alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §2507. Entries and final proofs, made out of proper district, confirmed

Whenever it shall appear to the Secretary of the Interior, or such officer as he may designate, that an error was made prior to March 9, 1904, by the officers of any local land office in receiving any application, declaratory statement, entry, or final proof under the homestead or other land laws, and that there was no fraud practiced by the entryman, and that there are no prior adverse claimants to the land described in the entry, and that no other reason why the title should not vest in the entryman exists, except that said application, declaratory statement, entry, or proof was not made within the land district in which the lands applied for were situated, as provided by the Act of March 11, 1902, such entry or proof shall be confirmed.

(Mar. 9, 1904, ch. 503, §1, 33 Stat. 64; 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 3, §403, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7876, 60 Stat. 1100.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Act of March 11, 1902, referred to in text, probably means act Mar. 11, 1902, ch. 182, 32 Stat. 63, which was classified to section 254 of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §702, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2787. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 1167 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

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

#### Effective Date

Act Mar. 9, 1904, ch. 503, §2, 33 Stat. 64, provided: "That this Act [enacting this section] shall be in force from and after its passage and approval."

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of the Interior, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Interior, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1262, set out under section 1451 of this title.

"Secretary of the Interior, or such officer as he may designate," substituted for "Commissioner of the General Land Office" on authority of section 403 of Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1946. See note set out under section 1 of this title.
1

The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1429

___________

United States, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Arizona Logan, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 20, 2007

Filed: December 21, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arizona Logan challenges the 136-month prison sentence the district court1

imposed after he pleaded guilty to committing armed bank robbery and assaulting

bank employees with a dangerous weapon during its commission, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) (twenty-five-year maximum prison term). At sentencing, the

district court granted the government’s motion for an acceptance-of-responsibility

reduction, determined an advisory Guidelines range of 121-151 months, and – after

stating that it had considered all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and noting Logan’s
-2-

history of substance abuse – imposed the 136-month prison sentence, 5 years of

supervised release, and mandatory restitution of $23,175, representing the

unrecovered portion of the robbery proceeds. On appeal, Logan’s counsel has filed

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), requesting permission

to withdraw and suggesting that the government should have moved for a substantialassistance departure in light of information Logan provided regarding the alleged

location of the unrecovered money, even though the information did not lead to

recovery of the money and Logan failed a polygraph examination.

The government’s decision not to file a motion for a downward departure based

on substantial assistance may be challenged only if the defendant makes a substantial

threshold showing of prosecutorial discrimination, irrational conduct, or bad faith.

See United States v. Hardy, 325 F.3d 994, 996 (8th Cir. 2003). We conclude that

Logan has made no such showing. We also conclude that Logan’s prison sentence,

below the statutory maximum and within the applicable advisory Guidelines range,

is presumptively reasonable. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007);

United States v. Harris, 493 F.3d 928, 932 (8th Cir. 2007). Furthermore, the record

indicates that the district court appropriately considered the factors in section 3553(a),

and nothing in it suggests that the court misapplied those factors. See Harris, 493 F.3d

at 932-33. 

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________
### §600. Minidoka project, Idaho; sales of water from American Falls Reservoir

No contractor shall secure a right to the use of water from American Falls Reservoir, Minidoka project, except under a contract containing the provision that the contractor shall, as a part of the construction cost, pay interest at the rate of six per centum per annum upon the contractor's proper proportionate share, as found by the Secretary of the Interior, of the moneys advanced by the United States on account of the construction of said reservoir prior to the date of the contract.

