alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          107,573
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,400,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  278,996
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (278,996)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)
        



</TABLE>
§ 884.110 Types of housing and property standards. ( a ) Newly constructed single-family houses and multifamily structures may be utilized in this program. Congregate housing may be developed for elderly, disabled, or handicapped Families and individuals. Except in the case of housing predominantly for the elderly, high-rise elevator projects for Families with children may not be utilized unless HUD determines there is no practical alternative.
( b ) Participation in this program requires compliance with: ( 1 ) [Reserved]
( 2 ) In the case of congregate housing, the appropriate HUD guidelines and standards;
( 3 ) HUD requirements pursuant to section 209 of the HCD Act for projects for the elderly, disabled, or handicapped;
( 4 ) HUD requirements pertaining to noise abatement and control; and
( 5 ) Applicable State and local laws, codes, ordinances, and regulations.
( c ) Housing assisted under this part shall be modest in design. Amenities in projects assisted under this part (except partially assisted projects) will be limited to those amenities, as determined by HUD, which are generally provided in unassisted, decent, safe and sanitary housing for low-income families, in the market area. The use of more durable, high-quality materials to control or reduce maintenance, repair and replacement costs will not be considered an excess amenity.
( d ) *Smoke detectors* — ( 1 ) *Performance requirement.* After October 30, 1992, each dwelling unit must include at least one battery-operated or hard-wired smoke detector, in proper working condition, on each level of the unit. If the unit is occupied by hearing-impaired persons, smoke detectors must have an alarm system, designed for hearing-impaired persons, in each bedroom occupied by a hearing-impaired person.
( 2 ) *Acceptability criteria.* The smoke detector must be located, to the extent practicable, in a hallway adjacent to a bedroom, unless the unit is occupied by a hearing-impaired person, in which case each bedroom occupied by a hearing-impaired person must have an alarm system connected to the smoke detector installed in the hallway.
[48 FR 12710, Mar. 28, 1983, as amended at 57 FR 33852, July 30, 1992; 63 FR 46579, Sept. 1, 1998]
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3261 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3261

For the relief of Luis Nava, Yuliana Huicochea, Oscar Corona, and Jaime 
                                Damian.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 12, 2005

  Mr. Pastor introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
For the relief of Luis Nava, Yuliana Huicochea, Oscar Corona, and Jaime 
                                Damian.

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

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL OF, OR DENIAL OF ADMISSION TO, 
              LUIS NAVA, YULIANA HUICOCHEA, OSCAR CORONA, AND JAIME 
              DAMIAN.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding sections 212(a) and 237(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, Luis Nava, Yuliana Huicochea, Oscar 
Corona, and Jaime Damian may not be removed from the United States, 
denied admission to the United States, or considered ineligible for 
lawful permanent residence in the United States, by reason of any 
ground for removal or denial of admission that is reflected in the 
records of the Department of Homeland Security, the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service of the Department of Justice, or the Visa Office 
of the Department of State, on the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Rescission of Outstanding Order of Removal.--The Secretary of 
Homeland Security, or the Attorney General, as appropriate, shall 
rescind any outstanding order of removal or deportation, or any finding 
of deportability, that has been entered against Luis Nava, Yuliana 
Huicochea, Oscar Corona, and Jaime Damian by reason of any ground 
described in subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0456

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

NEIL LYNN NUNES,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time to 

produce transcripts on appeal, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Court Reporter Kelsey McAlpine 

is granted an extension of time to and including February 3, 2022, 

within which to prepare, file, and serve the transcripts requested on 

appeal. 

The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon the district court 

and the court reporter.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 13 2021

12/13/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0456
Filed 10/25/22 Via Appia v. Marcu s & Millichap Real Estate Investment etc. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

VIA APPIA, LLC,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

MARCUS & MILLICHAP REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents. F081598

(Super. Ct. No. 10684)



### OPINION

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Mariposa County. F. Dana Walton, Judge. Newmeyer & Dillion, Alan H. Packer and Brandon A. Clouse ; The Ware Practice Group, Mindy L. Ware and James Ware for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Neumiller & Beardslee, Paul N. Balestracci and Ricardo Z. Aranda for Def endants and Respondents

.

