alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §§2513, 2514. Repealed. Pub. L. 89–15, §9(b), Apr. 26, 1965, 79 Stat. 79

Section 2513, Pub. L. 87–27, §16, May 1, 1961, 75 Stat. 58, related to occupational training under the area redevelopment program: studies of various aspects of labor force; area requirements, selection and referral of trainees, agency cooperation in vocational training and retraining programs; additional facilities or services provided by State agencies, public and private institutions; apprenticeship and other training assistance; appropriation; supplementary employment of seasonal workers.

Section 2514, Pub. L. 87–27, §17, May 1, 1961, 75 Stat. 59, related to retraining subsistence payments: duration, amount of weekly payment; alternative unemployment compensation benefits; administration, finality of determinations; rules and regulations; and appropriation.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective July 1, 1965, see section 9(c) of Pub. L. 89–15, Apr. 26, 1965, 79 Stat. 79.

#### Savings Provision

Pub. L. 89–15, §9(b), Apr. 26, 1965, 79 Stat. 79, provided in part that: "The repeal of these sections [sections 2513 and 2514 of this title] shall not affect the disbursement of funds under, or the carrying out of, any contract, commitment, or other obligations entered into pursuant to the Area Redevelopment Act [this chapter] prior to the effective date of the repeal of such sections."
Exhibit 32

                     CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Aspeon,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ending  September 30, 2008 as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report")  I, David J.  Cutler,
President,  Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 USC  section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge
and belief:

         (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.

Dated: November 17, 2008


/s/ David J. Cutler
------------------------------------------------------------------
David J. Cutler, President, Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer and Director


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
### Major- and Trace-Element Concentrations in Soils from Two Geochemical Surveys (1972 and 2005) of the Denver, Colorado, Metropolitan Area

By: James E. KilburnDavid B. Smith**L. Graham ClossSteven M. Smith**

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds299

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract
Editorial Note on Part 5
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 5 appear at 65 FR 16715, Mar. 29, 2000.

§ 5.315 Content of pet rules: General requirements. ( a ) *Housing programs.* The project owner shall prescribe reasonable rules to govern the keeping of common household pets. The pet rules must include the mandatory rules described in § 5.350 and may, unless otherwise noted in this subpart C, include other discretionary provisions as provided in § 5.318.
( b ) *Public Housing programs.* ( 1 ) PHAs may choose not to promulgate rules governing the keeping of common household pets or may include rules as provided in § 5.318. PHAs may elect to include provisions based on those in § 5.350. If they so choose, the PHAs may modify the provisions in § 5.350 in any manner consistent with this subpart C.
( 2 ) If PHAs choose to promulgate pet rules, tenants must be permitted to own and keep pets in their units in accordance with the terms and conditions of their leases, the provisions of this subpart C, and any applicable State or local law or regulation governing the owning or keeping of pets in dwelling accommodations.
( 3 ) PHAs that choose not to promulgate pet rules, shall not impose, by lease modification or otherwise, any requirement that is inconsistent with the provisions of this subpart C.
( c ) *Use of discretion.* ( 1 ) This subpart C does not define with specificity the limits of the project owners' or PHAs' discretion to promulgate pet rules. Where a project owner or PHA has discretion to prescribe pet rules under this subpart C, the pet rules should be: ( i ) Reasonably related to furthering a legitimate interest of the project owner or PHA, such as the owner's or PHA's interest in providing a decent, safe, and sanitary living environment for existing and prospective tenants and in protecting and preserving the physical condition of the project and the owner's or PHA's financial interest in it; and
( ii ) Drawn narrowly to achieve the owner's or PHA's legitimate interests, without imposing unnecessary burdens and restrictions on pet owners and prospective pet owners.
( 2 ) Where a project owner or PHA has discretion to prescribe pet rules under this subpart C, the owner or PHA may vary the rules' content among projects and within individual projects, based on factors such as the size, type, location, and occupancy of the project or its units, provided that the applicable rules are reasonable and do not conflict with any applicable State or local law or regulation governing the owning or keeping of pets in dwelling accommodations.
( d ) *Conflict with State or local law.* The pet rules adopted by the project owner or PHA shall not conflict with applicable State or local law or regulations. If such a conflict may exist, the State and local law or regulations shall apply.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3245 

