alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. 3:97cr81/RV

3:97cr92/RV

3:97cr103/RV

CHRISTOPHER SUMMERS

ORDER

The defendant has filed a request for a certificate of appealability in each of the

above-styled cases. Defendant appeals the court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion, styled

“motion to void judgment, order or proceeding under Title 28 U.S.C. Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, Rule 60(b)(4)(5)(6)” in each case. Unless a certificate of appealability is issued,

the defendant may not take an appeal from the final order denying a Rule 60(b) motion.

Gonzalez v. Secretary of Department of Corrections, 317 F.3d 1308, 1312 (11th Cir. 2003).

A certificate of appealability should not issue in the appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b)

motion in a habeas case unless the petitioner/defendant shows, at a minimum, that it is

debatable among jurists of reason whether the district court abused its discretion, see

Mobley v. Head, 306 F.3d 1096, 1097 (11th Cir. 2002) (“This Court reviews a denial of a

60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion.”). Because the court finds the defendant has not

made the requisite showing, his requests for a certificate of appealability are DENIED. 

Defendant has not filed motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court

finds that the appeals are not taken in good faith and he is not otherwise entitled to so

proceed. Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(3). Therefore, defendant shall pay the $455.00 filing fee in

each case within thirty days.

Case 3:97-cr-00081-RV-CJK Document 56 Filed 05/18/07 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 3:96cr57/RV; 3:03cv2/RV/MD

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

The clerk is directed to place a copy of this order in each of the above-styled cases.

Defendant’s requests for certificates of appealability are DENIED in each case.

Defendant shall pay the $455.00 filing fee in each case within thirty days from the

date of this order.

DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of May, 2007.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:97-cr-00081-RV-CJK Document 56 Filed 05/18/07 Page 2 of 2
#### § 30.5 Class.

One of the major divisions of leaf tobacco based on the distinct characteristics of the tobacco caused by differences in varieties, soil and climatic conditions, and the methods of cultivation, harvesting, and curing.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DAVID PAUL CAULDER,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:02-cv-00396-SPM-AK

DOUGLAS S LYONS,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Discovery and for

Extension of Time. (Doc. 54). Defendant seeks leave to serve written discovery upon

Plaintiff, which is attached to the motion, and indicates that he will need additional time

after service of this discovery for possible depositions and the filing of motions. 

Defendant has not proposed any specific deadlines. Consequently, the Court herein

GRANTS IN PART the motion insofar as Defendant seeks leave to serve the attached

written discovery, but the motion is DENIED IN PART as to the extensions sought since

Defendant has not proposed any deadlines and the Court will not endeavor to guess at

them. The written discovery attached to the motion shall be deemed served on this

date, and Plaintiff is advised that he has thirty days from this date to file responses

thereto. Defendant may move for additional time to conduct discovery and to file

motions when he can propose specific deadlines for the Court’s approval.

DONE AND ORDERED at Gainesville, Florida, this 27th day of June, 2005.

s/ A. KORNBLUM 

ALLAN KORNBLUM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:02-cv-00396-SPM-AK Document 55 Filed 06/27/05 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 10 (c) EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION


 


2005
Executive Bonus Criteria


 


The Board of Directors’ Compensation
Committee bases its determination whether to pay a bonus and the amount of the
bonus to the Corporation’s executive officers based upon the Committee’s
evaluation of the performance of each officer and the Corporation’s results,
using a variety of performance factors including earnings per share.


 


Stock Option Vesting


 


Stock options granted under the Corporation’s
1998 Stock Option and Incentive Compensation Plan are generally granted to
executive officers on the terms and conditions set forth in the form of stock
option agreement filed as an exhibit to the Corporation’s Annual Report on Form
10-K.  In general, options for 20% of the
total number of shares subject to the grant become exercisable on January 1 of
each calendar year following the date of grant, until the options become 100%
exercisable on January 1 of the fifth calendar year following the date of
grant.  Options granted to executive
officers on different vesting terms are described in the following table.


