alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 245.420 Rights of tenants to participate. ( a ) The tenants (including any legal or other representatives acting for tenants individually or as a group) must have the right to inspect and copy the materials that the mortgagor is required to submit to HUD pursuant to § 245.415, for a period of 30 days from the date on which the notice required under § 245.410 is served on the tenants. During this period, the mortgagor must provide a place (as specified in the notice) reasonably convenient to tenants in the project where tenants and their representatives can inspect and copy these materials during normal business hours.
( b ) The tenants have the right during this period to submit written comments on the proposed conversion to the mortgagor and to the local HUD office. Tenant representatives may assist tenants in preparing these comments.
( c ) If the mortgagor, whether at HUD's request or otherwise, makes any material change during a tenant comment period in the materials submitted to HUD pursuant to § 245.415, the mortgagor must notify the tenants of the change, in the manner provided in § 245.15, and make the materials as changed available for inspection and copying at the address specified in the notice for this purpose. The tenants have a period of 15 days from the date of service of this additional notice (or the remainder of any applicable comment period, if longer) in which to inspect and copy the materials as changed and to submit comments on the proposed covered action, before the mortgagor may submit its request to HUD for approval of the covered action.
#### § 574.190 Reallocation of grant amounts.

If an eligible State or qualifying city does not submit a consolidated plan in a timely fashion, in accordance with 24 CFR part 91, that provides for use of its allocation of funding under this part, the funds allocated to that jurisdiction will be added to the funds available for formula allocations to other jurisdictions in the current fiscal year. Any formula funds that become available as a result of deobligations or the imposition of sanctions as provided for in § 574.540 will be added to the funds available for formula allocations in the next fiscal year.

[57 FR 61740, Dec. 28, 1992, as amended at 60 FR 1918, Jan. 5, 1995]
Exhibit 4.12
 Investment Capital Transfer Agreement by the Shareholders of Beijing Run An Information Consultancy
Company Limited
 Party A  Party B  Party C
  1.
    
    According to the Corporation Law and the companys articles of incorporation, the
shareholders of Beijing Run An Information Consultancy Company Limited agree that Party A and
Party B transfer the investment capital. (see attached shareholders resolution)
 2.
    
    Party A agrees to transfer RMB800,000 of the investment capital and Party B agrees to
transfer RMB2,200,000 of the investment capital of Beijing Run An Information Consultancy
Company Limited to Party C. Party C agrees to accept the RMB3,000,000 transfer from Party A
and Party B.
 3.
    
    The change in ownership of the investment capital by the three Parties has no impact on the
registered capital of Beijing Run An Information Consultancy Co., Ltd.
 4.
    
    The three Parties are responsible for assisting the company with the procedures for changing
the shareholder names in the shareholder register, including, in accordance with the
Corporation Law, to request the shareholders to revise the articles of incorporation (to
change the shareholder names) and to assist the company with the procedures to file the change
in the shareholder register (within 30 days of the shareholding change).
 5.
    
    This Agreement shall be written in four (4) counterparties, with each Party holding one
counterpart and one counterpart shall be filed with the relevant administration of industry
and commerce.
  Transferor (Party A): /s/ FENG Lei
    
    Transferor (Party B): /s/ WANG TaoTransferee (Party C): /s/ JIN Weimin
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joe Green, Jr., Also Known as Joseph Green, Jr., Appellant.

[833 NYS2d 422]

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present—Gorski, J.P., Smith, Lunn and Pine, JJ.
MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00489-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.P.M., K.S.M., AND K.W.M., CHILDREN

Appeal from the 247th District Court of Harris County (Tr. Ct. No. 2007-23177).

TO THE 247TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 11th day of December 2014, the cause upon appeal 

to revise or to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in 

these words:

The cause heard today by the Court is an appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on June 17, 2014. After 

submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly 

raised by the parties, and inspecting the record of the court below, it is 

the opinion of this Court that there is no reversible error in the 

judgment. Accordingly, the Court grants counsel’s motion to 

withdraw. It is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED, and

ORDERED that the judgment of the court below be affirmed.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

The Court further orders that the mandate be issued immediately with 

the judgment.

