alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 883.105 Applicability of part 883 in effect as of February 29, 1980. ( a ) Part 883, in effect as of February 29, 1980, applies to projects for which the initial application was submitted on or after the February 29, 1980, effective date. (See 24 CFR part 883, revised as of April 1, 1980.) Projects for which applications or proposals were submitted before the February 29, 1980, effective date of part 883 have been processed under the part 883 regulations and procedures in effect at the date of submission. If, however, the agency notified HUD within 60 calendar days of the February 29, 1980, effective date of the part 883 regulations that they chose to have the provisions of part 883, in effect as of February 29, 1980, apply to a specific case, it must have promptly modified the application(s) and proposal(s) to comply.
( b ) Subpart F of this part, dealing with the HAP contract and subpart G of this part, dealing with management, apply to all projects for which an Agreement was not executed before the February 29, 1980, effective date of part 883. In cases where an Agreement has been executed: ( 1 ) The Agency, owner and HUD may agree to make the revised subpart F of this part applicable and execute appropriate amendments to the Agreement or Contract;
( 2 ) The Agency, Owner and HUD may agree to make the revised subpart G of this part applicable (with or without the limitation on distributions) and execute appropriate amendments to the Agreement or Contract.
( c ) Section 883.708, Termination of Tenancy and Modifications of Leases, applies to new families who begin occupancy or execute a lease on or after 30 days following the February 29, 1980, effective date of part 883. This section also applies to families not covered by the preceding sentence, including families currently under lease, who have a lease in which a renewal becomes effective on or after the 60th day following the February 29, 1980 effective date of part 883. A lease is considered renewed when both the landlord and the family fail to terminate a tenancy under a lease permitting either to terminate.
( d ) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section, the provisions of 24 CFR part 5 (concerning preferences for selection of applicants) apply to all projects, regardless of when am Agreement was executed.
[61 FR 13592, Mar. 27, 1996]
§ 891.430 Denial of admission, termination of tenancy, and modification of lease. ( a ) The provisions of part 5, subpart I, of this title apply to Section 202 and Section 811 capital advance projects.
( b ) The provisions of part 247 of this title apply to all decisions by an owner to terminate the tenancy or modify the lease of a household residing in a unit (or residential space in a group home).
[66 FR 28798, May 24, 2001]
210 A.2d 60.

#### David N. Jones *vs.*Superior Court.

MAY 11, 1965.

Present: Condon, C. J., Roberts, Paolino, Powers and Joslin, JJ.

Paolino, J.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to quash an order of the superior court in a cause entitled “Henry Moretti vs. David N. Junes, Alias,” Law No. 172564. The petition alleges that such order violates the petitioner’s rights under the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940, 50 USCA App. §521. We issued the writ and granted a stay in accordance with the prayers in the petition. Pursuant thereto' the pertinent records have been certified to this court.

Section 521'reads as follows:

> “Stay of proceedings where military service affects conduct thereof

> “At any stage thereof any action or proceeding in any court in which a person in military service is involved, •either as plaintiff or defendant, during the period of such service or within sixty days thereafter may, in the discretion of the court in which it is pending, on its own motion, and shall, on application to it by such person or some person on his behalf, be stayed as pro*625vided in this Act [sections 501-548 and. 560-590 of this Appendix], unless, in the opinion of the court, the ability of plaintiff to prosecute the action or the defendant to conduct his defense is not materially affected by reason of his military service.”

*Higgins, Cavanagh & Cooney, Joseph V. Cavanagh, Kenneth P. Borden,*for petitioner.

*Pat Nero,*for Henry Moretti.

At the .time we issued the writ and granted the stay petitioner’s counsel alleged that petitioner was,' in the service at the time of the hearing in the superior court and also at the time he filed the petition with us. We issued the writ on the basis of such representations and we continued the stay .and assigned the case for hearing in this court on January 15, 1965 with the understanding that he would secure evidence as to whether petitioner was still in the service.

In his oral argument before this court on January 15,1965 the petitioner’s counsel in effect stated that he did not know whether the ¡defendant was then in the service or whether he was in the service at the time of ¡the hearings in the superior court when the order he now challenges was entered. In the circumstances the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act is not applicable and .therefore the writ of certiorari was improvidently issued.

