alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 200
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 200.220 Previous Participation review. ( a ) *Scope of review.* ( 1 ) Upon the occurrence of a Triggering Event, as provided in § 200.218, the Commissioner shall review the Previous Participation of the relevant Controlling Participants in considering whether to approve the participation of the Controlling Participants in connection with the Triggering Event in accordance with the definition of Risk in § 200.212.
( 2 ) The Commissioner will not review Previous Participation for interests acquired by inheritance or by court decree.
( 3 ) In connection with the submittal of an application for any Triggering Event, applicants shall identify the Controlling Participants and, to the extent requested by HUD, make available to HUD the Controlling Participant's Previous Participation in Covered Projects.
( b ) *Results of review.* ( 1 ) Based upon the review under paragraph (a) of this section, the Commissioner will approve, disapprove, limit, or otherwise condition the continued participation of the Controlling Participant in the Triggering Event, in accordance with paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
( 2 ) The Commissioner shall provide notice of the determination to the Controlling Participant including the reasons for disapproval or limitation. The Commissioner may provide notice of the determination to other parties as well, such the FHA-approved lender in the transaction.
( c ) *Basis for disapproval.* ( 1 ) The Commissioner must disapprove a Controlling Participant if the Commissioner determines that the Controlling Participant is suspended, debarred or subject to other restriction pursuant to 2 CFR part 180 or 2 CFR part 2424;
( 2 ) The Commissioner may disapprove a Controlling Participant if the Commissioner determines: ( i ) The Controlling Participant is materially restricted, including voluntarily, from doing business with HUD (other than the restrictions listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section) or any other governmental department or agency if the Commissioner determines that such restriction demonstrates a significant risk to proceeding with the Triggering Event; or
( ii ) The Controlling Participant's record of Previous Participation reveals significant risk to proceeding with the Triggering Event.
( d ) *Alternatives to disapproval.* In lieu of disapproval, the Commissioner may: ( 1 ) Condition or limit the Controlling Participant's participation;
( 2 ) Temporarily withhold issuing a determination in order to gather more necessary information; or
( 3 ) Require the Controlling Participant to remedy or mitigate outstanding violations of HUD requirements to the Commissioner's satisfaction in order to participate in the Triggering Event.
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, and2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.
 By:
    
    /s/ Sean P. McGrathName:
    
    Sean P. McGrathTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
    
    March 30, 2011
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7132
EDWARD L. MOSELY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. James E. Bradberry, Magistrate Judge. (CA-02-563-2) Submitted: September 25, 2003 Decided: October 10, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward L. Mosely, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Edward L. Mosely seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The magistrate judge’s recommendation Mosely seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. SeeHaney v. Addison , 175 F.3d 1217, 1219 (10th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PAULA SKERSTON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-56624

D.C. No. 8:11-cv-00803-DDP-RZ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2014** 

Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. 

Paula Skerston, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of her Fourth

Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo, Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, 560 F.3d 1012, 1019 (9th Cir. 2009), and we

FILED

APR 14 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
affirm. 

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Skerston

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants lacked

reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop. See Liberal v. Estrada, 632

F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2011) (reasonable suspicion requires that an officer have

“specific, articulable facts which, together with objective and reasonable

inferences, form the basis for suspecting that the particular person detained is

engaged in criminal activity” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see

also Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt Cnty., 542 U.S. 177,

186 (2004) (inquiry into a suspect’s identity is a “routine and accepted” part of an

investigatory stop and serves important government interests, including informing

an officer that the suspect is wanted for any other offense).

AFFIRMED.

2 12-56624
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

## A 

# ^2__1ll-E-18 2 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:11 AM

Sheet 222 of 264P. 2 Wtt_flNaTOHD.C.-fl8SEAJS£H — IANGLBRMW.N C •WSAN8EUS.C * •ONC8«UI1.0 H 

### r A 9 A 5 ?


### &» V 2 ? 

### i_i" i | EP A AI R DOCKE T From : Contac t Repor t Rober t Jemison , Pacifi c Environmenta l Services , Inc . (PES ) Date : Contact : Company : Augus t 19,199 8 Mr . Randy "Wilso

n Wilso n Marble , Inc . Telephon e Number : (828 ) 724-478 2 Fa x Number : (828 ) 724-984 6 Contac t Summary : Mr . Rand y Wilso n wa s contactedo n behalf o f th e U.S . EP

