alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PROB 22 DOCKET NUMBER (Tran. Cour
(Rev. 2/88) 3:95CR03091-001
TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION

DOCKET NUMBER (Ree. Courts

NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROBATIONER/SUPERVISED RELEASEE DISTRICT DIVISION

OLIVER ROBBINS, aka Shugboy Florida Northern Pensacola

NAME OF SENTENCING JUDGE.

Honorable Roger Vinson, Senior U.S. District Judge

DATES OF PROBALION SUPERVISED | FROM To
RELEASE 07/29/2009 | 07/28/2014
SS eee =

OFFEN'

Count 1: Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Cocaine Base, 21 U.S.C. § 846
Count 2: Possess with Intent to Distribute Cocaine Base, 21 U.SC. § 841(a) and (b)

PART 1 - ORDER TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TIIE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3605 the jurisdiction of the probationer or supervised
releasce named above be transferred with the records of the Court to the United States District Court for the SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF FLORIDA upon that Court's order of acceptance of jurisdiction. This Court hereby expressly consents
that the period of probation or supervised release may be changed by the District Court to which this transfer is made
without further inquiry of this Court.*

WLLOF

Date Semor Untied States District Judge

*This sentence may be deleted in the discretion of the transferring Court,

PART 2 - ORDER ACCEPTING JURISDICTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that jurisdiction over the above-named probationer/supervised releasee be accepted
and assumed by this Court from and after the entry of this order.

20 Sevf 04
Effective Date eh . Unhed States District Judge /
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Section 906 Certification**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C. Section 1350), the undersigned officer of Centennial Bank Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: May 12, 2006 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 1:88-cr-01007-MP-AK

WILLIE BUD REED, JR.,

Defendant.

________________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1173, Motion for Relief from Judgment, filed by

Defendant Willie Reed. In his motion, Defendant Reed petitions the Court to reopen his

previously dismissed Rule 60(b) motion, Doc. 887, and his Motion to Vacate under § 2255, Doc.

636. Although Defendant goes to great lengths to fit his motion within the language of Rule

60(b), it is clear that Defendant is again attempting to bring a substantive claim that was

presented in a prior application, thus rendering the instant motion an unauthorized second or

successive habeas corpus application. See Harris v. United States, 367 F.3d 74, 80-81 (2d Cir.

2004)(dismissing petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion alleging “excusable neglect” as successive

habeas corpus application where it sought relief from judgment because habeas counsel had

failed to raise a Sixth Amendment claim); Rodwell v. Pepe, 324 F.3d 66, 69 (1st Cir.

2003)(dismissing petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion alleging “newly discovered evidence”); Dunlap

v. Litscher, 301 F.3d 873, 876 (7th Cir. 2002)(dismissing petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion raising

other “reason justifying relief”). Because Defendant’s motion is an unauthorized second or

successive habeas petition, the Court is without jurisdiction to hear it. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545

U.S. 524, 125 S.Ct. 2641 (2005). Accordingly, Defendant Reed’s Motion for Relief from

Judgment, Doc. 1173, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

Case 1:88-cr-01007-MW-GRJ Document 1174 Filed 06/26/07 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:88-cr-01007-MP-AK

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of June, 2007

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:88-cr-01007-MW-GRJ Document 1174 Filed 06/26/07 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of American Tire Distributors Holdings, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his best knowledge:



| | (a) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 5, 2008 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |        |  |                                                     
|---------------------- |  | ------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 19, 2008 |  | By:    |  | /s/    RICHARD P.
JOHNSON                           
|                       |  | Name:  |  | Richard P. Johnson                                  
|                       |  | Title: |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                
|                       |  |       
|                       |  | By:    |  | /s/    DAVID L.
DYCKMAN                             
|                       |  | Name:  |  | David L. Dyckman                                    
|                       |  | Title: |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:03-cr-00058-MP-AK

JASON DEWAYNE ASHFORD,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 28, Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge recommending that the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 be denied. Mr.

Ashford has not filed objections, and the time for doing so has passed. The basis of Mr.

Ashford's § 2255 motion is a claim that he has been subjected to an unconstitutionally enhanced

sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines in contravention of Booker. Doc. 27. The Court

agrees with the Magistrate Judge, however, that Booker is not applicable to cases on collateral

review because the Supreme Court has not explicitly made the holding in that case retroactively

applicable. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and

incorporated herein.

2. This action is dismissed, and the clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of June, 2005

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:03-cr-00058-MP-AK Document 29 Filed 06/24/05 Page 1 of 1
#### Thomosa Ocasio, as Administratrix of the Estate of Ausberto Ocasio, Deceased, et al., Respondents, v. Lester R. Rundle et al., Appellants.

Order entered on December 22, 1966, unanimously reversed, in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to the appellants, and the motion to change the venue of the action from New York County to Sullivan County granted. “ The general rule is that a transitory action, such as this, other things being equal, should be tried in the county in which the cause of action arose, [cases cited].” *(Slavin*v. *Whispell,*5 A D 2d 296, 297—298.) This accident occurred in Sullivan County and no facts are presented which warrant a deviation from the general rule as expressed by McNally, J., in the ease cited. Concur—■ Botein, P. J., Stevens, McNally, MeGivern and Witmer, JJ.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:89-cr-01007-MP

ALLAN ROSS,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 741, Motion to Vacate Fine Imposed at

Sentencing, filed by the defendant, Allan Ross, who is currently serving a life sentence. In his

motion, Defendant requests that the Court vacate the $10 million fine imposed on him as part of

his sentence in this case. As grounds for his request, Defendant cites his inability to earn money

through prison work programs due to his medical condition and his family’s inability to continue

depositing money into his institutional account due to their own medical and financial hardships. 

The government has filed a response in opposition to the motion. Doc. 743. The Court has

carefully considered this matter and agrees with the government that Defendant has not cited

sufficient justification to warrant the relief sought. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Fine Imposed at Sentencing (Doc. 741) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of July, 2009

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
##### 



EXHIBIT 13.2 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002* In connection with the annual report of International Gemini Technology Inc. (the Company) on
Form 20-F/A for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Edward D. Ford, Director and acting Chief
Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) the Report containing the financial statements of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 results of operations of the Company. 
 Date: November 1, 2005 
 /s/ Edward D. FordEdward D. FordDirector and acting Chief Accounting Officer   *
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Solera
Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned chief executive officer and chief
financial officer of the Company, certifies, to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Tony Aquila         |  |  |  | /s/ Jack Pearlstein    
|Tony Aquila             |  |  |  | Jack Pearlstein        
|Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
|                        |  | 
|Date: February 6, 2009  |  |  |  | Date: February 6, 2009
**EXHIBIT 32.2** **CERTIFICATION    OF VICE PRESIDENT FINANCE AND CORPORATE CONTROLLER**     In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Commercial    Lines Inc. (the “Company”) on    Form 10-Q    for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the    Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the    “Report”), I, Thomas R. Pilholski, Senior Vice    President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,    pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant    to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of    section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of    1934, as amended; 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/  Thomas    R. Pilholski    Thomas R. Pilholski    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer     May 8, 2008
§ 220.4 Payment of funds to States and FNSROs. ( a ) To the extent funds are available, the Secretary shall make breakfast assistance payments to each State agency for breakfasts served to children under the Program. Subject to § 220.13(b)(2), the total of these payments for each State for any fiscal year shall be limited to the total amount of reimbursement payable to eligible schools within the State under this part for the fiscal year.
( b ) The Secretary shall prescribe by July 1 of each fiscal year annual adjustments to the nearest one-fourth cent in the national average per breakfast factors for all breakfasts and for free and reduced price breakfasts, that shall reflect changes in the cost of operating a breakfast program.
( c ) In addition to the funds made available under paragraph (a) of this section, funds shall be made available to the State agencies, and FNSROs where applicable, in such amounts as are needed to finance reimbursement rates assigned in accordance with the provisions of § 220.9(c).
(Secs. 801, 803, 812; Pub. L. 97-35, 95 Stat. 521-535 (42 U.S.C. 1753, 1759(a), 1773, 1758); Pub. L. 97-370, 96 Stat. 1806)
[38 FR 35554, Dec. 28, 1973, as amended at 40 FR 30923, July 24, 1975; 46 FR 51367, Oct. 20, 1981; 48 FR 20896, May 10, 1983; Amdt. 49, 49 FR 18987, May 4, 1984]
**Exhibit 11.1**

 

**ML Macadamia Orchards, L.P.**

**Computation of Net Income(Loss) per Class A Unit**

(in thousands, except per unitdata)

 
| ** **                                          | ** ** | **2005**   | ** ** | **2004**   | ** ** | **2003**   | ** ** |
|-----------------------------------------------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|
| ** **                                          | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** |
| Net income (loss)                                   |       | $          | 771        |       | $          | (1,649     | )          | $ | 69 |   |
|                                                |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Class A Unitholders (ownership  percentage)         |       | x          | 100        | %          | x          | 99         | %          | X | 99 | % |
|                                                |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Net income (loss) allocable to  Class A Unitholders |       | $          | 771        |       | $          | (1,632     | )          | $ | 68 |   |
|                                                |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Class A Units outstanding                           |       | 7,500      |       | 7,500      |       | 7,500      |       |
|                                                |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
| Net income (loss) per Class A  Unit                 |       | $          | 0.10       |       | $          | (0.22      | )          | $ | 0.01 |   |
|                                                     |            |            |            |            |            |            |            |  |  |  |  |  |  |

 

----
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Roger Kempel, Respondent, v Pete Nichols et al., Appellants. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeals from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed December 1, 1977, August 16, 1979 and January 10, 1980, which found accident and causal relationship and excused claimant’s failure to give timely written notice. The board found: "based on the claimant’s testimony at the Board Hearing, that claimant’s immediate supervisor, Ed Miller, had knowledge of claimant’s accident * * * that, for this reason, claimant’s failure to give written notice of injury is excused.” There is substantial evidence to sustain the determination of the board. Decisions affirmed, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board against the employer and its insurance carrier. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur; Staley, Jr., J., not taking part.
98-1185.

#### Simcox v. Westfield Cos.

Medina App. No. 2697-M. Discretionary appeal allowed; *sua sponte,*cause consolidated with 98-1124, *supra,*and held for the decision in 98-772, *Csulik v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,*Stark App. No. 197CA00283; briefing schedule stayed.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, J., dissent.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.1


March 14, 2005



Mr. Robert E. Rubin
399 Park Avenue
New York, NY  10022

Dear Bob:

I am writing on behalf of Citigroup Inc. to confirm certain changes to your
employment agreement dated October 26, 1999, as amended on February 6, 2002,
February 10, 2003, March 10, 2004, and January 18, 2005. The guaranty of a level
of incentive compensation for 2004 is extended through 2005, and all of the
provisions of the employment agreement, as amended, relating to such incentive
compensation (such as composition and manner of payment), including those
designed to avoid the loss of deduction under Section 162(m) of the Internal
Revenue Code, shall apply to such extended guaranty.

If the foregoing is consistent with our discussions, please sign in the space
provided below.

Very truly yours,


Citigroup Inc.



By: /s/ Michael Schlein
    --------------------------------
Michael Schlein
Senior Vice President, Global Corporate Affairs, Human Resources and Business
Practices



Accepted and agreed:



/s/ Robert E. Rubin
------------------------------------
Robert E. Rubin
#### § 28.186 Review of cotton classification or comparison.

An immediate review of every classification or comparison made pursuant to this subpart is performed automatically. Therefore, separate review classification services for foreign-growth cotton are not offered by the Program. Costs associated with such review classifications are integrated into the fees established in § 28.188.

[81 FR 7031, Feb. 10, 2016]
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:97cr49 LAC

ENRIQUE GALVAN CHAVEZ

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on MAY 16, 2008 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE PURSUANT TO TITLE 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on 5/16/08 Doc.# 164

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 3rd day of

July, 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) The defendant was sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of

240 months. Therefore, the Court does not have the authority pursuant to 18

U.S.C. §3553 to reduce the defendant’s sentence below this term. 

 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 3:97-cr-00049-LC Document 165 Filed 07/03/08 Page 1 of 1
#### Trundle *vs.*Arnold.

Assumpsit. Case 134.

Appeal from the Boone Circuit; Brown, Judge.

*Misjoinder of causes of action.*

October 5.

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

This appeal is prosecuted to reverse a judgment for damages obtained by the appellee against the appellant. The pleadings present the only points which we shall now consider.

The declaration contains eight counts:—

1st. For *tort,*in a fraudulent representation by the appellant, that he had authority to sell some cord wood, cut and lying on land, which, as agent for one Brown, (the owner) he sold to the appellee.

2nd, 3rd, 4th and 8th. *Assumpsit,*charging that the appellant promised to secure to the appellee, the cord wood. The form and substance of these counts prove, that they are in assumpsit; for though, in some of them, the plaintiff averred that the promise was made fraudulently, it is evident that the breach of promise, and not the alleged fraud, is the *gravamen;*(II Chitty on pleading, 97; Ibid, 271-8-9; I Ibid, 93.)

6th. For fraudulently imposing on the appellee, a written memorial of the contract, essentially variant from the actual agreement. This.is case.

7th and 8th. *Case*for negligence and fraud by the appellant as the bailee of the appellee. The characteristic difference between assumpsit and case against a bailee, is, that in the former, a breach of *promise;*in the latter, a breach of *duty,*is set forth, as the sub*408stautive canse of complaint; and the criteria for test» ing this distinction in the remedy, are exemplified in II Chitty on Pleading from 103 to 126, and from 270 to 279.

Krror to join causes of action, *ex deficto*and *ea>. contractu.*

*Crittenden*and *Denny,*for appellant; *Marshall*and *Julian*for appellee.

The appellant filed a demurrer to the declaration, and also pleaded *non assumpsit*and *not guilty*to *all the counts jointly.*

The demurrer to the declaration was overruled, except as to the 4th count; and the demurrer to the plea of non assumpsit was sustained.

As there was a misjoinder of contract and tort in the declaration, the circuit court erred in not sustaining the general demurrer to the whole declaration; and also erred in rendering judgment on a general verdict, when there was no *remittitur,*(1 Chitty¿ 207.)

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded with instructions to sustain the demurrer to the declaration, and to give the appellee leave, if he desire it, to amend his declaration, so as to make all his counts of the same general character,' either *ex contractu*or *ex delicto.*