alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §464. Increases of charges on failure to make water-right application

In all cases where application for water right for lands in private ownership or lands held under entries not subject to the reclamation law shall not be made within one year after August 13, 1914, or within one year after notice issued in pursuance of section 419 of this title, in cases where such notice has not been issued prior to August 13, 1914, the construction charges for such land shall be increased 5 per centum each year until such application is made and an initial installment is paid.

(Aug. 13, 1914, ch. 247, §9, 38 Stat. 689.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The reclamation law, referred to in text, is defined in section 472 of this title.
#### William Dietrick, Appellant, v Judith Gutman et al., Respondents.

[834 NYS2d 159]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered June 22, 2006, which denied plaintiffs motion to vacate a prior order precluding him from testifying at trial, and granted defendants’ cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the order of preclusion vacated, the cross motions denied, the complaint reinstated and the matter remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of alternative sanctions. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered September 29, 2006, insofar as it denied plaintiffs motion to reargue the June 22, 2006 order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order *(Nitec Paper Corp. v Carborundum Co.,*73 AD2d 881 [1980], *lv dismissed*49 NY2d 1047 [1980]).

Flaintiffs excuse for noncompliance with the court’s order that he be deposed by a date certain is sufficient to preclude a finding that he engaged in willful and contumacious conduct in the discovery process. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Williams, Buckley, Catterson and Malone, JJ.
#### Shockley *v.*Tate *et al.*

June 13, 1912.

Evans, P. J.

This ease is controlled by the decision this day rendered in the case of *Bryan*v. *Tate,*ante.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### § 81.21 Notice and determination of failure to meet goals.

If the Secretary determines that a GSE has failed or there is a substantial probability that a GSE will fail to meet any housing goal, the Secretary shall follow the procedures at 12 U.S.C. 4566(b).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-2051

CHERYL A. DAVIDSON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

JAMES TAYLOR; JOHN O'DONALD; DARRELL BETSILL,

 Defendants - Appellees,

 and

CITY OF GAFFNEY; SOUTH CAROLINA LAW

ENFORCEMENT DIVISION,

 Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-04-928-7-HMH)

Submitted: December 15, 2005 Decided: December 20, 2005

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
- 2 -

Cheryl A. Davidson, Appellant Pro Se. Vance J. Bettis, GIGNILLIAT,

SAVITZ & BETTIS, Columbia, South Carolina; Michael Stephen Pauley,

VINTON D. LIDE & ASSOCIATES, Lexington, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Cheryl A. Davidson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order granting summary judgment to Defendants in her 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (2000) action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,

229 (1960)). 

The district court’s judgment was entered on the docket

on August 10, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on

September 16, 2005. Because Davidson failed to file a timely

notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the

appeal period, we grant the Defendants’ motions to dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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

HALSEY MINOR, an individual,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHRISTIE’S INC., a New York corporation, 

and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants. /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

CHRISTIE, MANSON & WOODS, LTD., 

a United Kingdom corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HALSEY MINOR, an individual,

and ROES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-05445 WHA (Lead Case)

Consolidated with:

