alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2388 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 9, 2013 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

AN ACT 

To take certain Federal lands located in El Dorado County, 

California, into trust for the benefit of the Shingle 

Springs Band of Miwok Indians, and for other purposes. 

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


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2388 RFS

1 SECTION 1. LAND INTO TRUST FOR THE SHINGLE SPRINGS 

2 BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The land described in subsection 

4 (b) is hereby taken into trust for the benefit of the Shingle 

5 Springs Band of Miwok Indians, subject to valid existing 

6 rights and management agreements related to easements 

7 and rights-of-way. 

8 (b) LAND DESCRIPTION.—The land taken into trust 

9 pursuant to subsection (a) is the approximately 40.852 

10 acres of Federal land under the administrative jurisdiction 

11 of the Bureau of Land Management identified as ‘‘Con12 veyance boundary’’ on the map titled ‘‘Shingle Springs 

13 Land Conveyance/Draft’’ and dated June 7, 2012, includ14 ing improvements and appurtenances thereto. 

15 (c) GAMING.—Class II and class III gaming under 

16 the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et 

17 seq.) shall not be permitted at any time on the land taken 

18 into trust pursuant to subsection (a). 

Passed the House of Representatives December 3, 

2013. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
From: John Summerhays/R5/USEPA/US

To: "Schmidt Cortney" <CKSchmidt@vcsmc.com>, 

Cc: <FDindoffer@BODMANLAW.COM>, daferrier@ftch.com, Daniel Schaufelberger/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Jane Woolums/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Douglas Aburano/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, irviner@michigan.gov, 

khana@michigan.gov

Date: 08/02/2012 12:30 PM

Subject: Supplemental Questions

Thank you again for visiting us on July 19. We are continuing to consider the comments you made, and we 

have a few follow-up questions. If possible we would appreciate answers by the end of next week, August 

10. You also indicated that you would be providing us a copy of a report from your testing of selective 

noncatalytic reduction of NOx; we would appreciate receiving that by August 10 as well.

If we understood you properly, you indicated that your Charlevoix kiln is a pre-heater kiln, not a 

pre-heater/pre-calciner kiln, i.e. that it has no supplementary flame used specifically to heat the feed 

material before the material enters the kiln itself. However, we have reexamined the process description 

provided under a previous information request, and found your description to indicate that there is in fact a 

calciner. I have attached a key page from your response, taken from page 12 of part 2 of your process 

description. Perhaps this misunderstanding is because you were not distinguishing between a pre-heater 

kiln versus a pre-heater/pre-calciner kiln, or perhaps the plant is equipped with a pre-calciner (or calciner) 

that you do not routinely operate.

Therefore, we have a few follow-up questions to make sure we properly understand operations at the 

Charlevoix plant. 

1. Is SMC Charlevoix' kiln system equipped with a supplemental burner (i.e., supplemental to the primary 

kiln burner), the heat from which is used only to heat feed material before it enters the kiln (i.e., equipment 

we would call a pre-calciner)?

2. If the answer to 1 is yes:

 a. Does SMC routinely operate its pre-calciner?

 

 b. On an annual average basis, what approximate percentage of the plant's heat input is provided by the 

pre-calciner burner versus the primary (kiln) burner? 

 c. Does the plant routinely operate with approximately a fixed proportion of heat input from the 

pre-calciner burner? If the plant operates in different modes under different circumstances, please describe 

these different modes and identify the approximate percentage of the plant's heat input provided by the 

pre-calciner burner for each mode of operation. Alternately, if the pre-calciner burner operating rate is 

highly variable, and cannot be described in terms of standard operating modes, please identify the normal 

range of operation of the pre-calciner burner as a percentage of the plant's total heat input.

3. If the answer to 1 is no, please identify whether the plant description provided in the attached document 

remains an accurate description with respect to the presence of equipment labeled as a calciner.

[Figure not attached due to potential confidential nature]
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. Case No: 3:99cr30/RV

3:05cv173/RV/MD

LARRY LEWIS

_____________________________________________________________________

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation dated May 27, 2005. The defendant previously has been furnished

a copy of the report and recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to

file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), and I have

made a de novo determination of those portions to which an objection has been

made.

Having considered the report and recommendation and all objections thereto

timely filed by the parties, I have determined that the report and recommendation

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 2255 (doc. 292) is summarily DISMISSED as untimely.

DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of June, 2005.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:99-cr-00030-RV Document 294 Filed 06/28/05 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

§ 283.22 Form; filing; service; proof of service; computation of time; and extensions of time. ( a ) *Form.* ( 1 ) The original and two copies of all papers in a proceeding conducted under this subpart shall be filed with the Hearing Clerk.
( 2 ) Every pleading and paper filed in the proceeding shall contain a caption setting forth the title of the action, the docket number assigned by the Hearing Clerk, and a descriptive title (e.g., Motion for Extension of Time).
( 3 ) Every pleading and paper shall be signed by and contain the address and telephone number of the representative for the party on whose behalf the paper was filed.
( b ) *Filing.* Papers are considered filed when they are postmarked, or, received, if hand delivered. Date of mailing may be established by a certificate from the party or representative or by proof that the document was sent by certified or registered mail.
( c ) *Service.* A party filing a document with the ALJ shall, at the time of filing, serve a copy of such document on every other party. Service upon any party of any document shall be made by delivering or mailing a copy to the party's last known address. When a party is represented by an attorney or designated representative, service shall be made upon such attorney or representative in lieu of the actual party.
( d ) *Proof of service.* A certificate of the person serving the document by personal delivery or by mail, setting forth the date, time and manner of service, shall be proof of service.
( e ) *Computation of time.* ( 1 ) In computing any period of time under this part or in an order issued thereunder, the time begins with the day following the act, event, or default, and includes the last day of the period, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday observed by the Federal Government, in which event it includes the next business day.
( 2 ) When a document has been served by mail, an additional five days will be added to the time permitted for any response.
( f ) *Extensions of time.* Requests for extensions of time shall be submitted to the ALJ, Chief Judge or the Judicial Officer prior to the expiration of the original due date. The time for the filing of any document or paper required or authorized under the rules in this part may be extended by the ALJ, Chief Judge or the Judicial Officer, if, in the judgment of the ALJ, Chief Judge or the Judicial Officer, there is cause for the extension. In instances where the time permits notice of the request for extension, time shall be given to the other party to submit views concerning the request.
Exhibit 10.12


 


[Form of Personalized Policy Description
Under 

Supplemental Disability Insurance Plan]


 





 


Personalized Policy Description for:


 


[Name of
Executive Officer]


 


NetBank, Inc.


 


	
  Policy I

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Policy Number:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Policy Form:

  	
   

  	
  601 Income III
  Choice, GR

  
	
  Monthly Benefit
  Amount:

  	
   

  	
  $3,000.00

  
	
  MNDA:

  	
   

  	
  2 Year Aggregate

  
	
  Residual:

  	
   

  	
  To Age 65
  Residual

  
	
  Elimination
  Period:

  	
   

  	
  180 Days

  
	
  Benefit Period:

  	
   

  	
  To age 65

  
	
  Issue Date:

  	
   

  	
  03/01/03

  
	
  Annual Premium:

  	
   

  	
  $

  



 


	
  Policy II

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Policy Number:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Policy Form:

  	
   

  	
  601 Income III
  Choice, GR

  
	
  Monthly Benefit Amount:

  	
   

  	
  $2,000.00

  
	
  MNDA:

  	
   

  	
  2 Year Aggregate

  
	
  Residual:

  	
   

  	
  To Age 65
  Residual

  
	
  Elimination
  Period:

  	
   

  	
  180 Days

  
	
  Benefit Period:

  	
   

  	
  To age 65

  
	
  Issue Date:

  	
   

  	
  03/01/03

  
	
  Annual Premium:

  	
   

  	
  $
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JEROME BOYNTON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20cv107-TKW-MJF

J. STRICTLAND,

Defendant.

/

OR D E R

This case is before the Court based upon the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 11) and Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. 12). The Court has 

reviewed de novo the issues raised in the objection, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), and 

based on that review, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s determination that 

this case should be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege a 

constitutional violation and any amendment to the complaint would be futile.

The Court has not overlooked the state prison regulations cited by Plaintiff in 

his objection. However, even if Defendant violated those regulations by removing 

Plaintiff from the prison cafeteria before he finished his meal, that would not 

undermine the magistrate judge’s recommended disposition of this case because it 

is well established that not every violation of a state prison regulation rises to the 

level of a federal constitutional violation. See, e.g., Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 

Case 5:20-cv-00107-TKW-MJF Document 13 Filed 07/27/20 Page 1 of 2
2

481-82 (1995) (explaining that “prison regulation[s] [are] primarily designed to 

guide correctional officials in the administration of a prison” and that “such 

regulations [are] not designed to confer rights on inmates”).