To reduce temporarily the duty on fluoroxypyr. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 12, 2005 

Mr. BUYER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the duty on fluoroxypyr. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FLUOROXYPYR. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.29.77 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Fluoroxypyr) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘1.5%’’ and inserting ‘‘2.5%’’; 

8 and 

9 (2) by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘12/31/2008’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

12 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•HR 3245 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**Certificationof Co-Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as createdby Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officerof Guitar Center, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i)                                     theaccompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for thequarterly period ended March 31, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(ii)                                  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: May 6, 2005 |   | /s/ Marty Albertson        |   |
|------------------------|--------|----------------------------|--------|
|                   |   | Marty Albertson            |
|                   |   | Co-Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
§ 180.105 Scope of rules. ( a ) This part contains the rules of practice and procedure applicable to administrative proceedings before an ALJ under the following authorities: ( 1 ) The Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601-3619) and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR parts 100 and 103, where no election to proceed in federal district court has been made;
( 2 ) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d-1), and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 1;
( 3 ) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794), and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 8;
( 4 ) The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6103), and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 146; and
( 5 ) Section 109 of title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301-5321) and implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 6.
( b ) In the absence of a specific provision, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall serve as a general guide.
( c ) Hearings under this part shall be conducted as expeditiously and inexpensively as possible, consistent with the needs and rights of the parties to obtain a fair hearing and a complete record.
( d ) Except to the extent that a waiver would otherwise be contrary to law, the ALJ may, after adequate notice to all interested persons, modify or waive any of the rules in this part upon a determination that no person will be prejudiced and that the ends of justice will be served.
( e ) All pleadings, correspondence, exhibits, transcripts of testimony, exceptions, briefs, decisions, and other documents filed in any proceeding may be inspected in the Docket Clerk's office during regular business hours.
[61 FR 52218, Oct. 4, 1996, as amended at 64 FR 3801, Jan. 25, 1999; 74 FR 4636, Jan. 26, 2009]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7305

HENRY HARDY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ALBERT F. BEELER, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (CA-03-570)

Submitted: December 19, 2003 Decided: February 26, 2004

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Hardy, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Henry Hardy, a federal prisoner, appeals the district

court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Hardy v. Beeler, No. CA-03-570 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 1, 2003).

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.

AFFIRMED
### §667. Audit by Comptroller General; report to Congress

The Comptroller General of the United States, or any of his duly authorized representatives, shall have access to such information, books, records, and documents as he determines necessary effectively to audit financial transactions and operations carried out by the Secretary in the administration of this chapter. The Comptroller General shall make such reports to the Congress on the results of any such audits as are appropriate.

(Pub. L. 91–663, §8, Jan. 8, 1971, 84 Stat. 1977.)
### §726. Printing for committees of Congress

A committee of Congress may not procure the printing of more than one thousand copies of a hearing, or other document germane thereto, for its use except by simple, concurrent, or joint resolution, as provided by section 703 of this title.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1252.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., §154 (Jan. 12, 1895, ch. 23, §2, 28 Stat. 601; Mar. 1, 1907, ch. 2284, §1, 34 Stat. 1012).
Editorial Note on Part 5
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 5 appear at 65 FR 16715, Mar. 29, 2000.