Judgment rendered December 11, 2014.
Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Justices Keyes, 

Higley, and Brown.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said 

Court in this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and 

executed.

February 20, 2015 

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

 CLERK OF THE COURT
###### Editorial Note on Part 3282

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3282 appear at 78 FR 60199, Oct. 1, 2013.

#### § 3282.502 Departmental implementation.

To the extent that SAAs or any parties contracting with the Secretary do not perform functions called for under these regulations, those functions shall be carried out by the Secretary with its own personnel or through other appropriate parties.
Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      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 registrant, 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.
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c.
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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; andd.
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an Annual Report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  a.
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonable likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb.
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  By:
    /s/ KIMBERLY K. SCHAEFERKimberly K. SchaeferChief Executive Officer
### §424a. Sale of unproductive lands; terms; area purchasable; tracts included

The Secretary is authorized to sell such lands to resident farm owners or resident entrymen, on the project upon which such land is located, at prices not less than that fixed by independent appraisal approved by the Secretary, and upon such terms and at private sale or at public auction as he may prescribe: Provided, That no such resident farm owner or resident entryman shall be permitted to purchase under sections 424 to 424e of this title more than one hundred and sixty acres of such land, or an area which, together with land already owned on such Federal irrigation project, shall exceed three hundred and twenty acres: And provided further, That the authority given hereunder shall apply not only to tracts wholly classified as temporarily or permanently unproductive, but also to all tracts of public lands within Federal irrigation projects which by reason of the inclusion of lands classified as temporarily or permanently unproductive are found by the Secretary to be insufficient to support a family and to pay water charges.

(May 16, 1930, ch. 292, §2, 46 Stat. 367.)
### **CHAPTER 21—GRANTS IN AID OF RAILROADS AND WAGON ROADS**

Sec.
881.
Cost of survey of grants to railroads; payment.
882.
Surveyed lands taxable notwithstanding lien; provisos.
883.
Collection of costs of surveying, etc.; reimbursement of purchaser.
884.
Right of forfeiture of railroad grants not affected.
885.
Union Pacific Railroad lands.
886.
Survey of lands within limits of railroad grants.
887.
Deposits for surveys of lands granted to railroads.
888.
Selection by railroads of lands in lieu of lands entered subsequent to accrual of rights; title of settlers.
889.
Rights of entrymen whose entries had not been admitted to record.
890.
Homestead entries on railroad lands prior to withdrawal or after restoration to market confirmed.
891.
Abandoned railroad lands; reentry.
892.
Entries after expiration of grant.
893.
Rights of permissive settlers on railroad lands restored to public domain.
894.
Adjustment of land grants to railroads.
895.
Cancellation of patents erroneously issued; reconveyance.
896.
Erroneous cancellation of bona fide entries corrected.
897.
Patents to purchasers from railroads; purchase money.
898.
Rights of purchasers from railroads of coterminous lands not within grants.
899.
Limitation of quantity to be conveyed.
900.
Suits to cancel patents to lands erroneously issued under railroad or wagon-road grants.
901.
Claims of bona fide purchasers; establishment of rights.
902.
Cancellation; investigation before suit.
903.
Relief of settlers on lands granted in aid of wagon roads.
904.
Forfeiture of unearned grants; restoration to public domain.
905.
Homestead entries on forfeited lands.
906.
Purchase by bona fide purchasers from grantees; removal of crops and improvements.
907.
Rights of original grantees to forfeited lands.
908.
Deposits by railroad companies for costs of surveying and conveying unsurveyed lands granted.
909.
Forfeiture of grant on failure to make deposit.
910.
Right to extend public surveys over lands granted, and other rights of United States, not affected.
911.
Regulations.
912.
Disposition of abandoned or forfeited railroad grants.
913.
Conveyance by land grant railroads of portions of rights of way to State, county, or municipality.
914.
Omitted.
#### State op New York, Respondent, v Michael P. McMahon, Appellant, and Paul Holman, Jr., et al., Defendants.