(June 5, 1924, ch. 264, 43 Stat. 417.)
§ 146.25 Assurance of compliance and recipient assessment of age distinctions. ( a ) Each recipient of Federal financial assistance from HUD shall sign a written assurance as specified by HUD that it will comply with the Act and this part with respect to programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance from HUD.
( b ) As part of a compliance review under § 146.31 or an investigation under § 146.37, HUD may require a recipient employing the equivalent of 15 or more employees to complete, in a manner specified by the Secretary or Secretary's designee, a written self-evaluation of any age distinction imposed in its program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance from HUD, so that HUD may have to assess the recipient's compliance with the Act. Whenever an assessment indicates a violation of the Act or this part, the recipient shall take corrective action to remedy the violation.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2529-0030) [51 FR 45266, Dec. 17, 1986, as amended at 52 FR 7408, Mar. 11, 1987]
§ 3285.606 Ductwork connections. ( a ) Multi-section homes with ductwork in more than one section require crossover connections to complete the duct system of the home. All ductwork connections, including duct collars, must be sealed to prevent air leakage. Galvanized metal straps or tape and mastics listed to UL 181A (incorporated by reference, see § 3285.4), for closure systems with rigid air ducts and connectors, or UL 181B (incorporated by reference, see § 3285.4), for closure systems with flexible air ducts and connectors, must be used around the duct collar and secured tightly to make all connections.
( b ) If metal straps are used, they must be secured with galvanized sheet metal screws.
( c ) Metal ducts must be fastened to the collar with a minimum of three galvanized sheet metal screws equally spaced around the collar.
( d ) Air conditioning or heating ducts must be installed in accordance with applicable requirements of the duct manufacturer installation instructions.
( e ) The duct must be suspended or supported above the ground by straps or other means that are spaced at a maximum distance not to exceed 4′-0′′ or as otherwise permitted by the installation instructions. When straps are used to support a flexible type duct, the straps must be at least 1 ⁄ 2′′ wider than the spacing of the metal spirals encasing the duct. The ducts must be installed such that the straps cannot slip between any two spirals and arranged under the floor to prevent compression or kinking in any location, as shown in Figures A and B to this section. In-floor crossover ducts are permitted, in accordance with § 3285.606(g).
( f ) Crossover ducts outside the thermal envelope must be insulated with materials that conform to designs consistent with part 3280, subpart F of this chapter.
( g ) In-floor or ceiling crossover duct connections must be installed and sealed to prevent air leakage.
Notes:
1. This system is typically used when a crossover duct has not been built into the floor and the furnace is outside the I-Beam. With this type of installation, it is necessary for two flexible ducts to be installed. 2. The crossover duct must be listed for exterior use.
Notes:
1. This system is typically used when a crossover duct has not been built into the floor and the furnace is situated directly over the main duct in one section of the home. A single flexible duct is then used to connect the two sections to each other. 2. The crossover duct must be listed for exterior use.
### §2621. Coos Bay Wagon Road grant fund; annual payments; appraisal and assessment of land and timber; computation of payments

Beginning with the fiscal year next following May 24, 1939, not to exceed 75 per centum of the receipts derived in any one year from the Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands in Oregon and deposited in the special fund in the Treasury created by the Act of February 26, 1919 (40 Stat. 1179), and designated "The Coos Bay Wagon Road grant fund" shall be paid annually, in lieu of taxes, by the Secretary of the Treasury, upon certification by the Secretary of the Interior, to the treasurers of Coos and Douglas Counties according to the ratio that the total assessed valuation of the reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands, belonging to the United States, in each of said counties bears to the total assessed valuation of all said lands in those counties, to be used for the purposes mentioned in said Act: Provided, That until such time as the general fund of the Treasury of the United States shall have been fully reimbursed by Douglas County for expenditures which were made charges against the Coos Bay Wagon Road grant fund by section 5 of the Act of February 26, 1919, said Douglas County shall be entitled to receive only 50 per centum of the amount to which it would otherwise be entitled under this subchapter: Provided further, That prior to making any payment under this authorization an appraisal of the land and timber thereon shall be made, within six months after May 24, 1939, by a committee to consist of a representative of the Secretary of the Interior, one representative for the two counties interested, and a third person satisfactory to the Secretary of the Interior and the county officials, but who shall not be an employee of the United States nor a resident of, nor a property owner in, either Coos or Douglas County. Upon appraisal thereof, the land and timber thereon shall be assessed as are other similar properties within the respective counties, and payments hereunder in lieu of taxes shall be computed by applying the same rates of taxation as are applied to privately owned property of similar character in such counties.

