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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. Case no: 3:95cr03049-001

BRADY A. SNELL

 

ORDER CONTINUING SUPERVISION

THIS MATTER CAME on to be heard on June 6, 2006; there appearing Assistant

U.S. Attorney Edwin F. Knight; and the defendant, Brady A. Snell; appearing in person and

his counsel, Thomas S. Keith, Esquire; and after receiving testimony, the Court did find the

defendant in violation of supervised release. The Court orders the defendant be continued

under supervision with the following modifications: 

• The defendant shall submit to bi-weekly or weekly urinalysis testing to determine

drug or controlled substance usage to commence immediately and until deemed not

necessary by the U.S. Probation Office.

• The defendant shall submit to Home Confinement with Electronic Monitoring for a

period of three months, with the cost to be paid by the defendant, to commence at

the discretion of the supervising U.S. Probation Officer. During this time, the

defendant will remain at his place of residence except for employment and other

activities approved in advance by the supervising U.S. Probation Officer. The

Case 3:95-cr-03049-RV Document 90 Filed 06/06/06 Page 1 of 2
• defendant will be subject to the standard conditions of Home Detention adopted for

the use in the Northern District of Florida.

• DONE AND ORDERED in Open Court at Pensacola, Florida, this 6th day of

June, 2006.

 /s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:95-cr-03049-RV Document 90 Filed 06/06/06 Page 2 of 2
From: John Summerhays/R5/USEPA/US To: "Schmidt Cortney" <CKSchmidt@vcsmc.com>, Cc: <FDindoffer@BODMANLAW.COM>, daferrier@ftch.com, Daniel Schaufelberger/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Jane Woolums/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Douglas Aburano/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, irviner@michigan.gov, khana@michigan.gov Date: 08/02/2012 12:30 PM Subject: Supplemental Questions

Thank you again for visiting us on July 19. We are continuing to consider the comments you made, and we have a few follow-up questions. If possible we would appreciate answers by the end of next week, August 10 . You also indicated that you would be providing us a copy of a report from your testing of selective noncatalytic reduction of NOx; we would appreciate receiving that by August 10 as well.

If we understood you properly, you indicated that your Charlevoix kiln is a pre-heater kiln, not a pre-heater/pre-calciner kiln, i.e. that it has no supplementary flame used specifically to heat the feed material before the material enters the kiln itself. However, we have reexamined the process description provided under a previous information request, and found your description to indicate that there is in fact a calciner. I have attached a key page from your response, taken from page 12 of part 2 of your process description. Perhaps this misunderstanding is because you were not distinguishing between a pre-heater kiln versus a pre-heater/pre-calciner kiln, or perhaps the plant is equipped with a pre-calciner (or calciner) that you do not routinely operate.

Therefore, we have a few follow-up questions to make sure we properly understand operations at the Charlevoix plant.

1. Is SMC Charlevoix' kiln system equipped with a supplemental burner (i.e., supplemental to the primary kiln burner), the heat from which is used only to heat feed material before it enters the kiln (i.e., equipment we would call a pre-calciner)?

2. If the answer to 1 is yes:

a. Does SMC routinely operate its pre-calciner?

b. On an annual average basis, what approximate percentage of the plant's heat input is provided by the pre-calciner burner versus the primary (kiln) burner? c. Does the plant routinely operate with approximately a fixed proportion of heat input from the pre-calciner burner? If the plant operates in different modes under different circumstances, please describe these different modes and identify the approximate percentage of the plant's heat input provided by the pre-calciner burner for each mode of operation. Alternately, if the pre-calciner burner operating rate is highly variable, and cannot be described in terms of standard operating modes, please identify the normal range of operation of the pre-calciner burner as a percentage of the plant's total heat input.

3. If the answer to 1 is no, please identify whether the plant description provided in the attached document remains an accurate description with respect to the presence of equipment labeled as a calciner.

[Figure not attached due to potential confidential nature]
Exhibit A 

Page 1 of 2

Case 4:20-cv-00110-MW-MAF Document 9-2 Filed 04/06/20 Page 1 of 2
Exhibit A 

Page 2 of 2

Case 4:20-cv-00110-MW-MAF Document 9-2 Filed 04/06/20 Page 2 of 2
EX-3.7
          CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION


                        Certificate of Amendment to
                         Articles of Incorporation
                        For Nevada Profit Corporation
     (Pursuant to NRS 78.385 and 78.390 - After Issuance of Stock)

1.  Name of corporation: Justwebit.com, Inc.

2.  The articles have been amended as follows (provide article
numbers, if available):

     Article I.  Name of Corporation: Synthetic Turf Corporation of
America.

