alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|GMAC
      Commercial Mortgage
      
      Annual Statement as to Compliance
      For the Year Ended December 31, 2004
      
      GMAC Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc
      Series 2003-C3
      Pursuant to Section 3.13 of the Pooling
      and Servicing Agreement governing the referenced transaction, I hereby
      attest that: i.
      A review of the activities of GMAC Commercial
      Mortgage Corporation as Master Servicer during the period, and of its
      performance under this Pooling and Servicing Agreement, has been made
      under my supervision.
      ii.
      To the best of my knowledge, based on such review,
      GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation as Master Servicer, has fulfilled
      in all material respects its obligations under this Pooling and
      Servicing Agreement throughout the period.
      GMAC COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION
      /s/ Brian T. Stauffer By: Brian T. Stauffer Title: Vice
      President Date: February 20, 2005 .905A
      200 Witmer Road - P.O. Box 1015 - Horsham, PA
      19044-8015
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
§ 1000.326 What if a formula area is served by more than one Indian tribe? ( a ) If an Indian tribe's formula area overlaps with the formula area of one or more other Indian tribes, the funds allocated to that Indian tribe for the geographic area in which the formula areas overlap will be divided based on: ( 1 ) The Indian tribe's proportional share of the population in the overlapping geographic area; and
( 2 ) The Indian tribe's commitment to serve that proportional share of the population in such geographic area.
( 3 ) In cases where a State recognized tribe's formula area overlaps with the formula area of a Federally recognized Indian tribe, the Federally recognized Indian tribe receives the allocation for the formula area up to its population cap, and the State recognized tribe receives the balance of the overlapping area (if any) up to its population cap.
( b ) Tribal membership in the geographic area (not to include dually enrolled tribal members) will be based on data that all Indian tribes involved agree to use. Suggested data sources include tribal enrollment lists, the U.S. Census, Indian Health Service User Data, and Bureau of Indian Affairs data.
( c ) Upon receiving a request for expansion or redefinition of a tribe's formula area, if approving the request would create an overlap, HUD shall follow the notice and comment procedures set forth in paragraph (2)(ii) of the definition of “Formula area” in § 1000.302.
( d ) If the Indian tribes involved cannot agree on what data source to use, HUD will make the decision on what data will be used to divide the funds between the Indian tribes by August 1.
[63 FR 12349, Mar. 12, 1998, as amended at 72 FR 20025, Apr. 20, 2007; 81 FR 83681, Nov. 22, 2016]
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2947

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to authorize 

the use of funds for the inclusion in domestic violence education programs 

of information on legal rights available to teenage victims of dating 

violence. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 16, 2005

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965 to authorize the use of funds for the inclusion 

in domestic violence education programs of information 

on legal rights available to teenage victims of dating 

violence.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Teen Dating Violence 

5 Education Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds as follows: 
2

•HR 2947 IH 

1 (1) Girls and women between the ages of 16 

2 and 24 are the most vulnerable to domestic violence, 

3 experiencing the highest per capita rates of non-fatal 

4 intimate partner violence. 

5 (2) One third of teens report experiencing some 

6 kind of abuse in their romantic relationships, includ7 ing verbal and emotional abuse. 

8 (3) Approximately 1 in 5 adolescent girls report 

9 being physically or sexually hurt by a dating part10 ner. 

11 (4) Forty percent of teenage girls ages 14 to 17 

12 report knowing someone their age who has been hit 

13 or beaten by a boyfriend. 

14 (5) Twenty-six percent of girls in grades 9 to 

15 12 have been the victim of physical abuse, sexual 

16 abuse, or date rape. 

17 (6) Teenagers who are the victims of dating vio18 lence often do not know the legal actions they can 

19 take to put an end to the violence they are experi20 encing. These teenagers often do not inquire into 

21 legal actions they can take because of the perceived 

22 stigma of dating violence. 
3

•HR 2947 IH 

1 SEC. 3. INCLUSION IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EDUCATION 

2 PROGRAMS OF INFORMATION ON LEGAL 

3 RIGHTS AVAILABLE TO TEENAGE VICTIMS OF 

4 DATING VIOLENCE. 

5 Paragraph (2) of section 5571(c) of the Elementary 

6 and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

7 7275(c)) is amended—

8 (1) by striking ‘‘and are designed’’ and insert9 ing ‘‘, are designed’’; and 

10 (2) by inserting ‘‘, and include information spe11 cific to the State involved regarding the legal rights 

12 available to teenage victims of dating violence’’ be13 fore the period.

