alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 232.1011 Management agents. ( a ) An operator or borrower may, with the prior written approval of HUD, execute a management agent agreement setting forth the duties and procedures for matters related to the management of the project. The management agent, each initial management agent agreement with that agent, and any amendments to such management agent agreements deemed material by the Commissioner must be acceptable to HUD and approved in writing by HUD.
( b ) An operator or borrower may not enter into any agreement that provides for a management agent to have rights to or claims on funds owed to the operator.
#### John J. Logan, appellee, v. Frank Rees, appellant.

Action for fraud and deceit in the sale of hogs. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Adams county; the Hon." Fred Gr. Wolfe, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed July 10, 1922.

Rehearing denied October 4, 1922.

Louis C. LaCroix, for appellant. John E. Wall, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Heard

delivered the opinion of the court.
§ 146.31 Compliance reviews. ( a ) HUD may conduct pre-award reviews to determine whether programs or activities submitted for HUD assistance are consistent with the age distinctions set forth at § 146.13(b).
( b ) If a pre-award review indicates that the proposed programs or activities are not consistent with the age distinctions set forth at § 146.13(b), the application will be returned to the applicant for additional information or clarification or for correction consistent with this part.
( c ) HUD may conduct compliance reviews of recipients that will enable it to investigate and correct violations of this part. HUD may conduct these reviews even in the absence of a complaint against a recipient. The review may be as comprehensive as necessary for HUD to determine whether a violation has occurred.
( d ) If a compliance review indicates a violation, HUD will attempt to achieve voluntary compliance. If voluntary compliance cannot be achieved, HUD may begin enforcement procedures as provided in § 146.39.
### §2242. Authority of Secretary

The Secretary is authorized to perform any and all acts and to promulgate such regulations as may be necessary and appropriate for the purpose of implementing this chapter. In carrying out the authorities under this chapter, the Secretary shall give specific consideration to the needs of fish and wildlife, together with other project purposes, and shall consider temporary operational changes which will mitigate, or can be expected to have an effect in mitigating, fish and wildlife losses and damages resulting from drought conditions, consistent with the Secretary's other obligations.

(Pub. L. 102–250, title III, §302, Mar. 5, 1992, 106 Stat. 58.)
II 

Calendar No. 340 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2894 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 27, 2005 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

DECEMBER 16, 2005 

Reported by Ms. COLLINS, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 102 South Walters Avenue in Hodgenville, 

Kentucky, as the ‘‘Abraham Lincoln Birthplace Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo5 cated at 102 South Walters Avenue in Hodgenville, Ken6 tucky, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Abraham 

7 Lincoln Birthplace Post Office Building’’. 
2 

•HR 2894 RS 

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

4 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

5 to the ‘‘Abraham Lincoln Birthplace Post Office Build6 ing’’. 

Calendar No. 340 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2894 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postcoln Birthplace Post Office Building’’. in Hodgenville, Kentucky, as the ‘‘Abraham Lin- al Service located at 102 South Walters Avenue 

