alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 245.330 Non-insured projects. ( a ) In the case of a proposed rent increase for a project assisted under section 236 of the National Housing Act or section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, but which does not have a mortgage insured by HUD or held by the Secretary, the provisions of this section and of §§ 245.305 through 245.320 shall apply to the mortgagor (project owner), except that— ( 1 ) The notice format prescribed in § 245.310 must be modified to reflect the procedural changes made by this section;
( 2 ) The material (including tenant comments) required to be submitted to HUD under §§ 245.315 and 245.320 must be submitted to the State or local agency administering the section 236 assistance or rent supplement assistance contracts, rather than to HUD. An equivalent State or local agency form or standard accounting form may be substituted for the Statement of Profit and Loss, Form HUD-92410 required under § 245.315(a)(2), if approved by the local HUD office; and
( 3 ) The State or local agency must certify that the mortgagor has complied with the requirements of §§ 245.310, 245.315, 245.320, and 245.325.
( b ) After the State or local agency has considered the request for an increase in maximum permissible rents that meets the requirements of § 245.320 (including consideration of anticipated cost increases, as provided in § 245.325(a)), it must make a determination to approve, adjust upward or downward, or disapprove the request. If the agency determines to approve or adjust the request, it must submit to the appropriate local HUD office the mortgagor's requests for approval of an increase in maximum permissible rents, along with the comments of the tenants and the mortgagor's evaluation of the comments, and must certify to HUD that the mortgagor is in compliance with the requirements of this subpart. HUD shall review the agency's determination and certification and, within 30 days, of their submission to HUD, notify the agency of its approval, adjustment upward or downward, or disapproval of the proposed rent increase. HUD will not unreasonably withhold approval of a rent increase approved by the State or local agency.
( c ) If the agency determines to disapprove the request, there is no HUD review of the agency's determination.
( d ) The agency must notify the mortgagor of the final disposition of the request, and it must furnish the mortgagor with a written statement of the reasons for its approval, adjustment, or disapproval. The mortgagor must make the reasons for approval, adjustment or disapproval known to the tenants, by service of notice on them as provided in § 245.15.
#### § 242.57 Maintenance of hospital facility.

The mortgagor shall maintain the hospital's grounds, buildings, and the equipment financed with mortgage proceeds in good repair, and shall promptly complete such repairs and maintenance as HUD considers necessary.
### §290. National Institutes of Health Management Fund; establishment; advancements; availability; final adjustments of advances

For the purpose of facilitating the economical and efficient conduct of operations in the National Institutes of Health which are financed by two or more appropriations where the costs of operation are not readily susceptible of distribution as charges to such appropriations, there is established the National Institutes of Health Management Fund. Such amounts as the Director of the National Institutes of Health may determine to represent a reasonable distribution of estimated costs among the various appropriations involved may be advanced each year to this fund and shall be available for expenditure for such costs under such regulations as may be prescribed by said Director, including the operation of facilities for the sale of meals to employees and others at rates to be determined by said Director to be sufficient to cover the reasonable value of the meals served and the proceeds thereof shall be deposited to the credit of this fund: Provided, That funds advanced to this fund shall be available only in the fiscal year in which they are advanced: Provided further, That final adjustments of advances in accordance with actual costs shall be effected wherever practicable with the appropriations from which such funds are advanced.

(Pub. L. 85–67, title II, §201, June 29, 1957, 71 Stat. 220; Pub. L. 87–290, title II, §201, Sept. 22, 1961, 75 Stat. 603.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as a part of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Appropriation Act, 1958, and not as a part of the Public Health Service Act which comprises this chapter.

#### Amendments

1961—Pub. L. 87–290 substituted "reasonable value of the meals served" for "cost of such operation".
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2783 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2783

             To suspend temporarily the duty on Ipconazole.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 7, 2005

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To suspend temporarily the duty on Ipconazole.

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

SECTION 1. IPCONAZOLE.

    (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:

``      9902.05.97      2-[(4-              Free         Free             No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         chlorophenyl)meth                                                  31/2008
                         yl]-5-(1-
                         methylethyl)-1-
                         (1H-1,2,4-triazol-
                         1-ylmethyl)
                         cyclopentanol
                         (CAS No. 125225-
                         28-7) (provided
                         for in subheading
                         2933.99.22)......

