alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
V 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2902

For the relief of Diana Gecaj Engstrom. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 14, 2005

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

on the Judiciary 

A BILL

For the relief of Diana Gecaj Engstrom.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR DIANA 

4 GECAJ ENGSTROM. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Diana Gecaj Engstrom shall be eligible for issuance 

8 of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that 

9 of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence 

10 upon filing an application for issuance of an immigrant 

11 visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of 

12 status to lawful permanent resident. 
2

•HR 2902 IH 

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Diana Gecaj 

2 Engstrom enters the United States before the filing dead3 line specified in subsection (c), she shall be considered to 

4 have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise 

5 eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 

6 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date 

7 of the enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Diana Gecaj Engstrom, the Secretary of State 

16 shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the 

17 current or next following fiscal year, the total number of 

18 immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the 

19 country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) of the 

20 Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the 

21 total number of immigrant visas that are made available 

22 to natives of the country of the alien’s birth under section 

23 202(e) of such Act. 

24 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

25 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 
3

•HR 2902 IH 

1 parents, brothers, and sisters of Diana Gecaj Engstrom 

2 shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any 

3 right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Na4 tionality Act.

Æ
ex41.htm


Exhibit 4.1


 


A.T. Limited







November 8, 2010







Forex International Trading Corp.


1061 1⁄2 N Spaulding Ave.


West Hollywood, California 90046







Re:           Secured and Collateralized Promissory Note







Mr. Dunckel:







Reference is hereby made to that certain Secured and Collateralized Promissory Note (the “ATL Note”) in the principle amount of $400,000 payable to Forex International Trading Corp. (“Forex”) by A.T. Limited (“ATL”) dated July 8, 2010.  ATL and Forex hereby agree that the various loans in the aggregate amount of $71,736 (the “Prepaid Amount”) provided by ATL to Forex shall be applied to the ATL Note reducing the principal of the ATL Note by the Prepaid Amount.  Accordingly, upon the conversion of that certain Convertible Promissory Note issued by Forex to ATL in aggregate principal amounts of $500,000 dated July 8, 2010, ATL will not be required to make such pro-rata payment reducing the ATL Note until the Prepaid Amount has been exceeded.







Please execute below acknowledging your agreement to the above terms.







Sincerely,







A.T. Limited












By:/s/ Tiran Avgi 








Name: Tiran Avgi


Title: CEO








	
AGREED AND ACKNOWLEDGED:

	  	  
	  	  	  	  





Forex International Trading Corp.







By:/s/ Darren C. Dunckel





Name: Darren C. Dunckel


Title: CEO
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 31.1


                                CEO CERTIFICATION

I, R. Greg Smith, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of ERF Wireless, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: August 15, 2005

By:  /s/ R. Greg Smith
     -----------------
     R. Greg Smith
     Chief Executive Officer
     (Principal Executive Officer)
#### § 203.459 Notice of termination by lender.

No contract of insurance shall be terminated until the lender has given written notice thereof to the Commissioner within 15 calendar days from the occurrence of one of the approved methods of termination set forth in this subpart.

[45 FR 31716, May 14, 1980]
United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Region

Forest Disease

Management Notes

Lodgepole Pine Dwarf Mistletoe

Lodgepole pine dwarf mistletoe, Arceuthobium americanum

infests 42% of the lodgepole pine type in the Pacific Northwest. Severe infestations cause growth loss, wood quality

reduction, and tree killing Dwarf mistletoe is the most serious

disease affecting lodgepole pine.

Hosts: Lodgepole pine.

Recognition: Leafless, yellow to olive-green dwarf mistletoe

shoots (about 2.5 in. long) a pear on infected branches and

stems; basal cups of old, detached shoots remain on

branches; branch and stem swellings, witches’-brooms,

branch and top death.

Disease Spread: Dwarf mistletoe seeds are sticky and forcibly

discharged from fruit for distances up to 50 feet in the fall;

seeds germinate in the spring, infection occurs on thin bark

wood; spread is most rapid in multi-storied stands; spread in

single-storied stands averages 1-2 feet per year; spread is

faster in open than dense stands; dwarf mistletoe is a true

parasite, dying with host death.

Management: Clearcut severely infested stands, remove the

infested overstory if a manageable susceptible understory is

present; remove severely infected trees in lightly infested

stands; favor non-hosts in mixed stands; maintain even-aged

stands in single species forests; prune witches’-brooms in

recreation sites to prolong tree life.

