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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2908 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2908

               To suspend temporarily the duty on diuron.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 15, 2005

Mr. Bishop of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
               To suspend temporarily the duty on diuron.

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

SECTION 1. DIURON.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.05.70       formulated         Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         product(s)                                                         31/2008
                         containing
                         mixtures of the
                         active ingredient
                         [3-(3,4-
                         dichlorophenyl)-1
                         ,1-dimethylurea]
                         and application
                         adjuvants (CAS
                         No. 330-54-1)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         3808.30.15)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT
      99.4**





**CONSENT
      OF
      INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS**





We
      consent to the
      use of our reports dated February 21, 2006 (which audit report expresses an
      unqualified opinion on the financial statements and includes Comments by
      Independent Registered Chartered Accountants on Canada-United States of America
      Reporting Differences when there has been a restatement of the financial
      statements as described in note 11 to the consolidated financial statements),
      appearing in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Vermilion Energy Trust for the
      year ended December 31, 2005.











***(“Deloitte
      & Touche LLP”)***





“Deloitte
&
      Touche LLP”


Independent
      Registered Chartered Accountants


Calgary,
      Alberta,
      Canada





February
      21,
      2006
# U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f A pp eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 05-2098 No. 05-2181 ATTREZZI, LLC,

Plaintiff, Appellee/Cross-Appellant,

v. MAYTAG CORPORATION, Defendant, Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

ERRATA The opinion of this Court, issued on January 27, 2006, should be amended as follows. On cover page, replace present attorney listings with: Edward A. Haffer with whom Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green, P.A. was on brief for defendant. James G. Goggin with whom Peter S. Black and Verrill Dana, LLP were on brief for plaintiff. On page 2, line 1, delete comma after "LLC" and insert comma after "("Attrezzi LLC")".
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 19

- 00274

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.L.

, III , D.L., D.A.R. and D.G., Children

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018PA00708

Honorable Norma Gonzales, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE CHAPA

, JUSTICE RIOS , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order terminating

appellant’s parental rights is AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that no costs be assess ed against

appellant in relation to this appeal because she qualifies as indigent under T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.

SIGNED October 23, 2019.

_____________________________ Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Exhibit
No. 10.4
 
 CONFIDENTIAL
 
 February
17, 2009
 
 Dr. Craig
A Zabala
 Chairman
of the Board, President & Chief Executive Officer
 Blackhawk
Capital Group BDC, Inc.
 14 Wall
Street, Suite 1100B
 New York,
NY 10005
 
 Dear Dr.
Zabala,
 
 We hereby
amend the agreement dated January 16, 2009 ("Agreement") by and among John W.
Loofbourrow Associates, Inc., EquitySmith, Inc., and Blackhawk Capital Group
BDC, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a business development company registered
under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended.  The parties
agree to extend the term of the Agreement (as set forth in Section 3 of the
Agreement) to March 17, 2009.
  If this
amendment to Agreement reflects our mutual understanding, please execute two
copies in the space indicated below and return one to us.
  Very
truly yours,
 
 JOHN
W. LOOFBOURROW ASSOCIATES, INC.
 
 
 /s/ John
W. Loofbourrow
 _____________________________
 John W.
Loofbourrow
 President
 
 
 EQUITYSMITH,
INC.
 
 
 /s/ Hugo
A. Delgado, Jr.
 _____________________________
 Hugo
A. Delgado, Jr.
 President
  
  Accepted
and agreed to as of February 17, 2009:
 
 BLACKHAWK
CAPITAL GROUP BDC, INC.
 
 
 /s/ Craig
A. Zabala
 ____________________________________
 Dr.
Craig A Zabala
 Chairman
of the Board, President & Chief Executive Officer
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 

For the Northern District of California 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AYISHA BENHAM, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

AJMAL AKBAR aka JAMAL 

AKBAR; KEITH HOUSTEAD and DOES 

1-20 inclusive, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 09-2059 SC 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

On March 4, 2010, this Court ordered Plaintiff to show good 

cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to serve 

the remaining Defendants within the 120-day time limit set out in 

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Docket No. 61 

("Order to Show Cause"). On March 16, 2010, Plaintiff submitted a 

Response to the Order to Show Cause. Docket No. 62 ("Response"). 

