alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 241.615 Certification of cost requirements. ( a ) *Certification agreement.* The lender shall submit with the application an agreement on a form prescribed by the Commissioner and executed by the borrower and the lender.
( b ) *Certificate and adjustment.* No loan shall be insured unless: ( 1 ) A certification of actual cost is made by the contractor in cases in which a cost plus form of contract is used; and
( 2 ) The amount of the loan is adjusted to reflect the actual cost to the borrower of the improvements when either a cost plus or lump sum form or contract is used.
( c ) *Cost computation.* The term *actual cost of the improvements* shall mean the cost to the borrower of the improvements, after deducting the amount of any kickbacks, rebates or trade discount received in connection with the improvements, and including the amounts paid under any contract for the improvements, labor, materials, and for any other items of expenses approved by the Commissioner.
( d ) *Statement of facts.* Any agreement, undertaking, statement or certification required in connection with cost certification shall specifically state that it has been made, presented and delivered for the purpose of influencing an official action of the Commissioner and may be relied upon as a true statement of the facts contained therein.
( e ) *Incontestability.* Upon the Commissioner's approval of the cost certification, such certification shall be final and incontestable except for fraud or material misrepresentation on the part of the borrower.
( f ) *Records.* The borrower shall keep and maintain adequate records of all costs of any construction improvements or other cost items not representing work under the general contract and shall require the contractor to keep similar records and, upon request by the Commissioner, both shall make available for examination such records, including any collateral agreements.
( g ) *Certificate of public accountant.* Where required by the Commissioner, each certificate of actual cost shall be supported by a certificate as to accuracy by an independent Certified Public Accountant or independent public accountant licensed by a regulatory authority of a State or other political subdivision of the United States on or prior to December 31, 1970, which shall include a statement that the accounts, records and supporting documents have been examined in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards to the extent deemed necessary to verify the actual costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HOMECOM COMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR THE NINE-MONTH PERIOD
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>


<S>                                                        <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                           SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                              9-MOS
<CASH>                                                     605,548
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            1,233,645
<ALLOWANCES>                                                25,605
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         1,990,258
<PP&E>                                                   2,713,936
<DEPRECIATION>                                           1,724,835
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           7,607,108
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    2,656,945
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      282,695
<PREFERRED>                                                      3
<COMMON>                                                       936
<OTHER-SE>                                               4,113,970
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             7,607,108
<SALES>                                                  6,159,832
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         6,159,832
<CGS>                                                    3,254,556
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            3,254,556
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         8,270,464
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        (30,560)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (5,269,589)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (5,269,589)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (5,269,589)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                (.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                (.80)



</TABLE>
### §1639. Construction with Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

Except as specifically provided in this Act, (i) the provisions of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.] are fully applicable to this Act, and (ii) nothing in this Act shall be construed to alter or amend any of such provisions.

(Pub. L. 96–487, title XIV, §1412, Dec. 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 2498.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 96–487, Dec. 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 2371, known as the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 3101 of Title 16, Conservation, and Tables.

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, referred to in cl. (i), is Pub. L. 92–203, Dec. 18, 1971, 85 Stat. 688, which is classified generally to chapter 33 (§1601 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1601 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of title IX of Pub. L. 96–487 which comprises this chapter.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10640

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

versus

JOSE ALFREDO PRIETO-ALVAREZ,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-23-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Prieto-Alvarez

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 29, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10640 Document: 00513399889 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/29/2016
No. 15-10640

2

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Prieto-Alvarez has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-10640 Document: 00513399889 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/29/2016
###### Editorial Note on Part 3282

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3282 appear at 78 FR 60199, Oct. 1, 2013.

#### § 3282.552 Manufacturer reports for joint monitoring fees.

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 75758, Sept. 16, 2024.

The manufacturer must submit to the IPIA in each of its manufacturing plants, and to HUD or to the Secretary's agent, a monthly production report that includes the serial numbers of each manufactured home manufactured and labeled at that plant during the preceding month. The report must also include the date of manufacture, State of first location of these manufactured homes after leaving the plant, type of unit, and any other information required under this part. For all homes to be completed pursuant to subpart M of these regulations, the production report must also include a brief description of the work to be completed on site. The State of first location is the State of the premises of the retailer or purchaser to whom the manufactured home is first shipped. The monthly report must be submitted by the 10th day of each month and contain information describing the manufacturer's previous month's activities. The manufacturer is encouraged to submit the report electronically, when feasible.

