alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

WILLIAM MILLER,

Petitioner,

vs. 4:03-CV-313-SPM

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AND DISMISSING CASE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the magistrate judge's report

and recommendation (doc. 22) dated August 31, 2006. The parties have been

furnished a copy and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections. No

objections have been filed to date.

Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), I have

determined that the report and recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 22) is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

Case 4:03-cv-00313-SPM-AK Document 24 Filed 09/26/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1) is hereby denied.

3. This case is dismissed with prejudice.

DONE AND ORDERED this twenty-sixth day of September, 2006.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-00313-SPM-AK Document 24 Filed 09/26/06 Page 2 of 2
Summary of Compensation for Executive Officers


 Exhibit 10.60 
  
 Summary of Compensation for Executive Officers 
  
 All of our executive officers are “at will” employees and none of them has an employment or
severance agreement. The unwritten arrangements under which our executive officers are compensated include: 
  

	 	•	 	a salary, reviewed annually by the Compensation Committee; 

  

	 	•	 	eligibility for a discretionary annual cash bonus, as determined by the Compensation Committee; 

  

	 	•	 	eligibility for awards under Cheniere’s 2003 Stock Incentive Plan, as determined by the Compensation Committee; 

  

	 	•	 	health, life, disability and other insurance and/or benefits; and 

  

	 	•	 	vacation, paid sick leave and all other employee benefits. 

  
 Cheniere covers 100% of the dependent insurance coverage for our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer. For all other employees electing such
dependent coverage, 50% of the cost of such coverage is borne by the employee. 
  
 In November 2004, the Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors established the annual base salaries (effective as of January 1, 2005) for our executive officers after a review of performance and competitive
market data. In addition, the Compensation Committee authorized the payment of cash and restricted stock bonuses to each of the executive officers with respect to the year ended December 31, 2004. The following table sets forth the annual base
salary and 2004 cash and restricted stock bonus amounts for each of our executive officers: 
  

									
	 Executive Officer

	  	Annual
Base
Salary

	  	2004 Cash
Bonus
Amount

	  	2004 Restricted
Stock Grant


	 Charif Souki
 Chairman, President and
 Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	450,000	  	$	675,000	  	20,293 shares
				
	 Walter L. Williams
 Vice Chairman
	  	$	240,000	  	$	240,000	  	7,215 shares
				
	 Don A. Turkleson
 Senior Vice President,
 Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
	  	$	240,000	  	$	360,000	  	7,215 shares
				
	 Jonathan S. Gross
 Senior Vice President – Exploration
	  	$	240,000	  	$	240,000	  	7,215 shares
				
	 Keith M. Meyer
 Senior Vice President – LNG
	  	$	240,000	  	$	240,000	  	7,215 shares
				
	 Zurab S. Kobiashvili
 Senior Vice President & General Counsel
	  	$	240,000	  	$	115,068	  	3,459 shares
				
	 Craig K. Townsend
 Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
	  	$	175,000	  	$	104,281	  	3,135 shares
OEPIOFTRANSPORmiON 

SERVED FEBRUARY 18, 2010 " do i :TQ 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

JOEY D. WARDLE 

FAA DOCKET No. CP09CE0003 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2009-0843 

ORDER TO RESPONDENT 

On February 17, 2009, the Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") filed 

a Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted ("Motion"). In support, it cites Respondent's 

failure to answer its Complaint. As it notes, a failure to answer a Complaint without 

good cause is deemed an admission of the truth of the Complaint's allegations. The 

hearing is scheduled to begin on March 11, 2009. Should Complainant prevail on its 

Motion, Respondent would be adjudged in violation of each provision of the regulations 

set out in the Complaint, and the hearing would be limited to the issue of civil penalty. 

Because the hearing date is near, I am shortening the time for Respondent to 

address Complainant's Motion. Respondent is hereby required to file its answer to 

the Motion no later than March 1,2010. 

SO ORDERED. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CP09CE0003 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Joey D. Wardle, Respondent 

1301 S. 15* Street 

Burlington, lA 52601 

TEL: 309-299-7502 

Mark G. Camacho, Clamant's Counsel 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

901 Locust, Room 506 

Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 

TEL: 816-329-3765 , 

FAX: 816-329-3771 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor: 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant: 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 

2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6840

SCOTT SOWELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER II WHEELER, Prison Guard,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CA-97-1604-JFM)

Submitted: December 11, 1997 Decided: January 13, 1998

Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Scott Sowell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Scott Sowell appeals the district court's order dismissing his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint without prejudice for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies. The district court properly required exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C.A.