DECEMBER 16, 2005 

Reported without amendment
Docket No: FAA- 2015 - 0075 Dir ID: 2014 - NM - 202 - AD
§ 203.556 Return of partial payments. ( a ) For the purpose of this section, a partial payment is a payment of any amount less than the full amount due under the terms of the mortgage at the time the payment is tendered, including late charges.
( b ) Except as provided in this section, the mortgagee shall accept any partial payment and either apply it to the mortgagor's account or identify it with the mortgagor's account and hold it in a trust account pending disposition. When partial payments held for disposition aggregate a full monthly installment they shall be applied to the mortgagor's account, thus advancing the date of the oldest unpaid installment but not the date on which the account first became delinquent.
( c ) If the mortgage is not in default, a partial payment may be returned to the mortgagor with a letter of explanation.
( d ) If the mortgage is in default, a partial payment may be returned to the mortgagor with a letter of explanation in any of the following circumstances: ( 1 ) When payment aggregates less than 50 percent of the amount then due;
( 2 ) The payment is less than the amount agreed to in a forbearance plan, whether or not reduced to writing;
( 3 ) The property is occupied by a tenant who is paying rent and the rentals are not being applied to the mortgage payments;
( 4 ) Foreclosure has been commenced. (Foreclosure is commenced when the first action required for foreclosure under applicable law is taken.)
( e ) Under the following circumstances the mortgagee may return any partial payment received more than 14 days after the mortgagee has mailed to the mortgagor a statement of the full amount due, including late charges, and a notice of intention to return any payment less than such amount. ( 1 ) Four or more monthly installments are due and unpaid, or
( 2 ) A delinquency of any amount has continued for at least six months since the account first became delinquent.
[42 FR 15680, Mar. 23, 1977]
#### Belotte and Nardone, Inc., Appellant, v. Dunn Garden Apartments, Inc., Respondent.

Motion denied, without costs.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  a)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Famous Daves of America, Inc. for the
quarter ended March 30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andb)
    
    Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Famous Daves of America, Inc.
 Dated:  May 9, 2008
    By:
    /s/ Wilson L. CraftWilson L. CraftPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)Dated:  May 9, 2008    
    /s/ Diana Garvis PurcelDiana Garvis PurcelChief Financial Officer and Secretary
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### § 1508.910 Agency.

*Agency* means any United States executive department, military department, defense agency, or any other agency of the executive branch. Other agencies of the Federal government are not considered “agencies” for the purposes of this part unless they issue regulations adopting the governmentwide Debarment and Suspension system under Executive orders 12549 and 12689.
### §316g. Grazing fees

(a) The Secretary shall determine for each lease the grazing fee to be paid. Such fee shall—

(1) Be fixed on the basis of the area leased or on the basis of the number and kind of stock permitted to be grazed;

(2) Be fixed, for the period of the lease, as a seasonal or annual fee, payable annually or semi-annually on the date specified in the lease;

(3) Be fixed with due regard to the general economic value of the grazing privileges, and in no case shall exceed such value; and

(4) Be moderate.

(b) If the Secretary determines such action to be for the public interest by reason of (1) depletion or destruction of the range by any cause beyond the control of the lessee, or (2) calamity or disease causing wholesale destruction of or injury to livestock, he may grant an extension of time for making payment of any grazing fee undue any lease, reduce the amount of any such payment, or release or discharge the lessee from making such payment.

(Mar. 4, 1927, ch. 513, §8, 44 Stat. 1453.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

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

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

U

For the Northern District of California

NITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

ELIZABETH KARNAZES,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO,

Defendant(s).

_____________________________________/

No. C 09-00767 MMC (MEJ)

THIRD ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On February 5, 2010, the Court ordered Plaintiff to contact Defendant’s counsel, David

Silberman, within five days and provide her availability for a meet and confer session regarding the

issues raised in Mr. Silberman’s December 22, 2009 Declaration. (Dkt. #42.) The Court is now in

receipt Mr. Silberman’s February 12, 2010 letter (Dkt. #43) regarding Plaintiff’s failure to comply

with the February 5 Order, as well as her continued failure to comply with discovery obligations in

general. Plaintiff’s failure to diligently prosecute her case is consistent, and potentially cause for

dismissal pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) and 41(b). Accordingly, the Court

hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to Rules

37(b)(2) and 41(b). Plaintiff shall file a declaration by February 25, 2010, and the Court shall

conduct a hearing on March 4, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate

Avenue, San Francisco, California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2010 _______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:09-cv-00767-MMC Document 44 Filed 02/17/10 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           8,514
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,345
<ALLOWANCES>                                       957
<INVENTORY>                                    169,870
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               206,333
<PP&E>                                          87,853
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,993
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 279,865
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          125,100
<BONDS>                                         68,032
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           221
<OTHER-SE>                                      84,212
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   279,865
<SALES>                                        175,846
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               175,846
<CGS>                                          130,575
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,697
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,931
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,643
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,529
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,114
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,114
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19


</TABLE>
#### Johnson *v.*Oliver.

