alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 3:99-cv-00207-RV   Document 58   Filed 10/11/06   Page 1 of 13

Case 3:99-cv-00207-RV   Document 58   Filed 10/11/06   Page 2 of 13

Case 3:99-cv-00207-RV   Document 58   Filed 10/11/06   Page 3 of 13

Case 3:99-cv-00207-RV   Document 58   Filed 10/11/06   Page 4 of 13

Case 3:99-cv-00207-RV   Document 58   Filed 10/11/06   Page 5 of 13

Case 3:99-cv-00207-RV   Document 58   Filed 10/11/06   Page 6 of 13

Case 3:99-cv-00207-RV   Document 58   Filed 10/11/06   Page 7 of 13

Case 3:99-cv-00207-RV   Document 58   Filed 10/11/06   Page 8 of 13

Case 3:99-cv-00207-RV   Document 58   Filed 10/11/06   Page 9 of 13

Case 3:99-cv-00207-RV   Document 58   Filed 10/11/06   Page 10 of 13

Case 3:99-cv-00207-RV   Document 58   Filed 10/11/06   Page 11 of 13

Case 3:99-cv-00207-RV   Document 58   Filed 10/11/06   Page 12 of 13

Case 3:99-cv-00207-RV   Document 58   Filed 10/11/06   Page 13 of 13
§ 1b.3 Categorical exclusions. ( a ) The following are categories of activities which have been determined not to have a significant individual or cumulative effect on the human environment and are excluded from the preparation of environmental assessment (EA's) or environmental impact statement (EIS's), unless individual agency procedures prescribed otherwise. ( 1 ) Policy development, planning and implementation which relate to routine activities, such as personnel, organizational changes, or similar administrative functions;
( 2 ) Activities which deal solely with the funding of programs, such as program budget proposals, disbursements, and transfer or reprogramming of funds;
( 3 ) Inventories, research activities, and studies, such as resource inventories and routine data collection when such actions are clearly limited in context and intensity;
( 4 ) Educational and informational programs and activities;
( 5 ) Civil and criminal law enforcement and investigative activities;
( 6 ) Activities which are advisory and consultative to other agencies and public and private entities, such as legal counselling and representation;
( 7 ) Activities related to trade representation and market development activities abroad.
( b ) Agencies will identify in their own procedures the activities which normally would not require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.
( c ) Notwithstanding the exclusions listed in paragraphs (a) of this section and § 1b.4, or identified in agency procedures, agency heads may determine that circumstances dictate the need for preparation of an EA or EIS for a particular action. Agencies shall continue to scrutinize their activities to determine continued eligibility for categorical exclusion.
[48 FR 11403, Mar. 18, 1983, as amended at 60 FR 66481, Dec. 22, 1995]
Exhibit 10(j)



SUMMARY OF
 THE EMPIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC COMPANY
 ANNUAL INCENTIVE
PLAN



Our annual incentive plan is the short-term
component of our incentive compensation package. Under this plan, executive officers can earn additional compensation based on their performance
measured against annual tactical goals. The specific tactical goals for each executive for each calendar year and the weight to be attached to each
goal are established at the beginning of the calendar year and are geared to the particular executive’s responsibilities. Examples of the
performance measures utilized under the annual incentive plan for the award with respect to 2004 (paid in early 2005) and for the award to be made with
respect to 2005 (payable in 2006) include expense control, regulatory performance, project completion, financial performance, and customer service.
Threshold, target and maximum performance levels are set for each performance measure. For executives to receive any incentive compensation based on
any particular performance measure, at least the threshold level of performance must have been achieved. Greater incentive compensation is payable
under the annual incentive plan if the target or maximum performance is achieved. If the target level objective is reached in each of the executive
officer’s performance areas, the executive officer would receive the target annual incentive award established for that executive. In the case of
the award for 2004 (paid in early 2005) and the award for 2005 (payable in early 2006), the target annual incentive award was set at 35% of base salary
for the Chief Executive Officer and was set at 15% of base salary for all other officers. The award under the annual incentive plan is paid in
cash.





