alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.5


 


TERMINATION 


 


Reference is made to
that certain Compensation Reimbursement Agreement dated as of October 1, 2014 (the “Agreement”), by and
between AR Capital Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and AR Capital, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company (“AR Capital” and together with the Company, the “Parties”), pursuant
to which the Company agreed to pay AR Capital, as the sponsor of the Company, an amount not to exceed $15,000.00 per month as reimbursement
for a portion of the compensation paid to its personnel, including certain of the Company’s officers who work on the Company’s
behalf, commencing on the date the Company’s securities were first listed on NASDAQ.


 


The Parties hereby
agree that the Agreement is terminated effective as of the date hereof and that any amounts accrued as of the date hereof pursuant
to the Agreement, if any, shall be forgiven.


 


[Signature Page Follows]


 




    	 	 	 



     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have
caused this termination to be executed as of October 7, 2016.


 


	 	AR CAPITAL ACQUISITION CORP.
	 	 
	 	By:	 /s/ William Kahane
	 	 	Name: William Kahane
	 	 	Title: CEO


 


[Signature Page to Compensation Reimbursement
Termination]


 




    	 	 	 



     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have
caused this termination to be executed as of October 7, 2016.


 


	 	AR CAPITAL, LLC
	 	 
	 	By:	 /s/ Edward Michael Weil Jr
	 	 	Name: Edward Michael Weil Jr
	 	 	Title: CEO


 


[Signature Page to Compensation Reimbursement
Termination]
No. 52973.

#### Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 105669-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained. The protests were overruled in all other respects.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM RAYMOND HODGE, No. 2:04-cv-0617-MCE-DAD-P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

TOM L. CAREY, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an

application for a Findings and Recommendations pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

General Order No. 262.

On January 31, 2006, the magistrate judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which

contained notice to all parties that any Objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty (20)

days. 

Case 2:04-cv-00617-MCE -DAD Document 29 Filed 03/08/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Neither party has filed Objections to the Findings and

Recommendations.

The Court has reviewed the file and finds the Findings and

Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed January 31, 2006,

are adopted in full; 

2. Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss, filed on May 9, 2005, is

granted; and

3. This action is summarily dismissed. See Rule 4, Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases.

DATED: March 7, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00617-MCE -DAD Document 29 Filed 03/08/06 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARNEST CASSELL WOODS, II,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1225 LKK GGH P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme

Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent

prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In

certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court

does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of

counsel will therefore be denied.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 86 Filed 04/12/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s March 31, 2006 motion

for the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: 4/11/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:bb

wood1225.31

 

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 86 Filed 04/12/06 Page 2 of 2
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Forest insect and diseaseconditions for the Southern Region**
 
1997| 1998| 1999 | 2000| 2001| 2002| 2003| 2006
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.52/16:
Item Number:0080-J-04 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000556548
 
July 10, 2019
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6568** 
RAYMOND L. CARTER, JR., a/k/a Raymond Lewis Carter, Jr. , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. WARDEN OF PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION , Respondent

– Appellee , and
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA , Respondent
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. , District Judge. ( 4:10

- cv - 03167

- JFA )

Submitted : September 13, 2011 Decided: September 15, 2011

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Raymond L. Carter, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in th is circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Raymond L
. Carter, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) ; Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue abs ent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the distr ict court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Carter h as not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.3 Additionally, we construe Carter ’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2254 petition
. United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive b y the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable fact finder would have found the petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(2) (2006)
. Carter ’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition. We dispense with oral argument b ecause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4233 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to provide or subsidize housing for 

aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States until the Secretary 

of Veterans determines that sufficient Federal resources exist to provide 

housing assistance to all homeless veterans. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 1, 2024 

Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. COTTON, Mr. MARSHALL, Mrs. BLACKBURN, 

and Mr. CRAMER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to provide or subsidize 

housing for aliens who are unlawfully present in the 

United States until the Secretary of Veterans determines 

that sufficient Federal resources exist to provide housing 

assistance to all homeless veterans. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Heroes Over Aliens 

5 Act’’ or the ‘‘HOA Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4233 IS

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS TO HOUSE ALIENS 

2 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED 

3 STATES UNTIL SUFFICIENT FEDERAL RE4 SOURCES EXIST TO PROVIDE HOUSING AS5 SISTANCE TO ALL HOMELESS VETERANS. 

6 (a) FUNDING LIMITATION.—Except as provided 

7 under subsection (b), no Federal funds may be used to 

8 provide or subsidize housing for aliens who are unlawfully 

9 present in the United States until the date on which the 

10 Secretary of Veterans Affairs submits to Congress the de11 termination described in subsection (c). 

12 (b) EXCLUSIONS.—The limitation described in sub13 section (a) does not apply to any aliens who are— 

14 (1) in the custody of, or being detained by, the 

15 Department of Homeland Security; or 

16 (2) incarcerated in a Federal prison or in any 

17 prison, institution, or facility receiving funding from 

18 the Federal Government. 

