alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 3286.101 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart B is to establish the systems for tracking and certifying a manufactured home installation that is to be completed in accordance with the HUD-administered installation program.
### §1766. Suspension or termination; grounds; procedures applicable

Abandonment of a right-of-way or noncompliance with any provision of this subchapter condition of the right-of-way, or applicable rule or regulation of the Secretary concerned may be grounds for suspension or termination of the right-of-way if, after due notice to the holder of the right-of-way and, and 1 with respect to easements, an appropriate administrative proceeding pursuant to section 554 of title 5, the Secretary concerned determines that any such ground exists and that suspension or termination is justified. No administrative proceeding shall be required where the right-of-way by its terms provides that it terminates on the occurrence of a fixed or agreed-upon condition, event, or time. If the Secretary concerned determines that an immediate temporary suspension of activities within a right-of-way for violation of its terms and conditions is necessary to protect public health or safety or the environment, he may abate such activities prior to an administrative proceeding. Prior to commencing any proceeding to suspend or terminate a right-of-way the Secretary concerned shall give written notice to the holder of the grounds for such action and shall give the holder a reasonable time to resume use of the right-of-way or to comply with this subchapter condition, rule, or regulation as the case may be. Failure of the holder of the right-of-way to use the right-of-way for the purpose for which it was granted, issued, or renewed, for any continuous five-year period, shall constitute a rebuttable presumption of abandonment of the right-of-way except that where the failure of the holder to use the right-of-way for the purpose for which it was granted, issued, or renewed for any continuous five-year period is due to circumstances not within the holder's control, the Secretary concerned is not required to commence proceedings to suspend or terminate the right-of-way.

(Pub. L. 94–579, title V, §506, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2780.)

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

See note set out under section 1763 of this title.

1 So in original.
EXHIBIT 13.1  Certification of Chief Executive Officer 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 Annual Report of Zena Capital Corp., a company organized under the British Columbia Company Act (the Company) on Form 20-F as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Terry Amisano, President/CEO/Director of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (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 result of operations of the Company.  /s/ Terry Amisano Terry Amisano, President/CEO/Director   Date: June 28, 2007
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 129688(57) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. J. W. HOBBS CORPORATION, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices

v SC: 129688 COA: 254069 Ct of Claims: 02-000166-MT REVENUE DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, STATE OF MICHIGAN, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order of July 21, 2006 is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

p0918 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 26, 2006

Clerk
#### § 51.206 Implementation.

This subpart C shall be implemented for each proposed HUD-assisted project by the HUD approving official or responsible entity responsible for review of the project. The implementation procedure will be part of the environmental review process in accordance with the procedures set forth in 24 CFR parts 50 and 58.

[61 FR 13334, Mar. 26, 1996]
### §601. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Feb. 9, 1905, ch. 567, 33 Stat. 714, related to changes in levels of lakes and subjection of lands to reclamation law.
### §902. Definitions

As used in this chapter—

(1) the term "bankruptcy court" means the court having jurisdiction over the reorganization of the Milwaukee Railroad;

(2) the term "Board" means the Railroad Retirement Board;

(3) the term "Commission" means the Interstate Commerce Commission;

(4) the term "employee"—

(A) includes any employee of the Milwaukee Railroad who worked on a line of such railroad the sale of which became effective on October 1, 1979; but

(B) does not include any individual serving as president, vice-president, secretary, treasurer, comptroller, counsel, member of the board of directors, or any other person performing such functions;

(5) the term "Milwaukee Railroad" means the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company; and

(6) the term "restructured Milwaukee Railroad" means the entity that is designated as the reorganized railroad under the reorganization plan for the Milwaukee Railroad finally certified by the Commission.

(Pub. L. 96–101, §3, Nov. 4, 1979, 93 Stat. 736; Pub. L. 96–254, title I, §123, May 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 409.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1980—Par. (6). Pub. L. 96–254 redefined "restructured Milwaukee Railroad" to mean the entity that is designated as the reorganized railroad under the reorganization plan for the Milwaukee Railroad finally certified by the Commission.

