alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 35.1020 Funding for evaluation and hazard reduction.

The grantee or participating jurisdiction shall determine whether the cost of evaluation and hazard reduction is to be borne by the owner/developer, the grantee or a combination of the owner/developer and the grantee, based on program requirements and local program design.
§ 576.200 Submission requirements and grant approval. ( a ) *Application submission and approval.* In addition to meeting the application submission requirements in 24 CFR part 5, subpart K, each State, urban county, or metropolitan city must submit and obtain HUD approval of a consolidated plan in accordance with the requirements in 24 CFR part 91, and each territory must submit and obtain HUD approval of a consolidated plan in accordance with the requirements that apply to local governments under 24 CFR part 91. As provided under 2 CFR 200.207, HUD may impose special conditions or restrictions on a grant, if the recipient is determined to be high risk.
( b ) *Amendments.* The recipient must amend its approved consolidated plan in order to make a change in its allocation priorities; make a change in its method of distributing funds; carry out an activity not previously described in the plan; or change the purpose, scope, location, or beneficiaries of an activity. The amendment must be completed and submitted to HUD in accordance with the requirements under 24 CFR 91.505.
[76 FR 75974, Dec. 5, 2011, as amended at 80 FR 75939, Dec. 7, 2015]
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3252 

To amend the definition of independent student for purposes of the need 

analysis in the Higher Education Act of 1965 to include older adopted 

students. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 12, 2005 

Mr. JEFFERSON (for himself, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mr. SNYDER, and Mr. BOUSTANY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the definition of independent student for purposes 

of the need analysis in the Higher Education Act of 

1965 to include older adopted students. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fostering Adoption 

5 to Further Student Achievement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO INDEPENDENT STUDENT. 

7 Section 480(d) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

8 (20 U.S.C. 1087vv(d)) is amended— 
2 

•HR 3252 IH 

1 (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘or’’ after the 

2 semicolon; 

3 (2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at 

4 the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(8) was adopted from the foster care system 

7 when the individual was 13 years of age or older.’’. 

Æ
#### FINN et al., Appellants, v. BROWN et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 24, 1905.)

Action by Luke J. Finn and others against William L. Brown and others. J. Kearny, for appellants. H. Wetherhorn, for respondents. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,004
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,004
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,004
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,234
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,650,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,004
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   56,080
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (56,080)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (56,080)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        





</TABLE>
#### DOSHE, Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF BATAVIA, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 27, *11241903.)

Action by Charles Doshe against the village of Batavia.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event, upon questions of fact. Held that, without passing upon the correctness of the rule laid down by the trial justice, to the effect that plaintiff was chargeable with any negligence of the driver, still upon the theory upon which the case was submitted, it was against the weight of the evidence for the jury to find, in effect, that the plaintiff and the driver did not, and were not bound to, see the roller in time to have avoided the accident.

SPRING, J., dissents. STOVER, J., not voting.
REPORT FRAUDEmail

Español | Français | 中文 | Accessibility  |   Privacy Notice | Contact Us  |   Site Map  |  A-Z Index
Advanced Search

        -  TTB HomeBeer HomeWine HomeDistilled Spirits HomeOther Beverage AlcoholOther Non-Beverage AlcoholTobacco HomeFirearms and Ammunition Home
        -  Small Business OwnersWine ProducersDistilled Spirits ProducersBeer ProducersImporters/ExportersWholesalersProspective Business OwnersConsumers...More...
        -  TTB ResourcesAdvertising/Market ComplianceFormulationInternational AffairsLabelingLaboratoryFOIAWholesalersStatisticsTTB Tip Line...More...
        -  Tools/TutorialsBusiness ToolsTTB Learning CenterTTB Proofing VideosNew Visitors GuideTour TTB.govVirtual Seminars & Online TrainingForms Helpful Hints and TipsFAQsTTB GlossaryTTB Online Apps...More...
        - 
        -  Filing/PaymentsPermits OnlineCOLAs OnlineFormulas OnlinePay.govAssistance in Preparing ReturnsFile Disaster ClaimSpecial Occupational Taxes...More...
        -  Regulations/GuidanceStatutesRegulationsRulingsProceduresIndustry CircularsProposed RulemakingTreasury DecisionsFederal Register DocumentsOther Public Guidance...More...
        -  About TTBWho We AreWhat We DoOffices/DivisionsTTB LocationsContact UsOrganizationPlans & ReportsInformation QualityPress Room...More...

