alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Steven Christian et al., Appellants, v Donald Stoughton, as Commissioner of Corrections for Onondaga County, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously reversed, without costs, and petition granted. Memorandum: Having promulgated rules and regulations governing prisoner conduct within the Onondaga County Correctional Facility, respondents were themselves bound to comply with the regulations. This they failed to do. Charges having been brought alleging violation of specific provisions of the Onondaga County Department of Correction Inmate Discipline Code, petitioners were entitled to and were subjected to a hearing on those charges. The adjustment committee determined that petitioners were not guilty of the charges brought against them but found them guilty of charges for which no notification had been given. This was in violation of 9 NYCRR 7006.1 (c) (4) (5) (ii) and the department’s own inmate discipline code. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga Supreme Court—art 78.) Present —Hancock, Jr., J. P., Schnepp, Callahan, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.
#### § 29.1107 Rule 1.

Each grade shall be treated as a subdivision of a particular type. When the grade is stated in an inspection certificate, the type also shall be stated.
#### In the Matter of Lewis J. Blum, an Attorney, Respondent. Co-ordinating Committee on Discipline of the Bar of the City of New York, the New York County Lawyers’ Association and the Bronx County Bar Association, Petitioner.

First Department,

April 15, 1969.

*7
      *Angelo T. Cometa (Edward C. Walsh*with him on the brief), for petitioner.

*Jerome Karp*of counsel *(Cohen & Karp,*attorneys), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

This disciplinary proceeding was brought by the Co-ordinating Committee on Discipline of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, the New York County Lawyers Association and the Bronx County Bar Association. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on June 23, 1954 by the Appellate Division, Second Department. Thereafter he maintained an office for the practice of law in the First Judicial Department.

The respondent is charged with the failure to file closing statements in a number of personal injury cases as to which he had, however, duly filed notices of retainer, and he is further charged with neglect in prosecution of certain personal injury actions. Respondent, in his answer and his testimony before the Referee, admitted these charges but denied a charge (No. 2), failure to co-operate in the Co-ordinating Committee’s inquiry, and a charge (No. 11), failure to maintain a special account from January 1,1963 to March 31, 1967, with a failure to preserve financial records of settlement proceeds distributed in that period. The Referee found that Charge No. 2 was not established and we agree.

During the period covered by Charge No. 11 the record establishes that respondent disposed of only four personal injury cases. Three of these were infants’ cases, and the proceeds were distributed directly by the defendants. In the fourth case the respondent delivered to his client his personal check simultaneously with indorsement by the client of the check for the proceeds of the settlement. We conclude that this charge was not established by the evidence.

The Referee’s report is in all respects confirmed except as to Charge No. 11 which we do not find established by the evidence and which is therefore disaffirmed.

At the time of the respondent’s misconduct he was a young inexperienced member of the Bar attempting to practice law while he was a full-time employee. He has an otherwise unblemished record. He has shown contrition by making full disclosure to the Co-ordinating Committee, admitting the charges against *8him and throwing himself upon the mercy of the court. Incidentally, also, he has waived the defense of the Statute of Limitations with respect to any action which may be brought against him for malpractice in his neglect of the personal injury cases.

Although the charges involve serious professional misconduct, the measure of discipline should be fixed in light of the foregoing and other extenuating circumstances present in this particular case. Respondent should be suspended for a period of two years.

Eager, J. P., Tilzer, McGtvern, Markewich and Nunez, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended for a period of two years effective May 15,1969.
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:96CR74/RV

MOSES MARSHALL

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Vinson on 03/11/2009 

Type of Motion/Pleading MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE PUSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 

3582(c)(2)

Filed by: Defendant on 3/24/08 Doc. No. 598

( ) Stipulated/Consented/Joint Pleading

RESPONSES:

on Doc. No.

on Doc. No.

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

/s/ J. Marbut

Deputy Clerk

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 11th day of

 March , 2009, that:

(a) The requested relief is DENIED.

(b) The Defendant is not eligible for a sentence reduction under 

Amendments 706 and 711. 

(c) The amendments do not affect the Defendant’s sentencing guideline

range. 