No. C 09-00471 WHA

ORDER ON STIPULATION TO

CONTINUE HEARING DATE

The stipulated request to continue the hearing this week is DENIED AS MOOT. All

motions scheduled for oral argument this week have been resolved.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00471-WHA Document 58 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 1
§ 203.550 Escrow accounts. ( a ) It is the mortgagee's responsibility to make escrow disbursements before bills become delinquent. Mortgagees must establish controls to insure that bills payable from the escrow fund or the information needed to pay such bills is obtained on a timely basis. Penalties for late payments for items payable from the escrow account must not be charged to the mortgagor unless it can be shown that the penalty was the direct result of the mortgagor's error or omission. The mortgagee shall use the procedures set forth in § 3500.17 of this title, implementing Section 10 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (12 U.S.C. 2609), to compute the amount of the escrow, the methods of collection and accounting, and the payment of the bills for which the money has been escrowed.
( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) In the case of escrow accounts created for purposes of § 203.52 or § 234.64 of this chapter, mortgagees may estimate escrow requirements based on the best information available as to probable payments that will be required to be made from the account on a periodic basis throughout the period during which the account is maintained.
( d ) The mortgagee shall not institute foreclosure when the only default of the mortgagor occupant is a present inability to pay a substantial escrow shortage, resulting from an adjustment pursuant to this section, in a lump sum.
( e ) When the contract of mortgage insurance is terminated voluntarily or because of prepayment in full, sums in the escrow account to pay the mortgage insurance premiums shall be remitted to HUD with a form approved by the Secretary for reporting the voluntary termination of prepayment. Upon prepayment in full sums held in escrow for taxes and hazard insurance shall be released to the mortgagor promptly.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2502-0474) [41 FR 49736, Nov. 10, 1976, as amended at 57 FR 9611, Mar. 19, 1992; 57 FR 27927, June 23, 1992; 59 FR 53901, Oct. 26, 1994; 60 FR 8812, Feb. 15, 1995]
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Michael S. Wasik, certify that:





1.           I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company;





2.           Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; and





3.           Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
Company as of, and for, the period presented in this quarterly report.





Date: 12/14/09





By:    /s/ Michael S. Wasik


Michael S. Wasik


Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
###### Editorial Note on Part 5

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 5 appear at 65 FR 16715, Mar. 29, 2000.

#### § 5.707 Uniform self-inspection requirement and report.

All PHAs and owners of HUD housing subject to an assistance contract, other than owners participating in the HCV, PBV, and Moderate Rehabilitation programs, are required to annually self-inspect their properties, including all units, to ensure the units are maintained in accordance with the standards in § 5.703. The owner or PHA must maintain the results of such self-inspections for three years and must provide the results to HUD upon request. This self-inspection is independent of other HUD inspections discussed in § 5.705. The owner or PHA may choose to conduct this inspection after a HUD inspection to satisfy this requirement and the post-report survey requirement at § 5.711(c)(2) simultaneously.
§ 241.520 Fees on increases. ( a ) *Increase in firm commitment prior to endorsement.* An application filed prior to initial endorsement (or prior to endorsement in a case involving insurance upon completion), for an increase in the amount of an outstanding firm commitment shall be accompanied by a combined additional application and commitment fee. This combined additional fee shall be in an amount which will aggregate $3 per thousand dollars of the amount of the requested increase. if an inspection fee was required in the original commitment, an additional inspection fee shall be paid in an amount computed at the same dollar rate per thousand dollars of the amount of increase in commitment as was used for the inspection fee required in the original commitment. When insurance of advances is involved, the additional inspection fee shall be paid at time of initial endorsement. When insurance upon completion is involved, the additional inspection fee shall be paid prior to the date construction is begun or if construction has begun, it shall be paid with the application for increase.
( b ) *Increase in loan between initial and final endorsement.* Upon an application, filed between initial and final endorsement, for an increase in the amount of the loan, either by amendment or by substitution of a new loan, a combined additional application and commitment fee shall accompany the application. This combined additional fee shall be in an amount which will aggregate $3 per thousand dollars of the amount of the increase requested. If an inspection fee was required in the original commitment, an additional inspection fee shall accompany the application in an amount not to exceed $5 per thousand dollars of the amount of the increase requested.
#### § 60.113 Suspension or Termination of IRB Approval of Research.

An IRB shall have authority to suspend or terminate approval of research that is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB's requirements or that has been associated with unexpected serious harm to subjects. Any suspension or termination of approval shall include a statement of the reasons for the IRB's action and shall be reported promptly to the investigator, appropriate institutional officials, and the department or agency head.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0990-0260)
### §§616gggg to 616llll. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 616gggg, Pub. L. 90–562, §1, Oct. 12, 1968, 82 Stat. 999, authorized construction, operation, and maintenance of Palmetto Bend project, Texas.

Section 616hhhh, Pub. L. 90–562, §2, Oct. 12, 1968, 82 Stat. 999, related to repayment of costs of this project.

Section 616iiii, Pub. L. 90–562, §3, Oct. 12, 1968, 82 Stat. 999, related to transfer of the care, operation, and maintenance of this project to a qualified contractor or contracting entities and to permanent usage rights.

