alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 248.203 General prepayment limitation. ( a ) An owner of eligible low income housing may prepay, and a mortgagee may accept prepayment of, a mortgage on such housing only in accordance with a plan of action approved by the Commissioner.
( b ) A mortgage insurance contract with respect to eligible low income housing may be terminated pursuant to section 229 of the National Housing Act only in accordance with a plan of action approved by the Commissioner.
( c ) A mortgagee's acceptance of a prepayment in violation of paragraph (a) or termination of a mortgage insurance contract in violation of paragraph (b) of this section is grounds for administrative action under parts 24 and 25 of this title, in addition to any other remedies available by law, including rescission of the prepayment or reinstatement on the insurance contract.
Limited Federal Implementation Plan; Prevention of Significant

Deterioration; California; North Coast Unified Air Quality

Management District – Final Rule

Page 15 of 16

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Environmental protection,

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone.

July 29, 2011____
Dated:

/s/_______ Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
### §9852c. General provisions

#### (a) Limitation

Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to authorize or permit the Secretary or any employee or contractor of the Department of Health and Human Services to mandate, direct, or control, the selection of a curriculum, a program of instruction, or instructional materials, for a Head Start program.

#### (b) Special rule

Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to authorize a Head Start program or a local educational agency to require the other to select or implement a specific curriculum or program of instruction.

#### (c) Definition

In this subchapter, the term "health", when used to refer to services or care provided to enrolled children, their parents, or their siblings, shall be interpreted to refer to both physical and mental health.

(Pub. L. 97–35, title VI, §657C, as added Pub. L. 110–134, §27, Dec. 12, 2007, 121 Stat. 1448.)
### §315m. Lease of isolated or disconnected tracts for grazing; preferences

The Secretary of the Interior is further authorized, in his discretion, where vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved lands of the public domain are so situated as not to justify their inclusion in any grazing district to be established pursuant to this subchapter, to lease any such lands for grazing purposes, upon such terms and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe: Provided, That preference shall be given to owners, homesteaders, lessees, or other lawful occupants of contiguous lands to the extent necessary to permit proper use of such contiguous lands, except, that when such isolated or disconnected tracts embrace seven hundred and sixty acres or less, the owners, homesteaders, lessees, or other lawful occupants of lands contiguous thereto or cornering thereon shall have a preference right to lease the whole of such tract, during a period of ninety days after such tract is offered for lease, upon the terms and conditions prescribed by the Secretary: Provided further, That when public lands are restored from a withdrawal, the Secretary may grant an appropriate preference right for a grazing lease, license, or permit to users of the land for grazing purposes under authority of the agency which had jurisdiction over the lands immediately prior to the time of their restoration.

(June 28, 1934, ch. 865, §15, 48 Stat. 1275; June 26, 1936, ch. 842, title I, §5, 49 Stat. 1978; May 28, 1954, ch. 243, §1, 68 Stat. 151.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1954—Act May 28, 1954, inserted proviso authorizing Secretary to grant a preference right to users of withdrawn public lands for grazing purposes when lands are restored from withdrawal.

1936—Act June 26, 1936, inserted first proviso.
### §431. Limitation as to amount of water; qualifications of applicant

No right to the use of water for land in private ownership shall be sold for a tract exceeding one hundred and sixty acres to any one landowner, and no such sale shall be made to any landowner unless he be an actual bona fide resident on such land, or occupant thereof residing in the neighborhood of said land, and no such right shall permanently attach until all payments therefor are made.

(June 17, 1902, ch. 1093, §5, 32 Stat. 389.)

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

#### Imperial Irrigation District of California; Nonapplicability of Federal Reclamation Laws

Nonapplicability of Federal reclamation laws to lands within Imperial Irrigation District of California, see section 4 of Pub. L. 96–570, set out as a note under section 423e of this title.