 


	
  Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
  Date of
  Grant

  	
   

  	
  Vesting
  Terms

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Anne Moran

  	
   

  	
  11/23/99

  	
   

  	
  25% on 11/23 of each year
  beginning 11/23/01

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Gregory S. Schreacke

  	
   

  	
  1/21/04

  	
   

  	
  100% exercisable on
  1/21/09

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Charles Chaney

  	
   

  	
  12/21/04

  	
   

  	
  100% exercisable on 1/1/06

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Gregory S. Schreacke

  	
   

  	
  12/21/04

  	
   

  	
  20% per year, beginning
  1/1/09
1

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

VINCENT F. RIVERA,

DOC # 518548,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:19cv519-MW/CAS

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA,

FIRST DISTRICT OF APPEAL,

et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and 

Recommendation. ECF No.4 Upon consideration, no objections having been filed by 

the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as this Court’s opinion. 

The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, ECF No. 2, is DENIED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This case is 

DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff’s refiling an action if he simultaneously pays 

the filing fee and the previously addressed sanction by this Court. The Clerk shall 
2

note on the docket that this cause is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).” The Clerk 

shall also close the file.

SO ORDERED on December 20, 2019.

s/ MARK E. WALKER

Chief United States District Judge
Second Amendment to the 1999 Non-Qualified Employee Stock Purchase Plan



 Exhibit 10.61 
  
 SECOND AMENDMENT 
 TO THE 
 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. 
 1999 NON-QUALIFIED EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN 
  
 The Boston Properties, Inc. 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as follows: 
  

	1.	Section 2.9 is hereby amended by adding the following sentence to the end thereof: 

  
 Notwithstanding the foregoing, Eligible Employee shall include each employee who is a member of Local 32B-32J of the Service
Employees International Union or Local 94 of the International Union of Operating Engineers. 
  

	2.	Except as so amended, the Plan in all other respects is hereby confirmed. 

  
 Executed this 21st
day of December, 2002. 
  

			
	BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Robert E. Burke
98-1061.

#### Ottawa Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Marblehead.

Ottawa App. No. OT-97-031.

Douglas, J., dissents.

Moyer, C.J., and Resnick, J., not participating.
#### § 30.14 Cigar filler.

The tobacco that forms the core or inner part of a cigar. Cigar-filler tobacco is tobacco of the kind and quality commonly used for cigar fillers. Cigar-filler types are those which produce chiefly tobacco suitable for cigar-filler purposes.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 4:03cr16-SPM

HERNANDEZ LOPAZ DANIELS,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defemdant Hernandez Lopaz

Daniels’ notice of appeal (doc. 132), which has been construed as a request for

certificate of appealability. For the following reasons, a certificate of appealability

will be denied. 

A defendant seeking a certificate of appealability must make a

“substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(2). This standard is met if the defendant can show that reasonable

jurists could differ as to the resolution of the case either on the merits or as to

any plain procedural bar. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 124) addresses

each of Defendant’s claims on the merits. Defendant’s statute of limitations claim

Case 4:03-cr-00016-RS-WCS Document 137 Filed 01/07/09 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

CASE NO.: 4:03cr16-SPM

is without merit because his conspiracy continued into the limitations period. His

Booker and Blakely claims are moot because he was resentenced under

advisory guidelines. Defendant has failed to allege specifics for his ineffective of

assistance of counsel claims to demonstrate deficient performance or prejudice. 

Even in his objections (doc. 131) and motions seeking to amend the petition

(docs. 127 and 130), Defendant failed to provide any specifics. 

The resolution of this case is not debatable and the issues do not deserve

encouragement to appeal. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: no certificate of appealability will be issued.

DONE AND ORDERED this 7th day of January, 2009.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cr-00016-RS-WCS Document 137 Filed 01/07/09 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2411 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2411

To prohibit the Federal Government from contracting with an entity that 
              has committed fraud or certain other crimes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 18, 2013

 Mr. Grayson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the Federal Government from contracting with an entity that 
              has committed fraud or certain other crimes.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTING WITH CONTRACTORS THAT HAVE 
              COMMITTED FRAUD OR CERTAIN OTHER CRIMES.

