alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 246.9 Request for preemption. ( a ) Upon expiration of the period for tenant comments required by this rule and after review of the comments submitted to it, the mortgagor may submit its request for preemption. That request must include the following: ( 1 ) A certification by the mortgagor following the requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section;
( 2 ) Copies of all written comments submitted by the tenants to the mortgagor;
( 3 ) The mortgagor's evaluation of the tenant's comments with respect to the request; and
( 4 ) The board's decision or a statement from the mortgagor certifying that a decision from the board has not been received.
( b ) The certification of the mortgagor as required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall include the following: ( 1 ) That the Notice required by § 246.7 was given pursuant to the provisions of that section;
( 2 ) That the mortgagor has taken reasonable steps to assure that the substance of the Notice has been conveyed to each resident household, and that the mortgagor exercised its best efforts to assure that the posted Notices were maintained intact and in legible form for the specified thirty (30) days;
( 3 ) That: ( i ) The copies of the materials submitted in support of the preemption request were located in a place reasonably convenient to tenants in the project during normal business hours and at least one evening a week after business hours, and
( ii ) that requests by tenants to inspect such materials, as provided for in the Notice, were honored;
( 4 ) That copies of all comments received from the tenants were considered and are being transmitted to HUD together with the certifications; and
( 5 ) A statement that “under the penalties and provisions of title 18 U.S.C., section 1001, the statements contained in this application and its attachments have been examined by me and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, are true, correct, and complete.”
( c ) Should the mortgagor receive a delayed decision from the board after filing its preemption request, HUD shall be informed immediately and furnished with a copy of the board's decision.
39–008

105TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 105–45

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO

SUSPEND THE RULES

APRIL 8, 1997.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. DREIER, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 107]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 107, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION

The resolution provides that suspensions will be in order on

Wednesday, April 9, 1997, and Thursday, April 10, 1997. It further

provides that the Speaker or his designee will consult with the Minority Leader or his designee on any suspension considered under

this resolution.

Æ
### §§251 to 256b. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §702, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2787

Section 251, act Mar. 3, 1879, ch. 192, 20 Stat. 472; 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 3, §403, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7876, 60 Stat. 1100, related to notice of intention to make final proof.

Section 252, act Mar. 2, 1889, ch. 381, §7, 25 Stat. 855, related to time of taking testimony for final proof in case of unavoidable delay.

Section 253, act June 3, 1878, ch. 152, 20 Stat. 91, related to publication of notice of contest.

Section 254, R.S. §2294; May 26, 1890, ch. 355, 26 Stat. 121; Mar. 3, 1893, ch. 208, 27 Stat. 593; Mar. 11, 1902, ch. 182, 32 Stat. 63; Mar. 4, 1904, ch. 394, 33 Stat. 59; Oct. 28, 1921, ch. 114, §1, 42 Stat. 208; Feb. 23, 1923, ch. 105, 42 Stat. 1281; Mar. 3, 1925, ch. 462, 43 Stat. 1145; 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 3, §403, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7876, 60 Stat. 1100; Oct. 17, 1968, Pub. L. 90–578, title IV, §402(b)(2), 82 Stat. 1118, related to officers before whom affidavits or proofs may be made, perjury, and fees.

Section 255, R.S. §2293; Oct. 6, 1917, ch. 86, 40 Stat. 391; 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 3, §403, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7876, 60 Stat. 1100, related to affidavits taken by commanding officer for person in military or naval service.

Section 256, act Mar. 4, 1913, ch. 149, §1, 37 Stat. 925, related to election as to law under which final proof may be made.

Section 256a, acts May 13, 1932, ch. 178, §§1, 2, 47 Stat. 153; June 16, 1933, ch. 99, 48 Stat. 274; July 26, 1935, ch. 419, 49 Stat. 504; June 16, 1937, ch. 361, 50 Stat. 303, related to extension of time for offering final proof, and promulgation of rules and regulations.

Section 256b, act Aug. 27, 1935, ch. 770, 49 Stat. 909, related to final proof by disabled World War I veterans.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §702, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2787, provided that the repeal made by section 702 is effective on and after Oct. 21, 1976, except such effective date to be on and after tenth anniversary of date of approval of this Act, Oct. 21, 1976, insofar as homestead laws apply to public lands in Alaska.

