alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 242.37 Mortgage prepayment. ( a ) *Prepayment privilege.* Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section or otherwise established by HUD, the mortgage shall contain a provision permitting the mortgagor to prepay the mortgage in whole or in part upon any interest payment date, after giving the mortgagee a 30-day notice in writing in advance of its intention to so prepay. The 30-day notice may be extended with the prior written approval of HUD.
( b ) *Prepayment charge.* The mortgage may contain a provision for such charge, in the event of prepayment of principal, as may be agreed upon between the mortgagor and the mortgagee, subject to the following: ( 1 ) The mortgagor shall be permitted to prepay up to 15 percent of the original principal amount of the mortgage in any one calendar year without any such charge.
( 2 ) Any reduction in the original principal amount of the mortgage resulting from the certification of cost, which HUD may require, shall not be construed as a prepayment of the mortgage.
( c ) *Prepayment of bond-financed or GNMA-securitized mortgages.* Where the mortgage is given to secure GNMA mortgage-backed securities or a loan made by a lender that has obtained the funds for the loan by the issuance and sale of bonds or bond anticipation notes, or both, the mortgage may contain a prepayment restriction and prepayment penalty charge acceptable to HUD as to term, amount, and conditions.
( d ) *HUD override of prepayment restrictions.* In the event of a default, HUD may override any lockout, prepayment penalty, or combination of penalties in order to facilitate a partial or full refinancing of the mortgaged property and avoid a claim.
**EXHIBIT        32.1**

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO**

**18        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| 1)   | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2)   | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Partnership. |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/                  Freddie M. Kotek                                    |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Name:  | Freddie                  M. Kotek                                        |
| Title: | Chief                  Executive Officer of the Managing General Partner |
| Date:  | April                  2, 2007                                           |
#### O. Dorothy Sidders, Also Known as Olga D. Sidders, Appellant, v John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. et al., Defendants, and Claire Schubert, Respondent.

In an action to declare that the plaintiff, as named beneficiary, is entitled to receive certain pension death benefits accruing under (1) insurance policies issued by the defendant insurers and (2) a retirement plan issued by defendant Sperry Rand Corporation, plaintiff *990appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered January 17, 1977, which, after a nonjury trial, (1) declared that the individual defendant was entitled, as assignee, to all of the proceeds, (2) directed the corporate defendants to pay all sums owed into court and (3) directed the Suffolk County Treasurer to release all funds received and to be received to the individual defendant. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The decedent’s intent to make an assignment was supported by the oral testimony of the assignee and two witnesses, and by a writing signed by the decedent. Hence, the individual defendant is entitled to all of the pension benefits which the decedent intended her to have. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
### §381. Repealed. Pub. L. 89–554, §8(a), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 639

Section, acts June 17, 1902, ch. 1093, §5, 32 Stat. 389; Oct. 28, 1921, ch. 114, §1, 42 Stat. 208; Mar. 3, 1925, ch. 462, 43 Stat. 1145, provided for commissions of registers and receivers of land offices.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RIAZ PATRAS, et al,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF ANTIOCH, et al,

Defendants.

/

No. C 09-1891 MMC

ORDER REFERRING TO MAGISTRATE

JUDGE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO

COMPEL

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-1, plaintiffs Riaz Patras, Maryam Patras, and Mark

Patras’ Motion to Compel, filed June 21, 2010, and all further discovery matters, are hereby

REFERRED to a Magistrate Judge to be heard and considered at the convenience of the

assigned Magistrate Judge’s calendar.

Counsel will be advised of the date, time and place of the next appearance by notice

from the assigned Magistrate Judge’s chambers. The July 30, 2010 hearing date before

the undersigned is vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2009 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01891-MMC Document 30 Filed 06/22/10 Page 1 of 1
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2940

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that certain settlement funds established under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 are beneficially owned 

by the United States and are not subject to tax. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 16, 2005

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. BECERRA, Mr. REYNOLDS, 

Mr. BOEHLERT, Mr. THOMPSON of California, and Mr. WELLER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways 

and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify 

that certain settlement funds established under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980 are beneficially owned by the 

United States and are not subject to tax.

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

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF TAXATION OF CERTAIN 

4 SETTLEMENT FUNDS. 

5 Subsection (g) of section 468B of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows: 
2

•HR 2940 IH 

1 ‘‘(g) CLARIFICATION OF TAXATION OF CERTAIN

2 FUNDS.—

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para4 graph (2), nothing in any provision of law shall be 

5 construed as providing that an escrow account, set6 tlement fund, or similar fund is not subject to cur7 rent income tax. The Secretary shall prescribe regu8 lations providing for the taxation of any such ac9 count or fund whether as a grantor trust or other10 wise. 