Æ
NO.

IN THE

TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS .

CALVIN LOUISE RUSHING

VS.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

FROM APPEAL NO. 12-14-00112-CR

TRIAL CAUSE NO. 2012-0431

ANGELIA COUNTY

EOELVED

COURT OF CRMIWAl APPEALS

APR 17 2015

,\t—j t\ ^-^^.a^ (T^Q

>;^M\3i rMUvw<j>B.<ui, ^il

FILED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

APR 17 20^5

Abel Acosta, Clerk

APPELLANT'S MOTION REQUESTING SUSPENSION

OF TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE,

RULE 9.3[b]

TO THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

Comes now, Calvin Louise Rushing, hereafter styled as the,

Appellant, who in accordance with Texas Rules Of Appellate Pro

cedure, Rule 2, and hereby request The Texas Court Of Criminal

Appeals will suspend operation and/or application of the required

number of copies of Appellant's Pro-Se Petition For Discretionary

Review pursuant to Texas Rule Of Appellate Procedure, Rule 9.3[b];

As Appellant will argue and show unto The Court as follows:

I.

The Appellant, Calvin Louise Rushing, is a Texas Department

Of criminal Justice-Institutional Division inmate ,#1925565, held

in confinement at The Allen B. Polunsky Unit [3872 FM 350 SouthLivingston, Texas 77351], serving a sentence of fifty[50] years.

II.

The Appellant, Calvin Louise Rushing, at all times hereto

mentioned during his trial before the judge and during the direct

appellate appeal process has been and has remained indigent having
executed a sworn and valid proper pauperis oath declaring his

indigency to that effect on file in this case.

III.

The Appellant as a Texas prison inmate does not receive nor

earn any monetary funds for his imprisonment or hard labor; And

neither does the Appellant as a prison inmate has access to any

copy machine nor printer to duplicate the required number of

copies of his Pro-Se Petition For discretionary Review; Further

more, Appellant is without family or friends available to copy

or print up the necessary number of copies of his Pro-Se Petit

ion For Discretionary Review; Therefore, Appellant request The

Court to 'Suspend* the rule requirement of Texas Rule Of Appe

llate Procedure, Rule 9.3[b].

IV.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant, Calvin Louise Rus

hing, respectfully prays The Court to Suspend-Operation- of Texas

Rule Of Appellate Procedure, Rule 9.3[b], to which relief Appell

ant humbly accepts.

-2-

LOUISE RUSHING

TDCJ-ID# 1925565

ALLEN B. POLUNSKY UNIT

3872 FM 350 SOUTH

LIVINGSTON, TEXAS 77351
V.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Calvin Louise Rushing, hereby certify that a copy of

Motion Requesting Suspension Of Tex. R. App. Proc, Rule 9.3

[b], has been mailed by U.S. Postal Service on this 13th day

of april , 2015, addressed to:

Cathy Lusk, Clerk ,

12Th Court Of Appeals

1517 WEST FRONT STREET, STE# 354

TYLER, TEXAS 75702

-3-
#### § 232.805a Mortgagee's late charge.

Mortgage insurance premiums which are paid to the Commissioner more than 15 days after the billing date or due date, whichever is later, shall include a late charge of 4 percent of the amount of the payment due, except that no late charge shall be required with respect to any case for which HUD fails to render a proper billing to the mortgagee.

[43 FR 60154, Dec. 26, 1978]
### §7153. Administration of leasing transfers

#### (a) Authority retained by Secretary of the Interior

The Secretary of the Interior shall retain any authorities not transferred under section 7152(b) 1 of this title and shall be solely responsible for the issuance and supervision of Federal leases and the enforcement of all regulations applicable to the leasing of mineral resources, including but not limited to lease terms and conditions and production rates. No regulation promulgated by the Secretary shall restrict or limit any authority retained by the Secretary of the Interior under section 7152(b) 1 of this title with respect to the issuance or supervision of Federal leases. Nothing in section 7152(b) 1 of this title shall be construed to affect Indian lands and resources or to transfer any functions of the Secretary of the Interior concerning such lands and resources.

