alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 401.100 Which projects are eligible for a Restructuring Plan under this part? ( a ) *What are the requirements for eligibility?* To be eligible for a Restructuring Plan under this part, a project must: ( 1 ) Have a mortgage insured or held by HUD;
( 2 ) Be covered in whole or in part by a contract for project-based assistance under— ( i ) The new construction or substantial rehabilitation program under section 8(b)(2) of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 as in effect before October 1, 1983;
( ii ) The property disposition program under section 8(b) of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937;
( iii ) The moderate rehabilitation program under section 8(e)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937;
( iv ) The loan management assistance program under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937;
( v ) Section 23 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 as in effect before January 1, 1975;
( vi ) The rent supplement program under section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965;
( vii ) Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, following conversion from assistance under Section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965; or
( viii ) Section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 as renewed under section 524 of MAHRA;
( 3 ) Have current gross potential rent for the project-based assisted units that exceeds the gross potential rent for the project-based assisted units using comparable market rents;
( 4 ) Have a first mortgage that has not previously been restructured under this part or under HUD's Portfolio Reengineering demonstration authority as defined in § 402.2(c) of this chapter;
( 5 ) Not be a project that is described in section 514(h) of MAHRA; and
( 6 ) Otherwise meet the definition of “eligible multifamily housing project” in section 512(2) of MAHRA or meet the following three criteria: ( i ) The project is assisted pursuant to a contract for Section 8 assistance renewed under section 524 of MAHRA;
( ii ) It has an owner that consents for the project to be treated as eligible; and
( iii ) At the time of its initial renewal under section 524, it met the requirements of section 512(2)(A), (B), and (C) of MAHRA.
( b ) *When is eligibility determined?* Eligibility for a Restructuring Plan under paragraph (a) of this section is determined by the status of a project on the earlier of the termination or expiration date of the project-based assistance contract, which includes a contract renewed under section 524 of MAHRA, or the date of the owner's request to HUD for a Restructuring Plan. Eligibility is not affected by a subsequent change in status, such as contract extension under § 401.600 or part 402 of this chapter.
[71 FR 2121, Jan. 12, 2006]
### SUBCHAPTER I—PROGRAMS DOWNSTREAM FROM IMPERIAL DAM
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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY BENDER

Plaintiff, No. C-09-01246 EDL

v. ORDER OF CONDITIONAL DISMISSAL

SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA

Defendants.

___________________________________/

The parties hereto, by their counsel, having advised the Court that they have agreed to a

settlement of this cause,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is dismissed without prejudice, with leave to reinstate

on or before 90 days for the purpose of proceeding with the litigation in the event a settlement has not

been completed prior to that date. In the event a request to reinstate the case is not filed and served on

opposing counsel on or before the foregoing date, the dismissal will be with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2010 _______________________________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01246-EDL Document 68 Filed 04/13/10 Page 1 of 1
Order entered October 8 , 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 21

- 00546

- CV

31 HOLDINGS I, LLC, 31 OPERATING, LLC, 31 GROUP, LLC, AND

KENNETH GOGGANS , Appellant s

V.

ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY , Appellee

On Appeal from the 439th Judicial District Court

Rockwall County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1

- 21

- 0634

O RDER

Before the Court is appellee ’ s October 6, 2021 unopposed motion to extend

time to file its b rief on the m erits . We GR ANT the motion and e xtend the time to

November 3, 2021

. We ca u tion appellee that further requests for extension in this

acce lerated appeal wi ll be disfavored.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
39–008

105TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 105–19

PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 412,

OROVILLE-TONASKET CLAIM SETTLEMENT AND CONVEYANCE ACT

MARCH 12, 1997.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. HASTINGS, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 94]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 94, 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. 412, the

Oroville-Tonasket Claim Settlement and Conveyance 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 Resources.

The rule makes in order the Committee on Resources amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill as an

original bill for purposes of amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.

Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or

without instructions.

Æ
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: 
Name:
    
    /s/ Freddie M. Kotek

Freddie M. KotekTitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
    
    March 30, 2011
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

      I, Harold F. Zagunis, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of Sequoia
Residential Funding, Inc., a Delaware corporation, hereby certify that:

      1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A, and all reports
on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of the
Certificates for periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of
Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc.;

      2.    Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, 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 as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

      3.    Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and
servicing agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these
reports;

      4.    Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement
included in the report and required to be delivered to the trustee in accordance
with the terms of the pooling and servicing agreement, and except as disclosed
in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing
agreement; and

      5.    The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report
provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in
compliance with the Uniform Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar
procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing agreement, that is included
in these reports.

