alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 4.11 Updating of disclosure. ( a ) During the period in which an application for assistance covered under Section 102(b) is pending, or in which such assistance is being provided, the applicant must report to the Department, or to the State or unit of general local government, as appropriate: ( 1 ) Any information referred to in Section 102(b) that the applicant should have disclosed with respect to the application, but did not disclose;
( 2 ) Any information referred to in Section 102(b) that initially arose after the time for making disclosures under that subsection, including the name and pecuniary interest of any person who did not have a pecuniary interest in the project or activity that exceeded the threshold in Section 102(b) at the time of the application, but that subsequently exceeded the threshold.
( b ) With regard to changes in information that was disclosed under Sections 102(b) or 102(c): ( 1 ) For programs administered by the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development: ( i ) Any change in other government assistance covered by Section 102(b) that exceeds the amount of all assistance that was previously disclosed by the lesser of $250,000 or 10 percent of the assistance;
( ii ) Any change in the expected sources or uses of funds that exceed the amount of all previously disclosed sources or uses by the lesser of $250,000 or 10 percent of previously disclosed sources;
( 2 ) For all other programs: ( i ) Any change in other government assistance under Section 102(b)(1) that exceeds the amount of assistance that was previously disclosed;
( ii ) Any change in the pecuniary interest of any person under Section 102(b)(2) that exceeds the amount of all previously disclosed interests by the lesser of $50,000 or 10 percent of such interest;
( iii ) For all projects receiving a tax credit under Federal, Sate or local law, any change in the expected sources or uses of funds that were previously disclosed;
( iv ) For all other projects: ( A ) Any change in the expected source of funds from a single source that exceeds the lesser of the amount previously disclosed for that source of funds by $250,000 or 10 percent of the funds previously disclosed for that source;
( B ) Any change in the expected sources of funds from all sources previously disclosed that exceeds the lesser of $250,000 or 10 percent of the amounts previously disclosed from all sources of funds;
( C ) Any change in a single expected use of funds that exceeds the lesser of $250,000 or 10 percent of the previously disclosed use;
( D ) Any change in the use of all funds that exceeds the lesser of $250,000 or 10 percent of the previously disclosed uses for all funds.
( c ) *Period of coverage.* For purposes of updating of Section 102(c), an application for assistance will be considered to be pending from the time the application is submitted until the Department communicates its decision with respect to the selection of the applicant.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2510-0011)
§ 983.304 Other subsidy: effect on rent to owner. ( a ) *General.* In addition to the rent limits established in accordance with § 983.301 and 24 CFR 982.302, the following restrictions apply to certain units.
( b ) *HOME.* For units assisted under the HOME program, rents may not exceed rent limits as required by the HOME program (24 CFR 92.252).
( c ) *Subsidized projects.* ( 1 ) This paragraph (c) applies to any contract units in any of the following types of federally subsidized project: ( i ) An insured or non-insured Section 236 project;
( ii ) A formerly insured or non-insured Section 236 project that continues to receive Interest Reduction Payment following a decoupling action;
( iii ) A Section 221(d)(3) below market interest rate (BMIR) project;
( iv ) A Section 515 project of the Rural Housing Service;
( v ) Any other type of federally subsidized project specified by HUD.
( 2 ) The rent to owner may not exceed the subsidized rent (basic rent) as determined in accordance with requirements for the applicable federal program listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
( d ) *Combining subsidy.* Rent to owner may not exceed any limitation required to comply with HUD subsidy layering requirements. See § 983.55.
( e ) *Other subsidy: rent reduction.* To comply with HUD subsidy layering requirements, at the direction of HUD or its designee, a PHA shall reduce the rent to owner because of other governmental subsidies, including tax credits or tax exemptions, grants, or other subsidized financing.
( f ) *Prohibition of other subsidy.* For provisions that prohibit PBV assistance to units in certain types of subsidized housing, see § 983.54.
[70 FR 59913, Oct. 13, 2005, as amended at 72 FR 65207, Nov. 19, 2007; 79 FR 36170, June 25, 2014]
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

ROBERT TASHJIAN (Cal. Bar No. 191007)

 tashjianr@sec.gov 

THOMAS J. EME (Illinois Bar. No. 6224870) 

 emet@sec.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

44 Montgomery Street, 26th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: (415) 705-2500 

Facsimile: (415) 705-2501 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

PETER C. SON, JIN K. CHUNG, 

SNC ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., and

SNC INVESTMENTS, INC., 

 Defendants. 

 Case No. CV-09-2554 MMC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

GRANTING EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO SERVE 

DEFENDANT JIN K. CHUNG 

Case 3:09-cv-02554-MMC Document 56 Filed 07/08/10 Page 1 of 2
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION

OF TIME TO SERVE DEF. CHUNG 1 CASE NO. CV-09-2554 MMC

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

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT CHUNG 

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission’s 

Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Defendant Jin K. Chung. The Court previously 

ordered that that plaintiff serve Chung no later than June 30, 2010. See Order dated Apr. 2, 

2010 (Docket No. 53). 

