alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1628. Assignments by Regional Corporations of rights to receive payments from Fund

#### (a) Recognition by Secretary; scope of recognition

Notwithstanding the provision of section 3727 of title 31, the Secretary is authorized to recognize validly executed assignments made by Regional Corporations of their rights to receive payments from the Alaska Native Fund. Such assignments shall only be recognized to the extent that the Regional Corporation involved is not required to distribute funds pursuant to subsection (j) or (m) of section 1606 of this title.

#### (b) Nonrecognition by Secretary

The Secretary shall not recognize any assignment under this section which does not provide that the United States reserves the right to assert against the assignee and successors of the assignee, any setoff or counterclaim which the United States has against the assignor Corporation.

#### (c) Claims against Secretary by stockholders of Regional or Village Corporation for recognition of assignment

No stockholder of any Regional or Village Corporation shall have any claim against the Secretary or the United States as the result of any assignment duly recognized by the Secretary pursuant to this section.

(Pub. L. 92–203, §31, as added Pub. L. 95–178, §4, Nov. 15, 1977, 91 Stat. 1370.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

In subsec. (a), "section 3727 of title 31" substituted for "section 3477 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (31 U.S.C. 203)" on authority of Pub. L. 97–258, §4(b), Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1067, the first section of which enacted Title 31, Money and Finance.
On appellant’s Motion for Waiver or Deferral of Transcript Expenses filed October 29,

and Reply to Motion for Waiver or Deferral of Transcript Expenses motion filed December 2;

on respondent’s Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Waiver or Deferral of Transcript Expenses filed November 10,1997,

motion denied April 8, 1998

#### Charles Barry McILVAIN, Jr., *Appellant, v.*PARKER FURNITURE, INC., and Bradley Chris Parker, *Respondent.*

(C950949CV; CA A98148)

958 P2d 842

Dean Heiling and Heiling, Dodge & Associates for motion.

Miles Sweeney, Paul G. Dodds and Brownstein, Rask, Arenz, Sweeney, Kerr & Grim, LLP., *contra.*

Before Landau, Presiding Judge, Deits, Chief Judge, and Armstrong, Judge.

LANDAU, P. J.

*375LANDAU, P. J.

Plaintiff moves for waiver or deferral of transcript expenses under ORS 21.605(3)(a). That statute requires an initial waiver or deferral of other fees and court costs as a prerequisite to the waiver or deferral of transcript preparation expenses. Because plaintiff did not obtain any other waiver or deferral, we deny the motion.

Plaintiff appeals a judgment reducing the amount of his jury award based on a finding of comparative fault for injuries sustained in an auto collision. Upon filing his notice of appeal, plaintiff paid the filing fee required by ORS 21.010. Plaintiff now moves for waiver or deferral of transcript expenses under ORS 21.605(3), based upon an affidavit of indigence. Defendant objects, arguing that the transcript expenses cannot be waived or deferred unless the court first waives or defers the filing fee.

ORS 21.605(l)(a) provides:

> “[T]he Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals * * * may waive in whole or in part, defer in whole or in part, or both, all fees and court costs payable by a party to a particular civil action or proceeding in the court * * * upon application by the party, if the * * * judge finds that the party is then unable to pay all or any part of the fees and costs.”

ORS 21.605(3)(a) provides:

> *“If fees and court costs payable by a party to a civil action or proceeding have been waived or deferred under subsection (1) of this section,** * * the Chief Judge in an appeal to the Court of Appeals * * * may order that the expense of preparing the record and transcript on appeal be waived in whole or in part, deferred in whole or in part, or both.”1

(Emphasis supplied.)

The text of ORS 21.605(3) is unambiguous. It requires the waiver or deferral of other fees and costs as a prerequisite for the waiver or deferral of transcript expenses. *376In this case, the only such fee or cost in this court has been the appellate filing fee. ORS 21.010. Plaintiff paid that fee without any deferral or waiver. Therefore, the prerequisite for this court’s power to waive or defer the transcript expense has not been met, and the motion must be denied.

Motion to waive or defer transcript expenses denied.

