alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §988a. Waiver of collection of charges or tolls

(a) Notwithstanding section 988 of this title or any other provision of law, the Corporation shall not collect any charge or toll established pursuant to section 988 of this title with respect to a commercial vessel (as defined in section 4462(a)(4) of title 26).

(b) The Corporation will maintain a record of the annual amount of each charge or toll that would have been collected with respect to each such commercial vessel if it were not for paragraph (a) of this section.

(May 13, 1954, ch. 201, §13, as added Pub. L. 99–662, title XIV, §805(a)(4), Nov. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 4272; amended Pub. L. 103–331, title III, §339, Sept. 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 2496.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–331 substituted "Waiver of collection" for "Rebate of" in section catchline and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows:

"(a) The Corporation shall transfer to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, at such times and under such terms and conditions as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, all revenues derived from the collection of charges or tolls established under section 988 of this title.

"(b)(1) The Corporation shall certify to the Secretary of the Treasury, in such form and at such times as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe—

"(A) the identity of any person who pays a charge or toll to the Corporation pursuant to section 988 of this title with respect to a commercial vessel (as defined in section 4462(a)(4) of title 26),

"(B) the amount of the toll or charge paid by such person with respect to such vessel.

"(2) Within 30 days of the receipt of a certification described in paragraph (1), the Secretary of the Treasury shall rebate, out of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, to the person described in paragraph (1) the amount of the charge or toll paid pursuant to section 988 of this title."

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective April 1, 1987, see section 805(b) of Pub. L. 99–662, set out as an Effective Date of 1986 Amendment note under section 984 of this title.
### §2905. Estuary habitat restoration strategy

#### (a) In general

Not later than 1 year after November 7, 2000, the Council, 1 shall develop an estuary habitat restoration strategy designed to ensure a comprehensive approach to maximize benefits derived from estuary habitat restoration projects and to foster the coordination of Federal and non-Federal activities related to restoration of estuary habitat.

#### (b) Goal

The goal of the strategy shall be the restoration of 1,000,000 acres of estuary habitat by the year 2010.

#### (c) Integration of estuary habitat restoration plans, programs, and partnerships

In developing the estuary habitat restoration strategy, the Council shall—

(1) conduct a review of estuary management or habitat restoration plans and Federal programs established under other laws that authorize funding for estuary habitat restoration activities; and

(2) ensure that the estuary habitat restoration strategy is developed in a manner that is consistent with the estuary management or habitat restoration plans.

#### (d) Elements of the strategy

The estuary habitat restoration strategy shall include proposals, methods, and guidance on—

(1) maximizing the incentives for the creation of new public-private partnerships to carry out estuary habitat restoration projects and the use of Federal resources to encourage increased private sector involvement in estuary habitat restoration activities;

(2) ensuring that the estuary habitat restoration strategy will be implemented in a manner that is consistent with the estuary management or habitat restoration plans;

(3) promoting estuary habitat restoration projects to—

(A) provide healthy ecosystems in order to support—

(i) wildlife, including endangered and threatened species, migratory birds, and resident species of an estuary watershed; and

(ii) fish and shellfish, including commercial and recreational fisheries;

(B) improve surface and ground water quality and quantity, and flood control;

(C) provide outdoor recreation; and

(D) address other areas of concern that the Council determines to be appropriate for consideration;

(4) addressing the estimated historic losses, estimated current rate of loss, and extent of the threat of future loss or degradation of each type of estuary habitat;

(5) measuring the rate of change for each type of estuary habitat;

(6) selecting a balance of smaller and larger estuary habitat restoration projects; and

(7) ensuring equitable geographic distribution of projects funded under this chapter.

#### (e) Public review and comment

Before the Council adopts a final or revised estuary habitat restoration strategy, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register a draft of the estuary habitat restoration strategy and provide an opportunity for public review and comment.

#### (f) Periodic revision

Using data and information developed through project monitoring and management, and other relevant information, the Council may periodically review and update, as necessary, the estuary habitat restoration strategy.

(Pub. L. 106–457, title I, §106, Nov. 7, 2000, 114 Stat. 1963.)

1 So in original. The comma probably should not appear.
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.2 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
(Form S-8 No.s 333-51568, 333-51536, 333-51564 and 333-44830) pertaining to the
2001 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, Stock Incentive Plan, for Deluxe Conversion
Awards, Deferred Compensation Plan and 2000 Stock Incentive Plan (as amended)
respectively, of eFunds Corporation of our report dated February 17, 2003, with
respect to the consolidated Financial Statements of iDLX Holdings BV (formerly
iDLX Holdings NV) included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of eFunds
Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2003. /s/ S.R. Batliboi & Associates New Delhi, India
March 9, 2004
NO. 12-17-00205-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

GABRIELLA ROBERTS, 

APPELLANT

V.

MISTI MONTALVO, INDIVIDUALLY 

AND AS SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE AND 

AS FIDUCIARY,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 159TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Gabriella Roberts sued Misti Montalvo, individually and as substitute trustee and 

fiduciary, for wrongful foreclosure and breach of fiduciary duty. CitiMortgage, Inc. intervened. 

