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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4065 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4065

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the maximum amount 
of home loan guaranty available to a veteran, and to provide for annual 
                      adjustments to such amount.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 30, 2004

 Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida introduced the following bill; which 
           was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the maximum amount 
of home loan guaranty available to a veteran, and to provide for annual 
                      adjustments to such amount.

    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 ``Veterans Housing Affordability Act 
of 2004''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN, AND ANNUAL INDEXING OF, MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF HOME 
              LOAN GUARANTY FOR CONSTRUCTION AND PURCHASE OF HOMES.

    (a) Maximum Loan Guaranty Based on 90 Percent of the Freddie Mac 
Conforming Loan Rate.--Section 3703(a)(1) of title 38, United States 
Code, is amended by striking ``$60,000'' each place it appears in 
subparagraphs (A)(i)(IV) and (B) and inserting ``the maximum guaranty 
amount (as defined in subparagraph (C))''.
    (b) Definition.--Such section is further amended by adding at the 
end the following new subparagraph:
    ``(C) In this paragraph, the term `maximum guaranty amount' means 
the dollar amount that is equal to 22.5 percent of the Freddie Mac 
conforming loan limit limitation determined under section 305(a)(2) of 
the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act (12 U.S.C. 1454(a)(2)), 
as adjusted for the year involved.''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3900

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities 

Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the 

design, planning, and construction of permanent facilities for the GREAT 

project to reclaim, reuse, and treat impaired waters water in the area 

of Oxnard, California. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 4, 2004

Mrs. CAPPS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Resources 

A BILL

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 

Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and 

construction of permanent facilities for the GREAT 

project to reclaim, reuse, and treat impaired waters 

water in the area of Oxnard, California.

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 ‘‘City of Oxnard Water 

5 Recycling and Desalination Act of 2004’’. 
2

•HR 3900 IH 

1 SEC. 2. OXNARD, CALIFORNIA, WATER RECLAMATION, 

2 REUSE, AND TREATMENT PROJECT. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Reclamation Wastewater and 

4 Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (title XVI of Public 

5 Law 102–575; 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended by add6 ing at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 1636. OXNARD, CALIFORNIA, WATER RECLAMATION, 

8 REUSE, AND TREATMENT PROJECT. 

9 ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary, in coopera10 tion with the City of Oxnard, California, may participate 

11 in the design, planning, and construction of permanent fa12 cilities for the GREAT project to reclaim, reuse, and treat 

13 impaired waters water in the area of Oxnard, California. 

14 ‘‘(b) COST SHARE.—The Federal share of the costs 

15 of the project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 

16 25 percent of the total cost. 

17 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—The Secretary shall not provide 

18 funds for the operation and maintenance of the project 

19 described in subsection (a).’’. 

20 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

21 in section 2 of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and 

22 Adjustment Act of 1992 is amended by inserting after the 

23 item relating to section 1635 the following:

‘‘Sec. 1636. Oxnard, California, water reclamation, reuse, and treatment 

project.’’.

Æ
Exhibit 31.1 / 31.2

SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302(a) CERTIFICATION

I, Frank M. Reynolds, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of
InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp.; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.



|                     |  |                                                                               
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 29, 2011 |  | /s/ Frank M. Reynolds                                                         
|                     |  | Frank M. Reynolds, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 1 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 536-1 Filed: 05/16/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:13904
Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 536-1 Filed: 05/16/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:13905
#### H. E. Henning *v.*J. H. Henning, etc.

Vendor and Purchaser — Pleading—Deed—Warranty—Insolvency—NonJ Residence.

Appellant neither alleges nor proves that his acceptance of the deed and warranty was induced by fraud, nor that insolvency or non-residence rendered the covenant of warranty unavailable, nor that any breach of the warranty had occurred by eviction.

Held: That appellant was entitled to no relief, unless upon the grounds of fraud superinducing the contract.

APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT.

February 17, 1872.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin:

The appellant neither alleged nor proved that his acceptance of the deed and warranty of J. E. Henning was induced by fraud, nor that his insolvency or non-residence rendered the covenant of warranty unavailable. Nor was it alleged or proved that any breach of the warranty had occurred by the eviction, or even the disturbance of the appellant in the possession of the land. It is plain, therefore, that he was entitled' to no relief, unless upon the ground of fraud superinducing the contract.

'Certain misrepresentations are alleged in the answers and cross-petitions, as made by the appellee when negotiating the sale, which allegations do not seem to be sustained by the proof further than to show that the appellee professed to be able to *21convey a good title, when in fact there was an encumbrance of his mother’s life estate on the land:; but it is not even claimed by the appellant that he was thereby deceived, misled', or seduced into the contract and the acceptance of the deed; and according to well settled principles, we are satisfied, that neither the allegations of the appellant nor proof relied on to establish fraud, is sufficient to authorize any relief on his cross-petition.