The petition for 'certiorari is denied and dismissed, the writ heretofore improvidently issued is quashed, and the records certified are ¡ordered returned to -the respondent superior court for further proceedings.
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 on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2010 (the “Report”) of Kearny Financial Corp. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, John N. Hopkins, Chief Executive Officer and William C. Ledgerwood, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify, 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) 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/ John N. HopkinsJohn N. Hopkins

Chief Executive Officer








/s/ William C. LedgerwoodWilliam C. Ledgerwood

Executive Vice President and Chief

Financial Officer








September 13, 2010
#### School of Music of the Brooklyn Free Musical Society, Inc., Respondent, v. Fred G. Moritt et al., Copartners Doing Business as Moritt & Eisenstein, Appellants.

Motion by respondent to dismiss appeal from order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 28, 1954. Motion withdrawn, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, dated December 30, 1960. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 792
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 792 appear at 64 FR 26640, May 14, 1999.

§ 792.204 Recordkeeping and reporting. To permit HUD to audit amounts retained under this part, an PHA must maintain all records required by HUD, including: ( a ) Amounts recovered on any judgment or repayment agreement;
( b ) The nature of the judgment or repayment agreement; and
( c ) The amount of the legal fees and expenses incurred in obtaining the judgment or repayment agreement and recovery.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 2577-0053)
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

The State, Respondent, 

v. 

Suzanna Brown Simpson, Petitioner. 

Appellate Case No. 2019-000500 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS 

Appeal from Pickens County 

Brian M. Gibbons, Circuit Court Judge 

Opinion No. 27937 

Heard January 14, 2020 – Filed January 22, 2020 

CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY 

GRANTED 

J. Falkner Wilkes, of Greenville, for Petitioner. 

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy Attorney 

General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Deputy 

Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney 

General Susannah Rawl Cole, all of Columbia; and 

Solicitor William Walter Wilkins III, of Greenville, for 

Respondent. 
PER CURIAM: We issued a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' 

decision in State v. Simpson, 425 S.C. 522, 823 S.E.2d 229 (Ct. App. 2019). We 

now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. 

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED. 

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.
PPLUS Trust Series GSC-2 10-K

EXHIBIT 31.1



I,
Matthew J. Nelson, certify that:



1. I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed
in respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of Merrill Lynch Depositor, Inc., on behalf of PPLUS
Trust Series GSC-2;



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 depositor by the trustee under the pooling
and servicing, or similar, agreement for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;



4. I
am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar,
agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed
in the reports, the depositor and trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and



5. The
reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the compliance by the depositor or trustee with the minimum servicing
or similar standards based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance
with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling or servicing,
or similar, 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:
The Bank of New York Mellon and its officers and agents.

|                     |                                 |  |  | 
|-------------------- | ------------------------------- |  |  | 
|Date: March 22, 2024 | /s/
    Matthew J. Nelson       | 
|                     | Matthew J. Nelson
    President | 
|                     |                                 |
RENTAL
AGREEMENT

    


    THIS RENTAL AGREEMENT (the
“Agreement”), effective October 1, 2010 (the “Effective Date”), is by and
between Desert Hawk Gold Corp., a Nevada corporation (“Tenant”), and Robert E.
Jorgensen, an individual (“Landlord”).

    


    FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt
and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as
follows:

    


    
      	
               
      

            	
              1.

            	
              Office Rent and
      Use.  For and in consideration of $500.00 per month, the
      Landlord hereby rents and provides to the Tenant the use of office space
      located at 8921 N. Indian Trail Road, #288, Spokane, Washington, to be
      used as the principal executive offices of the Tenant.  Rent
      shall be due and payable on the 1st
      day of each month and shall be delinquent if not paid by the 20th
      of the month.

            


    

    


    
      	
               
      

            	
              2.

            	
              Term.  This
      Agreement shall be month-to-month and can be cancelled by either party at
      any time.  This Agreement shall cover the term of the rental of
      the office space from the Effective Date until terminated by either
      party.

            


    

    


    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties
hereto has executed this Agreement the respective day and year set forth
below.

    


    
      	
              Date:  October
      27, 2010

            	 
      	
              /s/ Robert E. Jorgensen

            
	 
      	 
      	
              Robert
      E. Jorgensen, Individually

            
	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	
              Desert
      Hawk Gold Corp.

