alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §5012. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–82, title III, §346, Sept. 21, 1993, 107 Stat. 905

Section, Pub. L. 93–113, title II, §212, Oct. 1, 1973, 87 Stat. 402; Pub. L. 94–135, title II, §205(b)(3), Nov. 28, 1975, 89 Stat. 727; Pub. L. 95–478, title IV, §402(c), Oct. 18, 1978, 92 Stat. 1557; Pub. L. 101–204, title IX, §902(4), Dec. 7, 1989, 103 Stat. 1826, set forth conditions of grants and contracts and defined "community action agency".

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1993, see section 392 of Pub. L. 103–82, set out as an Effective Date of 1993 Amendment note under section 4951 of this title.
Forgiveness
of Debt


    


    HENRY TOH
hereby forgives the sum of $63,750, said sum being the total accrued salary
earned by the undersigned for the period July 2008 through December 31, 2008
from InovaChem, Inc. The undersigned hereby waives all rights to this accrued
sum.

    


    DATED:  November 17,
2009

    


    
      	 
      	
              /s/ Henry Toh

            	 
      
	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
              Henry
      Toh
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

Mary McNamara, SBN 147131

SWANSON & McNAMARA LLP

300 Montgomery Street, Suite 1100

San Francisco, California 94104

Telephone: (415) 477-3800

Facsimile: (415) 477-9010

Attorney for DONALD DANIELS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DONALD DANIELS,

Defendant.

Case No. CR 09-0862 MHP

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER MODIFYING CONDITIONS OF

RELEASE TO PERMIT TRAVEL TO

PHOENIX, COLUMBUS, AND BOSTON

Defendant Donald Daniels, by and through his counsel, Mary McNamara, and the United

States, by and through Assistant United States Attorney Christine Wong, hereby stipulate and

agree as follows:

1. On September 18, 2009, the Court set conditions of release for defendant Donald

Daniels, one of which was a condition that he not travel outside the Northern or

Eastern Districts of California. 

2. The parties agree to a modification of Mr. Daniels’ conditions of release to permit

travel to Phoenix, Arizona; Columbus, Ohio; and Boston, Massachusetts. The

purpose of the modification to permit travel to Phoenix, AZ is to allow Mr.

Daniels to receive ongoing medical treatment at the Mayo clinic in Scottsdale,

Arizona. The purpose of the modification to permit travel to Columbus, OH and

Boston, MA is to allow Mr. Daniels to conduct business-related matters in those

cities. 

Case 3:09-cr-00862-MHP Document 111 Filed 04/28/10 Page 1 of 2
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. Pretrial Service Officer Taifa Gaskins has no objection to the proposed

modification on the condition that Mr. Daniels provide her with his travel

information before each instance of travel.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: April 23, 2010

________/s/___________________

MARY McNAMARA

Attorney for DONALD DANIELS

Dated: April 23, 2010 ________/s/___________________

CHRISTINE WONG

Assistant United States Attorney

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ____________________________

HON. ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

April 28, 2010

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte

Case 3:09-cr-00862-MHP Document 111 Filed 04/28/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Louis A. Klein, appellee, v. E. B. Sode, trading as E. B. Sode Paper Box Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 27,179.

Action to recover commissions due under an oral contract of employment to solicit orders for material produced by defendant. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1921.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 30, 1922.

Samuel Blair, for appellant. Edelson, Paullin *&*Goldberg, for appellee; Hyland J. Paullin, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Dever

delivered the opinion of the court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL DATA EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT AND FOR THE NINE-MONTH PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q QUARTERLY REPORT FOR SUCH PERIOD AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          14,490
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,134
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,452
<INVENTORY>                                     11,278
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                56,449
<PP&E>                                          34,221
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,195
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 120,680
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,730
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           184
<OTHER-SE>                                      51,297
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   120,680
<SALES>                                        136,245
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               136,245
<CGS>                                          115,264
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  147,074<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,186
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (14,087)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,026
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (14,872)<F2>
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (14,872)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.82)<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.82)
<FN>
<F1>TOTAL COSTS INCLUDES A ONE-TIME CHARGE OF $12.9 MILLION FOR PURCHASED
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IMMEDIATELY CHARGED OFF TO INCOME AFTER THE MERGER WITH
DNA PLANT TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION.
<F2>NET OF LOSS RELATING TO MINORITY INTERESTS.
<F3>BASED ON 18.220 MILLION AVERAGE COMMON SHARES OUTSTANDING DURING THE PERIOD 
WHICH CONSIDERS THE EFFECT OF THE MERGER WITH DNA PLANT TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Byron Mallott 