(May 24, 1939, ch. 144, §1, 53 Stat. 753.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Act of February 26, 1919, referred to in text, is act Feb. 26, 1919, ch. 47, 40 Stat. 1179, which is not classified to the Code.

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 1181f–1 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

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

#### Repeals

Act May 24, 1939, ch. 144, §5, 53 Stat. 754, provided that: "All Acts or parts of Acts inconsistent with this Act [enacting this subchapter] are hereby repealed."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,432,261
<SECURITIES>                                 9,837,197
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    185,562
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,036,734
<PP&E>                                       6,189,606
<DEPRECIATION>                                 297,998
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,171,840
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,754,111
<BONDS>                                        702,649
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    19,660,528
<OTHER-SE>                                   (945,448)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,171,840
<SALES>                                      2,240,683
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,240,683
<CGS>                                          780,026
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,931,916
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,067,010
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (138,956)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (619,287)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (619,287)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (619,287)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)
        

</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 23, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135669 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135669 

 COA: 281337 

Muskegon CC: 91-032805-FC

JOHNNY LEE MURPHY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 27, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). 

p0616 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 23, 2008 

 Clerk
#### § 266.402 Recordation.

At the time of initial endorsement in the case of insurance of advances or at the time of final endorsement in the case of insurance upon completion, the HFA shall make certain that the mortgage and the regulatory agreement are recorded.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CRAIG STEVENSON,

Petitioner,

 v.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. CV-09-0759 MMC (PR)

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

() Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues

have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

(X) Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The

issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED the petition for a writ of habeas corpus

is hereby DENIED.

Dated: January 5, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Tracy Lucero

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:09-cv-00759-MMC Document 11 Filed 01/05/10 Page 1 of 1
#### Erik Magnussen, Jr., Appellant, v Margaret Magnussen, Respondent.

In a matrimonial action, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 7, 1977, made pursuant to section 49-b of the Personal Property Law. Order modified by deleting (1) so much of the third decretal paragraph thereof as begins with the words: "as and for counsel fees” and (2) from the fourth decretal paragraph thereof the words "the aforesaid sums” and substituting therefor the words "the arrears in alimony and child support”. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Subdivision 3 of section 49-b of the Personal Property Law, relating to wage deduction orders upon delinquencies in payments due to the spouse or dependent children, does not provide that such deductions be applied toward the payment of counsel fees. It was therefore inappropriate to permit the failure to pay such fees to trigger a wage deduction order. Titone, J. P., Gulotta, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (i)
    
    the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December
31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  By:
    /s/ Kimberly K. SchaeferKimberly K. SchaeferChief Executive Officer
----

xh

| Subsidiaries                                             |   | PercentageOwnership |   | Jurisdiction      orState      of Incorporation |
|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                                                     |   |                |   |                                            |
| Naugatuck      Valley Savings and Loan                   |   | 100%                |   | United      States                              |
| Naugatuck      Valley Mortgage Servicing Corporation (1) |   | 100%                |   | Connecticut                                     |

| (1) | Wholly      owned subsidiary of Naugatuck Valley Savings and  Loan |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
#### In the Matter of William T. Boyd et al., Respondents, v Michael J. Codd, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, et al., Appellants.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on or about August 19, 1977, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Kassal, J., at Special Term, without costs and without disbursements. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Silverman, Evans and Lane, JJ.
### §867. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, R.S. §2377; act June 20, 1874, ch. 330, 18 Stat. 111, related to extension of obsolete section 829 of this title to reissue of agricultural land scrip, canceled, or destroyed without the fault of the owner thereof.
NO. 07-01-00503- CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D JANUARY

