alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §91. Deposit in Treasury of unearned fees and unofficial moneys

Officers of district land officers, as designated by the Secretary of the Interior are authorized, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior or such officer as he may designate, to deposit to the credit of the Treasurer of the United States all unearned fees and unofficial moneys that have been carried upon the books of their respective offices for a period of five years or more, which sums shall be covered into the Treasury by warrant and carried to the credit of the parties from whom such fees or moneys were received, and into an appropriation account to be denominated "Outstanding liabilities."

(Mar. 2, 1907, ch. 2562, §1, 34 Stat. 1245; Oct. 28, 1921, ch. 114, §1, 42 Stat. 208; Mar. 3, 1925, ch. 462, 43 Stat. 1145; 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 3, §403, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7876, 60 Stat. 1100.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

This section, as originally enacted, related to receivers of public moneys for land districts. The office of receiver was consolidated with that of register by acts Mar. 3, 1925, and Oct. 28, 1921, under which the office of receiver was abolished. See, also, Transfer of Functions note below.

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

#### Appropriations

Effective July 1, 1935, the appropriation provided for in this section was repealed and provision was made for annual appropriations of sums necessary to meet expenditures by act June 26, 1934, ch. 756, §17, 48 Stat. 1230, which was repealed by Pub. L. 97–258, §5(b), Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1074. See section 1322 of Title 31, Money and Finance.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of the Interior, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Interior, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1262, set out under section 1451 of this title.

"Officers of district land offices, as designated by the Secretary of the Interior," substituted for "registers" and "Secretary of the Interior or such officer as he may designate" substituted for "Commissioner of the General Land Office" on authority of section 403 of Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1946. See note set out under section 1 of this title.
### §964. Limit of time for completion of Colorado and Wyoming pipelines; forfeiture

If any section of said pipe line shall not be completed within five years after the location of said section, the right granted in sections 962 to 965 of this title shall be forfeited, as to any incomplete section of said pipe line, to the extent that the same is not completed at the date of the forfeiture.

(May 21, 1896, ch. 212, §3, 29 Stat. 127.)

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

#### Repeal; Savings Provision

Section repealed by Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §706(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2793, effective on and after Oct. 21, 1976, insofar as applicable to the issuance of rights-of-way over, upon, under, and through the public lands and lands in the National Forest System. Such repeal not to be construed as terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, etc., existing on Oct. 21, 1976, see section 701 of Pub. L. 94–579, set out as a note under section 1701 of this title.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2205

TANESHIA LAVERNE MIDDLETON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Anderson. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (8:15-cv-00299-BHH)

Submitted: May 31, 2017 Decided: June 23, 2017

Before AGEE, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Taneshia Laverne Middleton, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Taneshia Laverne Middleton appeals the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and upholding the Commissioner’s denial of 

disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Middleton v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 8:15-cv-00299-BHH (D.S.C. 

Aug. 19, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### SUBCHAPTER X—STOCK-RAISING HOMESTEAD
### **CHAPTER 17—DISTRIBUTION AND SALE OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS**

Sec.
1701.
Publications for public distribution to be distributed by the Director of the Government Publishing Office; mailing lists.
1702.
Superintendent of Documents; sale of documents.
1703.
Superintendent of Documents: assistants, blanks, printing and binding.
1704.
Superintendent of Documents: pay of employees for night, Sunday, holiday, and overtime work.
1705.
Printing additional copies for sale to public; regulations.
1706.
Printing and sale of extra copies of documents.
1707.
Reprinting of documents required for sale.
1708.
Prices for sales copies of publications; crediting of receipts; resale by dealers; sales agents.
1709.
Blank forms: printing and sale to public.
1710.
Index of documents: number and distribution.
1711.
Catalog of Government publications.
1712.
Documents for use of the Director of the Government Publishing Office.
1713.
Documents to be delivered to the Executive Mansion.
1714.
Publications for use of General Services Administration. 1

1715.
Publications for department or officer or for congressional committees.
1716.
Public documents for legations and consulates of United States.
1717.
Documents and reports for foreign legations.
1718.
Distribution of Government publications to the Library of Congress.
1719.
International exchange of Government publications.
1720.
Documents not needed by departments to be turned over to Superintendent of Documents.
1721.
Exchange of documents by heads of departments.
1722.
Departmental distribution of publications.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2014**—Pub. L. 113–235, div. H, title I, §1301(c)(1), Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2537, substituted "Director of the Government Publishing Office" for "Public Printer" in items 1701 and 1712.

