alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 234.3 Definitions.

The terms *Act, Beginning of amortization, Commissioner, FHA, Insured Mortgage, Mortgage, Mortgagee, Mortgagor,* and *State,* as used in this part, are defined in § 203.251 of this chapter. The following terms, as used in this part, are defined as follows:

*Bona fide tenants' organization* means an association of tenants formed by the tenants to promote their interests in a particular project, with membership in the association open to each tenant, and all requirements of the association applying equally to every tenant.

*Common areas and facilities* means those areas of the project and of the property upon which it is located that are for the use and enjoyment of the owners of family units located in the project. The areas may include the land, roofs, main walls, elevators, staircases, lobbies, halls, parking space and community and commercial facilities.

*Conversion* means the date on which all documents necessary to create a condominium under state law (and under local law, where applicable) have been recorded, except that in the case of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, *conversion* is defined as the date on which the legal documents (which must be in compliance with applicable law) to create a condominium are presented for inscription (*i.e.,* recordation) to the Commonwealth Office of the Property Registry.

*Family unit* means a one-family unit including the undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, and such restricted common areas and facilities as may be designated.

*Project* means a structure or structures containing four or more family units.

*Project mortgage* means a mortgage which is or has been insured under any of the FHA multifamily housing programs, other than sections 213(a)(1) and 213(a)(2) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1715e).

*Restricted common areas and facilities* means those areas and facilities restricted to a particular family unit or number of family units.

*Tenant* means the occupant(s) named in the lease or rental agreement of a housing unit in a project as of the date the condominium conversion documents are properly filed for the project, or as of the date on which the occupants are notified by management of intent to convert the project to a condominium, whichever is earlier.

[61 FR 60161, Nov. 26, 1996, as amended at 68 FR 6597, Feb. 7, 2003]
Case3:09-cv-01703-BZ Document67 Filed07/21/10 Page1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Bernard Zimmerman

DATED: 7/21/2010

Case 3:09-cv-01703-BZ Document 68 Filed 07/21/10 Page 1 of 1
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

CARLOS VILLALTA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

    v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SANFRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendant.                                                                      /

No. C 08-4958 CRB

JUDGMENT

The Court, having granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, enters

judgment in favor of Defendant against Plaintiffs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31 , 2010                                                            CHARLES  R. BREYERUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-04958-CRB   Document 62   Filed 04/01/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-13T01:39:36-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2871 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2871

To designate the John L. Burton Trail in the Headwaters Forest Reserve, 
                              California.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 13, 2005

