alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §7610. Other authority

#### (a) Authority and responsibilities under other laws not affected

Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, this chapter shall not be construed as superseding or limiting the authorities and responsibilities, under any other provision of law, of the Administrator or any other Federal officer, department, or agency.

#### (b) Nonduplication of appropriations

No appropriation shall be authorized or made under section 241, 243, or 246 of this title for any fiscal year after the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, for any purpose for which appropriations may be made under authority of this chapter.

(July 14, 1955, ch. 360, title III, §310, formerly §10, as added Pub. L. 88–206, §1, Dec. 17, 1963, 77 Stat. 401; renumbered §303, Pub. L. 89–272, title I, §101(4), Oct. 20, 1965, 79 Stat. 992; amended Pub. L. 90–148, §2, Nov. 21, 1967, 81 Stat. 505; renumbered §310 and amended Pub. L. 91–604, §§12(a), 15(c)(2), Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1705, 1713.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 1857i of this title.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 310 of act July 14, 1955, was renumbered section 317 by Pub. L. 91–604 and is set out as a Short Title note under section 7401 of this title.

Provisions similar to those in subsec. (a) of this section were contained in section 1857f of this title, act July 14, 1955, ch. 360, §7, 69 Stat. 323, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 88–206.

#### Amendments

1970—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 91–604, §15(c)(2), substituted "Administrator" for "Secretary".

1967—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 90–148 substituted reference to section 246 of this title for reference to section 246(c) of this title.

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

#### Modification or Rescission of Rules, Regulations, Orders, Determinations, Contracts, Certifications, Authorizations, Delegations, and Other Actions

All rules, regulations, orders, determinations, contracts, certifications, authorizations, delegations, or other actions duly issued, made, or taken by or pursuant to act July 14, 1955, the Clean Air Act, as in effect immediately prior to the date of enactment of Pub. L. 95–95 [Aug. 7, 1977] to continue in full force and effect until modified or rescinded in accordance with act July 14, 1955, as amended by Pub. L. 95–95 [this chapter], see section 406(b) of Pub. L. 95–95, set out as an Effective Date of 1977 Amendment note under section 7401 of this title.
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

Gordon & Rees LLP

275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111

1

1

ST IPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING T IME CASE NO. C08-04692 MMC

& [PROPOSED] ORDER

TAD A. DEVLIN (SBN: 190355)

SHANNON L. ROSS (SBN: 205714)

GORDON & REES LLP

275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 986-5900

Facsimile: (415) 986-8054

Attorneys for Defendant

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GORDON ERSPAMER

Plaintiff,

v.

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP LONG TERM

DISABILITY PLAN,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C08-04692 MMC

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR

ORDER CHANGING TIME AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER [L.R. 6-2]

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND REQUESTED by the undersigned counsel for the

respective parties hereto, pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, that the dates set forth in the Court’s Ap ril

20, 2010 Order be extended as follows:

x Deadline for Defendant to complete discovery: September 17, 2010;

x Deadline to file Case M anagement Statement: October 1, 2010; and

x Case M anagement Conference: October 8, 2010.

This request is made in light of M agistrate Judge Larson’s M ay 18, 2010 Order wherein

he set the hearing for Plaintiff’s M otion to Quash or for Protective Order for June 30, 2010. The

requested extension allows time for a determination to be made on Plaintiff’s M otion, and for

discovery and any discovery -related motions to be completed.

Case 3:08-cv-04692-MMC Document 92 Filed 05/27/10 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

Gordon & Rees LLP

275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111

2

2

ST IPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING T IME CASE NO. C08-04692 MMC

& [PROPOSED] ORDER

There have been no p revious time modifications requested or made regarding the Court’s

Ap ril 20, 2010 Order setting the discovery and case management deadlines.

It is so stipulated.

Dated: M ay 26, 2010 LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER &

JACKSON, P.C.

By: /s/ Daniel Feinberg

Daniel Feinberg

Nina Wasow

Attorneys for Plaintiff

GORDON ERSPAMER

Dated: M ay 25, 2010 GORDON & REES LLP

By: /s/ Shannon L. Ross

Tad A. Devlin

Shannon L. Ross

Attorneys for Defendant

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP LONG

TERM DISABILITY PLAN

I, SHANNON L. ROSS, hereby attest that DANIEL FEINBERG, counsel for plaintiff,

concurs in the filing of this Stipulated Request for Order Changing Time

.