The remaining defendants are each individuals who remain in this 

suit after all causes of action have been dismissed with prejudice 

as to all of the corporate defendants whom Plaintiff had managed to 

effectively serve. See Docket No. 59 ("Order Granting Motion to 

Dismiss"). 

 In the Response, counsel for Plaintiff explains that he 

performed several checks and searches for Defendant Keith Houstead 

("Houstead"), and ultimately found an address. Response at 2. 

Plaintiff claims that he made "[s]everal attempts to effectute 

Case 3:09-cv-02059-SC Document 63 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 2
2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

service" on this Defendant, but does not explain when such attempts 

were made. Id. More importantly, Plaintiff does not even attempt 

to explain why service had not been effectuated even though 

Houstead was named in the original Complaint, filed over ten months 

ago. A delay of this length cannot be excused simply because 

Houstead wasn't available on "several" undescribed instances. 

 Plaintiff also indicates that he had not attempted service on 

Defendant Ajmal Akbar ("Akbar") until March 16, 2010, the same day 

that Plaintiff's Response to the Order to Show Cause was due. Id. 

Akbar was first named in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint filed 

on October 30, 2009, and there can be no excuse for failing to even 

attempt service until after the 120-day deadline has passed. The 

Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for the 

delay in service as to both Akbar and Houstead. 

 Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

this suit is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Keith Houstead and 

Ajmal Akbar. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 17, 2010 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-02059-SC Document 63 Filed 03/17/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Powers-57th Street, Inc., Appellant, v. Carl Gallo, Respondent.

In an action to recover chattels, to wit, a piano and a piano bench, sold by plaintiff to defendant under a conditional bill of sale, in which plaintiff seeks to replevy the chattels pursuant to statute (Civ. Prae. Act., § 1094 *et seq.),*plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated December 30, 1959, granting defendant’s motion to direct the Sheriff to accept a $250 undertaking filed by defendant with the Sheriff and to stay the Sheriff from proceeding with the replevy; the motion having been granted on condition: (1) that defendant serve upon the Sheriff and upon plaintiff’s attorney the defendant’s affidavit as prescribed by statute (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1105); (2) that defendant file an undertalcing in the increased aggregate sum of $500; and (3) that the chattels involved “be deemed in the constructive custody of the Sheriff ” and their “ status quo preserved by defendant.” Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied. On November 6, 1959, the plaintiff, pursuant to the statute, filed its papers with the Sheriff and requested him to replevy the chattels. About a month later and before the Sheriff had seized or replevied the chattels, defendant filed with the Sheriff his undertaking, with corporate surety, for $250 and made his motion to direct the Sheriff to accept it and to stay him from proceeding with the replevy. The motion was granted conditionally as stated above. We are constrained to hold that the court lacked the power to grant the motion *(United States Land £• Inv. Co.*v. *Bussey,*53 Hun 516; *Hohenstein*v. *Westminster Candle Co.,*31 App. Div. 11; 7 Carmody, New York Practice, § 706, p. 844). Beldoek, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.1

      

     

      

    
      
        

        

      

      FOURTH LEASE AMENDMENT

       

      This Lease Amendment made this 17th day of October, 2022 by and between DUKE & DUKE, a Limited Partnership, of 37000 Grand River Avenue, Suite 360, Farmington Hills, MI 48335, as “Landlord” and Ocuphire Pharma,
          Inc. of 37000 Grand River Avenue, Suite 120, Farmington Hills, MI 48335, as “Tenant”.

       

      WITNESSETH

       

      WHEREAS, on or about the 31st day of August, 2021, Landlord and Tenant entered into a Lease Agreement with a First Amendment on
        October 29, 2019, a Second Amendment on November 17, 2020, and a Third Amendment on September 9, 2022. The Lease together with any and all Amendments and/or riders is herein collectively referred to as, “Lease”. The certain demised premises
        consists of 1,623 rentable square feet and being commonly known as Suite 120 at 37000 Grand River Avenue, Farmington Hills, MI 48335; and

       

      WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend this Lease in respect to the demised premises in that Tenant will extend the term of the Lease; and

       

      NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of monies to be paid and covenants and conditions to be performed, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

       

      
        1.          That the rent for the Suite known as Suite 120 will be as follows;

         

        
          01/01/2023 — 12/31/2023  $22.00 per rentable square foot

        

         

        2.          That the expiration date of Tenant’s Lease shall be December 31, 2023.

         

        3.          Tenant Share: 2.13%

         

        4.          Base Tax:          $1.39

         

        5.          Miscellaneous:  The Lease remains in full force and effect and has not been modified or extended except as specifically set in this Fourth Amendment. To the extent of any conflict between this Amendment and
              the Lease, the provisions of this Amendment shall control.

         

        	
                TENANT:

              	
                LANDLORD:

              
	
                Ocuphire Pharma, Inc.

              	
                DUKE & DUKE,

              
	 	
                a Limited Partnership

              
	 	 
	
                /s/ Mina Sooch

              	 	
                /s/ Thomas Duke

              	 


        	 	 
	
                Name:

              	
                Mina Sooch

              	
                Name:

              	
                Thomas Duke

              
	
                Its:

              	
                CEO

              	
                Its:

              	
                Thomas Duke Gen Ptnr

              
	
                Date:

              	
                10/18/2022

              	
                Date:

              	
                10/18/2022
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

SECOND JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

CV-09-2890 TEH

MARK J. ALEXANDER (CSBN 184265)

Law Offices of Mark J. Alexander

1500 J. Street, Second Floor

P.O. Box 1292

Modesto, CA 95353-1292

Telephone: (209) 577-1646

Fax: (209) 577-1647

Attorney for Plaintiff

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CSBN 44332)

United States Attorney

JOANN M. SWANSON (CSBN 88143)

Chief, Civil Division

MELISSA K. BROWN (CSBN 203307)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102-3495

Telephone: (415) 436-6962

FAX: (415) 436-6748

melissa.k.brown@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

LUDWIK CHROBOK,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-2890 TEH

SECOND JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT

STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER

Date: June 7, 2010

Time: 1:30 p.m.

Location: Courtroom 12, 19 Floor th

Case 3:09-cv-02890-TEH Document 22 Filed 05/28/10 Page 1 of 3
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

SECOND JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

CV-09-2890 TEH

Pursuant to Local Rule 16-9, the parties, plaintiff Ludwik Chrobok (“Plaintiff”) and the

defendant United States of America (“Federal Defendant”) submit this joint case management

statement.

On May 4, 2010, the parties participated in mediation. During that mediation session the

parties reached a tentative settlement agreement. Final approval of the settlement by the

government is pending. Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the Case Management

Conference currently scheduled for June 7, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. be continued to July 19, 2010 at

1:30 p.m.

DATED: May 26, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO

United States Attorney

/s/ Melissa Brown

________________________________

MELISSA K. BROWN

Assistant United States Attorney

MARK J. ALEXANDER, ESQ.

Law Offices of Mark J. Alexander

/s/ Mark Alexander

Dated: May 27, 2010 

MARK J. ALEXANDER

Attorneys for the Plaintiff

Case 3:09-cv-02890-TEH Document 22 Filed 05/28/10 Page 2 of 3
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

SECOND JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

CV-09-2890 TEH

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The Case Management Conference currently scheduled for June 7, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. is

continued to July 19, 2010 at 1:30 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ________________________ ___________________________

HONORABLE THELTON E. HENDERSON

 United States District Court Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Thelton E. Henderson

05/28/10

Case 3:09-cv-02890-TEH Document 22 Filed 05/28/10 Page 3 of 3
Editorial Note on Part 3282
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3282 appear at 78 FR 60199, Oct. 1, 2013.

§ 3282.601 Purpose and applicability. ( a ) *Purpose of section.* Under HUD oversight, this section establishes the procedure for limited on-site completion of some aspects of construction that cannot be completed at the factory.
( b ) *Applicability.* This section may be applied when all requirements of this subpart are met. To be applicable a manufactured home must: ( 1 ) Be substantially completed in the factory;
( 2 ) Meet the requirements of the Construction and Safety Standards upon completion of the site work; and
( 3 ) Be inspected by the manufacturer's IPIA as provided in this subpart, unless specifically exempted as installation under HUD's Model Installation Standards, 24 CFR part 3285. This subpart does not apply to Alternative Construction (see § 3282.14) that does not comply with the Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards.
( c ) *Exception.* An add-on or attached accessory building or structure which does not affect the performance and ability of the manufactured home to comply with the standards in accordance with § 3282.8(j) is not governed by this section.
[80 FR 53727, Sept. 8, 2015, as amended at 86 FR 2526, Jan. 12, 2021]
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order

CR No. 09-1193 MHP 1

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CABN 44332)

United States Attorney

BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN 163973)

Chief, Criminal Division

ACADIA SENESE (CABN 251287)

Special Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, 11th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone:(415) 436-6809

Fax: (415) 436-7234

Email: acadia.senese@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for the United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DANIEL A. PESCE,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR No. 09-1193 MHP

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE

SPEEDY TRIAL ACT FROM MARCH 8,

2010 TO APRIL 19, 2010

On March 8, 2010, the parties in this case appeared before the Honorable Marilyn H. Patel

for a status appearance. At that time, the parties stipulated that time should be excluded from the

Speedy Trial Act calculation from March 8, 2010 to April 19, 2010 for effective preparation of

defense counsel. The parties represented that granting the continuance was for the reasonable

time necessary for effective preparation of defense counsel, taking into account the exercise of

due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv). 

The parties also agreed that the ends of justice served by granting such a continuance 

//

//

//

Case 3:09-cr-01193-MHP Document 27 Filed 03/16/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order

CR No. 09-1193 MHP 2

outweighed the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(7)(A).

IT IS SO STIPULATED:

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO 

United States Attorney

DATED: 3/9/10 ______/s/___________________

ACADIA SENESE

Special Assistant United States Attorney

DATED: 3/9/10 ______/s/______________________

ELIZABETH FALK

Attorney for Daniel A. Pesce

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that time is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act from March 8,

2010 to April 19, 2010, under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:______________ ________________________________________

THE HON. MARILYN H. PATEL

United States District Court Judge 

3/16/2010

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:09-cr-01193-MHP Document 27 Filed 03/16/10 Page 2 of 2
### §§673 to 676. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §703(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2789

Section 673, R.S. §2354, authorized private sales of all public lands in entire, half, etc., sections.

Section 674, R.S. §2355; 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 3, §403, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7876, 60 Stat. 1100, required a memorandum in connection with application for purchase of public land at private sale.

Section 675, act May 18, 1898, ch. 344, §2, 30 Stat. 418, set forth requirements for private sale of public lands in Missouri.

Section 676, R.S. §2365; 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 3, §403, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7876, 60 Stat. 1100, authorized sale of public land to highest bidder at the private sale of land.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §703(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2789, provided that the repeal made by section 703(a) is effective on and after Oct. 21, 1976.

#### Savings Provision

Repeal by Pub. L. 94–579 not to be construed as terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, etc., existing on Oct. 21, 1976, see section 701 of Pub. L. 94–579, set out as a note under section 1701 of this title.
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

RASHEED, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE CITY OF SAN RAMON, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 09-2011 MEJ

ORDER DISCHARGING OSC

On July 27, 2010, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why this case should not be

dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with court deadlines. (Dkt. #53.) Having received

Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration in response, the Court hereby DISCHARGES the osc. The parties

shall file a stipulation for dismissal or joint status report by August 19, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2010 _______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:09-cv-02011-MEJ Document 55 Filed 08/03/10 Page 1 of 1
### §433a. Preference of needy families

It is declared to be the policy of the Congress that, in the opening to entry of newly irrigated public lands, preference shall be given to families who have no other means of earning a livelihood, or who have been compelled to abandon, through no fault of their own, other farms in the United States, and with respect to whom it appears after careful study, in the case of each such family, that there is a probability that such family will be able to earn a livelihood on such irrigated lands.

(June 18, 1940, ch. 395, §1, 54 Stat. 439.)