alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 1980

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1980 appear at 80 FR 9905, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1980.1210 OMB Control Number.

The information collection requirements in this part are approved by the Office of Management and Budget and assigned OMB control number 0572-0156.
Exhibit 3(i)(3)



AMENDMENT

NUMBER TWO

TO

THE AMENDED AND RESTATED

ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION,

AS AMENDED

OF

SOUTHERN TRUST SECURITIES HOLDING CORP.



Pursuant to Sections 607.1006 and 607.0602 of the Florida Business Corporation Act, the undersigned, being the President of SOUTHERN TRUST SECURITIES HOLDING CORP. (hereinafter the "Corporation"), a Florida corporation, does hereby certify:



FIRST: The Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation were originally filed with the Department of State of Florida on January 14, 1998, Document No. P98000004194.



SECOND: This Amendment Number Two to the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation, as amended, was duly adopted by all of the Directors of the Corporation on July 30, 2007.  To effect the foregoing:



All of the designations appearing under the caption Series A Preferred Stock in Article III of the Corporations Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation, as amended, are hereby stricken in their entirety and replaced with the following sentence: Effective as of June 29, 2007, any and all shares of Series A 8% Convertible Preferred Stock issued by the Corporation were converted into shares of the Corporations common stock and no shares of Series A 8% Convertible Preferred Stock will thereafter be issued and outstanding.



THIRD: The foregoing Amendment Number Two was adopted by all of the Directors of the Corporation in accordance with sections 607.1006 and 607.0602 of the Florida Business Corporation Act on July 30, 2007.  Shareholder approval was not required.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Amendment Number Two to the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation, as amended, this 30th day of July, 2007.



|       |                                        
|------ | ---------------------------------------
|       | SOUTHERN TRUST SECURITIES HOLDING CORP.
|       |                                        
|       |                                        
|By:    | /s/ Kevin Fitzgerald                   
|Name:  | Kevin Fitzgerald                       
|Title: | President
Exhibit 99.2

                            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 of Transnational Industries, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended January 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Paul L. Dailey, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


      (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 result of operations of the
      Company.


/s/ Paul L. Dailey
------------------
Paul L. Dailey
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Dated: April 28, 2003

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Transnational Industries, Inc. and will be retained by Transnational
Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. 4:92cr4079-WS

vs. Case No. 4:09cv237-WS/WCS

FRANKIE LEE FERGUSON, 

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS § 2255 MOTION

Defendant filed a motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255,

challenging his conviction and sentence imposed in 1993. Doc. 120. See also doc. 103

(copy of original paper docket sheet scanned into electronic case filing, ECF, containing

docket entries 1-102), p. 5. He was directed to show cause why the § 2255 motion

should not be summarily dismissed as untimely. Doc. 122 (incorporated herein by

reference). Defendant filed a "motion to consider 2255," which is treated as a response

to the show cause order. Doc. 123. 

As noted in that order, the judgment at issue was affirmed in 1995 and became

final before the effective date of the one year time limit for § 2255 motions. Unless one

of the later commencement dates as set forth in § 2255(f)(2)-(4) was triggered,
Page 2 of 3

Case Nos. 4:92cr4079-WS and 4:09cv237-WS/WCS

Defendant had until April of 1997 to file a § 2255 motion. Defendant filed his motion on

June 19, 2009. 

In response, Defendant asserts the motion should not be dismissed because he

received two points for possession of a firearm not in his possession but in another

person's house. Doc. 123. He asserts that the PSR reflects that his attorney filed

objections which the officer preparing the PSR did not receive or address in the original

addendum. Id. Defendant states that he has been incarcerated since 1992 and does

not recall if his attorney ever filed a § 2255 motion. Id. He believes the "time limit on a

2255 motion was changed some years later to best of my knowledge. And

understanding. So I think the above issue I raised [in] my 2255 motion should not be

dismissed as untimely." Id. 

From a review of the § 2255 motion (doc. 120) or motion to consider it (doc. 123),

there is no indication that the one year for filing a § 2255 motion commenced on a later

date or, alternatively, that Defendant could establish extraordinary circumstances or due

diligence to justify the delay. The § 2255 motion filed in 2009 should be summarily

dismissed. 

It s therefore respectfully RECOMMENDED that Defendant Ferguson's 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 motion to vacate (doc. 120) be SUMMARILY DISMISSED as untimely.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on October 26, 2009.

