alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3.135 Designation of responsible employee and adoption of grievance procedures. ( a ) *Designation of responsible employee.* Each recipient shall designate at least one employee to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under these Title IX regulations, including any investigation of any complaint communicated to such recipient alleging its noncompliance with these Title IX regulations or alleging any actions that would be prohibited by these Title IX regulations. The recipient shall notify all its students and employees of the name, office address, and telephone number of the employee or employees appointed pursuant to this paragraph.
( b ) *Complaint procedure of recipient.* A recipient shall adopt and publish grievance procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution of student and employee complaints alleging any action that would be prohibited by these Title IX regulations.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 30 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 30

To provide compensation for certain World War II veterans who survived 
    the Bataan Death March and were held as prisoners of war by the 
                               Japanese.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2005

    Mr. Mica (for himself, Mr. Simmons, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Weldon of 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Cunningham, and Mr. Hunter) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide compensation for certain World War II veterans who survived 
    the Bataan Death March and were held as prisoners of war by the 
                               Japanese.

    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 ``Samuel B. Moody Bataan Death March 
Compensation Act''.

SEC. 2. PAYMENT TO WORLD WAR II VETERANS WHO SURVIVED BATAAN DEATH 
              MARCH.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the military department concerned 
shall pay, upon request, to an individual described in subsection (b) 
the amount determined with respect to that individual under subsection 
(c).
    (b) Covered Individuals.--A payment under subsection (a) shall be 
made to any individual who as a member of the Armed Forces during World 
War II--
            (1) was captured on the peninsula of Bataan or island of 
        Corregidor in the territory of the Philippines by Japanese 
        forces; and
            (2) participated in and survived the Bataan Death March.
    (c) Amount to Be Paid.--The amount of a payment under subsection 
(a) to an individual shall be $4 for each day during which the 
individual was held in captivity by Japanese forces during World War 
II, compounded annually at a 3 percent annual rate of interest.
    (d) Payment to Surviving Spouse.--In the case of an individual 
described in subsection (b) who is deceased and who has an unremarried 
surviving spouse, payment under this section with respect to that 
individual shall be made to the unremarried surviving spouse. If there 
is no unremarried surviving spouse, no payment shall be made under this 
section with respect to that individual.
                                 <all>
```
#### General Supply Company *v.*Toccoa Plumbing Company *et al.*

May 17, 1912.

Complaint. Before Judge Meadow. Elbert superior court. April 29, 1911.

*Z. B. Rogers*and *B. F. Davis,*for plaintiff.

Beck, J.

1. On tlie trial of this ease, which was a suit upon an open account, the question for determination was, what amount, if any, was due the plaintiff after allowing the defendant. proper credits upon the account for certain articles of merchandise which had been returned, and for the amounts collected or which, in the exercise of due diligence, should have been collected, by the plaintiff upon an open account against a debtor of the defendant, which the latter had transferred to the plaintiff as collateral security. And it was error for the court, upon the trial of the ease, to permit one of the defendants, over objections duly made, to testify that “He [the manager of the plaintiff corporation] stated that he [the manager] had his accounts insured, and that this suit he had brought was just a matter of form, which he had to go through with before he could collect liis insurance; that his insurance covered a range of $1,000.00. I never heard of credit insurance before. There may be such a thing — it is new to me.” This evidence was entirely irrelevant and probably prejudicial to the plaintiff.

2. Where a debtor transfers to his creditors an open account which the former holds against one of his debtors, as collateral security for the payment of an open account, the transferee is chargeable, not with the amount due on the open account thus transferred, but with such an amount as he may have collected, in the absence of proof that he could have collected more by the exercise of ordinary care and diligence.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Frank Honigman, Deceased. Frank F. Honigman et al., Respondents; Florence Honigman, Appellant.

