alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 290.15 Disposition plan. ( a ) *In general.* Before disposing of a HUD-owned multifamily housing project, HUD will develop an initial and a final disposition plan for the project that specifies the minimum terms and conditions for the disposition of the project, the sales price that is acceptable to HUD, and the assistance that HUD plans to make available to a prospective purchaser.
( b ) *Environmental requirements.* HUD will perform, and include in the final disposition plan, the environmental reviews required by 24 CFR part 50.
§ 3285.603 Water supply. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 75758 , Sept. 16, 2024.
( a ) *Crossover.* Multi-section homes with plumbing in both sections require water-line crossover connections to join all sections of the home. The crossover design requirements are located in, and must be designed in accordance with, § 3280.609 of this chapter.
( b ) *Maximum supply pressure and reduction.* When the local water supply pressure exceeds 80 psi to the manufactured home, a pressure-reducing valve must be installed.
( c ) *Mandatory shutoff valve.* ( 1 ) An identified and accessible shutoff valve must be installed between the water supply and the inlet.
( 2 ) The water riser for the shutoff valve connection must be located underneath or adjacent to the home.
( 3 ) The shutoff valve must be a full-flow gate or ball valve, or equivalent valve.
( d ) *Freezing protection.* Water line crossovers completed during installation must be protected from freezing. The freeze protection design requirements are located in, and must be designed in accordance with, § 3280.603 of this chapter. ( 1 ) If subject to freezing temperatures, the water connection must be wrapped with insulation or otherwise protected to prevent freezing.
( 2 ) In areas subject to freezing or subfreezing temperatures, exposed sections of water supply piping, shutoff valves, pressure reducers, and pipes in water heater compartments must be insulated or otherwise protected from freezing.
( 3 ) *Use of pipe heating cable.* Only pipe heating cable listed for manufactured home use is permitted to be used, and it must be installed in accordance with the cable manufacturer installation instructions.
( e ) *Testing procedures.* ( 1 ) The water system must be inspected and tested for leaks after completion at the site. The installation instructions must provide testing requirements that are consistent with § 3280.612 of this chapter.
( 2 ) The water heater must be disconnected when using an air-only test.
§ 232.7 Bathroom. ( a ) *General requirement.* For a board and care home or assisted living facility to be eligible for insurance under this part: ( 1 ) The board and care home or assisted living facility must have no less than one full bathroom provided for every four residents; and
( 2 ) Bathroom access from any bedroom or sleeping area must not pass through a public corridor or area.
( b ) *Exemption for existing projects providing memory care.* The following applies to a board and care home or assisted living facility that provides housing for residents in need of memory care, *i.e.,* care for residents who have cognitive impairments, such as Alzheimer's disease or other dementias: ( 1 ) Subject to paragraph (b)(2) of this section, a project seeking insurance under subpart E, pursuant to section 223(f) or 223(a)(7) of the National Housing Act, may be eligible for insurance without meeting the general requirement in paragraph (a) of this section, if the project meets the following four requirements: ( i ) Memory care residents are in a separate, secured, and locked area of the board and care home or assisted living facility;
( ii ) Any bathroom access from a memory care resident's bedroom or sleeping area that passes through a public corridor or area is in a separate, secured, and locked area of the board and care home or assisted living facility prescribed in (b)(1)(i) of this section;
( iii ) Memory care residents receive full assistance or supervision while bathing; and
( iv ) Memory care residents reside in wards that contain no more than two beds per unit and have a half-bath in each unit.
( 2 ) If a facility serving memory care residents also serves residents who are not in a separate, secured, and locked area of the board and care home or assisted living facility, this exemption applies only to the separate, secured, and locked area in which solely memory care residents reside.
[85 FR 38324, June 26, 2020]
#### § 320.27 Mortgages.

Guaranteed securities issued under these provisions must be based on and backed by mortgages pooled under trust arrangements satisfactory to the Association. Such mortgages must meet the requirements of the Bond Guide.
Reducing Poverty Through Growth

Fact Sheet

October 4, 2006 www.mcc.gov

MCA-Cape Verde First Year Accomplishments

On July 4, 2005 Cape Verde signed a five year $110 million Compact with the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Three months later funding and implementation began on October 17, 2005. In this first year, $7.5 million of 

Compact funds have gone to Cape Verde .

The Compact is supporting Cape Verde in achieving its overall national development goal of transforming its 

economy from aid-dependency to sustainable, private-sector led growth. MCC funds are being used to improve 

the country’s investment climate and reform the financial sector; improve infrastructure to support increased 

economic activity and provide access to markets, employment, and social services; increase agricultural productivity and raise the income of the rural population; as well as carry out some key policy reforms needed for 

sustained economic growth.

Some key accomplishments in the first year of the Cape Verde Compact include:

•	 Developing local capacity : The Cape Verde Compact is developing local capacity in the government’s 

financial management system that will benefit the overall management of public funds. New technology 

and procedures are being implemented to improve government accountability and efficiency in order 

implement the Compact and increase financial management capacity. The Compact has introduced 

formal, transparent, international procurement procedures that are being adopted by government ministries as various Compact procurement activities are taking place.