 S/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 3 of 3

Case Nos. 4:92cr4079-WS and 4:09cv237-WS/WCS

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 10 days after

being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of

review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Shai Even, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Alon USA Energy, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’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 thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.Date: May 12, 2006                                                       /s/ Shai Even   Shai Even   Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2611 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2611

                     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and thirteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the headquarters building of the Coast Guard on the campus 
    located at 2701 Martin Luther King, Jr., Avenue Southeast in the 
District of Columbia as the ``Douglas A. Munro Coast Guard Headquarters 
                   Building'', and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.
    The headquarters building of the Coast Guard on the campus located 
at 2701 Martin Luther King, Jr., Avenue Southeast in the District of 
Columbia shall be known and designated as the ``Douglas A. Munro Coast 
Guard Headquarters Building''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.
    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the building referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Douglas A. Munro Coast Guard 
Headquarters Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jerome Glenn, Appellant.

Upon reargument of appeal, judgment of conviction and order entered following hearing as to voluntariness of defendant’s confession, as ordered by this court (24 A D 2d 732), unanimously affirmed. (Reargument of appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court convicting defendant of burglary, first degree. Also, resubmission after order of Monroe County Court, holding that confession was voluntary.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Henry and Del Vecchio, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2291 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2291

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 450 Lexington Avenue in New York, New York, as the ``Vincent R. 
                        Sombrotto Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. VINCENT R. SOMBROTTO POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 450 Lexington Avenue in New York, New York, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Vincent R. Sombrotto Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Vincent R. 
Sombrotto Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 14, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2291

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 450 Lexington Avenue in New York, New York, as the ``Vincent R. 
                        Sombrotto Post Office''.
```
#### § 30.31 Classification of leaf tobacco.

For the purpose of this classification leaf tobacco shall be divided into the following classes:

Class 1. Flue-cured types.

Class 2. Fire-cured types.

Class 3.1 Air-cured types.

Class 4. Cigar-filler types.

Class 5. Cigar-binder types.

Class 6. Cigar-wrapper types.

Class 7. Miscellaneous domestic types.

Class 8. Foreign-grown cigar-leaf types.

Class 9. Foreign-grown types, other than cigar types.

1 Class 3 covers Air-cured tobacco other than cigar leaf. This class may be subdivided as follows: Class 3a, Light Air-cured tobacco, including types 31 and 32, and Class 3b, Dark Air-cured tobacco, including types 35, 36, and 37.

For the purpose of this classification the classes shall be divided into the types and groups set forth in §§ 30.36 through 30.44.
#### § 1780.25 Exception authority.

The Administrator may, in individual cases, make an exception to any requirement or provision of this part which is not inconsistent with the authorizing statute or other applicable law and is determined to be in the Government's interest.
39–008 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 109–2 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 36, EXPRESSING THE CONTINUED 

SUPPORT OF CONGRESS FOR EQUAL ACCESS OF MILITARY RECRUITERS TO INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION 

FEBRUARY 1, 2005.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 59] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 59, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 36, expressing the continued support of Congress 

for equal access of military recruiters to institutions of higher education, under a closed rule. The rule provides one hour of debate 

in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 

ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit. 

Æ
```

[106th Congress Public Law 216]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ216.106]

[[Page 114 STAT. 343]]

Public Law 106-216
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To authorize leases for terms not to exceed 99 years on land held in 
trust for the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians and the Guidiville 
 Band of Pomo Indians of the Guidiville Indian Rancheria. <<NOTE: June 
                       20, 2000 -  [H.R. 1953]>> 

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF 99-YEAR LEASES.

    (a) In General.--The first section of the Act entitled ``An Act to 
authorize the leasing of restricted Indian lands for public, religious, 
educational, residential, business, and other purposes requiring the 
grant of long-term leases'', approved August 9, 1955 (25 U.S.C. 415(a)), 
is amended by inserting ``lands held in trust for the Torres Martinez 
Desert Cahuilla Indians, lands held in trust for the Guidiville Band of 
Pomo Indians of the Guidiville Indian Rancheria, lands held in trust for 
the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation'' after 
``Sparks Indian Colony,''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The <<NOTE: Applicability. 25 USC 415 note.>>  
amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to any lease entered into 
or renewed after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 2. REVOCATION OF CHARTER OF INCORPORATION.

    The request of the Stockbridge-Munsee Community of Wisconsin to 
surrender the charter of incorporation issued to the Community on May 
21, 1938, pursuant to section 17 of the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly 
known as the ``Indian Reorganization Act'') is hereby accepted and that 
charter of incorporation is hereby revoked.

    Approved June 20, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1953:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 145 (1999):
                                    Nov. 17, considered and passed 
                                        House.
                                                        Vol. 146 (2000):
                                    June 8, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 3407
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3407 appear at 76 FR 4810, Jan. 27, 2011.

