alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 130251 & (107) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, CHARLES F. FAWCETT, LINDA S. Justices 

FAWCETT, MICHAEL P. REINERTSEN, 

CHERYL L. REINERTSEN, and 

NORTHWESTERN SAVINGS BANK 

& TRUST, 

Plaintiffs/CounterdefendantsAppellees, 

v SC: 130251 

 COA: 253819 

Kalkaska CC: 98-006213-PZ 

ESTATE OF ANNETTE C. MEYER, 

Deceased, JOSEPH ELFELT, JOAN F.

ELFELT and STEPHEN M. ELFELT, 

Defendants/CounterplaintiffsAppellants, 

and 

CLARENCE J. MEYER and CLEMENT B. 

MEYER, 

Defendants/Counterplaintiffs. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 15, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to 

strike is DENIED. 

d0424 

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. 

April 28, 2006 

Clerk
§ 25.10 Hearings and hearing request. ( a ) *Hearing request.* A mortgagee subject to any administrative action under 12 U.S.C. 1708(c), except for a letter of reprimand, may request a hearing, which shall be held on the record before an administrative law judge. The mortgagee shall submit its request for a hearing within 30 days of receiving the Board's notice of administrative action. The request shall be addressed to the Mortgagee Review Board Docket Clerk, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410. The request shall specifically respond to the violations set forth in the notice of administrative action. If the mortgagee fails to request a hearing within 30 days after receiving the notice of administrative action, the Board's action shall become final.
( b ) *Hearing by Administrative Law Judge.* Hearings are to be conducted by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), as set forth in this part. The ALJ shall commence a de novo hearing within 30 days of HUD's receipt of the mortgagee's request, unless the mortgagee moves for an extension of time. The ALJ may extend this time period for good cause.
( c ) *Procedural rules.* The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of 24 CFR part 26, with the following modifications: ( 1 ) The mortgagee or its representative shall be afforded an opportunity to appear, submit documentary evidence, present witnesses, and confront any witness the agency presents, except that the parties shall not be allowed to present members of the Board as witnesses.
( 2 ) Discovery of information and/or documents that do not pertain to the appealing mortgagee, including, but not limited to, reviews or audits by the Department or administrative actions by the Board against mortgagees other than the appealing mortgagee, shall not be permitted. Members of the Board shall not be subject to deposition.
( 3 ) The hearing shall generally be held in Washington, DC. However, upon a showing of undue hardship or other cause, the ALJ may, in his or her discretion, order the hearing to be held in a location other than Washington, DC.
[73 FR 60542, Oct. 10, 2008]
### §390zz. Reporting

Any contracting entity subject to the ownership or pricing limitations of Federal reclamation law shall compile and maintain such records and information as the Secretary deems reasonably necessary to implement this subchapter and Federal reclamation law. On a date set by the Secretary following October 12, 1982, and annually thereafter, every such contracting entity shall provide in a form suitable to the Secretary such reports on the above matters as the Secretary may require.

(Pub. L. 97–293, title II, §228, Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1274.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Federal reclamation law, referred to in text, is defined in section 390aa of this title.
#### § 530.101 Purpose.

This part effectuates section 119 of the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental Disabilities Amendments of 1978, which amended section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of handicap in programs or activities conducted by Executive agencies or the United States Postal Service.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3017

To provide certain requirements for the licensing of commercial nuclear 

facilities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 21, 2005

Mrs. LOWEY (for herself and Mr. HINCHEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL

To provide certain requirements for the licensing of 

commercial nuclear facilities.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Nuclear Power Licens5 ing Reform Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS. 

7 Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 

8 U.S.C. 2133) is amended—

9 (1) in subsection b., by inserting ‘‘, including 

10 that the facility does not pose an unreasonable 
2

•HR 3017 IH 

1 threat to persons or the environment because of 

2 safety or security vulnerabilities (including vulner3 ability to terrorist attacks), and that there exist ade4 quate evacuation plans for emergency events and 

5 that those plans have been approved by the relevant 

6 Federal agencies and States within 50 miles of the 

7 facility’’ after ‘‘by rule establish’’; and 

8 (2) in subsection c., by adding at the end the 

9 following: ‘‘Any such renewal shall be subject to the 

10 same criteria and requirements that would be appli11 cable for an original application for initial construc12 tion, and the Commission shall ensure that any 

13 changes in the size or distribution of the sur14 rounding population have not resulted in the facility 

15 being located at a site at which a new facility would 

16 not be allowed to be built.’’.