•	 Breaking ground for infrastructure projects : The Cape Verde infrastructure projects are underway. For 

the rehabilitation of five roads in Santiago , contracts for construction and supervision have been signed. 

Procurement and contracts are finished for the construction for four bridges in Santiago . Cape Verde is 

in the process of selecting consultants for the expansion and modernization of the Port of Praia .

•	 Introducing policy reform to spur private sector development : The Central Bank has proposed a new 

law to facilitate the development of micro-finance institutions (MFIs).

•	 Leveraging MCC’s impact : Cape Verde is working with various international donors like the World Bank 

and International Finance Corporation, to leverage the Compact’s impact. The program is receiving technical assistance from U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Geological Survey on their Watershed 

Management and Agriculture Support Project.
Millennium Challenge Corporation

Fact Sheet: Cape Verde First Year Accomplishments, October 4, 2006 2

•	 Fostering accountability: The governing boards for MCA-Cape Verde consist of government, private 

sector and civil society representatives. The board is actively engaged in managing the Compact thus 

enabling successful implementation of the program.

“The Millennium Challenge Compact is an important part of our ongoing effort to foster the development of our 

nation and to build a better life for our children.”- His Excellency José Neves, Prime Minister of the Republic of 

Cape Verde
#### § 242.21 Refund of fees.

Commitment, inspection, and reopening fees (but not application fees) may be refunded, in whole or in part, if HUD determines that the construction or financing of the project has been prevented because of condemnation proceedings or other legal action taken by a government body or public agency, or in such other instances as HUD may determine as being beyond the control of the applicant and resulting from no fault of the applicant. A transfer fee may be refunded only in such instances as HUD may determine. However, the portion of the inspection fee paid in connection with early commencement of work is not refundable.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM JCC HOLDING
COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONDENSED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AS OF MARCH 31, 2000 AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          22,329
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,369
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (553)
<INVENTORY>                                        336
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,629
<PP&E>                                         366,459
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (8,955)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 492,037
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,596
<BONDS>                                        369,649
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           101
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,746
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   492,037
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                62,616
<CGS>                                           60,087
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   86,825
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,667
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (34,750)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (34,750)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (34,750)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.44)


</TABLE>
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44316

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

LOREN R. JENSEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 333

Filed: January 26, 2017

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of three years, for possession of methamphetamine, 

affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Loren R. Jensen pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-

2732(c)(1). The district court imposed a unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum period 

of confinement of three years. Jensen appeals, contending that the district court abused its 

discretion by declining to retain jurisdiction and that his sentence is excessive.

The primary purpose of the retained jurisdiction program is to enable the trial court to 

obtain additional information regarding the defendant’s rehabilitative potential and suitability for 

probation, and probation is the ultimate objective of a defendant who is on retained jurisdiction. 
2

State v. Chapel, 107 Idaho 193, 687 P.2d 583 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 

567, 650 P.2d 707, 709 (Ct. App. 1982). There can be no abuse of discretion in a trial court’s 

refusal to retain jurisdiction if the court already has sufficient information upon which to 

conclude that the defendant is not a suitable candidate for probation. State v. Beebe, 113 Idaho 

977, 979, 751 P.2d 673, 675 (Ct. App. 1988); Toohill, 103 Idaho at 567, 650 P.2d at 709. Based 

upon the information that was before the district court at the time of sentencing, we hold that the 

district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to retain jurisdiction in this case.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); Toohill, 103 Idaho at 568, 650 P.2d at 710. When reviewing the length of a sentence, we 

consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 

(2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say 

that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Jensen’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
### §316l. Stock driveways and free grazing

#### (a) Establishment, maintenance and regulation

The Secretary may establish and maintain, and regulate the use of, stock driveways in districts and may charge a fee for or permit the free use of such driveways.

#### (b) Grazing of livestock free of charge

The Secretary may permit any person, including prospectors and miners, to graze free of charge a small number of livestock upon any land included within any grazing district.

#### (c) Grazing allotments to Eskimos or other native or half-breed

The Secretary may in his discretion grant a permit or lease for a grazing allotment without charge on unallotted public lands to any Eskimo or other native or half-breed. Whenever such native or half-breed grazes his livestock through cooperative agreement on allotment held by other lessee or permittee, any grazing fees charged for said allotment shall be reduced in proportion to the relative number of such native owned livestock to the total number on said allotment.

(Mar. 4, 1927, ch. 513, §13, 44 Stat. 1454.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 471l of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.
### SUBCHAPTER II—TOWN SITES
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James Calloway, Appellant.