      In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Morgan Stanley
Dean Witter Credit Corporation, as Servicer, GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.,
as Servicer, Cendant Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer, Bank of America, N.A.,
as Servicer, GMAC Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer, and Countrywide Home Loans,
Inc., as Servicer.

Date: May 31,2005

/s/ Harold F. Zagunis
--------------------------------------------
Signature
Name: Harold F. Zagunis
Title: Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
DESCRIPTION OF THE CHAIRMAN’S AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE 

OF A SUBSTITUTE TO THE PROVISIONS OF H.R. 3957, 

THE “EMERGENCY CITRUS DISEASE RESPONSE ACT” 

The Chairman’s amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 3957 changes the short 

title of the bill to the “Emergency Citrus Disease Response Act of 2016.” 

 The following presents the estimated Federal fiscal year budget effects of the 

Chairman’s amendment: 

Fiscal Years 

[Millions of Dollars] 

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2017-21 2017-26 

 

-2 -4 -5 -5 -4 -3 -2 -2 -2 -1 -20 -30 

JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION 

September 13, 2016 

JCX-71-16
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3268 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 

gain from the conversion of property by reason of eminent domain. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 13, 2005 

Mr. GINGREY (for himself, Mr. AKIN, Mr. PITTS, Ms. HART, Ms. FOXX, Mr. 

SHADEGG, Mr. GRAVES, and Mr. MACK) 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 exclude 

from gross income gain from the conversion of property 

by reason of eminent domain. 

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 ‘‘Eminent Domain Tax 

5 Relief Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•HR 3268 IH 

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME FOR GAIN FROM 

2 DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY BY REASON OF 

3 EMINENT DOMAIN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part III of subchapter B of chap5 ter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 

6 items specifically excluded from gross income) is amended 

7 by inserting after section 139A the following new section: 

8 ‘‘SEC. 139B. GAIN FROM DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY BY 

9 REASON OF EMINENT DOMAIN. 

10 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Gross income shall not include 

11 gain from the conversion (or threat or imminence thereof) 

12 of property in the United States by reason of the exercise 

13 of eminent domain by a governmental unit having the 

14 power to exercise eminent domain. 

15 ‘‘(b) COORDINATION WITH OTHER NONRECOGNI16 TION PROVISIONS.— 

17 ‘‘(1) GAIN.—Gain excluded under subsection 

18 (a) shall not be treated as gain recognized or an 

19 amount realized for purposes of sections 467, 

20 637(d), 1033, 1245, 1250, 1252, 1254, 1255, and 

21 1402. 

22 ‘‘(2) SECTION 1231.—Section 1231 shall be ap23 plied without regard to this section. 

24 ‘‘(3) HOLDING PERIOD.—Section 1223(1) shall 

25 not apply. 
3 

•HR 3268 IH 

1 ‘‘(c) ELECTION NOT TO CLAIM CREDIT.—This sec2 tion shall not apply to a taxpayer for any taxable year 

3 if such taxpayer elects to have this section not apply for 

4 such taxable year. ’’. 

5 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

6 for such part is amended by inserting after the item relat7 ing to section 139A the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 139B. Gain from disposition of property by reason of eminent domain.’’. 

8 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the 

10 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
## Subtitle VII—Security and Drug Enforcement

Chapter
Sec.
700.
Ports and Waterways Safety
70001. 1

701.
Port Security
70101
703.
Maritime Security
70301
705.
Maritime Drug Law Enforcement
70501

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2018**—Pub. L. 115–282, title IV, §401(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4263, added item for chapter 700.

**2008**—Pub. L. 110–181, div. C, title XXXV, §3529(c)(1), Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 603, repealed Pub. L. 109–304, §9(a). See 2006 Amendment note below.

**2006**—Pub. L. 109–304, §10(1), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1683, amended analysis generally, substituting "Security and Drug Enforcement" for "Miscellaneous" in subtitle heading and adding items for chapters 703 and 705.

Pub. L. 109–304, §9(a), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1674, which directed amendment identical to that made by Pub. L. 109–241, was repealed by Pub. L. 110–181, §3529(c)(1), with Pub. L. 109–304, §9(a), to be treated as if never enacted. See note below.

Pub. L. 109–241, title IX, §901(k)(1), July 11, 2006, 120 Stat. 564, redesignated subtitle VI of this title as subtitle VII.

