alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 3:08-cv-03133-RS Document 48 Filed 06/21/10 Page 1 of 2 Case3:08-cv-03133-RS Document47 Filed06/15/10 Page1 of 2
Case 3:08-cv-03133-RS Document 48 Filed 06/21/10 Page 2 of 2 Case3:08-cv-03133-RS Document47 Filed06/15/10 Page2 of 2
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**Certification
      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,**


**As
      Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Global Matrechs, Inc.
      (the “Registrant”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned President, Chief Executive Officer, and acting Chief Financial
      Officer of the Registrant, certifies, to his best knowledge and belief, 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, as amended; and




(2)
        The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant.




Date: November
              14, 2006
            By:
            /s/ Michael
              SheppardName: Michael
                SheppardTitle:President,
                Chief Executive Officer and ActingChief
                Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5                                           
                                                                          
<S>                             <C>                                       
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                                     
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               JUL-31-1997               
<PERIOD-END>                                    JAN-31-1997               
<CASH>                                              407,654
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  6,478,695
<PP&E>                                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    6,478,695
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               102,529
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                163
<OTHER-SE>                                        6,376,003
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      6,748,695
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          0
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     78,707
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (11,009)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (11,009)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (11,009)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (.01)
        
                                                              

</TABLE>
#### FOLEY et al., Respondents, v. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 21, 1905.)

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District. Action by Michael F. Foley and another against the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed. Alexander & Green (W. C. Prime, of counsel), for appellant. John H. Regan, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The evidence did not justify a judgment against the defendant. The only disputed questions of fact were as to the condition of the car and the duty of the defendant to deliver the goods at the Twenty-Seventh street yard. Assuming that the car had holes in it which would admit cold and a little snow, and also assuming that the defendant should have delivered the goods at Twenty-Seventh street in the first instance, still it is not made to appear that its derelictions in either of those particulars caused the damages of which plaintiffs complain. The cabbages were bought and shipped as “frozen cabbages,” and all the evi-. dence was to the effect that such cabbages would not rot merely by being frozen, but that rotting resulted from alternate freezing and thawing. It also appears without contradiction that the weather had remained consistently cold from the time of shipment to the date of delivery at Twenty-Seventh street, and there is absolutely no evidence that the cabbages had become rotten up to the time that delivery was made at the Twenty-Seventh street yard. The defendant’s liability as carrier ceased upon such delivery, and it was not responsible for any consequences resulting from plaintiffs’ handling of the goods thereafter. The judgment must be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FOAD ALOWDI,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ABLE BUILDING SERVICES d/b/a

ABM, MANILO GARCIA, and

ROBERT ESQUADA,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-01258 WHA

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO

AMEND COMPLAINT

Based on the non-opposition of the opposing party, plaintiff’s motion to amend his

complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff must file his amended complaint WITHIN THREE DAYS, and

defendants have twenty days within which to respond. Plaintiff’s request to amend the case

management order will be considered at the hearing for plaintiff’s motion to compel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-01258-WHA Document 43 Filed 03/11/10 Page 1 of 1
#### § 203.377 Inspection and preservation of properties.

The mortgagee, upon learning that a property subject to a mortgage insured under this part is vacant or abandoned, shall be responsible for the inspection of such property at least monthly, if the loan thereon is in default. When a mortgage is in default and a payment thereon is not received within 45 days of the due date, and efforts to reach the mortgagor by telephone within that period have been unsuccessful, the mortgagee shall be responsible for a visual inspection of the security property to determine whether the property is vacant. The mortgagee shall take reasonable action to protect and preserve such security property when it is determined or should have been determined to be vacant or abandoned until its conveyance to the Secretary, if such action does not constitute an illegal trespass. “Reasonable action” includes the commencement of foreclosure within the time required by § 203.355(b) of this part.

[57 FR 47972, Oct. 20, 1992]
#### § 248.179 Consultation with other interested parties.

The Commissioner shall confer with any appropriate State or local government agency to confirm any State or local assistance that is available to achieve the purposes of subpart B of this part and shall give consideration to the views of any such agency when making determinations under subpart B of this part. The Commissioner shall also confer with appropriate interested parties that the Commissioner believes could assist in the development of a plan of action that best achieves the purposes of subpart B of this part.
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 STIPULATION TO AMEND JUDGMENT (CR 09-706-WHA)

1

Nina Wilder (SBN 100474)

 Law Offices Of

WEINBERG & WILDER

523 Octavia Street

San Francisco, CA 94102

Telephone (415) 431-3472

Facsimile (415) 552-2703

Attorneys for Defendant

HENOKE TECLECHAIMANOT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) No. CR-09-0706-WHA

)

Plaintiff, )

)

)

) STIPULATION AND [proposed] ORDER

) TO AMEND JUDGMENT PURSUANT

vs. ) TO RULE 35(a)

)

HENOKE TECLECHAIMANOT, )

)

Defendant. )

_____________________________ )

IT IS HEREBY AGREED by the parties, through their undersigned attorneys, that the 

the written Judgment should include the following language under IMPRISONMENT:

Defendant shall received credit for time served in San Mateo County. The failure to request

this language at the oral pronouncement of sentence was clearly error.