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

#### Abolition of Interstate Commerce Commission and Transfer of Functions

Interstate Commerce Commission abolished and functions of Commission transferred, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 104–88, to Surface Transportation Board effective Jan. 1, 1996, by section 1302 of Title 49, Transportation, and section 101 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of Title 49. References to Interstate Commerce Commission deemed to refer to Surface Transportation Board, a member or employee of the Board, or Secretary of Transportation, as appropriate, see section 205 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of Title 49.
Exhibit 32.2

GMH COMMUNITIES TRUST    CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY  RULE 13a-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I,
J. Patrick O'Grady, acting in the capacity of Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of GMH Communities Trust, a Maryland real estate investment trust (the "Company"),
hereby certify that, to my knowledge:



*
* *

|/s/J. PATRICK O'GRADYJ. Patrick O'Grady
Executive Vice President and
    Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer) | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 

Date:
March 14, 2008

---



QuickLinks
109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 323

AN ACT

To redesignate the Ellis Island Library on the third floor 

of the Ellis Island Immigration Museum, located on Ellis 

Island in New York Harbor, as the ‘‘Bob Hope Memorial 

Library’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2

•HR 323 EH 

1 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION. 

2 The Ellis Island Library on the third floor of the Ellis 

3 Island Immigration Museum, located on Ellis Island in 

4 New York Harbor, shall be known and redesignated as 

5 the ‘‘Bob Hope Memorial Library’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

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

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the Ellis 

9 Island Library on the third floor of the Ellis Island Immi10 gration Museum referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

11 to be a reference to the ‘‘Bob Hope Memorial Library’’.

Passed the House of Representatives November 15, 

2005. 

Attest:

Clerk. 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 323

AN ACT

To redesignate the Ellis Island Library on the third 

‘‘Bob Hope Memorial Library’’.cated on Ellis Island in New York Harbor, as the floor of the Ellis Island Immigration Museum, lo-
### §648. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, acts Feb. 26, 1917, ch. 124, 39 Stat. 942; Mar. 3, 1919, ch. 114, 40 Stat. 1322; June 5, 1920, ch. 249, 41 Stat. 987, provided for extension of time of segregation and reclamation in Oregon segregation lists for period of not exceeding ten years and not beyond January 12, 1929.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ORBCOMM
GLOBAL, L.P. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10Q FILING
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           6,151
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      971
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     15,131
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,674
<PP&E>                                         384,960
<DEPRECIATION>                                  52,803
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 373,818
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          102,688
<BONDS>                                        170,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      99,689
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   373,818
<SALES>                                          1,783
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,783
<CGS>                                            2,139
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,139
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                85,420<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,314<F2>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (105,090)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (105,090)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (105,090)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES $34,865 AS DEPRECIATION EXPENSES, $29 AS GOODWILL AMORTIZATION AND
$1,897 AS EQUITY IN NET LOSSES OF AFFILIATES
<F2>NET OF INTEREST INCOME OF $257
</FN>


