alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3285.102 Installation of manufactured homes in flood hazard areas. ( a ) *Definitions.* Except to the extent otherwise defined in Subpart A, the terms used in this subpart are as defined in 44 CFR 59.1 of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations.
( b ) *Applicability.* The provisions of this section apply to the initial installation of new manufactured homes located wholly or partly within a flood hazard area.
( c ) *Pre-installation considerations.* Prior to the initial installation of a new manufactured home, the installer is responsible for determining whether the manufactured home site lies wholly or partly within a special flood hazard area as shown on the LAHJ's Flood Insurance Rate Map, Flood Boundary and Floodway Map, or Flood Hazard Boundary Map, or if no LAHJ, in accordance with NFIP regulations. If so located, and before an installation method is agreed upon, the map and supporting studies adopted by the LAHJ must be used to determine the flood hazard zone and base flood elevation at the site.
( d ) *General elevation and foundation requirements* — ( 1 ) *Methods and practices.* Manufactured homes located wholly or partly within special flood hazard areas must be installed on foundations engineered to incorporate methods and practices that minimize flood damage during the base flood, in accordance with the requirements of the LAHJ, 44 CFR 60.3(a) through (e), and other provisions of 44 CFR referenced by those paragraphs.
( 2 ) *Outside appliances.* ( i ) Appliances installed on the manufactured home site in flood hazard areas must be anchored and elevated to or above the same elevation as the lowest elevation of the lowest floor of the home.
( ii ) Appliance air inlets and exhausts in flood hazard areas must be located at or above the same elevation as the lowest elevation of the lowest floor of the home.
( 3 ) *Related guidance.* Refer to FEMA 85/September 1985, Manufactured Home Installation in Flood Hazard Areas, 1985 (incorporated by reference, see § 3285.4).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                  0
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   7,412,031
<ALLOWANCES>                                      189,726
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                7,911,917
<PP&E>                                          5,758,372
<DEPRECIATION>                                  3,082,488
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 11,974,552
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           4,408,262
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                        6,646,889
<OTHER-SE>                                       (239,448)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   11,974,552
<SALES>                                         7,834,528
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                7,834,528
<CGS>                                           4,826,741
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   7,307,339
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 30,471
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   496,718
<INCOME-TAX>                                      194,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               302,718
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      302,718
<EPS-BASIC>                                           .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .05



</TABLE>
### §§7851 to 7853. Repealed. Pub. L. 98–242, title I, §110(a), Mar. 22, 1984, 98 Stat. 101

Section 7851, Pub. L. 95–467, title III, §300, Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1312, provided for creation and operation of a research assessment and technology transfer program.

Section 7852, Pub. L. 95–467, title III, §301, Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1312, authorized the Secretary to maintain a national center for acquisition, processing, and dissemination of information dealing with all areas of water research.

Section 7853, Pub. L. 95–467, title III, §302, Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1312, provided for establishment of a center for cataloging current scientific research in all fields of water resources.

For similar provisions, see section 10301 et seq. of this title.
(April 24, 2007)

#### A. Fajer Imp. E Exp. Ltda, Doing Business as Dialom Brasil, Respondent, v Schick Technologies, Inc., Appellant.

*778[832 NYS2d 815]

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and libel, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), entered July 25, 2005, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Accordingly, it is unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851 [1985]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.E, Ritter, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
### §210. Recognition of equitable claims on certain lands in Oklahoma; validation of homestead entries

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to recognize equitable claims to such lands based on settlement made prior to January 1, 1934, and all homestead entries of such lands, the allowance of which was erroneous because the lands were not subject to entry, and all suspended entries and applications to make final proof, are validated if otherwise regular, as of the date of the regular application.

(June 22, 1948, ch. 605, §2, 62 Stat. 576.)
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAURA FUJISAWA, et al.

Plaintiff(s),

v.

COMPASS VISION, INC., etal.,

Defendant(s).