1  So in original. The period probably should not appear.
#### Rudolph C. Ficken, surviving partner, appellant, v. Sarah M. Tallyn et al., executors of the estate of Edwin M. Tallyn, deceased, appellees.

Gen. No. 7,173.

Suit on two judgment notes. Judgment by confession. Motion to open judgment granted. Judgment for defendants. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Woodford county; the Hon. Stevens R. Baker, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1922.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed August 13, 1923.

Kennedy & Kennedy, for appellant; Weil & Bartley, of counsel. Barnes, Mago on & Black, for appellees.

Mir. Justice Jett

delivered the opinion of the court.
§ 87.600 Semi-annual compilation. ( a ) The head of each agency shall collect and compile the disclosure reports (see appendix B) and, on May 31 and November 30 of each year, submit to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives a report containing a compilation of the information contained in the disclosure reports received during the six-month period ending on March 31 or September 30, respectively, of that year.
( b ) The report, including the compilation, shall be available for public inspection 30 days after receipt of the report by the Secretary and the Clerk.
( c ) Information that involves intelligence matters shall be reported only to the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, and the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives in accordance with procedures agreed to by such committees. Such information shall not be available for public inspection.
( d ) Information that is classified under Executive Order 12356 or any successor order shall be reported only to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives (whichever such committees have jurisdiction of matters involving such information) and to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives in accordance with procedures agreed to by such committees. Such information shall not be available for public inspection.
( e ) The first semi-annual compilation shall be submitted on May 31, 1990, and shall contain a compilation of the disclosure reports received from December 23, 1989 to March 31, 1990.
( f ) Major agencies, designated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), are required to provide machine-readable compilations to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives no later than with the compilations due on May 31, 1991. OMB shall provide detailed specifications in a memorandum to these agencies.
( g ) Non-major agencies are requested to provide machine-readable compilations to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.
( h ) Agencies shall keep the originals of all disclosure reports in the official files of the agency.
1 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

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, 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NATALIE DYER, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

GC SERVICES, LP, 

 Defendant..

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 09-cv-01562

 

[PROPOSED] ORDER OF 

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

 

 

Based upon the Stipulation to Dismiss by all appearing parties and pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), the above reference matter is hereby dismissed with 

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 8, 2010 

 _________________________________ 

 The Honorable Judge 

 United States District Judge 

 [Proposed] Order 

Case 3:09-cv-01562-MEJ Document 24 Filed 06/08/10 Page 1 of 1
### §231t. Short title

This subchapter may be cited as the "Railroad Retirement Act of 1974".

(Aug. 29, 1935, ch. 812, §21, as restated June 24, 1937, ch. 382, pt. I, 50 Stat. 307, as restated Pub. L. 93–445, title I, §101, Oct. 16, 1974, 88 Stat. 1351.)

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

#### Short Title of 2007 Amendment

Pub. L. 109–478, §1, Jan. 12, 2007, 120 Stat. 3573, provided that: "This Act [amending section 231a of this title and enacting provisions set out as a note under section 231a of this title] may be cited as the 'Railroad Retirement Disability Earnings Act'."

#### Short Title of 2006 Amendment

Pub. L. 109–305, §1, Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1719, provided that: "This Act [amending section 231f of this title] may be cited as the 'Railroad Retirement Technical Improvement Act of 2006'."

#### Short Title of 2001 Amendment

Pub. L. 107–90, §1(a), Dec. 21, 2001, 115 Stat. 878, provided that: "This Act [enacting section 231v of this title and subchapter E of chapter 22 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code, amending sections 231a to 231f, 231n, 231n–1, 231q, 231r, and 231u of this title, sections 24, 72, 501, 3201, 3211, 3221, and 3231 of Title 26, and section 405 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, and enacting provisions set out as notes under sections 231b, 231c, and 231n of this title, sections 24 and 3211 of Title 26, and section 405 of Title 42] may be cited as the 'Railroad Retirement and Survivors' Improvement Act of 2001'."

#### Short Title of 1983 Amendment

Pub. L. 98–76, §1, Aug. 12, 1983, 97 Stat. 411, provided: "That this Act [enacting sections 231f–1, 231n–1 and 231v of this title and sections 3321 to 3323 and 6050G of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code, amending sections 231 to 231f, 231m, 231n, 231u, 351 to 354, 358, and 360 of this title, sections 72, 86, 105, 3201, 3202, 3211, 3221, 3231, 6157, 6201, 6317, 6513, and 6601 of Title 26, and section 430 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, and enacting provisions set out as notes under sections 231 to 231d, 231f, 231m, 231n, 231n–1, 351, 352, and 362 of this title and sections 1, 72, 105, 3201, 3321, and 6302 of Title 26] may be cited as the 'Railroad Retirement Solvency Act of 1983'."
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco. CA 94105-3901 

DEC 1 8 2009 

Mr. John R. Lewis 

Executive Director 

Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. 