Lieutenant Governor 

State Capitol 

Juneau, Alaska 99811 

907.465.3520 465.5400 Fax 

WWW.LTGOV.ALASKA.GOV

530 West 7th Ave. Suite 1700 

Anchorage. Alaska 99501 

907.269.7460 269.0263 

LT.GOVERNOR@ALASKA.GOV

OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR 

ALASKA

MEMORANDUM

TO: Gary Mendivil, AAC Contact

Department of Environmental Conservation

FROM: Scott Meriwether

Special Assistant 

907.465.4081

DATE: March 18, 2015

RE: Filed Permanent Regulations: Department of Environmental Conservation

Regulations re: air quality, the Mendenhall Valley limited maintenance area,

transportation conformity, and the state implementation plan (18 AAC 50.010(1)(A); 18 

AAC 50.015(b)(2),(e); 18 AAC 50.020(a); 18 AAC 50.030; 18 AAC 50.035(a)(8),(b); 18 

AAC 50.040; 18 AAC 50.215(a)(3),(d); 18 AAC 50.220(c)(1)(E),(2); 18 AAC 50.700 - 18 

AAC 50.750; 18 AAC 50.990(32),(90)(121),(130),(141)-(148))

Attorney General bile: 

Regulation Filed: 

Effective Date:

Print:

JU2013200372 (Part 2) 

March 18, 2015 

April 17, 2015 

214, July 2015

cc with enclosures: Linda Miller, Department of Law

Genevieve Wojtusik, Administrative Regulation Review Committee 

Judy Herndon, LexisNexis
 

(This page left blank intentionally)
Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

            Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002

I, Carol Russell, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-Q of Capital Beverage
Corporation.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report 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 with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and I have:

         a) designed such internal controls to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant and its subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company") is
made known to me by others within the Company, particularly during the period in
which this annual report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's internal controls as
of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the
"Evaluation Date"); and

         c) presented in this annual report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors:

         a) all significant deficiencies (if any) in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

6. I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,
including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses.

Date:  August 23, 2004                            /s/Carol Russell
                                                     ----------------
                                                     Carol Russell
                                                     Treasurer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Goddard, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 331]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered March 23, 1998, as amended May 6, 1998, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

*395Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied suppression of a handgun and cocaine seized from him by the police (see, *People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210; *People v Robinson,*271 AD2d 17; *People v Ortiz,*265 AD2d 579; *People v Silver,*178 AD2d 499).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.
(September 15, 1960)

Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.

#### Clara Armstrong, Appellant, v. Arthur M. Heeg et al., Respondents.

— Motion to dismiss appeal denied on condition that appellant be ready to argue or submit the appeal on October 31, 1960, for which day the appeal is ordered to be placed on the calendar. The record and appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before October 14, 1960.
Exhibit 34.7

 

|  |   |  |
|--|--------|--|

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To CWCapital Asset Management LLC

We have examined management of CWCapital Asset Management LLC ("CWCAM")'s assertion that CWCAM complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")'s Regulation AB for the commercial mortgage-backed securitization trusts included in the accompanying Management's Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2019. CWCAM's management is responsible for its assertion. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about CWCAM's compliance with the specified requirements based on our examination.

Management has determined that the criteria set forth in Sections 1122 (d)(1)(iii), (d)(3)(i)(B), (d)(3)(i)(C), (d)(3)(i)(D), (d)(3)(ii), (d)(3)(iii), (d)(3)(iv), (d)(4)(v), (d)(4)(ix), (d)(4)(x), (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii), (d)(4)(xiii), (d)(4)(xiv), and (d)(4)(xv) are not applicable to the activities performed by CWCAM, as a special servicer, with respect to CWCAM's Platform. The commercial mortgage-backed securities transactions covered by this Platform are those specified in Appendix B in the accompanying Management's Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the examination to obtain reasonable assurance about whether management's assertion about compliance with the specified requirements is fairly stated, in all material respects. An examination involves performing procedures to obtain evidence about whether management's assertion is fairly stated, in all material respects. The nature, timing, and extent of the procedures selected depend on our judgment, including an assessment of the risks of material misstatement of management's assertion, whether due to fraud or error. We believe that the evidence we obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Our examination does not provide a legal determination on CWCAM's compliance with the specified requirements.

