alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

 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. 98-21147

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DONNELL BARTHOLOMEW FORD, also 

known as The Harley Davidson, 

also known as 32, also known as Tony,

Defendant-Appellant.

---------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-97-CR-295)

---------------------

January 5, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM 1:

Appellant Ford, has responded to this court’s order that he

does not wish to discharge his counsel and proceed on appeal pro

se. We therefore rely on counsel’s brief, which asserts the sole

claim that the trial court erred in denying Ford’s motion in

limine that would have excluded the introduction of an unfiled

1994 income tax return as subject matter for cross-examination --

if Ford had elected to testify.
No. 98-21147

- 2 -

Ford contends that the trial court’s ruling effectively

denied him the right to testify, as it would have brought into

the case evidence both prejudicial and not relevant to the

cocaine trafficking counts with which he was charged. Because

Ford did not testify, however, this point is not properly before

our appellate court. The Supreme Court has held that a defendant

must take the witness stand in order to raise and preserve for

review a trial court’s alleged errorneous ruling deeming Evidence

Rule 609 impeachment evidence admissible. Luce v. United States,

469 U.S. 38, 41-43, (1984). This court has observed that Luce is

not limited to rulings footed upon Rule 609 (a). United States

v. Bounds, 87 F.3d 695, 700 (5th Cir. 1996). We join other

circuits that have also extended Luce to bar a non -testifying

defendant from raising on appeal a claim that a district court

erroneiously deemed evidence admissible under, inter alia, Fed.

R. Of Evid. 608(b). United States v. Sanderson, 966 F.2d 184,

189-90 (6th Cir. 1992); United States v. Weichert, 783 F.2d 23,25

(2nd Cir.) (1986); United States v. DiMatteo, 759 F.2d 831, 832-

33 (11th Cir. 1985). Because Ford did not testify, Luce and its

progeny bar him from obtaining review in this court of the

district court’s evidentiary rulings.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
### §376. Return of land donations not needed

Where real property or any interest therein heretofore has been, or hereafter shall be, donated and conveyed to the United States for use in connection with a project, and the Secretary decides not to utilize the donation, he is authorized without charge to reconvey such property or any part thereof to the donating grantor, or to the heirs, successors, or assigns of such grantor.

(Dec. 5, 1924, ch. 4, §4, subsec. Q, 43 Stat. 704.)

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

#### Definitions

The definitions in section 371 of this title apply to this section.
#### § 35.725 Section 8 Rent adjustments.

HUD may, subject to the availability of appropriations for Section 8 contract amendments, on a project by project basis for projects receiving Section 8 project-based assistance, provide adjustments to the maximum monthly rents to cover the costs of evaluation for and reduction of lead-based paint hazards, as defined in section 1004 of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992.
#### § 232.1003 Eligible operator.

Operator shall be a single asset entity acceptable to the Commissioner, and shall possess the powers necessary and incidental to operating the healthcare facility, except that the Commissioner may approve a non-single asset entity under such circumstances, terms, and conditions determined and specified as acceptable to the Commissioner. A master tenant under a master lease approved by the Commissioner who has subleased the healthcare facility to an operator is not an Operator.
Exhibit 10.21
 (AHCCCS LOGO)
    
    ARIZONA HEALTH CARE COST CONTAINMENT SYSTEM ADMINISTRATIONDIVISION OF BUSINESS AND FINANCE
SECTION A: CONTRACT
 1. AMENDMENT
    
    2. CONTRACT
    
    3. EFFECTIVE DATE OF
    
    4. PROGRAMNUMBER:
    
    NO.:
    