CitiMortgage subsequently filed traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment, 

joined by Montalvo, and the trial court granted the motions. Roberts filed a notice of appeal. 

On August 8, 2017, this Court notified Roberts that her notice of appeal failed to contain

the information specifically required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and 25.1. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5 (service of documents), 25.1(e) (service of notice of appeal in civil cases). The 

notice warned that, unless Roberts filed a proper notice of appeal on or before September 7, the 

appeal would be referred to the Court for dismissal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. The deadline has 

passed and Roberts has not filed a compliant notice of appeal or otherwise responded to this 

Court’s August 8 notice.

Because Roberts has failed, after notice, to comply with Rules 9.5 and 25.1 of the Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure, the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

Opinion delivered September 20, 2017.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 20, 2017

NO. 12-17-00205-CV

GABRIELLA ROBERTS,

Appellant

V.

MISTI MONTALVO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE AND AS 

FIDUCIARY,

Appellee

Appeal from the 159th District Court 

of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CV-03191-14-05)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being 

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that 

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court 

below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
EXHIBIT 32.1







CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Webster Preferred Capital Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) | the Form 10-K Report of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) | the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ William T. BromageWilliam T. Bromage President (Principal Executive Officer) Date:  March 14, 2008




Pursuant to Securities and Exchange
Commission Release 33-8238, dated June 5, 2003, this certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or incorporated by reference
in any registration statement of the Company filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### Andrew Politis, Respondent, v. Thomas N. Epiphaniades, Appellant.

— Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. The complaint is to be treated as alleging a cause of action in equity to recover a certificate of interest in a business and for an accounting of plaintiff’s interest therein. The claim for damages is to be regarded as nothing more than a claim for an accounting. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Breitel and Botein, JJ.
#### § 353.104 Notification of rights and obligations.

When an agency separates, grants a leave of absence, restores or fails to restore an employee because of uniformed service or compensable injury, it shall notify the employee of his or her rights, obligations, and benefits relating to Government employment, including any appeal and grievance rights. However, regardless of notification, an employee is still required to exercise due diligence in ascertaining his or her rights, and to seek reemployment within the time limits provided by chapter 43 of title 38, United States Code, for restoration after uniformed service, or as soon as he or she is able after a compensable injury.
### §637. Legislation dealing with Congressional budget must be handled by Budget Committees

#### (a) In the Senate

In the Senate, no bill, resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report, dealing with any matter which is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget shall be considered unless it is a bill or resolution which has been reported by the Committee on the Budget (or from the consideration of which such committee has been discharged) or unless it is an amendment to such a bill or resolution.

#### (b) In the House of Representatives

In the House of Representatives, no bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto, or conference report thereon, dealing with any matter which is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget shall be considered unless it is a bill or joint resolution which has been reported by the Committee on the Budget (or from the consideration of which such committee has been discharged) or unless it is an amendment to such a bill or joint resolution.

(Pub. L. 93–344, title III, §306, July 12, 1974, 88 Stat. 313; Pub. L. 99–177, title II, §201(b), Dec. 12, 1985, 99 Stat. 1050; Pub. L. 101–508, title XIII, §13207(a)(1)(D), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388–617; Pub. L. 113–67, div. A, title I, §122(7), Dec. 26, 2013, 127 Stat. 1175.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 1327 of Title 31 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 31, Money and Finance, by Pub. L. 97–258, §1, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 877.

#### Amendments

2013—Pub. L. 113–67 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and inserted heading, substituted "In the Senate, no" for "No", struck out "of either House" after "jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget", "in that House" after "shall be considered", and "of that House" after "reported by the Committee on the Budget", and added subsec. (b).

1990—Pub. L. 101–508 substituted "bill, resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report" for "bill or resolution, and no amendment to any bill or resolution".

1985—Pub. L. 99–177 reenacted section without change.

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

#### Effective Date of 1985 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–177 effective Dec. 12, 1985, and applicable with respect to fiscal years beginning after Sept. 30, 1985, see section 275(a)(1) of Pub. L. 99–177, formerly set out as an Effective and Termination Dates note under section 900 of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 112–25, title I, §104(a), Aug. 2, 2011, 125 Stat. 246.
|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Registrant. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                 |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/ David Salzman                                                                                    |   |
| David                Salzman                                                                         |   |
| Chief Executive Officer of Richman American                  Credit Corp., Manager of the Registrant |   |
| March 12, 2008                                                                                       |   |

----
#### Reginald D. Taylor and Others, as Executors, etc., of John H. Taylor, Deceased, Respondents, *v.*Samuel K. Jacobs and Morris Berman, Appellants.

Second Department,

May 28, 1915.

Trial — change of venue to county where contract was negotiated, and parties reside — residence of expert witnesses.

The venue in an action for false representations incident to the sale of realty situated in the county of New York should be changed to that county from the county of Kings, where it appears that all the parties reside in the county of New York, with the exception of one plaintiff as to whom it is not alleged that he will be a witness, and all the negotiations involved in the transaction took place in said county.

