alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 203.681 Authority of HUD Field Office Managers.

Field Office Managers shall act for the Secretary in all matters relating to assignment and occupied conveyance determinations. The decision of the Field Office Manager under § 203.677 will be final and not be subject to further administrative review.

[53 FR 876, Jan. 14, 1988, and 53 FR 8626, Mar. 16, 1988]
#### § 891.515 Audit requirements.

Nonprofits receiving assistance under this part are subject to the audit requirements in 2 CFR part 200, subpart F.

[61 FR 11956, Mar. 22, 1996, as amended at 80 FR 75941, Dec. 7, 2015]
#### Arthur F. Cammarono, Respondent, v Joseph J. Alfieri, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 3.)

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Same memorandum as in *Alfieri v Lewis Gen. Tires*(62 AD2d 1135). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe Supreme Court—automobile negligence.) Present— Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Dillon and Hancock, Jr., JJ.
#### FRUHLINGER, Respondent, v. STACK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 3, 1905.)

Action by Ignatz Fruhlinger against Edward F. Stack.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order of the County Court of Westchester county affirmed, with costs.

HOOKER, J., not voting.
#### Fremont Realty, Inc., Appellant, v P & N Iron Works, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Zurich American Insurance Co., Respondent.

[831 NYS2d 920]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligence and breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered December 9, 2005, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Zurich American Insurance Co. which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

On its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, the defendant Zurich American Insurance Co. (hereinafter Zurich), which had issued a particular insurance policy to the plaintiff, demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence establishing, inter alia, that it had no duty to advise the plaintiff to obtain certain additional insurance coverage *(see Chaim v Benedict,*216 AD2d 347 [1995]; *Erwig v Cook Agency,*173 AD2d 439 [1991]). Since, in response to this showing, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]), the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of Zurich’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Crane, J.E, Krausman, Covello and Garni, JJ., concur.
§ 581.5 Real property reported excess to GSA. ( a ) Each landholding agency must submit a report to GSA of properties it determines excess. Each landholding agency must also provide a copy of HUD's suitability determination, if any, including HUD's identification number for the property.
( b ) If a landholding agency reports a property to GSA which has been reviewed by HUD for homeless assistance suitability and HUD determined the property suitable, GSA will screen the property pursuant to § 581.5(g) and will advise HUD of the availability of the property for use by the homeless as provided in § 581.5(e). In lieu of the above, GSA may submit a new checklist to HUD and follow the procedures in § 581.5(c) through § 581.5(g).
( c ) If a landholding agency reports a property to GSA which has not been reviewed by HUD for homeless assistance suitability, GSA will complete a property checklist, based on information provided by the landholding agency, and will forward this checklist to HUD for a suitability determination. This checklist will reflect any change in classification, i.e., from unutilized or underutilized to excess.
( d ) Within 30 days after GSA's submission, HUD will advise GSA of the suitability determination.
( e ) When GSA receives a letter from HUD listing suitable excess properties in GSA's inventory, GSA will transmit to HUD within 45 days a response which includes the following for each identified property: ( 1 ) A statement that there is no other compelling Federal need for the property, and therefore, the property will be determined surplus; or
( 2 ) A statement that there is further and compelling Federal need for the property (including a full explanation of such need) and that, therefore, the property is not presently available for use to assist the homeless.
( f ) When an excess property is determined suitable and available and notice is published in the Federal Register, GSA will concurrently notify HHS, HUD, State and local government units, known homeless assistance providers that have expressed interest in the particular property, and other organizations, as appropriate, concerning suitable properties.
( g ) Upon submission of a Report of Excess to GSA, GSA may screen the property for Federal use. In addition, GSA may screen State and local governmental units and eligible nonprofit organizations to determine interest in the property in accordance with current regulations. (See 41 CFR 101-47.203-5, 101-47.204-1 and 101-47.303-2.)
( h ) The landholding agency will retain custody and accountability and will protect and maintain any property which is reported excess to GSA as provided in 41 CFR 101-47.402.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 2, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10654

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANCISCO JAVIER RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CR-30-ALL-A

--------------------

Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Francisco Javier Rodriguez appeals his conviction and

sentence for illegal reentry after deportation. Rodriguez has

filed a motion for leave to file an out-of-time reply brief; that

motion is GRANTED. He first argues on appeal that the district

court erred in its application of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 by counting

three prior drug convictions separately, which increased his

criminal history score and resulted in a higher guideline range. 

We conclude that Rodriguez has not shown that the district court
No. 03-10654

-2-

clearly erred in finding that the prior cases were not

consolidated. See Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59, 64-66

(2001); United States v. Moreno-Arredondo, 255 F.3d 198, 203 n.10

(5th Cir. 2001. “The applicability vel non of Tex. Penal Code 

§ 3.03 does not affect our analysis.” United States v. Fitzhugh,

984 F.2d 147 n.18 (5th Cir. 1993) 

The district court did not clearly err in finding that the

three prior offenses were unrelated. Rodriguez’s three

convictions involved three separate transactions over a threemonth period involving differing amounts of cocaine. 