May be Confused With: Simulation brooms produced when

suppressed trees are released. Simulation brooms do not have

dwarf mistletoe shoots.

A. americanum plants on

lodgepole

Witches’-broom caused by

dwarf mistletoe
Exhibit 8.1

List of Significant Subsidiaries and Affiliates of Ku6 Media Co., Ltd.



|                                                        |  |                                       
|------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary or Affiliate                         |  | State or Jurisdiction
of Incorporation
|Ku6 Holding Limited                                     |  | Cayman Islands                        
|                                                        | 
|Ku6 (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd.                      |  | Peoples Republic of China            
|                                                        | 
|WeiMoSanYi (Tianjin) Technology Co., Ltd.               |  | Peoples Republic of China            
|                                                        | 
|Kusheng (Tianjin) Technology Co., Ltd.                  |  | Peoples Republic of China            
|                                                        | 
|Ku6 (Beijing) Information Technology Co., Ltd.          |  | Peoples Republic of China            
|                                                        | 
|Tianjin Ku6 Zheng Yuan Information Technology Co., Ltd. |  | Peoples Republic of China            
|                                                        | 
|Ku6 (Beijing) Cultural Media Co., Ltd.                  |  | Peoples Republic of China            
|                                                        | 
|Tianjin Ku6 Network Communication Technology Co., Ltd.  |  | Peoples Republic of China
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

CHANEL INC et al,

Plaintiff(s),

    v.

TONY BOSINI et al,

Defendant(s).                                                                      /

No. C 09-1972 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-01972-BZ   Document 49   Filed 03/01/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-12T01:44:43-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
§ 203.508 Providing information. ( a ) Mortgagees shall provide loan information to mortgagors and arrange for individual loan consultation on request. The mortgagee must establish written procedures and controls to assure prompt responses to inquiries. One or more of the following means of making information readily available to mortgagors is required: ( 1 ) An office staffed with competent personnel located within 200 miles of the property, capable of providing timely responses to requests for information. Complete records need not be maintained in such an office if the staff is able to secure needed information and pass it on to the mortgagor.
( 2 ) Toll-free telephone service at an office capable of providing needed information.
( b ) All mortgagors must be informed of the system available for obtaining answers to loan inquiries, the office from which needed information may be obtained and reminded of the system at least annually. Toll-free telephone service need not be provided to a mortgagor other than at the office designated to serve the mortgagor nor other than from the immediate vicinity of the security property.
( c ) Within thirty days after the end of each calendar year, the mortgagee shall furnish to the mortgagor a statement of the interest paid, and of the taxes disbursed from the escrow account during the preceding year. At the mortgagor's request, the mortgagee shall furnish a statement of the escrow account sufficient to enable the mortgagor to reconcile the account.
( d ) Mortgagees must respond to HUD requests for information concerning individual accounts.
( e ) Each servicer of a mortgage shall deliver to the mortgagor a written notice of any assignment, sale, or transfer of the servicing of the mortgage. The notice must be sent in accordance with the provisions of § 3500.21(e)(1) of this title and shall contain the information required by § 3500.21(e)(2) of this title. Servicers must respond to mortgagor inquiries pertaining to the transfer of servicing in accordance with § 3500.21(f) of this title.
(The information collection requirements contained in paragraph (c) were approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2502-0235) [41 FR 49736, Nov. 10, 1976, as amended at 48 FR 28986, June 24, 1983; 59 FR 65448, Dec. 19, 1994]
#### BEEMER v. SMITH et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 17, 1905.)

Action by Horace J. Beemer against Charles E. W. Smith and another. No opinion. Motion granted, so far as to dismiss appeal, with $10 costs.
Record of Discussion 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: 20 15-CE-035-AD 

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

QUEST Jamie Slippy Multiple Actions to be taken by 

Quest and design issues 

regarding unsafe 

condition. 