DATED: M ay 26, 2010 By__/s/ Shannon L. Ross

Shannon L. Ross

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ____________, 2010

The Honorable M axine M. Chesney

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

PRU/1054181/7957768v.1

May 27

Case 3:08-cv-04692-MMC Document 92 Filed 05/27/10 Page 2 of 2
§ 1.6 Compliance information. ( a ) *Cooperation and assistance.* The responsible Department official and each Department official who by law or delegation has the principal responsibility within the Department for the administration of any law extending financial assistance subject to this part 1 shall to the fullest extent practicable seek the cooperation of recipients in obtaining compliance with this part 1 and shall provide assistance and guidance to recipients to help them comply voluntarily with this part 1.
( b ) *Compliance reports.* Each recipient shall keep such records and submit to the responsible Department official or his designee timely, complete, and accurate compliance reports at such times, and in such form and containing such information, as the responsible Department official or his designee may determine to be necessary to enable him to ascertain whether the recipient has complied or is complying with this part 1. In general, recipients should have available for the department racial and ethnic data showing the extent to which members of minority groups are beneficiaries of federally assisted programs.
( c ) *Access to sources of information.* Each recipient shall permit access by the responsible Department official or his designee during normal business hours to such of its books, records, accounts, and other sources of information, and its facilities as may be pertinent to ascertain compliance with this part 1. Where any information required of a recipient is in the exclusive possession of any other agency, institution, or person and this agency, institution, or person shall fail or refuse to furnish this information, the recipient shall so certify in its report and shall set forth what efforts it has made to obtain the information.
( d ) *Information to beneficiaries and participants.* Each recipient shall make available to participants, beneficiaries, and other interested persons such information regarding the provisions of this part 1 and its applicability to the program or activity under which the recipient receives Federal financial assistance, and make such information available to them in such manner, as the responsible Department official finds necessary to apprise such persons of the protections against discrimination assured them by the Act and this part 1.
### §421g. Existing rights unaffected

Nothing in sections 421a to 421h of this title shall be construed to repeal or limit the procedural and substantive requirements of sections 372 and 383 of this title.

(July 4, 1955, ch. 271, §7, as added Pub. L. 92–487, Oct. 13, 1972, 86 Stat. 806.)
Case 3:09-cv-01613-BZ   Document 116   Filed 07/08/10   Page 1 of 2