3.  The vote by which the stockholders holding shares in the
corporation entitling them to exercise at least a majority of the
voting power, or such greater proportion of the voting power as may be
required in the case of a vote by classes or series, or as may be
required by the provisions of the articles of incorporation have voted
in favor of the amendment is: 56,100,000 *

4.  Officer Signature (Required)


/s/Gary Borglund


* If any proposed amendment would alter or change any preference or
any relative or other right given to any class or series of
outstanding shares, then the amendment must be approved by the vote,
in addition to the affirmative vote otherwise required, of the holders
of shares representing a majority of the voting power of each class or
series affected by the amendment regardless of limitations or
restrictions on the voting power thereof.

IMPORTANT: Failure to include any of the above information and remit
the proper fees may cause this filing to be rejected.
### _fcAe&AL-__e>_E LsAv^&J^^tAiA^^ 

# 2 3L^£C^t^(>xST_^I&7^Co^^:L-C'fc 5*4T3M^-^e«*A^7y7_X£^4I4_

— ; yAp o1? *3 27 2015" 

### Xo—Trit—#f2McaeA6L£< ^s^jxL€5_je>^_rrttL_^fevu^r_o/p ^^AL^iML^SQBM- nsft- 

# -Cca^e-b klevAj ^^^jy_&eA^^r4^£.uU4Jur pet?sl ^p ezsp-£j¥/^L,Ly_m£&>-

: _^ X : - FILED IN MAR <iV tw'JJ : JL AbelAcosta, Clerk
: : ^3r_, : jel*. 

### ^Trtx<; xs tAfPe,tJL_AKrr'-s fm&t ££,®^tsT Pee. g*rM^o*J-eAfffeLLAur< m-
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Notes: 1. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 22178, May 14, 2018. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 61310, Nov. 29, 2018 3. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 85 FR 65504, Oct. 15, 2020. 4. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 87 FR 44266, July 26, 2022.

Editorial Note on Subpart C of Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart C of part 2 appear at 60 FR 66713, Dec. 26, 1995.

§ 2.23 Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations. ( a ) The following delegations of authority are made by the Secretary of Agriculture to the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations: ( 1 ) *Related to congressional affairs.* ( i ) Exercise responsibility for coordination of all congressional matters in the Department.
( ii ) Maintain liaison with the Congress and the White House on legislative Matters of concern to the Department.
( 2 ) *Related to intergovernmental affairs.* ( i ) Coordinate all programs involving intergovernmental affairs including State and local government relations and liaison with: ( A ) National Association of State Departments of Agriculture;
( B ) Office of Intergovernmental Relations (Office of Vice President);
( C ) Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations;
( D ) Council of State Governments;
( E ) National Governors Conference;
( F ) National Association of Counties;
( G ) National League of Cities;
( H ) International City Managers Association;
( I ) U.S. Conference of Mayors; and
( J ) Such other State and Federal agencies, departments and organizations as are necessary in carrying out the responsibilities of this office.
( ii ) Maintain oversight of the activities of USDA representatives to the 10 Federal Regional councils.
( iii ) Serve as the USDA contact with the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations for implementation of OMB Circular A-85 to provide advance notification to state and local governments of proposed changes in Department programs that affect such governments.
( iv ) Act as the department representative for Federal executive board matters.
( v ) Oversee the Center for Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
( b ) [Reserved]
[60 FR 56393, Nov. 8, 1995, as amended at 68 FR 27439, May 20, 2003; 69 FR 34252, June 21, 2004; 80 FR 58337, Sept. 29, 2015; 88 FR 70579, Oct. 12, 2023]
#### Hickman *vs.*Anderson.

Debt,

If two joint ob~ 'pleads *non est fac*dTcT’in^his'fal vorupon thousment'intai-plfe plaintiff may proceed to take judg’t against the other obligor. But he cannot dismiss the suit as to him who pleads in. bar, leaving him thereafter liable, and proceed against the other : the latter, if sued aloue, might plead the nonjoinder of his co-obligor in abatement, and cannot be deprived of the effect of this right, by such dismissal.

[Mr. (J. Armstrong for Plaintiff: Mess. Morehead *Sf*Brown for Defendant.]

From the Circuit Court for Oldham County.

*May*8.