 Mr. George Miller of California (for himself, Mr. Baca, Mr. Becerra, 
     Mr. Berman, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Costa, Mrs. Davis of 
California, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Farr, Mr. Filner, Ms. Harman, Mr. Honda, Mr. 
Lantos, Ms. Lee, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Ms. Millender-McDonald, 
Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. Pelosi, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of 
California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Sherman, 
 Ms. Solis, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Thompson of California, Ms. 
    Watson, Ms. Waters, Mr. Waxman, and Ms. Woolsey) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the John L. Burton Trail in the Headwaters Forest Reserve, 
                              California.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF JOHN L. BURTON TRAIL.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``John L. Burton 
Trail Act''.
    (b) Designation of John L. Burton Trail.--Any trail authorized by 
the final management plan under section 501(i) of Public Law 105-33 
(111 Stat. 1613) for Headwaters Forest Reserve, California, that is 
constructed to provide access to the southern end of the Headwaters 
Grove near the existing Salmon Trailhead shall be known as the ``John 
L. Burton Trail''.
                                 <all>
```
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136538 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136538 

 COA: 276997 

Oakland CC: 2006-210821-FC 

SAM REYNOLD MCCARTY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 3, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0828 

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. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
1. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Southwest Technology Innovations, LLC v. Symantec Corporation, Case No. C09-CV-01063-MMC

[Proposed] Order Granting Extension To Non-Expert Discovery Deadline 

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

GARY S. FERGUS (CA Bar No. 095318) 

FERGUS, A LAW OFFICE 

595 Market Street, Suite 2430 

San Francisco, California 94115 

Telephone: (415) 537-9032 

Facsimile: (415) 537-9038 

gfergus@ferguslegal.com

KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI (pro hac vice) 

TAHITI ARSULOWICZ (pro hac vice) 

NIRO, HALLER & NIRO 

181 W. Madison St., Suite 4600 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Telephone: (312) 236-0733 

Facsimile: (312) 236-3137 

szpondowski@nshn.com

arsulowicz@nshn.com

Counsel for Plaintiff, Southwest Technology Innovations, LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

SOUTHWEST TECHNOLOGY 

INNOVATIONS, LLC, 

 Plaintiff, 

v.

SYMANTEC CORPORATION, 

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:09-CV-01063-MMC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

EXTENSION FOR NON-EXPERT 

DISCOVERY DEADLINE 

Case 3:09-cv-01063-MMC Document 121 Filed 07/28/10 Page 1 of 2
2. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Southwest Technology Innovations, LLC v. Symantec Corporation, Case No. C09-CV-01063-MMC

[Proposed] Order Granting Extension To Non-Expert Discovery Deadline 

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

Southwest Technology Innovations, LLC (“SWTI”) and Symantec Corporation, 

(“Symantec”) through their respective counsel, have stipulated and agreed to extend the deadline 

set forth in the Court’s Pretrial Preparation Order, (Dkt. No. 109) setting non-expert discovery 

cutoff for July 26, 2010 to August 5, 2010.

The parties represent that this stipulation is made in good faith to accommodate witness 

schedules. The parties also believe that the requested extension will not affect any of the other 

dates which this Court has entered in the Scheduling Order (Dkt. 108) and Pretrial Preparation 

Order, (Dkt. No. 109). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT non-expert discovery shall be extended to August 5, 

2010.

___________________________________

Honorable Maxine M. Chesney 

United States District Judge

Date: July 28, 2010

Case 3:09-cv-01063-MMC Document 121 Filed 07/28/10 Page 2 of 2
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROZA STEPANYAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-71627

Agency No. A095-582-751

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 9, 2012** 

Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Roza Stepanyan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying her claim for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

OCT 15 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-71627

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings and review de novo the agency’s legal determinations. 

Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for

review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the harms Stepanyan

and her family suffered in Armenia did not rise to the level of persecution on

account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-84

(1992); see Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir. 2003) (harassment,

discrimination, and economic deprivation do not necessarily constitute

persecution). Further, the BIA’s decision belies Stepanyan’s contention that it only

considered the 2004 incident in finding she did not suffer past persecution. 

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s decision that Stepanyan does not

have an objectively reasonable well-founded fear of future persecution. See

Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018 (possibility of future persecution is too speculative).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Stepanyan did not establish it is more likely than not she will be tortured if

returned to Armenia. See Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047, 1053-54 (9th Cir. 2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 32.2

                   Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350

     In connection with the filing with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission of Emergent Group Inc.'s (the "Company") Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify that (i) in our capacities as officers of the Company,
(ii) to each of our own respective actual knowledge, and (iii) solely for the
purpose of compliance with 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, that:

     (1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of ss.13(a) or 15(d)
          of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

     The above certification is given as of the date of the Report and is
limited to the periods covered by the Report. The above certification is made
severally and not jointly.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate on
November 13, 2003.



                                                        By:   /s/ Bruce J. Haber
                                                              ------------------
                                                                 Bruce J. Haber,
                                                              Chairman and Chief
                                                               Executive Officer
### §§5041, 5042. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–82, title II, §203(b), Sept. 21, 1993, 107 Stat. 892

Section 5041, Pub. L. 93–113, title IV, §401, Oct. 1, 1973, 87 Stat. 405; Pub. L. 96–533, title VI, §602(a), Dec. 16, 1980, 94 Stat. 3155; Pub. L. 98–288, §17, May 21, 1984, 98 Stat. 194; Pub. L. 99–551, §10(e), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3078; Pub. L. 101–204, title VII, §704, Dec. 7, 1989, 103 Stat. 1821; Pub. L. 103–82, title II, §202(b), title III, §361, Sept. 21, 1993, 107 Stat. 887, 907, related to establishment of ACTION Agency and appointment, compensation, and functions of Director and other officials. See section 12651 of this title and notes thereunder.