#### Savings Provision

Repeal by Pub. L. 94–579 not to be construed as terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, etc., existing on Oct. 21, 1976, see section 701 of Pub. L. 94–579, set out as a note under section 1701 of this title.
§ 5.4 Substantive rules of general applicability adopted as authorized by law. ( a ) The regulations of the Department of State required to be published under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (generally in title 22) and in the Federal Register. Any person desiring information with respect to a particular procedure should examine the pertinent regulation cited in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) The following paragraphs (b)(1) through (18) are citations to regulations within the scope of this section: ( 1 ) Appointment of Foreign Service Officers. 22 CFR part 11 *et seq.*
( 2 ) Schedule of Fees for Consular Services. 22 CFR part 22.
( 3 ) Claims and Stolen Property. 22 CFR part 31 *et seq.*
( 4 ) Issuance of Visas. 22 CFR parts 41-42 *et seq.*
( 5 ) Nationality and Passports. 22 CFR part 50 *et seq.*
( 6 ) International Educational and Cultural Exchanges. 22 CFR part 62 *et seq.*
( 7 ) Protection and Welfare of Americans Abroad. 22 CFR part 71 *et seq.*
( 8 ) Other Consular Services Abroad. 22 CFR part 92 *et seq.*
( 9 ) Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations. 22 CFR part 103.
( 10 ) International Trafficking in Persons. 22 CFR part 104.
( 11 ) International Traffic in Arms Regulations. 22 CFR part 121 *et seq.*
( 12 ) Certificates of Authentication. 22 CFR part 131 *et seq.*
( 13 ) Civil Rights, including implementation of Sections 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 22 CFR part 141 *et seq.*
( 14 ) Department of State Acquisition Regulation. 48 CFR chapter 6.
( 15 ) Availability of Information and Records to the Public. 22 CFR part 171.
( 16 ) Service of Process. 22 CFR part 172.
( 17 ) Availability of Public Diplomacy Program Material in the United States. 22 CFR part 173.
( 18 ) Coordination, Reporting, and Publication of International Agreements. 22 CFR part 181.
( c ) The regulations listed in paragraph (b) of this section are supplemented from time to time by amendments appearing initially in the Federal Register.
(April 10, 1962)

#### The People of the State of New York, on the Petition of Joseph Aronstein ex rel. Louis Levine, Appellant, v. Warden of the City Prison, County of New York, and/or Any Agent, Servant or Employee of the Commissioner of Correction, Respondent.

Order, entered on March 8, 1962, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.
### §437. Lands as to which entries made prior to June 25, 1910, have been relinquished

Where entries made prior to June 25, 1910, have been or may be relinquished, in whole or in part, the lands so relinquished shall be subject to settlement and entry under the reclamation law.

(June 25, 1910, ch. 407, §5, 36 Stat. 836; Feb. 18, 1911, ch. 111, 36 Stat. 918; Aug. 13, 1914, ch. 247, §10, 38 Stat. 689.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The reclamation law, referred to in text, probably means act June 17, 1902, ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388, popularly known as the Reclamation Act, which is classified generally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 371 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section comprises part of section 5 of act June 25, 1910, as amended by acts Feb. 18, 1911 and Aug. 13, 1914. Remainder of section 5 is set out as section 436 of this title.
Exhibit No. 10.5





EXHIBIT NO. 10.5




FIRST AMENDMENT TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT OF CHARLES COCOTAS

DATED JANUARY 22, 2008




This First Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement of Charles
Cocotas, dated as of January 22, 2008 (the “Employment Agreement”), is made as of June
 _____,
2010, pursuant to Section 13 of the Employment Agreement, by and between Charles Cocotas (the
“Executive”) and UFood Restaurant Group, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the
“Company”).



WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement, as further
set forth herein, in order to extend the term of the Employment Agreement.



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and conditions set forth herein, and
for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the undersigned agree as follows:



1. Section 1 of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with
the following:




Employment Period. The term of the Executive’s employment by the Company
pursuant to this Agreement (the “Employment Period”) shall commence on
January 22, 2008 and shall continue for a period of five (5) years. Thereafter,
the Employment Period shall automatically renew for successive periods of one (1)
year, unless either party shall have given to the other at least one hundred and
eighty (180) days’ prior written notice of their intention not to renew the
Executive’s employment prior to the end of the Employment Period or the then
applicable renewal term, as the case may be. In any event, the Employment Period
may be terminated as provided herein.



