alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 96.34 Compensation. ( a ) The agency or person does not compensate any individual who provides intercountry adoption services with an incentive fee or contingent fee for each child located or placed for adoption.
( b ) The agency or person compensates its directors, officers, employees, and supervised providers who provide intercountry adoption services only for services actually rendered and only on a fee-for-service, hourly wage, or salary basis rather than a contingent fee basis.
( c ) The agency or person does not make any payments, promise payment, or give other consideration to any individual directly or indirectly involved in provision of adoption services in a particular case, except for salaries or fees for services actually rendered and reimbursement for costs incurred. This does not prohibit an agency or person from providing in-kind or other donations not intended to influence or affect a particular adoption.
( d ) The fees, wages, or salaries paid to the directors, officers, employees, and supervised providers of the agency or person are not unreasonably high in relation to the services actually rendered, taking into account the country in which the adoption services are provided and norms for compensation within the intercountry adoption community in that country, to the extent that such norms are known to the accrediting entity; the location, number, and qualifications of staff; workload requirements; budget; and size of the agency or person.
( e ) Any other compensation paid to the agency's or person's directors or members of its governing body is not unreasonably high in relation to the services rendered, taking into account the same factors listed in paragraph (d) of this section and its for-profit or nonprofit status.
( f ) The agency or person identifies all vendors to whom clients are referred for non-adoption services and discloses to the accrediting entity any corporate or financial arrangements and any family relationships with such vendors.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RELATED CASE ORDER

An Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related hasbeen filed, stating that the following cases may be related within the meaning of CivilL.R. 3-12:

C 09-1797 MMC Seielstad, et al. v. Aegis Senior Communities LLCC 10-2060 EDL Morris, et al. v. Aegis Senior Communities LLC 

ORDER

On the basis of the material submitted to the Court, as the Judge assigned to theearliest filed case, I find that the cases:

[    ]  ARE NOT RELATED as defined by Civil L.R. 3-12(a).

[ X ]  ARE RELATED as defined by Civil L.R. 3-12(a).  Counsel areinstructed that all future filings in the reassigned case are to bear the initials MMCimmediately after the case number.  Any case management conference in thereassigned case will be rescheduled by the Court.  Any dates for hearing noticedmotions are vacated and must be re-noticed by the moving party before theundersigned; any deadlines set by the ADR Local Rules remain in effect; and anydeadlines established in a case management order continue to govern, except dates forappearance in court, which will be rescheduled by the undersigned.

DATED: August 4, 2010                                                         MAXINE M. CHESNEYUnited States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01797-MMC   Document 45   Filed 08/04/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-12T22:12:26-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 77761]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28313]



[[Page 77761]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel Unsolicited P01.
    Date: January 18, 2005.
    Time: 2 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6700B 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Thomas J. Hiltke, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 6700B Rockledge 
Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, (301) 496-2550, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#67130f0e0b0c0227090e060e0349090e0f49000811"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="05716d6c696e60456b6c646c612b6b6c6d2b626a73">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS.)

    Dated: December 20, 2004.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 04-28313 Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 1003.507 Public access to program records.

Notwithstanding the provisions of 2 CFR 200.337, grantees shall provide citizens with reasonable access to records regarding the past use of ICDBG funds, consistent with applicable State and tribal laws regarding privacy and obligations of confidentiality.

[62 FR 12349, Mar. 12, 1998, as amended at 80 FR 75945, Dec. 7, 2015]
#### § 13.4 Reports.

HUD shall compile and submit to Office of Juvenile Justice and Deliquency Prevention (OJJDP), by June 30, 1987, a consolidated report on its experience in implementing S. 1195 *Official Mail Use in the Location and Recovery of Missing Children* along with recommendations for future Departmental action.
### §9858a. Establishment of block grant program

The Secretary is authorized to make grants to States in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 97–35, title VI, §658C, as added Pub. L. 101–508, title V, §5082(2), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388–236; 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.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sammie E. Flowers, Appellant.

Motion by respondent to dismiss appeal denied. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYNE KERRY CAPTAIN,

Plaintiff,

    v.

ANTIOCH POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendant.                                                                           /

No. C 08-5294 MHP

ORDER

Re:  Defendants’ Motion for SummaryJudgment

On March 5, 2010, defendants Matt Koch, Anthony Morefield and Jason Vanderpool moved

this court for summary judgment against plaintiff regarding all claims contained in plaintiff’s

complaint.  Plaintiff failed to file an opposition.  See Docket No. 21 (Opposition to be filed by April

9, 2010).  Defendants’ unopposed motion is therefore GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED.

