alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

TIMOTHY LOWE,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 3:20-cv-5060-LC-MJF

MARK INCH,

Respondent.

/

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report

and Recommendation dated November 19, 2020. (Doc. 14). The parties were

furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and were afforded an

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of the timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation and the objections

thereto, I conclude that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14), is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) is GRANTED.

Page 1 of 2

Case 3:20-cv-05060-LC-MJF Document 18 Filed 01/07/21 Page 1 of 2
3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), challenging the

judgment of conviction and sentence in State of Florida v. Timothy Jerome Lowe,

Escambia County Circuit Court Case No. 2012-CF-6213, is DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE as time barred.

4. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 7th day of January, 2021.

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Case 3:20-cv-05060-LC-MJF Document 18 Filed 01/07/21 Page 2 of 2
149 So.2d 765

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Clarence JOHNSON v. Jim GARRISON, District Attorney, Parish of Orleans.

No. 46552.

Feb. 8, 1963.

The application is denied. In view of the record as made up, particularly the return of the trial judge, relator is not entitled to the relief sought.
§ 201.43 Size of sample. The following are minimum sizes of samples of agricultural seed, vegetable seed and screenings to be submitted for analysis, test, or examination: ( a ) Two ounces (57 grams) of grass seed not otherwise mentioned, white or alsike clover, or seeds not larger than these.
( b ) Five ounces (142 grams) of red or crimson clover, alfalfa, lespedeza, ryegrass, bromegrass, millet, flax, rape, or seeds of similar size.
( c ) One pound (454 grams) of sudangrass, proso millet, hemp, or seeds of similar size.
( d ) Two pounds (907 grams) of cereals, sorghum, vetch, or seeds of similar or larger size.
( e ) Two quarts (2.2 liters) of screenings.
( f ) Vegetable seed samples shall consist of at least 400 seeds.
( g ) Coated seed for a purity analysis shall consist of at least 7,500 seed units. Coated seed for noxious-weed seed examination shall consist of at least 30,000 seed units. Coated seed for germination test only shall consist of at least 1,000 seed units.
[10 FR 9950, Aug. 11, 1945, as amended at 15 FR 2394, Apr. 28, 1950; 59 FR 64492, Dec. 14, 1994]
Case 3:20-cv-03762-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/28/20 Page 1 of 8
Case 3:20-cv-03762-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/28/20 Page 2 of 8
Case 3:20-cv-03762-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/28/20 Page 3 of 8
Case 3:20-cv-03762-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/28/20 Page 4 of 8
Case 3:20-cv-03762-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/28/20 Page 5 of 8
Case 3:20-cv-03762-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/28/20 Page 6 of 8
Case 3:20-cv-03762-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/28/20 Page 7 of 8
Case 3:20-cv-03762-TKW-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/28/20 Page 8 of 8
§ 247.18 Nutrition education. ( a ) *What are the State agency's responsibilities in ensuring that nutrition education is provided?* The State agency must establish an overall nutrition education plan and must ensure that local agencies provide nutrition education to participants in accordance with the plan. The State agency may allow local agencies to share personnel and educational resources with other programs in order to provide the best nutrition education possible to participants. The State agency must establish an evaluation procedure to ensure that the nutrition education provided is effective. The evaluation procedure must include participant input and must be directed by a nutritionist or other qualified professional. The evaluation may be conducted by the State or local agency, or by another agency under agreement with the State or local agency.
( b ) *What type of nutrition education must the local agency provide?* The local agency must provide nutrition education that can be easily understood by participants and is related to their nutritional needs and household situations. The local agency must provide nutrition education that includes the following information, which should account for specific ethnic and cultural characteristics whenever possible: ( 1 ) The nutritional value of CSFP foods, and their relationship to the overall dietary needs of the population groups served;
( 2 ) Nutritious ways to use CSFP foods;
( 3 ) Special nutritional needs of participants and how these needs may be met;
( 4 ) The importance of health care, and the role nutrition plays in maintaining good health; and
( 5 ) The importance of the use of the foods by the participant to whom they are distributed, and not by another person.
( c ) *To whom must local agencies provide nutrition education?* The local agency must make nutrition education available to all participants.
( d ) *May CSFP foods be used in cooking demonstrations?* Yes. The State or local agency, or another agency with which it has signed an agreement, may use CSFP foods to conduct cooking demonstrations as part of the nutrition education provided to program participants, but not for other purposes.
[70 FR 47063, Aug. 11, 2005, as amended at 79 FR 38751, July 9, 2014; 85 FR 68722, Oct. 30, 2020]
PUBLIC LAW 108–339—OCT. 18, 2004 118 STAT. 1361