Order and judgment, Supreme Court, Albany County, entered August 7, 1975 and October 28, 1975, respectively, affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Staley, Jr., Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
§ 203.23 Mortgagor's payments to include other charges. ( a ) The mortgage shall provide for such equal monthly payments by the mortgagor to the mortgagee as will amortize: ( 1 ) The ground rents, if any;
( 2 ) The estimated amount of all taxes;
( 3 ) Special assessments, if any;
( 4 ) Flood insurance premiums, if flood insurance is required by the Commissioner; and
( 5 ) Fire and other hazard insurance premiums, if any. The mortgage shall further provide that such payments shall be held by the mortgagee in a manner satisfactory to the Commissioner for the purpose of paying such ground rents, taxes, assessments, and insurance premiums before the same become delinquent, for the benefit and account of the mortgagor. The mortgage must also make provisions for adjustments in case the estimated amount of such taxes, assessments, and insurance premiums shall prove to be more, or less, than the actual amount thereof so paid by the mortgagor. Such payments shall be held in an escrow subject to § 203.550.
( b ) The mortgagor shall not be required to pay premiums for fire or other hazard insurance which protects only the interests of the mortgagee, or for life or disability income insurance, or fees charged for obtaining information necessary for the payment of property taxes. The foregoing does not apply to charges made or penalties exacted by the taxing authority, except that a penalty assessed or interest charged by a taxing authority for failure to timely pay taxes or assessments shall not be charged by the mortgagee to the mortgagor if the mortgagee had sufficient funds in escrow for the account of the mortgagor to pay such taxes or assessments prior to the date on which penalty or interest charges are imposed.
( c ) Mortgages involving a principal obligation not in excess of $9,000 may contain a provision requiring the mortgagor to pay to the mortgagee an annual service charge at such rate as may be agreed upon between the mortgagee and the mortgagor, but in no case shall such service charge exceed one-half of one percent per annum. Any such service charge shall be payable in monthly installments on the principal then outstanding. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to mortgages endorsed for insurance pursuant to applications received by the Commissioner on or after July 17, 1961.
[36 FR 24508, Dec. 22, 1971, as amended at 37 FR 25231, Nov. 29, 1972; 41 FR 47934, Nov. 10, 1976; 59 FR 53901, Oct. 26, 1994]
Exhibit
      32.2




**CERTIFICATION**




I,
      Joseph
      Restivo, Chief Financial Officer of GVI Security Solutions, Inc. (the
“Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
      knowledge:




(i)
      The
      Company’s accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended
      September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(ii)
      The
      information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Joseph
              RestivoJoseph
                RestivoChief
                Financial Officer




Dated:
      November 16, 2006
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUN 30 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ERIC BAYER,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 96-1269

v. (D. Colorado)

CRESTED BUTTE MOUNTAIN

RESORT, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

(D.C. No. 94-M-2958) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before ANDERSON, LUCERO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

This appeal involves the standard of care governing the duty owed by ski

lift operators in Colorado to users of those lifts, like appellant Eric Bayer, during

the winter season. After oral argument, we determined that Colorado law

contained no controlling precedent that would guide us in resolving that issue. By

order dated April 14, 1997, we certified to the Colorado Supreme Court the

following question:
-2-

What standard of care governs the duty owed by ski lift

operators in Colorado to users of those lifts in the winter season? 

Separately, and more particularly, does the Colorado Passenger

Tramway Safety Act and/or the Colorado Ski Safety and Liability Act

preempt or otherwise supersede the pre-existing Colorado common

law standard of care governing the duty owed by ski lift operators to

users of those lifts in the winter season?

The Colorado Supreme Court has now answered the certified question,

holding that “[a] ski lift operator must exercise the highest degree of care

commensurate with the lift’s practical operation, regardless of the season.” Bayer

v. Crested Butte Mountain Resort, Inc., No. 97SA145, 1998 WL 251485 at *1

(Colo. May 18, 1998), modified on denial of rehearing, June 22, 1998. The

Colorado Supreme Court has denied the petition for rehearing in the case. 