92
§ 247.35 Local agency appeals of State agency actions. ( a ) *What recourse must the State agency provide local agencies to appeal a decision that adversely affects their participation in CSFP?* The State agency must establish a hearing procedure to allow local agencies to appeal a decision that adversely affects their participation in CSFP—e.g., the termination of a local agency's participation in the program. The adverse action must be postponed until a decision on the appeal is made.
( b ) *What must the State agency include in the hearing procedure to ensure that the local agency has a fair chance to present its case?* The hearing procedure must provide the local agency: ( 1 ) Adequate advance notice of the time and place of the hearing;
( 2 ) An opportunity to review the record before the hearing, and to present evidence at the hearing;
( 3 ) An opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses; and
( 4 ) An opportunity to be represented by counsel, if desired.
( c ) *Who conducts the hearing and how is a decision on the appeal made?* The hearing must be conducted by an impartial person who must make a decision on the appeal that is based solely on the evidence presented at the hearing, and on program legislation and regulations. A decision must be made within 60 days from the date of the request for a hearing, and must be provided in writing to the local agency.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Perry Burns, Appellant, v. Russell G. Oswald, as Commissioner of New York Division of Parole, Respondent.

Appeal by petitioner from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated June 12, 1968. Judgment affirmed, without costs. The application at bar sought to compel the Division of Parole to amend its records by giving appellant credit against a sentence to State prison for certain time during which he was confined in New York City prisons. It was made pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR and was in the nature of mandamus. Special Term treated it as a habeas corpus proceeding in both its decision and judgment. The proceeding was properly brought under article 78 and we have considered it as one so brought (see *Matter of Browne*v. *New York State Bd. of Parole,*10 N Y 2d 116, 121-122). So considered, and on the merits, we find no merit in the application. It was properly dismissed *(People ex rel. Petite*v. *Follette,*24 N Y 2d 60; see, also, *People ex rel. Kenny*v. *Jackson,*4 N Y 2d 229; *Matter of Perillo*v. *New York State Bd. of Parole,*4 A D 2d 355, affd. 4 N Y 2d 1013; *People ex rel. Paqua*v. *Fay,*8 A D 2d 856, affd. 8 N Y 2d 897; *People ex rel. Miles*v. *LaVallee,*16 A D 2d 710). Rabin, Acting P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 1:03-cv-00046-MP-AK

BANK ACCOUNT In The Name Of

ROSIE CAPITAL LLC Maintained

At Euro-Bank Corporation, George

Town, Grand Cayman, And The Balance

Contained Therein,

 Defendant.

_________________________________/

DECREE OF FORFEITURE

On March 10, 2003, a Verified Complaint of Forfeiture In Rem against the

Defendant, Bank Account In The Name Of Rosie Capital LLC Maintained At Euro-Bank

Corporation was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff, United States of America. The complaint

alleges that the Defendant, Bank Account In The Name Of Rosie Capital LLC

Maintained At Euro-Bank Corporation, is forfeitable to the United States of America

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981 (a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(C).

It appears that process was fully issued in this action according to law:

That Lisa Petrie and Robert R. Petrie have filed claims to the defendant property.

Case 1:03-cv-00046-MP-AK Document 25 Filed 10/04/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:03-cv-00046

That on April 19, 2004, a Notice of Action and Arrest was published in the

Cayman Net News, Grand Cayman.

That no other person or entity has filed a claim.

That this matter has been settled and a copy of the Settlement Agreement is

attached.

NOW THEREFORE, on Motion of the Plaintiff, United States of America, for a

Decree Of Forfeiture, it is hereby 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the compromised amount

contained in Bank Account In The Name Of Rosie Capital LLC Maintained At Euro-Bank

Corporation, George Town, Grand Cayman, be forfeited to the United States of America

and no right, title or interest in the property shall exist in any other party. The Defendant

property shall be disposed of according to law.

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of October, 2005

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:03-cv-00046-MP-AK Document 25 Filed 10/04/05 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MATHEW SELOVER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20cv4698-TKW-HTC

ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD OF

COMMISSIONERS and RAYME

EDLER,

Defendants.

________________________________/

ORDER 

This case is before the Court based on a review of the docket, which reflects 

that discovery is closed and the dispositive motion deadline has passed. The parties 

previously reported that the case has settled regarding Defendant Escambia County

Board of County Commissioners but not regarding Defendant Edler. See Docs. 58, 

59. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that within 7 days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff and 

Defendant Edler shall file a joint status report indicating whether this case has been 

resolved or whether it needs to be set for trial. If the case needs to be set for trial, 

they shall identify several mutually agreeable dates during the week of July 12-16, 

2021, for a telephonic case management conference to schedule the pretrial 

conference and trial.

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 61 Filed 06/28/21 Page 1 of 2
2

DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of June, 2021.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 61 Filed 06/28/21 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 10.31  


DIRECTOR COMPENSATION  


        Mr. and Mrs. Gordon do not receive fees for their service on the Board of Directors or committees. Other directors receive an annual fee of $40,000
plus $1,250 per meeting attended. Each member of the Audit Committee receives an annual retainer of $5,000 and each member of the Compensation Committee receives $1,250 per meeting attended. The
Chairman of the Audit Committee receives an additional annual fee of $5,500. Board members are reimbursed for reasonable travel expenses in connection with attending meetings, and, in their capacity
as ambassadors of the Company, receive free samples of the Company's products at Halloween and at other times throughout the year.
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2289 

AN ACT 

To rename section 219(c) of the Internal Revenue Code 

of 1986 as the Kay Bailey Hutchison Spousal IRA. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2289 EH

1 SECTION 1. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON SPOUSAL IRA. 

2 The heading of subsection (c) of section 219 of the 

3 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

4 ‘‘SPECIAL RULES FOR CERTAIN MARRIED INDIVIDUALS’’ 

5 and inserting ‘‘KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON SPOUSAL IRA’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 25, 2013. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2289 

AN ACT 

To rename section 219(c) of the Internal Revenue 

Spousal IRA. Code of 1986 as the Kay Bailey Hutchison
###### Editorial Note on Part 1956

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1956 appear at 80 FR 9901, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1956.131-1956.135 [Reserved]
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Donald R. ChappelDonald R. ChappelChief Financial Officer of Williams Partners GP LLC,
general partner of Williams Partners L.P.
(Principal Financial Officer)
#### § 29.2540 Package.

A hogshead, tierce, case, bale, or other securely enclosed parcel or bundle.

[37 FR 13626, July 12, 1972. Redesignated at 49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984]
#### § 28.482 United States Cotton Futures Act.

The cotton standards contained in § 28.301 through § 28.603 of this part shall be effective for purposes of the United States Cotton Futures Act (7 U.S.C. 15b) and the regulations thereunder (7 CFR part 27).

[45 FR 46783, July 11, 1980]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Highway Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Rescind Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS.

# SUMMARY:

                        This notice rescinds the Notice of Intent for preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for proposed highway, State Route 601, to provide a connection between Interstate 10 at the Canal Road Interchange and State Route 26 in the City of Wiggins, Harrison and Stone Counties, Mississippi. The original Notice of Intent for this EIS process was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on August 12, 2005.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Claiborne Barnwell, Project Development Team Leader, Federal Highway Administration, Mississippi Division, 100 West Capitol Street, Suite 1026, Jackson, Mississippi 39269, Telephone: (601) 965-4217.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Background

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in cooperation with the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) initiated an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) with a Notice of Intent August 12, 2005, to provide a connector road, to be built to interstate standards, between Interstate 10 and State Route 26.

Due to funding constraints the Notice of Intent is rescinded.

Andrew H. Hughes,

Division Administrator, Mississippi, Federal Highway Administration, Jackson, Mississippi.

[FR Doc. 2010-29141 Filed 11-19-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE M
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:88-cr-01007-MP-AK-2

WILLIE BUD REED, JR,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1416, Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) by Willie Bud Reed, Jr. Defendant requests reconsideration of the Court’s

order denying his motion to revisit. Rule 59(e) permits a motion to alter or amend a judgment. 