Motion by appellant to compel the court stenographer to prepare and file on or before December 31, 1960, pursuant to statute (Code Grim. Pro., § 456), a typewritten transcript of the minutes of the trial, or in the alternative, to direct that appellant be released on reasonable bail or that the judgment of conviction be reversed and a new trial granted. Motion denied, without prejudice to renewal in the event that the typewritten transcript be not made available to appellant by January 5, 1961. On the court’s own motion, this appeal is ordered on the calendar for the February Term, commencing January 30, 1961. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
Order entered April 28 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 01437

- CR

STEPHEN GLEN LIMBAUG H, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F12

- 21347

- I



### O RDER

The Court REINSTATE S the appeal.
On April 16, 2014, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s

brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to pursue the

appe al; (2) appellant is indigent and represented by court

- appointed counsel David Pire; (3) Mr. Pire’s explanation for the delay in filing appellant’s brief is his workload; and (4) Mr. Pire
requested thirty days from the April 25, 2014 findings to file appel lant’s brief.

We ORDER appellant to file his brief by TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2014

. We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to
counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
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

Rosemary Dady SBN# 190174

The Hawkins Center of Rubicon Programs

101 Broadway Ave. 

Richmond, California 94804

(510) 232-6611 (phone)

(510) 232-2271 (fax)

Attorney for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Brenda Williams, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CIVIL NO. 09-2183 MHP

vs. )

)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, ) STIPULATION AND ORDER TO

Commissioner of Social Security ) EXTEND TIME FOR PLAINTIFF

) TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY

Defendant. ) JUDGMENT )

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the undersigned attorneys, pursuant to 

Civil L.R. 7-12, and subject to the approval of the Court, that plaintiff may have an extension of 

30 days in which to file his Motion for Summary Judgment.1

//

 Plaintiff's motion was due on 

January 13, 2010, pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-5. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is now 

due on February 12, 2010. 

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

 

1. See attached Declaration of Rosemary Dady on behalf of Brenda Williams. 

Case 3:09-cv-02183-MHP Document 12 Filed 01/15/10 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

//

This is Plaintiff's first request for an extension.

Dated: January 13, 2010 ____/S/______________________________

Rosemary Dady

Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: January 13, 2010 _____/S/_______________________________

Dennis J. Hanna

Special Assistant United States Attorney

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated: ___________________________________

MARILYN H. PATEL

United States District Judge

1/14/2010

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:09-cv-02183-MHP Document 12 Filed 01/15/10 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 10.5**

 

**New York Community Bancorp, Inc.**

**615 Merrick Avenue**

**Westbury, New York 11590**

 

June 27, 2003 

 

Joseph L. Mancino 

The Roslyn Savings Bank 

One Jericho Plaza 

Jericho, New York 11753-8905 

 

Dear Joseph: 

 

I am pleased to have this opportunity to set forth in writing certainadditional information relating to your employment at New York Community Bancorp, Inc. (the “Holding Company”) and New York Community Bank (the “Bank”) following the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Agreementand Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”) entered between the Holding Company and Roslyn Bancorp, Inc. on this date. This letter is intended to supplement your new employment agreement with the Holding Company. 

 

At such time as you become an employee of the Holding Company and the Bankunder your new employment agreement as a result of the merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement, you will receive a retention bonus of $2,000,000. However, if you voluntarily terminate employment prior to the completion of 365 days of employmentafter the Effective Time other than by reason of an “Event of Termination” (as defined in your new employment agreement), or if you are terminated for “Just Cause” (as defined in your new employment agreement) within such 365-dayperiod, you will immediately return to the Holding Company a portion of the retention bonus equal to the product of (x) the retention bonus and (y) a fraction the numerator of which is the total number of days remaining in such 365-day period andthe denominator of which is 365. 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Merger Agreement is terminated pursuant to Article VI of the MergerAgreement, this letter agreement will be null and void. 

 

Pleaseacknowledge the foregoing in the space indicated below. 

 
  
Sincerely,
  
/s/ Joseph R. Ficalora
  
Joseph R. Ficalora

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

Acknowledged and Agreed:

/s/ Joseph L. Mancino

Joseph L. Mancino

 

 

2
#### § 530.140 Employment.

No qualified handicapped person shall, on the basis of handicap, be subjected to discrimination in employment under any program or activity conducted by the Board. The definitions, requirements, and procedures of section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791), as established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1613, shall apply to employment in federally conducted programs or activities.
§ 238.5 Non-impairment of the Guarantee. After issuance of the Guarantee, the Guarantee will be an unconditional, full faith and credit obligation of the United States of America and will not be affected or impaired by any subsequent condition or event. This non-impairment of the guarantee provision shall not, however, be operative with respect to any loss arising out of fraud or misrepresentation for which the claiming Noteholder is responsible or of which it had knowledge at the time it became a Noteholder. In particular and without limitation, the Guarantee shall not be affected or impaired by: ( a ) Any defect in the authorization, execution, delivery or enforceability of any agreement or other document executed by a Noteholder, USAID, the Fiscal Agent or the Borrower in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Guarantee or
( b ) The suspension or termination of the program pursuant to which USAID is authorized to guarantee the Eligible Notes.
#### CLARK, Respondent, v. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

February 11, 1903.)

Action by Patrick Clark against the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company.

PER CURIAM.

We think this case differs from those relied upon by the attorney for the plaintiff, inasmuch as here there is a clear dissent by one of the members of the court. Motion denied.