#### (b) Consultation with Secretary of the Interior with respect to promulgation of regulations

In exercising the authority under section 7152(b) 1 of this title to promulgate regulations, the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of the Interior during the preparation of such regulations and shall afford the Secretary of the Interior not less than thirty days, prior to the date on which the Department first publishes or otherwise prescribes regulations, to comment on the content and effect of such regulations.

#### (c) Repealed. Pub. L. 97–100, title II, §201, Dec. 23, 1981, 95 Stat. 1407

#### (d) Preparation of environmental impact statement

The Department of the Interior shall be the lead agency for the purpose of preparation of an environmental impact statement required by section 4332(2)(C) of this title for any action with respect to the Federal leases taken under the authority of this section, unless the action involves only matters within the exclusive authority of the Secretary.

(Pub. L. 95–91, title III, §303, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 579; Pub. L. 97–100, title II, §201, Dec. 23, 1981, 95 Stat. 1407.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 7152(b) of this title, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b), was repealed by Pub. L. 97–100, title II, §201, Dec. 23, 1981, 95 Stat. 1407.

#### Amendments

1981—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 97–100 struck out subsec. (c) which afforded the Secretary of Energy the opportunity to disapprove any terms and conditions on which the Secretary of the Interior proposed to issue a Federal lease.

1 See References in Text note below.
**Docket No. FAA -**  **2013 -**  **0370**
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B).
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                               39026
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       903820
<ALLOWANCES>                                        235685
<INVENTORY>                                        3778099
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   5371371
<PP&E>                                             1426525
<DEPRECIATION>                                     1388921
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     5409985
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              3574698
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                              4419
<OTHER-SE>                                         1830868
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             0
<SALES>                                            4018093
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   4018314
<CGS>                                              2973928
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      2973928
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    977900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   55924
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      10562
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  10562
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         10562
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.00



</TABLE>
§ 519.500 Secretary of Defense. ( a ) The Secretary of Defense may exempt, on a case-by-case basis, a covered Federal action from the prohibition whenever the Secretary determines, in writing, that such an exemption is in the national interest. The Secretary shall transmit a copy of each such written exemption to Congress immediately after making such a determination.
( b ) The Department of Defense may issue supplemental regulations to implement paragraph (a) of this section.
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

STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME

U.S. v. RICARDO ANGULO-SOTELO, CR 09-1070 SI 1

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CABN 44332)

United States Attorney

BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN 163973)

Chief, Criminal Division

PATRICIA SPALETTA (CABN 156788)

Special Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 552-6031

Facsimile: (415) 436-7234

Patricia.Spaletta@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICARDO ANGULO-SOTELO,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 09-1070 SI

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

EXCLUDING TIME UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3161

The parties appeared before the Honorable Susan Illston on February 12, 2010. With the

agreement of counsel for both parties, the Court found and held as follows:

1. The parties agree to an exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161,

from February 12, 2010 to March 5, 2010, in light of the need for defense counsel to review

discovery and to conduct further investigation. Failure to grant the requested continuance would

unreasonably deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking

Case 3:09-cr-01070-SI Document 17 Filed 02/17/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME

U.S. v. RICARDO ANGULO-SOTELO, CR 09-1070 SI 2

into account the exercise of due diligence and the need for counsel to review discovery and to

conduct further investigation.

2. Given these circumstances, the Court found that the ends of justice served by excluding

the period from February 12, 2010 to March 5, 2010, outweigh the best interest of the public and

the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).

3. Accordingly, and with the consent of the defendant, the Court ordered that the period from

February 12, 2010 to March 5, 2010, be excluded from the Speedy Trial Act calculations under

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).

SO STIPULATED:

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO

United States Attorney

DATED: February 12, 2010 /s/

PATRICIA SPALETTA

Assistant United States Attorney

DATED: February 12, 2009 /s/

SHAWN HALBERT

Counsel for Ricardo Angulo-Sotelo

SO ORDERED.