- ooOoo

MEMORANDUM OPINI ON 1
Plaintiff Via Appia, LLC appeals from a postjudgment order awarding attorney fees to defendants Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services, Inc., Ronald

1 This matter is proper for disposition by a memorandum opinion in accordance with the California Standards of Judicial Administration, Standard 8.1. (See People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 850

– 855 [use of memorandum opinions]; Cal. Const., art. VI , § 14 [appellate decisions “shall be in writing with reasons stated”].Swim and Earle Hyman (collectively, Brokers) after the superior court granted Brokers’

motion f or summary judgment and entered judgment in their favor. The judgment was entered in October 2019 and the order awarding attorney fees in the sum of $287,706.46 was filed in July 2020. The award was made pursuant to an attorney fees provision in the

excl usive representation agreement executed by Via Appia and Brokers.
In case No. F080496, we reverse d the judgment , concluding there were triable issues of material fact as to whether Brokers’ allegedly wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in causing Via Appia to incur expenses it would not have otherwise incurred. Based on the reversal of the judgment, it neces sarily follows that Brokers have lost their status as the prevailing party and, thus, are not presently entitled to any award of attorney fees. ( Shirvanyan v. Los Angeles Community College Dist. (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 82, 107 .) Accordingly, the trial cou rt ’ s order awarding attorney fees to

Brokers also must be reversed. ( Allen v. Smith (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1284 [award of attorney fees to the party prevailing will not stand after reversal of the judgment] ; Merced County Taxpayers’ Assn. v. Cardella (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 396, 402, [an order awarding attorney fees “falls with a reversal of the judgment on which it is based”].)

DISPOSITION The order awarding attorney fees to Brokers is reversed. Via Appia, LLC shall recover its costs on appeal.

FRANSON, J.

WE CONCUR

HILL, P. J.

LEVY, J.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT H. BROWN, D-52029,

Petitioner,

 vs.

ROBERT K. WONG, Acting Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-1286 CRB (PR)

ORDER REQUESTING

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

A recent en banc decision from the Ninth Circuit addressed important issues

relating to federal review of parole decisions in California. See Hayward v. Marshall,

No. 06-55392, 2010 WL 1664977 (9th Cir. April 22, 2010) (en banc). The court

requests that the parties submit supplemental briefs (not to exceed 12 pages in length)

explaining their views on how the Hayward en banc decision applies to this parole

denial habeas case. The court sets the following schedule:

1. Within 10 days of this order, respondent shall send to petitioner a copy

of the Hayward decision. 

2. Within 30 days of this order, respondent shall file with the court and

serve on petitioner a supplemental brief on the impact of Hayward on this action. 

3. Within 15 days thereafter, petitioner may file with the court and serve on

respondent a supplemental brief on the impact of Hayward on this action. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 30, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.09\Brown, R1.or1.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-01286-CRB Document 6 Filed 05/04/10 Page 1 of 1
§ 35.88 Disclosure requirements for sellers and lessors. ( a ) The following activities shall be completed before the purchaser or lessee is obligated under any contract to purchase or lease target housing that is not otherwise an exempt transaction pursuant to § 35.82. Nothing in this section implies a positive obligation on the seller or lessor to conduct any evaluation or reduction activities. ( 1 ) The seller or lessor shall provide the purchaser or lessee with an EPA-approved lead hazard information pamphlet. Such pamphlets include the EPA document entitled *Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home* (EPA −747-K-94-001) or an equivalent pamphlet that has been approved for use in that State by EPA.
( 2 ) The seller or lessor shall disclose to the purchaser or lessee the presence of any known lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the target housing being sold or leased. The seller or lessor shall also disclose any additional information available concerning the known lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards, such as the basis for the determination that lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards exist, the location of the lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards, and the condition of the painted surfaces.
( 3 ) The seller or lessor shall disclose to each agent the presence of any known lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the target housing being sold or leased and the existence of any available records or reports pertaining to lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards. The seller or lessor shall also disclose any additional information available concerning the known lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards, such as the basis for the determination that lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards exist, the location of the lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards, and the condition of the painted surfaces.
( 4 ) The seller or lessor shall provide the purchaser or lessee with any records or reports available to the seller or lessor pertaining to lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the target housing being sold or leased. This requirement includes records and reports regarding common areas. This requirement also includes records and reports regarding other residential dwellings in multifamily target housing, provided that such information is part of an evaluation or reduction of lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the target housing as a whole.
( b ) If any of the disclosure activities identified in paragraph (a) of this section occurs after the purchaser or lessee has provided an offer to purchase or lease the housing, the seller or lessor shall complete the required disclosure activities prior to accepting the purchaser's or lessee's offer and allow the purchaser or lessee an opportunity to review the information and possibly amend the offer.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2070-0151) [61 FR 9082, Mar. 6, 1996, as amended at 64 FR 14382, Mar. 25, 1999]
§ 267.8 Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ABS. ( a ) *In general.* A sponsor satisfies its risk retention requirement under this part if the sponsor fully guarantees the timely payment of principal and interest on all ABS interests issued by the issuing entity in the securitization transaction and is: ( 1 ) The Federal National Mortgage Association or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation operating under the conservatorship or receivership of the Federal Housing Finance Agency pursuant to section 1367 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4617) with capital support from the United States; or
( 2 ) Any limited-life regulated entity succeeding to the charter of either the Federal National Mortgage Association or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation pursuant to section 1367(i) of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4617(i)), provided that the entity is operating with capital support from the United States.
( b ) *Certain provisions not applicable.* The provisions of § 267.12(b), (c), and (d) shall not apply to a sponsor described in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, its affiliates, or the issuing entity with respect to a securitization transaction for which the sponsor has retained credit risk in accordance with the requirements of this section.
( c ) *Disclosure.* A sponsor relying on this section shall provide to investors, in written form under the caption “Credit Risk Retention” and, upon request, to the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the Commission, a description of the manner in which it has met the credit risk retention requirements of this part.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **1 -**  **1238**

In re: MICHAEL T. VERBURG , P etitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 5 : 0 7

- c r - 0 0 045

- M BS

- 1 )

Submitted : May 2 6 , 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011

Before KING , SHEDD, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion

. Michael T. Verburg , Petitioner Pro Se
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael T. Verburg petitions for a writ of man damus seeking an order compelling the district court to dismiss the indictment underlying his 2009 criminal conviction for fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 1341 and 1342 (2006) . We conclude that Verburg is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus rel ief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United Sates v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4 th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4 th Cir. 1988). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4 th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Verburg is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus . We deny Verburg’s pending motions, including his motion to compel, motion for transcript , motion for counsel , motion to expedite, and motion for release pending appeal . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional pr ocess. PETITION DENIE D
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this

Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of e stablishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT : ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE : TIMOTHY J. O’CONNOR GREGORY F. ZOELLER Indianapolis , Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
MONIKA PREKOPA TALBOT Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana


## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IND IANA

LATOYA C. LEE , ) ) Appellant

- Defendant, ) ) vs. ) No. 49A02

- 1310

- CR

- 867 ) STATE OF INDIANA , ) ) Appellee

- Plaintiff

. )

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Grant W. Hawkins , Judge Cause No. 49G05

- 1209

- MR

- 62638

August 27, 2014
MEMO RANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING

– NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

### BAKER, Judge

### 2

Latoya Lee seeks rehearing following our memorandum opinion in Lee v. State , No. 49A02

– 1310

– CR

– 867 , slip op. (Ind. Ct. App. June 10, 2014), arguing that we should

reverse our decision in li ght of the determination of another panel of this court in Young
v. State , No. 49A02

– 1310

– CR

– 868 , slip op. (Ind. Ct. App. June 12, 2014). Lee and Young were co

- defendants, and both appealed a conviction for attempted aggravated battery. In Young , a pane l o f this C ourt determined that the charging instrument had not given Young fair notice of his conviction. Id. We grant rehearing to acknowledge our
awareness of the decision in Young but decline to reverse our earlier decision in Lee , as Lee did not rai se any issue concerning the charging information on appeal.

BARNES, J., and CRONE, J ., concur.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1


                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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Computerized Thermal
Imaging, Inc., (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Richard V. Secord, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:

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/ Richard V. Secord
-------------------------
Richard V. Secord
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer

Date:  November 14, 2005


                                 Page 21 of 23
PUBLIC LAW 110–113—NOV. 8, 2007 121 STAT. 1039 

Public Law 110–113 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To provide nationwide subpoena authority for actions brought under the September 

11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Procedural Fairness for September 11 Victims Act of 2007’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds the following: 

(1) The September 11th Victims Compensation Fund of 

2001 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note) establishes a Federal cause of 

action in the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of New York as the exclusive remedy for damages 

arising out of the hijacking and subsequent crash of American 

Airlines flights 11 and 77, and United Airlines flights 93 and 

175, on September 11, 2001. 

(2) Rules 45(b)(2) and 45(c)(3)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure effectively limit service of a subpoena to 

any place within, or within 100 miles of, the district of the 

court by which it is issued, unless a statute of the United 

States expressly provides that the court, upon proper application and cause shown, may authorize the service of a subpoena 

at any other place. 

(3) Litigating a Federal cause of action under the September 11 Victims Compensation Fund of 2001 is likely to 

involve the testimony and the production of other documents 

and tangible things by a substantial number of witnesses, many 

of whom may not reside, be employed, or regularly transact 

business in, or within 100 miles of, the Southern District of 

New York. 

SEC. 3. NATIONWIDE SUBPOENAS. 

Section 408(b) of the September 11 Victims Compensation Fund 

of 2001 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note) is amended by adding at the end 

the following: 

‘‘(4) NATIONWIDE SUBPOENAS.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—A subpoena requiring the attendance of a witness at trial or a hearing conducted under 

this section may be served at any place in the United 

States. 

‘‘(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subsection is intended to diminish the authority of a court 

49 USC 40101 

note. 

Procedural 

Fairness for 

September 11 

Victims Act of 

2007. 

Nov. 8, 2007 

[S. 2106] 

121 STAT. 1040 PUBLIC LAW 110–113—NOV. 8, 2007 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2106: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007): 

Oct. 3, considered and passed Senate. 

Oct. 30, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

to quash or modify a subpoena for the reasons provided 

in clause (i), (iii), or (iv) of subparagraph (A) or subparagraph (B) of rule 45(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.’’. 

Approved November 8, 2007.