*Sweeney, Stuart, for appellant.*

*Ray, Little, for appellees.*

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RASHAWN J. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 22 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 19th day of June, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.6.3

Eastern Division

ABC Corporation I, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.:

1:20−cv−04806

Honorable Thomas M.

Durkin

The Partnership and Unincorporated Associations

Identified on Schedule "A", et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, June 21, 2022:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Defendants filed a

motion for clarification of the preliminary injunction order dated 10/13/2021. See [456].

The Court recently found that a certain entity was improperly included in an exhibit to that

order and dissolved the order as to that entity. See [558]. Defendants argue that this

finding calls into question whether any of the entities in that exhibit were properly

included. However, even if some of those entities are not properly included in the order,

Defendants have not made any argument that they have been injured by such an error.

Thus, Defendants do not have standing to challenge any such error. Defendants's motion

for clarification is denied to that extent. Next, Defendants argue that the order improperly

enjoins sale of a product with the ASIN number B08RYMXRWM known as "G 11

model." The parties should confer within the next two weeks as to whether this product is

properly enjoined. After this meeting, the parties should file a joint status report stating

whether there is agreement that the injunction should be revised to exclude the ASIN in

question, or whether Plaintiffs will file a response arguing that the ASIN is properly

included. The status report is due 7/6/2022. For these reasons, the motion for clarification

[560] is denied in part and granted in part in accordance with this order. Mailed notice.

(ecw, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 562 Filed: 06/21/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:14041
web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 562 Filed: 06/21/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:14042
#### Gary S. WINGATE, Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-7099.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Oct. 20, 2004.

ORDER

Pursuant to the Court’s letter dated September 23, 2004,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

This appeal is dismissed.
THADDEUS MCKINNON

,

Appellant,

v.

MICHELE LEE MCKINNON

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 1477

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 6, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Jefferson County

. Karen A. Gievers , J udge

.

Thaddeus McKinnon, pro se , Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS

, C.J., JAY

, and WINSOR

, J J

. , CONCUR.
exv10w17



 






Exhibit 10.17




MODIFICATION




TO

CONTRACT NUMBER VA-844 HALIFAX

BETWEEN THE

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

AND

HALIFAX CORPORATION



This Modification is an agreement between the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as
“State” or “Commonwealth” or “VITA” (Virginia Information Technologies Agency), and Halifax
Corporation, hereinafter referred to as “Contractor” relating to the modification of the above
Contract. This Modification is hereby incorporated into and made an integral part of Contract
VA-844 Halifax (the Agreement), as modified.



The purpose of this Modification is to document both parties’ agreement concerning inclusion of the
following agreement:




Reference: the Agreement, Section 2, Item 2.3 “Extensions of Agreement”.





The Term of the Agreement is hereby extended for a period of three years effective October
31, 2005.



Reference: the Pricing Schedule





The Pricing Schedule dated September 23, 2002 is replaced in its entirety with the attached
new Pricing Schedule dated September 27th, 2005.


The foregoing is the complete and final expression of the parties’ agreement to modify Contract
VA-844 Halifax and cannot be modified, except by a writing signed by duly authorized
representatives of both parties.





ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED.




PERSONS SIGNING THIS CONTRACT ARE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF EACH PARTY TO THIS CONTRACT
AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT EACH PARTY AGREES TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE
CONTRACT.



	 	 	 
	HALIFAX CORPORATION	 	COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
	BY:                                               

	 	BY:                                               
	 
	 	 
	NAME:                                        

	 	NAME:                                        
	 
	 	 
	TITLE:                                        

	 	TITLE:                                        
	 
	 	 
	DATE:                                        

	 	DATE:                                        






Modification

To Contract VA844 Halifax

Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 21.0

                         TARRAGON REALTY INVESTORS, INC.
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

The following is a list of all subsidiaries and partnership interests of
Tarragon Realty Investors, Inc., the state or other jurisdiction of organization
or incorporation (indention means direct parent relationship):

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              Jurisdiction of
                                                              Organization or
          Name of Entity                                      Incorporation
-----------------------------------------------------------   ---------------
<S>                                                           <C>
Tarragon Realty Investors, Inc.                                   Nevada
     T.T.P. Investors, Inc.                                       California
         18607 Ventura Associates (60%)                           California
     Vinland Holly House, Inc.                                    Florida
     Vinland Property Investors, Inc.                             Nevada
         Vinland Aspentree, Inc.                                  Texas
         Aspentree National Associates, L.P. (1%)                 Texas
            Larchmont Associates, L.P. (20%)                      Maryland
         French Villa National Associates, L.P. (1%)              Oklahoma
         Southern Elms National Associates, L.P. (1%)             Oklahoma
         Vinland Riverside Partners, L.P. (1%)                    Texas