29, 2002

______________________________ GERALD MEYERDIRK

Appellant v. J&L CATTLE ASSOCIAT ES, LTD d/b/a J. K. CATT LE COMPANY Appellee

______________________________ FROM THE 47 TH DISTRIC T COURT O F RANDALL COUNTY; NO. 46,941-A; HON. DAVID L. GLEASON, PRESIDING

______________________________ ORDER ON APPELLANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW NOTICE OF APPEAL Before BOYD, C.J., QUINN and REAVIS, JJ. Gerald Meyerdi rk appellant, has moved to withdraw his notice of appeal contending that he “no longer wishes to pursue this Appeal.” Without passing on the meri ts of the case,
we grant the motion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Proced ure 42.1(a)(2) and dismiss the appeal. Hav ing dismis sed th e appea l at appellant’ s personal r equest, no moti on for rehearing will b e entertained, and our mandate wi ll issue fort hwith.

Brian Quinn Justice Do not publish

.
### §1846. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–66, title I, §1021(f), Dec. 21, 1995, 109 Stat. 713

Section, Pub. L. 95–372, title IV, §406, Sept. 18, 1978, 92 Stat. 689, directed Secretary to submit annual reports to Congress setting forth Fishermen's Contingency Fund damage descriptions and compensation amounts and, in first annual report, to evaluate feasibility of (1) fine or penalty impositions, or (2) bonding requirements.
Editorial Note on Part 3282
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3282 appear at 78 FR 60199, Oct. 1, 2013.

§ 3282.418 Factors for appropriateness and amount of civil penalties. In determining whether to seek a civil penalty for a violation of the requirements of this subpart, and the amount of such penalty to be recommended, the Secretary will consider the provisions of the Act and the following factors: ( a ) The gravity of the violation;
( b ) The degree of the violator's culpability, including whether the violator had acted in good faith in trying to comply with the requirements;
( c ) The injury to the public;
( d ) Any injury to owners or occupants of manufactured homes
( e ) The ability to pay the penalty;
( f ) Any benefits received by the violator;
( g ) The extent of potential benefits to other persons;
( h ) Any history of prior violations;
( i ) Deterrence of future violations; and
( j ) Such other factors as justice may require.
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY OF ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NUVEEN MUNICIPAL HIGH INCOME

OPPORTUNITY FUND,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-04575 SI

THIRD

PRETRIAL PREPARATION ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED pursuant to F.R.C.P. and the Local Rules of this Court:

FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT: July 16, 2010 at 3:00 p.m.

Counsel must file a joint case management statement seven days in advance of the conference.

DISCOVERY PLAN: Per F.R.Civ.P and Local Rules, subject to any provisions below.

NON-EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF is September 3, 2010.

DESIGNATION OF EXPERTS: 9/24/10; REBUTTAL: 10/15/10. Parties SHALL conform to Rule 26(a)(2).

EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF is November 12, 2010.

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS SHALL be filed by December 3, 2010; 

Opp. Due December 17, 2010; Reply Due December 23, 2010;

 and set for hearing no later than January 14, 2010 at 9:00 AM.

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE: February 22, 2011 at 3:30 PM.

JURY TRIAL DATE: March 7, 2011 at 8:30 AM., Courtroom 10, 19th floor.

TRIAL LENGTH is estimated to be days.

SPECIAL DISCOVERY AND PRETRIAL PROVISIONS:

By April 16, 2010, counsel shall inform the Court of the type of ADR procedure and the date it’s

scheduled to occur. The parties have agreed to participate in an ADR process either late June 2010 or

early July 2010.

The parties have agreed to increase the number of interrogatories up to 50, 

The pretrial conference SHALL be attended by trial counsel prepared to discuss all aspects of the case,

including settlement. Parties SHALL conform to the attached instructions. Plaintiff is ORDERED to

serve a copy of this order on any party subsequently joined in this action.

Dated: 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01437-SI Document 48 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 1