Æ
§ 25.3 Definitions. *Adequate evidence.* Information sufficient to support the reasonable belief that a particular act or omission has occurred.
*Board.* The Mortgagee Review Board.
*Lender.* A financial institution as defined in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of lender in § 202.2 of this title.
*Mortgagee.* For purposes of this part, the term “mortgagee” includes: ( 1 ) The original lender under the mortgage, as that term is defined at sections 201(a) and 207(a)(1) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1707(a), 1713(a)(1));
( 2 ) A lender, as defined in this section;
( 3 ) A branch office or subsidiary of the mortgagee or lender; or
( 4 ) Successors and assigns of the mortgagee or lender, as are approved by the Commissioner.
*Person.* Any individual, corporation, partnership, association, unit of government or legal entity, however organized.
*Secretary.* The Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development or a person designated by the Secretary.
[57 FR 31051, July 13, 1992; 57 FR 37085, Aug. 18, 1992, as amended at 60 FR 13835, Mar. 14, 1995; 60 FR 39237, Aug. 1, 1995; 61 FR 685, Jan. 9, 1996; 62 FR 20081, Apr. 24, 1997; 72 FR 53878, Sept. 20, 2007; 73 FR 60540, Oct. 10, 2008; 77 FR 51467, Aug. 24, 2012]
#### § 1007.65 Transfer and assumption.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any loan guaranteed under this section, including the security given for the loan, may be sold or assigned by the lender to any financial institution subject to examination and supervision by an agency of the Federal Government or of any State or the District of Columbia.
#### Anna Alfieri, an Infant, by Her Parent and Natural Guardian, Marjorie Alfieri, et al., Appellants, v Lewis General Tires, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Same memorandum as in *Alñeri v Lewis Gen. Tires*(62 AD2d 1135). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe Supreme Court—automobile negligence.) Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Dillon and Hancock, Jr., JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1898

In re: DEAFUEH MONBO; JUAHDI MONBO,

Petitioners.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:21-cv-01230-MSN-WEF)

Submitted: October 13, 2022 Decided: October 17, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Deafueh Monbo and Juahdi Monbo, Petitioners Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1898 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/17/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Deafueh and Juahdi Monbo (“Petitioners”) petition for a writ of mandamus seeking 

an order instructing the district court to assign their civil case to a particular magistrate 

judge and modify the case number. We conclude that Petitioners are not entitled to 

mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary 

circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown, 

LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when 

the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to 

attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (cleaned up).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that Petitioners are not entitled to the 

relief they seek. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We further deny 

Petitioners’ motion for a stay pending the resolution of their petition. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1898 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/17/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. Joseph MaGrady, otherwise called Joseph McGrady, plaintiff in error.

Gen. No. 28,266.

Indictment for taking indecent liberties with child. Verdict of guilty. Sentence of one year’s imprisonment and fine of $200. Error to the Criminal Court of Cook county; the Hon. Harry Miller, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of' this court for the first district at the March term, 1933.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed June 26, 1923.

Edward A. Prindiville, for plaintiff in error; John E. Poster and John P. Tyrrell, of counsel. Robert E. Crowe, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error; Edward E. Wilson and Clyde C. Pisher, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
### §2119. Cooperative agreements

(a) Authority.—The Archivist may enter into cooperative agreements pursuant to section 6305 of title 31 that involve the transfer of funds from the National Archives and Records Administration to State and local governments, other public entities, educational institutions, or private nonprofit organizations (including foundations or institutes organized to support the National Archives and Records Administration or the Presidential archival depositories operated by it) for the public purpose of carrying out programs of the National Archives and Records Administration.

(b) Limitations.—Not more than $25,000 may be transferred under a cooperative agreement entered into as authorized by subsection (a). Not more than a total of $75,000 may be transferred under such agreements in any fiscal year.

(c) Report.—Not later than December 31st of each year, the Archivist shall submit to the Committee on Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on the provisions, amount, and duration of each cooperative agreement entered into as authorized by subsection (a) during the preceding fiscal year.

(Added Pub. L. 108–383, §5(a), Oct. 30, 2004, 118 Stat. 2219.)

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

#### Change of Name

Committee on Government Reform of House of Representatives changed to Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 6, One Hundred Tenth Congress, Jan. 5, 2007. Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of House of Representatives changed to Committee on Oversight and Reform of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 6, One Hundred Sixteenth Congress, Jan. 9, 2019. Committee on Oversight and Reform of House of Representatives changed to Committee on Oversight and Accountability of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 5, One Hundred Eighteenth Congress, Jan. 9, 2023.