/s/ Roger Vinson

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Entered On Docket: By: 

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

Copies sent to:

Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-MD Document 618 Filed 03/11/09 Page 1 of 1
§ 249.20 Claims and penalties. ( a ) *Claims against State agencies.* ( 1 ) If FNS determines through a review of the State agency's reports, program or financial analysis, monitoring, audit, or otherwise, that any SFMNP funds provided to a State agency for food or administrative purposes were, through State agency negligence or fraud, misused or otherwise diverted from SFMNP purposes, a formal claim will be assessed by FNS against the State agency. The State agency must pay promptly to FNS a sum equal to the amount of the administrative funds or the value of coupons and/or eligible foods so misused or diverted.
( 2 ) If FNS determines that any part of the SFMNP funds received, coupons printed, and/or eligible foods otherwise lost by a State agency were lost as a result of theft, embezzlement, or unexplained causes, the State agency must, on demand by FNS, pay to FNS a sum equal to the amount of the money or the value of the SFMNP funds or coupons/eligible foods so lost.
( 3 ) The State agency will have full opportunity to submit evidence, explanation or information concerning alleged instances of noncompliance or diversion before a final determination is made in such cases.
( 4 ) FNS is authorized to establish claims against a State agency for unreconciled SFMNP coupons, and/or for failure to comply with the terms of duly executed CSA program contracts or agreements. When a State agency can demonstrate that all reasonable management efforts have been devoted to reconciliation and 99 percent or more of the SFMNP coupons issued, or of the eligible foods contracted for delivery by the CSA program, have been accounted for by the reconciliation process, FNS may determine that the reconciliation process has been completed to satisfaction.
( b ) *Interest charge on claims against State agencies.* If an agreement cannot be reached with the State agency for payment of its debts or for offset of debts on its current Letter of Credit within 30 days from the date of the first demand letter from FNS, FNS will assess an interest (late) charge against the State agency. Interest accrual shall begin on the 31st day after the date of the first demand letter, bill or claim, and shall be computed monthly on any unpaid balance as long as the debt exists. From a source other than the SFMNP, the State agency shall provide the funds necessary to maintain SFMNP operations at the grant level authorized by FNS.
§ 1786.162 Outstanding loan documents. ( a ) Except as expressly provided in this subpart, the borrower shall comply with all provisions of its RUS Loan Contract, its outstanding notes issued to RUS, and the RUS Mortgage.
( b ) Nothing in this subpart shall affect any rights of supplemental lenders under the RUS Mortgage, or other creditors of the borrower.
( c ) Nothing in this subpart shall prohibit a borrower from making prepayments of any loans pursuant to the RE Act in accordance with the terms of such loans.
Manatron, Inc., Exhibit 10.6 to Form 10-Q - 03-16-05








EXHIBIT 10.6


Fiscal 2005 Annual Incentive Plan






	 	
•
	
Eligible participants of this plan will include all "regular" employees who are employed by Manatron at the time of payout.  Employees classified as "Duration" or "Temporary" and employees participating in a gain sharing, sales commission, or other incentive plans will not be eligible for any payouts under this incentive plan.

	 	 	 
	 	
•
	
The bonus will be prorated for new hires based on the percentage of the fiscal year that they are employed.

	 	 	 
	 	
•
	
The bonus will be based on Company performance against key metrics of Pre-tax Income and Revenue.  Cash flow will not be used at this time.

	 	 	 
	 	
•
	
The key metrics will be weighted: 70% for Pre-tax Income; 30% for Revenue.

	 	 	 
	 	
•
	
Plan participants will have a target bonus that will be based upon a percentage of their salary and will be communicated directly to each employee.  (An illustrative example is attached.)

	 	 	 
	 	
•
	
Based on the achievement of the Company targets, each plan participant will receive their appropriate bonus payment no later than July 31, 2005.

	 	 	 
	 	
•
	
The bonus payout will be increased / reduced based on over / under delivery of the key metrics.  No bonuses will be paid if the Company does not achieve at least 80% of each key metric.

	 	 	 
	 	
•
	
Employees who have been advised in writing during the plan year that their employment is in jeopardy and/or are on a performance improvement plan will be reviewed individually for eligibility.

