 06/21/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-11T22:07:31-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
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

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CABN 44332)

United States Attorney

BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN 163973)

Chief, Criminal Division

CHRISTINE Y. WONG (NYBN 3988607)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7301

Facsimile: (415) 436-6753

E-Mail: Christine.Wong@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for the United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JEE FONG LOW,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 09-0269 MHP

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER DOCUMENTING WAIVER

On January 25, 2010, defendant Jee Fong Low, appeared with his counsel, Garrick Lew,

Esq., before the Honorable Marilyn H. Patel for appointment of counsel. The next status

conference before the Court was scheduled for March 1, 2010, at 10 a.m. With the agreement of

the parties and with the consent of the defendant, the Court enters this order confirming the

exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act from January 25, 2010 through March 1, 2010. The

parties agree and stipulate to the above facts, and the Court finds and holds, as follows:

1. The ends of justice served by excluding the period from January 25, 2010 to

Case 3:09-cr-00269-MHP Document 49 Filed 02/26/10 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-

March 1, 2010 from Speedy Trial Act calculations outweighs the interests of the public and the

defendant to a speedy trial, by ensuring the effective preparation of counsel, in accordance with

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B).

STIPULATED:

DATED: January 25, 2010 

GARRICK LEW, ESQ.

Attorney for JEE FONG LOW

DATED: January 25, 2010 /s/ 

CHRISTINE Y. WONG

Assistant United States Attorney

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February __, 2010 

HON. MARILYN H. PATEL

United States District Judge

26

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:09-cr-00269-MHP Document 49 Filed 02/26/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Roberto Ceron ALFARO; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-73454.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2007 *.

Filed March 16, 2007.

Dominic E. Capeci, Esq., Law Offices of Kaiser *&*Capeci, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Francis W. Fraser, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee Of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Husband and wife Roberto Cerón Alfaro and Betrice Sacedo de Cerón seek review of the orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge’s order denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

*564We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative, see *Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003), and petitioners do not raise a colorable due process claim, *see Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (“traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute color-able constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”).

We do not consider petitioners’ contentions regarding good moral character, because petitioners’ failure to establish hardship is dispositive.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### The People of State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Di *955Pasquale, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on June 17, 1977, unanimously affirmed. The case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Bronx County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). No opinion. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Fein, Lane, Lynch and Sandler, JJ.
§ 1000.50 What tribal or Indian preference requirements apply to IHBG administration activities? ( a ) In accordance with Section 101(k) of NAHASDA, a recipient shall apply the tribal employment and contract preference laws (including regulations and tribal ordinances) adopted by the Indian tribe that receives a benefit from funds granted to the recipient under NAHASDA.
( b ) In the absence of tribal employment and contract preference laws, a recipient must, to the greatest extent feasible, give preference and opportunities for training and employment in connection with the administration of grants awarded under this part to Indians in accordance with section 7(b) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450e(b)).
[77 FR 71523, Dec. 3, 2012]
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Sixteenth census of the UnitedStates: 1940: population, characteristics of persons not in the labor force, 14years old and over: age, sex, color, household relationship, months worked in1939, and usual major occupation group**
 
Parts: 01 | 02
 
SuDoc Number:C 3.940-2:P 81/4
Item Number:0213 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001103598
 
August 6, 2019
Case 3:09-cv-00790-EDL Document 106 Filed 02/26/10 Page 1 of 2Case 3:09-cv-00790-EDL Document 106 Filed 02/26/10 Page 2 of 2
#### COMSTOCK, Respondent, v. GOFF, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 20, 1903.)

Action by John K. Comstock against Henry H. Goff.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-121443)of our reports, relating to the consolidated financial statements of InterlineBrands, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its subsidiaries, andmanagement’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, dated March 14, 2006, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Interline Brands, Inc. for the year ended December 30, 2005.

*DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP*

Jacksonville, FloridaMarch 14, 2006

----
#### § 203.381 Occupancy of property.

The mortgagee shall certify that the property is vacant and contains no personal property as of the date of filing for record of the deed to the Secretary or that the Secretary has consented to accept the property occupied.

[45 FR 59563, Sept. 10, 1980]
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Vertrue Incorporated (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James B. Duffy,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to
my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities and 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 the Company.

/s/ James B. Duffy
------------------
James B. Duffy
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Vertrue Incorporated
May 10, 2006



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.