            
	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
              Date:  October
      29, 2010

            	 
      	
              By

            	
              /s/ Rick Havenstrite

            
	 
      	 
      	 
      	
              Rick
      Havenstrite, President
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JAMIE MIZRAHI, CHAR MIZRAHI and SCOTT MIZRAHI,

Appellants,

v.

PPS ADVISORS, INC. and LAWRENCE N. PASSARETTI,

Appellees.

No. 4D22-85

[March 30, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Fabienne E. Fahnestock, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE18-

020175 (18).

Benjamin C. Hassebrock and Taynah Diniz-Alvez of Ver Ploeg & Marino, 

P.A., Miami, for appellants.

Andrew Thomson of Baritz & Colman LLP, Boca Raton, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., DAMOORGIAN and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
H. R. 3256

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and six 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3038 West 

Liberty Avenue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Congressman James Grove 

Fulton Memorial Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

3038 West Liberty in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, shall be known 

and designated as the ‘‘Congressman James Grove Fulton Memorial 

Post Office Building’’. 

SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Congressman 

James Grove Fulton Memorial Post Office Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
### §51508. Allowances for students

Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation, a student at a State maritime academy shall receive from the Secretary allowances for transportation (including reimbursement of traveling expenses) when traveling under orders to receive training under section 51507 of this title.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §8(b), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1579.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 51508 | 46 App.:1295c(c) (3)(B). | June 29, 1936, ch. 858, title XIII, §1304(c)(3)(B), as added Pub. L. 96–453, §2, Oct. 15, 1980, 94 Stat. 2004. |

Section
1

BECKHAM, LISA

From: Steve Burr <Burr.Steven@azdeq.gov>

Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 9:03 AM

To: Mays, Rory; Danielle M. Dancho; Trevor Baggiore; Michael Sundblom; Scott DiBiase; 

kale.walch@pinalcountyaz.gov

Cc: Wehling, Jefferson; BECKHAM, LISA

Subject: RE: Arizona permitting - conference number for Monday 4/21

Attachments: Laws 1992 Ch 299 - SB1430.pdf; 940811-EPA Ltr re delegation-approval of county 

NSR.pdf; 20130128 Pinal County Delegation Agreement.pdf

Attached are materials that are relevant to this morning’s discussion. 

Laws 1992, Ch. 299 is the Arizona legislation that adopted the current language of 49-402(A)(1). Subsequent 

amendments in 1994, 1999 and 2002 did not alter the substance of this provision. 

The 1994 letter (940811-EPA Ltr re delegation-approval of county NSR.pdf) is evidence that ADEQ has consistently 

interpreted 49-402(A)(1) to provide that ADEQ has jurisdiction over major sources in a county that does not have EPA 

approval of both its PSD and nonattainment NSR programs. The evident purpose of the letter was to establish that EPA’s 

delegation of PSD authority to Maricopa and Pima Counties constituted approval and that since the counties also had 

approved nonattainment NSR programs, they retained original jurisdiction over major sources. 

Consistent with this determination, Maricopa County’s current delegation agreement, unlike Pinal County’s, does not 

include an Appendix C addressing air quality. Pima County’s delegation agreement does include an Appendix C, but 

solely for the purpose of delegating authority over the Sundt Generating Station, which is subject to ADEQ’s original 

jurisdiction pursuant to 49-402(A)(4). 

Pinal County’s delegation agreement provides that the county will enforce locally applicable air quality rules when they 

are more stringent than ADEQ’s. Under state law the County’s rules must be at least as stringent as ADEQ’s. A.R.S. 49-

479(A). Thus the County remains authorized to enforce its PSD program, the ADEQ delegation notwithstanding. 

From: Mays, Rory [mailto:Mays.Rory@epa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 10:12 AM 

To: Danielle M. Dancho; Trevor Baggiore; Steve Burr; Michael Sundblom; Scott DiBiase; kale.walch@pinalcountyaz.gov

Cc: Wehling, Jefferson; BECKHAM, LISA 

Subject: Arizona permitting - conference number for Monday 4/21 

Hello All, 

Per an email from Danielle, we plan to talk about Arizona permitting authority/jurisdiction and rule applicability next 

Monday, 4/21, 10-11am. I have reserved a conference line as follows: 

866-299-3188 

code: 4159727418# 

Please let me know if you have any questions. We’d suggest working off of the questions that I emailed yesterday, Thu, 

4/17 (attached here, at least for Outlook users). Does that work as an agenda for ADEQ and Pinal County? 