Following consideration of plaintiff’s motion and accompanying papers, and for good 

cause shown, the Court grants the motion pursuant to Rule 6-3 of the Court’s Local Rules. 

Plaintiff shall have until September 30, 2010, to serve defendant Chung with the summons 

and complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY 

United States District Judge 

July 7

/s/ Vaughn R Walker for

Case 3:09-cv-02554-MMC Document 56 Filed 07/08/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Washington Green Apartments v. Elinor Busalacchi.

Motion for a stay granted on condition that the tenant continues to pay $93.38 as rent on the first day of each month and continues the bond heretofore posted pending the hearing and determination of the appeal and on the further condition that appellant argues or submits the appeal on September 28, 1960. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.
#### State of Minnesota *vs.*Edgar Johnson.

May 31, 1877.

'Criminal Trial — Election by Prosecution where more than one Offence is Proved.— "Where, upon the trial of an indictment, in which the time alleged for the commission of the offence is not material, the evidence tends to prove an offence committed on a day other than that alleged in the indictment, and a precisely similar offence committed on the day alleged in the indictment, the state may elect for which it will proceed.

Same — Motion to Strike '"Out Evidence. — If a party does not object to evidence offered, it is discretionary with the trial court to grant or refuse his motion, ■after it is received, to strike it out, upon an objection which was apparent to him, and which he might have made, when the evidence was offered.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of tbe district court for Earibault county, *Dickinson,*J., presiding.

*Benj. G. Reynolds,*for appellant.

*Geo. P. Wilson,*Attorney General, for the State.

■Gileillan., C- J.

The defendant was indicted for larceny, in stealing wheat, alleged in the complaint to have been «committed on December 19, 1875. On the trial the state *570offered evidence which tended to prove a larceny committed' on the 26th of December. This evidence was objected to on the ground of the variance in dates, but was admitted. There can be no question that this was right. The time of' the commission of an offence, alleged in the indictment, is, as a general rule, immaterial, and does not coniine the proofs to the exact time alleged. As the trial proceeded, the evidence of the state tended to prove a similar larceny on the 19th. This was not objected to, as it might have been ; but the defendant thereupon moved to strike out all evidence showing a larceny on any day but the 19th; which was denied, and the state asked leave, and was allowed, to elect for which of the two larcenies it would proceed, and it elected to proceed for that on the 26th. In both of these rulings the court was right.

The defendant then moved to strike out the evidence of larceny on the 19th, which motion was denied. The objection to a part of this evidence was as apparent when it was offered as after it was in, and, by not objecting to it when offered, defendant lost his strict right to have it excluded. If a party does not object to evidence offered, it is discretionary with the trial court to grant or refuse his motion, after it is received, to strike it out, upon an objection that was apparent to him, and which he might have made, when the evidence was offered.

As to the other evidence, tending to show a larceny on the 19th, it also tended to show one on the 26th, and was proiier to prove the offence for which the state elected to proceed.

The court could, in its charge, protect the defendant against any prejudice from the fact that evidence pertinent, to prove the offence on the 26th also tended to prove-another offence ; and, in the absence of the charge from the record, it not being in the return, the presumption is that it. did so.

Judgment, affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3400 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3400

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the option 
         of including combat pay when computing earned income.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 21, 2005

  Mr. Terry introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the option 
         of including combat pay when computing earned income.

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

SECTION 1. EARNED INCOME INCLUDES COMBAT PAY.

