alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 3

Case No. 5:19cr72-RH-MAL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASES NO. 5:19cr72-RH-MAL

 5:23cv195-RH-MAL

CORY PETERSON, 

 Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING THE § 2255 MOTION AND

DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

The defendant has moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for relief from his 

judgment of conviction. The motion is before the court on the magistrate judge’s 

report and recommendation, ECF No. 79. No objections have been filed. This 

order accepts the report and recommendation, adopts it as the court’s opinion, and 

denies the § 2255 motion.

A defendant may appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion only if the district 

court or court of appeals issues a certificate of appealability. Under 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant 

has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

Case 5:19-cr-00072-RH-MAL Document 80 Filed 10/21/23 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Case No. 5:19cr72-RH-MAL

483-84 (2000); Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983); see also Williams 

v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-13 (2000) (setting out the standards applicable to a 

§ 2254 petition on the merits). As the Court said in Slack:

To obtain a COA under § 2253(c), a habeas prisoner must make a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a 

demonstration that, under Barefoot, includes showing that 

reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree 

that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner 

or that the issues presented were “adequate to deserve 

encouragement to proceed further.”

529 U.S. at 483-84 (quoting Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893 n.4). Further, in order to 

obtain a certificate of appealability when dismissal is based on procedural grounds, 

an applicant must show, “at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable 

whether the [motion] states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and 

that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct 

in its procedural ruling.” Id. at 484.

The defendant has not made the required showing. This order thus denies a 

certificate of appealability.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The amended motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence (ECF No. 

78) is denied. 

2. The clerk must enter judgment.

3. A certificate of appealability is denied.

Case 5:19-cr-00072-RH-MAL Document 80 Filed 10/21/23 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case No. 5:19cr72-RH-MAL

SO ORDERED on October 21, 2023. 

 s/Robert L. Hinkle 

 United States District Judge

Case 5:19-cr-00072-RH-MAL Document 80 Filed 10/21/23 Page 3 of 3
**EXHIBIT 32**     The following certifications are being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350 and in accordance with SEC Release No. 33-8238. These certifications shall not bedeemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, norshall they be incorporated by reference in any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of1933, as amended, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any generalincorporation language in such filing.**Certification of Principal Executive Officer**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Volcom, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies, tohis knowledge, that:     (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d),as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated: August 9, 2006 /s/ Richard R. Woolcott   Richard R. Woolcott   President, Chief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer)   **Certification of Principal Financial Officer**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Volcom, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies, tohis knowledge, that:     (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d),as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated: August 9, 2006 /s/ Douglas P. Collier   Douglas P. Collier   Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer(Principal Financial Officer)        A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toVolcom, Inc. and will be retained by Volcom, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.
§ 319.41b Administrative instructions prescribing conditions for entry of broomstraw without treatment. Broomstraw, sometimes referred to as “combed stalkless”, when consisting of individual straws entirely free from stems, stalks, stubs of stalks, and leaves, may be imported from all countries without seasonal limitation through ports of entry designated in the permit, provided it is bundled and baled to prevent breakage and scattering and to facilitate inspection, in the following manner: ( a ) The broomstraw shall be assembled into bundles with the base of the individual straws at the same end, no alternating of layers being permitted.
( b ) Each bundle shall be securely tied to prevent breakage.
( c ) Individual bundles shall be compacted, grouped into bales, and so arranged that the butt of each bundle is exposed on the outside of the bale.
( d ) Each bale shall be securely bound to prevent shifting or loosening of the bundles in transit.
( e ) Broomstraw found upon inspection at the port of entry to contain stems, stalks, stubs of stalks, or leaves shall be sterilized under the supervision of an inspector. Broomstraw contaminated in the aforesaid manner, from countries other than those on the North or South American Continents or the West Indies, shall be considered as broomcorn and shall be subject to compliance with § 319.41-3(b).
[25 FR 12809, Dec. 14, 1960]
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU NE 15, 2018

NO. 03

- 16

- 00753

- CV

Donald Edmund Dyer, Appellant

v.

Estela Trevino Dyer, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, F IELD, AND BOURLAND AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART

--

OPINION BY JUSTICE BOURLAND

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on December 8, 2016 . Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in

the court’s judgment

. Therefore, the Court reverses the portions of the divorce decree related to

the division of property; we affirm the remaining uncontested portions of the decree. We remand

the cause to the trial court for a new determination and division of the community estate. Each

party shall bear their own costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
AAM-12-235-E 

March 15, 2012 

 Exemption No. 10094A 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0462 

Jonathan B. Hill, Esq. 

Counsel for Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. 

Dow Lohnes, PLLC 

1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW, Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20036 

Dear Mr. Hill: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 10094. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions 

and limitations. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated February 21, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. (Hawaiian), for an extension of Exemption No. 10094. 

That exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows Hawaiian, 

which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive 

employees under one drug and alcohol testing program. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Hawaiian. 
 2

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10094 

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Hawaiian are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times 

while conducting operations under part 121 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the 

Hawaiian part 121 operation, not under part 91. 

 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 10094 to July 31, 2014, unless 

sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon
#### Victoria Y. McSweeney, Respondent, v. Saloman Levin, Appellant.

Judgment in favor of plaintiff unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of ordering a new trial to determine plaintiff’s damage only, without costs and without disbursements. The only serious issue in this case involves the extent of the injuries suffered by plaintiff as a result of the accident. The trial court, however, erred in permitting plaintiff to introduce evidence of a post-traumatic convulsive disorder claimed to be causally related to the injuries sustained at the time of the accident which occurred on August 8, 1963. Such injury was neither envisaged in the complaint nor fairly embraced within the bill of particulars, and no reference to same was made in any medical certificate supplied under the medical exchange rules of this court (Rules of the Supreme Court, New York and Bronx Counties eff. September 1, 1963, part I, rule XI, subd. 2, par. [a]; subds. 7, 8). The first episode or evidence of plaintiff’s convulsive disorder manifested itself in or about May, 1964. Thus it appears she had knowledge of this disability more than two years before the trial. Under these circumstances, it was incumbent upon her to amend her bill of particulars and comply with the rule of this court pertaining to the service of supplemental medical reports (part I, rule XI, subd. 7). Only by such compliance could defendant be fairly apprised of the full extent and nature of the claim asserted against him. On the record before us, we cannot ascertain to what degree the convulsive disorder influenced the size of the jury’s verdict. Concur—Botein, P. J., Stevens, Steuer, Capozzoli and McGrivern, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No.: 3:99cr84 - RV

DEBORAH STUCK VEITH

 /

O R D E R

In relation to the parties’ joint filing of June 30, 2009, the Court clarifies its April 22, 2008,

order as follows: 

1. In issuing the April 22, 2008, order it was the Court’s intent that Defendant not be

subjected to tax liability or penalty. The Court’s order granting the government’s writs of execution

was entered after an adversarial hearing and the Defendant’s objections are adequately reflected in

the April 22, 2008, hearing transcript. 

2. The Defendant may raise the issue of compensation before this Court should the Internal

Revenue Service impose tax liability or penalty due to the Court’s April 22, 2008, order. 

3. The Court’s June 15, 2009, order remains in full force and effect. Defendant’s June 15,

2009, motion is denied as moot. 

SO ORDERED this 2nd day of July, 2009.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:99-cr-00084-RV Document 92 Filed 07/02/09 Page 1 of 1
#### CEBALLOS et al., Respondents, v. MUNSON S. S. LINE, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 12, 1906.)

Action by Juan M. Ceballos and others against the Munson Steamship Line.

No opinion. Motion granted,
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JOE HENRY SCOTT, III,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 3:19cv3539-RV/HTC

ESCAMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF’S

OFFICE, MEGAN KEARNS, and

SERGEANT JOHNSON,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation dated October 28, 2019. (Doc. 7). The parties were provided 

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and were afforded an opportunity to file 

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections 

have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I conclude that the 

Report and Recommendation should be adopted.
Page 2 of 2

Case No.: 3:19cv3539-RV/HTC

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7) is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 5) is DISMISSED for failure to 

state a claim on which relief may be granted

3. The clerk is directed to close this case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of December, 2019.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
exv10wxb6y



 






Exhibit 10 (b6-1)




AMENDMENT TO THE

CAPITOL BANCORP LTD.