§ 5.303 Exclusion for animals that assist, support, or provide service to persons with disabilities. ( a ) This subpart C does not apply to animals that are used to assist, support, or provide service to persons with disabilities. Project owners and PHAs may not apply or enforce any policies established under this subpart against animals that are necessary as a reasonable accommodation to assist, support, or provide service to persons with disabilities. This exclusion applies to animals that reside in projects for the elderly or persons with disabilities, as well as to animals that visit these projects.
( b ) Nothing in this subpart C: ( 1 ) Limits or impairs the rights of persons with disabilities;
( 2 ) Authorizes project owners or PHAs to limit or impair the rights of persons with disabilities; or
( 3 ) Affects any authority that project owners or PHAs may have to regulate animals that assist, support, or provide service to persons with disabilities, under federal, state, or local law.
[73 FR 63838, Oct. 27, 2008]
Document

EXHIBIT 10.1

THIRD AMENDMENT TO
REDWOOD TRUST, INC. AMENDED AND RESTATED
EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
THIS THIRD AMENDMENT (this “Third Amendment”) to the Redwood Trust, Inc. Amended and Restated Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, as amended (the “Plan”), is made and adopted by the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Redwood Trust, Inc., a corporation (the “Company”), effective as of August 25th, 2022 (the “Effective Date”). All capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to such terms in the Plan.


RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Plan;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 16(a) of the Plan, the Board has the authority to modify or amend the Plan at any time, subject to certain limitations as set forth in Section 16(a) of the Plan;
WHEREAS, the Board believes it is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders to amend the Plan to increase the limit on the number of shares of the Company’s common stock that may be issued to Directors (as defined in the Plan) pursuant to the Directors’ deferral of cash compensation under the Plan, as set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective as of the Effective Date:
AMENDMENT
1.Section 6.5 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated as follows:
“6.5     Shares Issuable Pursuant to Director Stock Equivalent Subaccounts. The aggregate number of shares of common stock of the Company which may be issued in respect of Director Stock Equivalent Subaccounts under the Plan (including any DERs or other dividends payable in respect of such Director Stock Equivalent Subaccounts) shall be five hundred thousand (500,000) shares. Any shares distributed pursuant to Director Stock Equivalent Subaccounts under the Plan may consist, in whole or in part, of authorized and unissued common stock, treasury common stock or common stock purchased on the open market.”
2.This Third Amendment shall be and is hereby incorporated into and forms a part of the Plan.
3.Except as expressly provided in this Third Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
(Remainder of page internationally left blank)



















EXHIBIT 10.1



*        *        *
I hereby certify that the foregoing Third Amendment was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of Redwood Trust, Inc. on August 25th, 2022.
Executed on this 25th day of August, 2022.


By:
/s/ ANDREW P. STONE
Name: Andrew P. Stone
Title: Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer & Secretary
#### § 3285.506 xxx

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 75758, Sept. 16, 2024.
§ 35.1310 References. Further guidance information regarding evaluation and hazard reduction activities described in this subpart is found in the following: ( a ) The HUD Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing (Guidelines);
( b ) The EPA Guidance on Residential Lead-Based Paint, Lead-Contaminated Dust, and Lead Contaminated Soil;
( c ) Guidance, methods or protocols issued by States and Indian tribes that have been authorized by EPA under 40 CFR 745.324 to administer and enforce lead-based paint programs.
Affirmed as Modified and Supp lemental Opinion filed Septembe r 28 , 2023.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 20

- 00622

- CV

ANSON DISTRIBUTING, LLC , Appellant

V.

STARCO IMPEX, INC. AND USA MILLENNIUM, LP , Appellee s

AND

USA MILLENN IUM, LP , Appe llant

V.

ANSON DISTR I BUTING, LLC , Appellee

On Appeal from the 151st District Court Harris Count y, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2016

- 423522 SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION

On August 24, 2023, we suggest ed a remittitur of $38,710 in damages and
$6,935.98 i n preju dgmen t interest awarded t o Anson Distributing, L LC in the t rial

court ’ s judgment. Anson Di stributing, LLC v. Starco Impex, Inc. , No. 14

- 20

- 00622

- CV, 2023 WL 5437707 , at *7 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Aug . 24, 2023, no pet. h.). We stated that if Anson tim ely filed the remitt itur , we would modify the trial court ’ s ju dg ment to reflect damages and prejudgment interest
awarded to Anson in the amounts of $ 1, 107, 362.17 and $198,415.04, respectively.