A t o update Morrr__o n provide d i n th e 199 3 EP A ReinforcedPlasti c Composite s Sasenin g Surve y sabmitte db y Wilso n Marble , Inc . fo r thei r fecility locate di n Marion , NC . I n respons e t o m y question s Mr . Wilso n indicate dth e following : Th e fecility use s atomizedspra y lay-Ti p to appl y aclea r productio n ge l coa

t i n th e fabrication o f th e facility' s products . Th e clea r productio n ge l coa

t contain s 43.0 % - 47.0 % HA P b y weight (43.0 % - 47.0 % styrene , 0.0 % methy l methacrylate) . N o additiona l HA P (styrene o r

methy l metha crylate ) i s adde dt o the'clea r gel coa t during o r prio r to the febrication proces s wit h th e exceptio n o f smgll amount s o f

HAP tha t may (or ma y not) b e present

i n initiators , promoter s and/o r catalyst s adde dt o th e ge l coats . Th e facilit y als o use s ver

y small quantitie s o f

toolin g ge l coat s for

mol d repair . Th e facilit

y applie s thes e toolin g gel coat s usin g han dlay-up . The facilit y doe s no t

use d pigmente dproductio n ge l coal s i n th e febrication o f it s products .

TwTr«Ti » #t«PT«V T T C Af/TIT ? 4T R
Editorial Note on Part 5
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 5 appear at 65 FR 16715, Mar. 29, 2000.

§ 5.854 When must I prohibit admission of individuals who have engaged in drug-related criminal activity? ( a ) You *must* prohibit admission to your federally assisted housing of an applicant for three years from the date of eviction if any household member has been evicted from federally assisted housing for drug-related criminal activity. However, you may admit the household if: ( 1 ) The evicted household member who engaged in drug-related criminal activity has successfully completed an approved supervised drug rehabilitation program; or
( 2 ) The circumstances leading to the eviction no longer exist (for example, the criminal household member has died or is imprisoned).
( b ) You *must* establish standards that prohibit admission of a household to federally assisted housing if: ( 1 ) You determine that any household member is currently engaging in illegal use of a drug; or
( 2 ) You determine that you have reasonable cause to believe that a household member's illegal use or a pattern of illegal use of a drug may interfere with the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 03142

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 03142\03142_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

03142\03142_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

03142\03142_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 03142\03142_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03142\03142_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03142\03142_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03142\03142_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03142\03142_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

03142\Certification Statement Plant ID 03142.pdf Plant certification statement

x 03142\Supplemental Documents\03142_Part D_old.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03142\Supplemental Documents\Plant ID 3142 A5-2 Aerial Map .pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

03142\Supplemental Documents\Plant ID 3142 A5-2 Aerial Photo Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03142\Supplemental Documents\Plant ID 3142 A5-3 Water Balance Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03142\Supplemental Documents\Plant ID 3142 C2-31 Fly Ash Handling System.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03142\Supplemental Documents\Plant ID 3142 D3-1 (WWTS).pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03142\Supplemental Documents\Plant ID 3142 D3-1 Pond-4 (SPD-11).pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03142\Supplemental Documents\Plant ID 3142 D3-1 Ponds 1-3 (SPD1-3) Pond 5 (SPD 5) and (1).pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03142\Supplemental Documents\Plant ID 3142 D3-1 Ponds 1-3 (SPD1-3) Pond 5 (SPD 5) and Pon.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03142\Supplemental Documents\Plant ID 3142 D3-1 Ponds 7-10 (SPD 7-10).pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

03142\Plant ID 03142_Cover Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### § 1000.44 What prohibitions on the use of debarred, suspended, or ineligible contractors apply?

In addition to any tribal requirements, the prohibitions in 2 CFR part 2424 on the use of debarred, suspended, or ineligible contractors apply.

[72 FR 73497, Dec. 27, 2007]
**Exhibit 99.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofOmtool, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Robert L. Voelk, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

 

(1)                               The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)                               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to Omtool, Ltd. and will be retainedby Omtool, Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 
|                    |
|-------------------------|
| /s/ Robert L. Voelk     |
| Robert L. Voelk         |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| May 5, 2003             |

 

 

----
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-121853) pertaining to the
Equity Incentive Plan of GMH Communities Trust and Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 145075) pertaining to the Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan of GMH Communities Trust of our
report dated March 13, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 and with respect to the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, of GMH Communities Trust included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2007.

/s/
Reznick Group, P.C.
Baltimore, Maryland
March 13, 2008

---



QuickLinks
### §591. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Feb. 28, 1923, ch. 145, §5, 42 Stat. 1325, related to extension of time for payment of operation and maintenance charges on projects other than the Boise, Idaho, project. See section 493a of this title.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS  FOUND ON PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM
10-QSB FOR THE YEAR TO DATE,  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          92,526
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,526
<PP&E>                                         103,515
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (4,979)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 300,214
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          762,359
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        100
<COMMON>                                         2,198
<OTHER-SE>                                    (464,443)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   300,214
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,266,477
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  62
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,266,539)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Case 3:09-cv-00617-BZ Document 44 Filed 01/07/10 Page 1 of 2Case 3:09-cv-00617-BZ Document 44 Filed 01/07/10 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 17
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 17 appear at 87 FR 8196, Feb. 14, 2022.

