alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1000.316 How is the Formula Current Assisted Stock (FCAS) Component developed? The Formula Current Assisted Stock component consists of two elements. They are: ( a ) *Operating subsidy.* The operating subsidy consists of three variables which are: ( 1 ) The number of low-rent FCAS units multiplied by the national per unit subsidy;
( 2 ) The number of Section 8 units whose contract has expired but had been under contract on September 30, 1997, multiplied by the FY 1996 national per unit subsidy; and
( 3 ) The number of Mutual Help and Turnkey III FCAS units multiplied by the national per unit subsidy.
( b ) *Modernization allocation.* ( 1 ) For Indian tribes with an Indian Housing Authority that owned or operated 250 or more public housing units on October 1, 1997, the modernization allocation equals the number of Low Rent, Mutual Help, and Turnkey III FCAS units multiplied by the national per-unit amount of allocation for FY 1996 modernization multiplied by an adjustment factor for inflation.
( 2 ) For Indian tribes with an Indian Housing Authority that owned or operated fewer than 250 public housing units on October 1, 1997, the modernization allocation equals the average amount of funds received under the assistance program authorized by section 14 of the 1937 Act (not including funds provided as emergency assistance) for FYs 1992 through 1997.
( c ) *Conversion.* Conversion of FCAS units from homeownership (Mutual Help or Turnkey III) to low-rent or from low-rent to a home ownership program. ( 1 ) If units were converted before October 1, 1997, as evidenced by an amended ACC, then those units will be counted for formula funding and eligibility purposes as the type of unit to which they were converted.
( 2 ) If units were converted on or after October 1, 1997, the following applies: ( i ) *Funding type.* Units that converted after October 1, 1997 will be funded as the type of unit specified on the original ACC in effect on September 30, 1997.
( ii ) *Continued FCAS eligibility.* Whether or not it is the first conversion, a unit converted after October 1, 1997, will be considered as the type converted to when determining continuing FCAS eligibility. A unit that is converted to low-rent will be treated as a low-rent unit for purposes of determining continuing FCAS eligibility. A unit that is converted to homeownership will be treated as a homeownership unit for purposes of determining continuing FCAS eligibility.
( 3 ) The Indian tribe, TDHE, or IHA shall report conversions on the Formula Response Form.
[63 FR 12349, Mar. 12, 1998, as amended at 72 FR 20025, Apr. 20, 2007; 81 FR 83680, Nov. 22, 2016]
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

USA,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARDSON,

Defendant.

Case No. 09-cr-00624-SI-1 

ORDER STAYING CASE

Re: Dkt. No. 67

Defendant applied to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for authorization to file a second 

or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Dkt. No. 67 at 1-2. This petition was granted. See

Ninth Circuit Case No. 16-71314. In granting the petition, the Ninth Circuit invited this Court to 

stay proceedings pending the resolution of Gardner v. United States, Ninth Circuit Case No. 15-

72559 and Jacob v. United States, Ninth Circuit Case No. 15-73302.

The Court will accordingly STAY the present matter pending the Ninth Circuit’s decisions 

in these cases.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2016 ______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cr-00624-SI Document 69 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 1
I ) SERVED: MAY 15, 2015 

### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC
In The Matter Of: NORTHEASTERN AVIATION CORPORATION Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) DocketNo. FAA-2014-0812
CaseNo. 2012EA110028
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FORMODIFICATION OF LITIGATION DATES On April 17, 2015, an Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures was filed. Among otherthings, this Order set aMay 1, 2015 deadline for the parties to serve each otherwith initial disclosure, and a May 5, 2015 deadline for the parties to initiate general discovery. On May 14, 2015, the FAAfiled the Agency's Request for Modification ofOrder Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures ("Request"). The FAA assertedthat "theparties have conferred and agreed" to modify the April 17, 2015 Order as described in the Request. Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. §§ 13.205(a)(6), (8), and afterreviewing all relevant caselaw, regulations, statutory authority, and being fully advised; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. TheAgency's Request for Modification ofOrder Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures is granted. The new deadline for Initial Disclosures is May 15, 2015. The new deadline to initiate general discovery is May 15, 2015. 2. All other dates containedinthe April 17, 2015 Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures, not explicitly altered by this Order, are reconfirmed.

Attachment: Service ListSERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing DocketClerk, AGC-430 Wilbur WrightBuilding-Suite2W1000 1

Mr. Zachary M. Berman 

### Complainant's Counsel ONE COPY

Office ofRegional Counsel, Eastern Region Federal Aviation Administration 1Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 TEL: 718-553-3258 FAX: 718-995-5699 Mr. Edward J. Longosz II 

### Respondent's Counsel Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC 1717 PennsylvaniaAvenue, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20006 TEL: 202-659-6619 FAX: 202-659-6699 Judge J.E. Sullivan U.S. 

### Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2014-0812 (Civil Penalty Action)

1Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
§ 1509.225 What actions must I take concerning employees who are convicted of drug violations in the workplace? There are two actions you must take if an employee is convicted of a drug violation in the workplace: ( a ) First, you must notify Federal agencies if an employee who is engaged in the performance of an award informs you about a conviction, as required by § 1509.205(c)(2), or you otherwise learn of the conviction. Your notification to the Federal agencies must— ( 1 ) Be in writing;
( 2 ) Include the employee's position title;
( 3 ) Include the identification number(s) of each affected award;
( 4 ) Be sent within ten calendar days after you learn of the conviction; and
( 5 ) Be sent to every Federal agency on whose award the convicted employee was working. It must be sent to every awarding official or his or her official designee, unless the Federal agency has specified a central point for the receipt of the notices.
( b ) Second, within 30 calendar days of learning about an employee's conviction, you must either— ( 1 ) Take appropriate personnel action against the employee, up to and including termination, consistent with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), as amended; or
( 2 ) Require the employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for these purposes by a Federal, State or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FALASHA ALI, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS; JOSEPH 

CHRONISTER, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-15193 

D.C. No. 2:15-cv-02171-KJD-GWF 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2020**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. 

Former pretrial detainee Falasha Ali appeals pro se from the district court’s 

judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations 

arising from Ali’s pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

We review de novo. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 15 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-15193 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); Lukovsky v. City & County of San Francisco, 535 

F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal based on the statute of limitations). We 

affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Ali’s action as untimely because Ali

filed this action more than two years after his claims accrued. See RosalesMartinez v. Palmer, 753 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining that forum 

state’s personal injury statute of limitations applies to § 1983 claims and Nevada’s 

relevant statute of limitations is two years). Furthermore, Ali failed to establish 

that his previous action was a basis for equitable tolling. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ali’s third motion 

for an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss 

because Ali failed to demonstrate good cause. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, 

Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258-60 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and 

discussing good cause requirement for extensions of time).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ali’s motion under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) because Ali failed to demonstrate any basis 

for relief from the judgment. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. 

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of 

review and grounds for relief under Rule 59(e)). 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 
3 18-15193 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not 

consider documents not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 

921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.
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

UNOPPOSED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER Case No: 3:09-cv-00602-SI 

Chad S. Campbell, CA Bar No. 258723

CSCampbell@perkinscoie.com 

Timothy J. Franks, CA Bar No. 197645 

TFranks@perkinscoie.com

PERKINS COIE LLP

2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788 

Telephone: 602.351.8000 

Facsimile: 602.648.7000 

Nancy Cheng (CA Bar No. 280682) 

NCheng@perkinscoie.com

PERKINS COIE LLP 

3150 Porter Drive 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212 

Telephone: 650.838.4300 

Facsimile: 650.838.4350 

Attorneys for Intel Corporation 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NORTHPEAK WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff, 

v.

3COM CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:09-cv-00602 SI 

UNOPPOSED REQUEST AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR PERMISSION 

TO USE EQUIPMENT DURING CLAIMS 

CONSTRUCTION HEARING 

Judge: The Honorable Susan Illston 

Courtroom 10, 19th Floor

Intel Corporation respectfully requests the Court’s permission for Defendants to use the 

following presentation equipment during the claims construction hearing for the above-captioned 

action, which is scheduled to take place on Wednesday, August 26, 2015 at 10:00 a.m: (1) laptop 

computers; (2) display projector; (3) projector screen; (4) A/V cart, stand and table; (5) cabling 

and related accessories; and (6) document camera (ELMO). The equipment will also be available 

for use by all parties. Plaintiff NorthPeak Wireless, LLC has indicated that it does not oppose this 

request.

Case 3:09-cv-00602-SI Document 585 Filed 08/24/15 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

UNOPPOSED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER -2- Case No: 3:09-cv-00602-SI 

DATED: August 24, 2015 PERKINS COIE LLP

By: /s/ Chad S. Campbell 

Chad S. Campbell, (#258723) 

Timothy J. Franks, (#197645) 

Aaron H. Matz (pro hac vice)

Tyler R. Bowen, (pro hac vice)

2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000 

Phoenix, AZ 85012-2788 

Telephone: 602.351.8000 

Facsimile: 602.648.7000 

cscampbell@perkinscoie.com 

tfranks@perkinscoie.com

amatz@perkinscoie.com 

tbowen@perkinscoie.com

Nancy Cheng (#280682) 

PERKINS COIE LLP

3150 Porter Drive 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212 

NCheng@perkinscoie.com

Attorneys for Intel Corporation 

ORDER

The following audio/visual equipment may be brought to Courtroom 10 on August 26, 

2015 for the claims construction hearing on that day: (1) laptop computers; (2) display projector; 

(3) projector screen; (4) A/V cart, stand and table; (5) cabling and related accessories; and (6) 

document camera (ELMO). 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated: August ____, 2015. 

