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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

RYAN NORMAN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-116-MW/GRJ

POWER PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT INC., 

POWER PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT

HOLDINGS, INC., FRANKCRUM 5 INC, and 

5Z005-FRANKCRUM 5 INC,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff RYAN NORMAN and Defendants POWER PRODUCTION 

MANAGEMENT INC. and POWER PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT 

HOLDINGS, INC. (the “parties”) jointly file this Joint Motion for Approval of 

Settlement and Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice and state:

1. At the settlement conference with the Honorable Magistrate Judge Gary 

R. Jones, the parties reached a full and complete settlement of Plaintiff’s claims 

under the Fair Labor Standards Act and other claims raised by Plaintiff against 

Defendants.

Case 1:20-cv-00116-GRJ Document 33 Filed 12/09/20 Page 1 of 3
2

2. Because the Court conducted the settlement conference, the Court is 

fully apprised of the issues raised in the complaint, the position of the parties and the 

terms of the settlement by the parties. 

3. Upon the receipt of all settlement payments, Plaintiff agrees to the 

dismissal of this matter with prejudice against all defendants and stipulates to a final 

order of dismissal. The parties agree that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce 

the terms of the settlement.

4. The parties are independently represented by counsel and have agreed 

to settle this case voluntarily and knowingly.

5. The settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute.

6. Counsel for Defendants FRANKCRUM 5 INC, and 5Z005-

FRANKCRUM 5 INC has no objection to the relief requested in this motion. 

WHEREFORE, the parties request that this Motion be granted, the settlement 

be approved, and this matter be dismissed with prejudice against all defendants upon 

the payment of all settlement sums.

Respectfully submitted this 9

th day of December, 2020. 

Case 1:20-cv-00116-GRJ Document 33 Filed 12/09/20 Page 2 of 3
3

/s/ Miguel Bouzas

Miguel Bouzas

Florida Bar No.: 48943

Primary: miguel@fgbolaw.com

Secondary: gina@fgbolaw.com

FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC

16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100

Lutz, FL 33558

Telephone (727) 254-5255

Facsimile (727) 483-7942

Counsel for Plaintiff RYAN NORMAN

s/ Paul A. Donnelly

Paul A. Donnelly

Florida Bar No. 813613 

paul@donnellygross.com

s/ Jung Yoon

Jung Yoon

Florida Bar No. 0599611

jung@donnellygross.com

Donnelly + Gross

2421 NW 41st Street, Suite A-1

Gainesville, FL 32606

Telephone: (352) 374-4001

Facsimile: (352) 374-4046

Counsel for Defendants

Case 1:20-cv-00116-GRJ Document 33 Filed 12/09/20 Page 3 of 3
§ 301.91-3 Regulated areas. ( a ) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the Deputy Administrator will list as a regulated area each State, or each portion of a State, in which European larch canker has been found by an inspector, or in which the Deputy Administrator has reason to believe that European larch canker is present, or any portion of a quarantined State which the Deputy Administrator deems necessary to regulate because of its proximity to a European larch canker infestation or its inseparability for quarantine enforcement purpose from localities in which European larch canker occurs. The Deputy Administrator will publish a list of all regulated areas (the regulated areas list) on the PPQ website at *www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-diseases/plant-disease/elc/european-larch-canker*. The list will include the date that the list was last updated. Lists of all regulated areas may also be obtained by request from any local PPQ office; local offices are listed in telephone directories and on the internet at *www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/ppq-program-overview/sphd*. After a change is made to the list of regulated areas, APHIS will publish a notice in the Federal Register informing the public that the change has occurred and describing the change to the regulated areas. Less than an entire quarantined State will be designated as a regulated area only if the Deputy Administrator determines that: ( 1 ) The State has adopted and is enforcing a quarantine or regulation which imposes restrictions on the intrastate movement of the regulated articles which are substantially the same as those which are imposed with respect to the interstate movement of such articles under this subpart; and
( 2 ) The designation of less than the entire State as a regulated area will otherwise be adequate to prevent the artificial interstate spread of European larch canker.
( b ) The Deputy Administrator or an inspector may temporarily designate any nonregulated area in a quarantined State as a regulated area in accordance with the criteria specified in paragraph (a) of this section. The Deputy Administrator will give a copy of this subpart along with written notice of the temporary designation to the owner or person in possession of the nonregulated area, or, in the case of publicly owned land, to the person responsible for the management of the nonregulated area. Thereafter, the interstate movement of any regulated article from an area temporarily designated as a regulated area will be subject to this subpart. As soon as practicable, the area will be added to the regulated areas list or the designation will be terminated by the Deputy Administrator or an inspector. The owner or person in possession of, or, in the case of publicly owned land, the person responsible for the management of, an area for which designation is terminated will be given written notice of the termination as soon as practicable.
[87 FR 80017, Dec. 29, 2022]
EXHIBIT 32