In our opinion, management's assertion that CWCAM complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. SEC's Regulation AB for the commercial mortgage-backed securitization trusts included in the accompanying Management's Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/CohnReznick LLP

Bethesda, Maryland February 25, 2020

(Except for Assertion 3 on the Management’s Assertion on

Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria for which is dated

March 23, 2020)
### §6301. Imports

Any covered product offered for importation in violation of section 6302 of this title shall be refused admission into the customs territory of the United States under rules issued by the Secretary of the Treasury, except that the Secretary of the Treasury may, by such rules, authorize the importation of such covered product upon such terms and conditions (including the furnishing of a bond) as may appear to him appropriate to ensure that such covered product will not violate section 6302 of this title, or will be exported or abandoned to the United States. The Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe rules under this section not later than 180 days after December 22, 1975.

(Pub. L. 94–163, title III, §331, Dec. 22, 1975, 89 Stat. 928.)
Exhibit 32



Certification



Each of the undersigned officers of Allin Corporation (the Company), certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | the Companys report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This Certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



|                |  |                        
|--------------- |  | -----------------------
|August 12, 2004 |  | /s/ Richard W. Talarico
|                |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                | 
|August 12, 2004 |  | /s/ Dean C. Praskach   
|                |  | Chief Financial Officer



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.
#### William RUPPRECHT, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. CITY OF PITTSFIELD, et al., Defendants, Appellees.

No. 06-2767.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

May 31, 2007.

William Rupprecht, on brief, pro se.

Nancy Frankel Pelletier and Robinson Donovan, P.C., on brief, for appellees.

*2Before BOUDIN, Chief Judge, CAMPBELL, Senior Circuit Judge, and LYNCH, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

After carefully considering the briefs and record on appeal, we affirm the judgment below. *McCord v. Horace Mann Ins. Co.,*390 F.3d 138 (1st Cir.2004) *(de novo*review).

Among other problems, land-use conflicts rarely support constitutional claims. Extreme circumstances are required to support substantive due process or equal protection claims. Exhaustion of state remedies is a prerequisite for procedural due process and Fifth Amendment takings claims. *SFW Arecibo, Ltd. v. Rodriguez,*415 F.3d 135 (1st Cir.2005). Appellant made no showing that he satisfied any of these requirements.

*Affirmed. See*1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

TERRENCE THOMAS

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 1924

[ March 19, 2020 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Elizabeth Anne

Scherer , Judge; L.T. Case No. 14

- 6534CF10A

.

Matthew R. McLain of McLain Law, P.A., Longwood, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

G ROSS

, D AMOORGIAN and C IKLIN
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### § 1000.122 May NAHASDA grant funds be used as matching funds to obtain and leverage funding, including any Federal or state program and still be considered an affordable housing activity?

There is no prohibition in NAHASDA against using grant funds as matching funds.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jacobo Oswaldo ORO-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-40576

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 17, 2007.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*230Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jacobo Oswaldo Oro-Hernandez (Oro) appeals his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and resulting 28-month sentence. Oro’s constitutional challenge to § 1326(b) is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Oro contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Oro properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

Oro next argues that the district court erred by ordering him to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as a condition of supervised release. This claim is not ripe for review on direct appeal. *United States v. Carmichael,*343 F.3d 756, 761-62 (5th Cir.2003). Accordingly, this portion of the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. *See id.*at 762.

Oro additionally argues that the district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines by characterizing his state felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance as an “aggravated felony” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C). Given the Supreme Court’s recent decision in *Lopez v. Gonzales,*— U.S.—, 127 S.Ct. 625, 166 L.Ed.2d 462 (2006), Oro is correct. *See United States v. Estrada-Mendoza,*475 F.3d 258, 259-61 (5th Cir.2007). His conviction is affirmed. His sentence is vacated, and the case is remanded for re-sentencing. Oro’s motion to summarily affirm in part and to vacate in part is denied as moot.

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART; SENTENCE VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RE-SENTENCING; MOTION DENIED.

*

 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.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 7774

DERRICK MICHAEL ALLEN, SR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
KELDA S. DAVIS , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. ( 1:20

- cv - 00316

- TDS

- LPA )

Submitted : July 20, 2021 Decided: July 22, 2021

Before WILKINSON , AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Derrick Michael Allen, Sr. , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Derrick Michael Allen, Sr. , appeals the distr ict court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Allen ’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Allen’s motion for a transcript at government expense and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Allen v. Davis , No. 1:20

-

cv - 00316

- TDS

- LPA (M.D.N.C. Nov. 16, 2020) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED