alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 206.37 Credit standing. ( a ) Each borrower shall have a general credit standing satisfactory to the Commissioner.
( b ) *Required Financial Assessment* — ( 1 ) *Requirement for Financial Assessment prior to loan approval.* Prior to loan approval, the mortgagee shall assess the financial capacity of the borrower to comply with the terms of the mortgage and evaluate whether the HECM is a sustainable solution for the borrower, in accordance with instructions established by the Commissioner through notice. The Financial Assessment shall consider the borrower's credit history, cash flow and residual income, extenuating circumstances, and compensating factors. ( i ) *Credit history.* In accordance with FHA guidelines in existence at the time of FHA Case Number assignment, mortgagees shall conduct an in-depth credit history analysis to determine if the borrower has demonstrated the willingness to meet his or her financial obligations.
( ii ) *Cash flow and residual income analysis.* In accordance with FHA guidelines in existence at the time of FHA Case Number assignment, mortgagees shall conduct a cash flow and residual income analysis to determine the capacity of the borrower to meet his or her documented financial obligations with his or her documented income.
( iii ) *Extenuating circumstances.* Where the borrower's credit history does not meet the criteria set by the mortgagee based on FHA guidelines in existence at the time of FHA Case Number assignment, mortgagees shall consider and document, as part of the Financial Assessment, extenuating circumstances that led to the credit issues.
( iv ) *Compensating factors.* The mortgagee shall document and identify in the Financial Assessment any considered compensating factors.
( 2 ) *Completion and approval of Financial Assessment.* The Financial Assessment shall be completed and approved by a DE Underwriter registered in HUD's system of record by the underwriting mortgagee.
( 3 ) *Nondiscrimination.* ( i ) The Financial Assessment shall be conducted in a uniform manner that shall not discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, disability, marital status, actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, source of income of the borrower, location of the property, or because the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1601 *et seq.*).
( ii ) The Financial Assessment shall be conducted in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, including but not limited to, the following: ( A ) Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601 *et seq.*);
( B ) Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 *et seq.*);
( C ) Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691 *et seq.*); and
( D ) Regulation B (12 CFR part 1002).
Exhibit
      32.1




**CERTIFICATION**




I,
      Steven
      Walin, Chief Executive Officer of GVI Security Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”),
      hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(i)
      The
      Company’s accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended
      September 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(ii)
      The
      information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/
                Steven WalinSteven
                WalinChief
                Executive OfficerDated:
                November 13, 2008
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1803
FRANKLIN D. STEVENSON, Petitioner,
v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS; ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY, Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (06-0799-BLA) Submitted: March 31, 2008 Decided: April 17, 2008 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Franklin D. Stevenson, Petitioner Pro Se. Patricia May Nece, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Mary Rich Maloy, Douglas Allan Smoot, JACKSON & KELLY, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; Kathy Lynn Snyder, JACKSON & KELLY, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Franklin D. Stevenson seeks to appeal the Benefits Review Board’s order affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s decision and order on remand denying Stevenson’s application for black lung benefits. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the petition for review was not timely filed. In a black lung benefits case, a party seeking review of a decision and order issued by the Board must file a petition for review in the court of appeals within sixty days after the order is issued. 33 U.S.C. § 921(c) (2000). The sixty-day period for seeking review is jurisdictional, and a petition for review must be filed with the clerk of this court to stop the running of this period. Adkins v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs , 889 F.2d 1360, 1363 (4th C ir. 1989). “[T]he sixty day filing period begins to run with the filing of a Board opinion with the Clerk of the Board.” Mining Energy, Inc. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs , 391 F.3d 571, 575-76 (4th Cir. 2004). In this case, the Board’s decision was issued and served on the parties on June 15, 2007. Stevenson’s petition for review was not filed until August 17, 2007, three days after the appeal period expired. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
Supplementary Agreement to the Share Pledge Agreement
 this Agreement PRC China
 Party A:
    
    Ku6 (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd.(hereinafter Pledgee)Address:
    
    Room A402, Great Wall Computer Tower,
No. Jia 38, Xueyuan Road, Haidian
District, BeijingParty B:
    
    Hailong Han (hereinafter Pledgor)ID Number:
    
    34122319860618351XParty C:
    
    Ku6 (Beijing) Information Technology Co., Ltd.Address:
    
    Room A401, Great Wall Computer Tower, No. Jia
38, Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing
  Whereas:
 1.
    