Section 616jjjj, Pub. L. 90–562, §4, Oct. 12, 1968, 82 Stat. 1000, related to conservation and development of fish and wildlife and to enhancement of recreational opportunities in connection with this project.

Section 616kkkk, Pub. L. 90–562, §5, Oct. 12, 1968, 82 Stat. 1000, authorized appropriations for construction, operation, and maintenance of the first stage of this project.

Section 616llll, Pub. L. 90–562, §6, Oct. 12, 1968, 82 Stat. 1000, authorized appropriations for acquisition of land for the second stage of this project.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRAND TARZANA SURGICAL INSTITUTE, INC

. ,

P laintiff

- Appell ant ,

v.

BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF ILLINOIS
,
Defendant

- Appell ee

. No s

. 20

- 55072

D.C. No

. 2:18

- cv

- 08443

- DSF

- AS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dale S. Fischer , District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 1 5 , 2021 * * Pasadena, California

Before: CALLAHAN and WATFORD , Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, * * * District Judge.
Brand Tarzana Surgical Institute, Inc. (“ Brand ”) appeals the dismissal with

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not pre cedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JAN 20 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

prejudice of its ERISA action for failure to state a claim. 1 We have jurisdiction

under 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91 and affirm

.

“ We review de novo a district court ’ s order granting a motion to dismiss

under Rule 12(b)(6)

. ” Cook v. Brewer , 637 F.3d 1002 , 1004 (9th Cir. 20 11 ).

We take note of Glendale Outpatient Surgery Ctr. v. United Healthcare

Servs. , Case No. 19

- 55412, which Brand identified in its Statement of Related

Cases , and which raises “the same or closely related issues

. ” See Ninth Circuit

Rule 28

- 2.6

. Though we are not bound by the outcome in that case, w e f ind that

the complaint at issue here , identical in many respects to the complaint in

Glendale , also suffers from the same defects

. See Glendale Outpatient Surgery

Ctr. v. United Healthcare Servs.
, 805 F. App’x 530 , 531 (9th Cir. 2020). Brand

fail s to all ege that the plans at issue for its sixteen claims here are even ERISA
plans, and fails to allege provisions in those plans , or communications from

Defendant, that would entitle Brand to the reimbursements it claims

. See Doe v.
CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
, 982 F.3d 1204
, 1213 (9th Cir. 2020)

. Brand’s description of
what it was “typically” told by Defendant is not “ enough to raise a right to relief

above the speculative level. ” See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544 , 555
(2007)

. Finally , t hat Brand ’s com plaint involves multiple claims does not ex cuse it

1 B ecause the parties are familiar with the facts, we restate only those necessary to explain our decision.3

from its obligation to allege enough facts to “ give the defendant fair notice of what

the

. . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. ” See id

. (internal citation

omitted). Because t he complaint does not “show[] that the pleader is entitled to

relief,” see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the district court ’s dismissal with prejudice is

A FFIRMED

.
#### BROOKER, Appellant, v. IRWIN, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 6, 1903.)

Action by William E. Brooker against Anna M. Irwin. C. P. Hallock, for appellant. J. M. Downes, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nathaniel Davis, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered June 20, 1974, and order of the same court, dated July 11, 1977 (upon an appeal by permission), affirmed. No opinion. Titone and Margett, JJ., concur; Hopkins, J. P., and Hawkins, J., concur in the result on the constraint of *People v Felder*(61 AD2d 309).
### §423f. Purpose of sections 423 to 423g and 610

The purpose of sections 423 to 423g and 610 of this title is the rehabilitation of the several reclamation projects and the insuring of their future success by placing them upon a sound operative and business basis, and the Secretary of the Interior is directed to administer said sections to those ends.