Judge Underwood

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Anderson brought an action of debt against Hickman and McGrnder jointly. The writ being executed on both, McGrnder appeared, and filed the plea of *non est factum,*upon which an issue was formed. Thereafter, Anderson withdrew his replication to McGruder’s plea, and dismissed the action as to him, but took judgment bv default against Hickman. ‘

*224The judgment must be reversed. If the plaintiff (now defendant,) had submitted the trial of the issue to a jury, and the jury had found for McGruder, then, as he would have been discharged from all future liability on the note, and might have pleaded the judgment rendered, in bar of any future action founded upon it, he might have taken his judgment against Hickman, with propriety, according to the principle of the case of *McGowan*vs. McCoun, 3 *Marshall,*153. But as McGruder was not discharged, it was error to take judgment against Hickman. If he had been sued separately, he might have pleaded in abatement, the non-joinder of McGrutier. The voluntary dismissal of the suit as to Mi Grader, ought not to place Hickman in a situation where lie could not take advantage of the non-joinder of the joint obligors in the same action. The principles of the case of *Shields*vs. Perkins, 2 *Bibb,*229, *settles this.*

Judgment reversed, with costs, and cause remanded.
**Exhibit 23.3**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS**

 

We hereby consent to the use of the name Troy-Ikoda Limited and of references to Troy-Ikoda Limited and to the inclusion of and referencesto our report, or information contained therein, dated 26th February 2004, prepared for ATP Oil & Gas (UK)Limited in the ATP Oil & Gas Corporation annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended 31st December 2003, andthe incorporation by reference to the report prepared by Troy-Ikoda Limited into ATP Oil & Gas Corporation’s previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-1 (No. 333-46034), Form S-3 (No. 333-105699) and on Form S-8 (No. 333-60762).

 

Troy-Ikoda Limited 

 

26th February 2004
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between James G. Buglione et al., Respondents, and Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, Appellant.

Order and judgment entered on ¡September 18,1968, denying application of petitioner, MVAIC, for a stay of arbitration, unanimously affirmed, *526with $30 costs and disbursements to claimants-respondents. The only question raised *by*petitioner-appellant on this appeal lacks merit. Although the vehicle, registered in North .Carolina and involved in the accident, which occurred in this State, carried liability insurance in accordance with the minimum limits ($5,000 and $10,000) required in the State of its registration, there was a failure, as to such vehicle, to maintain the financial security as required by the laws of this State (liability insurance of $10,000 and $20,000—'Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 311). Bearing in mind the policy underlying the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation Law and reading the statute as a whole, we conclude, as did Special Term, that the North Carolina vehicle should be deemed an *“*uninsured motor vehicle ” and the owner thereof is to be deemed a *“*financially irresponsible motorist ” for the purposes of and in the application of said law. (Cf. *Matter of Travis [Gen. Acc. Group],*31 A D 2d 20; *Matter of Taub [MVAIC],*31 A D 2d 378.) This determination follows as a matter of law and there being no issue of fact requiring a hearing, Special Term properly denied petitioner’s application for a stay of arbitration. (See *Matter of Travis [Gen. Ace. Group],*supra, p. 22.) Concur — Stevens, P. J., Eager, MeGivern, Nunez and McNally, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**Theundersigned officer of **Standard Aero Holdings, Inc.**herebycertifies pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to suchofficer’s knowledge that: 1. the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Standard AeroHoldings, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Standard Aero Holdings, Inc.     Date:May 12, 2006           By: /s/ Bradley Bertouille      Name: Bradley Bertouille  Title: Chief Financial Officer     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether madebefore or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.
§ 201.50 Weed seed. Seeds (including bulblets or tubers) of plants shall be considered weed seeds when recognized as weed seeds by the law or rules and regulations of the State into which the seed is offered for transportation or transported; or by the law or rules and regulations of Puerto Rico, Guam, or District of Columbia into which transported, or District of Columbia in which sold; or found by the Secretary of Agriculture to be detrimental to the agricultural interests of the United States, or any part thereof. Damaged weed seeds and immature seedlike structures, as described in § 201.51(b), shall be considered inert matter. Weed seeds, as defined above in this section, requiring further separation into weed seed and inert matter components are as follows: ( a ) The individual seeds are to be removed from fruiting structures such as pods and heads. The seeds are classified as weed seed and the remaining fruiting structures classified as inert matter.
( b ) Wild onion and wild garlic (*Allium* spp.) bulblets that have any part of the husk remaining and are not damaged at the basal end are considered weed seeds regardless of size. Bulblets that are completely devoid of husk, and are not damaged at the basal end, and are retained by a 1 ⁄ 13-inch (1.9 mm) round-hole sieve are considered weed seeds. For wild onion and wild garlic (*Allium* spp.) bulblets classed as inert matter, refer to § 201.51(b)(5).
[46 FR 53636, Oct. 29, 1981, as amended at 59 FR 64498, Dec. 14, 1994; 65 FR 1707, Jan. 11, 2000]
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

###### Editorial Note on Part 273

#### Editorial Notes:

1. OMB control numbers relating to this part 273 are contained in § 271.8.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 273 appear at 84 FR 15093, Apr. 15, 2019.

