alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Luis S., Appellant, v Zoraida L. et al., Respondents, and Family Support Systems Unlimited, Respondent.

[833 NYS2d 506]

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Carol Ann Stokinger, J.), entered on or about March 2, 2006, which, in a paternity proceeding, after a hearing, denied petitioner putative father’s motion for DNA testing of himself and the child, and granted respondent child protective agency’s cross motion to dismiss the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court denied the motion for DNA testing and dismissed the petition upon a finding that the child’s best interests required that petitioner be equitably estopped from claiming paternity (Family Ct Act § 532 [a]). Petitioner argues (improperly for the first time on appeal) that the finding lacks sufficient factual support in the absence of expert testimony that the child’s present psychological condition would be adversely affected were she to have a relationship with petitioner. The argument lacks merit. While the testimony of a mental health professional might in any given paternity case involving the child’s best interests be helpful, it is not by definition a necessary element of proof, and the record, as it is and for the reasons stated by Family Court, contains ample support for the finding of equitable estoppel. We particularly note petitioner’s 16-month delay in commencing the proceeding, the absence of any contact between petitioner and the child, and the child’s bonding with the foster parents with whom she was placed at age 10 months (see *Purificati v Paricos,*154 AD2d 360, 362 [1989] [psychological evidence not needed to support finding that child would be “traumatized” by dissolving his close father-son relationship with his mother’s ex-husband developed over three-year period that petitioner delayed in commencing paternity proceeding]; *Matter of Dion D. v Nykeeba Chyrisse M.,*250 AD2d 429 [1998], *lv denied*92 NY2d 807 [1998] [petitioner not known to child and child’s bonding with foster parent over 26-month period that petitioner delayed in commencing paternity proceeding]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Williams and Catterson, JJ.
#### Richards *v.*Shields *et al.*

August 17, 1912.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Edwards. Douglas superior court. March 24, 1911.

*J. S.*James, for plaintiff in error.

*Buford F. Boylcin*and *James Beall,*contra.

Fish, C. J.

1. The motion made upon the trial of the case, by the defendant below, to dismiss the petition, was in the nature of a special demurrer, and therefore came too late. Moreover, it was largely speaking in its character.

2. An amendment offered to an answer, which was disallowed by the court, can not be brought to this court as part of the record in the ease, but must be brought up as a part of the bill of exceptions, either set out therein, or attached thereto as an exhibit properly identified and made a part of the bill of exceptions. *McGarry*v. *Seiz,*129 *Ga.*296 (58 S. E. 856); *Jones*v. *Norton,*136 *Ga.*835 (72 S. E. 337); *Bowen*v. *Neal,*136 *Ga.*859 (72 S. E. 340). The mere fact that such an amendment was filed in the office of the clerk of the court, without an order of the judge allowing it to be so filed, and prior to its disallowance by the judge, does not alter the rule. *Branan*v. *Baxter,*122 *Ga.*224 (50 S. E. 45).

3. After a debtor has been discharged in bankruptcy, a debt unsecured by lien, provable in bankruptcy, and not falling within any of the exceptions specified in the bankruptcy act, can not be enforced in equity by a proceeding in rem against an exemption set apart to the bankrupt in the bankruptcy proceedings, where he pleads - his discharge in bankruptcy, and that plaintiff was given due notice of the bankruptcy proceedings, and where there is proof sustaining such plea. *Bowen*v. *Keller,*130 *Ga.*31 (60 S. E. 174, 124 Am. St. R. 164).

*(a)*This case was of the nature just above indicated. The defendant pleaded his discharge in bankruptcy after due notice to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs’ debt was evidenced by promissory notes and was unsecured by any sort of lien. There was nothing to indicate that the debt was not provable and dischargeable in bankruptcy. The plaintiffs, on the trial, put in evidence the defendant’s answer. It follows that the trial judge erred in rendering a. judgment in rem against the property exempted to the defendant in bankruptcy proceedings.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
### §7585. Standards for heavy-duty clean-fuel vehicles (GVWR above 8,500 up to 26,000 lbs.)