Lumpkin, J.

1. Where a man who owned a two-fifths undivided interest in a tract of land, his children owning the other, three-fifths undivided interest, sold and conveyed his interest, and thereupon became the tenant of the purchaser, giving rent notes and paying rent, and the purchaser, through his tenant, remained in possession for four years, the interest *348so conveyed was discharged from the lien of a judgment against the maker of the deed, if the purchase was bona fide and for a valuable consideration. Civil Code, § 5950; *Edwards*v. *Stinson,*59 *Ga.*443; *Blalock*v. *Denham,*85 *Ga.*646 (11 S. E. 1038).

July 9, 1912.

Claim. Before Judge Littlejohn. Sumter superior court. August 21, 1911.

*B. L. Maynard,*for plaintiff.

*Ellis, Webb & Ellis,*contra.

*(a)*That the grantor remained in possession as tenant of the grantee as to the interest conveyed is a circumstance for the consideration of the jury in determining the bona tides of the transaction, but will not per se prevent it from falling within the rule above stated.

('&) The request that the decision in *Edwards*v. *Stinson,*59 *Ga.*443, be reviewed and overruled, is denied.

2. If a debtor bona fide conveys land to his creditor in payment and discharge of an existing debt, this constitutes such a valuable consideration as falls within the provision of Civil Code, § 5950.

3. In a claim case, where neither the pleading nor the evidence put in issue the adequacy or inadequacy of the consideration paid to the defendant in fi. fa. by a purchaser from him for a valuable consideration, there was no error in charging the jury in effect that no such issue was before them.

*(a)*Such a charge furnishes no ground for reversal, whether or not it was accurate to state that upon proof of a valuable consideration it would be presumed to be sufficient.

4. There was no error in overruling the ground of the motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence, which consisted merely of a letter written to the attorney of the movant after the trial, by a person who must have been known before the trial to have been connected with the transaction, and who resided only a few miles distant from the place of the hearing. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 11.1


                       ENTEX INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.
                STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                  (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT SHARE DATA)


                                                      Unaudited

                                       Three months ended    Three months ended
                                       ------------------    ------------------
                                          September 28,         September 29,
                                             1997                   1996
                                             ----                   ----

Weighted average number of
common shares outstanding                 31,014,425             32,357,840



Common equivalent shares from stock 
options and warrants using the
treasury stock method                      2,721,780                      -
                                       ------------------    ------------------
Shares used in computing 
earnings per share                        33,736,205             32,357,840
                                       ------------------    ------------------
                                       ------------------    ------------------

Net income (loss)                      $       4,700         $       (5,808)
                                       ------------------    ------------------
                                       ------------------    ------------------

Primary and fully diluted 
earnings per share                     $        0.14         $        (0.18)
                                       ------------------    ------------------
                                       ------------------    ------------------
§ 291.540 Owner-occupancy term. ( a ) *General.* The owner-occupancy term is the number of months a participant in the GNND Sales Program must agree to own, and live in as his/her sole residence, a home purchased through the GNND Sales Program.
( b ) *Start of owner-occupancy term.* The owner-occupancy term is 36 months, commencing either: ( 1 ) Thirty days following closing if HUD determines that the home requires no more than $10,000 in repairs prior to occupancy;
( 2 ) Ninety days following closing if HUD determines that the home requires more than $10,000, but not more than $20,000 in repairs prior to occupancy; or
( 3 ) One hundred and eighty days following closing if HUD determines that the home requires more than $20,000 in repairs prior to occupancy.
( c ) *Interruptions to owner-occupancy term* — ( 1 ) *General.* HUD may, at its sole discretion, allow interruptions to the 36-month owner-occupancy term if it determines that the interruption is necessary to prevent hardship, but only if the law enforcement officer, teacher, or firefighter/emergency medical technician submits a written and signed request to HUD containing the following information: ( i ) The reason(s) why the interruption is necessary;
( ii ) The dates of the intended interruption; and
( iii ) A certification from the law enforcement officer, teacher, or firefighter/emergency medical technician that: ( A ) The law enforcement officer, teacher, or firefighter/emergency medical technician is not abandoning the home as his/her permanent residence; and
( B ) The law enforcement officer, teacher, or firefighter/emergency medical technician will resume occupancy of the home upon the conclusion of the interruption and complete the remainder of the 36-month owner-occupancy term.
( 2 ) *Timing of written request to HUD.* The written request for approval of an interruption to the owner-occupancy term must be submitted to HUD at least 30 calendar days before the anticipated interruption. Military service members protected by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act need not submit their written request to HUD 30 days in advance of an anticipated interruption, but should submit their written request as soon as practicable upon learning of a potential interruption, in order to ensure timely processing and approval of the request.
AFS-13-367-E