[80 FR 53727, Sept. 8, 2015]
#### § 266.25 Limitation on HUD insurance liability.

The Commissioner shall have no obligation to recognize or deal with anyone other than the HFA in its role as mortgagee of record and as party to a risk-sharing agreement with HUD with respect to the rights, benefits, and obligations of the HFA under the contract of insurance.
### §37. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act June 12, 1917, ch. 27, 40 Stat. 144, related to purchases or services for the Geological Survey, was omitted as superseded.
### §1303. Amendment, modification, or repeal of other laws

Nothing in this subchapter or subchapter II shall be deemed to amend, modify, or repeal the Acts of July 26, 1866 (14 Stat. 251), July 9, 1870 (16 Stat. 217), March 3, 1877 (19 Stat. 377), June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388), and December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887), and Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto.

(May 22, 1953, ch. 65, title II, §7, 67 Stat. 32.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Act July 26, 1866 (14 Stat. 251), referred to in text, is act July 26, 1866, ch. 262, 14 Stat. 251, which is not classified to the Code.

Act July 9, 1870 (16 Stat. 217), referred to in text, is act July 9, 1870, ch. 235, 16 Stat. 217, which is not classified to the Code.

Act March 3, 1877 (19 Stat. 377), referred to in text, is act Mar. 3, 1877, ch. 107, 19 Stat. 377, as amended, popularly known as the Desert Lands Act, which is classified generally to sections 321 to 323, 325, and 327 to 329 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

Act June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388), referred to in text, is popularly known as the Reclamation Act, which is classified generally to chapter 12 (§371) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 371 of this title and Tables.

Act December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887), referred to in text, is act Dec. 22, 1944, ch. 665, 58 Stat. 887, which enacted section 390 of this title, sections 460d and 825s of Title 16, Conservation, and sections 701–1, 701a–1, 708, and 709 of Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, amended section 701b–1 of Title 33, and enacted provisions set out as notes under section 701f of Title 33. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Table         of Contents                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    | Table of         Contents Introduction Methods Results Acknowledgments Literature         Cited Table         1Table         2 Figure         1Figure         2Figure         3  Species         Accounts, Maps, Histograms, and Appendices Navigation         Tips |
| IntroductionStudy Area and Methods- The Database
- Data Analysis
- Identification of Important Sites
Results and Discussion- Map Interpretation
- Migration Chronology
- Spring migration of the genus  Calidris
- Habitat Requirements
- Management Applications
Acknowledgments           Literature Cited          Tables- Table             1
- Table             2
Figures - Figure             1
- Figure             2
- Figure             3
AppendixLiterature Cited
                
TOP OF PAGE

  |
#### Marta Rivera et al., Respondents, v Elrci A. Eastman et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondents, and Ramon S. Velez, Appellant.

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on February 6, 1978, unanimously dismissed, without costs and without disbursements. There is no jurisdictional basis in the record to predicate an appeal. If, however, we were to reach the merits, we would in any event affirm on the questions briefed. In view of the foregoing, the motion presently before us for omnibus relief is denied. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Birns, Evans and Sullivan, JJ.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1076 KA 12-01589 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SAMUEL L. RODRIGUEZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WAGNER & HART, LLP, OLEAN (JANINE C. FODOR OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LORI PETTIT RIEMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LITTLE VALLEY, FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Cattaraugus County Court (Larry M. Himelein, J.), rendered August 13, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the first degree and robbery in the second degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30 [2]) and robbery in the second degree (§ 160.10 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal ( see generally People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256; People v Kemp , 94 NY2d 831, 833). The challenge by defendant to County Court’s suppression ruling is encompassed by that valid waiver of the right to appeal ( see Kemp , 94 NY2d at 833; People v Goossens , 92 AD3d 1282, 1283, lv denied 19 NY3d 960).

Entered: November 8, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
1

Brown, Kelly

From: Sasser, Erika

Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 4:44 PM

To: Brown, Kelly

Subject: FW: Ozone Studies Requested in Interagency Comments

Attachments: Kim et al 2011.pdf; Schelegle et al 2009.pdf; McDonnell et al 2012.pdf; Schelegle et al 

2012.pdf

Please post email to Ozone NAAQS Rulemaking docket. Attachments are likely already in docket as references 

supporting rulemaking. Thanks 

From: Sasser, Erika 

Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 5:25 PM 

To: 'Frey, Nathan J.' 