    AMENDMENT:12
    
    YH09-0001-04
    
        October 1, 2009
    
        DHCM  ACUTE
  Health Choice Arizona
410 N. 44th Street, Suite 900
Phoenix, AZ 85008
    Mark Held Mark.Held@azahcccs.gov
 Sr. Procurement Specialist AHCCCS Contracts and Purchasing  Stewart.McKenzie@azahcccs.gov
 8. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED FOR HEREIN, ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT NOT HERETOFORE
CHANGED AND/OR AMENDED REMAIN UNCHANGED AND IN FULL EFFECT.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF THE PARTIES HERETO SIGN THEIR NAMES IN AGREEMENT
 9. SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE:
/s/ Carolyn Rose
    
    10: SIGNATURE OF AHCCCSA CONTRACTING OFFICER:/s/ Michael VeitTYPED NAME: CAROLYN ROSE
    
    TYPED NAME: MICHAEL VEITTITLE: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
    
    TITLE: CONTRACTS & PURCHASING ADMINISTRATORDATE: 11/12/10
    
    DATE: OCT 26 2010
#### § 300.13 Power of attorney.

In order to efficiently carry out the purposes of the Association, the Association may appoint any person its true and lawful attorney-in-fact by publication in the Federal Register or by appointment from the President of the Association in writing. Any such attorney-in-fact shall have the power outlined in the publication or appointment.
#### Simmons, administrator, *v.*Defoe.

August 16, 1912.

Claim. Before Judge Bell. -Fulton superior court. January 26, 1911.

Counsel cited Civil Code, §§ 4034, 5170, 5176, 5177, 6037-6039; *Hull*v. *Watkins,*134 *Ga.*779; *Thompson*v. *Atwater,*84 *Ga.*270; *535
      *Rogers*v. *Dickey,*117 *Ga.*821; *Dixon*v. *Rogers,*110 *Ga.*510; *Evans*v. *Brown,*80 *Ga.*657; *Campbell*v. *Roberts,*66 *Ga.*734; *Knowles*v. *Jourdan,*61 *Ga.*300; *Powell*v. *Westmoreland,*60 *Ga.*572; *Fulton County*v. *Amorous,*89 *Ga.*615; Wolfe v. *Baxter,*86 *Ga.*705; *Bagley*v. *Kennedy,*85 Ga. 703; *Findley*v. *Johnson,*84 *Ga.*69; *Green*v. *Hill,*101 *Ga.*258; *Jordan*v. *Central City Loan Co.,*108 *Ga.*495; *Black*v. *Gate City Co.,*115 *Ga.*15; *Shumate*v. *McLendon,*120 *Ga.*399.

*534Fish, C. J.

An administrator applied for leave to sell land of his intestate. Pending the application a claim was interposed and returned to the superior court. On the trial the undisputed evidence showed, that the intestate purchased the land in controversy, gave to his vendor a series of notes for the purchase-price, took from him a bond for title, went into possession, thereafter paid some of the notes, and died in possession of the land, leaving a widow, who, with two minor grandchildren, conlhiued to reside on the premises. It further showed, that, some two yeais after the death of the intestate, the claimant married his widow and occupied the premises with her for some five years prior to the trial. The claimant, who was the only witness in his behalf testified: “I married his [intestate’s] widow about two years mi his death, and movfed into the house by reason of becoming her Iiusi.; :i-l, and that was the only reason for going into possession of the property at that time.” *Held,*that under such evidence the trial judge erred in granting a “nonsuit” against the administrator on the ground that he had “failed to carry the burden, it appearing- from the testimony that the claimant . . is in possession of the property in dispute.”

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*535
      *Simmons <& Simmons,*for plaintiff in error.