Case 3:09-cv-01613-BZ   Document 116   Filed 07/08/10   Page 2 of 2
#### Margaret Cullinan, Respondent, v Board of Higher Education of the City of New York, et al., Appellants, and Professional Staff Congress of the City University of New York, Respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 22, 1976, which in this article 78 proceeding granted the petition to the extent of directing the respondent Board of Higher Education to accept petitioner’s grievance as timely filed and to comply with the grievance procedure as set forth in the collective bargaining agreement between the Board of Higher Education and the Professional Staff Congress of the City University of New York, unanimously reversed on the law, and vacated and the petition dismissed without costs and without disbursements. Petitioner, a lecturer in the city college history department, was notified by the department chairman that she was to be reappointed, pursuant to which she would have had tenure. However, the division of social science and the college review committee recommended that she not be reappointed, and the president of the college upheld that decision. Relying on information that all nontenured and noncertificated members of the teaching staff of the department would not be reappointed, she did not file a grievance. Thereafter, the petitioner learned that some in her category were not terminated, and so she then untimely, filed the grievance pursuant to the proper collective bargaining agreement procedure. At the first and second steps of the procedure, the grievance was rejected on the ground that it was not timely. The third step providing for arbitration was not followed, and instead this proceeding was brought. We hold that arbitration is proper in the premises. (See *Matter of Citizens Care Day Care v Community and Social Agency Employees Union, Dist. Council 1707 Day Care Employees,*57 AD2d 524.) Further, it is for the arbitration tribunal to determine whether the grievance was timely, and whether, if untimely, the delay was excusable in view of the inaccurate information allegedly received. (See *Pearl St. Dev. Corp. v Conduit & Foundation Corp.,*
      *52441 NY2d 167; *Matter of New England Petroleum Corp. (Asiatic Petroleum Corp.)*57 AD2d 771; *Mobil Oil Indonesia v Asamera Oil (Indonesia),*56 AD2d 339, app dsmd 41 NY2d 1103, lv to app granted 58 AD2d 528.) Concur —Kupferman, J.P., Birns, Silverman and Lane, JJ.
§ 266.604 Mortgage insurance premium: Other requirements. ( a ) *Premium calculations on or after first principal payment.* The premiums payable to the Commissioner on and after the first principal payment shall be calculated in accordance with the amortization schedule prepared by the HFA for final closing and an amount established by the Commissioner through a notice published in the Federal Register and providing a 30-day comment period. After the comments have been considered, HUD will publish a final notice announcing the premium and its effective date. The premium shall not take into account delinquent payments or prepayments.
( b ) *Future premium changes.* Notice of future premium changes will be published in the Federal Register. The Commissioner will propose mortgage insurance premium changes for the Risk-Sharing Program and provide a 30-calendar day public comment period for the purpose of accepting comments on whether the proposed changes are appropriate. After the comments have been considered, HUD will publish a final notice announcing the premium and its effective date.
( c ) *Closing information.* The HFA shall provide final closing information to the Commissioner within 15 calendar days of the final closing in a format prescribed by the Commissioner. In addition, the HFA shall submit a copy of the amortization schedule. This amortization shall be used to compute and collect all future mortgage insurance premiums subject to § 266.600(c) or § 266.602(d). If the mortgage is modified, the HFA shall submit to the Commissioner a copy of the revised amortization schedule, which shall be used to compute and collect all future mortgage insurance premiums subject to § 266.600(c) or § 266.602(d).
( d ) *Due date for premium payments.* Mortgage insurance premiums are due on the first day of the month of the anniversary of the first payment to principal. Any premium received by the Commissioner more than 15 calendar days after the due date shall be assessed a late charge of 4 percent of the amount of the premium payment due. Mortgage insurance premiums that are paid to the Commissioner more than 30 calendar days after the due date shall begin to accrue interest at the rate prescribed by the Treasury Fiscal Requirements Manual.
[59 FR 62524, Dec. 5, 1994, as amended at 85 FR 83444, Dec. 22, 2020]
§ 245.15 Notice to tenants. ( a ) Whenever a mortgagor is required under subparts D or E of this part to serve notice on the tenants of a project, the notice must be served by delivery, except, for a high-rise project, the notice may be served either by delivery or by posting. If service is made by delivery, a copy of the notice must be delivered directly to each unit in the project or mailed to each tenant. If service is made by posting, the notice must be posted in at least three conspicuous places within each building in which the affected dwelling units are located and, during any prescribed tenant period, in a conspicuous place at the address stated in the notice where the materials in support of the mortgagor's proposed action are to be made available for inspection and copying. Posted notices must be maintained intact and in legible form during any prescribed notice period.
( b ) For purposes of computing time periods following service of notice, service is effected, in the case of service by delivery, when all notices have been delivered or mailed and, in the case of service by posting, when all notices have been initially posted.
[50 FR 32402, Aug. 12, 1985, as amended at 61 FR 57961, Nov. 8, 1996]
```

[House Report 110-492]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

110th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    110-492

======================================================================

 
  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION (H.J. RES. 69) 
MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2008, AND 
                           FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

 December 12, 2007.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

  Ms. Slaughter, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 869]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 869, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 69, 
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 
2008, and for other purposes, under a closed rule. The 
resolution provides one hour of debate in the House equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations.
    The resolution waives all points of order against 
consideration of the joint resolution (except for clause 9 or 
10 of rule XXI). The resolution waives all points of order 
against provisions of the joint resolution. This waiver does 
not affect the point of order available under clause 9 of rule 
XXI (regarding earmark disclosure). The resolution also 
provides that the joint resolution shall be considered as read. 
The resolution provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
    The resolution provides that the Chair may postpone further 
consideration of the joint resolution to a time designated by 
the Speaker. The resolution directs the Chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations to insert in the Congressional 
Record at any time during the remainder of the first session of 
the 110th Congress such material as he may deem explanatory of 
appropriations measures for the fiscal year. Finally, the 
resolution tables H. Res. 839 and H. Res. 850.

                         EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

    The Committee is not aware of any points of order against 
the joint resolution or against its consideration. The waivers 
of all points of order (except for clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI) 
against consideration of the joint resolution and all points of 
order against provisions of the joint resolution are 
prophylactic in nature.

                                  

```
#### § 242.74 Smoke detectors.