§ 3407.10 Preparation of environmental assessments. ( a ) *Format and content.* An EA may be prepared in any format provided that it covers, in a logical and succinct fashion, the information necessary for determining whether a proposed NIFA action may have a significant environmental impact and thus warrant preparation of an EIS. The information must include brief discussions on the need for the project, alternatives to the proposed action, environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and a listing of agencies and persons consulted (40 CFR 1508.9). Where possible, EAs should be limited to 10-15 pages. NOTE: It is the scope and complexity of the environmental issues, rather than the size of the project, that should be used to determine the length of the EA
( b ) *Supplements to environmental assessments.* Where substantial changes occur in a project or activity for which an EA has been prepared and it is determined by a responsible NIFA official specified in § 3407.4(b) that the changes are pertinent to environmental concerns, a supplement to the EA may be required. Supplements to EAs shall be evaluated and processed as stated in paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) *Decision notice.* Upon completion of an EA and any supplement thereto, the responsible NIFA official will evaluate the information it contains, determine whether an EIS is required or whether no significant environmental impact is likely to occur, and will document the decision and the reasons upon which it is based (40 CFR 1508.13). The EA shall be available to the public.
#### Thomas Collins et al., Respondents-Appellants, v New York Hospital et al., Defendants, David Gerber et al., Respondents, and Massapequa Hospital, Appellant-Respondent.

On remittitur from the Court of Appeals “for further proceedings in accordance with [that court’s] memorandum” (49 NY2d 965, 966), which directed “consideration of issues not reached with respect to” the sole remaining defendant, Massapequa Hospital, judgment after jury trial, Supreme Court, Kings County, entered October 27,1977, reversed, on the facts as against the weight of the credible evidence, and the case remitted to that court for a new trial, without costs. We are told by the Court of Appeals (p 967) that the evidence “was sufficient * * * to support the jury’s verdict against the defendant * * * Hospital.” However, the weight of the evidence was to the contrary, there having been impressive medical evidence as to the difficulty of performing a certain radiographic test on the infant plaintiff, involving as it did the necessity of his co-operation during the test by voiding on command in order to pass radiopaque fluid; though the child’s bladder had been, as X rays revealed, distended, he did not respond. Should it appear that completion of the test was frustrated in the manner described, it might well put a different light upon whether the failure to complete the test before discharge was due to such circumstances or to either disobedience or neglect. This issue was “not reached” (p 967) in arriving at our prior disposition (67 AD2d 872), wherein we rested upon a holding that the treating doctors, having “ordered the patient discharged from the hospital without waiting for the test in a matter of days following their order, thus *sub silentio*[revoked] the order for the test” (p 873). The Court of Appeals said this was not necessarily so (p 967). This question may now be fully explored at the new trial we direct. By reason of our last disposition as well as this one, we did not then, nor do we now consider the issue of whether the infant plaintiff’s condition was exacerbated by the delay in testing and treatment, neither of which took place until after discharge and transfer to another hospital. That may also be explored at the new trial. And, finally, the issue of whether it was error to reduce plaintiff’s recovery to reflect a settlement reached with a defendant doctor during the trial, referred to us by the Court of Appeals for decision “if the issue is reached”, should await further developments. Concur — Sullivan, Markewich and Lupiano, JJ.

Murphy, P. J.,

dissents in a memorandum as follows: At this posture in the case, I would affirm plaintiffs’judgment against defendant Massapequa Hospital. There is more than sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the verdict in that regard.
|   |              |   |  |   |  |   |
|--------|--------------|--------|--|--------|--|--------|
|   |    |
###### Editorial Note on Part 3402

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3402 appear at 76 FR 4807, Jan. 27, 2011.

#### § 3402.15 Faculty vitae.

This section should include a Summary Vita, no more than 2 pages excluding publications listing, for each faculty member contributing significantly to institutional competence at the level of graduate study for the national need area addressed in the application. Applicants should arrange the faculty vitae with the Project Director(s) first, followed by the remaining faculty, in alphabetical order.
May-10 Jul-11Mar-12Revised RevisedRevisedRevisedBudgeted BudgetedActualBudgeted BudgetedActualBudgetedActualBudgetedBudgetedBudgeted09-10 09-1009-1010-11 10-1110-1111-1211-1212-13 12-13 13-14TOTAL PROG COST 9,983,350 9,983,3508,252,7169,172,132 8,943,0468,466,3739,327,7358,676,1378,713,967 8,916,313 8,733,450Other Non-Recurrent 2,498,991 2,498,9911,687,8282,293,170 2,293,1701,832,0972,610,9431,850,0442,370,018 2,029,687 1,787,745EPA FUNDING 505,880 508,430508,430737,516 508,430508,430546,883508,430546,894 546,894 546,883PROGRAM COST 6,978,479 6,975,9296,056,4586,141,446 6,141,4466,125,8466,169,9096,317,6635,797,055 6,339,732 6,398,822$'s Over / (Under) MOE Goal536,366 533,81673,24084,988 84,98869,38844,063191,818(520,608)22,06959,090FY14 Budgeted - FY13 Revised Budgeted 59,090SBCAPCD EPA MOE FY 09/10 - 13/14