**NOTE****You accessing archived material**

Please note that you are accessing materials in the temporary archive and you may encounter hyperlinks that no longer function. You should also keep in mind that this content may contain text and references which are no longer applicable as a result of changes in law, regulation and/or personnel.

For the most recent news and events, please visit TTB.gov homepage or use the menu selections at the top to see a list of topics.

# **Compliance Matters**

Compliance Matters 97-1 - A new policy for Flavored Malt Beverages, and changes in policy regarding Malt Beverage label approvals

Compliance Matters 95-2 -Informative Articles

Compliance Matters 94-3 - Product Compliance Branch

Compliance Matters 94-2 - Helpful Hints

Compliance Matters 94-1 - A list of the primary functions performed by each branch or section in the Office of Compliance ( *Note: Information after page six has been superseded*)

Compliance Matters 93-1 - Industry Issue to inform members of the alcoholic beverage industry of policies and procedures

| Page last reviewed/updated:         12/23/2014 |
|-------------------------------------------------|

No FEAR Act | Disaster Relief |  Treas.gov | Inspector General |  White House | Recovery.gov | USA.gov | Webmaster | Business.USA.gov
A3° 1s! -

124° 15!

NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE

HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY

INDEX

See Ae
3 een epee

C18!

x

124° Q7'30"

| 43° 15°

124°07'30”"

SYMBOLOGY

++ LIGHT

SLOW WATER

COOS BAY, OREG.

beers ~ COOS BAY, OREG.

GRADIENTS

# 63

_ BATHYMETRIC CONTOUR INTERVAL 2 METERS 4

DATUM IS MEAN LOWER LOW WATER
SUBJECT 10 REVIEW/REVISION

WITH SUPPLEMENTARY 1 METER CONTOURS ae

we theg seep,
hang

<1. tes
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION

November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 14

- 00 0 2 7

- CV

Style: Tory House, et al. v

. The O’Quinn Law Firm, John M. O’Quinn &

Associates, L.L.P., and T. Gerald Treece as Independent Executor of

the Estate of John M. O’Quinn, Deceased

Date motion filed * : October 2 3 , 2014

Type of motion s : Unopposed M otion to Withdraw as C ounsel of Record

Part ies filing motion s : Appell ees The O’Quinn Law Firm and John M. O’Quinn &

Associates, L.L.P. ’s counsel Mike O’Brien

Document to be filed: N/A

Is appeal accelerated? No

Ordered that motion s are :

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________

The motion to withdraw as counsel for the above appellees , construed as a motion

f o r substitution because it states that the law firm of McFall, Breitbeil & Eidman,

PC , will remain as appellees’ counsel, is denied without prejudice as currently

filed as the McFall firm ha s yet to file notice s of appearances in this Court. See

T EX

. R. A PP . P. 6.2 , 6.5(d)

. If counsel Mike O’Brien files a motion for substitution

t hat complies with Rules 6.5(d) and 6.2, this Court will reconsider such a motion.

Judge ’ s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes



Panel consists of

____________________________________________

Date: October 30, 2014
#### LAPIDES, Appellant, v. CITY OF ROCHESTER, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 15, 1905.)

Action by Hyman Lapides against the city of Rochester. No opinion. Appeal dismissed, without costs, on stipulation.
Summary of Analytical Results

662 - August 2011

Sample ID 662-GRAB 662-GRAB 662-GRAB 662-GRAB 662-GRAB

Date 8/1/11 8/8/11 8/15/11 8/22/11 8/29/11

Top (ft) 0 0 0 0 0

Total (T)/ Bottom (ft) 0 0 0 0 0

Analyte units Diss. (D) Duplicate # 1 1 1 1 1

PFOA ug/L T 3.76 3.45 6.74 4.10 5.53

Samples were analyzed by Critical Path Services. Reported results 

PFOA = Perfluorooctanoic Acid

ug/L = micrograms per Liter

 represent a single analysis, except for the sample collected on 8/1/11.

 collected on 8/1/11 represents the average of duplicate results.