(May 25, 1926, ch. 383, §48, 44 Stat. 650.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Sections 423 to 423g and 610 of this title, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning act of May 25, 1926, ch. 383, 44 Stat. 636, which enacted sections 423 to 423g and 610 of this title. Section 610 of this title has been omitted from the Code. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.
### §2706. Administrative provisions

(a) Upon request of the Committee, the head of any Federal agency is authorized to detail to the Committee, on a nonreimbursable basis, any of the personnel of such agency to assist the Committee in carrying out the duties referred to under section 2703 and such detail shall be without interruption or loss of civil service status or privilege.

(b) For purposes of supporting the Committee, the Archivist may obtain the services of experts and consultants in accordance with the provisions of section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, but at rates for individuals not to exceed the daily equivalent of the minimum annual rate of basic pay payable for GS–16 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of such title.

(Added Pub. L. 101–509, title IV, §1(d)(1), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1418.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### References in Other Laws to GS–16, 17, or 18 Pay Rates

References in laws to the rates of pay for GS–16, 17, or 18, or to maximum rates of pay under the General Schedule, to be considered references to rates payable under specified sections of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, see section 529 [title I, §101(c)(1)] of Pub. L. 101–509, set out in a note under section 5376 of Title 5.
### SUBCHAPTER IV—PROVISION OF RAIL PASSENGER SERVICES
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 2012 - 0086 Directorate ID : 2011 - SW - 045 - AD Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France Model EC130B4 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 109 Helicopters in the US Registry . Re ason : The actions of this AD are intended to prevent structural failure of the tail boom, resulting in detachment of the Fenestron (tail rotor) and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 60,000 for the replacement L abor per Helicopter ( 1 work- hour x $ 8 5 /workhour for the inspection) (50 work - hour s x $85/work- hour for the replacement) $ 85 $4,250 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 85 $64,250 for the replacement Total US Fleet Cost $ 9,265 for the insp ection Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory

Flexibility

Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Jim Grigg
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3260 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny employers a deduction 

for payments of excessive compensation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 12, 2005 

Mr. SABO 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 deny employers a deduction for payments of excessive compensation. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Income Equity Act 

5 of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR PAYMENTS OF EXCES7 SIVE COMPENSATION. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 162 of the Internal Rev9 enue Code of 1986 (relating to deduction for trade or busi-
2 

•HR 3260 IH 

1 ness expenses) is amended by inserting after subsection 

2 (h) the following new subsection: 

3 ‘‘(i) EXCESSIVE COMPENSATION.— 

4 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—No deduction shall be al5 lowed under this chapter for any excessive com6 pensation with respect to any full-time employee. 

7 ‘‘(2) EXCESSIVE COMPENSATION.—For pur8 poses of this subsection, the term ‘excessive com9 pensation’ means, with respect to any employee, the 

10 amount by which— 

11 ‘‘(A) the compensation for services per12 formed by such employee during the taxable 

13 year, exceeds 

14 ‘‘(B) an amount equal to 25 times the low15 est compensation for services performed by any 

16 other full-time employee during such taxable 

17 year. 

18 ‘‘(3) DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.—For 

19 purposes of this subsection— 

20 ‘‘(A) COMPENSATION.— 

21 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘com22 pensation’ means salary, wages, and bo23 nuses. 

24 ‘‘(ii) INCLUSION OF NONCASH BENE25 FITS.—The term ‘compensation’ includes 
3 

•HR 3260 IH 

1 any remuneration (including benefits) in 

2 any medium other than cash, but shall not 

3 include— 

4 ‘‘(I) any payment referred to in 

5 so much of section 3121(a)(5) as pre6 cedes subparagraph (E) thereof, and 

7 ‘‘(II) any benefit provided to or 

8 on behalf of an employee if at the 

9 time such benefit is provided it is rea10 sonable to believe that the employee 

11 will be able to exclude such benefit 

12 from gross income under this chapter. 

13 ‘‘(iii) PART-YEAR EMPLOYEES.—In 

14 the case of any part-year employee, the 

15 compensation of the employee shall be 

16 computed on an annualized basis. 

17 ‘‘(B) EMPLOYER.—All persons treated as a 

18 single employer under subsection (a) or (b) of 

19 section 52 or subsection (m) or (o) of section 

20 414 shall be treated as 1 employer.’’. 

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

22 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

23 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