alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §292m. Repayment by Secretary of loans of deceased or disabled borrowers

If a borrower who has received a loan dies or becomes permanently and totally disabled (as determined in accordance with regulations of the Secretary), the Secretary shall discharge the borrower's liability on the loan by repaying the amount owed on the loan from the account established under section 292i of this title.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title VII, §714, as added Pub. L. 102–408, title I, §102, Oct. 13, 1992, 106 Stat. 2008.)
§ 203.31 Mortgagor of a principal residence in military service cases. ( a ) A mortgage that is otherwise eligible for insurance under any of the provisions of this part may be insured without regard to any requirement contained in this part that the mortgagor occupy the dwelling as a principal residence (as defined in § 203.18(f)(1)) at the time of insurance, or that the mortgagor meet loan-to-value or comparable limitations based on the failure of the mortgagor to meet an occupancy requirement, if: ( 1 ) The Commissioner is satisfied that the inability of the mortgagor to meet the occupancy requirement is by reason of his or her entry into military service after the filing of an application for insurance; and
( 2 ) The mortgagor expresses an intent (in such form as the Commissioner may prescribe), to meet the occupancy requirement upon his or her discharge from the service.
( b ) A serviceperson will also be considered to meet the occupancy requirement referred to in paragraph (a) of this section for mortgage insurance purposes, if the following conditions are satisfied: ( 1 ) The serviceperson and his or her family expect to meet the occupancy requirement referred to in paragraph (a) of this section for two or more years. The Commissioner may shorten this period to one year, if ( i ) the serviceperson's family will occupy the property for at least one year and
( ii ) the serviceperson is assigned to a combat zone or other hazardous duty area where the family cannot accompany him or her; and
( 2 ) The property is located in an area in which the prospects of resale are reasonable.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2502-0059) [55 FR 34804, Aug. 24, 1990]
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO ANTONIO BAUTISTA,

Petitioner,

v.

JOHN F. SALAZAR, Warden,MATTHEW CATE, Secretary,California Department of Correctionsand Rehabilitation,

  Respondents.______________________________

)))))))))))))

No. C 08-4646 MMC (PR)

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’STHIRD REQUEST FOR EXTENSIONOF TIME TO FILE TRAVERSE

(Docket No. 23) 

Good cause appearing, petitioner’s request for an extension of time to file a traverse is

hereby GRANTED.  Petitioner shall file his traverse on or before June 7, 2010.  If petitioner

determines he will be unable to comply with this order due to additional delays in his

scheduled eye surgery and/or the receipt of his prescription eyeglasses, he may move for a

further extension of time.

This order terminates Docket No. 23.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 23, 2010  _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEYUnited States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04646-MMC   Document 25   Filed 04/23/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-12T22:10:10-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
§ 22.6 Refund of fees. ( a ) Fees which have been collected for deposit in the Treasury are refundable: ( 1 ) As specifically authorized by law (See 22 U.S.C. 214a concerning passport fees erroneously charged persons excused from payment and 46 U.S.C. 8 concerning fees improperly imposed on vessels and seamen);
( 2 ) When the principal officer at the consular post where the fee was collected (or the officer in charge of the consular section at a combined diplomatic/consular post) finds upon review of the facts that the collection was erroneous under applicable law; and
( 3 ) Where determination is made by the Department of State with a view to payment of a refund in the United States in cases which it is impracticable to have the facts reviewed and refund effected by and at the direction of the responsible consular office. See § 13.1 of this chapter concerning refunds of fees improperly exacted by consular officers who have neglected to return the same.
( b ) Refunds of $5.00 or less will not be paid to the remitter unless a claim is specifically filed at the time of payment for the excess amount. An automatic refund on overpayments due to misinformation or mistakes on the part of the Department of State will be made.
[52 FR 29515, Aug. 10, 1987, as amended at 65 FR 14212, Mar. 16, 2000]
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2462 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain camel hair. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 18, 2005 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain camel hair. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN CAMEL HAIR. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.42.02 Camel hair, processed beyond the degreased or carbonized condition (provided 

for in subheading 

5102.19.90) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•HR 2462 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
Subject: Meeting with Portland Cement Association and Affiliates