Accordingly, the decision of the federal district court is vacated and the case is

remanded to the district court for further consideration in light of the Colorado

Supreme Court’s “Certified Questions Answered,” a copy of which is attached to

this order and transmitted with this order to the United States District Court for

the District of Colorado.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephen H. Anderson

Circuit Judge
Attachment not available electronically.
Document

Exhibit 10.6


CERTAIN INFORMATION IDENTIFIED WITH [***] HAS BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THIS EXHIBIT BECAUSE IT IS BOTH (I) NOT MATERIAL AND (II) IS OF THE TYPE THAT THE REGISTRANT TREATS AS PRIVATE OR CONFIDENTIAL.




Novavax, Inc.
21 Firstfield Road
Gaithersburg, MD 20878


Attention:    [***]
Subject:    Modification No. 16 to Project Agreement No. 01; MCDC2011-001 Reference:    MCDC Base Agreement No. 2020-530
Dear [***]:


In accordance with the terms and conditions of the referenced MCDC Base Agreement, Modification No. 16 hereby amends Project Agreement No. 01 as follows:


DESCRIPTION OF MODIFICATION


1) The Limitations of Costs clause of the Project Agreement hereby replaces the Incremental Funding clause as indicated below:


5. LIMITATION OF COSTS
The total amount of funding currently available for payment and allotted to this Project Agreement is
$1,800,670,981 (this is an increase of $52,981,653). If at any time the Project Agreement Holder has reason to believe that the Total Estimated Cost which will accrue in the performance of this Project Agreement in the next succeeding [***], when added to all other payments previously accrued, will exceed [***] of the then current total authorized funding, the Project Agreement Holder shall notify the MCDC CMF to that effect, advising the estimate of additional funds required for the period specified. The Project Agreement Holder is not obligated to continue performance under this Project Agreement (including actions under the Termination clause of the MCDC Base Agreement) or otherwise incur costs in excess of the amount allotted to the Project Agreement by the MCDC CMF.




Except as provided herein, all Terms and Conditions of the referenced MCDC Base Agreement, Project Agreement and preceding modifications remain unchanged and in full force and effect.


This modification is issued unilaterally. The Project Agreement Holder is not required to sign to finalize this
action.


Advanced Technology International


By: /s/ [***]    


Name: [***]     


Title: Vice President Contracts and Procurement    


Date: Sep 1 2022
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUN 30 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
ERIC BAYER,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 96-1269
v. (D. Colorado) CRESTED BUTTE MOUNTAIN RESORT, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee. (D.C. No. 94-M-2958)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , LUCERO , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
This appeal involves the standard of care governing the duty owed by ski lift operators in Colorado to users of those lifts, like appellant Eric Bayer, during the winter season. After oral argument, we determi ned that Colorado law contained no controlling precedent that would guide us in resolving that issue. By order dated April 14, 1997, we certified to the Col orado Supreme Court the following question:-2- What standard of care governs the duty owed by ski lift operators in Colorado to users of those lifts in th e winter season? Separately, and more particularly, does the Colorad o Passenger Tramway Safety Act and/or the Colorado Ski Safety and Liability Act preempt or otherwise supersede the pre-existing Col orado common law standard of care governing the duty owed by ski lift operators to users of those lifts in the winter season? The Colorado Supreme Court has now answered the certified question, holding that “[a] ski lift operator must exercise the highest degree of care commensurate with the lift’s practical operation, r egardless of the season.” Bayer v. Crested Butte Mountain Resort, Inc. , No. 97SA145, 1998 WL 251485 at *1 (Colo. May 18, 1998), modified on denial of reheari ng , June 22, 1998. The Colorado Supreme Court has denied the petition for rehearing in the case. Accordingly, the decision of the federal district c ourt is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court for further consider ation in light of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Certified Questions Answered,” a c opy of which is attached to this order and transmitted with this order to the U nited States District Court for the District of Colorado. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Stephen H. Anderson Circuit JudgeAttachment not available electronically.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3016 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3016

      To extend the temporary suspension of duty on carbamic acid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 21, 2005

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To extend the temporary suspension of duty on carbamic acid.

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

SECTION 1. CARBAMIC ACID.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.33.61 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to ((3-
((Dimethylamino)carbonyl)-2-pyridinyl)sulfonyl) carbamic acid, phenyl 
ester) is amended by striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/
2009''.
    (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>
```