§ 17.45 Unallowable claims. Claims are not allowable for the following: ( a ) *Unassigned quarters in United States.* Property loss or damage in quarters occupied by the claimant within the 50 States or the District of Columbia that were not assigned to him or otherwise provided in kind by the United States.
( b ) *Business property.* Property used for business or profit.
( c ) *Unserviceable property.* Wornout or unserviceable property.
( d ) *Illegal possession.* Property acquired, possessed, or transported in violation of law or in violation of applicable regulations or directives.
( e ) *Articles of extraordinary value.* Valuable articles, such as cameras, watches, jewelry, furs, or other articles of extraordinary value, when shipped with household goods or as unaccompanied baggage (shipment includes storage). This prohibition does not apply to articles in the personal custody of the claimant or articles properly checked, provided that reasonable protection or security measures have been taken by claimant.
( f ) *Minimum amount.* Loss or damage amounting to less than $10.
**Exhibit
      23.1**




**CONSENT
      OF PARITZ & COMPANY, P.A.**











**Paritz
                & Company, P.A.**
            15
                Warren Street, Suite 25
              Hackensack,
                New Jersey 07601
              (201)342-7753
              Fax:
                (201) 342-7598
              E-Mail:
                khaber @paritz.comCertified
                Public Accountants




















**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**











Blackhawk
      Capital Group BDC Inc.


14
      Wall
      Street


New
      York,
      New York 10005





Gentlemen:





We
      have
      issued our report dated April 21, 2006 accompanying the financial statements
      of
      Blackhawk Capital Group BDC Inc. contained in the Form 10-K/A for the year
      ended
      December 31, 2004 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. We
      consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Form 10-K/A under the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and to the use of our name as
      it
      appears in Item 8 of Form 10-K/A.








***Paritz
&
Company,
      P.A.***














Hackensack,
      New Jersey


April
      21,
      2006
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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL IMPEY,

Plaintiff, No. C-09-01973 EDL

v. ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S 

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN

TIME FOR HEARING ON MOTION TO

COMPEL INDEPENDENT MEDICAL 

EXAMINATION

 THE OFFICE DEPOT, INC.

Defendant.

_______________________________/

On June 14, 2010, the Court issued an Order extending expert discovery dates to allow

Defendant time to engage and prepare rebuttal expert reports, as well as additional time for

discovery “should Plaintiff consent to submit to a psychiatric examination by Defendant’s expert

witness.” Defendant now moves to compel an independent medical examination by its rebuttal

expert and requests that the motion be heard on shortened time on June 25, 2010 at the same time as

the currently-scheduled hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Given the conflicting schedules of counsel for both parties and the Court (as demonstrated by

the need to specially set the hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment) and for the convenience

of the parties and the Court, the Court finds good cause for shortening time on Defendant’s Motion

to Compel. The Court notes that Defendant’s motion is short (six pages) and does not appear to

involve complex or novel legal issues so an opposition to the motion to compel should be able to be

prepared on shortened time. 

Case 3:09-cv-01973-EDL Document 84 Filed 06/15/10 Page 1 of 2
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

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby Ordered that Defendant’s Ex Part Motion to Shorten

Time For Hearing on Motion to Compel ((Dkt. #79) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have until June

22, 2010 to file an Opposition of no more than six pages. No Reply shall be filed. The motion will

be heard on June 25, 2010 in conjunction with the Motion for Summary Judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2010 _______________________________________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01973-EDL Document 84 Filed 06/15/10 Page 2 of 2
### §565. Terms of sale of town lots; installments of price

In the sale of town lots under the provisions of sections 562 and 563 of this title the Secretary of the Interior may, in his discretion, require payments for such town lots in full at time of sale or in annual installments, not exceeding five, with interest at the rate of 6 per centum per annum on deferred payments.

(June 11, 1910, ch. 284, §2, 36 Stat. 466.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 594 of this title, referred to in text, was omitted from the Code.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marshall Chapman, Appellant.

[717 NYS2d 211]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.), rendered June 15, 1998, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the hearing court properly denied that branch of his motion which was to suppress his statements. The defendant’s claim that his statements were physically coerced is belied by his appearance in his arrest photograph and his appearance and demeanor during his videotaped statement *(see, People v Williams,*226 AD2d 750; *People v Turner,*200 AD2d 603). The credibility determinations of the hearing court are entitled to great deference, as it saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759; *People v Grieco,*262 AD2d 656).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for *393appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gonzalez,*55 NY2d 887; *People v Bellow,*255 AD2d 450) and, in any event, are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.