June 14, 2013

 Exemption No. 10797

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0415

Ms. Rhonda VanOster

Parent of Hayley VanOster

21093 Russell Lane

Rayville, MO 64084

Dear Ms. VanOster:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and lists the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter received May 7, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Hayley VanOster for an exemption from § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Hayley to exceed the 

specified weight limit for an FAA-approved child restraint system (CAReS, manufactured by 

AmSafe Corporation) during use of that child restraint system (CRS) aboard a United States 

(U.S.) aircraft.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Hayley.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9834 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that numerous people with physical challenges had previously completed flights using 

restraint systems that addressed unique physical needs regarding safety, support, and security 

in the same manner of operations as described in this petition. The FAA further found that the 
2

petition, if granted, would not set any new precedents regarding the use of restraint systems by 

persons with disabilities.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

• they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant.

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the 

situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Hayley VanOster an exemption from § 121.311(b). In 

addition, any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while Hayley is

aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) to the extent necessary 

to allow her to use an FAA-approved CRS aboard a U.S. aircraft.

All operations under this exemption must be conducted with at least one of Hayley’s parents

or a caregiver accompanying her. Hayley VanOster may only occupy a passenger seat with no 

passenger seated behind her. In addition, Hayley’s parent or caregiver must carry a copy of 

this exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at least 48 hours 

before the date of each flight.

This exemption terminates on June 30, 2018, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

Michael J. Zenkovish

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards

Service

Enclosure
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50355 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CESAR HERNANDEZ-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas USDC Nos. P-95-CV-62, P-92-CR-74-1

July 24, 1998

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. *

PER CURIAM:

Cesar Hernandez -Rodriguez, federal prisoner #55916-080,

appeals from the denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or

correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 2255. He contends

that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a

Batson claim. He also argues, for the first time on appeal, that2

the district court erred in omitting to grant him a downward

departure for his post-offense rehabilitative efforts and for being

a deportable alien. Finally, he contends, also for the first time

on appeal, that he qualifies for the “safety valve” provision of

U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.

Hernandez’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is

unavailing because he has failed to demonstrate any prejudice as a

result of his counsel’s omission. S ee S trickland v. Washington

,

466 U .S. 668, 687 (1984). As for his other claims, a thorough

review of the record reveals no reversible error. S ee United

States v. Cervantes

, 132 F.3d 1106, 1109 (5th Cir. 1998); United

States v. Flores-Ochoa

, 13 9 F.3d 1022, 1023 (5th Cir. 1998),

petition for cert. filed

, (May 22, 1998) (No. 98-9199). And, as to

th ese claims, even if it were appropriate to follow F lores-Ochoa

rather than Cervantes

, and even if there were plain error, which

there is not, there is nothing which seriously affects the

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings, and

this Court would not exercise its discretion to “correct” any of

the forfeited purported errors. United States v. Olano , 507 U.S.

725, 735-36 (1993).

AFFIRMED