    The Pledgee, Pledgor and Party C concluded and executed an Exclusive Business Operation
Agreement and an Share pledge Agreement on April 11, 2007; the Pledgor pledged all its
equity interest held in Party C, equal to RMB 200,000.00 capital contribution, to the Pledgee
to secure Party Cs payment obligations under the Exclusive Business Operation Agreement.
 2.
    
    Subject to Party As prior consent, Party C increased its registered capital to RMB 10
million on May 13, 2008, and the newly increased registered capital, equally to RMB 9 million
shall be subscribed and contributed by Beijing Tuohua Management and Consultation Co., Ltd.
(Tuohua). After this capital increase, Tuohua holds 90% equity interests of Party C and
the Pledgor holds 2% equity interests of Party C.
 3.
    
    The Pledgee and Party C concluded and executed a new Exclusive Business Cooperation
Agreement (New Cooperation Agreement) on June 23, 2008, which shall supersede the original
Exclusive Business Cooperation Agreement executed between the two parties on April 11,
2007. And
 4.
    
    To better ensure Party C to perform its obligations under the New Cooperation Agreement, to
pay the payable consultation fee and service fee to the Pledgee.
  1.
    
    The Pledgor herein pledges all its equity interests in Party C (i.e. 2% of Party
Cs equity interests it holds) to the Pledgee, to secure Party Cs payment obligations
under the New Cooperation Agreement.




---



##### 



2.
    
    Once the Administration for Industry and Commerce (AIC) accepts the registration
of the pledge on the equity, then Party B and Party C shall handle the share pledge
registration formalities within 10 working days as of the acceptance date of the AIC, to
which, Party A shall also provide assistance.
 3.
    
    This Agreement is a supplementary agreement to the Share Pledge Agreement, which
shall be legally binding on the Pledgee, Pledgor and Party C. If there is any
inconsistence between this Agreement and the Share Pledge Agreement, this Agreement
shall prevail. Other provisions of the Share Pledge Agreement which are not mentioned
or covered in this Agreement shall remain effective.
     2




---



##### 



Party A: Ku6 (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd.
Signature:
Name: Shanyou Li
Title: Legal Representative
 Party B: Hailong Han

Signature:
 Party C: Ku6 (Beijing) Information Technology Co., Ltd.
Signature:
Name: Shanyou Li
Title: Legal Representative
   3
### Acetamide herbicides and their degradation products in ground water and surface water of the United States, 1993-2003

By: Elisabeth A. ScribnerJulie E. Dietze**Michael Thurman

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds88

#### Links

- More information:  **Publisher Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract
§ 115.300 Purpose. The purpose of the Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) is to provide assistance and reimbursement to state and local fair housing enforcement agencies. The intent of this funding program is to build a coordinated intergovernmental enforcement effort to further fair housing and to encourage the agencies to assume a greater share of the responsibility for the administration and enforcement of fair housing laws. The financial assistance is designed to provide support for: ( a ) The processing of dual-filed complaints;
( b ) Training under the Fair Housing Act and the agencies' fair housing law;
( c ) The provision of technical assistance;
( d ) The creation and maintenance of data and information systems; and
( e ) The development and enhancement of fair housing education and outreach projects, special fair housing enforcement efforts, fair housing partnership initiatives, and other fair housing projects.
Opinion issued August 8 , 2024

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 24 - 00182 - CR

——————————— JONATHAN BLANDON , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1784833

MEMORANDU M OPINION Appellant, Jonathan Blandon , was charged with the first

- degree felony offense of aggravated sexual assault. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement with the State, appellant pleaded guilty to the reduced second

- degree felony offense of sexual assault , with an agreed punishment recommendation of three years ’ incarceration