Dated: February 25, 2010 /s/ Aaron D. Wegner 

AARON D. WEGNER

Assistant United States Attorney

Dated: February 25, 2010 / s / NINA WILDER 

NINA WILDER

Attorney for Defendant

HENOKE TECLECHAIMANOT

Case 3:09-cr-00706-WHA Document 52 Filed 03/01/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 STIPULATION TO AMEND JUDGMENT (CR 09-706-WHA)

2

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:_______________ __________________________________

_

HONORABLE WILLIAM H. ALSUP

United States District Judge 

March 1, 2010.

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge William Alsup

Case 3:09-cr-00706-WHA Document 52 Filed 03/01/10 Page 2 of 2
#### City of Chicago, appellee, v. Max Isaac, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,683.

Suit against City of Chicago. Judgment for city. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. J. W. Schulman, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district.

Affirmed for failure of appellant to file record.

See City v. Salmitsky, 210 Ill. App. 159.

Opinion filed June 25, 1923.

*665No appearance for appellant. No appearance for appellee.

Per Curiam.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
MARTHA ARANA, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-4775 ) PEOPLE'S TRUST INSURANCE ) COMPANY, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed September 23, 2020. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County; Lauren L. Brodie, Judge. Melissa A. Giasi and Erin M. Berger of Giasi Law, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Michael A. Rosenberg of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Plantation, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. BLACK and SMITH, JJ., and CASE, JAMES R., SENIOR ASSOCIATE JUDGE, Concur.
-- 1 -- 

[PROPOSED] ORDER TO FILE UNDER SEAL

C-08-4050 (MMC)

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

D. GILL SPERLEIN (172887) 

THE LAW OFFICE OF D. GILL SPERLEIN 

584 Castro Street, Suite 879 

San Francisco, California 94114 

Telephone: (415) 404-6615 

Fax: (415) 404-6616 

gill@sperleinlaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiff 

IO GROUP, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

IO GROUP, INC., a California 

corporation,

Plaintiff,

 vs. 

ANTELOPE MEDIA, LLC, et al., , 

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: C-08-4050 (MMC) 

[PROPOSED] ORDER TO FILE 

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

Having considered Plaintiff’s Administrative Request to File Documents Under 

Seal, the Declaration of D. Gill Sperlein in support thereof and the file in this matter, 

Plaintiff is hereby directed to file under seal the documents identified in the Declaration of 

D. Gill Sperlein in support of Plaintiff’s Administrative Request.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ____________ 

 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In the event the Court issues an order or orders addressing any of the subject documents,

however, the order(s) shall be filed in the public record unless

plaintiff provides authority for the filing of such order(s) under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 20, 2010

/s/ Vaughn R Walker for

Case 3:08-cv-04050-MMC Document 117 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 1
39–008

105TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 105–81

PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2, THE

HOUSING OPPORTUNITY AND RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1997

APRIL 29, 1997.—Referred to the House Calendar and order to be printed

Mr. DREIER, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 133]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 133, by a non-record vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 2, the

‘‘Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 1997’’ under an

open rule. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.

The rule waives points of order against consideration of the bill

for failure to comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI (3 day availability of committee reports) or clause 7(b) of rule XIII (relating to cost

estimate availability in report).

The rule makes in order the Banking and Financial Services

Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original

bill for the purpose of amendment and provides that the committee

amendment in the nature of a substitute by considered by title.

The rule waives points or order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with clause

5(a) of rule XXI (relating to appropriations in a legislative bill).

The rule makes in order, before the consideration of any other

amendment, an amendment printed in the Congressional Record of

April 29, 1997, if offered by Representative Lazio of New York or

his designee.

The rule provides that the amendment shall be considered as

read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to

amendment, and shall not be subject to demand for division of the
2

question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole and all

points of order against the amendment are waived. Also, the rule

provides that if the amendment is adopted, the bill, as amended,

shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of further

amendment.

The rule provides that Members who have pre-printed their

amendments in the Record prior to their consideration will be

given priority in recognition to offer their amendments if otherwise

consistent with House rules, and provides that pre-printed amendments will be considered as read.

The rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to

postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce votes

to five minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a fifteen

minute vote.

Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Æ
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

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES PENSIONTRUST FUND et al,

Plaintiff(s),

    v.

BRENTWOOD MOTORS INC et al,

Defendant(s).                                                                      /

No. C 09-2546 MHP

ORDER(Ninety-Day Conditional Dismissal)

The parties hereto, by their counsel, having advised the Court that they have agreed to a

settlement of this action.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice; provided,

however, that if any party hereto shall certify to this Court, with a proof of service of a copy on

opposing counsel, within 90 days from the date hereof, that the agreed consideration for the

settlement has not been delivered over, this Order shall stand vacated, and the action shall be

restored to the calendar to be set for trial.