EMPLOYEE SAVINGS AND STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN

AMENDMENT NUMBER 18




     The Capitol Bancorp Ltd. Employee Savings and Stock Ownership Plan is hereby
amended effective January 27, 2004 adding the following participating employer at the end of the list contained:



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name of	 	Type of	 	State of	 	Date of
	Employer	 	Entity	 	Organization	 	Participation
	Bank of

	 	Bank
	 	California
	 	1/1/2004
	Escondido
	 	 	 	 	 	 






	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	CAPITOL BANCORP LIMITED	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Dated: January 27, 2004

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Joseph D. Reid	 	 
	

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	

	 	 	 	Joseph D. Reid	 	 
	

	 	 	 	Chairman and CEO	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	BANK OF ESCONDIDO	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Dated: January 27, 2004

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Michael R. Peters	 	 
	

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	

	 	 	 	Michael R. Peters	 	 
	

	 	 	 	President	 	 






 









 






Exhibit 10 (b6-2)




AMENDMENT TO THE

CAPITOL BANCORP LTD.

EMPLOYEE SAVINGS AND STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN

AMENDMENT NUMBER 19




     The Capitol Bancorp Ltd. Employee Savings and Stock Ownership Plan is hereby amended effective
January 26, 2004 adding the following participating employer at the end of the list contained:



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name of	 	Type of	 	State of	 	Date of
	Employer	 	Entity	 	Organization	 	Participation
	First California

	 	Bank Holding
	 	California
	 	7/1/2003
	Southern Bancorp

	 	Company	 	 	 	 






	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	CAPITOL BANCORP LIMITED	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Dated: January 26, 2004

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Joseph D. Reid	 	 
	

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	

	 	 	 	Joseph D. Reid	 	 
	

	 	 	 	Chairman and CEO	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	FIRST CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN BANCORP	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Dated: January 26, 2004

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Scott R. Andrews	 	 
	

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	

	 	 	 	Scott R. Andrews	 	 
	

	 	 	 	President	 	 






 









 






Exhibit 10 (b6-3)




AMENDMENT TO THE

CAPITOL BANCORP LTD.

EMPLOYEE SAVINGS AND STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN

AMENDMENT NUMBER 20




     The Capitol Bancorp Ltd. Employee Savings and Stock Ownership Plan is hereby amended effective
July 28, 2004 adding the following participating employer at the end of the list contained:



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name of	 	Type of	 	State of	 	Date of
	Employer	 	Entity	 	Organization	 	Participation
	First Carolina

	 	Bank
	 	North Carolina
	 	7/1/2004
	State Bank
	 	 	 	 	 	 






	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	CAPITOL BANCORP LIMITED	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Dated: July 28, 2004

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Joseph D. Reid	 	 
	

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	

	 	 	 	Joseph D. Reid	 	 
	

	 	 	 	Chairman and CEO	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	FIRST CAROLINA STATE BANK	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Dated: July 28, 2004

	 	By:
	 	/s/ David A. Parker	 	 
	

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	

	 	 	 	David A. Parker	 	 
	

	 	 	 	President
Case 4:00-cv-00108-WS-WCS Document 1 Filed 03/21/00 Page 1 of 8
Case 4:00-cv-00108-WS-WCS Document 1 Filed 03/21/00 Page 2 of 8
Case 4:00-cv-00108-WS-WCS Document 1 Filed 03/21/00 Page 3 of 8
Case 4:00-cv-00108-WS-WCS Document 1 Filed 03/21/00 Page 4 of 8
Case 4:00-cv-00108-WS-WCS Document 1 Filed 03/21/00 Page 5 of 8
Case 4:00-cv-00108-WS-WCS Document 1 Filed 03/21/00 Page 6 of 8
Case 4:00-cv-00108-WS-WCS Document 1 Filed 03/21/00 Page 7 of 8
Case 4:00-cv-00108-WS-WCS Document 1 Filed 03/21/00 Page 8 of 8
#### Albert Colao et al., Appellants, v Community Programs Center of Long Island, Inc., Respondent.