    The Federal Government may not enter into a contract with an 
offeror or any of its principals if the offeror certifies that it, or 
any of its principals--
            (1) within a three-year period preceding this offer has 
        been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against it 
        for--
                    (A) commission of fraud or a criminal offense in 
                connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or 
                performing a public (Federal, State, or local) contract 
                or subcontract;
                    (B) violation of Federal or State antitrust 
                statutes relating to the submission of offers; or 
                commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, 
                falsification or destruction of records, making false 
                statements, tax evasion, violating Federal criminal tax 
                laws; or
                    (C) receiving stolen property;
            (2) are presently indicted for, or otherwise criminally or 
        civilly charged by a governmental entity with, commission of 
        any of the offenses described in paragraph (1); or
            (3) within a three-year period preceding this offer, have 
        been notified of any delinquent Federal taxes in an amount that 
        exceeds $3,000 for which the liability remains unsatisfied.
                                 <all>
```
#### ANDERSEN, Respondent, v. NEW YORK EDISON CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 15, 1906.)

Action by Hans Andersen against the New York Edison Company.

No opinion. judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
F a c t Sh e e t 

FY 2000 Resource Enhancements

6/00

Prepared by the Office of Public Affairs • Immigration & Naturalization Service • (202) 514-2648

Detention Resources

Location Detention &

Deportation Officers Support Total

Headquarters 2 1 3

Dallas Admin. Center – 1 1

Eastern Region 1 1 2

 Atlanta 9 – 9

 Cleveland 1 1 2

 Miami – – –

 – Brandonton 4 1 5

 – Orlando 3 1 4

 New Orleans (+ Oakdale) 8 2 10

 Philadelphia 13 2 15

 Portland, ME 1 1 2

 San Juan 3 – 3

REGION TOTAL 43 9 52

Central Region

 Regional Office 3 1 4

 Chicago 7 2 9

 Dallas 7 1 8

 – Big Springs 4 1 5

 – Oklahoma City 4 1 5

 El Paso

 – Albuquerque 2 – 2

 – El Paso SPC 1 1 2

 – Pecos 2 – 2

 Helena – 1 1

 – Boise 2 – 2

 – Idaho Falls 1 – 1

 Houston 1 3 4

 – Beaumont 1 – 1

 – CCA Houston 5 1 6

 – Huntsville 1 – 1

 San Antonio 4 1 5

 – Austin 2 – 2

 – Laredo 2 1 3

 St. Paul 2 1 3

 – Sioux Falls 1 – 1

REGION TOTAL 52 15 67

Western Region 1 1 2

 Phoenix 19 6 25

 San Diego 23 2 25

 San Francisco 11 – 11

REGION TOTAL 54 9 63

TOTAL 151 34 186
contact 
about us

NHHC Home|Wars and Conflicts of the U.S. Navy|Naval History Bibliography Series|Naval Department Library|

About UsPrivacy PolicyWebmaster NHHC FOIANavy CareersNavy.mil

----
```

[108th Congress Public Law 288]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ288.108]

[[Page 118 STAT. 1016]]

Public Law 108-288
108th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To designate the United States courthouse located at 100 North Palafox 
 Street in Pensacola, Florida, as the ``Winston E. Arnow United States 
          Courthouse''. <<NOTE: Aug. 6, 2004 -  [H.R. 1572]>> 

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 100 North Palafox Street in 
Pensacola, Florida, shall be known and designated as the ``Winston E. 
Arnow United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Winston E. Arnow 
United States Courthouse''.

    Approved August 6, 2004.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1572:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 108-216 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 149 (2003):
                                    Sept. 3, considered and passed 
                                        House.
                                                        Vol. 150 (2004):
                                    July 19, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
EXHIBIT 31.1                         CERTIFICATION

I, Robert L. Saxe, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
of Research Frontiers Incorporated ("RFI" or the "Registrant")
certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of RFI;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain
any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this report, fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;

4.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures
to be designed under my 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)   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; and

(c)   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

5.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrant's  auditors and
the audit committee of the registrant's  board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent functions):

(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; and

(b)   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.