Id. at *7

– 8.

Anson timely filed the remittitur. Accordingly, we va cate our A ugust 24,

2023 judgment and render a judgment modifying the trial court ’ s judgment to

reflect the remittitur. We affirm the trial court ’ s judgm ent as modified.

/s/ K en Wi s e J ustice

Panel con sists of Chie f Ju stice C hristophe r and Justices Wise and Hassan

.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1830 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 80 ) IV-C-4

6 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:20:55AM

Sheet 80of 232P. 2 

# \m UNITED STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIONAGENCY

. WASHINGTON

, D.C. 20460 %P90 ^ /JA N 2-9 '£$0-

OFFIC E O F AI RAN D RADIATIO N Honorabl e Ale xMcMilla n Unite d State s Hous e o f Representative s Washington , D.C . 2051 5 Dea r Mr . McMillan : Thi s i s i n respons e t o you r January10 , 198 8 lette r relayin g th e concern s o f severa l o f you r constituent s regarding EPA' s regulatoryproposa l t o requir e onboar d canister s o n ne wvehicle s t o contro l refueling emissions . T o assis t yo u wit hyou r response , I hav e enclose d a copyo f ou r proposa l fo r you r review . Sectio n E (page s 31177-31182 ) explain s EPA' s overal l rational e fo r proposin g onboar d 4 controls . I f yo u woul d lik e furthe r detail s o f ou r analysis , pleas e contac t Mr . Phili p Carlso n o f th e Standard s Developmen t an

d Suppor t Branc ho f th e Emissio n Contro l TechnologyDivision , 256 5 Plymout hRoad , An n Arbor , Michigan 4810 5 (FT S 374-827 0 o r Commercia l (313 ) 668-4270) . Thank yo u fo r you r letter . W e wil l plac e th e letter s fromyou r constituent s i n ou r publi c docke t and full y conside r thei r comment s i n th e nex t phas e o f ou r rulemaking process . Sincerel yyours , Richar d D . Wilso n Director , Offic e o f Mobil e Source s Enclosur e cc : Docke t A-87-1 1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 25, 2019

d0418 

# Order

Clerk April 25, 2019

158115 & (12)(19)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 158115

COA: 341484

Saginaw CC: 05

- 025510

- FC

MARCUS DUWON CLEMMONS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 27, 2018 order

of the Court of Appeals

, th e m otion to stay and hold in abeyance, and the motion to

remand are considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to

appeal, we VACATE the order of the Court of Appeals and the June 23, 2017 order of

the Jackson Circuit Court denying the defendant's motion for relief from judgment, and

we REMAND this case to the Jackson Circuit Court for reconsideration of the

defendant’s motion. We remind the circuit court that its “function is limited when

reviewing newly discovered evidence, as it is not the ultimate fact

- finder,” and that its

credibility determination “is concerned with whether a reasonable juror could find the

testimony credible on retrial.” People v Johnson , 502 Mich 541, 567 (2018). On remand,

the circuit court should consider, in the interest of judicial economy, allowing the

defendant to supplement his motion with any additional affidavits. The motion to stay

and hold in abeyance is DENIED as moot.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7544

JOHN FOGG,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

BOBBY SHEARIN, Warden, Federal Correctional

Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Chief District Judge.

(CA-01-2479-S)

Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 29, 2002

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Fogg, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

John Fogg appeals the district court’s order denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Fogg v. Shearin, No. CA-01-2479-S (D. Md. Aug. 29, 2001). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### § 58.57 Lead agency designation.

If there are several agencies ready to assume the lead role, the responsible entity must make its decision based on the criteria in 40 CFR 1501.5(c). If the responsible entity and a Federal agency are unable to reach agreement, then the responsible entity must notify HUD (or the State, where applicable). HUD (or the State) will assist in obtaining a determination based on the procedure set forth in 40 CFR 1501.5(e).