Committee on Governmental Affairs of Senate changed to Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of Senate, effective Jan. 4, 2005, by Senate Resolution No. 445, One Hundred Eighth Congress, Oct. 9, 2004.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Stipulation and Order to Continue Settlement Conference Date Case No. 3:-08-cv-05385 BZ 

GARY R. BASHAM (SBN 130119) 

AARON R. JACKSON (SBN 233816) 

BASHAM PARKER LLP 

701 University Avenue, Suite 150 

Sacramento, California 95825 

Telephone: (916) 925-5850 

Facsimile: (916) 925-5854 

Attorneys for Defendant 

RADIOSHACK CORPORATION 

ROBERT C. HUBBS (SBN 145641) 

KNEISLER, SCHONDEL & HUBBS 

538 Mendocino Avenue 

P.O. Box 5767 

Santa Rosa, CA 95402-5767 

Telephone (707) 542-5132 

Facsimile: (707) 547-2212 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

JAMES PETERSEN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES PETERSEN 

Plaintiff, 

v.

RADIOSHACK CORPORATION, and DOES 1 to 

50 inclusive, 

Defendants.

Case No. 3:08-05385 BZ 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO CONTINUE 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 

DATE 

Complaint Filed: October 28, 2008 

Trial Date: July 12, 2010 

 Plaintiff JAMES PETERSEN and Defendant RADIOSHACK CORPORATION, 

by and through their respective attorneys of record, hereby stipulate and agree to continue the 

Settlement Conference, which is currently scheduled before Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James 

on March 3, 2010, to a later mutually agreeable date between the parties and the Court. Good 

cause exists to move the Settlement Conference because Defendant RADIOSHACK 

CORPORATION’s lead trial counsel, Gary R. Basham, has a conflict with the currently 

scheduled settlement conference date due to the recent death of his grandmother on Saturday, 

February 27, 2010. 

Case 3:08-cv-05385-BZ Document 42 Filed 03/02/10 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

2

Stipulation and Order to Continue Settlement Conference Date Case No. 3:-08-cv-05385 BZ 

IT IS SO STIPULATED:

Dated: March 1, 2010 KNEISLER, SCHONDEL & HUBBS 

By: /s/ Robert C. Hubbs 

Robert C. Hubbs 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

JAMES PETERSEN 

Dated: March 1, 2010 BASHAM PARKER LLP 

By: /s/ Aaron R. Jackson 

Gary R. Basham 

Aaron R. Jackson 

Attorneys for Defendant 

RADIOSHACK CORPORATION 

ORDER

 Having reviewed the Stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing: 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Settlement Conference be continued to a 

mutually agreeable date between the parties and the Court. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated:_________________________ 

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES 

Case 3:08-cv-05385-BZ Document 42 Filed 03/02/10 Page 2 of 2
State of Israel 

Ministry of Transport 

Civil Aviation Authority 

 Page 1 of 2 

G:\AIRW-EN\AD\AD G200\AD 27-10-11-03 Centering spring Rod\AD 27-20-11-03.doc 

 

 AD 27-10-11-03 

 Date: December 06, 2010

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE

This Airworthiness Directive, issued by the Civil Aviation Administration in accordance with the 

Israeli Air Navigation Regulations applies to an aircraft for which our records list you as the 

registered owner. It affects aviation safety and requires your immediate attention. No person may 

operate an aircraft to which an Airworthiness Directive applies, except in accordance with that 

Directive. 

APPLIES TO: GALP model GALAXY and Gulfstream 200 aircraft serial numbers 004 

through 231 certificated in any category. 

SUBJECT: One-time detailed inspection of the aileron & elevator servo actuator 

centering spring rods to verify the rods integrity.

REASON: A broken aileron servo actuator centering spring rod was discovered on a 

model G100 aircraft during a routine scheduled maintenance inspection. 

This centering spring rod is common to all Gulfstream Mid Cabin model 

(G100, G150 and G200) aileron control servo actuators and the G200 

elevator control servo actuator too. The function of the centering spring rod 

is to maintain the affected servo actuator and its associated flight control 

surface in a centered position in the event of a disconnect of the normal 

mechanical control system input from the flight crew to the same servo 

actuator. This latent failure of a centering spring rod, if not detected and 

corrected, in conjunction with the disconnection of the normal mechanical 

control system of the same servo actuator would lead to loss a control of the 

flight control surface. This condition would reduce the control capability of 

the airplane and imposes a higher workload on the flight crew reducing their 

ability to cope with adverse operating conditions. 