1

 Strictly speaking, the statutes speak to the authority of the Chief Judge to waive or defer fees. In this case, the Chief Judge, a member of this panel, has chosen to decide this matter by means of a published decision of a three-judge panel.
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Concetta Russell

*Linda P. Stambovsky*and *Patricia Buck Wolf,*in support of the petition.

*Marjorie Allen Dauster,*deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided October 22, 1992

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 29 Conn. App. 59, is denied.
### §1695. Federal education and health care programs; nonapplicability or nonparticipation

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, except in cases in which the Federal program is terminated with respect to all recipients under the program, Federal programs in the fields of education and health care shall not cease to apply to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands or any successor government or governments, and shall continue to be available to the extent said territory or its successor or successors are eligible to participate in such programs. Participation in any applicable Federal programs in the fields of education and health care by the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands or any successor government or governments shall not be denied, decreased or ended, either before or after the termination of the trusteeship, without the express approval of the United States Congress and shall continue at such levels as the Congress may provide in appropriation Acts.

(Pub. L. 96–205, title I, §104, Mar. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 85; Pub. L. 96–597, title IV, §403, Dec. 24, 1980, 94 Stat. 3479.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1980—Pub. L. 96–597 substituted "and shall continue to be available to the extent said territory or its successor or successors are eligible to participate in such programs. Participation" for "nor shall participation", "governments shall not be denied" for "governments be denied" and inserted "and shall continue at such levels as the Congress may provide in appropriation Acts." after "United States Congress".
EXHIBIT 10.4

FIRST AMENDMENT TO RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENT

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENT(this "Amendment") is made as of the 18th day of
October, 2004, by and between David F. Zucker ("Executive") and Midway Games Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), to amend the Restricted Stock Agreement (the "Restricted Stock
Agreement") entered into as of the 6th day of May, 2003 by and between Executive and the Corporation. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings set
forth in the Restricted Stock Agreement.

WHEREASpursuant to the Restricted Stock Agreement, the Corporation has issued Restricted Shares of the Corporation's common stock to
Executive; and

WHEREASExecutive and the Corporation wish to extend the vesting dates of the remaining unvested Restricted Shares so that all such
Restricted Shares shall vest on the final vesting date;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual agreements herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Restricted Stock Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

1.     Section 4
of the Restricted Stock Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:



If
any installment includes a fraction of a share, the Period of Restriction with respect to such fraction shall not then lapse, and the fraction shall be carried forward and added to
the subsequent installment.

In
the event that the Corporation shall terminate the Employment Agreement without "cause", as such term is defined in the Employment Agreement, or Executive shall resign for "good
reason" under clauses (i), (ii) or (iii) of Section 14.4 of the Employment Agreement, within the first year after the

---



Commencement
Date of the Employment Agreement, the Period of Restriction shall immediately lapse with respect to 12,500 of the Restricted Shares.

The
Period of Restriction shall also lapse with respect to Restricted Shares then held by Executive upon the occurrence of a Change of Control as defined in the Employment Agreement."

2.     Except
as specifically amended by this Amendment, herein, the Restricted Stock Agreement remains in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have entered into this Amendment as of this 18th day of October, 2004.

| |  | MIDWAY GAMES INC.                                        
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
| |  | By: /s/ Deborah K. Fulton                                
| |  | Its: Senior Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel
| |  |                                                          
| |  | /s/ David F. ZuckerDAVID F. ZUCKER                       

---



QuickLinks
1 Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-21147 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DONNELL BARTHOLOMEW FORD, also known as The Harley Davidson, also known as 32, also known as Tony, Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(H-97-CR-295)