In connection with the quarterly report of Holloman Energy Corporation, (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) Mark Stevenson, the Principal Executive Officer of the Company and Robert Wesolek, the Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of their knowledge:

(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 results of operation of the company.



|                |     |                                            
|--------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------
|                |     |                                            
|August 14, 2009 | By: | /s/ Mark Stevenson                         
|                |     | Mark Stevenson, Principal Executive Officer
|                |     |                                            
|                |     |                                            
|                |     |                                            
|                |     |                                            
|August 14, 2009 | By: | /s/ Robert Wesolek                         
|                |     | Robert Wesolek, Principal Financial Officer
§ 319.8-12 From the West Coast of Mexico. Contingent upon continued freedom of the West Coast of Mexico and of Northwest Mexico from infestations of the pink bollworm, entry of the following products may be authorized under permit subject to inspection to determine freedom from hazardous plant pest conditions: ( a ) Compressed lint and linters.
( b ) Uncompressed lint and linters for movement into the generally infested pink bollworm regulated area, movement thereafter to be in accordance with § 301.52 of this chapter.
( c ) Compressed or uncompressed cotton waste for movement under bond to Fabens, Texas, for vacuum fumigation after which it will be released from further plant quarantine entry requirements.
( d ) Cottonseed when certified by an inspector as having been treated, stored, and transported in a manner satisfactory to the Administrator.
( e ) Untreated, non-certified cottonseed contained in new bags for movement by special manifest to any destination in the generally infested pink bollworm regulated area, movement thereafter to be in accordance with § 301.52 of this chapter.
( f ) Cottonseed hulls when certified by an inspector as having been treated, stored, and transported in a manner satisfactory to the Administrator.
( g ) Any cotton products for movement through Mexican border ports in Texas directly into the generally infested pink bollworm regulated area, movement thereafter to be in accordance with § 301.52 of this chapter.
[27 FR 5309, June 7, 1962, as amended at 36 FR 24917, Dec. 24, 1971; 78 FR 25570, May 2, 2013]
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 4:88cr4019-WS

THEODORE HUDSON, 4:05cv180-WS

Defendant.

 

O R D E R

Before the court is the defendant's untimely-filed “reply” (doc. 45) to the

magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 210) docketed July 7, 2005. 

Because this reply--or objection--was referred to the undersigned after judgment was

entered, see doc. 214, the court will construe the defendant’s objection as a timely-filed

motion to alter or amend judgment. 

Having now reviewed the defendant’s objection to the magistrate judge's report

and recommendation, the court has determined that judgment was properly entered. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

The defendant's objection (doc. 45) to the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation, construed as a motion to alter or amend judgment, is DENIED. 

Case 4:88-cr-04019-WS-WCS Document 216 Filed 08/19/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:88cr4019-WS

DONE AND ORDERED this August 19, 2005.

 /s William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:88-cr-04019-WS-WCS Document 216 Filed 08/19/05 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 4:02cr59-SPM

IRVENS PIERRE,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER CONTINUING SENTENCING

For good cause shown, Defendant Pierre’s Motion to Postpone

Sentencing Date (doc. 106) is granted. Sentencing is reset for March 20, 2006 at

1:30 p.m. in Tallahassee, Florida. 

SO ORDERED this 1st day of December, 2005.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cr-00059-SPM-AK Document 107 Filed 12/01/05 Page 1 of 1
#### § 3430.1207 Coordination preference.

In selecting recipients of Education, Extension and Training grants, preference will be given to applications providing documentation of coordination with other qualified entities.
EXHIBIT 32.1



May 1, 2009

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, NE

Washington, DC 20549



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Lazard Group
LLC (the Registrant) hereby certifies that the Registrants Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (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, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|                                                      
|/s/    Bruce Wasserstein                              
|Bruce Wasserstein Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 24, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71685-71686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29572]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-6427-000]


Barfield, Jon E.; Notice of Filing

November 17, 2010.
    Take notice that on November 15, 2010, Jon E. Barfield filed an 
Application for Authorization to Hold Interlocking Positions as 
Director of Consumers Energy Company and Director of Motorola Mobility 
Holdings, Inc., pursuant to Part 45 of Chapter 1 of Title 18 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations, 18 CFR part 45 and section 305(b) of the 
Federal Power Act.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to

[[Page 71686]]

the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice 
of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ecaaa9beafa38280858289bf999c9c839e98ac8a899e8fc28b839a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="195f5c4b5a56777570777c4a6c6969766b6d597f7c6b7a377e766f">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 6, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29572 Filed 11-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 319.8-26 Material refused entry.

