alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3286.103 DAPIA-approved installation instructions. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 75758 , Sept. 16, 2024.
( a ) *Providing instructions to purchaser or lessee.* ( 1 ) For each manufactured home sold or leased to a purchaser or lessee, the retailer must provide the purchaser or lessee with a copy of the manufacturer's DAPIA-approved installation instructions for the home.
( 2 ) If the installation requires a design that is different from that provided by the manufacturer in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the installation design and instructions must be prepared and certified by a professional engineer or registered architect, that have been approved by the manufacturer and the DAPIA as providing a level of protection for residents of the home that equals or exceeds the protection provided by the federal installation standards in part 3285 of this chapter.
( b ) *Providing instructions to installer.* When the retailer or manufacturer agrees to provide any set up in connection with the sale of the home, the retailer or manufacturer must provide a copy of the approved installation instructions required in paragraph (a)(1) of this section or, as applicable, installation design and instructions required in paragraph (a)(2) of this section to each company or, in the case of sole proprietor, to each individual who performs set up or installation work on the home.
#### HOLMES, Respondent, v. INTERURBAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

February 16, 1905.)

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Eleventh District. Action by Thomas 0. Holmes against the Interurban Street Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed. H. A. Robinson, for appellant. W. S. Bennett, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This action is for a statutory penalty for the refusal to.give a transfer over a street railway alleged to have been operated by defendant over East 135th street, and also, as a second cause of action, for a refusal to issue a transfer on July 22, 1903, on the 125th Street Crosstown Line. The defendant denied its control and operation of the 135th Street Line, but made no such denial as to the 125th Street Crosstown Line, as to which alone did the plaintiff make any proof. The judgment was but for a single penalty, and it must be affirmed, with costs.
§ 50.33 Action resulting from the assessment. ( a ) A proposal may be accepted without modifications if the EA indicates that the proposal will not significantly (see 40 CFR 1508.27) affect the quality of the human environment and a FONSI is prepared.
( b ) A proposal may be accepted with modifications provided that: ( 1 ) Changes have been made that would reduce adverse environmental impact to acceptable and insignificant levels; and
( 2 ) An Environmental Management and Monitoring Program is developed in accordance with § 50.22 when it is deemed necessary by the HUD approving official.
( c ) A proposal should be rejected if significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts would still exist after modifications have been made to the proposal and an EIS is not prepared.
( d ) A proposal (if not rejected) shall require an EIS if the EA indicates that significant environmental impacts would result.
Editorial Note on Part 3282
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3282 appear at 78 FR 60199, Oct. 1, 2013.

§ 3282.553 IPIA reports. Each IPIA shall submit by the twentieth day of each month to each SAA, or if no SAA to the Secretary, in each state where it is engaged in the inspection of manufacturing plants, a report of the operations of each manufacturer in that State for the preceding month which includes the following information: ( a ) The number of single-wide and double-wide manufactured homes labeled in the preceding month;
( b ) The number of inspection visits made to each manufacturing plant in the preceding month; and
( c ) The number of manufactured homes with a failure to conform to the standards or an imminent safety hazard during the preceding month found in the manufacturing plant.
The manufacturers report for the preceding month described in § 3282.552 shall be attached to each such IPIA report as an appendix thereto.
### §563. Disposal of town sites set apart prior to June 27, 1906

Any town site set apart or established prior to June 27, 1906, by proclamation of the President, under the provisions of sections 711 and 712 1 of this title, within or in the vicinity of any reclamation project, may be appraised and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of section 562 of this title and all necessary expenses incurred in the appraisal and sale of lands embraced within any such town site shall be paid from the reclamation fund, and the proceeds of the sales of such lands shall be covered into the reclamation fund.

(June 27, 1906, ch. 3559, §3, 34 Stat. 519.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Sections 711 and 712 of this title, referred to in text, were repealed by Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §703(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2789.

1 See References in Text note below.
§ 401.450 Owner evaluation of physical condition. ( a ) *Initial evaluation.* The owner must evaluate the physical condition of the project and provide the following information to the PAE in a form acceptable to the PAE: ( 1 ) All work items required to bring the project to the standard in § 401.452, including any work items needed to ensure compliance with applicable requirements of part 8 of this title concerning accessibility to persons with disabilities;
( 2 ) The capital repair or replacement items that will be necessary to maintain the long-term physical integrity of the property;
( 3 ) A plan for funding the rehabilitation work included in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, which work must be completed in a timely manner after closing the restructuring transaction, that identifies the source of the required owner contribution of non-project funds; and
( 4 ) An estimate of the initial deposit, if any, and the estimated monthly deposit to the reserve for replacement account for the next 20 years.
( b ) *Use of CNA.* An owner may comply with paragraph (a) of this section by submitting a comprehensive needs assessment in accordance with title IV of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1a note) if the CNA: ( 1 ) Was completed or updated within 1 year; and
( 2 ) Contains all of the matters required by paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) *Reconsideration and modification of evaluation.* If the PAE, after its independent review under § 401.451, determines that the owner's evaluation either fails to address specific necessary work items or fails to propose a cost-effective approach to rehabilitation, the owner may modify its evaluation to satisfy the concerns of the PAE.
[65 FR 15485, Mar. 22, 2000, as amended at 65 FR 53900, Sept. 6, 2000]
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 9, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 06-40528