DATED:______________ _____________________________________

THE HON. SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cr-01070-SI Document 17 Filed 02/17/10 Page 2 of 2
#### M. D. Kramer Locksmith Supply Co., Inc., Appellant, v Lawrence Locksmith Supply Co., Inc., et al., Respondents.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for wrongful competition, plaintiff appeals from: (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 8, 1977, as conditionally granted defendants’ preclusion motions; and (2) a further order of the same court, dated June 28, 1977, which denied plaintiff’s motion to strike certain items from defendants’ demands for bills of particulars. Orders modified by adding thereto provisions that defendants neither disclose nor make any business use of the particulars to be furnished by plaintiff. As so modified, order dated June 8, 1977 affirmed insofar as appealed from and order dated June 28, 1977 affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The time within which plaintiff must furnish the particulars in accordance with the orders appealed from is extended until 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. Plaintiff contends, *inter alia,*that certain particulars sought are not subject to disclosure in a bill of particulars since they are trade secrets. Plaintiffs contention lacks merit at this juncture. It failed to move to vacate or modify the demands for bills of particulars within the time limits of CPLR 3042 (subd [a]). Therefore, it may not presently secure the relief obtainable by timely procedure under that statute unless the challenged items are considered to be palpably improper (see *Pratt & Sons v Kingsley Drilling & Blasting,*52 AD2d 997). In our view the record does not support the contention that the items demanded are palpably improper. Plaintiff has failed to show upon this record that the items sought are trade secrets entitled to protection as such. Insofar as the factual issues concerning plaintiffs allegations have not been finally determined, it is necessary to assure that it will receive proper protection until such time as the ultimate merits of the case are decided. Defendants may therefore make only such use of the particulars disclosed as are relevant to the defense of this action. Hopkins, J. P., Shapiro, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
### SUBCHAPTER XIII—SALE OR LEASE OF SURPLUS WATERS, WATER POWER, STORAGE CAPACITY, AND WATER TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
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 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

Case No. 3:09-cv-00879-MMC

David C. Parisi, Esq. - SBN 162448

Suzanne Havens Bechman, Esq. – SBN 188814

dcparisi@parisihavens.com

shavens@parisihavens.com

PARISI & HAVENS, LLP

15233 Valleyheart Drive

Sherman Oaks, California 91403

Telephone: (818) 990-1299

Facsimile: (818) 501-7852

David Stampley (admitted pro hac vice)

Scott A. Kamber 

KamberLaw, LLC

dstampley@kamberlaw.com

skamber@kamberlaw.com

11 Broadway, 22nd Floor

New York, NY 10004

Telephone: (212) 920-3072

Facsimile: (212) 920-3081

Joseph H. Malley (admitted pro hac vice)

malleylaw@gmail.com

LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH H. MALLEY

1045 North Zang Boulevard

Dallas, Texas 75208

Ph. (214) 943-6100

Fax (214) 943-6170

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

SUSAN SIMON, individually and on behalf of 

a class of similarly situated individuals,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADZILLA, INC. (NEW MEDIA), a Delaware 

corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:09-cv-00879-MMC

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL 

FOR PLAINTIFF

Date: February 26, 2010

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Judge: The Hon. Maxine M. Chesney

Case 3:09-cv-00879-MMC Document 72 Filed 01/22/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

1 Case No. 3:09-cv-00879-MMC

Michael J. Aschenbrener seeks to withdraw as counsel pro hac vice for Plaintiff in the 

above-captioned litigation pursuant to LOCAL R. 11-5(a) and CAL. R. PROF. CONDUCT 3-

700(A)(1). As this Court finds that Mr. Aschenbrener has submitted satisfactory reasoning for 

withdrawal, and that the granting of his Motion will not cause substantial prejudice or delay to any 

party,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Michael J. Aschenbrener’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel 

for Plaintiff is GRANTED, and Michael J. Aschenbrener is hereby terminated as counsel pro hac 

vice in this proceeding.

DATED: __________________ By:

Hon. Maxine M. Chesney

United States District Court

January 22, 2010

Case 3:09-cv-00879-MMC Document 72 Filed 01/22/10 Page 2 of 2
### §64. Repealed. Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, §53, 70A Stat. 641

Section, act May 18, 1920, ch. 190, §12, 41 Stat. 604, related to transportation of dependents.
§ 1006.215 Housing management services. NHHBG funds may be used for the provision of management services for affordable housing, including: ( a ) The preparation of work specifications;
( b ) Loan processing;
( c ) Inspections;
( d ) Tenant selection;
( e ) Management of tenant-based rental assistance;
( f ) The costs of operation and maintenance of units occupied by NHHBG eligible families; and
( g ) Management of affordable housing projects.
[67 FR 40776, June 13, 2002, as amended at 89 FR 9761, Feb. 12, 2024]