Section 5042, Pub. L. 93–113, title IV, §402, Oct. 1, 1973, 87 Stat. 406; Pub. L. 94–293, §4(b), May 27, 1976, 90 Stat. 526; Pub. L. 97–214, §10(b)(2), July 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 175; Pub. L. 98–288, §§4(c)(2), 18(a), May 21, 1984, 98 Stat. 190, 194; Pub. L. 99–551, §10(f), (i)(5), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3078; Pub. L. 103–82, title III, §362, Sept. 21, 1993, 107 Stat. 907, related to authority of Director of ACTION Agency. See section 12651 of this title and notes thereunder.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal by Pub. L. 103–82 effective Apr. 4, 1994, see section 203(d) of Pub. L. 103–82, set out as an Effective Date of 1993 Amendment note under section 12651 of this title.
### **CHAPTER 46—GEOSPATIAL DATA**

Sec.
2801.
Definitions.
2802.
Federal Geographic Data Committee.
2803.
National Geospatial Advisory Committee.
2804.
National spatial data infrastructure.
2805.
National Geospatial Data Asset data themes.
2806.
Geospatial data standards.
2807.
Geoplatform.
2808.
Covered agency responsibilities.
2809.
Limitation on use of Federal funds.
2810.
Savings provision.
2811.
Private sector.
### SUBCHAPTER VI—FINAL PROOF GENERALLY
#### § 207.256a Reinstatement of defaulted mortgage.

If, after default and prior to the completion of foreclosure proceedings, the mortgagor cures the default, the insurance shall continue on the mortgage as if a default had not occurred, provided the mortgagee gives notice of reinstatement to the Commissioner, in the manner prescribed in 24 CFR part 200, subpart B.

[76 FR 24370, May 2, 2011]
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                        SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
              ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350,
                   CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

                  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code), I, John W. Elias, Chief Executive Officer of Edge Petroleum Corporation,
a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

         (1)      the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
                  period ending June 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with
                  the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.

Dated: August 14, 2003                           /s/ John W. Elias
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Name: John W. Elias
                                                       Chief Executive Officer
#### Amy West, Respondent, v Joseph West, Appellant.

In a matrimonial action in which the plaintiff had previously been granted a judgment of *842divorce, defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated October 15, 1976, which, *inter alia,*denied his cross motion to terminate alimony payments and (2) the judgment of the same court, entered thereon on November 30, 1976. Appeal from the order dismissed, without costs or disbursements (see *Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. On the record before this court, the defendant did not meet his burden of proving that plaintiff’s relationship with another met the standard by which the court could modify the judgment by annulling the alimony provisions thereof (see Domestic Relations Law, § 248; *Northrup v Northrup,*43 NY2d 566). Suozzi, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and Hawkins, JJ., concur.
#### Leonard A. Pringleton, as Administrator of the Estate of Ida H. Pringleton, Deceased, Respondent, v. Bronx Hospital et al., Defendants, and Howard Weinstein, Appellant.

Order entered on October 30, 1959, denying motion for a further bill of particulars and to strike certain items in the bill of particulars furnished, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion to strike the reservations contained in items 6, 7 and 13(b) granted, with $10 costs. The motion for a further bill is granted as to items 7(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (h), (i), (j), (I), as modified by striking therefrom the words “the basis upon which such claim is made; and an identification of the servants, agents and employees of the defendant Bronx Hospital over whom *590it is claimed that the defendant Weinstein was charged with supervision, direction and control”; items (p), (q), (r), (s), (u), (x), (z), (aa), (bb), (ee), (ff), (hh), and is otherwise denied. Such bill is to be served within 20 days after service of a copy of the order herein with notice of entry thereof. If respondent is unable to furnish any of the information required he may state his lack of knowledge by affidavit under oath in lieu thereof. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Noonan, JJ.
(45 Misc. Rep. 515.)

#### DE LA FLEUR v. BARNEY et al.

(Supreme Court, Special Term, Oneida County.

December 17, 1904.)

1. Receivers—Actions—Security fob Costs.

A receiver will not be compelled to file security for costs merely on the ground of insolvency; it being necessary, also, to show that the action was brought in bad faith, or that plaintiff will probably not succeed.

[Ed. Note.—For case’s in point, see vol. 13, Cent Dig. Costs, §§ 458, 459.]

2. Same—Leave to Sue.

Where a receiver has not obtained leave to sue, an order granting leave may be entered nunc pro tunc.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 42, Cent Dig. Receivers, §§ 327-336.]

Action by Frederick J. De La Fleur against Francis E. Barney and others. Motion by defendants to compel plaintiff, as receiver, to file security for costs. Denied.

P. H. Fitzgerald, for the motion.

Charles S. Kent, opposed.

WRIGHT, J.

The motion must be denied. The plaintiff, as receiver, will not be compelled to file security for costs merely on the ground of insolvency, or that he has no funds in his hands. It is necessary, in addition to the fact of insolvency, to show that the action was brought in bad faith or heedlessly, or that the plaintiff will probably not succeed. Hale v. Mason, 86 Hun, 499, 33 N. Y. Supp. 789; Ridgway v. Symons, 14 Misc. Rep. 78, 35 N. Y. Supp. 197; Supreme Court Rule 77. The plaintiff not having obtained leave of the court to bring this action, he may enter an order nunc pro tunc granting him leave to bring it. Hirshfeld v. Kalischer, 81 Hun, 606, 30 N. Y. Supp. 1027. No costs allowed.

Motion denied. No costs.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 6, 2021

No. 04-20-00573-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.L.U., D.L.U., A.L.U., CHILDREN

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-PA-00819

Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Appellant, JLW's Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. 

The appellant, JLW's brief is due on or before January 25, 2021.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 6th day of January, 2021.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Douglas MacLeod, certify that:

 

1.                 Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this reporton Form 10-K of CNH Equipment Trust 2019-C (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.                 Basedon my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.                 Basedon my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the periodcovered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.                Iam responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted inpreparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the ExchangeAct periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.                Allof the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports onassessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance withItem 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I havereasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. 

 

 

 

March 30, 2022