The Clerk of Court shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2010                                                               MARILYN HALL PATELUnited States District Court JudgeNorthern District of California

Case 3:08-cv-05294-MHP   Document 35   Filed 04/28/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-09T01:57:00-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NOS.  2-10-236-CR

					        2-10-237-CR

					        2-10-238-CR

					        2-10-239-CR

					        2-10-240-CR

					        2-10-241-CR

					        2-10-242-CR

					        2-10-243-CR

EX PARTE KORY MICHAEL GAUTREAUX

	------------

	FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

	------------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

	------------

	Appellant Kory Michael Gautreaux attempts to appeal from the trial court’s April 30, 2010 orders setting the conditions of bond.  Appellant’s notice of appeal was due by June 1, 2010, but was not filed until June 14, 2010.  See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1).  On June 25, 2010, we notified Appellant of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over these appeals due to their untimeliness and informed him that we would dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeals filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeals by July 5, 2010.  See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3.  Appellant responded to our jurisdictional letter on July 18, 2010, but the response does not show grounds for continuing the appeals.

	A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of rule 26 is essential to vest this court with jurisdiction.  Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).  The court of criminal appeals has expressly held that, without a timely filed notice of appeal or motion for extension of time, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal.  See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210.

	Because Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely, we have no basis for jurisdiction over the appeals.  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

							PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  August 19, 2010
EXHIBIT 32.1



                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Advanced Optics Electronics, Inc. Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Leslie S. Robins,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

     (1)      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 contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
              fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition
              and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Advanced Optics Electronics, Inc. and will be retained by Advanced
Optics Electronics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.


/s/ Leslie S. Robins
--------------------
Leslie S. Robins
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

August 14, 2003
§ 203.675 Notice to occupants of pending acquisition. ( a ) At least 60 days, but not more than 90 days, before the date on which the mortgagee reasonably expects to acquire title to the property, the mortgagee shall notify the mortgagor and each head of household who is actually occupying a unit of the property of its potential acquisition by HUD. The mortgagee shall send a copy of this notification to the appropriate HUD Field Office.
( b ) The notice shall provide a brief summary of the conditions under which continued occupancy is permissible and advise them that: ( 1 ) Potential acquisition of the property by the Secretary is pending;
( 2 ) The Secretary requires that properties be vacant at the time of conveyance to the Secretary, unless the mortgagor or other occupant can meet the conditions for continued occupancy in § 203.670, the habitability criteria in § 203.673, and the eligibility criteria in § 203.674;
( 3 ) An occupant may request permission to remain in occupancy in the event of acquisition of the property by the Secretary by notifying the HUD Field Office in writing, with any required documentation, within 20 days of the date of the mortgagee's notice to the occupant;
( 4 ) If an occupant seeks to qualify for continued occupancy under the illness or injury provisions of § 203.674(a), the occupant shall provide to the HUD Field Office, at the time of the occupant's request for permission to remain in occupancy, documentation to support this claim. Documentation shall include an estimate of the time when the patient could be moved without severely aggravating the illness or injury, and a statement by a State-certified physician establishing the validity of the occupant's claim. HUD may require more than one medical opinion or may arrange an examination by a physician approved by HUD; and
( 5 ) If an occupant fails to make a timely request, the property must be vacated before the scheduled time of acquisition.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2502-0268) [53 FR 875, Jan. 14, 1988, and 53 FR 8626, Mar. 16, 1988, as amended at 58 FR 54246, Oct. 20, 1993]
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2912 

To reauthorize provisions in the Native American Housing Assistance and 

Self-Determination Act of 1996 relating to Native Hawaiian low-income 

housing and Federal loan guarantees for Native Hawaiian housing. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 15, 2005 

Mr. CASE (for himself and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To reauthorize provisions in the Native American Housing 

Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 relating 

to Native Hawaiian low-income housing and Federal loan 

guarantees for Native Hawaiian housing. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION. 

4 Section 824 of the Native American Housing Assist5 ance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 

6 4243) is amended by striking ‘‘fiscal years’’ and all that 

7 follows and inserting ‘‘fiscal years 2006 through 2009’’. 

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Arc Communications Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned principal financial officer of the Company hereby 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 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 Company as of
and for the periods covered in the Report.



                        /s/ Frank Elenio
                        -------------------------------
                            Frank Elenio
                            Chief Financial Officer
                            Arc Communications Inc.



June 10, 2004

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part
of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to ARC Communications Inc. and will be retained by ARC Communications
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
§ 201.24 Security requirements. ( a ) *Property improvement loans* — ( 1 ) *Property improvement loans in excess of $7,500.* ( i ) Any property improvement loan in excess of $7,500 shall be secured by a recorded lien on the improved property. The lien shall be evidenced by a mortgage or deed of trust, executed by the borrower and all other owners in fee simple.
( ii ) If the borrower is a lessee, the borrower and all owners in fee simple must execute the mortgage or deed of trust. If the borrower is purchasing the property under a land installment contract, the borrower, all owners in fee simple, and all intervening contract sellers must execute the mortgage or deed of trust.
( iii ) The lien need not be a first lien on the property; however, the lien securing the Title I loan must hold no less than the second lien position. This requirement shall not apply where the first and second mortgages were made at the same time or the second mortgage was provided by a state or local government agency in conjunction with a downpayment assistance program.
( 2 ) *Property improvement loans of $7,500 or less.* Any property improvement loan for $7,500 or less (other than a manufactured home improvement loan) shall be similarly secured if, including any such additional loans, the total amount of all Title I loans on the improved property is more than $7,500.
( 3 ) *Manufactured home improvement loans.* Manufactured home improvement loans need not be secured.
( b ) *Manufactured home loans.* Any manufactured home loan shall be secured by a recorded lien on the home (or lot or home and lot, as appropriate), its furnishings, equipment, accessories, and appurtenances. The lien shall be a first lien, superior to any other lien on that property, and shall be evidenced by a properly recorded financing statement, a properly recorded security instrument executed by the borrower and any other owner of the property, or another acceptable instrument, such as a certificate of title issued by the State and containing a recitation of the lender's lien interest in the manufactured home.
( c ) *Recording and perfection of security.* The lender shall assure that the legal description of the property as recited in the security instrument is accurate, and that the security instrument creates a valid and enforceable lien on the property in the jurisdiction in which the property is located. The security instrument shall be recorded and perfected in the manner specified by applicable State law in the State where the property is located.
( d ) *Substitution or subordination of security.* The Secretary may approve substitution or subordination of security where the security value will not be impaired or reduced.
( e ) *Release of liability or lien.* The lender shall not release the borrower or any co-maker or co-signer from any liability under a note or from any lien securing a loan insured under this part without the prior approval of the Secretary.
[50 FR 43523, Oct. 25, 1985, as amended at 51 FR 32060, Sept. 9, 1986; 54 FR 36265, Aug. 31, 1989; 61 FR 19798, May 2, 1996; 66 FR 56419, Nov. 7, 2001]
#### Town of Comer *v.*Ætna Indemnity Company.

May 18, 1912.

Action on bond. Before Judge Bell. Fulton superior court. July 1, 1911.

*J. J. Strickland,*for plaintiff. . *Dodd & Dodd,*for defendant.

Evans, P. J.

This ease was tried before the judge without a jury. The evidence, though conflicting on the substantial issues, was suificient to authorize the verdict. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
§ 241.1010 Feasibility letter. ( a ) *Request for study.* The owner may request the Commissioner to undertake a feasibility analysis of an equity or acquisition loan, and issue a feasibility letter. At the discretion of the Commissioner the feasibility analysis may be undertaken or denied.
( b ) *Findings.* The issuance of a feasibility letter indicates completion of the Commissioner's preliminary analysis for the insurance of an equity or acquisition loan. The feasibility letter shall contain the Commissioner's estimate of the supportable loan amount, based upon the project's equity in the case of an equity loan and based on the project's purchase price in the case of an acquisition loan, but such feasibility letter shall neither constitute a commitment to insure nor bind the Commissioner in any other manner.
( c ) *Fee.* The Commissioner shall not charge a fee for undertaking a feasibility analysis or for the issuance of a feasibility letter.
Docket No: FAA - 2015 - 0680 Dir ID: 2014 - NM - 165 -AD
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 23

- 12046

Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________

SHANNON SIMMONS, ERANUS ROBERSON,
Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

versus FUTO'S, INC., NOMAN RASHID,

Defendants

- Appellees.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia USCA11 Case: 23-12046 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 12/26/2023 Page: 1 of 22 Opinion of the Court 23

- 12046

D.C. Docket No. 1:21

- cv

- 03591

- TWT

____________________
Before J ILL P RYOR , BRANCH , and L AGOA , Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: Upon our review of the record and the parties’ responses to the jurisdictional questions, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction

. The August 10, 2022 joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal was ineffective to dismiss Appellants’ claims against Steve and Charles Futo because it was not signed by all parties that had appeared in the litigation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hosp. Holdings, L.P. , 82 F.4th 1031, 1038 (11th Cir. 2023). The stipulation was signed only by counsel for the respective parties to the dismissal, and was not signed by counsel for Appellees. Accordingly, the purport edly

- dismissed claims remain pending before the district court, and we thus lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant , 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012). USCA11 Case: 23-12046 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 12/26/2023 Page: 2 of 2