In a probate proceeding, the widow-objectant appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, made October 7, 1959, in pursuance of an order of this court, dated July 28, 1959, which: (a) reversed the Surrogate’s prior decree, dated July 31, 1957, denying probate to a paper, dated April 3, 1956, purporting to be the last will and testament of Frank Honigman, deceased, after a jury trial on the issue of testamentary capacity; and which (to) remitted the proceeding to the Surrogate’s Court for the entry of a decree admitting the will to probate *(Matter of Honigman,*8 A D 2d 969). The widow also appeals *Cl*from the determination of the Surrogate that the preservation” of decedent’s estate “requires the issuance of restricted letters testamentary”. On August 11, 1959, the widow filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals from this court’s said order of reversal; and such appeal is now pending. The decree presently appealed from, besides admitting the questioned document to probate as decedent’s last will and testament, revoked the letters of administration previously granted to the widow and directed the issuance of “ Restricted Letters Testamentary and Letters of Trusteeship * * * to the Executors and Trustees who may qualify” under said will. While the appeal is taken nominally from the entire decree, the only issue presented, argued and briefed is the propriety of its provision revoking the letters of administration and directing the issuance of the restricted letters testamentary and of trusteeship. The appeal, therefore, must be deemed to be limited to such provision. Decree, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs payable out of the estate to all parties who have appeared and filed briefs. Appeal from “ determination ” dismissed, without costs. Such determination was, in effect, part of the Surrogate’s decision which was effectuated by the decree and which was reviewed on the appeal from the decree. An appeal does not lie from a decision. The widow contends that, while her appeal to the Court of Appeals from this court’s order of reversal is pending, the Surrogate lacks the power to disturb the *status quo*by revoking her letters of administration and issuing restricted letters testamentary and of trusteeship to others under sections 87 and 90 of the Surrogate’s Court Act. She also contends that, assuming the Surrogate is empowered in the exercise of his discretion so to do, he abused his discretion. On the facts in this ease, we are constrained to disagree and to hold to the contrary. Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
§ 51.305 Implementation. ( a ) Projects already approved for assistance. This regulation does not apply to any project approved for assistance prior to the effective date of the regulation whether the project was actually under construction at that date or not.
( b ) Acceptable data on Runway Clear Zones, Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones. The only Runway Clear Zones, Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones which will be recognized in applying this part are those provided by the airport operators and which for civil airports are defined in accordance with FAA regulations 14 CFR part 152 or for military airfields, DOD Instruction 4165.57, 32 CFR part 256. All data, including changes, related to the dimensions of Runway Clear Zones for civil airports shall be verified with the nearest FAA Airports District Office before use by HUD.
( c ) Changes in Runway Clear Zones, Clear Zones, and Accident Potential Zones. If changes in the Runway Clear Zones, Clear Zones or Accident Potential Zones are made, the field offices shall immediately adopt these revised zones for use in reviewing proposed projects.
( d ) The decision to approve projects in the Runway Clear Zones, Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones must be documented as part of the enviornmental assessment or, when no assessment is required, as part of the project file.
### §895. Cancellation of patents erroneously issued; reconveyance

If it shall appear, upon the completion of such adjustments, respectively, or sooner, that lands were, from any cause, prior to March 3, 1887, erroneously certified or patented, by the United States, to or for the use or benefit of any company claiming by, through, or under grant from the United States, to aid in the construction of a railroad, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to thereupon demand from such company a relinquishment or reconveyance to the United States of all such lands, whether within granted or indemnity limits; and if such company shall neglect or fail to so reconvey such lands to the United States within ninety days after the aforesaid demand shall have been made, it shall thereupon be the duty of the Attorney General to commence and prosecute in the proper courts the necessary proceedings to cancel all patents, certification, or other evidence of title prior to March 3, 1887, issued for such lands, and to restore the title thereof to the United States.

(Mar. 3, 1887, ch. 376, §2, 24 Stat. 556.)
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2821

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic basketballs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 8, 2005

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic 

basketballs.

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN SYNTHETIC BASKETBALLS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.95.11 Synthetic basketballs (provided for in subheading 

9506.62.80) ......................... Free Free No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2

•HR 2821 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
§ 203.404 Amount of payment—assigned mortgages. Upon an acceptable assignment of a mortgage, the Commissioner shall pay to the mortgagee the unpaid principal balance of the loan at the time of assignment and an amount determined by: ( a ) Adding the following items: ( 1 ) Any accrued and unpaid mortgage interest.
( 2 ) Any advances made under the mortgage and approved by the Commissioner.
( 3 ) Reimbursement for such costs and attorney's fees as HUD finds were properly incurred in connection with the defaulted mortgage and its modification and assignment to HUD.