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 1663:

SENATE REPORTS: No. 108–179 (Comm. on Environment and Public Works).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 149 (2003): Nov. 6, considered and passed Senate.

Vol. 150 (2004): June 14, considered and passed House, amended.

Sept. 28, Senate concurred in House amendment.

Æ

Public Law 108–339

108th Congress

An Act

To replace certain Coastal Barrier Resources System maps.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF CERTAIN COASTAL BARRIER

RESOURCES SYSTEM MAPS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The 2 maps subtitled ‘‘NC–07P’’, relating

to the Coastal Barrier Resources System unit designated as Coastal

Barrier Resources System Cape Fear Unit NC–07P, that are

included in the set of maps entitled ‘‘Coastal Barrier Resources

System’’ and referred to in section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier

Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)), are hereby replaced by 2 other

maps relating to those units entitled ‘‘Coastal Barrier Resources

System Cape Fear Unit, NC–07P’’ and dated May 5, 2004.

(b) AVAILABILITY.—The Secretary of the Interior shall keep

the maps referred to in subsection (a) on file and available for

inspection in accordance with the provisions of section 4(b) of the

Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(b)).

Approved October 18, 2004.

16 USC 3503

note.

Oct. 18, 2004

[S. 1663]
**EXHIBIT 31.1****Certification**I, G. Gary Yetman, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Coleman Cable, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        Date:  May 9, 2007 **/s/ G. Gary Yetman**   **Chief Executive Officer and President**     
38
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

EXHIBIT 4.2  



	Number

B-	 	Incorporated Under the Laws of the State of Delaware	 	Shares

-0-

Cusip No.




 
 

DISCOVERY HOLDING COMPANY    
    
    Series B Common Stock, par value $.01 per share    
    
    Specimen Certificate    
    


        This Certifies that                        is the owner
of                                    FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE
SHARES OF SERIES B COMMON STOCK, PAR
VALUE $0.01 PER SHARE, OF DISCOVERY HOLDING COMPANY (hereinafter called the "Corporation") transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney
upon surrender of the Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid unless countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar. 


        Witness,
the seal of the Corporation and the signatures of its duly authorized officers. 


Dated:



Discovery
Holding Company

[Corporate Seal] 



	
 President	 	
 Secretary














QuickLinks


DISCOVERY HOLDING COMPANY Series B Common Stock, par value $.01 per share Specimen Certificate
#### § 2812.7 Costs.

Donated excess personal property/equipment is free of charge. However, the donee must pay all costs associated with packaging and transportation, unless the sponsoring agency has made other arrangements. The donee should specify the method of shipment.
CHIEF JUSTICE

 ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

 NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

 DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

 GINA M. BENAVIDES

 GREGORY T. PERKES

 NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

 DORIAN E. RAMIREZ

NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FLOOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361-888-0416 (TEL)

361-888-0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLOOR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 78539

956-318-2405 (TEL)

956-318-2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa

Court of Appeals 

Thirteenth District of Texas 

May 28, 2015

Hon. Mark Skurka

District Attorney

901 Leopard Street, Room 205

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Travis W. Berry

Attorney at Law

P.O. Box 6333

Corpus Christi, TX 78466-6333

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Adolfo Aguilo Jr.

Assistant District Attorney

Nueces County Courthouse

901 Leopard - Room 206

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13-14-00305-CR

Tr.Ct.No. 13-CR-3008-4

Style: Billie Knoll v. The State of Texas

The above-referenced cause has been set for submission without oral argument 

on Thursday, June 18, 2015, before a panel consisting of Chief Justice Rogelio Valdez, 

Justice Gina M. Benavides and Justice Gregory T. Perkes. 