--------------------- January 5, 2000 Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM 1 : Appellant Ford, has responded to this court’s order that he does not wish to discharge his counsel and proceed on appeal pro se. We therefore rely on counsel’s brief, which asserts the sole claim that the trial court erred in denying Ford’s motion in limine that would have excluded the introduction of an unfiled 1994 income tax return as subject matter for cross-examination -- if Ford had elected to testify.No. 98-21147 - 2 - Ford contends that the trial court’s ruling effectively denied him the right to testify, as it would have brought into the case evidence both prejudicial and not relevant to the cocaine trafficking counts with which he was charged. Because Ford did not testify, however, this point is not properly before our appellate court. The Supreme Court has held that a defendant must take the witness stand in order to raise and preserve for review a trial court’s alleged errorneous ruling deeming Evidence Rule 609 impeachment evidence admissible. Luce v. United States , 469 U.S. 38, 41-43, (1984). This court has observed that Luce is not limited to rulings footed upon Rule 609 (a). United States v. Bounds , 87 F.3d 695, 700 (5th Cir. 1996). We join other circuits that have also extended Luce to bar a non -testifying defendant from raising on appeal a claim that a district court erroneiously deemed evidence admissible under, inter alia, Fed. R. Of Evid. 608(b). United States v. Sanderson , 966 F.2d 184, 189-90 (6th Cir. 1992); United States v. Weichert, 783 F.2d 23,25 (2nd Cir.) (1986); United States v. DiMatteo , 759 F.2d 831, 832- 33 (11th Cir. 1985). Because Ford did not testify, Luce and its progeny bar him from obtaining review in this court of the district court’s evidentiary rulings. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED
.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 26, 2010

0519 

# Order

May 26, 2010

140423

NATHAN KLOOSTER, Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 140423 COA: 286013 MTT: 00-323883 CITY OF CHARLEVOIX, Respondent-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the December 15, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1 ) whether a “conveyance” within the meaning of MCL 211.27a(3), (6), or (7) must be by means of a written instrument; (2) if so, whether the deed creating the joint tenancy qua lifies as such an in strument; (3) whether the transfer of title to the petitioner in this case meets the exception of MCL 211.27a(7)(h); (4) whether the transfer of title to the petitioner and his brother as joint tenants meets the exception of MC L 211.27a(7)(h); (5) whether th is last issue is properly preserved; and (6) if not, whether this Cour t should nevertheless consider this issue to avoid a “miscarriage of justice.” Napier v Jacobs, 429 Mich 222, 232-233 (1987).

Persons or groups interested in the determ ination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permissi on to file briefs amicus curiae.
### §1392a. Repealed. Pub. L. 89–554, §8(a), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 650, 654

Section, acts May 24, 1940, ch. 209, §3, 54 Stat. 220; July 31, 1946, ch. 704, §1, 60 Stat. 716; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, §30, 62 Stat. 991, related to salary of judge of District Court.

Section was formerly classified to section 5a of Title 28 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, by act June 25, 1948, ch. 646, §1, 62 Stat. 869.
Exhibit 13.1SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION(pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002)     In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005of Saifun Semiconductors Ltd. (the “Company”) as filed with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Commission”) on the date hereof (the “Report”) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Boaz Eitan, ChiefExecutive Officer and Chairman of the Company, certify, that:     (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.       By:  /s/ Boaz Eitan         Name: Dr. Boaz Eitan
### §3106. Master key control system

(a) In General.—The owner of a vessel subject to inspection under section 3301 shall—

(1) ensure that such vessel is equipped with a vessel master key control system, manual or electronic, which provides controlled access to all copies of the vessel's master key of which access shall only be available to the individuals described in paragraph (2);

(2) establish a list of all crew, identified by position, allowed to access and use the master key and maintain such list upon the vessel, within owner records and included in the vessel safety management system;

(3) record in a log book information on all access and use of the vessel's master key, including—

(A) dates and times of access;

(B) the room or location accessed; and

(C) the name and rank of the crew member that used the master key; and

(4) make the list under paragraph (2) and the log book under paragraph (3) available upon request to any agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, any member of the Coast Guard, and any law enforcement officer performing official duties in the course and scope of an investigation.

(b) Prohibited Use.—Crew not included on the list described in subsection (a)(2) shall not have access to or use the master key unless in an emergency and shall immediately notify the master and owner of the vessel following use of such key.

(c) Requirements for Log Book.—The log book described in subsection (a)(3) and required to be included in a safety management system under section 3203(a)(6)—

(1) may be electronic; and

(2) shall be located in a centralized location that is readily accessible to law enforcement personnel.

