alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §508. Annual estimates of quantity of paper required for public printing and binding

At the beginning of each session of Congress, the Director of the Government Publishing Office shall submit to the Joint Committee on Printing estimates of the quantity of paper of all descriptions required for the public printing and binding during the ensuing year.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1244; Pub. L. 113–235, div. H, title I, §1301(c)(1), Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2537.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., §36 (Jan. 12, 1895, ch. 23, §26, 28 Stat. 604).

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2014—Pub. L. 113–235 substituted "Director of the Government Publishing Office" for "Public Printer".
§ 95.3 Procedures. ( a ) Decisions on extradition are presented to the Secretary only after a fugitive has been found extraditable by a United States judicial officer. In each case where allegations relating to torture are made or the issue is otherwise brought to the Department's attention, appropriate policy and legal offices review and analyze information relevant to the case in preparing a recommendation to the Secretary as to whether or not to sign the surrender warrant.
( b ) Based on the resulting analysis of relevant information, the Secretary may decide to surrender the fugitive to the requesting State, to deny surrender of the fugitive, or to surrender the fugitive subject to conditions.
§ 599.301 Initial determination of threshold requirements. ( a ) *Two threshold requirements.* Before rating and ranking an application, HUD will review it to determine if the application meets both of the following thresholds: ( 1 ) *Eligibility of the nominated area.* This threshold is met if HUD determines that the nominated area as identified in the application meets all of the area eligibility requirements of subpart B of this part.
( 2 ) *Adequacy of State and local commitments.* This threshold is met if HUD determines that the documents in the application evidencing compliance with the required State and local commitments meet all of the course of action and economic growth promotion requirements of § 599.107.
( b ) *Failure to meet threshold requirements* — ( 1 ) *No rating or ranking.* An application that does not meet both of the threshold requirements by the application due date specified in the published notice inviting applications will not be rated or ranked for further Renewal Community consideration.
( 2 ) *Opportunity to correct failure.* HUD will notify an applicant of the threshold deficiencies in its application. An applicant may submit additional information and take any other action required to correct the deficiencies and meet the threshold requirements until the due date for applications specified in the published notice inviting applications.
#### § 401.303 PRA indemnity provisions for SHFAs and HAs.

When a PRA requires HUD to indemnify a PAE in accordance with section 513(a)(2)(G) of MAHRA, any payment under this indemnity is contingent upon the availability of funds that are permitted by law to be used for this purpose.
#### § 242.10 Eligible mortgagors.

The mortgagor shall be a public mortgagor (i.e., an owner of a public facility), a private nonprofit corporation or association, or a profit-motivated mortgagor meeting the definition of “hospital” in § 242.1. The mortgagor shall be approved by HUD and, except in those cases where the hospital is leased as permitted in § 242.72, shall possess the powers necessary and incidental to operating a hospital. Eligible proprietary or profit-motivated mortgagors may include for-profit corporations, limited partnerships, and limited liability corporations and companies, but may not include natural persons, joint ventures, and general partnerships. Any proposed mortgagor must demonstrate that it has a continuity of organization commensurate with the term of the mortgage loan being insured. For new organizations, or those whose continuity is necessarily dependent upon an individual or individuals, broad community participation is required.