Nor has the Court overlooked Plaintiff’s objection to the magistrate judge’s 

involvement in this case. However, there is no merit to that objection because the 

parties’ consent is only required when a case is referred to a magistrate judge for 

final disposition, see 28 U.S.C. §636(c)(1), and this case was only referred to the 

magistrate judge for preliminary proceedings and a report recommending disposition 

of the case, see N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(C). The Court (not the magistrate judge) is 

responsible for the final disposition of the case.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is

ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice, and the Clerk shall close the 

case file.

DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of July, 2020.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00107-TKW-MJF Document 13 Filed 07/27/20 Page 2 of 2
#### § 29.3534 No grade.

A designation applied to a lot of tobacco classified as nested, offtype, rework, or semicured; tobacco that is damaged 20 percent or more, abnormally dirty, extremely wet or watered, contains foreign matter, or has an odor foreign to the type. (See Rule 24, § 29.3625.)

[30 FR 9207, July 23, 1965. Redesignated at 49 FR 16759, Apr. 20, 1984]
Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 165 Filed 05/08/24 Page 1 of 4
2

1. Initial Supplemental Briefs: June 5, 2024

2. Responses in Opposition to Initial Supplemental Briefs: June

21, 2024

3. Reply Briefs: The Parties do not anticipate the need for reply briefs,

but should either Party feel such is necessary in light of something

raised in the other parties’ Response Brief, they may seek leave

from this Court to file a Reply Brief.

Unless instructed otherwise by this Court, the Parties will adhere to the 

word limits set forth by N.D. Fla. Local Rules 7.1(F) and 56.1(B) regarding 

Motions and Motions for Summary Judgment, both of which permit 

memorandums up to 8,000 words.

WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that this Court enter a

Scheduling Order for Supplemental Briefing setting June 5, 2024 as the 

deadline for the Parties’ initial supplemental briefs and setting June 21, 2024 

as the deadline for responses. 

Respectfully submitted on this 8th day of May, 2024.

/s/ Simone Chriss /s/ Miriam Coles

Simone Chriss Miriam Coles

Counsel for Plaintiffs Counsel for Defendants

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 165 Filed 05/08/24 Page 2 of 4
3

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT

Pursuant to N.D. Loc. R. 7.1(F), this Joint Response to the Court’s 

Order for Supplemental Briefing (ECF 164) contains 259 words, which 

includes headings, footnotes, and quotations, but does not include case 

style, signature block or Certificates of Word Count and Service.

/s/ Simone Chriss

SIMONE CHRISS 

Fla. Bar No. 124062

simone.chriss@southernlegal.org

JODI SIEGEL 

Fla. Bar No. 511617

jodi.siegel@southernlegal.org

Southern Legal Counsel, Inc.

1229 NW 12th Avenue

Gainesville, FL 32601

(352) 271-8890

DANIEL TILLEY

Fla. Bar No. 102882

dtilley@aclufl.org

CAROLINE MCNAMARA

Fla. Bar No. 1038312 

cmcnamara@aclufl.org

ACLU Foundation of Florida

4343 West Flagler St., Suite 400, 

Miami, FL 33134

(786) 363-2714

ATTORNEYS FOR ALL PLAINTIFFS

JEFFREY HEARNE

Fla. Bar No. 512060

jhearne@legalservicesmiami.org

JOCELYN ARMAND

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 165 Filed 05/08/24 Page 3 of 4
4

Fla. Bar No.44264

jarmand@legalservicesmiami.org

Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc.

4343 W Flagler Street, Suite 100

Miami, FL 33134

(305) 438-2403

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

MURPHY 

J. STEVEN CARTER

Florida Bar No. 896152

scarter@henryblaw.com

MIRIAM R. COLES

Florida Bar No. 58402

mcoles@henryblaw.com

Post Office Drawer 14079

Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4079

(850) 222-2920: Telephone

(850) 224-0034: Facsimile

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 8th day of May, 2024, a true copy of the 

foregoing has been filed with the Court utilizing its CM/ECF system, which 

will transmit a notice of electronic filing to all Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ 

counsel of record registered with the Court for that purpose.