– Reconsideration

Location: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC

Date: October 17 , 2012

Participants:

Portland Cement Association EPA

Dominique Bidet, Nati onal Cement

Cary Cohrs, American Cement

Karl Watson, CEMEX USA

Filiberto Ruiz, Holcim

Andy O’Hare, PCA

Greg Scott, PCA Janet McCabe

Gina McCarthy

Peter Tsirigotis

Summary of Meeting

The purpose of the meeting was to continue discussions with EPA regard ing the cement

industry’s case for the two year reset on NESHAP compliance . Attached is a document that was

referenced during the meeting.Attachment



### PCA Perspectives on Key Portland Cement NESHAP Issues

October 17, 2012

Cement Industry Continues to Str uggle in the Current Economy :

• Cement consumption in 2012 continues at historic lows, a trend which is expected to

continue for the next few years

• Plant capacity utilizations are averaging less than 70%, with many plants currently

running discontinuously.

Modification to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard is I mportant to the Cement Industry :

• The p roposed change from 0.04 to 0.07 lbs/ton of clinker for existing facilities and 0.01

to 0.02 lbs/ton of clinker for new facilities are supported by dat a provi ded to EPA; the

new standard s reflect s the true variability of emissions over time

• Implementing new PM standard will require rethinking of technology selections

o Facilities with electrostatic precipitators may now modify to a hybrid unit , rather

than replac e them

o Facilities with baghouses may now modify, rather than replace them

o Sorbent technologies used for other pollutants, such as HCl will need to be

tailored to conform to new PM contro l.Cement Industry W ill Need 24 Months to Implement the New NESHAP Ru le :

• M ore than 60% of U.S. plants will have to rethink their NESHAP compliance approach to

address PM and/or one or more of the other pollutants

• In comments filed on the proposal, PCA provided EPA w ith s pecific technology timelines

for 18 U.S. plant s , al l of which will need at least 24 months to implement the anticipated

new NESHAP rule.

Allowing for Adjustments to be Made to the PM and Total Hydrocarbon Standards is Important :

• Adjustment proposals have been provided to EPA in the form of simple equati ons

• Such adjustments are necessary to account for the inherent variability in emissions

experienced by most cement plants

• Current language will lead to frequent retesting at a substantial cost

• Without these accommodations some plants may not be able to com ply continuously.
Exhibit 99.1

    Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 1350 of
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code
                ------------------------------------------------


     I, David D. Wesselink, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Metris

Companies Inc., certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the

quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of

Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the

information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly

period ended March 31, 2003 fairly presents, in all material respects, the

financial condition and results of operations of Metris Companies Inc.


                                    /s/ David D. Wesselink
                                    ----------------------
                                    David D. Wesselink
                                    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                    (Principal Executive Officer)
                                    May 15, 2003
#### In the Matter of Alexander Smith et al., Appellants-Respondents, v Richard I. MacMurray, as President of the City Council of the City of Long Beach, et al., Respondents-Appellants.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the reinstatement of petitioners to their employment with the City of Long Beach, the parties cross-appeal from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered November 14, 1977, as failed to award petitioners credit for vacation or sick days and failed to offset, against the award to petitioner Smith, the sum of his earnings as an insurance broker. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, upon the opinion of Mr. Justice Oppido at Special Term. Latham, J. P., Damiani, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Herb C. Cross, certify that:

|  | (1) |  | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and |
|--|-----|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | (2) |  | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |
|--|-----|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

/s/ Herb C. CrossHerb C. CrossChief Financial Officer

April 28, 2015

 

 

----
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

AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION REQUESTING ADDITIONAL TIME FOR MEDIATION

Law Offices Of Jonathan G. Stein

Jonathan G. Stein, SBN 224609

5050 Laguna Blvd. Ste., 122-325

Elk Grove, CA 95758

(916) 247-6868 FAX: (916) 443-5022

e-mail: jonathan@jonathangstein.com

Attorney for Plaintiff Ayshia Benham (3:09-cv-01099-JSW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AYISHA BENHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK DBA AMERICA'S

SERVICING COMPANY, AMERICA'S

SERVICING COMPANY; WMC

MORTGAGE CORPORATION;