Cc: Wesson, Karen; Smith, Darcie; Kimber Scavo 

Subject: Ozone Studies Requested in Interagency Comments 

Nathan – 

Attached are the 4 studies requested by interagency partners in comments on the draft Ozone NPRM. Please share with 

the group. 

Thanks, 

Erika
#### Herbert H. Powers, appellant, v. Bert Nordman, appellee.

Gen. No. 28,325.

Action for damages for false imprisonment. Directed verdict and judgment for defendant. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Francis ,S. Wilson, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1923.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed June 26, 1923.

Millard R. Powers and Francis W. Walker, for appellant. No appearance for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
### Concentration of selected herbicides, herbicide degradation products, and nutrients in the lower Mississippi River, Louisiana, April 1991 through December 2003

By: Elisabeth A. ScribnerDonald A. GoolsbyWilliam A. Battaglin**Michael T. Meyer**E.M. Thurman

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds165

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EBER GENE RUTH,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent. /

No. C 09-1861 SI (pr)

JUDGMENT

This action is dismissed without prejudice to petitioner filing a petition in this court after

he obtains the necessary order from the appellate court permitting him to file a second or

successive petition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.

DATED: May 5, 2010 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01861-SI Document 9 Filed 05/05/10 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT D TO FEDERAL PRO BONO PROJECT GUIDELINES

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FRANK FAHY, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

ORPHEOS TARBOX, et al., 

 Defendants 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 09-1420 MMC 

ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL 

AND SETTING MAY 28, 2010 CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERNCE

Defendant Alec Steiner has requested and is in need of counsel to assist him in this matter 

and a volunteer attorney is willing to be appointed to undertake this representation at the request 

of the Federal Pro Bono Project. 

Accordingly, Andrew Bassak, Heather Littlejohn, Samorn Selim, and Christian Baker of 

Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP are hereby appointed as counsel for Mr. Steiner in this matter for 

the limited purpose of representing Mr. Steiner with respect to the issue of the scope and terms of 

the settlement agreement entered into by the parties on September 18, 2009 before Magistrate 

Judge Maria-Elena James. 

Pursuant to the Court’s February 17, 2010 order, the stay of proceedings will be lifted as 

of April 15, 2010. 

A Case Management Conference is hereby SET for May 28, 2010. A Joint Case 

Management Statement shall be filed no later than May 21, 2010. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 18, 2010 

 ________________________________ 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:09-cv-01420-MMC Document 103 Filed 03/18/10 Page 1 of 1
### §1062. Suits for violations of law

It shall be the duty of the United States attorney for the proper district, on affidavit filed with him by any citizen of the United States that section 1061 of this title is being violated showing a description of the land inclosed with reasonable certainty, not necessarily by metes and bounds nor by governmental subdivisions of surveyed lands, but only so that the inclosure may be identified, and the persons guilty of the violation as nearly as may be, and by description, if the name cannot on reasonable inquiry be ascertained, to institute a civil suit in the proper United States district court, or territorial district court, in the name of the United States, and against the parties named or described who shall be in charge of or controlling the inclosure complained of as defendants; and jurisdiction is also conferred on any United States district court or territorial district court having jurisdiction over the locality where the land inclosed, or any part thereof, shall be situated, to hear and determine proceedings in equity, by writ of injunction, to restrain violations of the provisions of this chapter; and it shall be sufficient to give the court jurisdiction if service of original process be had in any civil proceeding on any agent or employee having charge or control of the inclosure. In any case if the inclosure shall be found to be unlawful, the court shall make the proper order, judgment, or decree for the destruction of the inclosure, in a summary way, unless the inclosure shall be removed by the defendant within five days after the order of the court.

(Feb. 25, 1885, ch. 149, §2, 23 Stat. 321; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §291, 36 Stat. 1167; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, §1, 62 Stat. 909; Pub. L. 98–620, title IV, §402(43), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3360.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1984—Pub. L. 98–620 struck out provision that any suit brought under this section had precedence for hearing and trial over other cases on the civil docket of the court, and had to be tried and determined at the earliest practicable day.

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

#### Change of Name

Act June 25, 1948, eff. Sept. 1, 1948, substituted "United States attorney" for "district attorney of the United States." See section 541 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, and Historical and Revision Notes thereunder.

The words "district court" substituted for "district or circuit court" in two places to conform to act Mar. 3, 1911, which abolished the circuit courts and transferred their powers and duties to the district courts.

#### Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–620 not applicable to cases pending on Nov. 8, 1984, see section 403 of Pub. L. 98–620, set out as a note under section 1657 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.