/s/ Simone Chriss 

 Simone Chriss

 Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 4:20-cv-00020-MW-MAF Document 165 Filed 05/08/24 Page 4 of 4
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2313 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to issue regulations covering 

the practice of enrolled agents before the Internal Revenue Service. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 11, 2013 

Mr. BOUSTANY (for himself, Mr. BECERRA, Ms. NORTON, and Mr. BISHOP

of New York) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to issue regulations covering the practice of enrolled agents before 

the Internal Revenue Service. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ENROLLED AGENTS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 77 of the Internal Rev5 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

6 following new section: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 7529. ENROLLED AGENTS. 

8 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may prescribe 

9 such regulations as may be necessary to regulate the conmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 2313 IH

1 duct of enrolled agents in regards to their practice before 

2 the Internal Revenue Service. 

3 ‘‘(b) USE OF CREDENTIALS.—Any enrolled agents 

4 properly licensed to practice as required under rules pro5 mulgated under subsection (a) shall be allowed to use the 

6 credentials or designation as ‘enrolled agent’, ‘EA’, or 

7 ‘E.A.’.’’. 

8 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

9 for chapter 77 of such Code is amended by adding at the 

10 end the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 7529. Enrolled agents.’’. 

11 (c) PRIOR REGULATIONS.—Nothing in the amend12 ments made by this section shall be construed to have any 

13 effect on part 10 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, 

14 or any other related Federal rule or regulation issued be15 fore the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

Section 906 Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
U.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, 2007 (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 Company.

Dated: May 8, 2007



/s/ Daniel M. QuinnName:





Daniel M. QuinnTitle:





Chief Executive Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jesse Gwyn, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on February 16, 1978, unanimously affirmed. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Lupiano and Carro, JJ.; Fein, J., affirms on constraint of *People v Charles*(73 AD2d 322).
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 10.32



                               LUMINEX CORPORATION
                      OUTSIDE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION SUMMARY


The Board of Directors of Luminex Corporation has adopted the following outside
director compensation policy which shall apply to non-employee directors of the
Corporation effective as of the 2005 annual meeting of stockholders.

Annual Cash Retainers

    -  Each Board Member (other than the Chairman) serving on the Board of
       Directors after the annual stockholder meeting in any given year shall be
       paid an annual retainer of $18,000; provided that each member of the
       Audit Committee (other than the Chair) shall receive an additional annual
       retainer of $10,000.

    -  The Chairman of the Board of Directors shall be paid a monthly fee of
       $10,000.

    -  The Chairs of the Audit Committee and Executive Committee of the Board of
       Directors shall be paid an additional annual retainer of $20,000.

    -  The Chair of the Compensation and Nominating and Corporate Governance
       Committees of the Board of Directors shall be paid an additional annual
       retainer of $10,000.

Board Meeting and Committee Fees

Each Board Member shall receive the fees listed below for attendance at Board
and committee meetings.

    -  $2,000 for each board meeting attended in person or via telephone

    -  $500 for each committee meeting (other than an Audit Committee or
       Executive Committee meeting) attended in person or via telephone, to the
       extent not held in conjunction with a full Board meeting

    -  $1,000 for each Audit committee meeting attended in person or via
       telephone, to the extent not held in conjunction with a full Board
       meeting

Equity Grants

Board Members shall be eligible for annual restricted stock grants as follows:

    -  Each Board Member (other than the Chairman, the Audit Committee
       Members and the Chair of the Executive Committee) shall receive an annual
       grant of 4,500 shares of restricted common stock pursuant to the
       Company's 2000 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the "Plan").

    -  The Chairman of the Board shall receive an annual grant of 18,000 shares
       of restricted common stock pursuant to the Plan.

    -  Each Audit Committee Member shall receive an annual grant of 6,500 shares
       of restricted common stock pursuant to the Plan, provided that the Chair
       shall receive 8,500 shares.

    -  The Chair of the Executive Committee shall receive an annual grant of
       8,500 shares of restricted common stock pursuant to the Plan.

The restricted shares are subject to the terms of the Plan and the form of award
agreement previously filed and vest one year from the date of grant.
Page 1 of 2

Case No.: 3:20cv5418/MCR/EMT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

VICTOR PERKINS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5418/MCR/EMT

MARK INCH, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

O R D E R

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on October 

14, 2020. ECF No. 12. The parties were furnished a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, 

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of all 

timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed 

objections thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted.

Case 3:20-cv-05418-MCR-EMT Document 13 Filed 11/18/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No.: 3:20cv5418/MCR/EMT

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 

12, is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to 

comply with an order of the court.

3. The clerk of court is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of November, 2020.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05418-MCR-EMT Document 13 Filed 11/18/20 Page 2 of 2