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., NDEX

WEST, LLC; DEUTSCHE BANK

NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS

TRUSTEE FOR MORGAN STANLEY

ABS CAPITAL 1, INC., TRUST 2006-

WMC-2; JUAN CARLOS MARTINEZ,

KEITH HOUSTEAD, JOHN WEIGEL

and DOES 1-20 inclusive,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

CASE NO.: 3:09-cv-01099-JSW

AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER

GRANTING STIPULATION EXTENDING

TIME FOR MEDIATION

Case3:09-cv-01099-JSW Document60-1 Filed01/14/10 Page1 of 2 Case 3:09-cv-01099-JSW Document 63 Filed 01/15/10 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

AMENDED [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION REQUESTING ADDITIONAL TIME FOR MEDIATION

The Stipulation requesting additional time for mediation by and between

Plaintiff and Defendants American Servicing and WMC Mortgage Corp., the

pertinent parts of which are set forth below, is hereby approved.

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated: _____________ 

Honorable Jeffrey S. White

United States District Judge

Case3:09-cv-01099-JSW Document60-1 Filed01/14/10 Page2 of 2

The deadline for completion of mediation is extended 120 days. January 15, 2010

Case 3:09-cv-01099-JSW Document 63 Filed 01/15/10 Page 2 of 2
January 29, 2010

UNITED STATES

RICT COURT

NORTHERN

DIST

RICT

OF CALIFORNIA

IT

IS

SO

ORDERED

Judge

Charles R. Breyer
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**Certification ofChief Executive OfficerPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,the undersigned officer of Guitar Center, Inc. (the “*Company*”)hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

(i)    theaccompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for theperiod ended June 30, 2007 (the “*Report*”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d),as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii)   the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| Date:  August 9, 2007 |     | /s/ MARTY  ALBERTSON      |
|----------------------------|----------|---------------------------|
|                       |     | Marty Albertson           |
| * *                   | * * | *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
1

Filed 4/5/16 P. v. Brown CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Butte)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL WALLACE BROWN,

Defendant and Appellant. C078573

(Super. Ct. No. CM040659)

Despite being represented in all relevant proceedings by retained counsel, the trial

court imposed a $157.50 “public defender fee” during sentencing. Defendant Michael

Wallace Brown contends this fee was improper. We shall strike the public defender fee

and affirm the judgment as modified

.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A jury found d efendant guilty of possession of methamphetamine

, batter y upon a

peace officer

, res isting a peac e officer , and misdemeanor battery on a peace officer

. The

jury found defendant not guilty of possession of a billy and felony batt ery on a peace2

officer. The jury was unable to reach a verdict and a mistrial was declared on carrying a

dirk or dagger

. ( Pen. Code, § 21310

. ) Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant later pled

no contest to a misdemeanor charge for this count

.

T he court sentenced defendant to five years in prison, one year for each count.

The court also imposed various fines and fees, in cluding a public defender fee of

$157.50. The court asked defendant whether this amount was “reasonable” for his

lawyer’s work. Defendant responded he “paid” his lawyer. The court then asked

defendant whether the lawyer had done “a good job for you,” an d defendant responded

,

y es.

Throughout the proceedings, defendant was represented by Jesus Rodriguez.

Rodriguez appeared on defendant’s behalf during all court proceedings, except during

sentencing, when Leo Battle appeared in Rodriguez’ s absence. V arious clerks’ minutes

,
including the one reflecting the judgment, note Rodriguez was retained.

DISCUSSION

Defendant con tends the trial court improperly imposed a $157.50 public defender

fee, and the People agree.

Penal Code s ection 987.8 permits a tri al court to order a defendant who has

received legal assistance at public expense to reimburse some or all of the county’s costs.

Because there is no evidence defendant was at any point represented by a public defender

or appointed counsel , the $157.50 fe e was unauthorized.

DISPOSITION

The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to prepare an amended

abstract of judgment that omits the $157.50 public defender fee under Penal Code

section 987.8 , and to forward a certified copy of the amend ed abstract of judgment to the

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.3 /s/
Robie, J.

We concur:

/s/ Nicholson, Acting P. J.