#### Section as Unaffected by Submerged Lands Act

Provisions of this section as not amended, modified or repealed by the Submerged Lands Act, see section 1303 of this title.
#### (A) Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York v. Justin M. Golenbock et al. (B) Eleanor Cloke v. Hotel Roosevelt Corporation.

Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens .and Eager, JJ. Concur — Rábin, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.— [In each action.] Motion for reargument or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs.
Editorial Note on Part 3282
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3282 appear at 78 FR 60199, Oct. 1, 2013.

§ 3282.401 Purpose and scope. ( a ) *Purpose.* The purpose of this subpart is to establish a system of protections provided by the Act with respect to imminent safety hazards and failures to conform to the construction and safety standards with a minimum of formality and delay, while protecting the rights of all parties.
( b ) *Scope.* This subpart sets out the procedures to be followed by manufacturers, retailers, and distributors, SAAs, primary inspection agencies, and the Secretary to assure that notification and correction are provided with respect to manufactured homes when required under this subpart. Notification and correction may be required with respect to manufactured homes that have been sold or otherwise released by the manufacturer to another party.
### §48. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Jan. 12, 1927, ch. 27, 44 Stat. 963, required amounts received by the Geological Survey from any State, Territory or political subdivision thereof in carrying on work involving cooperation to be used in reimbursing the appropriation from which the expense of such work was paid, was from the act making appropriations for the Department of the Interior for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1928 and for other purposes, and was not repeated in subsequent appropriation acts. Similar provisions were contained in the following act: May 10, 1926, ch. 277, 44 Stat. 487.
### §323. Application to certain States

Sections 321 to 323, 325, and 327 to 329 of this title shall only apply to and take effect in the States of California, Colorado, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, and North and South Dakota.

(Mar. 3, 1877, ch. 107, §§3, 8, 19 Stat. 377; Mar. 3, 1891, ch. 561, §2, 26 Stat. 1097; Jan. 6, 1921, ch. 12, 41 Stat. 1086.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is from the first clause of section 3 of act Mar. 3, 1877, and the first clause of section 8 of act Mar. 3, 1877, as added by act Mar. 3, 1891.

The second clauses of section 3 and 8 of act Mar. 3, 1877, are incorporated in the second paragraph of section 322 and section 325 of this title, respectively.

The first clause of section 3 of act Mar. 3, 1877, provided that "this act shall only apply to and take effect in the States of California, Oregon and Nevada, and the Territories of Washington, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico and Dakota".

The first clause of section 8 of act Mar. 3, 1877, as added by act Mar. 3, 1891, provided for the inclusion of Colorado.

The Territories of Washington, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico and Dakota have become States since the enactment of act Mar. 3, 1877, the Territory of Dakota being divided, to form the States of North and South Dakota.

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

#### Section as Unaffected by Submerged Lands Act

Provisions of this section as not amended, modified or repealed by the Submerged Lands Act, see section 1303 of this title.
#### § 203.484 Redemption of debentures.

Debentures shall, at the option of the Commissioner and with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, be redeemable at par plus accrued interest on any semiannual interest payment date on 3 months' notice of redemption given in such manner as the Commissioner shall prescribe. The debenture interest on the debentures called for redemption shall cease on the semiannual interest payment date designated in the call notice. The Commissioner may include with the notice of redemption an offer to purchase the debentures at par plus accrued interest at any time during the period between the notice of redemption and the redemption date. If the debentures are purchased by the Commissioner after such call and prior to the named redemption date, the debenture interest shall cease on the date of purchase.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 28, 2010

p0621 

# Order

June 28, 2010

140785

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140785 COA: 288190 Wayne CC: 07-014918-FH KENNETH IVEY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 28, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40799

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERTO GRIMALDO-VEGA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-402-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Roberto GrimaldoVega has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Grimaldo-Vega has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 21, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-40799 Document: 00513012981 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2015
No. 14-40799

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 14-40799 Document: 00513012981 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2015
(No. 89-CC-0047

#### Socorro Baca, Claimant, *v.*The State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Order filed July 13, 1992.*

Socorro Baca, *pro se,*for Claimant.