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER:ch
EXHIBIT (10)(P)(1)

List of Executive Officers who are parties to

Change in Control Agreements with Harleysville Group Inc.

in the form filed as Exhibit (10)(P) with the Annual Report on Form 10-K

for the year ended December 31, 2009



Michael L. Browne, President Chief Executive Officer (1)

Mark R. Cummins, Executive Vice President, Chief Investment Officer and Treasurer

Allan R. Becker, Senior Vice President and Chief Actuary

Arthur E. Chandler, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Thomas E. Clark, Senior Vice President, Field Operations

Donna M. Dever, Senior Vice President, Learning, Development & Process Improvement

Beth A. Friel, Senior Vice President, Human Resources

Robert A. Kauffman, Senior Vice President, Secretary, General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer

Theodore A. Majewski, Senior Vice President, Personal Lines (2)

Kevin M. Toth, Senior Vice President and Chief Underwriting Officer

Akhil Tripathi, Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer

Jonathan Young, Senior Vice President and Chief Claims Officer



_________________

(1)

Mr. Brownes agreement is substantially similar to the agreement with other executives except for the following:  (a) the factor in Section 4(c)(ii)(b) is 2.999 instead of 2.000; (b) the period in (i) the last proviso to Section 1, (ii) the lead-in paragraph to Section 3, (iii) the lead-in paragraph to Section 3(c), and (iv) Section 4(c)(vii) is thirty-six (36) months instead of twenty-four months; (c) the Initial Expiration Date is December 31, 200[9], instead of December 31, 200[7]; and (d) in Section 1, the date January 1, 200[8] is January 1, 20[10].



(2)

Mr. Majewskis agreement has the following differences:  (a) the factor in Section 4(c)(ii)(b) is 1.000 instead of 2.000; and (b) the period in (i) the last proviso to Section 1, (ii) the lead-in paragraph to Section 3, (iii) the lead-in paragraph to Section 3(c), and (iv) Section 4(c)(vii) is twelve (12) months instead of twenty-four months.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 228 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to prevent the payment 

of cash to recipients of supplemental nutrition assistance for the return 

of empty bottles and cans used to contain food purchased with benefits 

provided under such Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 14, 2013 

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to prevent 

the payment of cash to recipients of supplemental nutrition assistance for the return of empty bottles and cans 

used to contain food purchased with benefits provided 

under such Act. 

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 ‘‘SNAP Fraud Preven5 tion Act of 2013’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HR 228 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS. 

2 Section 3(k)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 

3 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2012(k)(1)) is amended— 

4 (1) by striking ‘‘and hot foods’’ and inserting 

5 ‘‘hot foods’’, and 

6 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘and any deposit fee in excess of amount of the State fee 

8 reimbursement (if any) required to purchase any food or 

9 food product contained in a returnable bottle or can, re10 gardless of whether such fee is included in the shelf price 

11 posted for such food or food product,’’. 

12 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

13 This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall 

14 take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of 

15 this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

v.

HAROLD MURRAY IV,

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 754 CAP

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 31st day of August, 2017, the Petition for Review of Interlocutory 

Orders is DENIED.
ac3a.jpg Welcome

ASSISTANT CHIEF OF STAFF

FOR INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT

The Army Proponent for Installations

Home Army Page Feedback Security Notice Installations Regulations

Functional Links

Organizational Links

Garrison Command Directory

(Click here to update)

Headquarters

BASOPS

Advocates

HQ, Department of the Army

US Army Training and Doctrine

Command

US Army Forces Command

US Army Materiel Command

US Army, Pacific

US Army, Europe

Eighth US Army

US Army Military District of

Washington

Garrison

Commanders

Aberdeen Proving Ground

Anniston Army Depot

Area I Support Activity - Korea

Camp Casey

Camp Red Cloud, Korea

Blue Grass Army Depot

Camp Humphreys Area III

Camp Parks

Camp Stanley

Carlisle Barracks

Charles M. Price Support Center

Corpus Christi Army Depot

Crane Army Ammunition Activity

Garrison Command Page 1 of 4

http://web.archive.org/web/20001021110857/http://www.hqda.army.mil/acsimweb/gcd/... 09/15/11
Devens RFTA