( 4 ) For mortgages endorsed for insurance on or before January 23, 2004, an amount equivalent to the debenture interest that would have been earned on the portion of the insurance benefits paid in cash, as of the date such payment is made, and for mortgages endorsed for insurance after January 23, 2004, debenture interest at the rate specified in § 203.405(b), from the date specified in § 203.410 to the date of claim payment on the portion of the insurance benefits paid in cash, except that when the mortgagee fails to meet any one of the requirements of §§ 203.350(e), 203.351, and 203.353 of this chapter within the specified time and in a manner satisfactory to the Commissioner (or within such further time as the Commissioner may approve in writing), the interest allowance in such cash payment shall be computed only to the date on which the particular required action should have been taken or to which it was extended.
( 5 ) An administrative fee to the mortgagee for modifying the mortgage.
( 6 ) A fee for servicing the mortgage assigned to HUD, if HUD requires such servicing.
( b ) Deducting all cash retained by the mortgagee, including amounts held or deposited for the account of the mortgagor or to which it is entitled under the mortgage transaction that have not been applied in reduction of the principal mortgage indebtedness.
( c ) The mortgagee may not file for any additional payments of its mortgage insurance claim after six months from final payment by the Commissioner. For the purpose of this section, the term *final payment* shall mean the payment which is made by the Commissioner based upon the submission by the mortgagee of all required documents and information pursuant to § 203.351 of this part.
[36 FR 24508, Dec. 22, 1971, as amended at 55 FR 283, Jan. 4, 1990; 56 FR 3215, Jan. 29, 1991; 61 FR 35019, July 3, 1996; 71 FR 35994, June 22, 2006]
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of--

Lattice Government Services, Inc., fka 

Ricciardi Technologies, Inc. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Under Contract Nos. W911SR-04-D-0012 ) 

N66001-07-D-0084 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 60759 

Douglas L. Patin, Esq. 

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP 

Washington, DC 

E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Gregory T. Allen, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Chantilly, VA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

On 20 September 2017, the parties submitted a joint motion to dismiss this appeal 

because the dispute has been settled. The parties jointly requested the appeal be 

dismissed with prejudice. 

The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 26 September 2017 

Administra ve Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60759, Appeal of Lattice Government 

Services, Inc., fka Ricciardi Technologies, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's 

Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
#### In re GILBERT.

(Supreme Court, Appellate_ Division, Third Department.

January 4, 1905.)

In the matter of the judicial settlement of the account of Elmer Gilbert, as administrator of Telman B. Silsbee, deceased. No opinion. Decree unanimously affirmed, with costs.
#### § 207.257 Commissioner's right to require acceleration.

Upon receipt of notice of violation of a covenant, as provided for in § 207.256(b), or otherwise being apprised of the violation of a covenant, the Commissioner reserves the right to require the mortgagee to accelerate payment of the outstanding principal balance due in order to protect the interests of the Commissioner.

[76 FR 24371, May 2, 2011]
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

1 

Daniel Harshman, Esq. 

COZEN O'CONNOR 

777 South Figueroa Street 

Suite 2850 

Los Angeles, California 90017 

Telephone: 213.892.7900 

Facsimile: 213.892.7999 

S. Ellyn Farley 

COZEN O’CONNOR 

333 W. Wacker Drive 

Suite 1900 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

Telephone: 312.382.3197 

Facsimile: 312.382.8910 

Admitted Pro Hac Vice 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

Lexington Insurance Company 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

Lexington Insurance Company, as Subrogee of B-G 

Western, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 3:09-cv-01509 

Judge: Samuel Conti 

ORDER

Before the Court is a Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Plaintiff, Lexington Insurance 

Company, as subrogee of B-G Western, Inc., and Defendant, Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc., 

Accordingly, it is hereby 

ORDERED that the above-captioned cause of action is dismissed, with prejudice, as to 

Defendant, Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc., and both parties shall bear their own costs and 

attorneys’ fees in the prosecution and/or defense of this case. 

DATED:__________, 2010 ENTERED: _______________________ 

 Senior Judge Samuel Conti 

CHICAGO\772572\1 225197.000 

Case 3:09-cv-01509-SC Document 52 Filed 06/21/10 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3224 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3224

 To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,2-Benzisothiazol-3(2H)-one (9CI).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 12, 2005

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on 1,2-Benzisothiazol-3(2H)-one (9CI).

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

SECTION 1. 1,2-BENZISOTHIAZOL-3(2H)-ONE (9CI).

    (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:

``      9902.11.08      1,2-Benzisothiazol- Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         3(2H)-one (9CI)                                                    31/2008
                         (CAS No. 2634-33-
                         5) (provided for
                         in subheading
                         3808.40.10)......

    (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>
```
#### Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Company *v.*Virginia-Carolina Chemical Company.

