alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §7478. Period before plan approval

#### (a) Existing regulations to remain in effect

Until such time as an applicable implementation plan is in effect for any area, which plan meets the requirements of this part to prevent significant deterioration of air quality with respect to any air pollutant, applicable regulations under this chapter prior to August 7, 1977, shall remain in effect to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in any such area for any such pollutant except as otherwise provided in subsection (b).

#### (b) Regulations deemed amended; construction commenced after June 1, 1975

If any regulation in effect prior to August 7, 1977, to prevent significant deterioration of air quality would be inconsistent with the requirements of section 7472(a), section 7473(b) or section 7474(a) of this title, then such regulations shall be deemed amended so as to conform with such requirements. In the case of a facility on which construction was commenced (in accordance with the definition of "commenced" in section 7479(2) of this title) after June 1, 1975, and prior to August 7, 1977, the review and permitting of such facility shall be in accordance with the regulations for the prevention of significant deterioration in effect prior to August 7, 1977.

(July 14, 1955, ch. 360, title I, §168, as added Pub. L. 95–95, title I, §127(a), Aug. 7, 1977, 91 Stat. 740; amended Pub. L. 95–190, §14(a)(52), Nov. 16, 1977, 91 Stat. 1402.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1977—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 95–190 substituted "(in accordance with the definition of 'commenced' in section 7479(2) of this title)" for "in accordance with this definition".
#### In the Matter of Delareese Moore, Respondent, v. James Small, Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to section 122 of the Domestic Relations Law, to establish paternity, the defendant appeals from two orders of the Children’s Court of Nassau County, made October 21, 1960, after a nonjury trial: (1) an order adjudging that he is the father of the child, and (2) an order directing him to pay $10 a Aveek for the support of the child and the sum of $100 for the childbirth expenses. Orders affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
§ 51.65 Notification of denial, revocation or cancellation of passports and Consular Reports of Birth Abroad. ( a ) The Department will send notice in writing to any person whose application for issuance of a passport or Consular Report of Birth Abroad has been denied, whose passport has been revoked, or whose Consular Report of Birth Abroad has been cancelled. The notification will set forth the specific reasons for the denial, revocation or cancellation and, if applicable, the procedures for review available under 22 CFR 51.70 through 51.74.
( b ) An application for a passport or Consular Report of Birth Abroad will be denied if an applicant fails to meet his or her burden of proof under the applicable regulations or otherwise does not provide documentation sufficient to establish entitlement to a passport or a Consular Report of Birth Abroad, or does not provide additional information as requested by the Department within the time provided in the notification by the Department that additional information is required. Thereafter, if an applicant wishes the Department to adjudicate his or her claim of entitlement to a passport or Consular Report of Birth Abroad, he or she must submit a new application, supporting documents, and photograph, along with all applicable fees.
( c ) The Department may, in its sole discretion, administratively re-open a previously filed passport or Consular Report of Birth Abroad application in order to issue a passport or Consular Report of Birth Abroad.
[83 FR 21874, May 11, 2018]
#### Henry Kunz, appellee, v. Boston Store of Chicago, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,070.

Action on the case for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Adam C. Cliffe, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed June 25, 1923.

*Certiorari*denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).

Moses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, 'for appellant; Hamilton Moses, of counsel. Corinne L. Rice and O. H. Ranes, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William Robinson, Appellant.

Motion granted to extent that appeal may be prosecuted on original papers, five typewritten copies of brief, Bernard Sax, Esq., assigned as counsel, and time for argument of appeal enlarged to include November 1960 Term, and otherwise motion denied.
### §14712. Repealed or Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 105–303, title I, §104, Oct. 28, 1998, 112 Stat. 2852, which related to promotion of United States Global Positioning System standards, was repealed in part and transferred in part. Subsec. (b) was repealed and reenacted as section 50112 of Title 51, National and Commercial Space Programs, by Pub. L. 111–314, §§3, 6, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3328, 3444, which Act enacted Title 51. Subsec. (a) was transferred and is set out as a note under section 50112 of Title 51.
Case 3:09-cv-01484-SI Document 112 Filed 06/07/10 Page 1 of 6
Case 3:09-cv-01484-SI Document 112 Filed 06/07/10 Page 2 of 6
Case 3:09-cv-01484-SI Document 112 Filed 06/07/10 Page 3 of 6
Case 3:09-cv-01484-SI Document 112 Filed 06/07/10 Page 4 of 6
Case 3:09-cv-01484-SI Document 112 Filed 06/07/10 Page 5 of 6
6/4/10

7/1/10

6/18/10

7/2/10

7/9/10

7/23/10

8/24/10

Case 3:09-cv-01484-SI Document 112 Filed 06/07/10 Page 6 of 6
#### § 103.15 Can I file a claim if the discrimination has not yet occurred?

Yes, you may file a claim with HUD if you have knowledge that a discriminatory action is about to occur.