Each occupied room must include such smoke detectors as are required by law.
*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 97-60182

_____________________

FRANCES LOUISE SANDERS;

PAUL SANDERS,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus

WAL-MART STORES, INC., doing

business as Wal-Mart, Store #0391,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

(1:96-CV-2-SAA)

_______________________________________________________

April 20, 1999

Before REAVLEY, POLITZ and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the following reasons:

1. Reflectors, raised an inch or higher above a driveway across which

customers walk to their cars with bags of merchandise in their hands, are not necessarily

expected and acceptable conditions to be encountered by invitees of a business. The jury
2

was entitled to find the defendant negligent because of its failure to provide reasonably

safe premises. See Tharp v. Bunge Corp., 641 So.2d 20 (Miss. 1994).

2. The jury was also entitled to find the plaintiff contributorily negligent. She

was a frequent customer of the defendant and had seen the reflectors many times. 

Richard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 702 So.2d 79 (La. App. 2 cir. 1977), does not afford the

plaintiff the help claimed. Not only is it a Louisiana case, but the facts are very different. 

The plaintiff there stumbled on bolts protruding from the Wal-Mart sidewalk. She was

walking by a display of merchandise and she could not reasonably anticipate the bolts.

3. The disclosure of the subsequent removal of the reflectors was not blatant

disobedience of the court’s order and, with the court’s instruction, it was harmless.

4. The other points of error raised by Wal-Mart are either its arguments about

the evidence or are directed at rulings of the court within its discretion.

AFFIRMED.
#### Nicholas Bonghi, Appellant, v New York Telephone Company et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[715 NYS2d 679]

—Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs *(see, Loafin’ Tree Rest, v Pardi*[appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 985). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Joslin, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Balio, JJ.
## NUMBER 13 - 2 3 - 00 546 - C V COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN RE ALICIA GONZALEZ AND NICOLE TREBILCOCK

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

.


## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Longoria, Silva, and Peña

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva 1
Relators Alicia Gonzalez and Nicole Trebilcock f iled a petition for writ of mandamus through which they contend that the trial court abused its discretion by granting motions to dismiss filed by the real parties in interest, John Blaha and the Coastal Cons ervation
Association (CCA)

. See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN . §§ 27.001

– 011 (codifying the Texas Citizens Participation Act).

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case. ” ); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).2 Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem. Co. , 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza , 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial court abused its discretion, an d (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. In re USAA Gen. Indem. Co. , 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am ., 148 S.W.3d at 135

– 36; Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 839

– 40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. procee ding). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the response s filed by Blaha and the C CA, the replies thereto filed by relators, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator s ha ve not met their burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we lift the stay previously imposed in this cause. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.10.
W e d eny t he petition for writ of mandamus

. CLARISSA SILVA Justice Delivered and filed on the 25th day of January , 202 4

.
§ 1006.375 Other Federal requirements. ( a ) *Lead-based paint.* The following subparts of HUD's lead-based paint regulations at 24 CFR part 35, which implement the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 4822-4846) and the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 4851-4856), apply to the use of assistance under this part: ( 1 ) Subpart A (§§ 35.80 through 35.98) for disclosures of known lead-based paint hazards upon sale or lease of residential property;
( 2 ) Subpart B (§§ 35.100 through 35.175) for general lead-based paint requirements and definitions;
( 3 ) Subpart H (§§ 35.700 through 35.830) for project-based rental assistance;
( 4 ) Subpart J (§§ 35.900 through 35.940) for rehabilitation;
( 5 ) Subpart K (§§ 35.1000 through 35.1020) for acquisition, leasing, support services, or operation;
( 6 ) Subpart M (§§ 35.1200 through 35.1225) for tenant-based rental assistance; and
( 7 ) Subpart R (§§ 35.1300 through 35.1355) for methods and standards for lead-based paint hazard evaluation and Reduction activities.
( b ) *Drug-free workplace.* The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. 701, *et seq.*) and HUD's implementing regulations in 2 CFR part 2429 apply to the use of assistance under this part.
( c ) *Audits.* The DHHL must comply with the requirements of the Single Audit Act and 2 CFR part 200, subpart F, with the audit report providing a schedule of expenditures for each grant. A copy of each audit must be submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse.
( d ) *Housing counseling.* Housing counseling, as defined in § 5.100, that is funded with or provided in connection with NHHBG funds must be carried out in accordance with 24 CFR 5.111.
( e ) *Section 3.* Requirements under Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 and 24 CFR part 75 apply.
( f ) *Debarment and suspension.* The nonprocurement, debarment, and suspension requirements at 2 CFR part 2424 are applicable.
[89 FR 9763, Feb. 12, 2024]