	 	 	 
	 	
•
	
The Company reserves the right, at any time, to modify or terminate this plan if in the Company's sole judgment the overall financial performance is below expectations or other reasons determined by the Company.



























Annual Incentive Plan Example (Illustrative Only)






Employee Targets:


Employee Salary = $40,000


Employee's Bonus Target % = 5%


Employee's Bonus Target $ = $2,000




Company:


Company Performance = 90%




Employee Bonus:


Employee Bonus = (90% [Company Percentage] * $2,000)  = $1,800
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

POLICY 

I certify that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency complied with the requirements 

of Executive Order 13132 for the attached draft fmal regulation, Hazardous and Solid 

Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric 

Utilities, RIN 2050-AE81. 

Dater I "--7oe~BeauvaiS 

~v~ 

Associate Administrator, Office of Policy 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa gov 

Recycled/Recyc lable • Printed with Vegetable 011 Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer. Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
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 279
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 279 appear at 68 FR 41052, July 10, 2003.

§ 279.1 Jurisdiction and authority. A food retailer or wholesale food concern aggrieved by administrative action under § 278.1, § 278.6 or § 278.7 of this chapter may, within a period stated in this Part, file a written request for review of the administrative action with FNS. On receipt of the request for review, the questioned administrative action shall be stayed pending disposition of the request for review, except in the case of a permanent disqualification as specified in § 278.6(e)(1) of this chapter. ( a ) *Jurisdiction.* Reviewers designated by the Secretary shall act for the Department on requests for review filed by food retailers or wholesale food concerns aggrieved by any of the following actions: ( 1 ) Denial of an application or withdrawal of authorization to participate in the program under § 278.1 of this chapter;
( 2 ) Disqualification under § 278.6 of this chapter, except that a disqualification for failure to pay a civil money penalty shall not be subject to administrative review and a disqualification imposed under § 278.6(e)(8) of this chapter shall not be subject to administrative or judicial review;
( 3 ) Imposition of a fine under § 278.6 of this chapter;
( 4 ) Denial of all or part of any claim asserted by a firm against FNS under § 278.7(c), (d), or (e) of this chapter;
( 5 ) Assertion of a claim under § 278.7(a) of this chapter; or
( 6 ) Forfeiture of part or all of a collateral bond or a draw down of part or all of a letter of credit under § 278.1 of this chapter, if the request for review is made by the authorized firm. FNS shall not accept requests for review made by a bonding company or agent or commercial bank.
( b ) *Authority.* The determination of the designated reviewer shall be the final administrative determination of the Department, subject, however, to judicial review under section 14 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 and subpart B of this part.
[68 FR 41052, July 10, 2003, as amended at 73 FR 79595, Dec. 30, 2008]
#### § 27.100 Administration.

The details of the method of carrying out the provisions of this subpart in each bona fide spot market shall be subject to the approval of the Director or shall be prescribed by the Director.

[48 FR 49214, Oct. 25, 1983. Redesignated at 53 FR 29328, Aug. 4, 1988]
§ 1752.15 Interest rate adjustments. Interest rate reductions may be approved subject to the conditions set forth in this section. In order to request an interest rate reduction, the Borrower must make a showing that the Borrower does not have access to other sources of capital or alternatives to resolve the delinquency, and the interest rate adjustment will cure any existing or projected delinquency. Additionally, the following requirements must be met, as determined by RUS: ( a ) The Borrower has cooperated with RUS in exploring alternative servicing options and has acted in good faith with regard to eliminating the delinquency and complying with its loan agreements and Agency regulations;
( b ) Any management deficiencies identified by RUS have been corrected or the Borrower has submitted a plan acceptable to RUS to correct any deficiencies;
( c ) The Borrower has presented a budget which clearly indicates that it is able to meet the proposed payment schedule and the interest rate reduction will improve the financial viability of the Borrower;
( d ) The Borrower has agreed to not maintain cash or cash reserves beyond what is reasonable at the time of interest rate adjustment to meet debt service, operating, and reserve requirements; and
( e ) The Borrower will comply with such other conditions as may be imposed by the Agency on a case-by-cases basis, as determined by RUS.
Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:20cv148–WS/CAS

FLORIDA COALITION AGAINST

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC., et al.,

Defendant.