_____________________

ELIJAH W. RATCLIFF,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

INDYMAC BANK FSB, Inc., as Successor in

interest to Indymac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.,

formerly known as INMC Mortgage Holdings;

STATE OF TEXAS; STATE BAR OF TEXAS;

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE STATE

BAR OF TEXAS; KENNETH HAMMACK,

Sheriff, Polk County, TX; CLEBURNE SWILLEY,

Defendants-Appellees.

__________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin

USDC No. 9:05-CV-70 

__________________________________________________

Before REAVLEY, DEMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
* 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.

2

PER CURIAM:*

The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons given. Appellant

cites cases and statutes and complains of injuries, but never alleges anything to

support a claim of liability entitling him to relief against these appellees. The

statements and arguments he makes consist only of conclusions about his injuries

and complaints irrelevant to this appeal.

AFFIRMED.
[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:****The 2005 RPA timber assessment update[electronic resource]
 
Full
Part A | Part B | Part C
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.88:PNW-699
Item Number:0083-B-06 (online)
CGP System Number:000610464
 
 
 
** 
**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********
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2906 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2906

              To suspend temporarily the duty on linuron.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 15, 2005

Mr. Bishop of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              To suspend temporarily the duty on linuron.

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

SECTION 1. LINURON.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.05.70       3-(3,4-            Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         dichlorophenyl)-1-                                                 31/2009
                         methoxy-1-
                         methylurea(CAS
                         No. 330-55-2)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         2924.21.16)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Case 3:09-cv-01492-WHA Document 33 Filed 03/25/10 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:09-cv-01492-WHA Document 33 Filed 03/25/10 Page 2 of 3
March 25, 2010.

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge William Alsup

Case 3:09-cv-01492-WHA Document 33 Filed 03/25/10 Page 3 of 3
### §75. Administration of oaths

The officer designated by the Secretary of the Interior is authorized, and it shall be his duty, to administer any oath required by law or the instructions of the Bureau of Land Management, in connection with the entry or purchase of any tract of the public lands; but he shall not charge or receive, directly or indirectly, any compensation for administering such oath.

(R.S. §2246; Oct. 28, 1921, ch. 114, §1, 42 Stat. 208; Mar. 3, 1925, ch. 462, 43 Stat. 1145; 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 3, §403, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7876, 60 Stat. 1100.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

The words "or receiver" which followed "register" in the original text were omitted, in view of act Mar. 3, 1925 (classified to section 71 of this title), providing for the consolidation of the offices of register and receiver. See, also, Transfer of Functions note below.

R.S. §2246 derived from act June 12, 1840, ch. 35, 5 Stat. 384.

#### **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.

Reference to "register" changed to "officer designated by the Secretary of the Interior" and "Bureau of Land Management" substituted for "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.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Laura Gilson, Respondent, v. Bickford’s, Inc., et al., Appellants, and Special Disability Fund, Respondent. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appellants contest the finding of the board that the employer did not have knowledge of any permanent disability within the meaning of subdivision 8 of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Claimant worked for the employer herein for a number of years and on various occasions was absent from work because of a back condition, all of which the employer had knowledge. In April, 1954 she received a compensable back injury which necessitated her absence from work for a year. On April 6, 1955 she returned to work and after two days was again absent. Upon her return she worked until April 19, 1955 when she suffered another back injury which condition was thereafter diagnosed and found to be a permanent partial disability. On April 18—one day prior to the accident—her attending physician for the first time submitted a report stating her disability resulting from the accident of April, 1954, was permanent. In all of his prior reports he had stated as to whether the condition was permanent as “ indefinite ”. In a report dated May 21, 1954 he stated that there was a “ possible herniated disc ”. From the record it is apparent that for a long time prior to April, 1954, the claimant suffered from a chronic back condition and that the employer had knowledge of such condition. The query then concerns itself with whether or not the employer when he rehired the claimant in April, 1955, had knowledge that the back condition was permanent. This is not the type of injury which of itself puts the employer on notice of permanency without the -necessity of medical proof. The records of this court are replete with back injury cases where even with a disc condition there is no finding of a permanent condition. A disc, if present, is often removed by operation without permanency. The record here, while somewhat close on notice, seems to convey the impression that prior to April, 1955, the claimant was suffering from a recurring back condition which periodically and over a long period of time caused temporaiy disability and which condition had been diagnosed as a severe back strain. While it might be argued that the record as a whole was sufficient to put the employer on notice when she returned to work in 1955, the weight of the evidence was a factual *710determination for the consideration of the board and having made its finding that there was not notice to the employer we find it is supported by substantial evidence. Decision of Workmen’s Compensation Board unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Special Fund against appellants.
JOIN

Provision Effective 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 

H.R. 622, the "State and Local Sales Tax DeductionFairness Act of 2015" - Permanent Extension of theDeduction for State and Local General Sales Tax.......... tyba 12/31/14 -148 -3,332 -3,462 -3,656 -3,872 -4,074 -4,298 -4,539 -4,772 

Joint Committee on Taxation -------------------------------------- NOTE: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. The date of enactment is assumed to be July 1, 2015.