ACTION: Inspect the aileron & elevator servo actuator spring rods per Gulfstream 

Service Bulletin No. 200-27-374. 

Accomplishment of the one-time inspection requirements of this AD does 

not cancel the repetitive inspection required by Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness. 
State of Israel 

Ministry of Transport 

Civil Aviation Authority 

 Page 2 of 2 

G:\AIRW-EN\AD\AD G200\AD 27-10-11-03 Centering spring Rod\AD 27-20-11-03.doc 

COMPLIANCE: Unless already accomplished, comply with this AD at the next suitable 

planned maintenance inspection within the next 12 months from the 

effective date of this AD 

EFECTIVE DATE: January 10, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr Boaz Keren, Engineering Branch, CAAI - 

P.O.Box 1101, Golan Street, Airport City, Israel, 70151 Telephone: 972-3-9774549, Fax: 972-3-

9774592, e-mail: kerenb@mot.gov.il
### §505. Drainage facilities and minor construction in irrigation works; contracts with repayment organizations; limitation on costs; submission of contract to Congress

Funds appropriated for the construction of irrigation works authorized to be undertaken pursuant to the Federal reclamation laws (Act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388, and Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto), the Act of August 11, 1939 (53 Stat. 1418), as amended [16 U.S.C. 590y et seq.], or other Acts of Congress may, insofar as such funds are available for the construction of drainage facilities and other minor items, be utilized by the Secretary of the Interior to accomplish such work by contract, by force account or, notwithstanding any other law and subject only to such reasonable terms and conditions as the Secretary shall deem appropriate for the protection of the United States, by contract entered into with the repayment organization concerned whereby said organization shall perform such work: Provided, That in the event construction work to be accomplished by any one repayment organization, pursuant to contract with the United States, exceeds a total cost of $200,000, such contract shall not be executed by the Secretary prior to the expiration of sixty calendar days (which sixty days, however, shall not include days on which either the House of Representatives or the Senate is not in session because of an adjournment of more than three days to a day certain) from the date on which it has been submitted to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate for reference to the appropriate Committees, except that such contract may be executed prior to expiration of such sixty days in any case in which both such Committees approve said contract and notify the Secretary in writing of such approval.

(June 13, 1956, ch. 382, 70 Stat. 274.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Act of June 17, 1902, referred to in text, is popularly known as the Reclamation Act, which is classified generally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 371 of this title and Tables.

Act of August 11, 1939, referred to in text, is classified generally to subchapter II (§590y et seq.) of chapter 3C of Title 16, Conservation. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.
§ 27.103 Notice of default and foreclosure sale. ( a ) The foreclosure commissioner shall commence the foreclosure under the procedures set forth in the Statute.
( b ) The Notice of Default and Foreclosure Sale (Notice) shall include, in addition to the provisions as required by the Statute: ( 1 ) The foreclosure commissioner's telephone number;
( 2 ) A description of the security property sufficient to identify the property to be sold;
( 3 ) The date the mortgage was recorded;
( 4 ) Identification of the failure to make payment, including the entire amount delinquent as of a date specified, a statement generally describing the other costs that must be paid if the mortgage is to be reinstated, the due date of the earliest principal installment payment remaining wholly unpaid as of the date on which the notice is issued upon which the foreclosure is based, or a description of any other default or defaults upon which foreclosure is based, and the acceleration of the secured indebtedness; and
( 5 ) The bidding and payment requirements for the foreclosure sale, including the time and method of payment of the balance of the foreclosure purchase price, that all deposits and the balance of the purchase price shall be paid by certified or cashier's check, and that no deposit will be required of the Secretary when the Secretary bids at the foreclosure sale.
#### § 330.45 Limitation on GNMA liability.

Except for its guaranty, the Association undertakes no obligation and assumes no liability to any person with regard to or on account of the existence or operation of this part or the conduct of any participants in the Multiclass Securities program.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 0 2 68 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DESIRAE ELLEN MCDONOUGH ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**O RDER**  Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including July 28, 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 21 2021

06/21/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0268
#### C. W. Braithwaite Company, for use of Stanley Rogers Company, appellee, v. Edward Lasham Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 27,643.

Claim for failure to deliver bales of cloth, against a common carrier. Directed verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Appeal -from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Robert E. Gentzel, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1922.

-Affirmed.

Opinion filed June 20, 1923.

Rehearing denied July 7, 1923.

*Certiorari*denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).

Charles G. Hutchinson, for appellant; George B. Cohen, of counsel. Charles P. Schwartz, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.