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

#### Federal Records Management Provisions Without Effect on Chapter

Authority and responsibilities under chapter not limited or repealed by Federal Records Management Amendments of 1976, see section 5(b) of Pub. L. 94–575, set out as a note under section 2901 of this title.

1  Section catchline amended by Pub. L. 98–497 without corresponding amendment of chapter analysis.
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

ORIGINAL ORIGINAL

Jamil Karwash bar no. 240796

One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 2300

Oakland, California 94612-3642

Tel No. (510) 836-0100

Fax. No. (510) 832-3690

Attorney for Plaintiff

United States District Court

Northern District of California

FELIPE ANTONIO RAMOS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY OF HAYWARD, HAYWARD POLICE

DEPARTMENT, R.SOUZA, and DOES 1 THROUGH 10,

Defendants.

Case No. C09-01556 SI

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL

WITH PREJUDICE

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

It is hereby stipulated, by and between Jamil F. Karwash, attorney for Plaintiff, and

Daniel Steven Connolly, attorney for defendants City of Hayward, Hayward Police Department,

and R. Souza that this action may be dismissed with prejudice and that each side will bear their

own costs.

3/25/10

(date) Jamil F. Karwash

Attorney for Plaintiff

I consent to the dismissal:

3/30/10

Felipe Antonio Ramos, Plaintiff

(date)

1

Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Susan Illston

Case 3:09-cv-01556-SI Document 25 Filed 04/09/10 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Margaret G. Yates, Deceased. Frederick Y. Borden, as Executor of Margaret G. Yates, Deceased, Appellant; Winchell G. Yates et al., Appellants.

Motion for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, without costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
§ 35.94 Agent responsibilities. ( a ) Each agent shall ensure compliance with all requirements of this subpart. To ensure compliance, the agent shall: ( 1 ) Inform the seller or lessor of his/her obligations under §§ 35.88, 35.90, and 35.92.
( 2 ) Ensure that the seller or lessor has performed all activities required under §§ 35.88, 35.90, and 35.92, or personally ensure compliance with the requirements of §§ 35.88, 35.90, and 35.92.
( b ) If the agent has complied with paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the agent shall not be liable for the failure to disclose to a purchaser or lessee the presence of lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards known by a seller or lessor but not disclosed to the agent.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2070-0151) [61 FR 9082, Mar. 6, 1996, as amended at 64 FR 14382, Mar. 25, 1999]
Editorial Note on Part 30
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 30 appear at 87 FR 8197, Feb. 14, 2022.

§ 30.70 Prepenalty notice. ( a ) Prior to determining whether to issue a complaint under § 30.85, the official designated in subpart B of this part, or his or her designee (or the chairperson of the Mortgagee Review Board, or his or her designee, in actions under § 30.35), shall issue a written notice to the respondent. This prepenalty notice shall include the following: ( 1 ) That HUD is considering seeking a civil money penalty;
( 2 ) The specific violations alleged;
( 3 ) The maximum civil money penalty that may be imposed;
( 4 ) The opportunity to reply in writing to the designated program official within 30 days after receipt of the notice;
( 5 ) That failure to respond within the 30-day period may result in issuance of a complaint under § 30.85 without consideration of any information that the respondent may wish to provide; and
( 6 ) That if a complaint is issued under § 30.85, the respondent may request a hearing before an administrative law judge in accordance with § 30.95.
( b ) *Obligation to preserve documents.* Upon receipt of the prepenalty notice, the respondent is required to preserve and maintain all documents or data, including electronically stored data, within his or her possession or control that may relate to the violations alleged in the prepenalty notice. The Department shall also preserve such documents or data upon the issuance of the prepenalty notice.
[74 FR 2751, Jan. 15, 2009]
§ 35.1125 Evaluation and hazard reduction before acquisition and development. ( a ) For each residential property constructed before 1978 and proposed to be acquired for a family project (whether or not it will need rehabilitation) a lead-based paint inspection and risk assessment for lead-based paint hazards shall be conducted in accordance with § 35.1320.
( b ) If lead-based paint is found in a residential property to be acquired, the cost of evaluation and abatement shall be considered when making the cost comparison to justify new construction, as well as when meeting maximum total development cost limitations.
( c ) If lead-based paint is found, compliance with this subpart is required, and abatement of lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards shall be completed in accordance with § 35.1325 before occupancy.
! I V-] I • • .. •,. ; \J \ ilrt i •,\j\\ 