Roland W. Burris, Attorney General (Steven Schmall, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

ORDER

Montana, C.J.

This cause comes on to be heard on the Respondent’s motion to dismiss, due notice having been given, no obj'ection having been filed, and the Court being advised, finds:

Claimant filed this claim seeking to recover the amount of an unemployment insurance warrant issued by the Illinois Department of Employment Security. The Division of Benefit Payment Control of the Department of Employment Security holds administrative hearings to *244determine whether a warrant should be reissued. The claims adjudicator denied reissuance of the warrant.

Section 3 — 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 3 — 104) states that jurisdiction to review final administrative decisions is vested in the circuit court. The fact that the review of the decision of the Division of Benefit Payment Control is provided through administrative review in the circuit court prevents the Court of Claims from assuming jurisdiction over claims such as the instant one. *Rivera v. State*(1981), 35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 375; *Moore v. State*(1980), 34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 108; *Anaya v. State*(1980), 34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 161.

We further find that Respondent’s counsel learned that, notwithstanding and unaware of the above Court of Claims decision, attorneys for the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago and the Department of Employment Security entered into a consent decree before Federal Judge Prentice Marshall in a case entitled *Bums.*As part of such decree, the parties agreed to add language to Benefit Payment Control’s written administrative decisions that suggested that a person aggrieved by the decision should proceed in the Court of Claims. Respondent’s counsel informed both the Legal Assistance Foundation and the Illinois Department of Employment Security of the jurisdictional problem of which the signers of the consent decree were unaware. The Department of Employment Security is attempting to resolve this problem by administratively reissuing or rehearing those pending cases, such as the instant one, where review was erroneously sought in the Court of Claims, so that claimants will have enough time to seek review in the circuit court.

In the motion at bar, Respondent seeks dismissal *245without prejudice and with leave to file if the benefit control division of the Department of Employment Security does not reissue its administrative decision. Respondent does not indicate how the Court should proceed with the case should it be dismissed and then refiled. Jurisdiction cannot be vested with a court solely based on agreement of the parties and Respondent does not suggest the cited cases are wrong.

Wherefore, it is hereby ordered that this claim be, and hereby is, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and without leave to refile.
### §8819. Review; reorganization

(a) The President shall review periodically the progress of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Energy in carrying out the purposes of this subchapter.

(b) If the President determines it necessary in order to achieve such purposes the President may, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 9 of title 5, provide for a reorganization, including any required realignment of the respective programs of the Secretaries under this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 96–294, title II, §219, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 695.)
United States District Court

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Venue

)

)

)

)

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs.

PETER DANIEL COLLINS

Docket Number: CR 07-00045-01 SI 

ORDER FOR MODIFICATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE

On November 20, 2009, the parties in this matter appeared before the Court in connection with a

pending petition alleging that the offender violated the conditions of his supervised release. On

January 15, 2010, a status hearing was held before the Court and the Court was advised that

clarification was necessary for the Bureau of Prisons to execute the ordered conditions. This

order is to clarify the modification to the offender=s supervised release. The Court orders that

offender=s term of supervised release is modified to include: 

1. The offender is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of

Prisons to be imprisoned for a total term of 14 days. The offender shall serve time in

custody in increments of not less than 48 hours at a time. The offender may arrange for

longer increments of time in custody to satisfy the total term.

2. The offender=s supervised release shall continue until one year after the completion of

his 14 day term in custody.

