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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3169 Received in Senate (RDS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3169

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 8, 2005

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To provide the Secretary of Education with waiver authority for 
students who are eligible for Pell Grants who are adversely affected by 
                          a natural disaster.

    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 ``Pell Grant Hurricane and Disaster 
Relief Act''.

SEC. 2. WAIVERS OF FEDERAL PELL GRANT REPAYMENT BY STUDENTS AFFECTED BY 
              DISASTERS.

    Section 484B(b)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1091b(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(D) Waivers of federal pell grant repayment by 
                students affected by disasters.--The Secretary may 
                waive the amounts that students are required to return 
                under this section with respect to Federal Pell Grants 
                if the withdrawals on which the returns are based are 
                withdrawals by students--
                            ``(i) who were residing in, employed in, or 
                        attending an institution of higher education 
                        that is located in an area in which the 
                        President has declared that a major disaster 
                        exists, in accordance with section 401 of the 
                        Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
                        Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170);
                            ``(ii) whose attendance was interrupted 
                        because of the impact of the disaster on the 
                        student or the institution; and
                            ``(iii) whose withdrawal ended within the 
                        academic year during which the designation 
                        occurred or during the next succeeding academic 
                        year.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 7, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### § 1006.201 Eligible affordable housing activities.

Eligible affordable housing activities are development, housing services, housing management services, crime prevention and safety activities, and model activities. Affordable housing activities under this part are activities conducted in accordance with subpart D of this part to develop, operate, maintain, or support housing for rental or homeownership; or provide services with respect to affordable housing through the activities described in this subpart. NHHBG funds may only be used for eligible activities that are consistent with the DHHL's housing plan.

[89 FR 9761, Feb. 12, 2024]
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

DB2/21691489.1 [PROP.] ORDER EXTENDING NEC CORPORATION OF 

AMERICA’S DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; CASE NO. C 09-02114 RS

David N. Kuhn (State Bar No. 73389)

dnkuhn@pacbell.net

Attorney-at-Law

144 Hagar Avenue

Piedmont, CA 94611

Telephone: 510-653-4983

Attorney for Plaintiff Gregory Bender

Andrew J. Gray IV (State Bar No. 202137) 

agray@morganlewis.com 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

2 Palo Alto Square, Suite 700 

3000 El Camino Real 

Palo Alto, CA 94306 

Telephone: 650.843.4000 

Facsimile: 650.843.4001 

Robert W. Busby (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

rbusby@morganlewis.com 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20004 

Telephone: 202.739.3000 

Facsimile: 202.739.3001 

Attorneys for Defendant NEC CORPORATION 

OF AMERICA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Gregory Bender,

Plaintiff,

vs.

LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC, NEC 

CORPORATION OF AMERICA, 

PIONEER ELECTRONICS (USA) INC., 

and SHARP ELECTRONICS 

CORPORATION

Defendants.

Case No. C09-02114 JF

[PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING NEC 

CORPORATION OF AMERICA’S 

DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO 

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation, Defendant NEC Corporation of America is hereby

granted an extension of time to answer, plead, or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Second 

Amended Complaint until and including May 31, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________, 2010 ________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

*E-Filed 4/30/10* 4/29/10

Case 3:09-cv-02114-RS Document 81 Filed 04/30/10 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2914 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2914

       To suspend temporarily the duty on Triasulfuron Technical.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 15, 2005

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To suspend temporarily the duty on Triasulfuron Technical.

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

SECTION 1. TRIASULFURON TECHNICAL.

    (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:

``      9902.07.41      Triasulfuron        Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         Technical 3-(6-                                                    31/2008
                         methoxy-4-methyl-
                         1,3,5-triazin-2-
                         yl)-1-[2-(2-
                         chloroethoxy)phen
                         ylsulfonyl]-urea
                         (CAS No. 82097-50-
                         5) (provided for
                         in subheading
                         2935.00.75)......

    (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 the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41011 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LAWANZA CRAIG LILLIE, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:96-CR-105-2

- - - - - - - - - - June 16, 1998 Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Court appointed counsel for Lawanza Craig Lillie has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the brief and record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
STIPULATED MOTION FOR DISMISSAL CASE NO. C 09-1478 SI 

OF MICROSOFT CORPORATION

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

SPENCER HOSIE (CA Bar No. 101777) 

shosie@hosielaw.com 

BRUCE WECKER (CA Bar No. 078530) 

bwecker@hosielaw.com 

GEORGE F. BISHOP (CA Bar No. 89205) 

gbishop@hosielaw.com 

HOSIE RICE LLP 

188 The Embarcadero, Suite 750 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

(415) 247-6000 Tel. 

(415) 247-6001 Fax 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

IMPLICIT NETWORKS, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

IMPLICIT NETWORKS, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

v.

SYBASE, INC., and 

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 

 

 Defendants. 

