alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 203.370 Pre-foreclosure sales. ( a ) *General.* HUD will pay FHA insurance benefits to mortgagees in cases where, in accordance with all regulations and procedures applicable to pre-foreclosure sales, the mortgaged property is sold by the mortgagor, after default and *prior to* foreclosure, at its current fair market value (less adjustments as the Commissioner may deem appropriate) but for less than the mortgage loan amount currently outstanding.
( b ) *Notification of mortgagor.* The mortgagee shall give notice, according to prescribed procedures, of the opportunity to be considered for the pre-foreclosure sale procedure to each mortgagor in default. All notices to mortgagors must be in an accessible format, if requested, or if required by the person's known disability, as required by 24 CFR part 9.
( c ) *Eligibility for the Pre-foreclosure Sale Procedure.* In order to be considered for the pre-foreclosure sale procedure, a mortgagor: ( 1 ) Must be an owner occupant in a single family residence that is security for a mortgage insured under this part, unless otherwise prescribed by the Secretary.
( 2 ) Must have an account in default, for such period as determined by the Secretary, which default is the result of an adverse and unavoidable financial situation.
( 3 ) Must have, at the time application is made to pursue a pre-foreclosure sale, a mortgaged property whose current fair market value, compared to the amount needed to discharge the mortgage, meets the criterion established by the Secretary, unless a variance is granted by the Secretary.
( 4 ) Must have received an appropriate disclosure, as prescribed by the Secretary.
[59 FR 50144, Sept. 30, 1994, as amended at 61 FR 35018, July 3, 1996; 72 FR 56161, Oct. 2, 2007]
§ 81.47 Violations of provisions by the GSEs. ( a ) FHEFSSA empowers the Director of OFHEO to initiate enforcement actions for GSE violations of the provisions of section 1325 of FHEFSSA and these regulations. The Secretary shall refer violations and potential violations of 12 U.S.C. 4545 and this subpart C to the Director.
( b ) Where a private complainant or the Secretary is also proceeding against a GSE under the Fair Housing Act, the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity shall conduct the investigation of the complaint and make the reasonable cause/no reasonable cause determination required by section 810(g) of the Fair Housing Act. Where reasonable cause is found, a charge shall be issued and the matter will proceed to enforcement pursuant to sections 812(b) and (o) of the Fair Housing Act.
### §57301. Definitions

In this chapter:

(1) New vessel.—The term "new vessel" means a vessel—

(A) constructed under this subtitle and acquired within 2 years after the date of completion; or

(B) constructed in a domestic shipyard on private account and not under this subtitle, and documented under the laws of the United States.

(2) Obsolete vessel.—The term "obsolete vessel" means a vessel that—

(A) is of at least 1,350 gross tons;

(B) the Secretary of Transportation believes should, because of its age, obsolescence, or other reasons, be replaced in the public interest; and

(C) has been owned by a citizen of the United States for at least 3 years immediately before its acquisition under this chapter.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §8(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1662.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 57301 | 46 App.:1160(a). | June 29, 1936, ch. 858, title V, §510(a), as added Aug. 4, 1939, ch. 417, §7, 53 Stat. 1183; July 17, 1952, ch. 939, §7, 66 Stat. 762; Pub. L. 85–332, Feb. 20, 1958, 72 Stat. 17; Pub. L. 87–755, Oct. 5, 1962, 76 Stat. 751; Pub. L. 91–469, §12(a), Oct. 21, 1970, 84 Stat. 1022; Pub. L. 97–31, §12(91), Aug. 6, 1981, 95 Stat. 161. |

Section

In paragraph (1)(A), the words "or is purchased under section 1204 of this Appendix, as amended, by the person turning in an obsolete vessel under this section" are omitted because the purchase authority under 46 App. U.S.C. 1204 was impliedly repealed by section 14 of the Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946 (50 App. U.S.C. 1735 note).
#### § 241.805a Mortgagee's late charge.