 Aceptable precision was obtained and the reported result for the sample

< and ND = Non detect at stated reporting limit Page 1 of 1

0900006480fc8fd1.xls:Sheet1

2/29/2012 12:23 PM
Editorial Note on Part 5
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 5 appear at 65 FR 16715, Mar. 29, 2000.

§ 5.210 Purpose, applicability, and Federal preemption. ( a ) *Purpose.* This subpart B requires applicants for and participants in covered HUD programs to disclose, and submit documentation to verify, their Social Security Numbers (SSNs). This subpart B also enables HUD and PHAs to obtain income information about applicants and participants in the covered programs through computer matches with State Wage Information Collection Agencies (SWICAs) and Federal agencies, and from financial institutions and employers, in order to verify an applicant's or participant's eligibility for or level of assistance. The purpose of this subpart B is to enable HUD to decrease the incidence of fraud, waste, and abuse in the covered programs.
( b ) *Applicability.* ( 1 ) This subpart B applies to mortgage and loan insurance and coinsurance and housing assistance programs contained in chapter II, subchapter B, and chapters VIII and IX of this title.
( 2 ) The information covered by consent forms described in this subpart involves income information from SWICAs, wages, income, and resource information from financial institutions, net earnings from self-employment, payments of retirement income, and unearned income as referenced at 26 U.S.C. 6103. In addition, consent forms may authorize the collection of other information from applicants and participants to determine eligibility or level of benefits.
( c ) *Federal preemption.* This subpart B preempts any State law, including restrictions and penalties, that governs the collection and use of income information to the extent State law is inconsistent with this subpart.
[61 FR 11113, Mar. 18, 1996, as amended at 65 FR 16715, Mar. 29, 2000; 88 FR 9655, Feb. 14, 2023]
### §477. Association or irrigation district as fiscal agent of Government

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized, in his discretion, to designate and appoint, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, the legally organized water-users' association or irrigation district, under any reclamation project, as the fiscal agent of the United States to collect the annual payments on the construction charge of the project and the annual charges for operation and maintenance and all penalties: Provided, That no water-right applicant or entryman shall be entitled to credit for any payment thus made until the same shall have been paid over to an officer designated by the Secretary of the Interior to receive the same.

(Aug. 13, 1914, ch. 247, §7, 38 Stat. 688.)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 RIDGEWAY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WAL-MART STORES INC,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-05221 SI

SECOND

PRETRIAL PREPARATION ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED pursuant to F.R.C.P. and the Local Rules of this Court:

FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT: July 10, 2015 at 3:00 p.m.

Counsel must file a joint case management statement seven days in advance of the conference.

DISCOVERY PLAN: Per F.R.Civ.P and Local Rules, subject to any provisions below.

NON-EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF is December 3, 2015.

DESIGNATION OF EXPERTS: 10/9/15; REBUTTAL: 10/28/15. Parties SHALL conform to Rule 26(a)(2).

EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF is December 3, 2015.

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS SHALL be filed by January 15, 2016; 

Opp. Due January 29, 2016; Reply Due February 5, 2015;

 and set for hearing no later than February 19, 2016 at 9:00 AM.

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE: April 12, 2016 at 3:30 PM.

JURY TRIAL DATE: April 25, 2016 at 8:30 AM., Courtroom 10, 19th floor.

TRIAL LENGTH is estimated to be 12 days.

SPECIAL DISCOVERY AND PRETRIAL PROVISIONS:

Since the trial schedule has been adjusted, they maybe able to resolve the pending discovery disputes.

If they are not able to reach an agreement on the discovery issues, they must submit a joint letter that

is in compliance with the Court’s Standing Order.

The pretrial conference SHALL be attended by trial counsel prepared to discuss all aspects of the case,

including settlement. Parties SHALL conform to the attached instructions. Plaintiff is ORDERED to

serve a copy of this order on any party subsequently joined in this action.