[64 FR 18540, Apr. 14, 1999]
### §§7383f to 7383h–1. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 7383f, Pub. L. 106–65, div. C, title XXXI, §3152, Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 940, which related to the submission of annual reports on counterintelligence and security practices at national laboratories, was renumbered section 4507 of Pub. L. 107–314, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(h)(8)(A)–(C), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1773, and was classified to section 2658 of Title 50, War and National Defense, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 113–66, div. C, title XXXI, §3132(a)(1), Dec. 26, 2013, 127 Stat. 1068.

Section 7383g, Pub. L. 106–65, div. C, title XXXI, §3153, Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 940, which related to the submission of annual reports on security vulnerabilities of national laboratory computers, was renumbered section 4508 of Pub. L. 107–314, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(h)(9)(A)–(C), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1774, and was classified to section 2659 of Title 50, War and National Defense, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 114–113, div. M, title VII, §701(f), Dec. 18, 2015, 129 Stat. 2930.

Section 7383h, Pub. L. 106–65, div. C, title XXXI, §3154, Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 941; Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [div. C, title XXXI, §3135], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–456, which related to a counterintelligence polygraph program for defense-related activities of the Department of Energy, was renumbered section 4504A of Pub. L. 107–314, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(h)(5)(B)(i)–(iii), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1773, and is classified to section 2655 of Title 50, War and National Defense.

Section 7383h–1, Pub. L. 107–107, div. C, title XXXI, §3152, Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1376, which related to a new counterintelligence polygraph program for the Department of Energy, was renumbered section 4504 of Pub. L. 107–314, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(h)(5)(A)(i)–(iii), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1772, and is classified to section 2654 of Title 50, War and National Defense.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2914 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Triasulfuron Technical. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 15, 2005 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Triasulfuron Technical. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TRIASULFURON TECHNICAL. 

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: 

‘‘ 9902.07.41 Triasulfuron Technical 3-(6- 

methoxy-4-methyl-1,3,5- 

triazin-2-yl)–1-[2-(2- 

chloroethoxy)phenylsulfonyl]- 

urea (CAS No. 82097–50–5) 

(provided for in subheading 

2935.00.75) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2 

•HR 2914 IH 

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

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

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
### §8482. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–66, title I, §1051(e), Dec. 21, 1995, 109 Stat. 716

Section, Pub. L. 95–620, title VIII, §806, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3348, directed Secretary of Energy to submit annual report to Congress on actions already taken and actions to be taken under this chapter and under section 792 of title 15.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JJW, L.L.C.,

 Appellant,

v.

ANTONIO AGUIRRE,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00051-CV

Appeal from

205th District Court

of Culberson County, Texas

(TC # 5291)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court are motions by both Appellant and Appellee requesting that we 

dismiss the appeal because the trial court has granted a motion for new trial. We grant the 

motions and dismiss the appeal as moot.

It is well established that a court is prohibited from deciding moot controversies. 

National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999). A case is moot 

if a justiciable controversy ceases to exist at any stage of the legal proceedings, including the 

appeal. In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005). The trial court’s 

order granting the motion for new trial has rendered this appeal moot. Consequently, we grant 

the motions and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The District Clerk’s request for an 

extension of time to file the record is denied as moot.

July 6, 2016

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          41,657
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                20,400
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  3,737,609
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      3,797,212
<ALLOWANCE>                                     40,192
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,761,541
<DEPOSITS>                                   4,101,835
<SHORT-TERM>                                   936,673
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            221,026
<LONG-TERM>                                  1,793,959
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              792
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     707,256
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               7,761,541
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                202,928
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              186,832
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,366
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               391,126
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             131,224
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             233,756
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          157,370
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               3,441
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                152,317
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,595
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     (2,597)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (4,236)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,833)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.95
<LOANS-NON>                                     16,100
<LOANS-PAST>                                     4,258
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 14,955
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                40,207
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      110
<RECOVERIES>                                        95
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               40,192
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         40,192


</TABLE>
Case 3:09-cv-01592-EMC Document 22 Filed 04/08/10 Page 1 of 2
4/8/2010

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:09-cv-01592-EMC Document 22 Filed 04/08/10 Page 2 of 2
#### § 201.52 Acquisition by voluntary conveyance or surrender.

The lender may accept a voluntary conveyance of title to or ownership of the property securing a manufactured home loan which is in default, provided that (a) the lender accepts the conveyance in full satisfaction of the borrower's obligation, and (b) no claim is submitted under its contract of insurance. The lender may accept voluntary surrender of the property without satisfaction of the borrower's obligation, provided that if the lender intends thereafter to submit a claim under its contract of insurance, the lender shall acquire title to or ownership of the property and then dispose of and sell the property in compliance with State and local law, so as to assure that it can assign a valid and enforceable obligation, including any deficiency against the borrower, to the Secretary when submitting its claim. If the lender accepts a voluntary conveyance of title or a voluntary surrender of the property, the notice of default and acceleration under § 201.50(b) shall not be required.

[50 FR 43523, Oct. 25, 1985, as amended at 61 FR 19799, May 2, 1996]
#### § 206.116 Refunds.