2214 North Central Avenue, Suite 100 

Phoenix, AZ 85004 

Re: Extension Consultation on Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPR) concerning Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) determination for Navajo Generating Station, EPA Docket No. 

EPA-R09-0AR-2009-0598 (74 Fed. Reg. 44313; August 28,2009) 

Dear Mr. Lewis: 

Thank you very much for inviting me and my staff to your meeting on 

December 15,2009 to discuss our ANPR on the BART determination for Navajo 

Generating Station. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the ANPR and the 

process of our future rulemaking on this issue and to hear directly the concerns of 

all the tribes that are !TCA members. 

As part of this meeting we agreed to extend the comment period for all 

tribes potentially affected by our future BART determination from December 28, 

2009, until March 1,2010, to provide more time for government-to-government 

consultation. Please note that only tribes will be eligible to submit comments 

during this informal extension. 

We appreciate your interest in our action and look forward to consulting 

with you throughout our rulemaking process. Please contact me at 520-498-0118 

if you have additional questions. 

Sincerely, 

Colleen McKaughan 

Associate Director, Air Division 

Primed on Recycled Paper
NOx SO2 Distance to nearest Class I area (km) Sum:SO2+NOx(tons) Q/d (tons/km) COLSTRIP STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 2 10,609 5,145 193 15,754 82 PLUM CREEK MANUFACTURING LP COLMB FLS 1,049 18 13 1,067 82 EXXON-MOBIL BILLINGS REFINERY1 431 588 161 1,019 6 STONE CONTAINER 1,116 199 41 1,315 32 PPL MONTANA - J. E. CORETTE PLANT 1,703 3,135 136 4,838 36 MDU - LEWIS & CLARK STATION 796 781 54 1,576 29 CENEX HARVEST STATES1 509 218 161 727 5 MONTANA SULPHUR & CHEMICAL 5 2,403 161 2,408 15 YELLOWSTONE ENERGY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 379 1,549 141 1,928 14 ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS 512 6 44 518 12 OCEAN ENERGY INC BLAINE COUNTY #1 1,155 0 107 1,155 11 COLSTRIP ENERGY LTD PARTNERSHIP 537 705 117 1,242 11 CONOCO-PHILLIPS1 499 588 136 1,087 8 MONTANA REFINING1 111 11 77 122 2
1Emissions were from 2009 NEI
2Emssions were from 2010 as reported to CAMD Annual Emissions 2002(tons) Summary of Q/D Analysis
#### True Zion Gospel Temple, Inc., Appellant, v Jimmy T. Roberson, Respondent.

[835 NYS2d 299]—

In an action, inter alia, to set aside a transfer of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kelly, J.), dated February 27, 2006, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and determined that the defendant was the owner of the subject property.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, True Zion Gospel Temple, Inc., an entity incorporated under article 8 of the Religious Corporations Law, seeks relief from a 1988 Supreme Court order approving the transfer of its real property to its president. The president subsequently conveyed the property to her son, the defendant, Jimmy T. Roberson. The plaintiff sought to void the transfer upon the ground that it was invalid under Not-for-Profit Corporation Law § 511 (b), as no notice to the Attorney General was given, and upon the ground that the transfer was effected by fraud. The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and determined that the defendant was the owner of the subject property.

*851The defendant met his prima facie burden of proving his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as no ground exists under CPLR 5015 for relief from the 1988 Supreme Court order *(see Universal Underwriters Acceptance Corp. v Peerless Ins. Co.,*31 AD3d 749 [2006]; *see also Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557 [1980]). The plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact because failure to notify the Attorney General did not render the 1988 order void *(see*Religious Corporations Law § 12 [9]; *cf. St. Andrey Bulgarian E. Orthodox Cathedral Church v Bosakov,*272 AD2d 55 [2000]). The plaintiff likewise failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the transfer was effected by fraud, because the plaintiff failed to set forth the alleged fraud with the required specificity *(see Fredriksen v Fredriksen,*30 AD3d 370 [2006]; CPLR 3016 [b]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Krausman and Balkin, JJ., concur.