§ 1997e(a) (West Supp. 1997). Because Sowell did not demonstrate to

the district court that he had exhausted administrative remedies or

that such remedies were not available, the court's dismissal of the

action, without prejudice, was not an abuse of discretion. We

therefore affirm the district court's order. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Lorania H. Hoornbeek et al., Appellants, v Kevin Strbich, Respondent.

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered December 20, 1978 in Ulster County, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint. Plaintiff Lorania Hoornbeek sustained personal injuries when the automobile she was driving was struck by a vehicle operated by the defendant, a coemployee. Since it is undisputed that the collision occurred on the premises of their employer as both were leaving work for the day, the complaint was properly dismissed by Special Term. The access road on which the incident took place does not approximate, either in nature or use characteristics, the roadway involved in *Groark v Miller*(48 AD2d 539). While plaintiff has developed an appealing theory that the original policy of the Workers’ Compensation Law should no longer possess the same degree of force in this type of case because the use of more sophisticated forms of insurance now affords equivalent or greater protection to injured parties, the merits of that theory are for the Legislature to entertain and may not be considered by an intermediate appellate court. Order affirmed, with costs. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Staley, Jr., Main and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
# L_2020321EN.01000101.xml

| 5.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 321/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 321/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/1389

of 28 September 2020

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications ‘Olio lucano’ (PGI)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | In accordance with Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Olio lucano’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In accordance with Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Olio lucano’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Olio lucano’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Olio lucano’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Olio lucano’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.5. – Oils and fats (butter, margarine, oil, etc.), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 September 2020.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 172, 20.5.2020, p. 22.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)

I, Richard Heyse, certify that:

1. the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2006 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Innophos, Inc.
at the dates and for the periods indicated.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
Innophos Investments Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Innophos Investments Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.

Date: November 14, 2006



/s/ RICHARD HEYSERichard HeyseVice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to the requirements of 18
U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as a part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



61
Page 1 of 2 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PANAMA CITY DIVISION 

IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH 

OF 4068 FAIRBANKS DRIVE, 

CHIPLEY, FLORIDA 32428 

Case No. 5:20-mj-44-MJF 

Filed Under Seal 

MOTION REQUESTING AN ORDER TO EXTEND SEALING THE 

SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANT, APPLICATION, AND ALL 

RELATED DOCUMENTS 

The United States of America requests this Court to issue an Order to 

extend the sealing of the SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANT, 

APPLICATION, AND ALL RELATED DOCUMENTS in this case, and in 

support of this motion states as follows: 

 1. On May 6, 2020, this Honorable Court entered an Order sealing 

all documents in this matter until May 6, 2021. 

 2. The Search Warrant, Application, and all related documents 

concern an ongoing criminal investigation and the public revelation of the 

documents could severely hamper law enforcement’s ability to continue its 

investigation. Specifically, the documents contain sensitive information 

related to leads obtained from a foreign law enforcement agency on the 

facilitation of child sexual abuse material. Undersigned counsel was advised 

Case 5:20-mj-00044-MJF Document 8 Filed 05/05/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2 

by the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Department of Justice 

that the investigation of other related matters is ongoing, with active leads 

being pursued as of this date. A six-month extension of this Court’s Order was 

requested. 

 3. Therefore, the United States respectfully requests that the Search 

Warrant, Application, and all related documents in this case shall remain 

sealed until November 6, 2021, unless otherwise extended by the Court upon 

the government’s motion. 

 JASON R. COODY 

 Acting United States Attorney 

 __s//Michelle Spaven___________ 

Michelle Spaven 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Florida Bar No. 0640761 

111 N. Adams St., Fourth Floor 

Tallahassee, FL 32301 

(850) 216-3828 

michelle.spaven@usdoj.gov 

ORDER 

The government’s motion is granted. 

SO ORDERED this 5th day of May, 2021. 

/s/ Michael J. Frank 

Michael J. Frank 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 5:20-mj-00044-MJF Document 8 Filed 05/05/21 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                           88571
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                110700
<PP&E>                                           18423
<DEPRECIATION>                                   10403
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  118710
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2533897
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          8057
<OTHER-SE>                                    (2423234)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    118710
<SALES>                                          82675
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 82675
<CGS>                                            44616
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    44616
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                886991
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (680866)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 168066
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (680866)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.17)


</TABLE>
2006-0323.

#### State v. Stalnaker.

Lake App. No. 2004-L-100, 2005-Ohio-7042. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that no conflict exists. This cause is therefore dismissed.

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

Resnick, J., dissents.
39–008 

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 108–766 

WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII 

WITH RESPECT TO THE SAME DAY CONSIDERATION OF 

CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED BY THE RULES 

COMMITTEE 

OCTOBER 8 (legislative day of OCTOBER 7), 2004.—Referred to the House Calendar 

and ordered to be printed 

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida, from the Committee on 

Rules, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 834] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 834, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a twothirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from 

the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions reported from the 

Rules Committee. The rule applies the waiver to any special rule 

reported on the legislative day of Friday, October 8, 2004, providing 

for consideration or disposition of a conference report to accompany 

the bill (H.R. 4567) making appropriations for the Department of 

Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, 

and for other purposes. 

RESOLUTION

Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 

two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules 

on the same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect 

to any resolution reported on the legislative day of October 8, 2004, 

providing for consideration or disposition of a conference report to 

accompany the bill (H.R. 4567) making appropriations for the DeVerDate Aug 04 2004 03:07 Oct 09, 2004 Jkt 039008 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR766.XXX HR766
2 

partment of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes. 

Æ
#### Bernard Cerisier, Appellant, v Carl Thibiu, Respondent.

[815 NYS2d 140]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated February 15, 2005, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]; *see also Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth.,*16 AD3d 45 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The submissions of the plaintiff’s treating physician and neurologist, as well as his examining orthopedist, were not based upon recent examinations *(see Murray v Hartford,*23 AD3d 629 [2005]; *Farozes v Kamran,*22 AD3d 458 [2005]; *Batista v Olivo,*17 AD3d 494*508[2005]; *Constantinou v Surinder,*8 AD3d 323 [2004]; *Kauderer v Penta,*261 AD2d 365 [1999]). The magnetic resonance images of the plaintiffs cervical and lumbar spine which showed bulging discs, did not, alone, establish a serious injury *(see Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth., supra; Diaz v Turner,*306 AD2d 241 [2003]; *see also Hernandez v Taub,*19 AD3d 368 [2005]). The mere existence of a bulging or herniated disc is not evidence of a serious injury in the absence of objective evidence of the extent of the alleged physical limitations resulting from the disc injury and its duration *(see Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth., supra; Diaz v Turner, supra; see also Pommells v Perez, 4*NY3d 566 [2005]). Therefore, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Luciano, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.
#### Fred L. Fuhr, appellant, v. Richard A. Knowles et al., defendants. Richard A. Knowles et al., appellees.

Gen. No. 37,245.

Opinion filed October 16, 1934.

Rehearing denied October 29, 1934.

Castle, Williams, Long & McCarthy, for appellant; Emmett J. McCarthy and Robert R. Hanley, of counsel. John Francis Mahan, for appellees.

Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### § 29.6126 Binder (B Group).

Tobacco of this group is of cigar-binder quality from which trash and trashy Farm Fillers have been removed.

| U.S. grades | Grade names, minimum specifications, and tolerances |
| --- | --- |
| B1 | Fine Quality Binder. Thin, ripe, open, elastic, strong, spready, and 19 inches or over in length. Uniformity, 90 percent; injury tolerance, 10 percent. |
| B2 | Fair Quality Binder. Medium body, ripe, open, semielastic, strong, normal width, and 19 inches or over in length. Uniformity, 80 percent; injury tolerance, 20 percent. |
| B3 | Low Quality Binder. Medium, ripe, firm, semielastic, normal strength and width, and 17 inches or over in length. Uniformity, 70 percent; injury tolerance, 30 percent. |
#### § 29.2293 Rework.

Any lot of tobacco which needs to be resorted or otherwise reworked to prepare it properly for market, including: (a) Tobacco which is so mixed that it cannot be classified properly in any grade of the type, because the lot contains a substantial quantity of two or more distinctly different grades which should be separated by sorting; (b) tobacco which contains an abnormally large quantity of foreign matter or an unusual number of muddy or extremely dirty leaves which should be removed; and (c) tobacco not packed straight or otherwise not properly prepared for market. (See Rule 22, § 29.2413.)
#### § 29.2297 Size.

The length of tobacco leaves. (See chart, § 29.2371.)

[37 FR 13521, July 11, 1972. Redesignated at 51 FR 40406, Nov. 7, 1986]