Case No. C 09-1478 SI 

STIPULATED MOTION FOR 

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF 

CLAIMS AND COUNTERCLAIMS 

BY IMPLICIT NETWORKS, INC. 

AND MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 

AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Case 3:09-cv-01478-SI Document 60 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 3
STIPULATED MOTION FOR DISMISSAL 1 CASE NO. C 09-1478 SI 

OF MICROSOFT CORPORATION

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

Plaintiff Implicit Networks, Inc. (“Implicit”) and Defendant Microsoft Corporation 

(“Microsoft”), pursuant to Rule 41(A)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil, hereby stipulate and 

move for an order dismissing WITH PREJUDICE and in their entirety (1) all claims or 

counterclaims brought by Implicit against Microsoft and (2) all claims or counterclaims 

brought by Microsoft against Implicit, with each party to bear its own costs, expenses and 

attorneys’ fees. 

Dated: April 2, 2010 HOSIE RICE LLP 

/s/ Spencer Hosie_____________________

SPENCER HOSIE 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

IMPLICIT NETWORKS, INC. 

Dated: April 2, 2010 K&L GATES LLP 

 /s/ Michael J. Bettinger 

 MICHAEL J. BETTINGER 

 Attorney for Defendant 

MICROSOFT CORPORATION 

I hereby attest pursuant to General Order 45.X.B. that concurrence in the electronic 

filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatories. 

DATED: April 2, 2010 

/s/ Spencer Hosie__________________

 Spencer Hosie 

Case 3:09-cv-01478-SI Document 60 Filed 04/07/10 Page 2 of 3
STIPULATED MOTION FOR DISMISSAL 2 CASE NO. C 09-1478 SI 

OF MICROSOFT CORPORATION

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this ___ day of April, 2010. 

_______________________________________

HONORABLE SUSAN ILLTSTON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-01478-SI Document 60 Filed 04/07/10 Page 3 of 3
Editorial Note on Part 5
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 5 appear at 65 FR 16715, Mar. 29, 2000.

§ 5.360 Housing programs: Additional lease provisions. ( a ) *Inspections.* In addition to other inspections permitted under the lease, the leases for all Housing program tenants of projects for the elderly or persons with disabilities may state that the project owner may, after reasonable notice to the tenant and during reasonable hours, enter and inspect the premises. The lease shall permit entry and inspection only if the project owner has received a signed, written complaint alleging (or the project owner has reasonable grounds to believe) that the conduct or condition of a pet in the dwelling unit constitutes, under applicable State or local law, a nuisance or a threat to the health or safety of the occupants of the project or other persons in the community where the project is located.
( b ) *Emergencies.* ( 1 ) If there is no State or local authority (or designated agent of such an authority) authorized under applicable State or local law to remove a pet that becomes vicious, displays symptoms of severe illness, or demonstrates other behavior that constitutes an immediate threat to the health or safety of the tenancy as a whole, the project owner may place a provision in tenant leases permitting the project owner to enter the premises (if necessary), remove the pet, and take such action with respect to the pet as may be permissible under State and local law, which may include placing it in a facility that will provide care and shelter for a period not to exceed 30 days.
( 2 ) The lease shall permit the project owner to enter the premises and remove the pet or take such other permissible action only if the project owner requests the pet owner to remove the pet from the project immediately, and the pet owner refuses to do so, or if the project owner is unable to contact the pet owner to make a removal request. The lease may not contain a provision relieving the project owner from liability for wrongful removal of a pet. The cost of the animal care facility shall be paid as provided in § 5.363.
( 3 ) The project owner may place a provision in tenant leases permitting the project owner to enter the premises, remove the pet, and place the pet in a facility that will provide care and shelter, in accordance with the provisions of § 5.363. The lease may not contain a provision relieving the project owner from liability for wrongful removal of a pet.
#### Frank Amico, Appellant, v Melville Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[832 NYS2d 813]

In an *785action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), entered February 24, 2006, which granted the motion of the defendant Melville Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendant Melville Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it is denied as premature, with leave to renew upon completion of discovery.

A party should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery prior to the determination of a motion for summary judgment *(see Urcan v Cocarelli,*234 AD2d 537 [1996]). Here, the plaintiff has not had an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery, and the motion by the defendant Melville Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., should have been denied as premature *(see*CPLR 3212 [f]; *Fazio v Brandywine Realty Trust,*29 AD3d 939 [2006]; *Juseinoski v New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens,*29 AD3d 636 [2006]; *Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v North Fork Bank,*16 AD3d 467 [2005]). Crane, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Dillon, JJ., concur.
### §1343. Statistical Abstract of the United States

In addition to the usual number of the Statistical Abstract of the United States, twelve thousand copies shall be printed: three thousand for the Senate, six thousand for the House of Representatives, and three thousand for distribution by the Secretary of Commerce.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1273.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., §291 (Jan. 12, 1895, ch. 23, §73, 28 Stat. 616; Aug. 23, 1912, ch. 350, §1, 37 Stat. 407; 1950 Reorg. Plan No. 5, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1263).
### §572. Disposition of net proceeds; fixing project construction charges

The net proceeds of such sales after deducting all expenditures on account of such lands, and the project construction charge, for the irrigable area of the lands so sold where irrigation or drainage works have been constructed or are proposed to be constructed, shall be disposed of as provided in section 501 of this title. Where the project construction charge shall not have been fixed at the date of any such sale, same shall be estimated by the Secretary of the Interior.

(Mar. 2, 1929, ch. 541, §2, 45 Stat. 1522.)
#### In the Matter of Charles R. Lachman, a Proposed Conservatee, Respondent-Appellant. Rita D. Lachman, Appellant-Respondent; Leon Hershbaum et al., Respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 30, 1977, dismissing petition for appointment of a conservator of the property of the proposed conservatee, is unanimously modified, in the exercise of discretion, so as to strike the provision in the next to the last decretal paragraph "and that sum be paid to him by the respondent herein” and to substitute therefor "and that sum be paid to him by the petitioner herein,” and the judgment is otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The evidence is overwhelming that there is no need for the appointment of a conservator in this case and the Trial Justice who saw the proposed conservatee so found. However, the fee of the guardian ad litem should be paid by petitioner, the proposed conservatee’s former wife, who instituted this unmeritorious proceeding and who is well able to afford to pay the fee. "Petitioner-respondent having procured the appointment of the guardian ad litem without notice to respondent-appellant * * * and on the basis of a petition found * * * to merit dismissal, respondent * * * may not properly be charged with the guardian’s allowance.” *(Matter of Levy,*31 AD2d 532.) Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Silver-man, Evans and Sullivan, JJ.
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-01T18:59:25-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of International Securities Exchange Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), David Krell, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(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 result of operations of the Company.



By:

/s/    DAVID
KRELLName: Title:

David Krell President and Chief Executive Officer


Date: February 28, 2007



---

|* | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to International Securities Exchange Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by International Securities Exchange Holdings, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|** | This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18
or any other provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
§ 242.31 Accumulation of accruals. ( a ) The mortgage shall provide for payments by the mortgagor to the mortgagee on each interest payment date of an amount sufficient to accumulate, in the hands of the mortgagee one payment period prior to its due date, the next annual MIP payable by the mortgagee to HUD. Such payments shall continue only so long as the contract of insurance shall remain in effect.
( b ) The mortgage shall provide for such equal monthly payments by the mortgagor to the mortgagee as will amortize the ground rents, if any, and the estimated amount of all taxes, water charges, special assessments, and fire and other hazard insurance premiums, within a period ending one month prior to the dates on which the same become delinquent. The mortgage shall further provide that such payments shall be held by the mortgagee, for the purpose of paying such items before they become delinquent. The mortgage shall also make provision for adjustments in case such estimated amounts shall prove to be more, or less, than the actual amounts so paid therefore by the mortgagor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in particular circumstances, a mortgagor may purchase required fire and hazard insurance through a consortium of affiliated institutions or related organizations or, in the case of public institutions, through required state purchasing arrangements. In such circumstances, the mortgage accrual requirement may be modified to reflect circumstances in which it is inappropriate for the mortgagee to collect monthly payments and to make payments on behalf of the mortgagor.
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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

CURRIE-WHITE, 

Plaintiff,

v.

BLOCKBUSTER, INC., 

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. C 09-2593 MMC

ORDER APPROVING REQUEST FOR

DEFENDANT’S CORPORATE

REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND

ENE BY PHONE

Date: February 4, 2010

Mediator: Roderick Bushnell

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s corporate representative, Nathan Fay, is

excused from personal attendance at the February 4, 2010, Early Neutral Evaluation before Roderick

Bushnell. Mr. Fay shall be available to participate by telephone at all times during the ENE,

pursuant to ADR Local Rule 6-10.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 22, 2010 By:

Dated Elizabeth D. Laporte

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02593-MMC Document 53 Filed 01/22/10 Page 1 of 1
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 9, 2015

No. 04-15-00263-CR

Angel H. LONGORIA,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR5599A

Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant has filed a motion to abate the appeal so that the trial court may reconsider the 

certification of the defendant’s right of appeal and so that an accurate certification may be 

obtained from the trial court. See TEX R. APP. P. 25.2, 35.4(c), 37.1; see also Dears v. State, 154 

S.W.3d 610, 614-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The motion is GRANTED. We order any 

amended Certification be signed and filed in a supplemental clerk’s record by August 10, 2015.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 9th day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### In the Matter of the People of the State of New York., Petitioner, against Sanford Levinson et al., Doing Business as American Aluminum, et al., Respondents.

— ‘Motion for a stay denied.