[72 FR 67546, Nov. 28, 2007, as amended at 73 FR 35922, June 25, 2008]
§ 203.18b Increased mortgage amount. ( a ) If any party believes that a mortgage limit established by the Secretary under § 203.18(a)(1) does not accurately reflect the median house prices in an area, the party may submit documentation in support of an alternative mortgage limit. For purposes of this section, an area ( 1 ) must be at least the size of a county, whether or not the area is located within a metropolitan statistical area, as established by the Office of Management and Budget; and
( 2 ) may be an area for which the mortgage limits established under § 203.18(b)(1) apply.
( b ) ( 1 ) The documentation referred to in paragraph (a) of this section must consist of sufficient housing sales price data for the entire geographic area for which the request is made to justify an alternative mortgage limit. The documentation should include a listing of actual sales prices in the area for all or nearly all new and existing 1-family homes and condominiums, over a period of time varies with sales volume, as follows: ( i ) For 500 or more sales per month, a one-month reporting period;
( ii ) For 250 through 499 sales per month, a two-month reporting period.
( iii ) For less than 250 sales per month, a three-month reporting period. The listing should contain a brief address for each property, its county location, its sale price, the month and year of its sale, and whether it is new or existing. In areas where the ratio of existing sales to new sales is three-to-one or greater, an increase in the mortgage limit may be based on 95 percent of the average of the new and the existing median sales prices. In these areas, the documentation referred to in this paragraph may also include separate median sales prices for both the new and existing homes.
( 2 ) Requests for an increased mortgage limit based upon documentation of median house prices for the area should be sent to the appropriate HUD field office.
( c ) In the case of an area where the Commissioner determines that the median one-family house price does not reasonably reflect the sales prices of newly constructed homes because of an existing stock whose value is static or declining, the Commissioner may give greater weight to the sales prices of new homes in determining median house price in such area. Without limiting the discretion of the Commissioner in fashioning appropriate methods of implementing the foregoing authority in particular circumstances based upon a demonstration of good cause satisfactory to the Commissioner, in areas where evidence satisfactory to the Commissioner indicates that existing home sales outnumber new home sales by three-to-one or better, the *median sales price* will be calculated as the greater of ( 1 ) the average of the median sales price for new and existing homes, and
( 2 ) the composite median price of all sales.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2502-0302) [45 FR 76377, Nov. 18, 1980, as amended at 47 FR 917, Jan. 7, 1982; 49 FR 12697, Mar. 30, 1984; 49 FR 14338, Apr. 11, 1984; 53 FR 8880, Mar. 18, 1988; 56 FR 18947, Apr. 24, 1991; 58 FR 41002, July 30, 1993; 59 FR 13882, Mar. 24, 1994; 60 FR 16033, Mar. 28, 1995]
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3172 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3172

To amend title 49, United States Code, to repeal the security screening 
                 opt-out program for airport operators.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 30, 2005

 Mrs. Maloney (for herself and Mr. McDermott) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 49, United States Code, to repeal the security screening 
                 opt-out program for airport operators.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Passenger Security Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. SECURITY SCREENING OPT-OUT PROGRAM.