Looking forward to our discussion, 
2

Rory 

Rory M. Mays 

Air Division, Planning Office 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 

75 Hawthorne St. (AIR-2), San Francisco, CA 94105 

(415) 972-3227, mays.rory@epa.gov
### §53509. Qualified withdrawals

(a) In General.—Subject to subsection (b), a withdrawal from a capital construction fund is a qualified withdrawal if it is made under the terms of the agreement and is for—

(1) the acquisition, construction, or reconstruction of a qualified vessel or a barge or container that is part of the complement of a qualified vessel; or

(2) the payment of the principal on indebtedness incurred in the acquisition, construction, or reconstruction of a qualified vessel or a barge or container that is part of the complement of a qualified vessel.

(b) Barges and Containers.—Except as provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary, subsection (a) applies to a barge or container only if it is constructed in the United States.

(c) Treatment as Nonqualified Withdrawal.—Under joint regulations, if the Secretary determines that a substantial obligation under an agreement is not being fulfilled, the Secretary, after notice and opportunity for a hearing to the person maintaining the fund, may treat any amount in the fund as an amount withdrawn from the fund in a nonqualified withdrawal.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §8(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1596.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 53509 | 46 App.:1177(f). | June 29, 1936, ch. 858, title VI, §607(f), 49 Stat. 2005; June 23, 1938, ch. 600, §§23–28, 52 Stat. 960; Aug. 4, 1939, ch. 417, §10, 53 Stat. 1185; July 17, 1952, ch. 939, §§17–19, 66 Stat. 764; Pub. L. 85–637, Aug. 14, 1958, 72 Stat. 216; Pub. L. 86–518, §1, June 12, 1960, 74 Stat. 216; Pub. L. 87–45, §6, May 27, 1961, 75 Stat. 91; Pub. L. 87–271, Sept. 21, 1961, 75 Stat. 570; restated Pub. L. 91–469, §21(a), Oct. 21, 1970, 84 Stat. 1029; Pub. L. 97–31, §12(97)(A), Aug. 6, 1981, 95 Stat. 162. |

Section

In subsection (c), the words "any amount in the fund" are substituted for "the entire fund or any portion thereof" to eliminate unnecessary words.
§ 87.500 Secretary of Defense. ( a ) The Secretary of Defense may exempt, on a case-by-case basis, a covered Federal action from the prohibition whenever the Secretary determines, in writing, that such an exemption is in the national interest. The Secretary shall transmit a copy of each such written exemption to Congress immediately after making such a determination.
( b ) The Department of Defense may issue supplemental regulations to implement paragraph (a) of this section.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

February 27, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 131458(22) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 131458 

 COA: 265879 
 Wayne CC: 74-000772

GEARY GILMORE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s October 31, 

2006 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

d0220 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 27, 2007 

 Clerk
#### LUFT, Respondent, v. SCHROEDER et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 20, 1903.)

Action by Leopold Luft against Peter Schroeder and George A. Popp.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, by default, with costs.
#### Grand Central Apartments, Inc., Section 2 v. Eunice T. Austin et al.

Motion for a stay dismissed, having become academic by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court, New York County, dated September 8, 1960, vacating the judgment appealed from and directing a trial of the issues. Motion to dispense with printing dismissed, having become academic by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court, New York County, dated September 8, 1960, vacating the judgment appealed from and directing a trial of the issues. Motion to dismiss appeal dismissed, having become academic by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court, New York County, dated September 8, 1960, vacating the judgment appealed from and directing a trial of the issues.
#### (A) Blab v. Tyler. (B) Burke v. Downey. (C) Gambacorda v. Markel. (D) Hines v. Chinn. (E) Polzin v. Savage. (F) West's v. Coxson. (G) Mintz v. Majestic.

[In each appeal] Order of dismissal for failure to prosecute entered pursuant to rule X of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, Calendar Rules.