The rule that the convenience of expert witnesses will not be considered on a motion for change of venue does not obtain where the experts are to testify from personal knowledge and not from an assumed state of facts.

Appeal by the defendants, Samuel K. Jacobs and another, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 23d day of February, 1915, denying their motion to change the place of trial.

*Laurence Arnold*Tanzer, for the appellants.

*William F. Purdy,*for the respondents.

Per Curiam:

The cause of action is false representations incident to the sale of realty, with reference to certain leases thereon and to the necessary expenses of the maintenance thereof. The realty is situate in the county of New York. It appears that the representations were made, the negotiations were conducted and transactions were carried out in that county. It appears that all of the parties are engaged in business therein, that the office of the plaintiffs as executors is therein, and that all of the participants in the negotiations who are the supposed or proposed witnesses, of whom many are specified, are engaged in business in the said county.

The sole justification for the venue of the county of Kings *261is the residence of one of the plaintiffs. Even as to him, it is not alleged that he is to be a witness, and the allegation of the moving affidavit that he had nothing to do with the transactions involved in this action is not denied. We think that the motion should have been granted, under the authority of *Jacobs*v. *Davis*(65 App. Div. 144), *Archer*v. *McIlravy*(86 id. 512, 514), *Lutfy*v. *Sullivan*(119 id. 506), *Pinkus*v. *United Cloak & Suit Co.*(124 id. 535, 536) and *Jacina*v. *Lemmi*(155 id. 397). Some of the witnesses named by the defendants are experts. The respondents contend that their convenience is not to be considered. ' This is not the rule when experts are to testify from personal knowledge (as we may infer in this case), and not from an assumed state of facts. *(Groff v. Rome Metallic Bedstead Co.,*98 App. Div. 152, 154.)

The order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with costs.

Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollai's costs.
#### The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Charles A. Johnson et al., Appellee, v. John Bushell et al., Appellants.

Gen. No. 5,845.

(Not to he reported in full.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria county; the Hon. Leslie D. Puterbaugh, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 15, 1914.

*230Statement of the Case.

Bill by the People of the State of Illinois on the relation of Charles A. Johnson and others against John Bushell and others to enjoin defendants from operating an’ asphalt factory in a residence district of the village of Averyville, Illinois, in a manner to cause dense clouds of smoke, dirt and other substances to issue therefrom, or to permit any noxious or offensive smell to emanate from said factories to the danger of the health of individuals and the public. A preliminary injunction was issued and on a hearing upon answer and replications filed a decree was entered making the injunction perpetual.

From the decree, defendants appeal.

Richard H. Radley, for appellants.

C. E. McNemar, for appellee.

Abstract *of*the Decision.

Nuisance, § *21*
      ***
      *—when operation of asphalt factory may he enjoined.*On bill to enjoin the defendants from operating, an asphalt factory in a residence district in a manner to cause clouds of smoke, dirt and other substances and noxious odors to issue therefrom to the danger of the health of individuals and the public, *held*that a decree granting a perpetual injunction was proper under the evidence, though it had not been first established at law that, the factory was a nuisance, there being no substantial dispute in the evidence but that the plant was a nuisance and that the relators were injured.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same ¿epic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice Whitney

delivered the opinion of the court.
EXHIBIT 32



Certification of Periodic Financial Report by the Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Entravision Communications Corporation (the Company), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
December 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |                          |  |                                           |  | 
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------- |  | 
|                     |  | 
|Date: March 14, 2008 |  |  |  | /S/    WALTER F.
ULLOA  
|                     |  |  |  |                          |  | Walter F. Ulloa Chief Executive Officer  
|                     |  | 
|Date: March 14, 2008 |  |  |  | /S/    JOHN F.
DELORENZO
|                     |  |  |  |                          |  | John F. DeLorenzo Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 4.6

NANOSIGNAL CORP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 560
Las Vegas, NV 89109


                                                               February 17, 2004


RE:      S-8 PAYMENT UNDER TERMS OF WRITTEN
         CONTRACT - DIRECTOR AND PRESIDENT


Dear Charles Lindsay:

This shall  confirm our  agreement to issue to you S-8 shares under the terms of
your written employment  contract with the Company for all services rendered and
which are due you through December 31, 2003.

The  compensation  due is equivalent  to ONE MILLION  THREE HUNDRED  TWENTY FOUR
THOUSAND  NINE  HUNDRED AND FIFTY SIX  (1,324,956)  shares of common stock to be
issued to

                                 Charles Lindsay

Please confirm your  acceptance of these terms below as indicated.  Your telefax
copy  should  be sent to us with  the  original  signed  copy  delivered  to our
corporate offices at your earliest convenience.


Very truly yours,

ANNALIE GALICIA

By: /s/ Annalie Galac ia
    Annalie Galicia, Secretary-Treasurer


AG:jd


ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO

CHARLES LINDSAY


By: /s/ Charles Lindsey                    Dated: February 17, 2004
    Charles Lindsay