*Virlyn B. Moore,*contra.
§ 3288.205 Minimum requirements. ( a ) *List of requirements.* The HUD Manufactured Home Dispute Resolution Program will not be implemented in any state that complies with the procedures of this subpart D and that has a dispute resolution program that provides for the following minimum requirements: ( 1 ) The timely resolution of disputes among manufacturers, retailers, or installers regarding responsibility for correction and repair of defects in manufactured homes;
( 2 ) The issuance of appropriate orders for correction and repair of defects in such homes;
( 3 ) A coverage period for disputes that includes at least defects that are reported within 1 year after the date of first installation; and
( 4 ) Adequate funding and personnel.
( b ) *Applicability to programs in state plans.* ( 1 ) In order to include a dispute resolution program in a state plan that on February 8, 2008 is fully or conditionally approved under § 3282.302 of this chapter, a state must amend its state plan to provide for the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
( 2 ) After February 8, 2008, a state that submits a state plan for approval in accordance with § 3282.302 of this chapter must provide for the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section in its state plan.
#### § 241.1120 Mortgagee's consent.

The holder of an insured mortgage which is recorded prior to the equity or acquisition loan shall not withhold its consent to the equity or acquisition loan (whether or not such equity or acquisition loan is insured by the Commissioner) or the security instrument executed in connection therewith, and may not charge a fee as a condition to its consent to such loan or security instrument.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STONERIVER INSUREWORX INC,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

SOUTHEASTERN US INSURANCE,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

Case No. C09-01920 MHP (JCS)

ORDER TO SUBMIT SETTLEMENT

CONFERENCE STATEMENTS IN .PDF

FORMAT

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that in addition to the submission of paper copy of settlement

conference statements to chambers, each party shall submit their confidential settlement conference

statements in .pdf format and email their statement to JCSPO@cand.uscourts.gov.

All other provisions of this Court's original Notice and Settlement Conference Order remain

in effect.

Dated: February 8, 2010

_______________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01920-MHP Document 34 Filed 02/08/10 Page 1 of 1
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

U

For the Northern District of California

NITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

AT&T CAPITAL SERVICES

Plaintiff(s),

v.

T&W INDUSTRIES

Defendant(s).

_____________________________________/

No. C 09-02591 MEJ

NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT

This matter has been reassigned to Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James for all purposes,

including trial and entry of judgment. All future filings shall reflect the initials “MEJ” after the case

number, as designated above. When filing papers that require the Court to take any action, the

parties shall lodge chambers copies by noon of the next court day following the day the papers are

filed electronically. These printed copies shall be marked “Chambers Copy” and shall be submitted

to the Clerk’s Office, in an envelope clearly marked with "Magistrate Judge James," the case

number and “E-Filing Chambers Copy.” 

As the parties are scheduled to appear before Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman for a

settlement conference on March 23, 2010, the Court shall not schedule any case management

deadlines at this time. The parties shall file a joint status report within 14 days from the settlement

conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2010 _______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:09-cv-02591-MEJ Document 37 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 1
### §§616aa to 616hh. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 616aa, Pub. L. 88–565, §1, Sept. 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 848, authorized construction, operation, and maintenance of Dixie project, Utah, and described the principal features of this project.

Section 616aa–1, Pub. L. 90–537, title III, §307, Sept. 30, 1968, 82 Stat. 893, reauthorized this project for construction and provided for integration and participation of this project in Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund.

Section 616bb, Pub. L. 88–565, §2, Sept. 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 848, related to protection of downstream water users against impairment of water quality from operations of this project and to indemnification.

Section 616cc, Pub. L. 88–565, §3, Sept. 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 848, related to laws governing this project.

Section 616dd, Pub. L. 88–565, §4, Sept. 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 848, related to establishment of a conservancy district or similar organization prior to construction of this project.

Section 616ee, Pub. L. 88–565, §5, Sept. 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 848, related to interest rate, repayment of construction costs and period for repayment.

Section 616ff, Pub. L. 88–565, §6, Sept. 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 849, related to construction, operation, and maintenance of recreational facilities in connection with this project.

Section 616gg, Pub. L. 88–565, §7, Sept. 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 849, provided that use of water diverted for this project from Colorado river system be subject to Colorado River compact, Boulder Canyon Project Act (43 U.S.C. 617 et seq.), and Mexican Water Treaty (Treaty Series 994).