3. The offender shall abide by all the terms and conditions previously ordered.

4. The court orders that the offender appear in Court on February 5, 2010, at 11:00 a.m.

ON MOTION OF THE COURT, 

Date: __________________________ ___________________________________

Susan Illston

United States District Judge

January 29, 2010

Case 3:09-cr-00376-SI Document 161 Filed 02/01/10 Page 1 of 1
### Flow velocity, water temperature, and conductivity at selected locations in Shark River Slough, Everglades National Park, Florida; July 1999 - July 2003

By: Raymond W. SchaffranekAmi L. Riscassi

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds110

#### Links

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

#### Abstract
§ 320.12 Integrity. ( a ) *Background.* Issuers shall disclose the background of all individuals serving on their Board of Directors and all individuals acting as authorized signatories. The disclosures shall include any prior convictions, fines or other adverse actions against these individuals by a Federal, state or local agency, or a government-related entity where the action is related to the responsibilities that are commensurate with those of the financial services industry. The term government-related entity includes, but is not limited to, FHA, VA, FmHA, FNMA, FHLMC, Office of Thrift Supervision, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and National Credit Union Administration.
( b ) *Change in status.* Issuers shall disclose material changes in their status with other government-related entities and regulatory agencies, or state or local agencies with similar authority, within 5 business days of their occurrence. The disclosures shall include, but not be limited to, voluntary and non-voluntary terminations, defaults, fines, and material non-compliance with agency rules and policies. Disclosures that are specifically prohibited by an agency are exempted from this section.
#### § 225.124 Conditions.

With respect to any research project or any class of research projects the department or agency head of either the conducting or the supporting Federal department or agency may impose additional conditions prior to or at the time of approval when in the judgment of the department or agency head additional conditions are necessary for the protection of human subjects.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2790 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2790

 To authorize and request the President to award the Medal of Honor to 
Richard D. Winters, of Hershey, Pennsylvania, for acts of valor on June 
 6, 1944, in Normandy, France, while an officer in the 101st Airborne 
                               Division.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 7, 2005

  Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize and request the President to award the Medal of Honor to 
Richard D. Winters, of Hershey, Pennsylvania, for acts of valor on June 
 6, 1944, in Normandy, France, while an officer in the 101st Airborne 
                               Division.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION AND REQUEST FOR AWARD OF MEDAL OF HONOR TO 
              RICHARD D. WINTERS FOR ACTS OF VALOR ON JUNE 6, 1944.

    (a) Authorization.--The President is authorized and requested to 
award the Medal of Honor under section 3741 of title 10, United States 
Code, to Richard D. Winters, of Hershey, Pennsylvania, for the acts of 
valor described in subsection (b).
    (b) Action Described.--The acts of valor referred to in subsection 
(a) are the actions of Richard D. Winters on D-Day, June 6, 1944, in 
Normandy, France, while executive officer and acting commanding officer 
of Company E, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne 
Division, in leading an assault to neutralize four enemy 105-millimeter 
cannon firing on Utah Beach.
    (c) Waiver of Time Limitations.--The award under subsection (a) may 
be made without regard to the time limitations specified in section 
3744(b) of title 10, United States Code, or any other time limitation 
with respect to the awarding of certain medals to persons who served in 
the Army.
                                 <all>
```
#### Terry Spohn et al., Appellants, v Rochester Products, Division of General Motors, Respondent.

Order and judgment unanimously reversed and motion denied, with costs to abide the event. Memorandum: Plaintiffs, husband and wife, brought this action under section 240 and subdivisions 6 and 7 of section 241 of the Labor Law, for damages due to injuries suffered by the husband when he fell while working as an employee of Le Cesse Corporation on the construction of a building owned by defendant Rochester Products, Division of General Motors. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant was negligent in furnishing an improper belt and snap for the work that was required to be performed, as well as in failing to furnish or erect a scaffold, ladders, ropes or other protection devices. Special Term granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and plaintiffs appeal from that determination. We are mindful of the recent amendments to both sections 240 and 241 of the Labor Law and the fact that these amended sections have in some instances been interpreted as no longer requiring proof that an owner or general contractor controlled or directed the work in order to be exposed to liability. In any event, we find that plaintiffs have raised a triable issue of fact with respect to the question of defendant’s control or supervision of the work site here so as to require that this matter proceed to trial. (Appeal from order and judgment of Monroe Supreme Court—summary judgment.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Simons, Dillon and Witmer, JJ.