11 ‘‘(2) EXEMPTION FROM TAX FOR CERTAIN SET12 TLEMENT FUNDS.—An escrow account, settlement 

13 fund, or similar fund shall be treated as beneficially 

14 owned by the United States and shall be exempt 

15 from taxation under this subtitle if—

16 ‘‘(A) it is established pursuant to a con17 sent decree entered by a judge of a United 

18 States District Court, 

19 ‘‘(B) it is created for the receipt of settle20 ment payments as directed by a government en21 tity for the sole purpose of resolving or satis22 fying one or more claims asserting liability 

23 under the Comprehensive Environmental Re24 sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act of 

25 1980, 
3

•HR 2940 IH 

1 ‘‘(C) the authority and control over the ex2 penditure of funds therein (including the ex3 penditure of contributions thereto and any net 

4 earnings thereon) is with such government enti5 ty, and 

6 ‘‘(D) upon termination, any remaining 

7 funds will be disbursed upon instructions by 

8 such government entity in accordance with ap9 plicable law. 

10 For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘govern11 ment entity’ means the United States, any State or 

12 political subdivision thereof, the District of Colum13 bia, any possession of the United States, and any 

14 agency or instrumentality of any of the foregoing.’’. 

15 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

16 The amendment made by this Act shall apply as if 

17 included in the provision of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 

18 to which it relates.

Æ
About this capture
National Archives and Records Administration
National Archives and Records Administration
§ 35.325 Child with an elevated blood lead level. ( a ) If a child less than 6 years of age living in a federally assisted dwelling unit has an elevated blood lead level, the owner shall immediately conduct an environmental investigation. Interim controls of identified lead-based paint hazards shall be conducted in accordance with § 35.1330.
( b ) *Other assisted dwelling units in the property.* ( 1 ) If the environmental investigation conducted under paragraph (a) of this section identifies lead-based paint hazards, the owner shall conduct a risk assessment for other assisted dwelling units covered by this subpart in which a child under age 6 resides or is expected to reside on the date interim controls are complete, and for the common areas servicing those units. The risk assessments shall be conducted within 30 calendar days after receipt of the environmental investigation report on the index unit if there are 20 or fewer such units, or 60 calendar days for risk assessments if there are more than 20 such units. If the risk assessment identifies lead-based paint hazards, the owner shall control identified hazards in accordance with § 35.1325 or § 35.1330 in those units and common areas within 30 calendar days, or within 90 calendar days if more than 20 units have lead-based paint hazards such that the control work would disturb painted surfaces that total more than the de minimis threshold of § 35.1350(d).
( 2 ) The requirements for other assisted dwelling units covered by paragraph (b)(1) of this section do not apply if: ( i ) The owner both conducted a risk assessment of the other assisted dwelling units covered by paragraph (b)(1), and the common areas servicing those units, and conducted reduction of identified lead-based paint hazards in accordance with § 35.1325 or § 35.1330 between the date the child's blood was last sampled and the date the owner received the notification of the elevated blood lead level; or
( ii ) The owner provides the Federal agency documentation of compliance with evaluation, notification, lead disclosure, ongoing lead-based paint maintenance, and lead-based paint management requirements under this part throughout the 12 months preceding the date the owner received the environmental investigation report.
( c ) Interim controls are complete when clearance is achieved in accordance with § 35.1340.
( d ) The Federal agency shall establish a timetable for completing, and providing documentation to the agency on the environmental investigation, risk assessments, and lead-based paint hazard reduction when a child is identified as having an elevated blood lead level.
[82 FR 4167, Jan. 13, 2017]
### §390h–17a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 102–575, title XVI, §1636, as added Pub. L. 108–316, §1(b), Oct. 5, 2004, 118 Stat. 1202, which related to the Williamson County, Texas, water recycling and reuse project, was renumbered section 1637 of Pub. L. 102–575 by Pub. L. 109–70, §2(a)(1), Sept. 21, 2005, 119 Stat. 2009, and transferred to section 390h–19 of this title.
§ 3286.811 Effect on other manufactured housing program requirements. A state with a qualifying installation program will operate in lieu of HUD with respect to only the installation program established under subparts B through H of this part. No state may permit its installation program, even if it is a qualified installation program under this part, to supersede the requirements applicable to HUD's Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards and enforcement programs. Regardless of whether a state has a qualified installation program: ( a ) *Construction and safety standards.* Any responsibilities, rights, and remedies applicable under the Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act in part 3280 of this chapter and the Manufactured Home Procedural and Enforcement Regulations in part 3282 of this chapter continue to apply as provided in those parts; and
( b ) *Dispute resolution.* For any defect in a manufactured home that is reported during the one-year period beginning on the date of installation defined in § 3286.115, any responsibilities, rights, and remedies applicable under the HUD dispute resolution program as implemented in part 3288 of this chapter continue to apply as provided in that part.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19 - 0172 CITY OF COLUMBIA FALLS ,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. BONNIE L. CHAPMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER 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 April 29 , 20 20 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

March 25 2020

03/25/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0172
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GENERAL EMPLOYEES TRUST FUND

and BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF GENERAL

EMPLOYEES TRUST FUND,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

EAST BAY BUILDING SERVICES, a

partnership, ABDULLAH HOMRAN,

individually and as a partner in EAST BAY

BUILDING SERVICES, and NABILA

HOMRAN, individually and as a partner in

EAST BAY BUILDING SERVICES,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-02722 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

In this ERISA action, plaintiffs General Employees Trust Fund and Board of Trustees

of General Employees Trust Fund were granted partial summary judgment against defendant

East Bay Building Services, Abdullah Homran and Nabila Homran. Defendants, who are

proceeding pro se, have now filed a motion for reconsideration of that order. Civil Local Rule

7-9(b) provides that a party moving for reconsideration must show:

(1) That at the time of a motion for leave [to file a motion for

reconsideration], a material difference in fact or law exists from

that which was presented to the Court before entry of the

interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought. The

party also must show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence

the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or

law at the time of the interlocutory order; or

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law

occurring after the time of such order; or

Case 3:09-cv-02722-JSW Document 30 Filed 04/29/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or

dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court

before such interlocutory order.

Defendants have not shown any of the above. Their motion merely repeats almost

verbatim statements from their amended answer to the complaint (Dkt. No. 6). Their motion

for reconsideration is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-02722-JSW Document 30 Filed 04/29/10 Page 2 of 2
```

[House Report 105-56]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                     105-56
_______________________________________________________________________

                  PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF 
 
       H.R. 400, THE 21ST CENTURY PATENT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT

                                _______
                                

   April 16, 1997.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

   Mr. McInnis, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 116]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 116, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

               brief summary of provisions of resolution

    The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 400, 
the ``21st Century Patent System Improvement Act'' under an 
open rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate divided 
equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
    The rule waives all points of order against consideration 
of the bill. The rule also makes in order the Committee on the 
Judiciary amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed 
in the bill, modified as specified in section 2 of the 
resolution.
    The rule further waives all points of order against the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, and 
provides that it shall be considered as read. Also, the rule 
allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone 
votes during consideration of the bill, and allows the Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole to reduce votes to 5 minutes on a 
postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote.
    Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Record 
prior to their consideration will be given priority in 
recognition to offer their amendments if otherwise consistent 
with House rules. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to 
recommit, with or without instructions.

                                

```
§ 245.125 Tenant organizers. ( a ) A tenant organizer is a tenant or non-tenant who assists tenants in establishing and operating a tenant organization, and who is not an employee or representative of current or prospective owners, managers, or their agents.
( b ) Owners of multifamily housing projects covered under § 245.10, and their agents, must allow tenant organizers to assist tenants in establishing and operating tenant organizations.
( c ) *Non-tenant tenant organizers.* ( 1 ) If a multifamily housing project covered under § 245.10 has a consistently enforced, written policy against canvassing, then a non-tenant tenant organizer must be accompanied by a tenant while on the property of the multifamily housing project, except in the case of recipients of HUD Outreach and Assistance Training Grants (“OTAG”) or other direct HUD grants designed to enable recipients to provide education and outreach to tenants concerning HUD's mark-to-market program (see 24 CFR parts 401 and 402), who are conducting eligible activities as defined in the applicable Notice of Funding Availability for the grant or other effective grant document.
( 2 ) If a multifamily housing project covered under § 245.10 has a written policy favoring canvassing, any non-tenant tenant organizer must be afforded the same privileges and rights of access as other uninvited outside parties in the normal course of operations. If the project does not have a consistently enforced, written policy against canvassing, the project shall be treated as if it has a policy favoring canvassing.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      a.
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c.
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andd.
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an Annual Report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  a.
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonable likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb.
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  By:
    /s/ JOHN EMERYJohn EmeryChief Executive Officer