alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
10-01

    ATLAS TECHNOLOGY
GROUP, INC. (the "Company")

     

    CONSENT
TO ACT AS DIRECTOR

     

    I hereby
consent to act as a director, President, Secretary, and Treasurer of the Company
and acknowledge that I am not disqualified to become or to act as a director
under the Delaware Revised Statutes.

     

    I hereby
confirm that:

     

    
      	
              1.
      I am not under the age of 18 years;

            


    

     

    
      	
              2.
      I have not been found by a court, in the United States of America or
      elsewhere, to be incapable of managing my own
  affairs;

            


    

     

    
      	
              3.
      I am not an undischarged bankrupt;
and

            


    

     

    
      	
              4.
      I have not been convicted in or out of Minnesota of an offence in
      connection with the promotion, formation or management of a corporation or
      unincorporated business, or of an offence involving
  fraud.

            


    

     

    In
addition, the undersigned hereby consents to the holding of any meeting of the
directors or of a committee of the directors of the Company by means of such
telephonic, electronic or other communication facility, as permit all persons
participating in the subject meetings to communicate adequately with each
other.

    


    This
consent shall continue in effect from year to year so long as the undersigned is
re-elected to the board of directors, provided that in the event that the
undersigned revokes this consent or resigns from the board of directors, this
consent shall cease to have effect from the date of receipt in writing by the
Company of such revocation or resignation, as the case may be, or, if the
latter, the effective date of such resignation.

     

    DIRECTORS
HAVE SUBSTANTIAL DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO SIGNIFICANT
LIABILITIES. THE PERSON SIGNING THIS CONSENT SHOULD OBTAIN INDEPENDENT
LEGAL ADVICE.

     

    
      
        
          	
                  Dated

                	
                  11/10/10

                
	 	 
	
                  Print
      name

                	
                  James
      Albion

                
	 	 
	
                  Address

                	
                  5621 Strand Blvd. Suite #203  •  Naples,
      Florida 34110

                
	 
      	 
      
	
                  Signature

                	
                  /s/:
      James Albion
[Proposed] Judgment Granting Plaintiffs’ Liquidated Damages and Interest

Case No. CV 09-0660 WHA

WEINBERG, ROGER & 

ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

1001 Marina Village Parkway

Suite 200

Alameda, CA 94501-1091

510.337.1001

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

BARRY E. HINKLE, Bar No. 071223

PATRICIA A. DAVIS, Bar No. 179074

CONCEPCIÓN E. LOZANO-BATISTA, Bar No. 227227

KRISTINA M. ZINNEN, Bar No. 245346

WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200

Alameda, CA 94501-1091

Telephone (510) 337-1001

Facsimile (510) 337-1023

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, in their 

capacities as Trustees of the CEMENT 

MASONS HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST 

FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, 

CEMENT MASONS PENSION TRUST FUND 

FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, CEMENT 

MASONS VACATION/HOLIDAY TRUST 

FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, 

CEMENT MASONS APPRENTICESHIP AND 

TRAINING TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN 

CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RBS WASHINGTON BLVD., LLC, a California

Limited Liability Company,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-0660 WHA

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT 

GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND 

INTEREST

This Court issued its Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Liquidated Damages and Interest against 

RBS WASHINGTON BLVD., LLC, a California Limited Liability Company (hereinafter 

“Defendant”), which was signed by the Honorable William H. Alsup and filed with the Court on 

January 19, 2010. Said Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:09-cv-00660-WHA Document 44 Filed 02/16/10 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

[Proposed] Judgment Granting Plaintiffs’ Liquidated Damages and Interest

Case No. CV 09-0660 WHA

WEINBERG, ROGER & 

ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

1001 Marina Village Parkway

Suite 200

Alameda, CA 94501-1091

510.337.1001

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

JUDGMENT IS HEREBY ENTERED AS FOLLOWS: Defendant is ordered to pay to 

Plaintiffs liquidated damages n the amount of $300 and interest in the amount of $7,374.69.

DATED: 

HONORABLE WILLIAM ALSUP

JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT

February 16, 2010.

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge William Alsup

Case 3:09-cv-00660-WHA Document 44 Filed 02/16/10 Page 2 of 2
### §7551. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 95–95, title II, §203, Aug. 7, 1977, 91 Stat. 754; Pub. L. 97–375, title I, §106(a), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1820, which required the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to report to Congress respecting the motor vehicle fuel consumption associated with the standards applicable for the immediately preceding model year, terminated, effective May 15, 2000, pursuant to section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, as amended, set out as a note under section 1113 of Title 31, Money and Finance. See, also, the 5th item on page 165 of House Document No. 103–7. Section was enacted as part of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, and not as part of the Clean Air Act which comprises this chapter.
§ 513.610 Coverage. ( a ) This subpart applies to any grantee of the Board.
( b ) This subpart applies to any grant, except where application of this subpart would be inconsistent with the international obligations of the United States or the laws or regulations of a foreign government. A determination of such inconsistency may be made only by the Board head or his/her designee.
( c ) The provisions of subparts A, B, C, D and E of this part apply to matters covered by this subpart, except where specifically modified by this subpart. In the event of any conflict between provisions of this subpart and other provisions of this part, the provisions of this subpart are deemed to control with respect to the implementation of drug-free workplace requirements concerning grants.
### §6870. Prohibition against discrimination; notification to funded project of violation; penalties for failure to comply

(a) No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, national origin, or sex, or on the ground of any other factor specified in any Federal law prohibiting discrimination, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program, project, or activity supported in whole or in part with financial assistance under this part.

(b) Whenever the Secretary determines that a recipient of financial assistance under this part has failed to comply with subsection (a) or any applicable regulation, he shall notify the recipient thereof in order to secure compliance. If, within a reasonable period of time thereafter, such recipient fails to comply, the Secretary shall—

(1) refer the matter to the Attorney General with a recommendation that an appropriate civil action be instituted;

(2) exercise the power and functions provided by title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.] and any other applicable Federal nondiscrimination law; or

(3) take such other action as may be authorized by law.

(Pub. L. 94–385, title IV, §420, Aug. 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 1158; Pub. L. 96–294, title V, §577(2), June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 760.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, referred to in subsec. (b)(2), is Pub. L. 88–352, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 241. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is classified generally to subchapter V (§2000d et seq.) of chapter 21 of this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2000a of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

1980—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 96–294 substituted "Secretary" for "Administrator" wherever appearing.
§ 203.385 Types of satisfactory title evidence. The following types of title evidence shall be satisfactory to the Commissioner: ( a ) *Fee or owner's title policy.* A fee or owner's policy of title insurance, a guaranty or guarantee of title, or a certificate of title, issued by a title company, duly authorized by law and qualified by experience to issue such instruments. If an owner's policy of title insurance is furnished, it shall show title in the Commissioner and inure to the benefit of his successors in office.
( b ) *Mortgagee's policy of title insurance.* A mortgagee's policy of title insurance supplemented by an Abstract and an Attorney's Certificate of Title covering the period subsequent to the date of the mortgage, the terms of the policy shall be such that the liability of the title company will continue in favor of the Commissioner after title is conveyed to him. The policy may be drawn in favor of the mortgagee and the Federal Housing Commissioner, “as their interests may appear”, with the consent of the title company endorsed thereon;
( c ) *Abstract and legal opinion.* An abstract of title prepared by an abstract company or individual engaged in the business of preparing abstracts of title and accompanied by the legal opinion as to the quality of such title signed by an attorney at law experienced in examination of titles. If title evidence consists of an Abstract and an Attorney's Certificate of Title, the search shall extend for at least forty years prior to the date of the Certificate to a well recognized source of good title;
( d ) *Torrens of similar certificate.* A Torrens or similar title certificate; or
( e ) *Title standard of U.S. or State government.* Evidence of title conforming to the standards of a supervising branch of the Government of the United States or of any State or Territory thereof.
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. Section 1350, the undersigned Officer
of ERF Wireless, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,
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.



May 20, 2014



/s/H. Dean Cubley
H. Dean Cubley
Chief Executive Officer
### §7624. Cost of vapor recovery equipment

#### (a) Costs to be borne by owner of retail outlet

The regulations under this chapter applicable to vapor recovery with respect to mobile source fuels at retail outlets of such fuels shall provide that the cost of procurement and installation of such vapor recovery shall be borne by the owner of such outlet (as determined under such regulations). Except as provided in subsection (b), such regulations shall provide that no lease of a retail outlet by the owner thereof which is entered into or renewed after August 7, 1977, may provide for a payment by the lessee of the cost of procurement and installation of vapor recovery equipment. Such regulations shall also provide that the cost of procurement and installation of vapor recovery equipment may be recovered by the owner of such outlet by means of price increases in the cost of any product sold by such owner, notwithstanding any provision of law.

#### (b) Payment by lessee

The regulations of the Administrator referred to in subsection (a) shall permit a lease of a retail outlet to provide for payment by the lessee of the cost of procurement and installation of vapor recovery equipment over a reasonable period (as determined in accordance with such regulations), if the owner of such outlet does not sell, trade in, or otherwise dispense any product at wholesale or retail at such outlet.

(July 14, 1955, ch. 360, title III, §323, formerly §324, as added Pub. L. 95–95, title III, §314(a), Aug. 7, 1977, 91 Stat. 788; amended Pub. L. 95–190, §14(a)(82), Nov. 16, 1977, 91 Stat. 1404; renumbered §323 and amended Pub. L. 96–300, §1(b), (c), July 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 831.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 323 of act July 14, 1955, was classified to section 7623 of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 96–300, §1(c), July 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 831.

#### Amendments

1980—Pub. L. 96–300, §1(b), which directed that last sentence of this section be struck out was probably intended to strike sentence purportedly added by Pub. L. 95–190. See 1977 Amendment note below and section 7623(i) of this title.

1977—Pub. L. 95–190 which purported to amend subsec. (j) of this section by inserting "The Commission may appoint and fix the pay of such staff as it deems necessary." after "(j)" was not executed to this section because it did not contain a subsec. (j). See 1980 Amendment note above.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Aug. 7, 1977, except as otherwise expressly provided, see section 406(d) of Pub. L. 95–95, set out as an Effective Date of 1977 Amendment note under section 7401 of this title.
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 200.55 Financing fees and charges.

Fees and charges approved by the Commissioner in excess of the initial service charge shall be deposited with the mortgagee in cash before initial endorsement, except as otherwise preapproved by the Commissioner.
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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING WAL-MART’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF, CASE NO. 08-5221-SI 

Gibson, Dunn & 

Crutcher LLP 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES RIDGEWAY, JAIME FAMOSO, 

JOSHUA HAROLD, RICHARD BYERS, DAN 

THATCHER, NINO PAGTAMA, WILLIE 

FRANKLIN, TIM OPITZ, FARRIS DAY, KARL 

MERHOFF, and MICHAEL KROHN,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware 

corporation d/b/a WAL-MART 

TRANSPORTATION LLC, and Does One 

through and including Doe Fifty, 

Defendants. 

[Previously captioned as Bryan et al. v. Wal-Mart 

Stores, Inc.] 

CASE NO. 3:08-cv-05221-SI 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANT WAL-MART STORES, INC.’S 

EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 

TO EXTEND THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

AND HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFFS’ 

SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

ADJUDICATION 

Case 3:08-cv-05221-SI Document 259 Filed 02/17/16 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 

1 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING WAL-MART’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF, CASE NO. 08-5221-SI 

Gibson, Dunn & 

Crutcher LLP 

Having reviewed all papers filed in support of and in opposition to Wal-Mart’s motion, and 

for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS Wal-Mart’s Motion for Administrative Relief. 

Wal-Mart shall have until the later of March 24, 2016 or two weeks after the completion of the 40 

class member depositions and named Plaintiff depositions to file a response to Plaintiffs’ second 

Motion for Summary Adjudication (ECF No. 255). 

 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: ____________________ 

 Honorable Susan Illston 

 United States District Judge 

25

 Reply due: 4/8/16, Hearing scheduled for 

April 22, 2016, at 10:00 a.m.

Case 3:08-cv-05221-SI Document 259 Filed 02/17/16 Page 2 of 2
### SUBCHAPTER LIV—TOUCHET DIVISION; WALLA WALLA PROJECT, OREGON-WASHINGTON
#### Sergio GONZALEZ-ESTRADA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-72990.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2007.*

Filed March 16, 2007.

Sergio Gonzalez-Estrada, Long Beach, CA, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Stacy S. Paddack, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Sergio Gonzalez-Estrada, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for re*562view of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, *Ram v. INS,*243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review Gonzalez-Estrada’s contentions regarding the agency’s adverse credibility and continuous physical presence findings because he failed to raise those issues before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).

We do not consider Gonzalez-Estrada’s contentions regarding hardship and good moral character because the record indicates that the agency did not reach those issues.

Gonzalez-Estrada’s equal protection challenge to the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act is foreclosed by our decision in *Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft,*291 F.3d 594, 603 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Congress’s decision to afford more favorable treatment to certain aliens ‘stems from a rational diplomatic decision to encourage such aliens to remain in the United States’ ”).

Gonzalez-Estrada’s remaining contentions are also without merit.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part, DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition, is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AS OF JUNE 30, 1997 AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AS PROVIDED ON FORM 10-QSB FOR THE 2ND
QUARTER 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-QSB
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       8,176,469
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  104,977
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  8,220,126
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,529
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,503,101
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,777,495
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,725,606
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,503,101
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               161,056
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               267,213
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (80,283)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (80,283)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Weaver Merchandise Company *v.*Ferguson.

April 12, 1912.

Action for damages. Before Judge Beagan. Upson 'superior court. December 27, 1910.

*Claude Worrill,*for plaintiff in error.

*Tisinger & Davis*and *Bloodtvorfh & Bloodworth,*contra.

Fish, C. J.

The only error alleged to have been committed upon the trial was the admission of certain evidence. Such evidence was not inadmissible because of any objection made thereto. The verdict was not without evidence to support it, and there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to grant a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
### §9858o. Parental rights and responsibilities

#### (a) In general

Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed or applied in any manner to infringe on or usurp the moral and legal rights and responsibilities of parents or legal guardians.

#### (b) Parental rights to use child care certificates

Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed in a manner—

(1) to favor or promote the use of grants and contracts for the receipt of child care services under this subchapter over the use of child care certificates; or

(2) to disfavor or discourage the use of such certificates for the purchase of child care services, including those services provided by private or nonprofit entities, such as faith-based providers.

(Pub. L. 97–35, title VI, §658Q, as added Pub. L. 101–508, title V, §5082(2), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388–249; amended Pub. L. 102–401, §3(a), Oct. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1959; Pub. L. 102–586, §8(c)(1), Nov. 4, 1992, 106 Stat. 5036; Pub. L. 113–186, §11, Nov. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 2001.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2014—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 113–186 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted heading, and added subsec. (b).

1992—Pub. L. 102–401 and Pub. L. 102–586 made identical technical corrections to directory language of Pub. L. 101–508, §5082(2), which added this section.