    (a) Repeal.--Section 44920 of title 49, United States Code, and the 
item relating to such section in the analysis for chapter 449 of such 
title, are repealed.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--Chapter 449 of such title is amended--
            (1) in section 44901(a) by striking ``or 44920''; and
            (2) by striking section 44919(i).
                                 <all>
```
AMERICAN AIRLINES

October 6, 2010 

Linda L. Lundell 

U.S. Carrier Licensing 

 Division 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

 Re: American Airlines, Chicago-Cozumel 

 (DOT-OST-2010-0247)_______________

Dear Ms. Lundell: 

 American Airlines has completed its poll of the parties 

served with our application of October 5, 2010 in the captioned 

docket. We are seeking exemption authority to operate seasonal 

service between Chicago and Cozumel, Mexico starting February 

12, 2011. 

 We have received non-objections from each of the parties 

we served. We request expedited approval of our unopposed 

application. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 Carl B. Nelson 

 Associate General Counsel 

 American Airlines, Inc. 

 1101 17th Street, N.W., Suite 600 

 Washington, D.C. 20036 

 (202) 496-5647 

 carl.nelson@aa.com 

cc: Docket Branch 

 Paul Gretch 

 Esta Rosenberg 

 Brian Hedberg 

 Service list 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

 I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing 

document by email on the following persons: 

 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com jhill@dlalaw.com 

scott.mcclain@delta.com bill@mietuslaw.com 

sametta.c.barnett@delta.com mgoldman@sgbdc.com 

kquinn@pillsburywinthrop.com rsilverberg@sgbdc.com 

bkeiner@crowell.com dhainbach@ggh-airlaw.com 

mrosia@crowell.com mcmillin@woa.com 

bruce.rabinovitz@wilmerhale.com eskraft@jamhoff.com 

jeffrey.manley@united.com dpdean@jamhoff.com 

bob.kneisley@wnco.com dkirstein@yklaw.com 

robert.land@jetblue.com jyoung@yklaw.com 

msinick@ssd.com donna.kooperstein@usdoj.gov 

cdonley@ssd.com dwight.moore@ustranscom.mil 

gbleopard@fedex.com john.allen@faa.gov 

dvaughan@kelleydrye.com byerlyjr@state.gov 

kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com recohn@hhlaw.com 

jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com cjsimpson@zsrlaw.com 

lhalloway@crowell.com pmurphy@lopmurphy.com 

efaberman@wileyrein.com lachter@starpower.net 

mroller@rollerbauer.com anita.mosner@hklaw.com 

howard.kass@usairways.com rpommer@atlasair.com 

benjamin.slocum@usairways.com gmurphy@crowell.com 

sophy.chen@hklaw.com russell.bailey@alpa.org 

david.heffernan@wilmerhale.com esahr@eckertseamons.com 

 

 

 _______________________________ 

 CARL B. NELSON 

October 6, 2010
Ja~~E~ srqT~

s 

2~Ay~ 

$ ~ w 

c~ 

Z ~ 

yIA C PRO117 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

J. R. Stroble 

Manager, National TRU Program 

Carlsbad Field Office 

U.S. Department of Energy 

P.O. Box 3090 

Carlsbad, NM 88221-3090 

Dear Mr. Stroble: 

On July 5, 2011 the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) requested the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approval of the Super High Efficiency Neutron Counter 

(SuperHENC), non-destructive assay (NDA) system for contact-handled (CH) transuranic (TRU) waste 

used by the Central Characterization Project (CCP) at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). 

With this letter, EPA approves the SuperHENC to be used to characterize waste at LANI.- CCP subject 

to the limitations of its calibration and our report. 

In the LANL-CCP baseline inspection report (Docket No. A-98-49; II-A4-88), EPA identified the 

addition of a new NDA system as a Tier 1 change, which requires EPA approval prior to 

implementation. According to the requirements of 40 CFR 194.8 (b), DOE requested approval of the 

SuperHENC for CH TRU waste as a Tier 1 change to the LANL-CCP CH baseline approval. 

EPA conducted an on-site evaluation of the LANL-CCP SuperHENC on August 16-17, 2011. EPA's 

inspection of the SuperHENC included an examination of the procedures, a review of the calibration 

records, a demonstration of the SuperHENC, replicate measurements run at EPA's request, and an 

examination of Batch Data Reports generated by the SuperHENC. EPA's inspection report (Docket No. 

A-98-49; II-A4-153) for the SuperHENC is enclosed and will be placed in the Agency's public docket. 

EPA has determined that the SuperHENC used by LANL-CCP is adequate for the characterization of 

CH TRU waste in standard waste boxes at LANL-CCP. This approval does not make any changes to the 

tiering table provided with the baseline approval. Changes to the approved components of the 

SuperHENC system at LANL-CCP must follow the tiering requirements described in the baseline 

inspection report issued for the LANL-CCP CH TRU program. 

~~ ,j Recycled/Recyclable 

~

Printed wlth Soy/Canola Ink on paper that 

contelns at Ieast 50% recycled fiber 
If you have any questions regarding this approval, please contact Ed Feltcorn at (202) 343-9422 or 

Rajani Joglekar at (202) 343-9462. 

Sincerely, 

~ 

1 v 

Tom Peake, Director 

Center for Waste Management and Regulations 

Enclosure 

cc: Electronic Distribution 

Ed Ziemianski, CBFO 

Courtland Fesmire, CBFO QA 

Norma Castaneda, CBFO 

Mike Sensibaugh, CCP 

Tim Hall, NMED 

Raymond Lee, EPA HQ 

Site Documents
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

STIPULATION FOR CONDITIONAL DISMISSAL ORDER

1

ERSKINE & TULLEY

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

MICHAEL J. CARROLL (ST. BAR #50246)

220 Montgomery Street, Suite 303

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 392-5431

Facsimile: (415) 392-1978

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE AUTOMOTIVE 

INDUSTRIES PENSION FUND, et al.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SIMI MANAGEMENT CORP, a corporation

doing business as CONNELL AUTO

JEEP/CHRYSLER

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. C 09 1332 JCS

STIPULATION FOR

CONDITIONAL DISMISSAL

ORDER

The parties having advised the Court that they have agreed