Mortgage insurance premiums which are paid to the Commissioner more than 15 days after the billing date or due date, whichever is later, shall include a late charge of 4 percent of the amount of the payment due, except that no late charge shall be required with respect to any case for which HUD fails to render a proper billing to the mortgagee.
Editorial Note on Part 200
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 200.61 Title. ( a ) Marketable title to the project must be vested in the mortgagor as of the date the mortgage is filed for record.
( b ) Title evidence for the Commissioner's examination shall include a lender's title insurance policy, which title policy provides survey coverage based on a survey acceptable to the title company and the Commissioner; or as the Commissioner may otherwise require, in accordance with terms, conditions and standards established by the Commissioner.
( c ) Endorsement of the credit instrument for insurance shall evidence the acceptability of title evidence.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of SendTec, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB/A for
the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donald Gould, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | (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 Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Donald Gould, Jr.        
|Donald Gould, Jr.            
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(Principal Financial Officer)
|                             
|June 20, 2008
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7660

DENNIS J. COLEMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versusSTATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; PHOEBE JOHNSON, Warden, Perry Correctional Institution; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-9-3-20BC) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 24, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis J. Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Lauri J. Soles, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon therecommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant only filed objections to the dismissal of his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Therefore, Appellant has waived appellate review of all claims not raised in his objections.Regarding Appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find noreversible error. We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this claim on the reasoning of the district court. Coleman v. South Carolina , No. CA-96-9-3-20BC (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 886.339 Emergency transfers for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. ( a ) Covered housing providers must develop and implement an emergency transfer plan that meets the requirements in 24 CFR 5.2005(e).
( b ) In order to facilitate emergency transfers for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, covered housing providers have discretion to adopt new, and modify any existing, admission preferences or transfer waitlist priorities.
( c ) In addition to following requirements in 24 CFR 5.2005(e), when a safe unit is not immediately available for a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking who qualifies for an emergency transfer, covered housing providers must: ( 1 ) Review the covered housing provider's existing inventory of units and determine when the next vacant unit may be available; and
( 2 ) Provide a listing of nearby HUD subsidized rental properties, with or without preference for persons of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and contact information for the local HUD field office.
( d ) Each year, covered housing providers must submit to HUD data on all emergency transfers requested under 24 CFR 5.2005(e), including data on the outcomes of such requests.
[81 FR 80814, Nov. 16, 2016]
f — — —
[ DRAWING NUMBER |

| DRAWING NUMBER |

25% 30’ 00”

| |
| LA rsa \ 1: 100, 000 |
| | Escarpment, LA |
HON . IRVINE, CALIFORNIA PLAN HOLD CORPORATION ® IAVINE, CALIFORNIA
OW THIS LINE — —— — — — — POSH — —
¢ ton) Oo
+ «8 = 2
. Y ee)
SS S in +
Os 3 i)
1 in
oO un
oS Nl A
S r ‘
¢ i
a
[op)
|

—91° 00’ 00”

-91°Q6’ 00”

-91°06’ 00”

~91°12’ 00”

~91°12’ 00"

~ = 91°18" 00"

-91° 18’ 00”

-91° 24/00"

~91° 24’ 00”

~91°30' 00”

BNE
al

(
\

i

j i

a

-91° 30’ 00”

\
\\

-91° 36’ 00”

N
O

-91° 36’ 00”

91° 42, 00"

-91°42’ 00”

-91°48',.00"

-91° 48’ 00”

s L
S | S
° x.
ys B
iD i)
: —_
aa
? ?
J
2
.
‘ oO
jo) .
fen}
2/1) ‘
jon)
jen)
Co
o y > i = > Ss
s 3 s ~ On
NO CO fen) fan) fen) =)
nO CQ jen) jen) jen) o.©
Pes . ~ S x .
+ ice) N ice} oO
S in + a mM fon)
= = > > = =
CO un w 0 wi ~
N N N N

ESCARPMENT N25S5091W |

PLAN HOLD CORP'

2)
o
Y ©
WW £

>
nae)
5 oO
oo 8
Os &
Od 6
OW o
2@rc
“oo
oe 3s
ij 2 9
Que
OO °
Hn Z2O

ORATION » |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6463

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CATHY DIANE FERGUSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Timothy M. Cain, District 

Judge. (7:09-cr-00890-TMC-1; 7:13-cv-00252-TMC)

Submitted: July 18, 2013 Decided: July 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cathy Diane Ferguson, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Cathy Diane Ferguson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 

2013) motion as successive. The order is not appealable unless 

a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate 

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Ferguson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### § 401.9 Suspension or amendment of rules.

The commission may suspend, repeal, or amend all or any of the rules of procedure at any time, with the concurrence of at least four commissioners. Both Governments shall be informed forthwith of any such action.
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Transitional Report of Rand Logistics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 14, 2006, and amended as of the date
hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date
indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.


September 11, 2006                                 By: /s/ Joseph W. McHugh, Jr.
                                                       -------------------------
                                                       Joseph W. McHugh, Jr.
                                                       Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Shengtai Pharmaceutical, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Qingtai Liu , Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





1.  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.  That
      the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






Date:
      September 28, 2008





SHENGTAI
                PHARMACEUTICAL, INC./s/
                Qingtai Liu*Chief
                Executive Officer*
### §2103. Superintendence of the merchant marine

The Secretary has general superintendence over the merchant marine of the United States and of merchant marine personnel insofar as the enforcement of this subtitle is concerned and insofar as those vessels and personnel are not subject, under other law, to the supervision of another official of the United States Government. In the interests of marine safety and seamen's welfare, the Secretary shall enforce this subtitle and shall carry out correctly and uniformly administer this subtitle. The Secretary may prescribe regulations to carry out the provisions of this subtitle.

(Pub. L. 98–89, Aug. 26, 1983, 97 Stat. 506; Pub. L. 99–307, §9, May 19, 1986, 100 Stat. 447.)

| Revised section | Source section (U.S. Code) |
| --- | --- |
| 2103 | 46:246:37246:689 |

46:372

46:689

Section 2103 provides the Secretary with the authority to superintend the merchant marine and those involved personnel insofar as the vessels and personnel are not subject, under other laws, to the supervision of another official. The Secretary has the duty to enforce the laws with respect to vessels and seamen and to carry out correctly and uniformly these laws and regulations. The term "superintendence" is used to indicate the Secretary's broad responsibility for overseeing maritime safety and seamen's welfare, including employment, shipping, navigation, and protection of the marine environment.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1986—Pub. L. 99–307 substituted "subtitle. The Secretary may prescribe regulations to carry out the provisions of this subtitle" for "subtitle and regulations prescribed under this subtitle".
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, 

Respondent,

 

v. 

 

COY GLEN BALL, 

Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0542 PRPC

FILED 7-28-2022

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2013-420642-001

The Honorable Adam D. Driggs, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Krista Wood

Counsel for Respondent

Coy Glen Ball, Florence

Petitioner
STATE v. BALL

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig, Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Judge 

Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Ball seeks review of the superior court’s order 

denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is petitioner’s second 

petition. 

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). It is 

petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by 

denying the petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 

537, ¶ 1, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of 

establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion.

¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
### §83. Transcripts of records as evidence

Transcripts of the records in the district land offices, when made and duly certified to by the Secretary of the Interior or such officers as he may designate for individuals, shall be admitted as evidence in all courts of the United States and the Territories thereof, and before all officials authorized to receive evidence, with the same force and effect as the original records.

(Mar. 22, 1904, ch. 748, 33 Stat. 144; 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

The words "and receivers" which followed "registers" in the original text were omitted as superseded by acts Oct. 28, 1921, and Mar. 3, 1925, providing for consolidation of the two offices. See, also, Transfer of Functions note below.

#### **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.

Words "district land offices" substituted for "offices of registers" and "the Secretary of the Interior or such officers as he may designate" substituted for "them" on authority of section 403 of 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1946. See note set out under section 1 of this title.
# United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit

No. 20

- 1378

MAISHA EMMANUEL ,
Plaintiff, Appellant ,

v.

HANDY TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ,
Defendant, Appellee

.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on March 22, 2021, is amended as follows:
On p. 11, line 17 , r eplace "Moreover, we" with "We"

. On p. 13, line 12 , r eplace "indicate" with "indicates"

.
#### Harry Davis, appellee, v. Aetna Life Insurance Company et al., on appeal of T. J. Houston, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,337.

Injunction to restrain State Superintendent of Insurance from threatening revocation of complainant’s license. LeRoy Burton v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 229 Ill. App. 517. Dissolution of temporary injunction denied. Interlocutory appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. George Fred Rush, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1922.

Reversed.

Opinion filed May 31, 1923.

Rehearing denied June 11, 1923.

Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General, and Robert N. Holt, Special Assistant Attorney General, for appellant. Myer H. Gladstone, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.
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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PEGASUS WIRELESS CORPORATION,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 09-02302 JSW

ORDER RE MOTION TO

UNSEAL DOCUMENT 

(Docket No. 149)

On April 30, 2015, Plaintiff, the Securities and Exchange Commission, filed a motion to

unseal the Final Judgment entered against relief defendant Tammy Knabb. It is HEREBY

ORDERED that any opposition to this motion shall be filed by May 7, 2015. If the motion is

opposed, Plaintiff may file a reply brief by no later than May 14, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2015 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-02302-JSW Document 150 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 1