))))))))))))

No. C07-5642 BZ

Related Cases: C07-3431 BZ     C08-4118 BZ     C09-2016 BZ

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO LIFT STAY

Maximus’s motion to lift the stay is DENIED.  The issues

presented to the Court by the various summary judgment motions

are sufficiently complex that the Court sees no need to

further complicate one of them by requiring additional

analyses of the factual circumstances of plaintiffs other than

Fujisawa.  While the Court is inclined to agree with Maximus’s

notion that the ruling as to Fujisawa should “be equally

dispositive” as to the other plaintiffs, the Court will

reserve that decision for the future.

Dated: July 15, 2010

  Bernard Zimmerman

  United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\FUJISAWA V. COMPASS VISION\ORDER DENYING MAXIMUS MOT TOLIFT STAY.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-02016-BZ   Document 85   Filed 07/16/10   Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 31.1


                    SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION IN RELATION TO
                 INTERSTAR SECURITISATION MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED


I, Andrew Twyford, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed  this annual  report on Form 10-K,  and all reports on Form
     8-K  containing  distribution  or  servicing  reports  filed in  respect of
     periods  included in the year covered by this annual  report,  of Interstar
     Millennium Series 2003-1G Trust;

2.   Based on my knowledge,  the information in these reports, taken as a whole,
     does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
     material  fact  necessary  to make  the  statements  made,  in light of the
     circumstances  under which such  statements were made, not misleading as of
     the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3.   Based on my knowledge,  the distribution or servicing  information required
     to be  provided  to the  trustee  by the  servicer  under the  pooling  and
     servicing,  or  similar,  agreements,  for  inclusion  in these  reports is
     included in these reports;

4.   I am  responsible  for reviewing the  activities  performed by the servicer
     under the pooling and servicing,  or similar,  agreements and based upon my
     knowledge and the annual  compliance  review required under that agreement,
     and except as  disclosed in the reports,  the  servicer has  fulfilled  its
     obligations under that agreement; and

5.   The  reports  disclose  all  significant   deficiencies   relating  to  the
     servicer's  compliance with the minimum servicing  standards based upon the
     report provided by an independent  public  accountant,  after  conducting a
     review in  compliance  with the  Uniform  Single  Attestation  Program  for
     Mortgage  Bankers or similar  procedure,  as set forth in the  pooling  and
     servicing, or similar, agreements, that is included in these reports.





 /s/ Andrew Twyford
----------------------------------
Name:   Andrew Twyford
Title:  Chief Financial Officer, Interstar Securitisation Management Pty Limited
Date:   March 24, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMBINED AND CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS OF TRENDWEST RESORTS,  INC. AND
SUBSIDIARIES  AND IS QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001021252
<NAME>                        Trendwest Resorts, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             123
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   92,876
<ALLOWANCES>                                    21,898
<INVENTORY>                                     92,329
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          33,341
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,110
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 310,827
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        55,956
<OTHER-SE>                                     143,159
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   310,827
<SALES>                                        217,010
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               250,718
<CGS>                                           53,598
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,959
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               126,402
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                16,091
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 225
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 53,041
<INCOME-TAX>                                    32,172
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    32,172
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.89



</TABLE>
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

______________________________________________________________________________

STIPULATION REGARDING HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 Harris v. Alameda County Medical Center, et al Case No. C 08-05348 - VRW

HOWARD MOORE, JR., SBN 55228

MOORE & MOORE

1563 Solano Avenue, #204

Berkeley, California 94707-2116

Telephone: (510) 552-7172

Facsimile: (510) 528-3024

Email: moorlaw@aol.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAWN HARRIS, ) Case No. C 08 - 05348 VRW

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

vs. ) STIPULATION REGARDING

 ) EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

ALAMEDA COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER, ) OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR

JEANETTE LOUDEN-CORBET, in her ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT, REPLY

individual capacity, and DOES 1 through 15, ) BRIEF & HEARING

 )

Defendant. ) Complaint Filed: November 25, 2008

_____________________________________ ) Trial Date: None Set

Whereas, fact discovery cut-off has been extended to March 31, 2010, expert discovery

extended to May 7, 2010, pretrial discovery has not been completed, an Amended Notice of

Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, Summary Adjudication of

Claims was filed on December 31, 2009, and the Trial Setting Conference is set for June 3, 2010,

the parties, by and through their respective counsel of record, stipulate as follows:

1) The time in which Plaintiff may file her opposition to the Amended Notice of

Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, for Summary Adjudication of

Claims be extended from January 14, 2010, to and to include February 15, 2010;

2) The time in which Defendants may file their reply brief extended to March 3,

2010; and 

Case 3:08-cv-05348-CRB Document 45 Filed 01/21/10 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

______________________________________________________________________________

STIPULATION REGARDING HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 Harris v. Alameda County Medical Center, et al Case No. C 08-05348 - VRW 2

3) The hearing be held on March 18, 2010, or at such other time as the Court deems

appropriate.

Dated: January 14, 2010 Moore & Moore

Attorneys for Plaintiff

By: s/Howard Moore, Jr.________

 HOWARD MOORE, JR. 

Dated: January ___, 2010 Patton  Wolan  Carlise, LLP

Attorneys for Defendants

 s/Andrea S. Carlise

By: __________________________

 ANDREA S. CARLISE

ORDER

Pursuant to Stipulation: APPROVED AND SO ORDERED.

Dated: January ___, 2010 ______________________________________

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

March 25, 2010 at 10:00 AM. 20

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRANTED

Judge Vaughn R Walker

Case 3:08-cv-05348-CRB Document 45 Filed 01/21/10 Page 2 of 2
###### Editorial Note on Part 30

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 30 appear at 87 FR 8197, Feb. 14, 2022.

#### § 30.1 Purpose and scope.

Unless provided for elsewhere in this title or under separate authority, this part implements HUD's civil money penalty provisions. The procedural rules for hearings under this part are those applicable to hearings in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, as set forth in 24 CFR part 26.

[74 FR 2751, Jan. 15, 2009]
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2931 

To amend part B of title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to 

expand the eligibility requirement to include Predominantly Black Institutions of higher education. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 16, 2005 

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

on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend part B of title III of the Higher Education Act 

of 1965 to expand the eligibility requirement to include 

Predominantly Black Institutions of higher education. 

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 ‘‘HBCU Expansion Act 

5 of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) Over the last several years post-secondary 

9 institutions have faced a dramatic increase in the 
2 

•HR 2931 IH 

1 number of non-traditional students. Predominantly 

2 Black Institutions, following the pattern of histori3 cally Black colleges and universities (referred to as 

4 ‘‘HBCU’s’’), have helped ease the influx by offering 

5 an affordable quality education. 

6 (2) Currently, more than 100,000 students at7 tend Predominantly Black Institutions. Similar to 

8 HBCU’s the majority of these students depend heav9 ily on Federal financial aid to graduate from college. 

10 (3) Predominantly Black Institutions, like 

11 HBCU’s, provide opportunities for minority students 

12 to pursue post-secondary degrees. 

13 (4) Predominantly Black Institutions, like 

14 HBCU’s, have produced a cadre of leaders who 

15 make up a significant number of the Nation’s minor16 ity doctors, lawyers, and other professionals. 

17 (5) Predominantly Black Institutions, like 

18 HBCU’s, provide students from under-served com19 munities with academic and emotional support which 

20 translates to high retention and graduation rates. 