Dugway Proving Ground

Fort A. P. Hill

Fort Belvoir

Fort Benning

Fort Bliss

Fort Bragg

Fort Buchanan

Fort Campbell

Fort Carson

Fort Detrick

Fort Dix

Fort Drum

Fort Eustis

Fort Gillem

Fort Gordon

Fort Greely

Fort Hamilton

Fort Hood

Fort Huachuca

Fort Hunter-Liggett

Fort Irwin

Fort Jackson

Fort Knox

Fort Leavenworth

Fort Lee

Fort Leonard Wood

Fort Lewis

Fort McCoy

Garrison Command Page 2 of 4

http://web.archive.org/web/20001021110857/http://www.hqda.army.mil/acsimweb/gcd/... 09/15/11
Fort McPherson

Fort Meade

Fort Monmouth

Fort Monroe

Fort Myer

Fort Polk

Fort Riley

Fort Rucker

Fort Sam Houston

Fort Shafter

Fort Sill

Fort Stewart

Fort Story

Fort Wainwright

Hunter Army Airfield

Letterkenny Army Depot

McAlester Army Ammunition Plant

MOT, Sunny Point

Oakland Army Base

Picatinny Arsenal

Pine Bluff Arsenal

Pohakuloa Training Area

Presidio of Monterey

Red River Army Depot

Redstone Arsenal

Rock Island Arsenal

Rocky Mountain Arsenal

Savanna Army Depot Activity

Schofield Barracks

Garrison Command Page 3 of 4

http://web.archive.org/web/20001021110857/http://www.hqda.army.mil/acsimweb/gcd/... 09/15/11
Seneca Army Depot Activity

Sierra Army Depot

Tobyhanna Army Depot

Tooele Army Depot

Umatilla Chemical Depot

US Army Garrison, Alaska

US Army Garrison, Bayonne

US Army Garrison, Hawaii

US Army Garrison, Selfridge

US Army Kwajalein Atoll

US Military Academy

Walter Reed Army Medical Center

Watervliet Arsenal

White Sands Missile Range

Yakima Training Center

Yuma Proving Ground

6th Area Support Group

10th Area Support Group

17th Area Support Group

20th Area Support Group

22nd Area Support Group

26th Area Support Group

34th ASG and Area II

80th Area Support Group

98th Area Support Group

100th Area Support Group

104th Area Support Group

Garrison Command Page 4 of 4

http://web.archive.org/web/20001021110857/http://www.hqda.army.mil/acsimweb/gcd/... 09/15/11
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial 
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for Prutech Research and 
                    Development Partnership III and is qualified 
                    in its entirety by reference to such 
                    financial statements
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>          

<CIK>               0000794357
<NAME>              Prutech Research and Development Partnership III
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1996

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1996

<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1996

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-Mos

<CASH>                          2,342,441

<SECURITIES>                    13,321,925

<RECEIVABLES>                   0

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                15,664,366

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  15,664,366

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           285,108

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      15,379,258

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    15,664,366

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                5,448,886

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                914,368

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    4,534,518

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   99.70

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0


</TABLE>
#### Michael Mikaelian, as Father and Natural Guardian of Virginia Mikaelian, et al., Appellants, v Anthony Accurso et al., Respondents.

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered November 9, 1977, as awarded the infant plaintiff only $30,000. (The jury verdict in favor of the infant was originally $36,000, but was reduced by one sixth based upon said plaintiff’s failure to mitigate her damages by use of a seat belt.) Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the second decretal paragraph thereof is deleted, and, as between the infant plaintiff and defendants, the action is severed and a new trial is granted, with respect to the issue of damages sustained by said plaintiff, with costs to abide the event, unless within 20 days after service upon defendants of a copy of the order to be made hereon together with notice of entry thereof, defendants shall serve and file in the office of the clerk of the trial court written stipulations consenting to increase the verdict in favor of said plaintiff to $65,000, less one sixth, in which event the judgment as so increased and amended is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. In our opinion, the award of damages was inadequate in view of the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff. The trial court’s charge on mitigation was proper and the jury’s conclusion that one sixth of the injuries had resulted from the infant plaintiff’s failure to use a seat belt should be reapplied to the new award. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Rabin and Gibbons, JJ., concur.