THE "STATE AND LOCAL SALES TAX DEDUCTION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2015,"

ESTIMATED REVENUE EFFECTS OF H.R. 622,

Fiscal Years 2015 - 2025

[Millions of Dollars] 

 SCHEDULED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON APRIL 16, 2015

Legend for "Effective" column: tyba = taxable years beginning after
### §492. Operation and maintenance charges generally

In addition to the construction charge, every water-right applicant, entryman, or landowner under or upon a reclamation project shall also pay, whenever water service is available for the irrigation of his land, an operation and maintenance charge based upon the total cost of operation and maintenance of the project, or each separate unit thereof, and such charge shall be made for each acre-foot of water delivered; but each acre of irrigable land, whether irrigated or not, shall be charged with a minimum operation and maintenance charge based upon the charge for delivery of not less than one acre-foot of water. If the total amount of operation and maintenance charges and penalties collected for any one irrigation season on any project shall exceed the cost of operation and maintenance of the project during that irrigation season, the balance shall be applied to a reduction of the charge on the project for the next irrigation season, and any deficit incurred may likewise be added to the charge for the next irrigation season.

(Aug. 13, 1914, ch. 247, §5, 38 Stat. 687.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is comprised of part of first sentence and second sentence of section 5 of act Aug. 13, 1914. Remainder of first sentence of such section is classified to section 499 of this title.
#### FRANKLIN v. BEEGLE et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 3, 1905.)

Action by William Franklin against William H. Beegle and others.

PER CURIAM.

Interlocutory judgment reversed, without costs, and defendant's demurrer sustained, on authority of Franklin v. Beegle (decided herewith) 92 N. Y. Supp. 449, with leave to the plaintiff to amend his complaint within 20 days.
g

———— Guy OF mrcO
UNITED STATES BATHYMETRIC MAP THE ELBOW

“” ema. c- THE ELBOW
| NOS NG 16-3
#### BECKHAM, Respondent, v. HAGUE, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 6, 1903.)

Action by R. E. Beckham, as receiver, against James D. Hague. J. L. Cadwalader, for appellant. C. H. Blair, for respondent.

No *1130opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the authority of Studebaker v. Perry, 184 CJ. S. 258, 22 Sup. Ct. 463, 46 L. Ed. 528. See 78 N. Y. Supp. 79.
### §623. Map of district and plan of irrigation project; approval by Secretary

No unentered lands and no entered lands for which no final certificates have been issued shall be subject to the lien or liens herein contemplated until there shall have been submitted by said irrigation district to the Secretary of the Interior, and approved by him, a map or plat of said district and sufficient detailed engineering data to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Interior the sufficiency of the water supply and the feasibility of the project, and which shall explain the plan or mode of irrigation in those irrigation districts where the irrigation works have not been constructed, and which plan shall be sufficient to thoroughly irrigate and reclaim said land and prepare it to raise ordinary agricultural crops, and which shall also show the source of water to be used for irrigation of land included in said district: Provided, That in those irrigation districts organized prior to August 11, 1916, and whose irrigation works had then been constructed and were then in operation as soon as a satisfactory map, plat, and plan shall have been approved by the Secretary of the Interior, as in this chapter provided, such entered and unentered lands shall be subject to all district taxes and assessments theretofore actually levied against the lands in said district and in the same manner in which lands of a like character held under private ownership are subject to liens and assessments.

(Aug. 11, 1916, ch. 319, §3, 39 Stat. 507.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is comprised of section 3 (less the first proviso) of act Aug. 11, 1916. The remainder of section 3 is classified to section 625 of this title.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 290 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 290

  For the relief of Ahmad Khabaz Taghizadeh and Azammolok Taghizadeh 
                                Vatani.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2005

   Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  For the relief of Ahmad Khabaz Taghizadeh and Azammolok Taghizadeh 
                                Vatani.

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

SECTION 1. CITIZENSHIP FOR AHMAD KHABAZ TAGHIZADEH AND AZAMMOLOK 
              TAGHIZADEH VATANI.

    Notwithstanding title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), Ahmad Khabaz Taghizadeh and Azammolok Taghizadeh 
Vatani shall each be considered to be a naturalized citizen of the 
United States as of the date of the enactment of this Act and shall 
each be furnished by the Secretary of Homeland Security with a 
certificate of naturalization.
                                 <all>
```