19 (c) DETERMINATION DESCRIBED.—The determina20 tion described in this subsection is a determination by the 

21 Secretary of Veterans Affairs that, based on the most re22 cent point-in-time count data available from the Depart23 ment of Housing and Urban Development, sufficient Fed24 eral resources exist to provide housing assistance to all 

25 veterans who are homeless or experiencing homelessness. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 4233 IS

1 (d) CONSIDERATIONS.—In making the determination 

2 described in subsection (c), the Secretary of Veterans Af3 fairs shall consider the criteria and benchmarks described 

4 in the document entitled ‘‘Criteria and Benchmarks for 

5 Achieving the Goal of Ending Veteran Homelessness’’ 

6 (Version 4, June 2019) published by the United States 

7 Interagency Council on Homelessness. 

8 (e) DEFINITION OF VETERAN.—In this section, the 

9 term ‘‘veteran’’ has the meaning given that term in section 

10 101 of title 38, United States Code. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
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 1

It appears from a review of the docket that plaintiff has not kept the court apprised of his

most recent address changes, as required by Local Rule 83-182(f). Nevertheless, the court’s

service of orders on plaintiff’s address of record was fully effective.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH DEAN DAWSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1094 FCD KJM P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On July 7, 2005, plaintiff filed a letter. This civil rights action was closed on May

13, 2005. Plaintiff is advised that documents filed by plaintiff since the closing date will be

disregarded and no orders will issue in response to future filings. The Clerk’s Office is directed

to serve a copy of this order on plaintiff at the address shown on his July 7th filing.1 

DATED: July 12, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/kf daws1094.58

Case 2:04-cv-01094-FCD-KJM Document 40 Filed 07/13/05 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ANCHOR GLASS CONTAINER CORPORATION FOR THE 6 MONTHS
ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           5,246
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   77,422
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,987
<INVENTORY>                                    115,005
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               202,053
<PP&E>                                         387,373
<DEPRECIATION>                                  67,291
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 626,270
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          146,444
<BONDS>                                        202,849
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           55,983
<PREFERRED>                                         34
<COMMON>                                           139
<OTHER-SE>                                      74,120
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   626,270
<SALES>                                        324,402
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               324,402
<CGS>                                          301,803
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  301,803
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   125
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,080
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4,755)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4,755)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4,755)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (3.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (3.06)
        

</TABLE>
79–008

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 106–654

PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3605, THE

SAN RAFAEL WESTERN LEGACY DISTRICT AND NATIONAL CONSERVATION ACT

JUNE 6, 2000.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 516]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 516, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 3605, the

San Rafael Western Legacy District and National Conservation

Act, under an open rule. The rule provides one hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Resources.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the

bill. The rule makes in order the Committee on Resources amendment in the nature of a substitute, now printed in the bill, as an

original bill for the purpose of amendment, which shall be open for

amendment at any point.

The rule provides that the amendment printed in this report

shall be considered as read and shall not be subject to a demand

for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of

the Whole.

The rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to

postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting

time to five minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a

fifteen minute vote. Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Record prior to their consideration will be given priority in recognition to offer their amendments if otherwise consistent with House rules. Finally, the rule provides for one motion

to recommit, with or without instructions.

2

SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT MADE IN ORDER UNDER THE RULE

Hansen: Manager’s amendment. Specifies the boundaries of the

Legacy District.

TEXT OF AMENDMENT MADE IN ORDER

1. AN AMENDMENT TO BE OFFERED BY REPRESENTATIVE HANSEN OF

UTAH, OR A DESIGNEE

In section 101(b), strike ‘‘2,842,800’’ and insert ‘‘2,859,100’’.

In section 101(b), strike ‘‘dated’’ and all that follows through the

period and insert ‘‘dated March 24, 2000.’’.

In section 201(b), strike ‘‘947,000’’ and insert ‘‘958,600’’.

In section 201(b), strike ‘‘dated’’ and all that follows through the

first period and insert ‘‘dated March 24, 2000.’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Esssex
Portlolio, L.P. report for the six months ended June 30, 2000
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          22,329
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,754
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                79,596
<PP&E>                                       1,118,219
<DEPRECIATION>                                 102,350
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,152,876
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,752
<BONDS>                                        475,082
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                     391,327
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,152,876
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                81,948
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,919
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,614
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,275
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,836
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             34,836
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    34,836
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.32


</TABLE>
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST NATIONAL INSURANCE ) 2:04-cv-0836-GEB-JFM

COMPANY OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, ) ORDER

)

v. )

)

MBA CONSTRUCTION, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

 )

On August 9, 2005, Plaintiff filed an Application for Right

to Attach Order and Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment, or in

the Alternative, Application for Temporary Protective Order

(“Application”) and a Request for Shortened Time on the Application. 

Plaintiff requests that its Application be granted and a right to

attach order be issued either on the basis of the papers filed, or

that the matter be heard on August 29, 2005. Plaintiff contends

“[s]hortened time on this matter is warranted on the basis of the

declarations filed” and since “Defendants have failed to abide by this

Court’s Collateral Order . . . despite several repeated demands by

Case 2:04-cv-00836-GEB -JFM Document 63 Filed 08/12/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Plaintiff.” (Pl.’s Req. for Shortened Time at 2.) Although

Plaintiff’s counsel, Kirsten A. Roe, filed a declaration, the

declaration does not “show[] a satisfactory explanation for the need

for the issuance of [an order shortening time] and for the failure of

counsel to obtain a stipulation for the issuance of such an order from

other counsel or parties in the action,” as required by Local Rule 6-

144(e). Therefore, Plaintiff’s request to shorten time is denied, and

Plaintiff’s Application will not be heard on August 29, 2005. 

Further, Plaintiff’s Application requests that a “temporary

protective order [restraining Defendants from transferring, hiding,

selling, or otherwise dissipating any property or assets] be granted

immediately pending the hearing on [Plaintiff’s] application for writ

of attachment.” (Application at 15.) Plaintiff contends the

temporary protective order is warranted because “Defendants refuse to

furnish the full collateral necessary” and “have made it clear that

they do not intend to pay their debts.” (Id.) However, Plaintiff’s

conclusory arguments do not support a finding that Plaintiff “would

suffer great or irreparable injury . . . if the temporary protective

order were not issued.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 486.010(b). 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for a temporary protective order is

denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 11, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00836-GEB -JFM Document 63 Filed 08/12/05 Page 2 of 2