</TABLE>
```

[106th Congress Public Law 317]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ317.106]

[[Page 114 STAT. 1277]]

Public Law 106-317
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To make technical corrections to title X of the Energy Policy Act of 
              1992. <<NOTE: Oct. 19, 2000 -  [H.R. 2641]>> 

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

SECTION 1. DATE EXTENSIONS.

    Section 1001 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 2296a) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(1)(B)(i), by striking ``2002'' and 
        inserting ``2007'';
            (2) in subsection (b)(1)(B)(ii), by striking ``placed in 
        escrow not later than December 31, 2002,'' and inserting 
        ``incurred by a licensee after December 31, 2007,''; and
            (3) in subsection (b)(2)(E)(i) by striking ``July 31, 2005'' 
        and inserting ``December 31, 2008''.

    Approved October 19, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2641:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 106-886 (Comm. on Commerce).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):
            Sept. 27, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 5, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### DROMS, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 14, 1905.)

Action by Christopher F. Droms against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
### §2115. Civil penalty to enforce alcohol and dangerous drug testing

Any person who fails to implement or conduct, or who otherwise fails to comply with the requirements prescribed by the Secretary for, chemical testing for dangerous drugs or for evidence of alcohol use, as prescribed under this subtitle or a regulation prescribed by the Secretary to carry out the provisions of this subtitle, is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each violation. Each day of a continuing violation shall constitute a separate violation.

(Added Pub. L. 104–324, title III, §303(a), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3917; amended Pub. L. 105–383, title III, §304(b), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3419.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1998—Pub. L. 105–383 substituted "$5,000" for "$1,000".
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-2051

CHERYL A. DAVIDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JAMES TAYLOR; JOHN O'DONALD; DARRELL BETSILL, Defendants - Appellees,

and

CITY OF GAFFNEY; SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-928-7-HMH)
Submitted: December 15, 2005 Decided: December 20, 2005
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.- 2 - Cheryl A. Davidson, Appellant Pro Se. Vance J. Bettis, GIGNILLIAT, SAVITZ & BETTIS, Columbia, South Carolina; Michael Stephen Pauley, VINTON D. LIDE & ASSOCIATES, Lexington, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Cheryl A. Davidson seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s judgment was entered on the docket on August 10, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on September 16, 2005. Because Davidson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant the Defendants’ motions to 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
-1- 

STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

CASE NO.: C09-2564 SI 

P:\CLIENTS\PATCL\Signature Construction\Pleadings\C09-2564 SI - Stipulation to Dismiss 011210.doc 

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

Muriel B. Kaplan, Esq. (SBN 124607) 

Michele R. Stafford, Esq. (SBN 172509) 

SALTZMAN & JOHNSON LAW CORPORATION 

44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2110 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

(415) 882-7900 

(415) 882-9287 – Facsimile 

mkaplan@sjlawcorp.com

mstafford@sjlawcorp.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Paul V. Simpson (SBN 83878) 

Jamie Rudman (SBN 166727) 

SIMPSON, GARRITY, INNES & JACUZZI 

601 Gateway Blvd., Suite 950 

South San Francisco, CA 94080 

(650) 615-4860 

(650) 615-4861 – Facsimile 

psimpson@sgijlaw.com

jrudman@sgijlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BAY AREA PAINTERS AND TAPERS 

PENSION TRUST FUND, and its JOINT 

BOARD OF TRUSTEES; LES PROEAU and 

CHARLES DEL MONTE, TRUSTEES, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

SIGNATURE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 

aka SIGNATURE CONSTRUCTION 

COMPANY, INC., a California corporation, 

Defendant.

Case No.: C09-2564 SI 

STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to F.R.C.P., Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), Plaintiffs Bay Area 

Painters and Tapers Pension Trust Fund, et al., and Defendant Signature Construction Company, 

aka Signature Construction Company, Inc., stipulate to the voluntarily dismissal of Defendant 

Signature Construction Company, aka Signature Construction Company, Inc., in this action. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:09-cv-02564-SI Document 19 Filed 01/22/10 Page 1 of 3 Case3:09-cv-02564-SI Document17 Filed01/13/10 Page1 of 3
-2- 

STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

CASE NO.: C09-2564 SI 

P:\CLIENTS\PATCL\Signature Construction\Pleadings\C09-2564 SI - Stipulation to Dismiss 011210.doc 

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

Plaintiffs have not previously filed or dismissed any similar action against Defendant. 