Furthermore, although Rodriguez was charged for all of the

offenses on the same day by the same judge and his sentences were

concurrent, he was indicted separately for each offense, each

indictment was assigned a different docket number, and the

sentences were not all the same length. The foregoing suggests

that the two offenses should not be considered consolidated for

federal sentencing purposes. See United States v. Huskey, 137

F.3d 283, 288 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Kates, 174 F.3d

580, 584 (5th Cir. 1999).

Rodriguez also argues that his guilty plea was not voluntary

because the district court did not admonish him that the

“aggravated felony” provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) stated an

essential element of the offense to which he was pleading guilty.

He acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by circuit

precedent, but he seeks to preserve the issue for possible
No. 03-10654

-3-

Supreme Court review in light of the Supreme court’s decision in

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 519 (2000). As Rodriguez

concedes, this issue is foreclosed. See Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 224, 247 (1998); United States v. Dabeit,

231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). 

AFFIRMED.
§ 583.325 Nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements. ( a ) *General.* Notwithstanding the permissibility of proposals that serve designated populations of disabled homeless persons, recipients serving a designated population of disabled homeless persons are required, within the designated population, to comply with these requirements for nondiscrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, familial status, and disability.
( b ) *Nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements.* The nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements set forth at part 5 of this title apply to this program. The Indian Civil Rights Act (25 U.S.C. 1301 *et seq.*) applies to tribes when they exercise their powers of self-government, and to Indian housing authorities (IHAs) when established by the exercise of such powers. When an IHA is established under State law, the applicability of the Indian Civil Rights Act will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Projects subject to the Indian Civil Rights Act must be developed and operated in compliance with its provisions and all implementing HUD requirements, instead of title VI and the Fair Housing Act and their implementing regulations.
( c ) *Procedures.* ( 1 ) If the procedures that the recipient intends to use to make known the availability of the supportive housing are unlikely to reach persons of any particular race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, familial status, or handicap who may qualify for admission to the housing, the recipient must establish additional procedures that will ensure that such persons can obtain information concerning availability of the housing.
( 2 ) The recipient must adopt procedures to make available information on the existence and locations of facilities and services that are accessible to persons with a handicap and maintain evidence of implementation of the procedures.
( d ) *Accessibility requirements.* The recipient must comply with the new construction accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the reasonable accommodation and rehabilitation accessibility requirements of section 504 as follows: ( 1 ) All new construction must meet the accessibility requirements of 24 CFR 8.22 and, as applicable, 24 CFR 100.205.
( 2 ) Projects in which costs of rehabilitation are 75 percent or more of the replacement cost of the building must meet the requirements of 24 CFR 8.23(a). Other rehabilitation must meet the requirements of 24 CFR 8.23(b).
[58 FR 13871, Mar. 15, 1993, as amended at 59 FR 33894, June 30, 1994; 61 FR 5210, Feb. 9, 1996; 61 FR 51176, Sept. 30, 1996]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      45,877,272
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                     138,831,383
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,978,003
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             181,959,019
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   178,551,942
<OTHER-SE>                                     169,935
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               181,959,019
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,035,129
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,394,634
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,831
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,436,460
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,436,460
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,436,460
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .284
<FN>
<F1>Current Assets and Current Liabilities are not separated to conform with
industry standards.
<F2>Income is from rental income. There are no Sales or Cost of Goods Sold.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,146,850
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,800,450
<PP&E>                                       4,314,820
<DEPRECIATION>                                 180,025
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,557,027
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,979,693
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    30,133,793
<OTHER-SE>                                (28,982,741)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,557,027
<SALES>                                          9,468
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,468
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,283,399
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,273,931)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,273,931)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,273,931)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)


</TABLE>
### §161. Effect of partial invalidity of chapter

If any provision of this chapter, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the chapter, and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.

(May 20, 1926, ch. 347, §11, 44 Stat. 587.)

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

#### Separability; Repeal of Inconsistent Provisions

Act June 21, 1934, ch. 691, §8, 48 Stat. 1197, provided that: "If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Act [amending sections 151 to 158, 160, and 162 of this title] is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Act. All Acts or parts of Acts inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed."
### §§616ii to 616mm. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 616ii, Pub. L. 88–568, §2, Sept. 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 852, authorized construction and operation of Savery-Pot Hook project, Colorado-Wyoming, and Bostwick Park and Fruitland Mesa projects, Colorado.

Section 616jj, Pub. L. 88–568, §3, Sept. 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 852, provided that provisions of act Aug. 28, 1958 (72 Stat. 963), relating to Seedskadee project in Wyoming are applicable to these projects and set an acreage limitation for lands held in single ownership for reception of project water.

Section 616kk, Pub. L. 88–568, §4, Sept. 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 852, related to recreational and fish and wildlife facilities and transfer of lands to be administered by Secretary of Agriculture as a national forest.

Section 616ll, Pub. L. 88–568, §5, Sept. 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 853, related to restriction on delivery of water for production of excessive basic commodities.

