alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §316f. Terms and conditions of lease

#### (a) Period of lease

A lease may be made for such term as the Secretary deems reasonable, but not to exceed fifty-five years, taking into consideration all factors that are relevant to the exercise of the grazing privileges conferred.

#### (b) Size of leasehold

Leases shall be made for grazing on a definite area except where local conditions or the administration of grazing privileges makes more practicable a lease based on the number of stock to be grazed.

#### (c) Terms for surrender of lease

Each lease shall provide that the lessee may surrender his lease, and, if he has complied with the terms and conditions of the lease to the time of surrender, may avoid further liability for fees thereunder by giving written notice to the Secretary of such surrender. The lease shall specify the length of time of notice, which shall not exceed one year.

#### (d) Terms for renewal of lease

Each lease shall provide that the lessee may negotiate for renewal of such lease, subject to the provisions of this subchapter, at any time during the final five years of the term of such lease.

(Mar. 4, 1927, ch. 513, §7, 44 Stat. 1453; Pub. L. 90–403, §2, July 18, 1968, 82 Stat. 358.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 471f of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.

#### Amendments

1968—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 90–403, §2(a), substituted provisions for reasonable term of leases, limited to fifty-five years, and based on all factors relevant to exercise of grazing privileges for prior provisions for twenty year leases, except where land may be required for other than grazing purposes within a ten year period, and for shorter term leases as desired by applicant.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 90–403, §2(b), added subsec. (d).
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
 Date:  March 26, 2009
    /s/ Robert K. MoskovitzName:
    Robert K. MoskovitzTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner
Exhibit 31.1—Section 302 Certification
I, Ellen Z. Lamale, certify that:
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containingdistribution or servicing reports filed in respect of period included in the year covered bythis annual report, of Principal Life Income Fundings Trust 2004-17;
1.  Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report; 2.  Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided tothe depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, forinclusion in these reports is included in these reports; 3.  I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and the trusteeunder the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, and based upon my knowledge and theannual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in thereports, the depositor and trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement;and 4.  The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the compliance by the trusteeand the depositor with the minimum servicing or similar standards based upon the reportprovided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with theUniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedures, as set forth inthe pooling and servicing, or similar agreements, that is included in these reports.
In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Ernst and Young and Citibank, N.A.     Date: March 29, 2005      By: /s/ Ellen Z. Lamale      Name: Ellen Z. Lamale  Title: Senior Vice President and Chief Actuary
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 128326 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 128326 COA: 259398 Calhoun CC: 99-000595-FH CONRAD LYNN BURTON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the March 4, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p1024 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2005

Clerk
# Record of Contacts **FDMS Docket No. FAA**  **- 20**  **11 -**  **1323 Contacts.**  With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 7/9/10 --- Regional Airl ine Association Dave Lotterer 7/9/10 --- Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 7/9/10 --- AT A Craig Fabian 7/9/10 ---
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

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CABN 44332)

United States Attorney

BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN 163973)

Chief, Criminal Division

BARBARA BRENNAN SILANO (MASSBAR 055540)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Ave., Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7223

Facsimile: (415) 436- 7234

E-mail: barbara.silano@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATHANIEL POLLETTE,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 09-01141 CRB

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] BOND

MODIFICATION ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING and the parties having so stipulated, the Court hereby

ORDERS that the terms of the bond in the above captioned matter be modified as follows:

1. The conditions of release and appearance are modified to reflect that the defendant shall

participate in drug counseling and submit to drug testing , as directed by Pretrial Services.

DATED:

_______________________________

HON. ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

February 5, 2010

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte

Case 3:09-cr-01141-CRB Document 17 Filed 02/05/10 Page 1 of 1
Description of Compensation for Non-Management Directors.



  
 Exhibit 10.6

 Xerium Technologies, Inc. 
 Description of Compensation for Non-Management Directors 
 Non-management directors receive
an annual retainer of $95,000, which will be paid pursuant to the Xerium Technologies, Inc. Directors’ Deferred Stock Unit Plan. Under the plan, 50% of the retainer will be paid in the form of a grant of deferred stock units. Non-management
directors will be given the opportunity to elect to receive the remainder of such retainer in deferred stock units or in cash. Please see the Directors’ Deferred Stock Unit Plan for additional information. 

The co-chairmen of the Audit Committee also receive additional cash compensation at an annual rate of $10,000 per year, and the chairman of the
Compensation Committee, the chairperson of the Nominating and Governance Committee, and the Lead Independent Director each receive additional cash compensation at an annual rate of $5,000 per year. Directors are also reimbursed for out-of-pocket
expenses for attending board and committee meetings.
Fourth District.

#### The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Florence E. Elam, appellee, v. George Stanberry, appellant.

Complaint in bastardy. Verdict finding defendant to be father of the child of prosecuting witness. Judgment accordingly. Appeal from the County Court of Bond county; the Hon. W. H. Hubbard, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1922.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed July 2, 1923.