Dated: January 13, 2010 SALTZMAN & JOHNSON 

LAW CORPORATION 

By: /s/

 Michele R. Stafford 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Dated: January 13, 2010 SIMPSON, GARRITY, INNES & JACUZZI 

By: /s/

 Paul V. Simpson 

Attorneys for Defendant 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

This case is hereby dismissed, and the calendar herein is vacated. 

Dated: ___________________ ____________________________________ 

 THE HONORABLE SUSAN ILLSTON 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Case 3:09-cv-02564-SI Document 19 Filed 01/22/10 Page 2 of 3 Case3:09-cv-02564-SI Document17 Filed01/13/10 Page2 of 3
Case 3:09-cv-02564-SI Document 19 Filed 01/22/10 Page 3 of 3 Case3:09-cv-02564-SI Document17 Filed01/13/10 Page3 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

______________________________________ ) COMMON GROUND HEALTHCARE ) COOPERATIVE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) No. 17

- 877C ) v. ) Filed: June 1 , 2021 ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. )

______________________________________ )
ORDER On April 13, 2021, the Dispute Subclass, which consists of Freelancers Co

- Op of New Jersey, Inc., and the United States filed a stipulation to entry of judgment

. See Stip. for Entry of Partial J. as to the Dispute Subclass, ECF No. 142. The parties stipu late that the Dispute Subclass
is entitled to payment from the United States in the amount of $44,399,653.90 under the risk corridors program created by S ection 1342 of t he Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub.
L. No. 111

- 148 (2010), 124 Stat. 119, and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111

- 152 (2010), 124 Stat. 1029 ( collectively, the “ ACA”) , for the 2016 benefit
year
. See ECF No. 142 at 3. The parties further stipulate that the United States is entitled to payment from the Dispute Subclass in the amount of $32,659,026.85, which includes payments from the Dispute Subclass associated with advance payment of tax credits, cost

- sharing reductions , cost

- sharing reduction reconciliations, federally

- facilitated exchange user fees , risk adjustment program user fees, and a start

- up loan received from the United States. Id. The parties request that the Court enter judgment in favor of the Dispute Subclass and judgment in favor of the United
States i n accordance with th e stipulation

. See id. at 3

- 4.2 Having determined pursuant to Rule 5 4(b) of the Rules of the United States Court of
Federal Claims that there is no just reas on for delay, the Court directs the Clerk to enter final judgment in favor of the Dispute Subclass in the amount of $44,399,653.90 and final judgment in
favor of the United States in the amount of $32,659,026.85

. The judgment in favor of the United States shall be paid and satisfied in full through deduction from the amount owed under the judgment to the Dispute Subclass , creating a net amount payable by the United States to the Dispute Subclass totaling $11,740,627.05

. SO ORDERED

.

Dated: June 1 , 2021 /s/ Kathryn C. Davis KATHRYN C. DAVIS Judge
#### § 241.890 Characteristics of debentures.

Debentures issued in settlement of insurance claims under this subpart shall have the same characteristics and the same requirements for registration and redemption as those issued pursuant to subpart B of this part except that debentures shall bear interest at the rate in effect as of the date the commitment was issued, or as of the date the loan was first endorsed for insurance, whichever rate is higher, and shall mature 10 years from the date of issue which date shall be the date of execution of the assignment of the loan to the Commissioner.
Case 3:09-cv-02011-MEJ Document 38 Filed 03/01/10 Page 1 of 4
Case 3:09-cv-02011-MEJ Document 38 Filed 03/01/10 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:09-cv-02011-MEJ Document 38 Filed 03/01/10 Page 3 of 4
March 1

The Court will schedule

a CMC, if necessary, after ruling on Defendant's motion to dismiss.

Case 3:09-cv-02011-MEJ Document 38 Filed 03/01/10 Page 4 of 4
#### Miguel de Aldama, Appellant, *v.*Francis F. Lasala, Respondent.

(Submitted October 14, 1881;

decided November 22, 1881.)

*Horace*Secor, *Jr.,*for appellant.

*George H. Starr*for respondent.

Agree to affirm without opinion.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
#### § 574.600 Cross-reference.

The Federal requirements set forth in 24 CFR part 5 and part 75 apply to this program as specified in this subpart.

[61 FR 5209, Feb. 9, 1996, as amended at 85 FR 61567, Sept. 29, 2020]
**CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”) of Kearny Financial Corp. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, John N. Hopkins, President and Chief Executive Officer and William C. Ledgerwood, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.

 

 

|  

 

  |   |  

 

  | /s/ John N. Hopkins                                    |
|------------------------|--------|------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |   |                   | John N. Hopkins

President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

|  

 

  |   |   | /s/ William C. Ledgerwood                                                 |
|------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |   |   | William C. Ledgerwood

Senior Vice President and Chief

Financial Officer |

 

 

September 17, 2008