Section 616hh, Pub. L. 88–565, §8, Sept. 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 849; Pub. L. 90–537, title III, §307, Sept. 30, 1968, 82 Stat. 893, authorized appropriations for this project.
#### Nutrition Foundation, Inc., et al., Appellants, v Louise Gitzen, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 18, 1977, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 7) with leave to replead with respect to the second cause of action, unanimously modified, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, to deny the motion to dismiss the fourth cause of action and otherwise affirmed. In the main, the action seeks permanent injunctive relief and damages allegedly sustained because of a letter sent by defendant to the trustees of plaintiff foundation after her discharge as its bookkeeper. Special Term granted leave to replead the second cause of action sounding in defamation upon appropriate allegation of special damages, since the letter is clearly not libelous per se. Although we agree with Special Term’s dismissal of the first three causes of action for the reasons stated by Greenfield, J., we disagree with respect to the fourth cause of action brought to recover $5,000 in expenses allegedly incurred by the foundation because of defendant’s alleged negligent and incompetent handling of the foundation’s books and records and to reconstruct and correct them to eliminate errors and to conform them to proper bookkeeping and accounting practices. As ruled by Special Term, the law is clear that an employer may not recover wages paid to or other compensation received by an employee during a period of completed employment upon allegations of negligence by the employee in the performance of his duties, in the absence of an agreement to that effect *(Kleinfeld v Roburn Agencies,*270 App Div 509). Here, however, although stated in very general terms, the allegations *944of the fourth cause of action are sufficient to assert a claim for relief premised upon the negligence of defendant as an alleged independent consultant or independent contractor, retained by the foundation to manage its books and records. Such a construction is here required since, under familiar rules, we must accord the complaint a liberal construction (CPLR 3026), and if it states a cause of action in some recognizable form, it must be sustained. It may well be that the complaint cannot withstand a proper motion for summary judgment. As to that we express no opinion ruling only that the fourth cause of action is sufficient as a pleading. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Fein and Sullivan, JJ.
### §3103. Ground subsidence

As the Secretary determines to be appropriate and subject to appropriations, the Secretary, through existing programs, shall advance the identification, mapping, research, and monitoring of subsidence and groundwater resource accounting, particularly in areas affected by drought.

(Pub. L. 116–323, §4, Jan. 5, 2021, 134 Stat. 5081.)
#### In the Matter of Paul Desir, Appellant, v Joel Klein, as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, et al., Respondents.

[832 NYS2d 446]—

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Joel Klein, as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, dated June 28, 2005, discontinuing the petitioner’s probationary service as a special education teacher, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated August 22, 2006, which, inter alia, granted that branch of the respondents’ cross motion which was to dismiss the proceeding pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) as time-barred.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

*751The petitioner’s claim that his probationary employment was improperly terminated accrued on June 28, 2005, the date on which the determination to terminate that employment became effective, and thus became final and binding upon the petitioner *(see Matter of Blaize v Klein,*23 AD3d 650 [2005]; *Matter of Johnson v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.,*291 AD2d 450 [2002]; *Matter of Budihas v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.,*285 AD2d 549 [2001]). The petitioner did not commence this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, however, until January 2006. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of the respondents’ cross motion which was to dismiss the proceeding pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) as barred by the applicable four-month statute of limitations *(see*CPLR 217). Schmidt, J.P, Spolzino, Florio and Skelos, JJ., concur.
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
Youhave reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection(FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in theFDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suiteof cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications (CGP).
**Title:****Beneficios federales para veteranos ysus dependientes [electronic resource]
 
2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007
 
SuDoc Number:VA 1.19:80-
Item Number:0988 (online)
CGP System Number:000530373
 
 
 