 

Honorable Susan Illston 

U.S. District Court Judge 

24

Case 3:09-cv-00602-SI Document 585 Filed 08/24/15 Page 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 10, 2010 

p0910 

Order 

 

September 10, 2010 

140949 

CASS KEEGO PROPERTIES LLC, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140949 

 COA: 295076 

Oakland CC: 2009-101952-NM 

ERIC R. BRYEN and 

STUART J. SNIDER, 

Defendants, 

and 

ARTHUR JAY WEISS and ARTHUR 

JAY WEISS & ASSOCIATES, PC, 

 Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Chief Justice, a stipulation signed by counsel for the parties 

agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered, and the 

application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information quarterly report on Form
10-Q for the fiscal quarter and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,605,851
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      15,786,268
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    765,713
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      13,655,616
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        13,991,577
<LOANS>                                     73,799,301
<ALLOWANCE>                                     97,360
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             106,607,597
<DEPOSITS>                                  76,072,133
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            612,172
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,387
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,902,905
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             106,607,597
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,397,076
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              276,714
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                79,238
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,753,028
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             993,673
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             993,673
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          759,355
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    3,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                527,435
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                275,943
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     275,943
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   197,493
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.11
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                94,360
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               97,360
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            97,360
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 232.893 Cash adjustment.

Any difference of less than $50 between the amount of debentures to be issued to the lender and the total amount of the lender's claim, as approved by the Commissioner, may be adjusted by the issuance of a check in payment thereof.

[59 FR 49816, Sept. 30, 1994]
Editorial Note on Part 200
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 200.87 Mortgage prepayment. ( a ) *Prepayment privilege.* Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section or otherwise established by the Commissioner, the mortgage shall contain a provision permitting the mortgagor to prepay the mortgage in whole or in part upon any interest payment date, after giving the mortgagee 30 days' notice in writing in advance of its intention to so prepay.
( b ) *Prepayment charge.* The mortgage may contain a provision for such charge, in the event of prepayment of principal, as may be agreed upon between the mortgagor and the mortgagee, subject to the following: ( 1 ) The mortgagor shall be permitted to prepay up to 15 percent of the original principal amount of the mortgage in any one calendar year without any such charge.
( 2 ) Any reduction in the original principal amount of the mortgage resulting from the certification of cost which the Commissioner may require shall not be construed as a prepayment of the mortgage.
( c ) *Prepayment of bond-financed or GNMA securitized mortgages.* Where the mortgage is given to secure GNMA mortgage-backed securities or a loan made by a lender that has obtained the funds for the loan by the issuance and sale of bonds or bond anticipation notes, or both, the mortgage may contain a prepayment restriction and prepayment penalty charge acceptable to the Commissioner as to term, amount, and conditions.
( d ) *HUD override of prepayment restrictions.* In the event of a default, the Commissioner may override any lockout, prepayment penalty or combination thereof in order to facilitate a partial or full refinancing of the mortgaged property and avoid a claim.
#### § 203.262 Due date of periodic MIP.

The full initial and each annual MIP shall be due and payable to the Commissioner no later than the 10th day after the amortization anniversary date.

[61 FR 37801, July 19, 1996]
#### § 92.38 Forms of certificate of authentication.

The form of a certificate of authentication depends on the statutory requirements of the jurisdiction where the authenticated document will be used (see § 92.39 regarding the provisions of Federal law). Before authenticating a document for use in a State or Territory of the United States, a consular officer should consult the pertinent law digest to ascertain what specific requirements must be met, or he should be guided by any special information he may receive from the attorney or other person requesting the document with regard to the applicable statutory requirements. (See § 92.41(e) regarding material which should not be in the certificate of authentication.) If no provisions relating to authentications can be found in a particular State or Territorial law digest, and in the absence of any special information from the attorney or other person requesting the document, the officer should prepare the certificate of authentication in the form which seems best suited to the needs of the case. When in his opinion the circumstances seem to warrant, and always in connection with certificates of marriage or divorce decrees, a consular officer should include in the body of his certificate of authentication a qualifying statement reading as follows: “For the contents of the annexed document I assume no responsibility.”
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 200.37 Preventing crime in federally assisted housing.

See part 5, subparts I and J of this title, for provisions concerning preventing crime in federally assisted housing, including programs administered under section 236 and under sections 221(d)(3) and 221(d)(5) of the National Housing Act.

[66 FR 28797, May 24, 2001]