#### (a) Model years after 1997; combined NOx and NMHC standard

For classes or categories of heavy-duty vehicles or engines manufactured for the model year 1998 or thereafter and having a GVWR greater than 8,500 lbs. and up to 26,000 lbs. GVWR, the standards under this part for clean-fuel vehicles shall require that combined emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHC) shall not exceed 3.15 grams per brake horsepower hour (equivalent to 50 percent of the combined emission standards applicable under section 7521 of this title for such air pollutants in the case of a conventional model year 1994 heavy-duty diesel-fueled vehicle or engine). No standard shall be promulgated as provided in this section for any heavy-duty vehicle of more than 26,000 lbs. GVWR.

#### (b) Revised standards that are less stringent

(1) The Administrator may promulgate a revised less stringent standard for the vehicles or engines referred to in subsection (a) if the Administrator determines that the 50 percent reduction required under subsection (a) is not technologically feasible for clean diesel-fueled vehicles and engines, taking into account durability, costs, lead time, safety, and other relevant factors. To provide adequate lead time the Administrator shall make a determination with regard to the technological feasibility of such 50 percent reduction before December 31, 1993.

(2) Any person may at any time petition the Administrator to make a determination under paragraph (1). The Administrator shall act on such a petition within 6 months after the petition is filed.

(3) Any revised less stringent standards promulgated as provided in this subsection shall require at least a 30 percent reduction in lieu of the 50 percent reduction referred to in paragraph (1).

(July 14, 1955, ch. 360, title II, §245, as added Pub. L. 101–549, title II, §229(a), Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2519.)
§ 1424.6 Position of the Department; time limits for filing; service. ( a ) Within thirty (30) days after the date of receipt by the Secretary of a copy of the petition for review of a negotiability issue the Department shall file a statement— ( 1 ) Withdrawing the allegation that the duty to bargain in good faith does not extend to the matter proposed to be bargained; or
( 2 ) Setting forth in full its position on any matters relevant to the petition which it wishes the Board to consider in reaching its decision, including a full and detailed statement of its reasons supporting the allegation. The statement shall cite the section of any law, rule or regulation relied upon as a basis for the allegation.
( b ) A copy of the Department's statement of position including all attachments thereto shall be served on the exclusive representative.
§ 242.90 Eligibility of mortgages covering hospitals in certain neighborhoods. ( a ) A mortgage financing the repair, substantial rehabilitation, or construction of a hospital located in an older declining urban area shall be eligible for insurance under this subpart, subject to compliance with the additional requirements of this section.
( b ) The mortgage shall meet all of the requirements of this subpart, except such requirements (other than those relating to labor standards and prevailing wages or environmental review) as are judged to be not applicable on the basis of the following determinations to be made by HUD. ( 1 ) That the conditions of the area in which the property is located prevent the application of certain eligibility requirements of this subpart.
( 2 ) That the area is reasonably viable, and there is a need in the area for an adequate hospital to serve low and moderate income families.
( 3 ) That the mortgage to be insured is an acceptable risk.
( c ) Mortgages complying with the requirements of this section shall be insured under this subpart pursuant to section 223(e) of the National Housing Act. Such mortgages shall be insured under and be the obligation of the Special Risk Insurance Fund.
[72 FR 67546, Nov. 28, 2007, as amended at 73 FR 35923, June 25, 2008]
#### Andre MIRZAYANTS; Armenuhi Nazaryan, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-75587.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2007.*

Filed March 15, 2007.

Monica Mansouri, Mansouri And Shee-no, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioners.

*532CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Joan E. Smiley, Esq., Richard M. Evans, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Mark L. Gross, Esq. U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division/Appellate Section, Allison R. Brown, Dept, of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. *532R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Andre Mirzayants and his wife Armen-uhi Nazaryan, citizens of Armenia, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their motion to reconsider the BIA’s prior order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, *Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft,*383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), *amended by*404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reconsider because petitioners did not identify an error of fact or law in the BIA’s June 1, 2005 order concluding petitioners failed to show how their new evidence established their eligibility for relief, given the agency’s adverse credibility determination. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C) (requiring a motion to reconsider to specify errors of fact or law in the previous order).

To the extent petitioners seek review of the BIA’s June 1, 2005 order denying their motion to reopen, we lack jurisdiction because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. *See Singh v. INS,*315 F.3d 1186,1188 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
§ 1005.111 What safety and quality standards apply? ( a ) Loans guaranteed under section 184 must be for dwelling units which meet the safety and quality standards set forth in section 184(j).
( b ) The relevant requirements of the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 4821-4846), the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 4851-4856), and implementing regulations at part 35, subparts A, B, H, J, K, M, and R of this title apply to this part.
[63 FR 48991, Sept. 11, 1998, as amended at 64 FR 50230, Sept. 15, 1999]
### §6391. Prohibited actions

#### (a) Unreasonable classifications and differentiations

Action taken under the authorities to which this section applies, resulting in the allocation of petroleum products or electrical energy among classes of users or resulting in restrictions on use of petroleum products and electrical energy shall not be based upon unreasonable classifications of, or unreasonable differentiations between, classes of users. In making any such allocation the President, or any agency of the United States to which such authority is delegated, shall give consideration to the need to foster reciprocal and nondiscriminatory treatment by foreign countries of United States citizens engaged in commerce in those countries.

#### (b) Unreasonably disproportionate share of burdens between segments of business community

To the maximum extent practicable, any restriction under authorities to which this section applies on the use of energy shall be designed to be carried out in such manner so as to be fair and to create a reasonable distribution of the burden of such restriction on all sectors of the economy, without imposing an unreasonably disproportionate share of such burden on any specific class of industry, business, or commercial enterprise, or on any individual segment thereof. In prescribing any such restriction, due consideration shall be given to the needs of commercial, retail, and service establishments whose normal function is to supply goods or services of an essential convenience nature during times of day other than conventional daytime working hours.

#### (c) Authorities to which section applies

This section applies to actions under any of the following authorities:

(1) titles I and II of this Act (other than any provision of such titles which amends another law).

(2) this title.1

(3) the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973.1

(Pub. L. 94–163, title V, §521, Dec. 22, 1975, 89 Stat. 960.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Title I of this Act, referred to in subsec. (c)(1), is title I of Pub. L. 94–163, Dec. 22, 1975, 89 Stat. 875, which is classified principally to subchapter I (§6211 et seq.) of this chapter. For complete classification of title I to the Code, see Tables.

Title II of this Act, referred to in subsec. (c)(1), is title II of Pub. L. 94–163, Dec. 22, 1975, 89 Stat. 890, which is classified generally to subchapter II (§6271 et seq.) of this chapter. For complete classification of title II to the Code, see Tables.

This title, referred to in subsec. (c)(2), is title V of Pub. L. 94–163, Dec. 22, 1975, 89 Stat. 956, which is classified principally to this subchapter. For complete classification of title V to the Code, see Tables.

The Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973, referred to in subsec. (c)(3), is Pub. L. 93–159, Nov. 27, 1973, 87 Stat. 628, which was classified generally to chapter 16A (§751 et seq.) of Title 15, Commerce and Trade, and was omitted from the Code pursuant to section 760g of Title 15, which provided for the expiration of the President's authority under that chapter on Sept. 30, 1981.

1 See References in Text note below.
### §263. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §702, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2787

Section, acts June 16, 1880, ch. 244, §§1–4, 21 Stat. 287; Apr. 18, 1904, No. 25, 33 Stat. 589; 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 3, §403, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7876, 60 Stat. 1100, related to cancellation of entries and repayment of fees.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §702, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2787, provided that the repeal made by section 702 is effective on and after Oct. 21, 1976, except such effective date to be on and after tenth anniversary of date of approval of this Act, Oct. 21, 1976, insofar as homestead laws apply to public lands in Alaska.

#### Savings Provision

Repeal by Pub. L. 94–579 not to be construed as terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, etc., existing on Oct. 21, 1976, see section 701 of Pub. L. 94–579, set out as a note under section 1701 of this title.
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-08-31T01:40:36-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
### §7584. Administration and enforcement as per California standards

Where the numerical clean-fuel vehicle standards applicable under this part to vehicles of not more than 8,500 lbs. GVWR are the same as numerical emission standards applicable in California under the Low-Emission Vehicle and Clean Fuels Regulations of the California Air Resources Board ("CARB"), such standards shall be administered and enforced by the Administrator—

(1) in the same manner and with the same flexibility as the State of California administers and enforces corresponding standards applicable under the Low-Emission Vehicle and Clean Fuels Regulations of the California Air Resources Board ("CARB"); and

(2) subject to the same requirements, and utilizing the same interpretations and policy judgments, as are applicable in the case of such CARB standards, including, but not limited to, requirements regarding certification, production-line testing, and in-use compliance,

unless the Administrator determines (in promulgating the rules establishing the clean fuel vehicle program under this section) that any such administration and enforcement would not meet the criteria for a waiver under section 7543 of this title. Nothing in this section shall apply in the case of standards under section 7585 of this title for heavy-duty vehicles.

(July 14, 1955, ch. 360, title II, §244, as added Pub. L. 101–549, title II, §229(a), Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2519.)
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2973 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Methylene Bis-Benzotriazolyl 

Tetramethylbutylphenol. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 17, 2005 

Mrs. MYRICK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Methylene BisBenzotriazolyl Tetramethylbutylphenol. 

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

3 SECTION 1. METHYLENE BIS-BENZOTRIAZOLYL 

4 TETRAMETHYLBUTYLPHENOL. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.22.02 Methylene Bis-Benzotriazolyl 

Tetramethylbutylphenol 

(CAS No. 103597–45–1) 

(provided for in subheading 

3824.90.28) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2 

•HR 2973 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 enactment of this Act. 

Æ
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2692 

To extend the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission, to provide 

improved visitor services at the park, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 26, 2005 

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

Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To extend the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission, 

to provide improved visitor services at the park, and 

for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Acadia National Park 

5 Improvement Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF ACADIA NATIONAL PARK ADVISORY 

7 COMMISSION. 

8 Section 103(f) of Public Law 99–420 (16 U.S.C. 341 

9 note) is amended by striking ‘‘20’’ and inserting ‘‘40’’. 
2 

•HR 2692 IH 

1 SEC. 3. INCREASE IN LAND ACQUISITION CEILING. 

2 Section 106(a) of Public Law 99–420 (16 U.S.C. 341 

3 note) is amended by striking ‘‘$9,100,000’’ and inserting 

4 ‘‘$28,000,000’’. 

5 SEC. 4. INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION CENTER. 

6 Title I of Public Law 99–420 (16 U.S.C. 341 note) 

7 is amended by adding at the end the following new section: 

8 ‘‘SEC. 108. INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION CENTER. 

9 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall provide as10 sistance in the planning, construction, and operation of 

11 an intermodal transportation center located outside of the 

12 boundary of the Park in the town of Trenton, Maine to 

13 improve the management, interpretation, and visitor en14 joyment of the Park. 

15 ‘‘(b) AGREEMENTS.—To carry out subsection (a), in 

16 administering the intermodal transportation center, the 

17 Secretary may enter into interagency agreements with 

18 other Federal agencies, and cooperative agreements, under 

19 appropriate terms and conditions, with State and local 

20 agencies, and nonprofit organizations— 

21 ‘‘(1) to provide exhibits, interpretive services 

22 (including employing individuals to provide such 

23 services), and technical assistance; 

24 ‘‘(2) to conduct activities that facilitate the dis25 semination of information relating to the Park and 

26 the Island Explorer transit system; 
3 

•HR 2692 IH 

1 ‘‘(3) to provide financial assistance for the con2 struction of the intermodal transportation center in 

3 exchange for space in the center that is sufficient to 

4 interpret the Park; and 

5 ‘‘(4) to assist with the operation and mainte6 nance of the intermodal transportation center. 

7 ‘‘(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

8 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be 

9 appropriated to the Secretary such sums as are nec10 essary to carry out this section (including planning, 

11 design and construction of the intermodal transpor12 tation center). 

13 ‘‘(2) OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE.—There 

14 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 

15 necessary to maintain and operate the intermodal 

16 transportation center.’’. 

Æ