O Memorandum 

U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

Subject: Request for Extension at Bradford (DOT-OST-2003- Date: 

14528), Oil City/Franklin (DOT-OST-1997-2523) and 

DuBois (DOT-OST-2004-17617), Pennsylvania; and 

Jamestown, Nev^Yor]jKDOT76sT-20p3-14950) 

From. Dennis J. D^any, Chief ^ Reply to 

HAS & Domestic Analysis Division, X-53 Attn, of: 

To: Dockets Operations, M-30 

June 17, 2010 

O M MEMO 20(e»-72 

Kevin Schlemmer, 

X-53 Ext. 63176 

Order 2010-5-22, May 19, 2010, requested proposals for Essential Air Service (EAS) at 

the above-named communities, to be submitted by June 22. 

On June 16, the Department received a request for an extension from Gulfstream 

International Airlines, Inc. (Gulfstream) to extend the submission deadline to June 30, in 

order to harmonize the date with the pending submission deadline date for proposals at 

Massena, Ogdensburg, and Watertown, New York (Order 2010-5-32, May 28, 2010). 

Gulfstream states that it polled the airport managers in the four communities and they 

expressed support for its extension request. 

We are hereby granting the extension based on Gulfstream's request and the support of 

the communities involved. Proposals for all four communities listed above are now due 

no later than Wednesday, June 30, 2010.
§ 791.403 Allocation of housing assistance. ( a ) The total budget authority available for any fiscal year shall be determined by adding any available unreserved budget authority from prior fiscal years to any newly appropriated budget authority for each housing program.
( b ) Budget authority available for the fiscal year, except for that retained pursuant to § 791.407, shall be allocated to the field offices as follows: ( 1 ) Budget authority shall be allocated as needed for uses that the Secretary determines are incapable of geographic allocation by formula, including— ( i ) Amendments of existing contracts, renewal of assistance contracts, assistance to families that would otherwise lose assistance due to the decision of the project owner to prepay the project mortgage or not to renew the assistance contract, assistance to prevent displacement or to provide replacement housing in connection with the demolition or disposition of public housing, assistance in support of the property disposition and loan management functions of the Secretary;
( ii ) Assistance which is— ( A ) The subject of a line item identification in the HUD appropriations law, or in the table customarily included in the Conference Report on the appropriation for the Fiscal Year in which the funds are to be allocated;
( B ) Reported in the Operating Plan submitted by HUD to the Committees on Appropriations; or
( C ) Included in an authorization statute where the nature of the assistance, such as a prescribed set-aside, is, in the determination of the Secretary, incapable of geographic allocation by formula,
( iii ) Assistance determined by the Secretary to be necessary in carrying out the following programs authorized by the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act: the Homeownership and Opportunity Through HOPE Act under title IV and HOPE for Elderly Independence under section 803.
( 2 ) Budget authority remaining after carrying out allocation steps outlined in paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be allocated in accordance with the housing needs percentages calculated under paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) of § 791.402. HUD may allocate assistance under this paragraph in such a manner that each State shall receive not less than one-half of one percent of the amount of funds available for each program referred to in § 791.101(a) in each fiscal year. If the budget authority for a particular program is insufficient to fund feasible projects, or to promote meaningful competition, at the field office level, budget authority may be allocated among the ten geographic areas of the country. The funds so allocated will be assigned by Headquarters to the field office(s) with the highest ranked applications within the ten geographic areas.
( c ) At least annually HUD will publish a notice in the Federal Register informing the public of all allocations under § 791.403(b)(2).
[61 FR 10849, Mar. 15, 1996, as amended at 64 FR 26640, May 14, 1999]
#### Abe Spigner, Respondent, v. Philip Kupersmit et al., Appellants.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied on condition that appellants be ready to argue or submit the appeal at the October 1960 Term, beginning October 3, I960, for which term the appeal is ordered to be placed on the calendar. The record and appellants’ brief must be served and filed on or before September 28, 1960.
In the Senate of the United States,

September 29, 2006.

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 3085) entitled ‘‘An Act to amend the National

Trails System Act to update the feasibility and suitability

study originally prepared for the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail and provide for the inclusion of new trail segments, land components, and campgrounds associated with

that trail, and for other purposes.’’, do pass with the following

AMENDMENT:

On page 3, strike lines 1 through 3 and insert the following:
 †

2

HR 3085 EAS

1 ‘‘(iv) The related campgrounds located

2 along the routes and land components described

3 in clauses (i) through (iii).