F. M. Guinn, for appellant. J. H. Alliv and Jond D. Biggs, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the court.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00093

- CV

REAO JOSEPH KELLER APPELLANT

V.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATION AL

TRUST COMPANY, AS TR USTEE

FOR HSI ASSET SECURI TIZATION

CORPORATION TRUST 20 06

- WMCI APPELLEE

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF DENTON COUNTY

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

On June 21, 2012 , we notifie d appellant that his brief had not been filed as

required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a). See Tex. R. App. P.

38.6(a). We stated we could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless

appellant or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed with the court on or

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

before July 2, 2012 a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. We have not received any response.

Because appellant 's brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution is sue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DELIVERED: July 19, 2012
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Please the attached Closeout Letter to Virgin America (Docket No. 

FAA-2013-0128) that would have continued to provide Virgin America relief from the 

requirement to include Atropine in an Emergency Medical Kit (EMK).
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 11409 Summary Calendar

JONATHAN MARSHALL, SR. , Petitioner

- Appellant

v.
MYRON L. BATTS, Warden; KEN PAXTON, Attorney General, State of Texas , Respondent s
- Appellee s

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:16

- CV

- 107

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jonathan Marshall, Sr., federal prisoner # 17040

- 077 , appeals the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for failing to comply with the court’s order to file an amended petition using the form provided b y the court

. We review a district court’s dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with any court order for abuse of discretion.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 21, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-11409 Document: 00514282973 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2017No. 16

- 11409

2 McCullough v. Lynaugh , 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). Marshall does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that he failed to comply with the
court’s order to file an amended petition . By failing to brief any argument challenging the district court’s reason for dismissal, Marshall has abandoned
the issue. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F .2d 222, 224

- 25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty

. Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Thus, he has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his petition without prejudice. See McCullough , 835 F.2d at 1127. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 16-11409 Document: 00514282973 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2017
§ 214.305 Agency profile changes. Participating agencies must notify HUD within 15 days when any of the following occurs: ( a ) The agency loses or changes its tax-exempt, nonprofit status.
( b ) The agency no longer complies with local and state requirements.
( c ) Changes occur in any of the items below: ( 1 ) Address(es) of the agency's main office and the address(es) of its branches and affiliates;
( 2 ) Staff personnel responsible for the Housing Counseling program, such as the housing counselors and management staff;
( 3 ) Telephone numbers of the main office, affiliates, and branches; or
( 4 ) Any other aspect of the agency's purpose or functions that may impair its ability to comply with these regulations or the applicable grant agreement (e.g., lack of qualified housing counselors).
1 Case No. C-09-1440 CRB 

 [PROPOSED] ORDER 

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 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF 

ELECTRICAL WORKERS DISTRICT 9 

PENSION PLAN; et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

POLK COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 

 Defendant. 

CASE NO.: C-09-1440 CRB 

 [Proposed] ORDER 

Judge: Hon. Charles R. Breyer 

Case 3:09-cv-01440-CRB Document 11 Filed 01/07/10 Page 1 of 2
 2 Case No. C-09-1440 CRB 

 [PROPOSED] ORDER 

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: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered in the above-entitled cause in favor 

of Plaintiffs against Defendant POLK COMMUNICATIONS, INC., in the amount of $7,723.30. 

The judgment is pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Entry of Judgment 

attached as Exhibits A and B to the Stipulation for Contingent Order of Dismissal filed on June 

12, 2009. The Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Entry of Judgment call for a judgment of 

$15,523.03, less any amounts received by Plaintiff. Plaintiff acknowledges that it received a 

$4,000 payment on or about August 24, 2009 and a $3,799.73 payment on or about June 8, 2009, 

and therefore it is ORDERED that Judgment be entered in the amount of $7,723.30 ($15,523.03 - 

$4,000.00 - $3,799.73). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _______________ ___________________________________ 

 U.S. District Court Judge 

January 6, 2010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:09-cv-01440-CRB Document 11 Filed 01/07/10 Page 2 of 2
### §8001. Congressional findings

The Congress finds that—

(1) congregate housing, coordinated with the delivery of supportive services, offers an innovative, proven, and cost-effective means of enabling temporarily disabled or handicapped individuals to maintain their dignity and independence and to avoid costly and unnecessary institutionalization;

(2) a large and growing number of elderly and handicapped residents of public housing projects and of nonprofit projects for the elderly and handicapped face premature and unnecessary institutionalization because of the absence of or deficiencies in the availability, adequacy, coordination, or delivery of the supportive services required for the successful development of adequate numbers of congregate housing projects; and

(3) supplemental supportive services, available on a secure and continuing basis, are essential to a successful congregate housing program.

(Pub. L. 95–557, title IV, §402, Oct. 31, 1978, 92 Stat. 2104.)

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

#### Short Title of 2011 Amendment

Pub. L. 111–374, §1(a), Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 4089, provided that: "This Act [amending section 8013 of this title and enacting provisions set out as a note under section 8013 of this title] may be cited as the 'Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2010'."