(d) Penalty.—Any crew member who uses the master key without having been granted access pursuant to subsection (a)(2) shall be liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 and may be subject to suspension or revocation under section 7703.

(e) Exemption.—This section shall not apply to vessels subject to section 3507(f).

(Added Pub. L. 117–263, div. K, title CXVI, §11608(a), Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 4151.)
### Lower Mesozoic extrusive rocks in southeastern Arizona - the Canelo Hills Volcanics

By: Philip Thayer HayesFrank S. SimonsR. Bruce Raup

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1194M

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (699 pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                        [REDWOOD TRUST, INC. LETTERHEAD]

                                 March 25, 2005

TO ALL PARTIES LISTED ON SCHEDULE A
ATTACHED HERETO:

      RE:   Sequoia HELOC Trust 2004-1, HELOC Asset Backed Notes; Indenture
            dated as of June 1, 2004, between Sequoia HELOC Trust 2004-1 and
            Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, National Association, as Indenture
            Trustee (the "Trustee"), (the "Indenture");
            Annual Statement as to Compliance by the Issuer

Ladies and Gentlemen:

      Pursuant to Section 3.9 of the Indenture with respect to the
above-referenced offering and in compliance with the requirements of TIA Section
314(a)(4), the undersigned officer of Redwood Trust, Inc. (the "Manager"), as
manager under the Management Agreement dated June 1, 2004 between Manager,
Sequoia HELOC Trust 2004-1 and the Trustee, hereby certifies as to the
following:

      1.    a review of the fulfillment by the Issuer of its obligations under
            the Indenture during the preceding fiscal year has been made under
            the direct supervision of the undersigned officer and to the best
            knowledge of the undersigned officer, based on such review, the
            Issuer has fulfilled all of its material obligations under the
            Indenture throughout the applicable period; and

      2.    there has been no known default in the fulfillment of the Issuer's
            material obligations throughout such period.

                                             Very truly yours,

                                             SEQUOIA HELOC TRUST 2004-1

                                             By: Redwood Trust, Inc., as Manager

                                               /s/ John Isbrandtsen
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Name: John Isbrandtsen
                                             Title: Vice President

PP: SKS
<PAGE>

                                   SCHEDULE A

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Sixth Street and Marquette Avenue
Minneapolis, MN  55479
Attention: Sequoia HELOC Trust 2004-1

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD  21045-1951
Attention: Sabrenia L. Fike

Moody's Investors Services
99 Church Street
New York, NY  10007

Standard & Poor's Ratings Services, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies,
Inc.
55 Water Street
New York, NY  10041
Attention:  Asset Backed Surveillance Department

Ambac Assurance Corporation
One State Street Plaza
New York, NY 10004
Attention:  Managing Director
**Exhibit 13.1**

**HOLMES FINANCING (NO. 8) PLC**

**ABBEY NATIONAL HOUSE**

**2 TRITON SQUARE, REGENTS PLACE**

**LONDON NW1 3AN**

**Certification**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of the servicer does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the “Form 20-F”) of Holmes Financing (No. 9) PLC (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| Dated: June 28, 2007 | /s/ CHRIS FIELDING                        |
|----------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 | Chris Fielding                                                                                                                                          |
|                 | Head of Mortgage Backed Funding                                                                                                                         |
|                 |                                                                                                                                                    |

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

|  |   |   |
|--|--------|--------|

 

 

----
### §24. Vessels laying cables; signals; avoidance of buoys

The master of any vessel which, while engaged in laying or repairing submarine cables, shall fail to observe the rules concerning signals that have been or shall be adopted by the parties to the convention described in section 30 of this title with a view to preventing collisions at sea; or the master of any vessel that, perceiving, or being able to perceive the said signals displayed upon a telegraph ship engaged in repairing a cable, shall not withdraw to or keep at distance of at least one nautical mile; or the master of any vessel that seeing or being able to see buoys intended to mark the position of a cable when being laid or when out of order or broken, shall not keep at a distance of at least a quarter of a nautical mile, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month, or to a fine of not exceeding $500.

(Feb. 29, 1888, ch. 17, §4, 25 Stat. 41.)