Dated: 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05221-SI Document 213 Filed 06/01/15 Page 1 of 1
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

FREDERICK JACKSON, ASHLEY NICOLE

JACKSON, a minor, BRIANA FREDRANIQUE

ANNETTE JACKSON, a minor, and SHAWN

YVETTE MARTIN, 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF PITTSBURG, AARON L. BAKER,

individually and in his official capacity as Chief of

Police of the City of Pittsburg Police Department,

G. LOMBARDI, individually and as an officer of the

City of Pittsburg Police Department (Badge # 275),

C. SMITH, individually and as an officer of the

City of Pittsburg Police Department (Badge # 285),

P. DUMPA, individually and as an officer of the

City of Pittsburg Police Department (Bade # 291),

WILLIAM BLAKE HATCHER, individually and as

an officer of the City of Pittsburg Police Department

(Badge # 274), and DOES 1–100, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-01016 WHA

ORDER RE FINAL

PRETRIAL

CONFERENCE

Did defense filed an excessive number of motions in limine? The Court’s guidelines

advise that usually no more than four or five motions in limine need to be resolved prior to the

opening statements and the balance can be resolved as the trial proceeds. This is because in

actual trial practice, many supposed motions in limine fall away as unnecessary given the way the

case is actually tried. Therefore, prior to tomorrow’s final pretrial conference, defendants must

Case 3:09-cv-01016-WHA Document 167 Filed 07/06/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

select six of their motions in limine to be heard at the final pretrial conference with the remainder

to be presented and decided as the trial progresses. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-01016-WHA Document 167 Filed 07/06/10 Page 2 of 2
### §907. Railroad hiring

Each person who is an employee of the Milwaukee Railroad on September 30, 1979, and who is separated or furloughed from his employment with such railroad (other than for cause) prior to April 1, 1984, as a result of a reduction of service by such railroad shall, unless found to be less qualified than other applicants, have the first right of hire by any other rail carrier that is subject to regulation by the Commission for any vacancy that is not covered by (1) an affirmative action plan, or a hiring plan designed to eliminate discrimination, that is required by Federal or State statute, regulation, or executive order, or by the order of a Federal court or agency, or (2) a permissible voluntary affirmative action plan. For purposes of this section, a rail carrier shall not be considered to be hiring new employees when it recalls any of its own furloughed employees.

(Pub. L. 96–101, §8, Nov. 4, 1979, 93 Stat. 740; Pub. L. 97–468, title II, §236(a), Jan. 14, 1983, 96 Stat. 2547.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1983—Pub. L. 97–468 substituted "April 1, 1984" for "April 1, 1981".

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

#### Abolition of Interstate Commerce Commission and Transfer of Functions

Interstate Commerce Commission abolished and functions of Commission transferred, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 104–88, to Surface Transportation Board effective Jan. 1, 1996, by section 1302 of Title 49, Transportation, and section 101 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of Title 49. References to Interstate Commerce Commission deemed to refer to Surface Transportation Board, a member or employee of the Board, or Secretary of Transportation, as appropriate, see section 205 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of Title 49.

#### Exemption of National Railroad Passenger Corporation in Hiring Qualified Train and Engine Employees

Section inapplicable to National Railroad Passenger Corporation in hiring of qualified train and engine employees holding seniority rights to work in intercity rail passenger service in connection with the assumption by such Corporation of functions previously performed under contract by other carriers, see section 4011(c) of Pub. L. 99–272, set out as a note under section 797b of this title.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         503,995
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       1,413,530
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 15,192,346
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     35,867,057
<ALLOWANCE>                                    186,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              54,503,419
<DEPOSITS>                                  41,632,562
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            602,475
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,268,382
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              54,503,419
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,552,018
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              744,743
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               121,207
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             3,417,968
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,300,282
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,300,282
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,117,686
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   50,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                918,958
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,192,726
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     480,854
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   480,854
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.85
<LOANS-NON>                                  2,573,012
<LOANS-PAST>                                 2,891,726
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               136,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              186,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. Andrew Ryder, plaintiff in error.

Gen. No. 27,945.

Conviction for petit larceny. Sentenced to house of correction for one year and fine of $100 and costs. Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John A. Bugee, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1923.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed June 25, 1923.

*663Frank A. McDonnell, for plaintiff in error; S. B. McDonnell, Jr., of counsel. Robert E. Crowe, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error; Edward E. Wilson and Clyde C. Fisher, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice

Matchett delivered the opinion of the court.