    (a) Earned Income Credit.--Clause (vi) of section 32(c)(2)(B) of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
                            ``(vi) a taxpayer may elect to treat 
                        amounts excluded from gross income by reason of 
                        section 112 as earned income.''.
    (b) Repeal of EGTRRA Sunset Applicability.--Section 105 of the 
Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 shall not apply to the 
amendments made by section 104(b) of such Act.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2005.
                                 <all>
```
### §2911. Disclosure requirement for official business conducted using non-official electronic messaging accounts

(a) In General.—An officer or employee of an executive agency may not create or send a record using a non-official electronic messaging account unless such officer or employee—

(1) copies an official electronic messaging account of the officer or employee in the original creation or transmission of the record; or

(2) forwards a complete copy of the record to an official electronic messaging account of the officer or employee not later than 20 days after the original creation or transmission of the record.

(b) Adverse Actions.—The intentional violation of subsection (a) (including any rules, regulations, or other implementing guidelines), as determined by the appropriate supervisor, shall be a basis for disciplinary action in accordance with subchapter I, II, or V of chapter 75 of title 5, as the case may be.

(c) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) Electronic messages.—The term "electronic messages" means electronic mail and other electronic messaging systems that are used for purposes of communicating between individuals.

(2) Electronic messaging account.—The term "electronic messaging account" means any account that sends electronic messages.

(3) Executive agency.—The term "executive agency" has the meaning given that term in section 105 of title 5.

(Added Pub. L. 113–187, §10(a), Nov. 26, 2014, 128 Stat. 2014.)
Exhibit 31
                                  ----------


                                 CERTIFICATION
                                 -------------

        I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

        1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all
        reports on Form 8-K containing distribution and servicing reports
        filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by this
        annual report, of CWABS Revolving Home Equity Loan Trust, Series
        2004-E;

        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 trustee by the master servicer 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 master
        servicer 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 master
        servicer has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and

        5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
        master servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing 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 and 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:
        JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as indenture trustee.

        Date: March 30, 2005

                              /s/ Steve Bailey
                                  -----------------
                                  Steve Bailey
                                  Senior Managing Director
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43626

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

SUSAN K. MOTTAZ

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 201 6 Unpublished Opinion No. 450

Filed: March 25, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Timothy Hansen , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for felony domestic violence, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise , for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Susan K. Mottaz pled guilty to felony domestic violence (prior felony within fifteen

years) . I.C. §§ 18

- 918(5) and 18

- 903 . The district court sentenced Mottaz to a unified term of

eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. However, the district court

retained jurisdiction and sent Mottaz to participate in the rider program

. Mottaz appeals.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluatin g the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-2

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); St ate v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Mottaz ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
T h i s pr oce edi n g a r i s es ou t of Cau s e N o. 203566 , s t y l ed T h e S t a t e o

f T ex a s v. R a n d a l l D o u g l a s , p e n d ing in 1 t he C o unt y C o urt at Law N o . 7, B exar C o unt y , T exas , t he H o no rable M o ni ca G uerrer o presi d i ng. i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION
No
. 04 -0 8- 00 49 8- CR IN RE Rand a ll DO UG LA S Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1 PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Catherine Stone , J ustice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion , J ustice Rebec ca Simmons , J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: J uly 30, 2008 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS DEN I ED On J uly 14, 2008, relator filed a pe tition for writ of mandamus
. T h e co urt has conside red
r e l a t o r ’ s p e t i t i o nan d

i s o f t h e o p i n i o nt h a tr e l a t o r

i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o t h e r e l i e f s o u g h t . A c c o r d i n g l y, relator’s petition for wr it of mandamus is denied. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a).

PER C URI AM DO NOT PUBL I SH
### §42107. Refusal of clearance and entry

At the request of the Federal Maritime Commission—

(1) the Secretary of Homeland Security shall—

(A) refuse the clearance required by section 60105 of this title to a vessel of a country that is named in a regulation prescribed by the Commission under section 42101 of this title; and

(B) collect any fees imposed by the Commission under section 42106(4) of this title; and

(2) the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall—

(A) deny entry, for purposes of oceanborne trade, of a vessel of a country that is named in a regulation prescribed by the Commission under section 42101 of this title, to a port or place in the United States or the navigable waters of the United States; or

(B) detain the vessel at the port or place in the United States from which it is about to depart for another port or place in the United States.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §7, Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1551.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 42107 | 46 App.:876(j). | June 5, 1920, ch. 250, §19(j); as added Pub. L. 101–595, title I, §103(2), Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 2979; Pub. L. 105–258, title III, §301, Oct. 14, 1998, 112 Stat. 1915. |

Section

In paragraph (1), the words "Secretary of Homeland Security" are substituted for "collector of customs at the port or place of destination in the United States" because the functions of the Customs Service and of the Secretary of the Treasury relating thereto were transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security by section 403(1) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107–296, 116 Stat. 2178). The functions of the collector of customs previously were vested in the Secretary of the Treasury by Reorganization Plan No. 26 of 1950, and the office of collector of customs previously was abolished by Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1965.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3440 

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

100 Avenida RL Rodrı ́guez in Bayamo ́n, Puerto Rico, as the ‘‘Dr. 

Jose ́ Celso Barbosa Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 26, 2005 

Mr. FORTUN ̃O introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 100 Avenida RL Rodrı ́guez in Bayamo ́n, Puerto Rico, as the ‘‘Dr. Jose ́ Celso Barbosa Post Office 

Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DR. JOSE ́ CELSO BARBOSA POST OFFICE 

4 BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 100 Avenida RL Rodrı ́guez in 

7 Bayamo ́n, Puerto Rico, shall be known and designated as 

8 the ‘‘Dr. Jose ́ Celso Barbosa Post Office Building’’. 
2 

•HR 3440 IH 

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Dr. Jose ́ Celso 

5 Barbosa Post Office Building’’. 

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3388 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3388

      To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's footwear.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 21, 2005

Mr. Ryun of Kansas introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women's footwear.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN WOMEN'S FOOTWEAR.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.64.16      Footwear for women  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         with outer soles                                                   31/2009
                         of rubber or
                         plastics and
                         uppers of textile
                         materials other
                         than of vegetable
                         fibers, with open
                         toes or open
                         heels or of the
                         slip-on type
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         6404.19.30)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```