    (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>
```
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, C.W. MacLeod, Acting ChiefFinancial Officer of Edge Petroleum Corporation, Inc., a Delawarecorporation (the “Company”), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

 

(1)                                  the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the three months ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:    August 11, 2008 | /s/  C.W. MacLeod               |
|-----------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|
|                                          | C.W.  MacLeod                   |
|                                          | Acting  Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Willie T. Jenkins, Appellant, v Harold J. Smith, as Superintendent of the Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Relator was convicted after trial of criminal possession of a controlled substance, third degree, and is imprisoned for a term of four years to life. In this habeas corpus proceeding he contends that his assigned attorney did not make a motion that he be allowed to testify before the Grand Jury which indicted him, despite relator’s expressed desire to so testify; that his attorney did not advise him of his "right” to a pre-indictment hearing; and that the court improperly declined his request for assignment of new counsel. At the time of the presentation of the petition for the writ, relator’s judgment of conviction had been affirmed in this court *(People v Jenkins,*49 AD2d 683), and a further appeal vías pending in the Court of Appeals. It also appears that there was pending before the trial court a motion brought pursuant to CPL article 440 to vacate the judgment of conviction upon the same grounds asserted in this proceeding. The court properly dismissed the writ, without a hearing, because of the pendency of the appeal and the motion. The issues presented in relator’s petition are such that if they were *1034not resolvable on appeal, as now contended by the relator, they were the proper subject of the motion pursuant to CPL article 440. In such circumstances, there was no showing of "practicality and necessity” to justify the grant of habeas corpus relief *(People ex rel. Keitt v McMann,*18 NY2d 257, 262; *People ex rel. Lee v Smith,*58 AD2d 987; *People ex rel. Finney v Follette,*37 AD2d 575). Although it appears that the contentions asserted in the petition were not raised on appeal in this court or in the Court of Appeals, which now also has affirmed the judgment of conviction *(People v Jenkins,*41 NY2d 307), the record fails to disclose the outcome of the motion made pursuant to CPL article 440. (Appeal from judgment of Wyoming Supreme Court—habeas corpus.) Present—Simons, J. P., Dillon, Hancock, Denman and Goldman, JJ.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 41001 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. RICARDO POSAS

- TORRES, also known as Ricardo Alonso Posas , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:14

- CR

- 809

- 1

Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ricardo Posas

- Torres pleaded guilty to being unlawfully present in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). T he court applied a 16

- level enhancement, pursuant to Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) (“ I f the defendant previously was deported, or unlawfully remained in the United States , after a conviction for a felony that is a drug trafficking offense for which the sentence imposed exceeded 13 months . . .

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R

. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 26, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-41001 Document: 00513169553 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2015No. 14

- 41001

2 increase by 16 levels . . . ”

. ). In doing so, t he court concluded Posas’ prior Illinois conviction for possession of cannabis with intent to deliver , in violation of 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 550/5(f) , was a drug

- trafficking offense

. Posas was sentenced to 41 month s’ i mprisonment , below the advisory Guidelines sentencing range

. Posas contends the court erred in imposing the enhancement because there was no evidence of remuneration or consideration ; therefore , his Illinois conviction could not qualify as the requisite drug

- trafficking offense for § 2 L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) purposes
. Although post

- Booker , the Guidelines are advisory only, and a properly preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for reasonableness under an abuse

- of

- discretion standard, the district court must stil l properly calculate the advisory Guidelines

- sentencing range for use in deciding on the sentence to impose. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). But, a s Posas concedes, b ecause he did not raise this issue in district court, review is only for p lain error. E.g. , United States v. Broussard , 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that standard, Posas must show a forfeited plain (clear or obvious) error that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he does so, we have the discretion to correct the error, but should do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. Id. Our court, in United States v. Martinez

- Lugo , reje cted Posas’ contention that Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) requires evidence of remuneration. See 782 F.3d 198, 20 4

– 05 (5th Cir. 2015) , petition for cert. filed ( 1 9 June 2015) (No. 14

- 10355) . Accordingly, the required clear

- or - obvious error is absent. A FFIRMED. Case: 14-41001 Document: 00513169553 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/26/2015
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2773 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2773

         To suspend temporarily the duty on oleoresin turmeric.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 7, 2005

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To suspend temporarily the duty on oleoresin turmeric.

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

SECTION 1. OLEORESIN TURMERIC.

    (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:

``      9902.05.70      Oleoresin turmeric  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         (CAS No. 458-37-                                                   31/2009
                         7) provided for
                         in subheading
                         3203.00.80)......

    (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>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 710

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 710 appear at 84 FR 37752, Aug. 2, 2019.

#### § 710.14 Judicial review.

Any person found to have participated in a violation of statutory or regulatory post-employment restrictions (18 U.S.C. 207(a), (b) or (c) or the regulations compiled at 44 FR 19987 and 19988, April 3, 1979) may seek judicial review of the administrative determination.