[814 NYS2d 747]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J), dated November 1, 2004, which granted the *724defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs allege that while the injured plaintiff, Albert Colao, was delivering flowers to the defendant’s premises, he sustained injuries when he tripped over a curb leading from the parking area to the walkway entrance in front of the premises. Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that a fence separated the parking area from the walkway and access through the fence was provided by a gate. The walkway was elevated approximately six inches above the surface of the parking area and the gate and fence were positioned on the parking area surface directly in front of the curb of the elevated walkway. Upon opening the gate and stepping through it, while carrying a vase of flowers, a clipboard and a cell phone, Albert Colao tripped over the curb and fell. The plaintiffs allege that the presence of a fence and gate directly in front of the curb constituted a dangerous or defective condition. The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

In support of its motion, the defendant proffered, inter alia, Albert Colao’s deposition transcript and a copy of a photograph which he acknowledged during his deposition depicted the location of the occurrence. The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment and that, in opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]). The existence of a raised curb on the other side of the fence and gate did not constitute an inherently dangerous condition and was readily observable by the use of one’s senses *(see generally Capozzi v Huhne,*14 AD3d 474 [2005]; *Bilinski v Bank of Richmondville,*12 AD3d 911 [2004]; *Bryant v Superior Computer Outlet,*5 AD3d 343, 344 [2004]). Albert Colao admitted seeing the fence, opening the gate, and being aware that a sidewalk was situated on the other side of the fence. His contention that the fence concealed the raised curb from view is belied by the photograph , of the subject area and the undisputed fact that one could see through the fence’s chain links. Further, the plaintiffs presented no evidence that the condition complained of constituted a trap or snare *(see Morris v Greenburgh Cent. School Dist. No. 7,*5 AD3d 567, 568 [2004]).

The parties’ remaining contentions have been rendered academic in light of this determination or are otherwise without merit. Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Rivera and Dillon, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 10.109

     SUMMARY OF INFORMAL INCENTIVE CASH BONUS PLAN FOR MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES

Registrant's principal subsidiary, Tiffany and Company, and most of Registrant's
other direct and indirect subsidiaries, provide incentive cash bonus
compensation to management employees through an informal arrangement which is
not evidenced in a plan document or written contracts.

Such compensation is provided on a fiscal year basis and requires employment
throughout the fiscal year.

Senior officers (Senior Vice Presidents and up) who are subject to incentive
award agreements under the 1998 Employee Incentive Plan (the chief executive
officer, the president, and the executive vice presidents) do not participate in
this informal plan. Other senior officers do participate in this informal plan.

The opportunity for bonus participation is defined by the target bonus assigned
to the employee. Target bonuses for senior officers (other than those subject to
incentive award agreements) are 50% of salary for fiscal year 2005 and range
from 10% to 30% of salary for management employees below the level of senor
officer.

The actual bonus payout is determined by two factors for any fiscal year:
individual and organizational performance. However, the weighting of these two
factors varies by level.

For senior officer participants in this informal plan, the organizational
performance factor is weighted 100%. In the past, the Compensation Committee of
the Board of Directors has assessed this performance factor on the same scale
applied to those subject to incentive award agreements. Accordingly, senior
officer participants in this informal plan have received awards that are
equivalent, as a percentage of target bonus, to those subject to incentive award
agreements under the 1998 Employee Incentive Plan and organizational performance
has been measured by the consolidated financial results of Registrant. However,
neither the Registrant, Tiffany and Company nor the Compensation Committee has
committed to continuation of this practice.

For non-senior management participants in this informal plan,
organizational/individual performance is weighted 40/60 for vice presidents and
30/70 for other management employees. Individual performance (without regard for
organizational performance) can account for a range of between 45-75% of target
for vice presidents and 53-88% for other management. Organizational performance
may be determined, depending upon the position in question, at the consolidated
level or a lower level. However, the total budget for the organizational
component remains at the discretion of senior officers and will be evaluated on
a fiscal year basis with regard to the business plan for each segment.