4 ‘‘(D) No additional funds are authorized to be

5 appropriated to carry out subparagraph (C). The

6 Secretary may accept donations for the Trail from

7 private, nonprofit, or tribal organizations.’’.

Attest:

Secretary.
109TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3085

AMENDMENT
### §2502. Vacancies

A person appointed to fill a vacancy in the membership of the Commission shall be appointed only for the unexpired term of the member whom he succeeds, and his appointment shall be made in the same manner as the appointment of his predecessor.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1294.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., §393(b) (June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title V, §503(b), as added Sept. 5, 1950, ch. 849, §6(d), 64 Stat. 583).
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

ON INTERNAL CONTROL

 

 

Board of Trustees

The Berwyn Funds

Berwyn, Pennsylvania

In planning and performing our audits of the financial statements of the Berwyn Fund, Berwyn Income Fund and Berwyn Cornerstone Fund, each a series of shares of beneficial interest of The Berwyn Funds, for the year ended December 31, 2004, we considered its internal control, including control activities for safeguarding securities, in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements and to comply with the requirements of Form N-SAR, not to provide assurance on internal control.

The management of The Berwyn Funds is responsible for establishing and maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of controls.  Generally, controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the entity's objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes that are fairly presented in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Those controls include the safeguarding of assets against unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, error or fraud may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection of any evaluation of internal control to future periods is subject to the risk that it may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation may deteriorate.

Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily disclose all matters in the internal control that might be material weaknesses under standards established by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).  A material weakness is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that misstatements caused by error or fraud in amounts that would be material in relation to the financial statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions.  However, we noted no matters involving internal control and its operations, including controls for safeguarding securities that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above, as of December 31, 2004.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of management, the Board of Trustees of The Berwyn Funds, and the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.
#### In the Matter of James R. McElroy, Petitioner, v. William J. McAndrews et al., Constituting the Board of Police Commissioners of the Village of Hastings-on-Hudson, Respondents.

Motion by petitioner to vacate order, dated November 7, 1960, dismissing the proceeding, and to restore the proceeding to the calendar for the December Term, beginning November 28, 1960. Upon the stipulation of the parties, dated November 9, 1960, motion granted, said order vacated, and proceeding restored to the calendar for the December Term. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
#### Lillian Cahill, Appellant, v Fred E. Liswood, Respondent, et al.,

In a medical malpractice action, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered April 6, 1977, which is in favor of defendant Liswood, upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint as against the said defendant at the close of the plaintiff’s case, at a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. In October, 1971 defendant-respondent operated upon plaintiff-appellant’s toe to remove bone tissue which was causing her pain. According to the plaintiff’s allegations, the operation was performed negligently in that an X ray was not taken immediately after the operation to determine whether any bone fragments remained in the toe. At the trial, one of plaintiff’s medical experts, Dr. Estersohn, testified that in his opinion, an X ray should have been taken of the plaintiff’s foot immediately after the surgery to determine whether any bone particles were left in place. If such an X ray had been taken, respondent could have immediately removed those fragments. Accordingly, the failure of respondent to do so constituted a deviation from standard practices. Dr. Estersohn further testified that an X ray taken one month after the surgery revealed that a loose bone fragment had been left in the plaintiff’s toe. Dr. Estersohn stated that if such a fragment does not dissolve by itself, it becomes covered with scar-type tissue which is painful to the patient. Plaintiff’s second medical expert, Dr. Sherman, testified that he performed surgery upon plaintiff’s toe in March, 1973 to remove scar tissue. In his opinion, the surgery he performed was necessitated by the surgery performed by the respondent in October, 1971. On a motion at the close of the plaintiff’s case, "the test * * * is not whether [a] plaintiff’s verdict would have to be set aside as contrary to the weight of [the] credible evidence, but whether the trial court could hold that there was no rational process by which the jury could have found for the plaintiff” *(Parvi v City of*Kingston, 51 AD2d 846, 847). Upon this record, *783there is an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was accorded proper treatment by respondent when he operated upon her toe (see *Calvaruso v Our Lady of Peace R. C. Church,*36 AD2d 755). There is also a factual question as to whether there had been an informed consent after reasonable disclosure to plaintiff of the risks involved (see *Zeleznik v Jewish Chronic Disease Hosp.,*47 AD2d 199). Damiani, J. P., Suozzi, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.