/s/
Renner, J.
§ 206.17 Eligible mortgages: general. ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) *Interest rate and payment options.* A HECM shall provide for either fixed or adjustable interest rates in accordance with § 206.21. ( 1 ) Fixed interest rate mortgages shall use the Single Lump Sum payment option (§ 206.19(e)).
( 2 ) Adjustable interest rate mortgages shall initially provide for the term (§ 206.19(a)), the tenure (§ 206.19(b)), the line of credit (§ 206.19(c)), or a modified term or modified tenure (§ 206.19(d)) payment option, subject to a later change in accordance with § 206.26.
( c ) *Shared appreciation.* A mortgage may provide for shared appreciation in accordance with § 206.23.
### §3616. Cooperation with State and local agencies administering fair housing laws; utilization of services and personnel; reimbursement; written agreements; publication in Federal Register

The Secretary may cooperate with State and local agencies charged with the administration of State and local fair housing laws and, with the consent of such agencies, utilize the services of such agencies and their employees and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, may reimburse such agencies and their employees for services rendered to assist him in carrying out this subchapter. In furtherance of such cooperative efforts, the Secretary may enter into written agreements with such State or local agencies. All agreements and terminations thereof shall be published in the Federal Register.

(Pub. L. 90–284, title VIII, §817, formerly §816, Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 89; renumbered §817, Pub. L. 100–430, §8(1), Sept. 13, 1988, 102 Stat. 1625.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 817 of Pub. L. 90–284 was renumbered section 818 and is classified to section 3617 of this title.

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

#### Fair Housing Initiatives Program

Pub. L. 100–242, title V, §561, Feb. 5, 1988, 101 Stat. 1942, as amended, which established a demonstration program on fair housing initiatives and was formerly set out as a note under this section, was transferred to section 3616a of this title.
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

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS INC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CARMINA BASTO, ET AL.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 09-1023 MMC

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The parties having advised the Court that they have agreed to a settlement of the

above-titled action,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all claims alleged herein be dismissed without

prejudice; provided, however, that if any party hereto shall certify to this Court, within ninety

days, with proof of service of a copy thereon on opposing counsel, that the agreed

consideration for the settlement has not been delivered, the foregoing order shall stand

vacated and the action shall forthwith be restored to the calendar to be set for trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01023-MMC Document 26 Filed 01/29/10 Page 1 of 1
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VOLTERRA SEMICONDUCTOR

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

 PRIMARION, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

Case No. C-08-05129 JCS

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIM TERM

“FABRICATED ON A SURFACE OF THE

SUBSTRATE”

On November 12, 2008, Plaintiff Volterra Semiconductor Corporation (“Volterra”) filed a

complaint alleging infringement and contributory infringement by Defendants of the following

patents: 1) U.S. Patent No. 6,278,264 (the “‘264 patent”); 2) U.S. Patent No. 6,462,522 (the “‘522

patent”); 3) U.S. Patent No. 6,713,823 (the “‘823 patent”); 4) U.S. Patent No. 6,020,729 (the “‘729

patent”); and 5) U.S. Patent No. 6,225,795 (the “‘795 patent”). The Court construed a number of

claim terms found in the asserted claims of these patents in an Order filed February 22, 2010

[Docket No. 697] (“the Claim Construction Order”). However, it did not construe the term

“fabricated on a surface of the substrate,” found in claims 26 and 34 of the ‘264 patent and claims 22

and 24 of the ‘522 patent. Although the Court had tentatively construed that term in its November

17, 2009 preliminary injunction order (“the Preliminary Injunction Order”), it did not address the

term in its Claim Construction Order because the parties did not include it in their list of claim terms

to be construed. The parties now request that the Court construe the term. Having carefully

reviewed the briefs of the parties, the Court adopts Volterra’s proposed construction for the reasons

stated in the Preliminary Injunction Order at 29-33. Accordingly, the Court construes the term 

Case 3:08-cv-05129-JCS Document 833 Filed 06/09/10 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

“fabricated on a surface of the substrate” to mean “formed upon metal conductive layers of the

integrated circuit chip and positioned above the substrate.” 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2010

_______________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05129-JCS Document 833 Filed 06/09/10 Page 2 of 2