#### V. V. Rardin, appellee, v. David Hartley, appellant.

Suit for money for legal services. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal *674from the Circuit Court of Edgar county; the Hon. John H. Marshall, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1923.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 23, 1923.

Wilber H. Hickman, for appellant. Dyas & Bedman and Burnie McClain, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Heard

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### Kenneth ARCEMENT, Marlene Arcement, David Bealer, Roseann Bealer, Stacy Bealer, et al, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Aaron BROUSSARD, Jefferson Parish, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-30748

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 25, 2007.

Ashton R. O’Dwyer, Jr., New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Christopher Kent Tankersley, Burglass & Tankersley, Metairie, LA, Defendants-Appellees.

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs counsel filed eleven amended complaints, naming numerous defendants and invoking obscure federal statutes. Finding that the only common nucleus of these claims is that they arise from Hurricane Katrina, the district court severed the claims against Broussard and Jefferson Parish. The original case, *O’Dwyer v. United States,*was left behind.

*304The district court then ordered plaintiffs to file a single amended complaint, detailing the allegations against Broussard and Jefferson Parish and reducing the named plaintiffs to those who belong in the putative class. The plaintiffs filed the amended complaint, which asserted only state-law claims of negligence, and which incorporated by reference legal arguments being asserted in *O’Dwyer,*presumably as a jurisdictional hook for supplemental jurisdiction.

The district court ruled that “[tjhese legal arguments make reference to numerous federal statutes, some or all of which have not obvious relation to the cause of actions set forth herein.” “More importantly,” the district court continued, “counsel has specifically disregarded this Court’s order by incorporating these legal arguments and did not set forth in specific paragraph the jurisdiction basis for federal jurisdiction against these state defendants and the factual basis upon which any factual statute relates to the acts or omissions of these defendants.”

Upon review of the amended complaint, as well as plaintiff’s stridently worded brief, we too are at a loss to discern any basis for federal jurisdiction. The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
### §6939. Domestic sewage

#### (a) Report

The Administrator shall, not later than 15 months after November 8, 1984, submit a report to the Congress concerning those substances identified or listed under section 6921 of this title which are not regulated under this subchapter by reason of the exclusion for mixtures of domestic sewage and other wastes that pass through a sewer system to a publicly owned treatment works. Such report shall include the types, size and number of generators which dispose of such substances in this manner, the types and quantities disposed of in this manner, and the identification of significant generators, wastes, and waste constituents not regulated under existing Federal law or regulated in a manner sufficient to protect human health and the environment.

#### (b) Revisions of regulations

Within eighteen months after submitting the report specified in subsection (a), the Administrator shall revise existing regulations and promulgate such additional regulations pursuant to this subchapter (or any other authority of the Administrator, including section 1317 of title 33) as are necessary to assure that substances identified or listed under section 6921 of this title which pass through a sewer system to a publicly owned treatment works are adequately controlled to protect human health and the environment.

#### (c) Report on wastewater lagoons

The Administrator shall, within thirty-six months after November 8, 1984, submit a report to Congress concerning wastewater lagoons at publicly owned treatment works and their effect on groundwater quality. Such report shall include—

(1) the number and size of such lagoons;

(2) the types and quantities of waste contained in such lagoons;

(3) the extent to which such waste has been or may be released from such lagoons and contaminate ground water; and

(4) available alternatives for preventing or controlling such releases.

The Administrator may utilize the authority of sections 6927 and 6934 of this title for the purpose of completing such report.

#### (d) Application of sections 6927 and 6930

The provisions of sections 6927 and 6930 of this title shall apply to solid or dissolved materials in domestic sewage to the same extent and in the same manner as such provisions apply to hazardous waste.

(Pub. L. 89–272, title II, §3018, as added Pub. L. 98–616, title II, §246(a), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3264.)
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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOEL OCHOA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

STERICYCLE, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-05219 CRB

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

Plaintiffs filed suit in this Court in November 2008, asserting federal question

jurisdiction based on Plaintiff’s Fair Labor Standards Act claim. See Cmplt. at ¶ 2. On

January 11, 2010, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s FLSA claim pursuant to the parties’

stipulation. See docket no. 75. In their most recent Joint Case Management Statement, the

parties noted that the FLSA claim had been dismissed. See docket no. 76. The parties

further noted that while diversity exists between the parties, the amount in controversy “does

not appear to exceed the jurisdictional minimum.” Id. 

Accordingly, as the Court stated at the case management conference held on February

5, 2010, and in the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity, the Court

declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 

//

//

Case 3:08-cv-05219-CRB Document 78 Filed 02/05/10 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

G:\CRBALL\2008\5219\order dismissing case.wpd 2

U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988). Thus, the

remaining state law claims are DISMISSED, without prejudice to further filing in state court. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-05219-CRB Document 78 Filed 02/05/10 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sylvester Mayers, Appellant.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Concur— Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Eager, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Appellant,

vs. STUART L. BOWMAN,Respondent. No. 84399

OCT 

## "I 2.02•L !DO. ni OF ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL nEr'llry Pursuant to the stipulation ofthe parties, and cause appearing, thisappeal is dismissed. The parties shallbear their own costs and attorney fees. NRAP 42(b).

It is so ORDERED.

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT ELIZABETH A. ROWN BY:

cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge Charles K. Hauser, Settlement Judge Marquis Aurbach Coffing Law Office ofDaniel Marks Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA CLERK'S ORDER 

## - 100-