No amount of the initial MIP shall be refundable except as authorized by the Commissioner.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6483

CHARLES RICHARD RILEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

A. D. MATHEWS, SR., Sheriff; EARL MULLINS,

Internal Affairs; NANCY JUSTICE, Classification; TROY FISHER, Deputy Sheriff; W. LASSITER, Classification; ELLEN HOLT, Lieutenant;

DEPUTY SHERIFF JESSIE; DEPUTY SHERIFF TABB; B.

MALLORY, Deputy Sheriff; DEPUTY SHERIFF COLEY;

RONALD REDFORD, Deputy Sheriff; DEPUTY SHERIFF

HURT; UNKNOWN DEPUTIES, Deputy Sheriff; UNKNOWN MEDICAL PERSONNEL, Jail Medical; UNKNOWN

CLASSIFICATION PERSONNEL, Classification,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Barry R. Poretz, Magistrate

Judge. (CA-98-94-AM)

Submitted: October 29, 1999 Decided: December 20, 1999

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate

judge over this civil action. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994).

2

Charles Richard Riley, Appellant Pro Se. William Kerfoot Lewis,

BEALE, BALFOUR, DAVIDSON, ETHERINGTON & PARKER, Richmond, Virginia,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Charles Richard Riley appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint

after a trial.* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate

judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Riley v.

Mathews, No. CA-98-94-AM (E.D. Va. Mar. 26, 1999). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTATE OF MICHAEL HEISER et al,

Plaintiffs,

v

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, et al,

Defendant.                                /

No Misc 08-80169 VRW

ORDER

Plaintiffs seek a writ of attachment against Shia

Association of Bay Area, Inc (“Shia Association”), as garnishee for

The Alavi Foundation, alleged to be an agency or instrumentality of

the defendants.  Doc #2-4 at 5.  Plaintiffs allege “[u]pon

information and belief” that the Shia Association is indebted to

The Alavi Foundation.  Doc #2 ¶9.

Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to inform the court in writing

not later than April 27, 2010 the basis for their belief that the

Shia Association is an appropriate subject for a writ of

attachment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

VAUGHN R WALKERUnited States District Chief Judge

Case 3:08-mc-80169-VRW   Document 3   Filed 04/12/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-08T21:52:18-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE BUENROSTRO, SR.

Plaintiff(s),

v.

CITY OF OAKLAND

Defendant(s).

_____________________________________/

No. C 09-00786 JSW (MEJ)

NOTICE OF REFERENCE FOR

PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY

 TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:

The above-captioned case was referred to Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James for purposes

of discovery. Please be advised that if a specific motion was filed before the district court prior to

this referral, the noticed date will no longer be in effect. Rather, the parties shall comply with Judge

James’ Standing Order Regarding Discovery and Dispute Procedures, a copy of which may be

obtained from the Northern District of California's website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/From

the homepage, click on the "Judges" tab on the left margin, then choose Magistrate Judge James. 

Counsel are advised that in regard to any pending discovery disputes, they must comply with

Judge James’ standing order and meet and confer in person. If the parties are unable to resolve their

dispute after the meet and confer session, they shall file a joint meet and confer letter. A separate

letter should be filed for each category of discovery and/or issue in dispute. Upon careful review of

the parties’ letter, the Court will either order further briefing, oral argument, or deem the matter

submitted on the papers. Accordingly, any pending discovery motions are hereby DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the filing of a joint letter.

Further, when filing papers that require the Court to take any action (e.g. motions, meet and

confer letters, administrative requests), the parties shall, in addition to filing papers electronically,

lodge with chambers a printed copy of the papers by noon of the next court day following the day

Case 3:09-cv-00786-JSW Document 45 Filed 03/11/10 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

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

the papers are filed electronically. These printed copies shall be marked “Chambers Copy” and shall

be submitted to the Clerk’s Office, in an envelope clearly marked with Judge James’ name, case

number and “E-Filing Chambers Copy.” Parties shall not file a paper copy of any document with

the Clerk’s Office that has already been filed electronically. 

Please contact the Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Brenda Tolbert, at (415) 522-4708 with any

questions.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: March 11, 2010 _______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:09-cv-00786-JSW Document 45 Filed 03/11/10 Page 2 of 2
### §9803. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–285, title II, §202(b)(1), Oct. 27, 1998, 112 Stat. 2755

Section, Pub. L. 97–35, title VI, §614, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 489; Pub. L. 99–425, title IV, §405(c)(3), Sept. 30, 1986, 100 Stat. 970, related to source of funds for carrying out this subchapter.
Case 3:08-cv-01797-CRB Document 10 Filed 03/03/10 Page 1 of 2Case 3:08-cv-01797-CRB Document 10 Filed 03/03/10 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C SECTION 1350)





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Roomlinx, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Michael S. Wasik, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to my knowledge:





1.           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated..








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.





This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.





Date:
August 2, 2010By:
/s/ Michael S. WasikMichael S. WasikChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer