alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 248.161 Mandatory sale of housing in excess of the Federal cost limit. ( a ) *In general.* With respect to any eligible low income housing for which the transfer preservation rent determined under § 248.121 exceeds the Federal cost limit, the owner shall offer the housing for transfer to qualified purchasers as provided in this section.
( b ) *Applicability of voluntary sale provisions.* The provisions of § 248.157, other than paragraphs (a) and (p) of this section thereof, shall be applicable to any sale conducted under this section. If the owner receives an offer to purchase the project for a sale price equal to the transfer preservation value of the project, as determined under § 248.111, the owner shall be obligated to accept the offer upon its receipt and sell the project to the purchaser. If the owner receives an offer to purchase the project for a sale price less than the transfer preservation value of the project, the owner may accept the offer, but is not obligated to do so. Any offer to purchase a project under this section for less than the transfer preservation value must comply with the requirements of a bona fide offer in § 248.101, except for the requirement that the sale price equal the transfer preservation value. At the time of submission of the offer, the potential purchaser must also submit the documentation required in § 248.157(g).
( c ) *Section 8 assistance.* Subject to the availability of amounts approved in appropriation acts, the Commissioner shall, for approvable plans of action, provide assistance to qualified purchasers under part 886, subpart A of this title sufficient to produce a gross potential income equal to the amount determined by multiplying 120 percent of the prevailing rents in the relevant local market in which the project is located by the number of units in the project, according to appropriate unit size, and any other incentives authorized under § 248.153 that would have been provided to a qualified purchaser under § 248.157.
( d ) *Grants to qualified purchasers.* From amounts made available by Congress, the Commissioner may make grants to assist in the completion of transfers under this section to any qualified purchasers. Any grant made pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section shall be in an amount not exceeding the difference between the amount of assistance provided under paragraph (c) of this section and the amount of assistance specified in § 248.157(m).
( e ) *Securing State and local funding.* The Commissioner shall assist any qualified purchaser of a project pursuant to this section in securing funding and other assistance, including tax and assessment reductions from State and local governments to facilitate a transfer under this section.
Case No. 309-cv-2592RS 

Joint Stipulation to Advance Hearing 

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

ELIAS Z. SHAMIEH (IND. SBN #14339-49) 

Attorney at Law 

Law Offices of Shamieh and Ternieden 

703 Market Street, Suite 1700 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Phone: (415)777-0700 

Facsimile: (415)543-0891 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Tania Garcia-Lopez 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TANIA GARCIA-LOPEZ 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

MICHAEL YATES, et al. 

 Defendant 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No.: 309-CV-2592RS 

JOINT STIPULATION TO ADVANCE 

HEARING

IMMIGRATION CASE 

Hearing Date: July 29, 2010 

Time: 1:30 pm 

Judge: Richard Seeborg 

JOINT STIPULATION TO ADVANCE HEARING 

Plaintiff’s counsel, Elias Shamieh and Defendant’s counsel, Stacey Young, respectfully 

request that the Court advance the hearing scheduled for July 29, 2010 to July 20, 2010 at 9 a.m. 

Defendant’s attorney, Stacey Young, will not be able to make the July 29, 2010 hearing date and 

*E-Filed 7/19/10*

Case 3:09-cv-02592-RS Document 39 Filed 07/19/10 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 309-cv-2592RS 

Joint Stipulation to Advance Hearing 

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

traveled to San Francisco from the Office of Immigration Litigation in Washington, D.C. last 

week in anticipation of the original July 15, 2010 hearing date which was rescheduled to July 29, 

2010 due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s emergency. Defendant’s attorney, Ms. Young is still in San 

Francisco, thus, both Plaintiff’s counsel and Ms. Young have agreed to July 20, 2010 at 9 a.m. 

for the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. 

In light of the above, Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel pray that this honorable 

Court grant this joint stipulation to advance this hearing from July 29, 2010 to July 20, 2010 at 9 

a.m. 

Respectfully submitted this 19th day of July, 2010. 

 /s/Elias Z. Shamieh 

_______________________ 

 ELIAS Z. SHAMIEH 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 /s/ Stacey Young 

 _______________________ 

 Attorney for Defendant 

ORDER

 Pursuant to this Joint Stipulation to Advance Hearing and for the reasons stated therein, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that the July 29, 2010 hearing be advanced to July 20, 2010 at 9 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July _____, 2010. 

 _____________________________ 

 RICHARD SEEBORG 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

19 10:00 a.m.

Case 3:09-cv-02592-RS Document 39 Filed 07/19/10 Page 2 of 2
### §390h–12. San Gabriel basin demonstration project

(a) The Secretary, in cooperation with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the Main San Gabriel Water Quality Authority or a successor public agency, is authorized to participate in the design, planning and construction of a conjunctive-use facility designed to improve the water quality in the San Gabriel groundwater basin and allow the utilization of the basin as a water storage facility; Provided, That this authority shall not be construed to limit the authority of the United States under any other Federal statute to pursue remedial actions or recovery of costs for work performed pursuant to this subsection.

(b) The Secretary's share of costs associated with the project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 per centum of the total. The Secretary shall not provide funds for the operation or maintenance of the project.

(Pub. L. 102–575, title XVI, §1614, Oct. 30, 1992, 106 Stat. 4668.)
### §687c–1. Execution of provisions of section 687c; authority of Secretary of the Interior

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to perform any and all acts, and to make such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper, for the purpose of carrying the provisions of section 687c of this title into effect, including provisions for the forfeiture of any lease for failure to stock the same with fur-bearing animals within a period of one year from the date of the lease, or in the event of the devotion of the lease area primarily to any purpose other than the rearing of such fur-bearing animals.

(July 3, 1926, ch. 745, §2, 44 Stat. 822.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 361 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.
### §422k–1. Loan contracts for deferment of repayment installments; amendment or supplementation

A loan contract negotiated and executed pursuant to this subchapter may be amended or supplemented for the purpose of deferring repayment installments in accordance with the provisions of section 485b–1(b) of this title.

(Aug. 6, 1956, ch. 972, §13, as added Pub. L. 92–167, §1(8), Nov. 24, 1971, 85 Stat. 488.)
#### George Glezos, defendant in error, v. Vasilios Glezos, plaintiff in error.

Gen. No. 27,934.

Assumpsit for money loaned and also for sum advanced on contract to buy real estate. Verdict for $2,500 1 ‘with interest.” Judgment for $3,885.42. Error to• the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Harry A. Lewis, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1922.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed May 28, 1923.

Thomas E. Swanson and Rush B. Johnson, for plaintiff in error. B. M. Shaffner, for defendant in error.

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.
§ 291.565 Continuing obligations after purchase. To remain in compliance with the GNND Sales Program, the law enforcement officer, teacher, or firefighter/emergency medical technician must, for the entire duration of the owner-occupancy term: ( a ) Continue to own, and live in as his/her sole residence, the home purchased through the GNND Sales Program; and
( b ) Certify initially and once annually thereafter during and at the conclusion of the owner-occupancy term that he/she was at all times fully in compliance with paragraph (a) of this section.
#### § 207.1 Eligibility requirements.

The eligibility requirements set forth in 24 CFR part 200, subpart A, apply to multifamily project mortgages insured under section 207 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1713), as amended.

[61 FR 14405, Apr. 1, 1996]
109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3021

AN ACT

To reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy 

30, 2005, and for other purposes. Families block grant program through September 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3021

AN ACT

To reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

block grant program through September 30, 2005, 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, 
2

•HR 3021 EH 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘TANF Extension Act 

3 of 2005’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR 

5 NEEDY FAMILIES BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM 

6 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2005. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Activities authorized by part A of 

8 title IV of the Social Security Act, and by sections 510, 

9 1108(b), and 1925 of such Act, shall continue through 

10 September 30, 2005, in the manner authorized for fiscal 

11 year 2004, notwithstanding section 1902(e)(1)(A) of such 

12 Act, and out of any money in the Treasury of the United 

13 States not otherwise appropriated, there are hereby appro14 priated such sums as may be necessary for such purpose. 

15 Grants and payments may be made pursuant to this au16 thority through the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2005 at 

17 the level provided for such activities through the fourth 

18 quarter of fiscal year 2004. 

19 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 

20 403(a)(3)(H)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

21 603(a)(3)(H)(ii)) is amended by striking ‘‘June 30’’ and 

22 inserting ‘‘September 30’’. 
3

•HR 3021 EH 

1 SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF THE NATIONAL RANDOM SAMPLE 

2 STUDY OF CHILD WELFARE AND CHILD WEL3 FARE WAIVER AUTHORITY THROUGH SEP4 TEMBER 30, 2005. 

5 Activities authorized by sections 429A and 1130(a) 

6 of the Social Security Act shall continue through Sep7 tember 30, 2005, in the manner authorized for fiscal year 

8 2004, and out of any money in the Treasury of the United 

9 States not otherwise appropriated, there are hereby appro10 priated such sums as may be necessary for such purpose. 

11 Grants and payments may be made pursuant to this au12 thority through the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2005 at 

13 the level provided for such activities through the fourth 

14 quarter of fiscal year 2004.

Passed the House of Representatives June 29, 2005. 

Attest:

Clerk.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7290
CHARLES GENE ROGERS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. V. TURLINGTON, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-95-142-HC-5-BO) Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 2, 1997 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Gene Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Rogers v. Turlington , No. CA95-142-HC-5-BO (Aug. 14, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Ramos, Appellant.

[831 NYS2d 923]—

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lamont, J.), entered October 17, 2005 in Albany County, which classified defendant as a risk level II sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

Defendant pleaded guilty to sexual abuse in the first degree and was sentenced to a five-year prison term. In anticipation of his release from prison, Supreme Court designated him as a risk level II sex offender in accordance with the Sex Offender Registration Act *(see*Correction Law art 6-C). Defendant now appeals and we affirm.

We are unpersuaded by defendant’s argument that his risk level classification was unsupported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence *(see*Correction Law § 168-n [3]). Contrary to defendant’s assertion, Supreme Court’s assessment of 20 points for a continuing course of sexual misconduct was supported by reliable hearsay in the form of the victim’s statement and defendant’s admission contained in the presentence investigation report *(see*Correction Law § 168-n [3]; *People v Dickison,*24 AD3d 980, 981 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 709 [2006]; *People v Dort,*18 AD3d 23, 25 [2005], *lv denied*4 NY3d 885 [2005]). As for defendant’s claim that he was entitled to a downward departure to risk level I status, we have reviewed his *1021alleged mitigating factors and find that they do not warrant such a modification *(see People v Zehner,*24 AD3d 826, 827 [2005]).

Defendant’s remaining contentions, to the extent not specifically addressed herein, have been examined and are without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
###### Editorial Note on Part 3282

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3282 appear at 78 FR 60199, Oct. 1, 2013.

#### § 3282.6 Separability of provisions.

If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section or other portion of part 3282 shall, for any reason, be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined by its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-04-00759- CR Jung P ar k, A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 6 OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. 67602 6, HO NORAB LE JAN BRELAND, JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Inf or matio ns a c c us inga

pp e lla nt Jun g Park

of te le ph on e ha

ra ssm e nt were file d in Travis County

cause numbers 676026 and 676027. A t Park’s trial in ca use number 676027, he a dmi tte d h is guil t in

c a us e numbe r 6 76 02 6 a

nd that un a dju dic a te d o ffense was take n into consideration in determinin g h i s s en t ence. SeeTex. P en. Code Ann. § 12.45 ( West 2003). Park there afte r fi l ed wr itten notices of appe al in both cause s, which we re f orwa rded to this Court and a ssi g ne d c a

us e numbe rs 03 -0 4- 00 75 9- CR and 03 -0 4- 00 76 0- CR. There is no rig ht of appea l from an or der grantinga sec tion 12.45 moti on. Lackie v . Sta te , 7 0 S. W.3 d 34 4, 34 5 (T e x. Ap p. —Wa c o 2 00 2, no pe t.) ; Hi lbu rn v . S tate , 946 S.W .2d 885, 886 (Tex. App.—For

t Worth 1997, no pet.). We there fore g rant the State’s m otion to dismiss the appe al in the instant cause. Par

k’s appe al from his convic tion in ca use number 676027, our

cause number 03 -0 4- 00 76 0- CR, re ma ins on the a c tiv e do c ke t of

the Court .2 The a ppeal is dismissed for wa nt of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________ Be a Ann Smith, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pemberton Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: January

31, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         923,651
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  14,822,550
<ALLOWANCES>                                   35,500
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,144,478
<PP&E>                                         1,619,501
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 19,719,604
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,250,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    631,757
<COMMON>                                       1,483,040
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   19,719,604
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               773,931
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  479,853
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               35,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             110,154
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                291,554
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            291,554
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   291,554
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.09)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM VITECH
AMERICA, INC.'S CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31, 1997 AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,669,582
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               32,986,445
<ALLOWANCES>                                   769,559
<INVENTORY>                                 15,325,294
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            51,513,142
<PP&E>                                       5,198,798
<DEPRECIATION>                                 176,424
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              57,591,188
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,651,918
<BONDS>                                        805,040
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    20,243,903
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,118,434
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                57,591,188
<SALES>                                     16,994,562
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,994,562
<CGS>                                       12,026,629
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,468,526
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             379,282
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,915,763
<INCOME-TAX>                                   126,609
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,789,154
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,789,154
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17
        

</TABLE>
### §§1171 to 1173. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §703(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2789

Section 1171, R.S. §2455; acts Feb. 26, 1895, ch. 133, 28 Stat. 687; June 27, 1906, ch. 3554, 34 Stat. 517; Mar. 28, 1912, ch. 67, 37 Stat. 77; Mar. 9, 1928, ch. 164, 45 Stat. 253; June 28, 1934, ch. 865, §14, 48 Stat. 1274; July 30, 1947, ch. 383, 61 Stat. 630, set forth provisions relating to sale of isolated or disconnected tracts by Secretary of the Interior.

Section 1171a, act Apr. 24, 1928, ch. 428, 45 Stat. 457, provided for applicability of section 1171 of this title to certain lands in Oklahoma.

Section 1171b, act May 23, 1930, ch. 313, 46 Stat. 377, provided for applicability of section 1171 of this title to certain lands in Alabama.

Section 1172, act Feb. 4, 1919, ch. 13, 40 Stat. 1055, provided for applicability of section 1171 of this title to ceded Chippewa Indian lands in Minnesota.

Section 1173, act May 10, 1920, ch. 178, 41 Stat. 595, provided for applicability of section 1171 of this title to sale of tracts in Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, North Dakota.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §703(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2789, provided that the repeal made by section 703(a) is effective on and after Oct. 21, 1976.

#### 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.
### Enhanced Historical Land-Use and Land-Cover Data Sets of the U.S. Geological Survey

By: Curtis V. Price**Naomi Nakagaki**Kerie J. HittRick M. Clawges

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds240

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
- Metadata:                               - **Metadata**
  - **Metadata**
  - **Metadata**
  - **Metadata** 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2765 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on p-cresidine sulfonic acid. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 7, 2005 

Mr. CLAY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on p-cresidine 

sulfonic acid. 

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

3 SECTION 1. P-CRESIDINE SULFONIC ACID. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.01.65 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 p-cresidine sulfonic acid) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/ 

7 2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2009’’. 

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

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

•HR 2765 IH 

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

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