Here, defendant requests reconsideration of an order, which is properly brought under Rule

60(b). Nevertheless, defendant fails to provide any justification for reconsidering the Court’s

order.

Moreover, defendant’s motion attacks the sentence imposed by this Court and is properly

construed as a § 2255 motion. Defendant was previously denied collateral relief on the merits of

his § 2255 motion, and therefore he is barred from seeking such relief in this Court absent prior

certification from the Eleventh Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h), 2244(b)(3). Accordingly, it is

hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

Case 1:88-cr-01007-MW-GRJ Document 1417 Filed 09/09/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

1. Defendant’s motion for reconsideration, Doc. 1416, is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of September, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 1:88-cr-01007-MP-AK-2

Case 1:88-cr-01007-MW-GRJ Document 1417 Filed 09/09/11 Page 2 of 2
# FEDERAL FINANCIAL REPORT ATTACHMENT (For reporting multiple grants)

1. Federal Agency and Organizational Element 2 . Recipient Organization (Box 3 on Page 1) to Which Report is Submitted (Box 1 on Page 1)

3a. DUNS Number (Box 4a on Page 1) 4. Reporting Period End Date (Box 9 on Page 1) (Month, Day, Year)

3b. EIN (Box 4b on Page 1) Page __________ of _________

5. List Information below for each grant covered by this report. Use additional pages if more space is required.

Federal Grant Number Recipient Account Num ber Cumulative Federal Cash Disbursement 

# $

TOTAL (Should correspond to the amount on Line 10b on Page 1) 

# $ 0.00

Standard Form 425A OMB Approval Number: 0348-006 1 Expiration Date: 10/31/2011 Paperwork Burden Statement According to the Paperwork Reduction Act, as amended, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0348-0061. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average thirty (30) minutes per response, i n c l udi ng t m e f r r v i e w i ng i n s r c i ons s earc h i n g e i s t i n dat a s our c e s gat her i n g and m a i t a i i g t e dat a needed and c m l et i n g and r v i ew i n g t e c o l c o i f or m a t i n i o e t u t
, x g , n n n h
, o p e h le t io n f n o

. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project ( 0348-0061), Washington, DC 20503.
#### Audrey P. Harris, Plaintiff, v Roy Harris, Defendant.

Motion to strike certain portions of the record and appellant’s brief denied. (See *Jema Props,*v *McLeod,*51 AD2d 702.) The respondent is directed to serve and file respondent’s points on or before 3:00 p.m., January 24, 1980, with reply points, if any, to be served and filed on or before 3:00 p.m., January 31, 1980, for the February, 1980 Term. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Bloom and Markewich, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,963
<SECURITIES>                                     3,200
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,616
<ALLOWANCES>                                       306
<INVENTORY>                                      5,675
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,942
<PP&E>                                          10,741
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,816
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,298
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,306
<BONDS>                                          1,177
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           159
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,560
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,298
<SALES>                                         32,362
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,362
<CGS>                                           15,030
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,030
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,283
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,534
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,110
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,424
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,424
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .70
        

</TABLE>
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:94cr3067/RV

ORLANDO R. CONTRERAS

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Vinson on 09/17/2008 

Type of Motion/Pleading MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 18

U.S.C. § 3582(C)(2)

Filed by: Defendant on 6/26/08 Doc. No. 347

( ) 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 22nd day of

 September , 2008, that:

(a) The requested relief is DENIED.

(b) The Defendant was held responsible for 82.8 kilograms of cocaine 

base, and Amendment 706 only applies if the quantities do not 

exceed 4.5 kilograms. 

/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 3:94-cr-03067-RV-mcr Document 348 Filed 09/22/08 Page 1 of 1
#### § 29.2400 Rule 9.

In determining the grade of a lot of tobacco, the lot as a whole shall be considered. Minor irregularities which do not affect over 1 percent of the tobacco shall be overlooked.