Any material refused entry for noncompliance with the requirements of this subpart shall be promptly removed from the United States or abandoned by the importer for destruction, and pending such action shall be subject to the immediate application of such safeguards against escape of plant pests as the inspector may prescribe. If such material is not promptly safeguarded by the importer, removed from the United States, or abandoned for destruction to the satisfaction of the inspector it may be seized, destroyed, or otherwise disposed of in accordance with sections 414 and 421 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7714 and 7731). Neither the Department of Agriculture nor the inspector will be responsible for any costs accruing for demurrage, shipping charges, cartage, labor, chemicals, or other expenses incidental to the safeguarding or disposal of material refused entry by the inspector, nor will the Department of Agriculture or the inspector assume responsibility for the value of material destroyed.

[24 FR 10788, Dec. 29, 1959, as amended at 66 FR 21055, Apr. 27, 2001]
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

November 16, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00524

- CR
Lloyd Ray MCKINNEY
, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the County Court At Law No 2, Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. CCL

- 16

- 1094 Honorable Frank Follis, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

A ppellant’s brief i s due on Nov ember 1 7 , 2017

. Before the due date , Appellant filed a first motion for a forty

- five day extension of time to file the brief. In the motion, counsel states the extension will be “adequate to allow the completion of the brief.” Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due on January 2, 2018

.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 16th day of November, 2017

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE
, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of SkyWest, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Bradford R. Rich, 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, to the best of my knowledge:

(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 results of operations of the Company.

/s/ BRADFORD R. RICH Bradford R. Rich Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerFebruary 22, 2010


This
certification accompanies the Report Amendment pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
§ 3201.50 Multipurpose cleaners. ( a ) *Definition.* Products used to clean dirt, grease, and grime from a variety of items in both industrial and domestic settings. This designated item does not include products that are formulated for use as disinfectants.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The preferred procurement product must have a minimum biobased content of at least 56 percent, which shall be based on the amount of qualifying biobased carbon in the product as a percent of the weight (mass) of the total organic carbon in the finished product.
( c ) *Preference compliance date.* No later than October 27, 2010, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased multipurpose cleaners. By that date, Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for items to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased multipurpose cleaners.
[74 FR 55093, Oct. 27, 2009]
1 

### Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 9:46 AM

To: 'bestboatman@gmail.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA); Schandler, Andrea (FAA) ; Cooper, Thuy (FAA); Pearson, Lakisha

(FAA) Subject: Request for Additional Informat ion: The Barefoot Group, Inc.



### February 18, 2015

Mr. JohnWappenstein The Barefoot Group, Inc.

P.O. Box 1363 Saint Augustine, FL 32085

Dear Mr. Wappenstein:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2014-0997). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide description of proximity to airports and to populated areas.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Hea dquarters or electronically via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request a ny further, we must receive the information described above by March 4, 2015 . If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Nia Daniels Program Analyst

Nia Daniels, ARM

‐ 108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075 nia.daniels@faa.gov
#### § 3.21 Referrals of debts to Justice.

An agency will promptly refer to Justice for litigation debts on which aggressive collection activity has been taken in accordance with this part, and that cannot be compromised by the agency or on which collection activity cannot be suspended or terminated in accordance with 31 CFR parts 902 and 903. Agencies will follow the procedures specified in 31 CFR part 904 in making such referrals. Agencies will consult with OGC on all debts which are to be collected in foreign jurisdictions to determine how and if a referral to Justice will take place.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7030

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus JAMES ALBERT BROWN, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-95-443, CA-99-1109-3-19) Submitted: November 30, 1999 Decided: December 13, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Albert Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Chastain Wicker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

### -2- PER CURIAM: James Brown appeals the district court’s judgment denying his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 1999). On appeal, Brown first contends that the district court erred by denying his motion without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. No hearing is required, however, where the record conclusively establishes that a petitioner is entitled to no relief. See Fontaine v. United States , 411 U.S. 213, 215 (1973). Our review of the record discloses that the district court properly determined that no hearing was required in this case. Brown next argues that the district court erred by sentencing him based on his involvement with the distribution of “crack” cocaine without requiring the Government to prove this as an element of the offense. We decline to address this argument as it is improperly raised initially on appeal. See Muth v. United States , 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). We also note that, contrary to Brown’s contention, his appellate counsel was not required to raise every argument on appeal that Brown instructed him to raise. See Jones v. Barnes , 463 U.S. 745, 753-54 (1983). Hence, his failure to do so does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Finally, we reject Brown’s assertion that testimony by accomplices offered against him at trial was inadmissable because it was offered in exchange for considerations of leniency in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2) (1994), as this

### -3- argument is foreclosed under our recent decision in United States v. Richardson, F.3d , 1999 WL 686892 (4th Cir. Sept. 3, 1999). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this appeal. 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.

DISMISSED