 

ORDER OF DISQUALIFICATION

I hereby disqualify myself from participation as a judge in this case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of March , 2020.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00148-RH-MAF Document 4 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 1
#### § 28.21 Eligibility and application.

Any cotton warehouse or gin which may desire to submit samples for determination or classification for which a license is required under § 28.20 shall be eligible for a license. Application for licenses to draw and submit samples shall be submitted by warehouses and gins on forms furnished by the Division.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JOSEPH VILLA

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00091

- CR

Appeal from the

41st District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20190D04851 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s fourth motion for extension of time within which to

file the brief until November 12 , 2020. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE THE APPELLANT ’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ordered that the Hon. Veronica Te resa Lerma

, the Appellant ’s attorney, prepare

the Appellant ’s Brief and forward the same to this Court on or before November 12 , 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2 8 t h day of October

, 2020.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*

§ 1435.605 Competitive procedures. ( a ) CCC will generally issue tenders for bids, before entering into contracts with any eligible sugar seller or buyer, with the intent of selecting the bid(s) that represents the least cost to CCC of removing sugar from the market.
( b ) CCC may, at times, negotiate contracts directly with sellers or buyers, if CCC determines that such negotiation will result in either reduced likelihood of forfeited sugar under the CCC sugar loan program or reduced costs of removing sugar from the market, which will reduce the likelihood of forfeitures of sugar to CCC.
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  Quarterly  Report  of  Cascade  Technologies   Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending  May 31, 2008 as filed  with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof  (the  "Report"),   I
Bruce Hollingshead, Chief Executive 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 to the best of my knowledge and belief:

      (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/ Bruce Hollingshead
----------------------
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-2646

_____________________________

DENVER IVAN WILSON,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari—Original Jurisdiction.

September 21, 2020

PER CURIAM.

The order under review was converted sua sponte to a petition 

for writ of certiorari. However, upon further review, the 

mandamus complaint filed in circuit court sought to compel certain 

administrative action. Because we find that the trial court’s action 

was not the equivalent of judicial review of a disciplinary action, 

the case is not controlled by Sheley v. Florida Parole Commission, 

720 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1998). Regardless, we reach the same decision 

under review as a direct appeal. The denial of the mandamus 

complaint is affirmed. 

KELSEY, M.K. THOMAS, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Denver Ivan Wilson, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kristen J. Lonergan, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
#### In re K.K.; Boden, Appellant; Summit County Children Services Board, Appellee.

[Cite as *In re K.K.,*109 Ohio St.3d 206, 2006-Ohio-2184.]

*207(No. 2005-1462

Submitted April 11, 2006

Decided May 17, 2006.)

Ruth A. Gibson, for appellant.

Sherri Bevan Walsh, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, and Philip D. Bogdanoff, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of *In re C.R.,*108 Ohio St.3d 369, 2006-Ohio-1191, 843 N.E.2d 1188.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
98-1677.

#### State ex rel. GMS Mgt. Co., Inc. v. Friedman.

In Mandamus and Prohibition. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C. J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10732

Summary Calendar

Paul D. Timms, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Christian Douthit, Medical Doctor, 

Defendant—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:20-CV-67

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Paul D. Timms, Texas prisoner # 1564883, appeals the district court’s 

denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 proceeding. We review the district court’s denial of IFP status for an 

abuse of discretion. See Flowers v. Turbine Support Div., 507 F.2d 1242, 1244 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 4, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-10732 Document: 00516533895 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2022
No. 20-10732

2

(5th Cir. 1975), superseded on other grounds by statute as recognized in Thompson 

v. Drewry, 138 F.3d 984, 985-86 (5th Cir. 1998). 

The district court’s determination that Timms was financially 

ineligible to proceed IFP was not based on arbitrary or erroneous grounds. 

See Flowers, 507 F.2d at 1244. Given the deposits and balances in Timms’s 

inmate trust account during the months preceding the initiation of his § 1983 

action, the district court’s ruling does not represent an abuse of discretion. 

See id.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-10732 Document: 00516533895 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2022
###### Editorial Note on Part 1962

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1962 appear at 80 FR 9902, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1962.9-1962.12 [Reserved]