21 SEC. 3. QUALIFYING PREDOMINANTLY BLACK INSTITU22 TIONS. 

23 Section 322 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

24 U.S.C. 1061) is amended— 

25 (1) in paragraph (2)— 
3 

•HR 2931 IH 

1 (A) by striking ‘‘means any’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘means (A) any’’; and 

3 (B) by inserting before the period at the 

4 end the following: ‘‘or (B) any Predominantly 

5 Black Institution’’; and 

6 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

7 paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(6) The term ‘Predominantly Black Institu9 tion’ means any institution of higher education 

10 that— 

11 ‘‘(A) is an eligible institution under section 

12 312(b) that complies with paragraph (1)(C)(i) 

13 of such section; and 

14 ‘‘(B) at the time of application, has a stu15 dent enrollment of at least 500 full-time stu16 dents, at least 51 percent of whom are African 

17 Americans.’’. 

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 235 (Monday, December 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 78825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26181]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-809]


Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2017-2018; 
Correction

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The International Trade Administration published a document in 
the Federal Register of November 6, 2020, concerning the final results 
of the administrative review of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe 
(CWP) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) for the period of review of 
November 1, 2017 through October 31, 2018. The document contained an 
incorrect spelling.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andre Gziryan, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2201.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of November 6, 2020, in FR Doc 2020-24722, 
on page 71057, in the second column, correct Appendix II (List of 
Companies Not Individually Examined), number 22, to read ``Ycp Co.'' 
\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Id. This respondent's name was similarly misspelled in the 
initiation notice and preliminary results. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 84 FR 
2159 (February 6, 2019); see also Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel 
Pipe from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review; 2017-2018, 85 FR 2719 (January 16, 
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This correction to the Final Results is published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended.

    Dated: November 19, 2020.
Jeffrey I. Kessler,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020-26181 Filed 12-4-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### Sarah Kramer, Appellant, *v.*Harold Leon et al., Respondents.

First Department,

February 21, 1961.

*Eugene G. Lamb*of counsel *(Joseph T. Mirabel,*attorney), for appellant.

*I. Sidney Worthman*of counsel *(Tropp & Stembock,*attorneys), for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

In this personal injury action plaintiff appeals from a denial of her motion for a preference under rule 151 of the Rules of Civil Practice.

On January 14, 1959 plaintiff suffered personal injuries as a result of a fall on a stairway, allegedly because of the negligence of the defendants. Her affidavit recites that, as of March, 1960, she was 78 years of age. She was confined to a hospital for 21 days. Her bill of particulars claims $1,905 as special damages, and reveals that she suffered a fracture of the shoulder and other injuries.

A report of a neurologist makes a diagnosis of cerebral concussion, points out that the patient has *“*some degree of cerebral arteriosclerosis, and the trauma of the head did cause more brain damage than if this patient were much younger.”

*304The affidavit of plaintiff’s treating physician recites in some detail the injuries suffered by the plaintiff, expresses his opinion that “ severe permanent disability will ensue ”, and concludes that in his opinion, ‘ ‘ based on reasonable medical certainty ’ ’ because of her advanced age, coupled with the injuries sustained, “it is unlikely” that plaintiff will survive the waiting period before trial if the case proceeds in its regular order. The latter observation as to the time of the waiting period was based on information given him by plaintiff’s attorney.

Significantly, no medical proof or report was submitted by the defendants in opposition.

“ Age alone does not warrant the granting of a preference ”. *(Dodumoff*v. *Lyons,*4 A D 2d 626, 627.) In that case the court laid down certain guiding principles to be observed in determining applications for a preference under rule 151, but was careful to point out ‘‘ that each case should be determined on its own facts ” (p. 628).

In addition to age, the permanent and disabling nature of plaintiff’s injuries, according to the treating physician’s affidavit, and his uncontroverted medical opinion as to the prospect of her survival, persuade us that in the interests of justice a rule 151 preference should be granted.

Accordingly, the order appealed from should be reversed, in the exercise of discretion, and the motion granted, with costs.

Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Stevens and Eager, JJ., concur in *Per Curiam*opinion; McNally, J., dissents and votes to affirm in following memorandum: I dissent and vote to affirm the order denying a preference under rule 151 of the Rules of Civil Practice on the authority of *Bitterman*v. *2007 Davidson Ave.*(278 App. Div. 759) and *Gray v. F & R Trucking Co.*(3 A D 2d 735).

Order, entered on May 26,1960, denying plaintiff’s motion for a preference under rule 151 of the Rules of Civil Practice, reversed, in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. Settle order on notice.