2. In connection with the execution of this Amendment, the Company shall grant to the
Executive non-qualified options to purchase 1,205,673 shares of the Company’s common stock at an
exercise price of $___ per share. One-half of the options shall vest upon the date of grant, and
the other half of the options shall vest in equal amounts on the first day of each month for
thirty-six months following the date of grant.



3. All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain unmodified and in
full force and effect.



[Signature Page Follows]





 


 









 







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment to Executive Employment
Agreement of Charles Cocotas, dated as of January 22, 2008, as of the date and year set forth
above.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	UFOOD RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	 	 
	 	 	Name:  	 	 
	 	 	Title:  	 	 
	 
	 	Charles Cocotas
Order issued November7, 2012

In The 

## nitrt ofAipirnb 

## ifth iiitrirt of Jtxa at Iatta No. 05-10-00737-CR JOHN AUBREY HASSELL, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ORDER Before Justices Bridges, Richter, 

### and Murphy Appellant’s July 6, 2012 motion forrehearing is DENIED. 

# (J_ 

# L /•••• DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE
§ 1000.310 What are the components of the IHBG formula? The IHBG formula consists of four components: ( a ) Formula Current Assisted Stock (FCAS) (§ 1000.316);
( b ) Need (§ 1000.324);
( c ) 1996 Minimum (§ 1000.340); and
( d ) Undisbursed IHBG funds factor (§ 1000.342).
[81 FR 83680, Nov. 22, 2016]
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 quarterly report of RoomLinX, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Aaron Dobrinsky, 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:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and
results of operations of the Company for the periods presented.

Dated:  September 13, 2005


                                           /s/ Aaron Dobrinsky
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Aaron Dobrinsky
                                           Chief Executive Officer
                                           RoomLinX, Inc

This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
### §390a. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–362, title IX, §901(e)(2), Nov. 10, 1998, 112 Stat. 3289

Section, acts July 31, 1953, ch. 298, title I, 67 Stat. 266; Pub. L. 99–294, §10, May 12, 1986, 100 Stat. 426, related to conditions precedent for construction of dams, reservoir, or water supply.

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in act July 9, 1952, ch. 597, title I, 66 Stat. 451, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–362, title IX, §901(e)(1), Nov. 10, 1998, 112 Stat. 3289.
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE THE CMC 

RIVERS v. COUNTY OF MARIN ET AL, CASE NO. C09-1614 EMC 

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

PATRICK K. FAULKNER, COUNTY COUNSEL 

Stephen Raab, SBN 180939 

3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 275 

San Rafael, CA 94903 

Tel.: (415) 499-6117, Fax: (415) 499-3796 

Attorney(s) for Defendants County of Marin 

William Burke, Mike Daly, and Terri Hampton 

David M. Poore, SBN 192541 

KAHN BROWN & POORE LLP 

30 Fifth Street, Second Floor 

Petaluma, California 94952 

Telephone: (707) 763-7100 

Facsimile: (707) 763-7180 

dpoore@kahnbrownlaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SIMONE RIVERS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SIMONE RIVERS; 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

COUNTY OF MARIN; WILLIAM BURKE 

MICHAEL DALY; TERRI HAMPTON; and 

DOES 1 through 50, 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: USDC 09 1614 EMC 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

TO CONTINUE FURTHER CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to continue the further Case 

Management Conference, which is presently set for August 11, 2010, at 2:30 p.m., until September 8, 

2010, at 2:30 p.m. to allow for final payment of the settlement proceeds, which will likely take place 

within the next three weeks. 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:09-cv-01614-EMC Document 53 Filed 08/10/10 Page 1 of 2
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE CMC 

RIVERS v. COUNTY OF MARIN ET AL, CASE NO. USDC 09 1614 EMC 

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

 SO STIPULATED. 

 

Dated: ___08/06/10____________ KAHN, BROWN & POORE LLP 

 BY:______/s/ David M. Poore________ 

 DAVID POORE 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

Dated: ___08/06/10____________ PATRICK K. FAULKNER 

 MARIN COUNTY COUNSEL 

 BY:____/s/ Stephen Raab_____________ 

 STEPHEN RAAB 

 Attorney for Defendant County of Marin 

PROPOSED ORDER

THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 

The parties’ stipulation and proposed order to continue the CMC is approved and Granted. The parties 

are ordered to appear on September 8, 2010, at 2:30 p.m. for a further CMC to confirm settlement. 