Dated:   2/26/2010MARILYN HALL PATELUnited States District Court Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02546-MHP   Document 29   Filed 03/01/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-12T13:02:52-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
### §462. Classification of irrigable lands and equitable apportionment of charges

The irrigable lands of each new project and new division of a project approved, after December 5, 1924, shall be classified by the Secretary with respect to their power, under a proper agricultural program, to support a family and pay water charges, and the Secretary is authorized to fix different construction charges against different classes of land under the same project for the purpose of equitably apportioning the total construction cost so that all lands may as far as practicable bear the burden of such cost according to their productive value.

(Dec. 5, 1924, ch. 4, §4, subsec. D, 43 Stat. 702.)

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

#### Definitions

The definitions in section 371 of this title apply to this section.
## NO. 12

- 20

- 00041

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS F OR THE

BEST INTEREST AND PR OTECTION

OF W.L.R. §
§
§ APPEAL FROM THE 145T H

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM This accelerated appeal is being dismissed for want of prosecution. 1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(b). The Harris Center for Mental Health & IDD filed a notice of appeal from an order for outpatient or community

- based treatment and supervision . The clerk’s record was filed on February 11, 2020 and the reporter’s record was filed on February 25

. The Harris Center ’s brief
was due on or before Marc h 16 . On March 16, the Harris Center filed a motion for extension of time, which this Court granted to April 6. On April 6, the Harris Center filed another motion for extension of time, which this Court granted to April 13, but ordered that no further ex tensions
would be entertained. The order granting the extension warned that failure to file the brief by the extended deadline may result in the case being referred to the court for dismissal. The April 13 deadline expired without the Harris Center filin g a brief

. When an appellant fails to timely file a brief, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant’s failure to timely fil e a brief. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1). Here, the Harris Center failed to file a brief by the extended deadline. Nor has this Court received a late brief accompanied by a motion for leave to file late brie f. Accordingly , we dismiss the appeal for want o f prosecution

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).

1 See T EX

. HEALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN

. § 5 74.070 (West 2017 ); see also T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.1.2 Opinion delivered April 22, 2020. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 2 2 , 2020

NO. 12

- 20

- 00041

- CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS F OR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECT ION OF W.L.R.

Appeal from the 145th District Court of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F1924026)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that the appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of prosecution ; and that this decision be certified to
the court below for observance.
By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Wort hen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

USGS Coastal and Marine Hazards and Resources Program

# Time-Series Photographs of the Sea Floor in Western Massachusetts Bay: June 1997 to June 1998

**U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 87**2004

*Bradford Butman, P. Soupy Alexander, and Michael H. Bothner*

U.S. Geological Survey

Woods Hole, MA  02543

|  | Click arrow to enter publication |
|--|----------------------------------|

----

Skip Navigation
AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |		U.S. Geological Survey |		Coastal and Marine Geology		URL: cmgds.marine.usgs.gov/publications/ds-87/index.html		Page Contact Information: CMGDS Team		Page Last Modified: Wednesday, 06-Dec-2017 11:21:26 EST
### §455c. Extinguishment of liens and tax titles on reversion of lands to United States

If the lands of any such entryman shall at any time revert to the United States for any reason whatever, all such liens or tax titles resulting from assessments levied after June 13, 1930, upon such lands in favor of the State or political subdivision thereof wherein the lands are located, shall be and shall be held to have been, thereupon extinguished; and the levying of any such assessment by such State or political subdivision shall be deemed to be an agreement on its part, in the event of such reversion, to execute and record a formal release of such lien or tax title.

(Apr. 21, 1928, ch. 394, §4, as added June 13, 1930, ch. 477, 46 Stat. 581.)
§ 291.1 Purpose and general requirements. ( a ) *Purpose.* ( 1 ) This part governs the acquisition, possession, and disposition of one-to-four family properties acquired by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) through foreclosure of an insured or Secretary-held mortgage or loan under the National Housing Act, or acquired by HUD under section 204(g) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1710(g)). HUD will issue detailed policies and procedures that must be followed in specific areas.
( 2 ) The purpose of the property disposition program is to dispose of properties in a manner that expands homeownership opportunities, strengthens neighborhoods and communities, and ensures a maximum return to the mortgage insurance funds.
( b ) *Nondiscrimination policy.* The requirements set forth in 24 CFR parts 5 and 110 apply to the administration of any activity under this part. In addition, in accordance with 24 CFR 9.155(a), HUD must ensure that its policies and practices in conducting the single family property disposition program do not discriminate on the basis of disability.
[64 FR 6479, Feb. 9, 1999, as amended at 81 FR 53002, Aug. 11, 2016]