** 
**Permanent Public Access
** 
Title 44 of  the United States Code (44 U.S.C. Section 1911) stipulates that public access  to official Government information products disseminated through the Federal  Depository Library Program (FDLP) must be maintained permanently in regional  depository libraries and by depository libraries not served by a regional  library. Since online products are not physically distributed to depository  libraries for retention, GPO has assumed responsibility for the provision of  permanent access to Government information products residing on FDsys  servers.
GPO's  permanent public access commitment is also met by bringing  agency-disseminated Internet resources under the purview of GPO and  incorporating them into a digital archive. GPO captures copies of agency  electronic information products, and creates PURLs so that users will be  automatically redirected to the archived products if the information is no  longer accessible on the agency Web site. Please refer to the report Managing  the FDLP Electronic Collection: A Policy and Planning Document for more  information.
 
August 11, 2017********
1

American Chemistry Council

February 16, 2011

Response to Initial Questions from EPA on HBCD in Textiles1

Question Company A Company B Company C

Q1: Do you 

manufacture or process 

HBCD for use in textiles 

for which the end use is 

a consumer article?

No. We manufacture and sell HBCD. A relatively small amount of the HBCD we sell 

is believed to be used for the manufacture of textiles. 

HBCD sold by a chemical manufacturer will typically be supplied to a textile 

coatings formulator who then sells their formulation to a textile coating 

company, who then sells the coated textile to an OEM. In some supply chains, 

for instance, in automotive applications, there can be several additional tiers 

between the production of a coated textile and the manufacture of an end 

product.

As a chemical supplier it is difficult to have line of sight through the supply chain 

to final product produced and the customer market segment (consumers or 

non-consumer) that will be supplied.

No, to our knowledge our 

customers are only using 

HBCD for the use in 

polystyrene for rigid foam 

insulation used in 

construction.

Q2: Please identify the 

end uses. Possible 

examples are 

upholstered furniture, 

mattress ticking, 

draperies, and roller 

blinds.

Does not 

apply.

FRs used in the manufacture of textile good can be used for items such as 

upholstered fabrics, draperies, partitions in offices, mass transit interiors etc.

HBCD can be favored for use with coatings on Nylon fabrics and for treatments 

where a transparent coating is required. HBCD would typically not be used for 

flame retarding clothing. HBCD can also be used in coating formulations for 

military products such as tents. 

Does not apply.

Q3: Approximately how 

much HBCD do you 

manufacture or process 

for these uses annually?

None. We do not produce HBCD specifically for use by market segment or for specific 

uses. 

Zero.

Q4: Are you aware of 

imported 

consumer articles 

containing textiles with 

HBCD?

We do not 

track this 

data.

We do not track this data. We do not track this data.
2

Q5: If so, please identify 

the types of imported 

articles.

We do not 

track this 

data.

We do not track this data. We do not track this data.

Q6. Approximately how 

much HBCD is used in 

imported 

consumer articles 

annually?

We do not 

track this 

data.

We do not track this data. We do not track this data.

1Please keep any information provided on volumes as confidential business information.
§ 3286.509 Reinspection upon failure to pass. ( a ) *Procedures for failed inspection.* If the inspector cannot verify the installation of the manufactured home, the inspector must immediately notify the installer of any failures to comply with the installation standards and explain the reasons why the inspector cannot issue verification that the installation complies with the requirements of this part. After the installation is corrected, it must be reinspected before verification can be issued.
( b ) *Cost of reinspection.* If there is any cost for the reinspection of an installation that an inspector has refused to verify, that cost must be paid by the installer or the retailer and, absent a written agreement with the purchaser that specifically states otherwise, that cost cannot be charged to the purchaser of the manufactured home.
#### H. L. Siegel & Company, appellant, v. Frank Gordon, appellee.

Gen. No. 27,745.

Action on statement of claim. Judgment for plaintiff. Order to vacate judgment. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Wells M. Cook, 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 2, 1923.

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

Benjamin B. Morris, for appellant; Aaron R. Eppstein, of counsel McCormick, Kirkland, Patterson and Fleming, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Thomson

deHvered the opinion of the court