Date: October 19, 2004               /s/ Robert L. Saxe
                                      Robert L. Saxe, Chairman and
                                      Chief Executive Officer
#### § 29.6016 Form.

The stage of preparation of tobacco such as stemmed or unstemmed.
#### § 3203.10 Disposal.

When property received under this part is no longer needed by the recipient, it must be disposed of in an environmentally sound manner that is not detrimental or dangerous to public health or safety and in accordance with all Federal, State and local laws.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:98cr125-01/RV

WILLIAM EVERETT ROBINSON 

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Senior Judge Roger Vinson on March 29, 2010

Motion/Pleadings: Motion for Reconsideration 

Filed by Defendant on 03/29/2010 Doc.# 115

RESPONSES:

 on Doc.# 

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

 s/Jerry Marbut

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Jerry Marbut

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 6th day of 

 April , 2010, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b)

 /s/ Roger Vinson

ROGER VINSON

Senior United States District Judge
#### § 29.2535 Nested.

Any lots of Types 22 and 23 tobacco which has been loaded, packed, or arranged to conceal foreign matter or tobacco of inferior grade, quality, or condition. (See Rule 22, § 29.2638.)

[37 FR 13626, July 12, 1972. Redesignated and amended at 49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984]
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:92-cr-01005-MP

PATRICK LEE FRANK,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 100, Sealed Letter from Warden Robert E.

McFadden containing a Risk Assessment Review of Defendant. A telephone hearing was held

on the matter on Wednesday, January 4, 2006. During the hearing, it became clear that an

evidentiary hearing is necessary regarding the Risk Assessment Report prepared on Mr. Frank. 

Accordingly, a hearing on the matter is hereby scheduled for Thursday, March 31, 2006, at 9:30

a.m. The Defendant's presence is required at this hearing. The Clerk is directed to forward a

copy of this order to the office of the U.S. Marshall.

DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of January, 2006

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:92-cr-01005-MP Document 103 Filed 01/05/06 Page 1 of 1
Order filed April 1 , 2014

In The 

### Court of Appeals

For The 

### First District of Texas

___________ NO. 01

- 12

- 00971

- CR

____________ JASON BRIAN CONNOR , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Crim Ct at Law No 8

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1791565



### ORDERThis court has determined, pursuant to T exas Rule of Appellate Procedure

34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original of State's Exhibit 5.

The clerk of the Co Crim Ct at Law No 8 is directed to deli ver to the Clerk of this court the original of State's Exhibit 5, on or before April 11 , 2014

. The Clerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe this original exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of this court for their inspection; and, upon
comp letion of inspection, to return the original of Stat e ’ s Exhibit 5 , to the clerk of
the Co Crim Ct at Law No 8.

PER CURIAM
USGS Publications Warehouse - Citation View Home

USGS Home

Contact USGS

Search USGS

USGS Publications Warehouse http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wsp2220

1 of 3 11/14/2011 9:44 AM
Publication Citation

Online Document Versions

View document

USGS Store

Available for purchase as item number:

10497

Publication Type USGS Numbered Series

Title Basic ground-water hydrology

Author Heath, Ralph C.

Year 1983

Series Water Supply Paper

Series Number 2220

Edition -

Language ENGLISH

Publisher U.S. G.P.O.,

Description v, 84 p. :ill., maps ;28 cm.

USGS Library Call Number (200) G no.2220

USGS Publications Warehouse http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wsp2220

2 of 3 11/14/2011 9:44 AM
Accessibility FOIA Privacy Policies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey

URL: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

Page Contact Information: Contact the Pubs Warehouse Team

Page Last modified: 11/14/2011 09:41:55

USGS Publications Warehouse http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wsp2220

3 of 3 11/14/2011 9:44 AM