to a settlement, but that it will take time to finalize.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice; provided, however, that if any party hereto shall

certify to this Court, with a proof of service of a copy on opposing

counsel, within 30 days from the date hereof, that the necessary

paperwork has not been delivered over, this Order shall stand vacated,

and the action shall be restored to the calendar to be set for trial.

Case 3:09-cv-01332-JCS Document 32 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 2 Case3:09-cv-01332-JCS Document31 Filed07/13/10 Page1 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

STIPULATION FOR CONDITIONAL DISMISSAL ORDER

2

DATED: July 13, 2010 ERSKINE & TULLEY

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

By:/s/Michael J. Carroll

 Michael J. Carroll

 Attorneys for Plaintiff

DATED: July 13, 2010 KAY & MERKEL, LLP

By:/s/Douglas A. Marshall 

Douglas A. Marshall

Attorneys for Defendant

 

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 

 

JUDGE Joseph C. Spero

Case3:09-cv-01332-JCS Document31 Filed07/13/10 Page2 of 2

07/14/10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Joseph C. Spero

Case 3:09-cv-01332-JCS Document 32 Filed 07/14/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Morris R. Balch, appellee, v. B. A. Apeland, trading as Woodlawn Motor Car Sales and Service Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 27,604.

Suit for return of money paid by plaintiff while he was a minor on account .of two automobiles, he having disaffirmed the agreement after he became 21 years of age. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the County Court, of Cook county; the Hon. Prank S. Riglieimer, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 9, 1923.

Luther D. Swanstrom and Claude J. Dalenberg, for appellant. William J. Pringle, Edwin Terwilliger, Jr. and Henry E. Pieruecini, for appellee.

Mr. Justice O ’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,537
<SECURITIES>                                    18,514
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,189
<ALLOWANCES>                                       123
<INVENTORY>                                        179
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   382
<PP&E>                                           1,616
<DEPRECIATION>                                     547
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,454
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,721
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,200
<SALES>                                         11,151
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,151
<CGS>                                            1,186
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,186
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,436
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  19
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,015
<INCOME-TAX>                                       706
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,309
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
§ 203.476 Claim application and items to be filed. The claim for reimbursement on a loan secured by other than a first mortgage shall be made upon an application form prescribed by the Commissioner. The application shall be accompanied by: ( a ) The fiscal data pertaining to the loan transaction as required by the fiscal data form;
( b ) Receipts covering all disbursements as required by the fiscal data form;
( c ) The original note and the security held, assigned to the Commissioner without recourse of warranty, except that no act or omission of the lender shall have impaired the validity and priority of such security;
( d ) Any hazard insurance policies held on property serving as security for the loan, together with a copy of the lender's notification to the carrier authorizing the amendment of the loss payable clause substituting the Commissioner as the holder of the security;
( e ) The assignment to the Commissioner of all rights and interests arising under the loan, and all claims of the lender against the borrower or others arising out of the loan transaction;
( f ) Any title evidence held by the lender;
( g ) All property of the borrower held by the lender or to which it is entitled and, if the Commissioner elects to make payments in debentures, all cash held by the lender or to which it is entitled, including deposits made for the account of the borrower and which have not been applied in reduction of the principal loan indebtedness;
( h ) All records, ledger cards, documents, books, papers and accounts relating to the loan transaction;
( i ) Any additional information or data which the Commissioner may require.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2502-0051) [36 FR 24508, Dec. 22, 1971, as amended at 49 FR 21319, May 21, 1984; 80 FR 51468, Aug. 25, 2015]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

PR 23-0496

_________________

IN THE MATTER OF:

AUSTIN MILES KNUDSEN,

An Attorney at Law,

 Respondent.

O R D E R

_________________

Tyler R. Green, of Salt Lake City, Utah, has petitioned for permission to appear pro 

hac vice before this Court in the above-entitled cause.

Having reviewed the application and having determined that, as required by our 

Rules for Admission to the Bar of Montana, Petitioner Green is currently in good standing 

with another state jurisdiction in which Petitioner is admitted to the practice of law, 

Montana counsel listed in the application is in good standing with the State Bar of Montana,

and this is the first appearance of Petitioner and of Petitioner’s firm under the pro hac vice 

rules,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application of Tyler R. Green to appear pro hac 

vice in the above-entitled cause is GRANTED.

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to Tyler R. Green, to all counsel 

of record in this appeal, and to the State Bar of Montana.

DATED this 12th day of December 2023.

For the Court,

/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR

Acting Chief Justice

Electronically signed by:

Dirk Sandefur

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 12 2023

12/12/2023

Case Number: PR 23-0496