Section 616mm, Pub. L. 88–568, §1, Sept. 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 852, authorized appropriations for these projects.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000858346
<NAME> WEST COAST REALTY INVESTORS, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       3,951,411
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,972,626
<PP&E>                                      35,209,031
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,487,851)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,259,951
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,438,325
<BONDS>                                     13,068,301
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        28,883
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,722,443
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                38,257,951
<SALES>                                      1,663,262
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,725,336
<CGS>                                          967,224
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  967,224
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             470,770
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                287,342
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   287,342
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
        

</TABLE>
Case 3:09-cv-02593-MMC Document 65 Filed 04/30/10 Page 1 of 4
Case 3:09-cv-02593-MMC Document 65 Filed 04/30/10 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:09-cv-02593-MMC Document 65 Filed 04/30/10 Page 3 of 4
April 30, 2010

Case 3:09-cv-02593-MMC Document 65 Filed 04/30/10 Page 4 of 4
Case 3:09-cv-00280-BZ Document 35 Filed 02/01/10 Page 1 of 4
Case 3:09-cv-00280-BZ Document 35 Filed 02/01/10 Page 2 of 4
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 

3

PROPOSED ORDER

WILLIAM A. LOGAN, JR. (Bar No. 115042) 

ANTHONY D. GILES (Bar No. 178876) 

LOGAN & GILES LLP

Mount Diablo Plaza 

2175 N. California Blvd, Suite 910 

Walnut Creek, California 94596 

Tel: (925) 945-6792 

Fax: (925) 945-8492 

E-mail: wal@logan-giles.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Douglas W. Wright 

BARBARA GIUFFRE (Bar No. 158180) 

LAW OFFICES OF BARBARA GIUFFRE 

351 California Street, Suite 700 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: 415/981-9114 

Facsimile: 415/434-0513 

Barbara@igc.org 

Counsel for Defendants 

U.S. TAX ADVANTAGE, LLC and 

MARK C. GASBARRA 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 

DOUGLAS W. WRIGHT, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

U.S. TAX ADVANTAGE, LLC, a purported 

limited liability company, MARK C. 

GASBARRA, an individual, and DOES 1-5, 

Defendants. 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 

No. C-09-00280-BZ (EMC) 

UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 

[PROPOSED] ORDER TAKING 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 

CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR 

FEBRUARY 4, 2010 OFF 

CALENDAR 

 

 

 

Case 3:09-cv-00280-BZ Document 35 Filed 02/01/10 Page 3 of 4
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 

4

PROPOSED ORDER

The Court, considering the Stipulation and Order of the Parties, hereby ORDERS that the 

Settlement Conference in this case scheduled for February 4, 2010 at 9:30 AM be vacated. 

Dated: ________________________________ 

Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen 

Case 3:09-cv-00280-BZ Document 35 Filed 02/01/10 Page 4 of 4
§ 6.5 Discrimination prohibited—employment. ( a ) *General.* A Recipient may not, under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with Federal financial assistance, directly or through contractual agents or other arrangements including contracts and consultants, subject a person to discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment. Terms and conditions of employment include advertising, interviewing, selection, promotion, demotion, transfer, recruitment and advertising, layoff or termination, pay or other compensation, including benefits, and selection for training.
( b ) *Determination of compliance status.* The Assistant Secretary will follow the procedures set forth in this part and 29 CFR part 1691 and look to the substantive guidelines and policy of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when reviewing employment practices under Section 109.
§ 884.120 Responsibility for contract administration and defaults (private-owner/PHA projects). ( a ) *Contract administration.* The PHA is primarily responsible for administration of the Contract, subject to review and audit by HUD.
( b ) *Defaults by PHA and/or owner.* ( 1 ) The ACC and the Contract shall contain a provision to the effect that in the event of failure of the PHA to comply with the Contract with the Owner, the Owner shall have the right, if he is not in default, to demand that HUD determine, after notice to the PHA giving it a reasonable opportunity to take corrective action, whether a substantial default exists, and if HUD determines that such a default exists, that HUD assure that the obligations of the PHA to the Owner are carried out.
( 2 ) The ACC shall contain a provision to the effect that if the PHA fails to comply with any of its obligations (including specifically failure to enforce its rights under the Contract, in the event of any default by the Owner, to achieve compliance to the satisfaction of HUD or to terminate the Contract in whole or in part, as directed by HUD), HUD may, after notice to the PHA giving it a reasonable opportunity to take corrective action, determine that there is a substantial default and require the PHA to assign to HUD all of the PHA's rights and interests under the Contract. In such case, HUD will continue to pay annual contributions in accordance with the terms of the ACC and the Contract.
( 3 ) The Contract shall contain a provision to the effect ( i ) that if the PHA determines that the Owner is in default under the Contract, the PHA shall notify the Owner, with a copy to HUD and RHCDS, of the actions required to be taken to cure the default and of the remedies to be applied by the PHA including abatement of housing assistance payments and recovery of overpayments, where appropriate; and
( ii ) that if he fails to cure the default, the PHA has the right to terminate the Contract or to take other corrective action, in its discretion or as directed by HUD.
[41 FR 47168, Oct. 27, 1976, as amended at 61 FR 13593, Mar. 27, 1996]