.2

The trial court accepted the plea agreement, found appellant guilty of the offense of sexual assault , and assessed punishment at three years ’ incarceration. The trial court certified that this case is a plea

- bargain case and appellant has no right of appeal. Appellant, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal. In a plea

- bargain case, a defendant may only appeal those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial court's permission to appeal. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. art. 44.02; T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d); see Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Here, the clerk ’ s record supports the trial court ’ s certification that this is a plea

bargain case and that appellant has no right of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d); Dears , 154 S.W.3d at 615. Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must dismiss this appeal without further action. See Chavez v. State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who plea

- bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a), must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.”). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.3 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Kelly , Landau, and Rivas

- Molloy

. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2( b).
§ 232.885 Insurance benefits. ( a ) *Method of payment.* Payment of an insurance claim shall be made in cash, in debentures, or in a combination of both, as determined by the Commissioner either at, or prior to, the time of payment.
( b ) *Amount of payment.* Upon an acceptable assignment of the note and security instrument, the Commissioner shall pay the claim of the lender in an amount equal to the unpaid principal balance of the loan as of the date of default determined as follows: ( 1 ) By adding the following items: ( i ) Any accrued interest due as of the date of execution of the assignment of the loan to the Commissioner.
( ii ) Any advances approved by the Commissioner made previously by the lender under the provisions of the note or security instrument or instruments.
( iii ) Reimbursement for such reasonable collection costs, court costs, and attorney's fees as may be approved by the Commissioner.
( iv ) Any loan insurance premiums paid after default.
( v ) If payment is made in cash, an amount equivalent to the debenture interest which would have been earned thereon, as of the date such cash payment is made, except when the lender fails to meet any one of the applicable requirements of §§ 232.850, 232.875, and 232.880, within the specified time and in a manner satisfactory to the Commissioner (or within such further time as the Commissioner may approve in writing), the interest allowance in such cash payment shall be computed only to the date on which the particular required action should have been taken or to which it was extended.
( 2 ) By deducting from the total of the items computed under paragraph (b)(1) of this section the following items: ( i ) Any amount received by the lender on account of the loan after the date of default.
( ii ) Any net income received by the lender from the property covered by the note or security instrument and not applied to prior debts held by that lender.
( iii ) The sum of the cash items retained by the lender pursuant to § 232.880(h)(i)(ii).
[39 FR 28970, Aug. 12, 1974, as amended at 80 FR 51468, Aug. 25, 2015]
#### § 206.13 Disclosure of available HECM program options.

At the time of initial contact, the mortgagee shall inform the prospective HECM borrower, in a manner acceptable to the Commissioner, of all products, features, and options of the HECM program that FHA will insure under this part, including: fixed interest rate mortgages with the Single Lump Sum payment option; adjustable interest rate mortgages with tenure, term, and line of credit disbursement options, or a combination of these; any other FHA insurable disbursement options; and initial mortgage insurance premium options, and how those affect the availability of other mortgage and disbursement options.
#### Abraham Kaufman et al. v. Joseph Gordon et al.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellants procure the record on appeal and appellants’ points to be served and filed on or before September 6, 1960, with notice of argument for the October 1960 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente and Bergan, JJ.
### §774. Protection of surveyor by marshal

Whenever the President is satisfied that forcible opposition has been offered, or is likely to be offered, to any surveyor or deputy surveyor in the discharge of his duties in surveying the public lands, it may be lawful for the President to order the marshal of the State or district, by himself or deputy, to attend such surveyor or deputy surveyor with sufficient force to protect such officer in the execution of his duty, and to remove force should any be offered.

(R.S. §2413.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

R.S. §2413 derived from act May 29, 1830, ch. 163, §2, 4 Stat. 417.
#### § 25.8 Factors considered in taking administrative action.

In determining which administrative action under 12 U.S.C. 1708(c), if any, should be taken, the Board will consider, among other factors, the seriousness and extent of the violations, the degree of mortgagee responsibility for the occurrences, and any other mitigating or aggravating facts. Where the Board is considering a withdrawal action, the Board will also consider whether the violations were egregious or willful, in order to determine whether a permanent withdrawal is mandated by 12 U.S.C. 1708(c).