DATED: _______________________ __________________________________ 

 HON. EDWARD M. CHEN 

 U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Case 3:09-cv-01614-EMC Document 53 Filed 08/10/10 Page 2 of 2
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### August 9, 2012 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
SCOTT ALAN COZENS, Plaintiff–Appellant, No.12-6019 v. (D.C. No. 5:11-CV-00841-C) WOODWARD COUNTY OKLAHOMA, ex rel. THE WOODWARD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; WOODWARD COUNTY DISTRICT COURT; WOODWARD COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, (W.D. Oklahoma)

Defendants–Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRISCOE , Chief Judge, McKAYand HOLMES , Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. In this complaint, Plaintiff alleged his constitutional rights were violated

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.when he received a “flat” state court sentence under which he received no good time credits, allegedly contrary to Oklahoma law. The district court concluded that Plaintiff could not state a valid claim for relief under Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because judgment in his favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his state court sentence. On appeal, Plaintiff contends Heck is inapplicable because his § 1983 claim was based on unconstitutional procedures, similar to the § 1983 claim that was allowed in Wolff v. McDonnell , 418 U.S. 539, 554-55 (1974). However, Heck applies whenever “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence,” Heck , 512 U.S. at 487, regardless of whether the claim is labeled as procedural or substantive. See Edwards v. Balisok , 520 U.S. 641, 645-46 (1997)
. The claim in Wolff could proceed under § 1983 because it “did not call into question the lawfulness of the plaintiff’s continuing confinement,” Heck , 512 U.S. at 483 (emphasis omitted), and it is thus readily distinguishable from the instant case. In this case, success on Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of his sentence, and therefore the district court correctly dismissed the complaint under Heck
. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED
. Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge

-2-
Exhibit 31

CERTIFICATION


I, JOHN P. GRAZER, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of
 periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of Ameriquest
 Mortgage Securities, Inc. 2004-R6:

2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, 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 as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling
and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion is included in these
reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer
under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement and based upon my
knowledge and the annual compliance required under that agreement, and except
as disclosed in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under
that agreement; and

5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the
report provided by and independent public account, after conducting a review
in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.


In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company.

<page>



Date: March 1, 2005

AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC.


/s/: John P Grazer
John P Grazer
CFO
1

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL ACTION NO. C09-0671 CRB

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

DON A LESSER (SBN 112887)

KATHERINE O’NEAL (SBN 124657)

THE LESSER LAW GROUP

1010 B Street, Suite 350

San Rafael, CA 94901-1808

Tel: 415.453.7600 Fax: 415.453.7604

Attorneys for Plaintiff

STEPHEN ARNOLD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN ARNOLD,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF 

AMERICA, 

Defendant.

Case No.: C 09-0671 CRB

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE 

HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

WHEREAS, on September 25, 2009, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment; 

and 

WHEREAS, Defendants’ motion is currently set for hearing on April 2, 2010, with 

Plaintiff’s opposition papers due by March 12; and 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff has, with the Court’s permission, initiated discovery relevant to his 

opposition to Defendants’ motion; and

WHEREAS, the parties have a discovery dispute which has been scheduled for a hearing 

before Magistrate Laporte on March 23, 2010; and 

Case 3:09-cv-00671-CRB Document 40 Filed 03/02/10 Page 1 of 2
2

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL ACTION NO. C09-0671 CRB

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

WHEREAS, the parties cannot resolve the pending discovery dispute before the 

Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion is due;

NOW, therefore, the parties stipulate and agree that the hearing date on Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment shall be continued to May 28, 2010. Plaintiff's Opposition to 

Defendants' Motion for Judgment will be filed no later than May 7 (21 days before the new 

hearing date), and Defendants' Reply Brief shall be filed no later than May 14 (14 days before 

the hearing). 

Dated: February 25, 2010 GREEN & HUMBERT

By: /s/_______________________________

Horace W. Green

Attorneys for Defendant UNUM LIFE 

INSURANCE COMPANY OF 

AMERICA

Dated: February 25, 2010 THE LESSER LAW GROUP

By: /s/______________________________

Katherine O’Neal

Attorneys for Plaintiff

STEPHEN ARNOLD

ORDER

Good cause appearing therefore, it is SO ORDERED.

Dated: February ____, 2010 _______________________________

 Honorable Charles R. Breyer

March 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:09-cv-00671-CRB Document 40 Filed 03/02/10 Page 2 of 2