#### § 273.31 Closing the transitional period.

In the final month of the transitional benefit period, the State agency must do one of the following:

(a) Issue the RFC specified in § 273.12(c)(3) and act on any information it has about the household's new circumstances in accordance with § 273.12(c)(3). The State agency may extend the household's certification period in accordance with § 273.10(f)(5) unless the household's certification period has already been extended past the maximum period specified in § 273.10(f) in accordance with § 273.27(a); or

(b) Recertify the household in accordance with § 273.14. If the household has not reached the maximum number of months in its certification period during the transitional period, the State agency may shorten the household's prior certification period in order to recertify the household. When shortening the household's certification period pursuant to this section, the State agency must send the household a notice of expiration in accordance with § 273.14(b).
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Section 906Certification**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), the undersignedofficer of Guaranty Bancorp (the “Company”) hereby certifies that theCompany’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

Dated: November 2,2010

 

 
|   | /s/ Daniel M. Quinn |
|--------|---------------------|
|   | Name:               | Daniel M. Quinn |
|   | Title:              | *Chief Executive  Officer* |

 

The foregoing certification isbeing furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and is not being filed as part of theReport or as a separate disclosure document.

 

1

----
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________

No. 15-3853

__________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

ADVANTAGE MEDICAL TRANSPORT INC;

SERGE SIVCHUK,

Appellants

__________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(District Court Criminal Nos. 1-12-cr-00004-001 and 1-12-cr-00004-002)

District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner

AMENDED ORDER AMENDING OPINION

By order entered August 16, 2017, the Court directed that the Not Precedential 

opinion filed on June 21, 2017 be amended with respect to the identity of the 

beneficiaries and the amount of loss attributable to those beneficiaries.

Upon further review it has been determined that no changes shall be made to any 

of the dollar amounts listed in Part II(A)(1) of the opinion. The opinion will be amended 

only as to the recitation of the relevant beneficiaries.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the opinion is amended as follows:

Part II (A)(1) at page 9, the recitation of beneficiaries “Doris B., Sandra 

Bo., and James R.” is amended to read, “Sandra Bo., David T., and Michael 

M.” 
Part II (A)(2) at page 12, the recitation of beneficiaries “Doris B., Sandra 

Bo., and James T., is amended to read “Sandra Bo., David T., and Michael 

M.” 

Part III at page 23, the recitation of beneficiaries “Doris B., Sandra Bo., and 

James R.” is amended to read “Sandra Bo., David T., and Michael M.” 

Amendment of this not-precedential opinion is so ordered and these errors are 

hereby corrected.

Very truly yours,

Marcia M. Waldron,

Clerk

Date: August 29, 2017
#### Joseph B. Gilbert, appellant, v. Reywal Building Corporation and Lawyers Building Corporation, appellees.

Gen. No. 37,501.

Opinion filed November 5, 1934.

Joseph B. Gilbert, *pro se.*Wind & Wind, for appellees.

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.
##### 



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 I, I. Jon Brumley, Chief Executive Officer of Encore Acquisition Company (the
Company), in connection with the filing of the Companys Annual Report of
Company on Form 10-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), for the period ending December 31, 2003, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, certify 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company. /s/ I. Jon Brumley I. Jon Brumley
Chief Executive Officer
March 11, 2004
#### HOFFERBERTH v. NASH.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 8, 1906.)

Action by Charles Hofferberth against George Nash.

No opinion. Motion granted. Order signed.
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:95CR3093LAC

CHARLES J. SPIGNER

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on December 13, 2007

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF A NUNC PRO TUNC MOTION

TO CORRECT AN ERROR (Doc #154) 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on 12/3/2007 Doc.# 162

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 17

th day of

December, 2007, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) See Doc 156. 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:95-cr-03093-LC-CJK Document 166 Filed 12/17/07 Page 1 of 1
Appeal F rom Oconee County J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Circuit Court Judge THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY P ROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2) , SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH C AROLINA In The Supreme Court

Debi Baker Brookshire, Petitioner,

v.
Community First Bank and Benjamin Hiott, Defendants,

Of Which Community First Bank is the Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2022

- 000756

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Memorandum Opinion No. 2024 -MO- 00 9 Heard March 27, 2024 – Filed April 24, 2024

CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED

Warren Blair Giese and Kelly Lloyd Giese
, both of The Giese Law Firm, LLC
, of Columbia; and Jonathan D.Waller, of Angell Molony, LLC
, of Aiken , all for Petitioner.

Robert Yates Knowlton, Sr., and Elizabeth Halligan Black , both of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, PA , of Columbia
, for Respondent

.

PER CURIAM: 

### We granted certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision in Brookshire v. Community First Bank , 2022

- UP

- 163 (S.C. Ct. App. filed April 6, 2022). 

### After careful consideration of the Appendix and briefs, the writ of certiorari is

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, FEW, JAMES and HILL, JJ., concur.