[73 FR 60541, Oct. 10, 2008]
#### Marie Jackson v. A. B. & C. Motor Transportation Corp. et al.

Motion for leave to appeal as a poor person granted insofar as to permit the appeal to be heard upon a typewritten or mimeographed record, without printing the same, and upon typewritten or mimeographed appellant’s points, upon condition that the appellant serves one copy of the typewritten or mimeographed record find one copy of the typewritten or mimeographed appellant’s points on the attorney for the defendants-respondents and files 6 typewritten copies or 19 mimeographed copies of both the record on appeal and appellant’s points with this court. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Bergan, JJ.
#### Darin Gioeli et al., Appellants, v State of New York, Respondent.

[832 NYS2d 816]

In a claim to recover damages for unjust conviction and imprisonment pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 8-b, the claimants appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Lack, J.), dated March 16, 2006, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*816Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 8-b (3), in order to make out a claim for unjust conviction and imprisonment, the claimants were required to establish by documentary evidence that the claimant Darin Gioeli had been convicted of one or more felonies, was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, that he served a part of the sentence, and that his judgment of conviction was reversed and the indictment dismissed *(see David W. v State of New York,*27 AD3d 111 [2006]). The requirements of the statute are to be strictly construed *(see Groce v State of New York,*272 AD2d 519, 520 [2000]; *Reed v State of New York,*78 NY2d 1 [1991]; *Fudger v State of New York,*131 AD2d 136, 140 [1987]).

Here, the Court of Claims properly dismissed the claim due to the claimants’ failure to submit the required documentary evidence with their claim *(see Vigliotti v State of New York,*24 AD3d 1217, 1218 [2005]; *Piccarreto v State of New York,*144 AD2d 920 [1988]; *Stewart v State of New York,*133 AD2d 112, 113 [1987]). Prudenti, P.J., Schmidt, Krausman and Balkin, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION**





In
      connection with the periodic report
      of Delta Financial Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
      June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
“Report”), I, Richard Blass, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
      certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,
      Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
      knowledge:





1.
            The
                Report fully complies with the
                requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the
                periods
                indicated.





This
      Certification has not been, and
      shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission.





Date: August
            13, 2007





/s/
        Richard Blass


Richard
      Blass


*Executive
      Vice President and Chief
      Financial Officer*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas J. S., Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County, rendered October 18, 1976, adjudicating him a youthful offender, upon his conviction of burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing a sentence of five years’ probation. The jury acquitted the defendant of charges of grand larceny in the third degree and possession of stolen property in the second degree. Judgment reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered. The trial court charged the jury that defendant could be convicted of burglary in the third degree if there was an unlawful entry with an intent to commit *any crime*on the premises. However, the indictment only charged defendant with unlawful entry with intent *to commit larceny*on the premises. This charge constituted an improper submission to the jury of theories not charged in the indictment and not the subject of proof at the trial. Reversal is required even though no exception to the charge was made by defense counsel *(People v Santana,*42 AD2d 869; *People v Rivera,*56 AD2d 701). Damiani, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50041 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LUIS SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-95-CV-1033 and SA-94-CR-174

- - - - - - - - - - November 25, 1996 Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Luis Sanchez, # 63949-080, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Having reviewed Sanchez’ arguments and the record on appeal, we affirm for essentially the same reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Sanchez , SA-95-CV-1033 and SA-94-CR-174 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 3, 1996). Additionally, Sanchez’ claims are meritless under the intervening decision of United States v. Ursery , 116 S. Ct. 2135 (1996).No. - 2 - AFFIRMED.
### §2010. Negotiations with Government of Canada

With respect to any crude oil transportation system approved under section 2007(a) of this title all or any part of which is to be located in Canada, the President of the United States is authorized and requested to enter into negotiations with the Government of Canada to determine what measures can be taken to expedite the granting of approvals by the Government of Canada for construction or operation of such system, and he is authorized and requested to explore the possibility of further exchanges of crude oil supplies between the United States and Canada.

(Pub. L. 95–617, title V, §510, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3163.)