October 5, 1912.

Attachment. Before Judge Parker. Ware superior court. July 32, 1911.

*J. L. Sweat*and *Joseph W. Bennei,*for plaintiff in error.

*Wilson, Bennett & Lambdin*and *Toomer & Reynolds,*contra.

Atkinson, J.

Error was assigned upon the judgment overruling a motion for new trial. The motion contained the general grounds, and numerous special grounds' by amendment. Most of the latter were based upon rulings upon the admissibility of evidence, 'some upon the charge of the court, and one upon an omission to charge, without a written request. A careful consideration of each ground fails to show any error of law requiring the grant of a new trial; and the evidence being sufficient to support the verdict, the discretion of the trial judge will not be disturbed. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### § 512.5 Other procedures.

Nothing contained in this regulation is intended to require Broadcasting Board of Governors to duplicate administrative proceedings required by contract or other laws or regulations.
MEMO TO FILE: MEETING WITH TREATED WOOD COUNCIL- 9/14/2015 DISCUSS STATUS OF TWC PETITION FOR TREATED WOOD--:); .v1 617UrJ·r



### ~f?J **~L** 

## JA fli£ !.. u' A r6> tV 

### ;s- ef r 

## M 'L-L£r c

**{tv~** 

## Vt 

## (A.J f-- lu_



# ~Y **Ya(r~~ '(5i/i~**  

### /c._ 

# Co JV 

### 'r4?

## 7' 

# 1£

105-
**)a{'-'}~** 

### IL 

### f tt l -l'tl1;J· U (I (.. 

### (! I 

### Ef'/7 - **O~K- /!4,//-<F)~J~**  **yc~** 

## OJ./J-

**-CJ ~~**  **o(-f' ft~.**  **h-<4G'~-JP**

**~ ~~l.&..~**  **~rp -"1\.U**  **<:.. ~e.\)L~~e**  **~.h&U,S** 

## N b

r 

## fo l 

# r- :SO ifhet'¥'

**~** Cb 

### r--p . 

### Co~ NO RrOI.K 

## .sc)<.)'rfle~t\J **~** ;] li. 

## wa H/3 

## e. J.) :i

i!JJ

J 2 r. ( JI') 

### \

**?~** &c..£i». 

### fY1

**£(~.1** L l ( 

### (£ N .sc o RP. 

## e-o f11 

### bJ I LW/}-1 T) t lf55:N. w tcJIJ . 

## I t fi., OCJ

**ItS ~**  

### , +rJP\J

**~** /PJ(:il{(/Jt'J 

### fVr' I Lh-r)S

**6A/ (.,~**  **~ .o~q**  OL

**A~.t::** II(LL **J-/(4(~C'~'c.** 

### u



## /f?--C~'TTt1:J **~** -:se-(r:



## r-c''-L **~~ ~** 

**~~..,9- ~**  )C **T~7~-~ ~~'**  **~**



### ~flu **. ~44n&.fj11**  **CfJL** 

# j

**~tfG~ ~**  **~J~~f-(ol\.'-"**
Editorial Note on Part 5
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 5 appear at 65 FR 16715, Mar. 29, 2000.

§ 5.632 Utility reimbursements. ( a ) *Applicability.* This section is applicable to: ( 1 ) The Section 8 programs other than the Section 8 voucher program (for distribution of a voucher housing assistance payment that exceeds rent to owner, see § 982.514(b) of this title);
( 2 ) A public housing family paying an income-based rent (see § 960.253 of this title). (Utility reimbursement is not paid for a public housing family that is paying a flat rent.)
( b ) *Payment of utility reimbursement.* ( 1 ) The responsible entity pays a utility reimbursement if the utility allowance (for tenant-paid utilities) exceeds the amount of the total tenant payment. The responsible entity has the option of making utility reimbursement payments not less than once per calendar-year quarter, for reimbursements totaling $45 or less per quarter. In the event a family leaves the program in advance of its next quarterly reimbursement, the responsible entity must reimburse the family for a prorated share of the applicable reimbursement. PHAs and owners exercising this option must have a hardship policy in place for tenants.
( 2 ) In the public housing program (where the family is paying an income-based rent), the Section 8 moderate rehabilitation program and the Section 8 voucher program, the PHA may pay the utility reimbursement either to the family or directly to the utility supplier to pay the utility bill on behalf of the family. If the PHA elects to pay the utility supplier, the PHA must notify the family of the amount paid to the utility supplier.
( 3 ) In the other Section 8 programs, the owner must pay the utility reimbursement either: ( i ) To the family, or
( ii ) With consent of the family, to the utility supplier to pay the utility bill on behalf of the family.
[65 FR 16719, Mar. 29, 2000, as amended at 82 FR 58339, Dec. 12, 2017; 89 FR 38290, May 7, 2024]