Other/ Additional Information: 

9
§ 3286.807 Recertification required. ( a ) *Recertification.* To maintain its status as a qualified installation program when the installation program is not part of the approved state plan in accordance with part 3282 of this chapter, a state must submit a new State Installation Program Certification form to the Secretary for review and action as follows: ( 1 ) Every 5 years after the state's most recent certification as a qualified installation program; and
( 2 ) Whenever there is a change to the state's installation program or a change in the HUD requirements applicable to qualifying installation programs such that the state's installation program no longer complies with the minimum requirements set forth in § 3286.803(b), regardless of when the state's next regular recertification of its installation program would be due.
( b ) *Due date of recertification.* ( 1 ) A state's recertification required in paragraph (a) of this section must be filed within 90 days of, as applicable: ( i ) The 5-year anniversary of the effective date of the Secretary's acceptance of the state's most recent certification as a qualified installation program; and
( ii ) The effective date of the state or HUD action that makes a significant change to the state's installation program.
( 2 ) Upon petition by the state, the Secretary may for good cause grant an extension of the deadline for recertification.
( c ) *Failure to Recertify.* ( 1 ) A state whose certification of its installation program, when the installation program is not part of the approved state plan in accordance with part 3282 of this chapter, has been accepted by the Secretary is permitted to administer its installation program in lieu of the HUD-administered installation program until the effective date of a notification by the Secretary that the state's certification of its installation program is no longer approved.
( 2 ) A state whose recertification of its installation program is rejected by the Secretary has a right to a presentation of views on the rejection using the procedures set forth under subpart D of part 3282 of this chapter. The state's request for a presentation of views must be submitted to the Secretary within 60 days after the Secretary has provided notification that the state's recertification of its installation program has been rejected.
### §391a. Advances to reclamation fund

The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized, upon request of the Secretary of the Interior and upon approval of the President, to transfer from time to time to the credit of the reclamation fund created by section 391 of this title, such sum or sums, not exceeding in the aggregate $5,000,000, as the Secretary of the Interior may deem necessary for the construction and operation of reclamation projects authorized under the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388), and under way on March 3, 1931, and Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto.

(Mar. 3, 1931, ch. 435, §1, 46 Stat. 1507.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Act of June 17, 1902, referred to in text, is popularly known as the Reclamation Act, which is classified generally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 371 of this title and Tables.
### Channel gains and losses in the Opequon Creek watershed of West Virginia, July 25-28, 2005

By: Ronald D. EvaldiKatherine S. Paybins**

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds179

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
- Plate:  **Figure 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7876

ANDRE L. REED, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RICHARD E. SMITH, Warden; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CA-03-3823-2-26AJ) Submitted: July 6, 2005 Decided: August 2, 2005 Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andre L. Reed, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Andre L. Reed, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); see Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a subst antial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural findings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Reed has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
#### § 3285.313 Combination systems.

Support systems that combine both load-bearing capacity and uplift resistance must also be sized and designed for all applicable design loads.
#### Jack Burra, Respondent, v. Greater New York Association, Inc., Appellant.

Judgment in an action to recover damages for personal injuries reversed, on the law, the facts having been considered and the complaint dismissed, with costs to defendant-appellant. Plaintiff failed to establish actionable negligence. Defendant owned and operated a race track at which plaintiff was a patron, having paid admission. Plaintiff was standing outside a fence, in the paddock area, four feet high and approximately one quarter of a mile in circumference. The fence enclosed a track, distant 42 inches within the fence, and 12 feet wide, around which the horses were led for purposes of display and to be mounted. One of the horses lunged towards but did not reach the fence. The patrons standing at or near the fence became apprehensive, moved or pushed back, causing the plaintiff to come in contact with a television platform and to sustain the injuries complained of. The testimony showed there were 12 Pinkerton men assigned to this area. The horses were controlled by grooms and jockeys. There was no proof that defendant had any notice that the horse was dangerous or that its conduct was likely to cause the spectators to behave as they did. Neither the location of the television platform in this area for the purpose of taking pictures of the horses nor the number of patrons presenfiwas the proximate cause of the occurrence. Moreover, there was no proof of Overcrowding. Concur — Yalente, McNally and Noonan, JJ.; Botein, P. J.,land Breitel, J., dissent and vote to affirm in the following memorandum by Breitel, J.: The trial court properly submitted to the jury the question of fact whether defendant, knowing the propensities of race horses, nervous and highly-bred, took the necessary precautions to prevent injury to persons in the crowds that it knew would assemble. The adequacy — the apparent adequacy —■ of the fence which surrounded the paddock area was an issue of fact. For the fence was a precaution, not only to protect the crowd in the event of horses misbehaving, but it was designed to give assurance to such crowd so that it would not itself act improperly and injure one of its members, as happened here. The problem in this accident was not to prevent the horse from lunging but to prevent a crowd from taking reasonable alarm and, foreseeably, creating a panic to the injury of one of its members. This, indeed, was the gravamen of the complaint and the bill of particulars. Hence, there was an issue of fact within the pleadings and the proof which could not be disposed of as a matter of law. Accordingly, I dissent and vote to affirm the judgment.