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 95–557, title IV, §401, Oct. 31, 1978, 92 Stat. 2104, provided that: "This title [enacting this chapter and amending section 1437e of this title] may be cited as the 'Congregate Housing Services Act of 1978'."
exv10w2






EXHIBIT 10.2



September 28, 2010




Travelport, LP

Travelport Global Distribution System B.V.

300 Galleria Parkway, N.W.

Atlanta, GA 30339





	Re:  	 	Ninth Amendment to Subscriber Services Agreement, dated as of July 23, 2007 (“Agreement”)
between Travelport, LP (“Travelport”), Travelport Global Distribution System B.V. (“TGDS”
and, together with Travelport, collectively, “Galileo”) and Orbitz Worldwide, LLC
(“Subscriber”)




Ladies and Gentlemen:



This letter constitutes a Ninth Amendment (“Amendment”) to the Agreement referenced above.
Capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not otherwise defined shall be used as defined in the
Agreement.



Effective as September 1, 2010, (“Amendment Effective Date”), Galileo and Subscriber hereby agree
as follows:



1. Custom Terms and Conditions Revision. The Custom Terms and Conditions Attachment
(Galileo Services) — North America to the Agreement is amended as set forth in Exhibit A.



2. General. This Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of and be
enforceable by the Parties hereto or their successors in interest, except as expressly provided in
the Agreement. Each Party to this Amendment agrees that, other than as expressly set out in this
Amendment, nothing in this Amendment is intended to alter the rights, duties and obligations of the
Parties under the Agreement, which shall remain in full force and effect as amended hereby. In the
event of a conflict between the terms and conditions of this Amendment and the terms and conditions
of the Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Amendment shall govern. This Amendment may be
executed by the Parties in separate counterparts and each counterpart shall be deemed to be an
original, but all such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same instrument.







1









 







The Parties have caused this Amendment to be executed by the signatures of their respective
authorized representatives.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	Orbitz Worldwide, LLC	 	 	 	Travelport, LP

By: Travelport Holdings LLC as
General Partner	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Signature:	 	/s/ Stephen C. Praven	 	 	 	Signature:	 	/s/ Scott Hyden	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name:
	 	Stephen C. Praven
	 	 	 	 	 	Name:
	 	Scott Hyden	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	VP, Business Development
	 	 	 	 	 	Title:
	 	VP, Sales	 	 
	Date: 9/30/10	 	 	 	Date: 10/1/10	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Travelport Global Distribution System B.V.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Signature:	 	/s/ Marco van Ieperen	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Name:
	 	Marco van Ieperen	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Title:
	 	Director	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Date: 9/30/10	 	 






2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

GUILLERMO ALEGRE RAMIREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50254

D.C. No. 3:14-cr-03431-LAB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 18, 2017** 

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Guillermo Alegre Ramirez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 50-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand for resentencing.

FILED

JAN 23 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Ramirez argues that the district court erred in denying a minor role reduction

to his base level offense under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). After Ramirez was sentenced,

the United States Sentencing Commission issued Amendment 794 (“the

Amendment”), which amended the commentary to the minor role Guideline. The

Amendment is retroactive to cases pending on direct appeal. See United States v.

Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016).

The Amendment clarified that, in assessing whether a defendant should

receive a minor role adjustment, the court should compare him to the other

participants in the crime, rather than to a hypothetical average participant. See

U.S.S.G. App. C Amend. 794; Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d at 523. In addition, the

Amendment clarified that “[t]he fact that a defendant performs an essential or

indispensable role in the criminal activity is not determinative.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2

cmt. n.3(C) (2015). Finally, the Amendment added a non-exhaustive list of factors

that a court “should consider” in determining whether to apply a minor role

reduction. See id. Because we cannot determine from the record whether the

district court followed the guidance of the Amendment’s clarifying language and

considered all of the now-relevant factors, we vacate Ramirez’s sentence and

remand for resentencing under the Amendment. See Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d at

523-24.

2 15-50254
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Ramirez’s contention that his

sentence is substantively unreasonable.

VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing. 

3 15-50254
### §334. Further extension of time for final proofs

The Secretary of the Interior may, in his discretion, in addition to the extension authorized by section 333 of this title or other law existing prior to April 30, 1912, grant to any entryman under the desert-land laws a further extension of the time within which he is required to make final proof: Provided, That such entryman shall, by his corroborated affidavit filed in the land office of the district where such land is located, show to the satisfaction of the Secretary that because of unavoidable delay in the construction of irrigation works intended to convey water to the land embraced in his entry he is, without fault on his part, unable to make proof of the reclamation and cultivation of said lands as required by law within the time limited therefor; but such extension shall not be granted for a period of more than three years, and this section shall not affect contests initiated for a valid existing reason: Provided, That the total extension of the statutory period for making final proof that may be allowed in any one case under this section, and any other statutes existing prior to April 30, 1912, of either general or local application, shall be limited to six years in the aggregate.

(Apr. 30, 1912, ch. 101, 37 Stat. 106.)