     Aspentree National Associates, L.P. (99%)                    Texas
     French Villa National Associates, L.P. (99%)                 Oklahoma
     Southern Elms National Associates, L.P. (99%)                Oklahoma
     Vinland Riverside Partners, L.P. (99%)                       Texas
     Kearny Wrap LLC (20%)                                        New York
     National Omni Associates, L.P. (24.5%)                       Delaware
     Vinland Oakbrook, Inc.                                       Texas
     Vinland Park 20, Inc.                                        Florida
     Tarragon Briarwest Partners (99%)                            Texas
     Tarragon Briarwest,Inc.                                     Texas
         Tarragon Briarwest Partners (1%)                         Texas

</TABLE>
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 Annual Report of Laycor Ventures Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Wayne Robert Morgan, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) 	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) 	The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 29th day of June, 2005.

| | /s/ Wayne Robert Morgan                            
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | Wayne Robert Morgan                                
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer













---
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)





I, John
T. McLaughlin, of US Dataworks, Inc. certify pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:





(i) the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2008 (the
“Report”), which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and





(ii) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of US Dataworks,
Inc.





Dated:
      February 17, 2009/s/ John T. McLaughlinJohn
      T. McLaughlinChief
      Accounting Officer
1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3080

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Christopher Orville Myers, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 5, 2007

Filed: January 30, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Myers (Myers) appeals his conviction and the 28-month prison

sentence imposed by the district court1

 after he pled guilty to mailing threatening

communications, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876. Myers’s counsel has moved to

withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Myers entered into a plea agreement in which he waived his right to appeal,

with limited exceptions. We conclude the waiver is valid, because the record shows
-2-

Myers entered into both the plea agreement and appeal waiver knowingly and

voluntarily. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en

banc) (concluding this court will enforce an appeal waiver contained in plea

agreement when “both the waiver and plea agreement were entered into knowingly

and voluntarily”). To the extent Myers argues his counsel was ineffective, we see no

reason to depart from this court’s usual rule of requiring ineffective-assistance claims

to be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, where a proper record can be developed.

See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006) (stating

this court “will consider ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal only where the

record has been fully developed, where not to act would amount to a plain miscarriage

of justice, or where counsel’s error is readily apparent”).

Having determined Myers entered into both the plea agreement and appeal

waiver knowingly and voluntarily, we conclude the waiver bars the arguments raised

by Myers and his counsel. In addition, we have reviewed the record in accordance

with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues that

fall outside the scope of the appeal waiver. We conclude no miscarriage of justice

would result from enforcing the waiver in this appeal. Cf. Andis, 333 F.3d at 890

(explaining the court will not enforce a valid plea waiver where to do so would result

in miscarriage of justice). Thus, we specifically enforce the appeal waiver by

dismissing this appeal. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we deny

Myers’s pending motions.

______________________________
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERIK TAYLOR,

Plaintiff

- Appella nt,

v.

VICTOR LEMUS; JOAQUIN RINCON,

Defendants

- Appellees. No.15

- 56117

D.C. No. 2:11

- cv

- 09614

- FMO

- SS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 26, 2017 **

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Erik Taylor appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a

jury trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 acti on alleging excessive force and other

constitutional violations related to his arrest and prosecution . We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 4 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 56117

We are un able to consider Taylor’s contentions that the district court erred

by entering judgment for defendants because Taylor failed to provide any portion

of the trial transcript. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2) (“If the appellant intends to

urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is

contrary to the evidence, the appellant must include in the record a transcript of all

evidence relevant to that finding or conclusion.”); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade

,

924 F.2d 167, 168 (9th Cir. 1991) (dismissing appeal filed by pro se appellant for

failure to comply with Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2)).

The motion to withdraw as pro bono counsel for appellant (Docket Entry

No. 22) is granted. Upon more detailed review of the record, the March 2 2 , 2016

and May 9, 2017 order s regarding the appointment of pro bono counsel are

vacated. This appeal is removed from the court’s pro bono program and the Clerk

shall amend the docket to reflect that appellant is proceeding pro se.

Taylor’s motions for appointme nt of counsel (Docket Entry Nos. 11, 23) are

denied.

AFFIRMED.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000909

13-APR-2017

07:50 AM
STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellant,

v.

COREY PATRICK ROBINSON

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 3493

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 6, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. James O. Shelfer , Judge

.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Matthew Pavese, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Laurel Cornell Niles, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY

, BILBREY, and JAY

, J J

. , CONCUR.
HMM Reference NIST Technical Note 2205: Item 16 Dryer Vents

Item 16 Dryer Vents Caption – Hardened dryer vent exterior, use a 1/8th inch fine metal mesh screen, and metal flapper to prevent ember

intrusion.

Plastic cover for dryer vent without fine metal mesh screen

Top flap opened to show dryer duct without screen

Note: Selected photographs are included to illustrate each HMM hardening item. Additional vulnerabilities or hardening items may be seen in the photographs, but those are highlighted within their specific HMM item.
There is no CAD drawing for 

Item 16: Dryer Vents 

Please see photographs for illustrations.